Thursday, May 19, 2005

Space Race, Arms Race, it's all the same as long as you win

The following is republished without comment:
Thursday, May 19, 2005

Space: Flexing military muscle


Seattle's generally blue voters, some with "Bush to Mars" bumper stickers, and the Bush administration may agree on something after all. The administration has done about all it can to militarize Earth.

Now, the White House is letting it be known that it is considering a policy shift that would lay the groundwork for seizing military superiority in space.

In the dry words of a New York Times report, the new policy would be "a substantial shift in American policy." Substantial and alarming.

The Air Force told The Times it isn't seeking authorization for putting weapons in space. But it wants an explicit presidential directive that would apparently lead to a policy of U.S. superiority in space-based weaponry, both offensive and defensive.

Since the mid-20th century, there has been broad international agreement on making space a peaceful frontier. Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a plaque after mankind's first moon landing: "We came in peace for all mankind."

Any change in policy would provoke international opposition and competition, perhaps from traditional allies. But it could well be seen as fitting, and logically extending the administration's 2002 national security strategy emphasizing global dominance. The question is how far the United States wants to take its dominance.


Cubicle said...

"We came in peace for all mankind."

I did not know that. Well at least we beat the russians...heh..heh.

I really do not have a problem with putting defensive measures in space or much less anywhere (and spy satilites), though it is hard for me to see the justifcation of putting offensive measures in space at this point in time.

Dave Justus said...

I believe that by treaty, we are Space is to be free of weapons of mass destruction. Anything else is fair game.

A crucial part of any future battlefield will be space dominance. If we have satelites and they don't we have a huge advantage. If we don't and they do, we will be at a huge disadvantage.

So perhaps it is a very good idea to ensure continued domination in the space theater.

Cubicle said...

"So perhaps it is a very good idea to ensure continued domination in the space theater."

I was thinking more along the lines of cost effectivitness. Anything we can destory from up there, we can destory from down here. Which ever would be cheaper (in terms of money and human casulities) would be the way i would suggest doing it. I just do not think we could do as good of a job blowing stuff up from space as we can do from out other methods right now, though i could be wrong on that.

Sandcastle said...

I happen to work in satellite communications and know for a fact that you can't shoot them down with missles. If you had an offensive weapon in space you could destroy communications satellites.

Cubicle said...

I was thinking more of shooting down other people's missles from up there, some how.