Bush Reveals New Space Policy

Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."

Nuclear Propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

There's one part of the policy I found particularly interesting:

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests.

Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"? :D

Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty [wikipedia.org] (the one that effectively killed the Orion [wikipedia.org]) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.

Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens [wikipedia.org] environmental protest.)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, yeah, Bush throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions "can only be a good thing in the modern day world".

On a day when everyone's freaking out because Bush let the N Koreans go nuclear, you think more nukes, in space, "can only be a good thing"?

Run by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon? The Rumsfeld who's lobbying to throw away the "antiquated" US government structure [washingtonpost.com] that makes the president less than an emperor.

Can you say "Global Thermonuclear War"? Can you say anything other than "oooh, nuclear space drive", or look away from your monitor at the real world?

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[LWATCDR]

"Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties"
No not really.
The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word".
It is almost to the point that they are the boy that cried wolf.
I fear that if a project has any real danger involved that they will be ignored as they have been for all the launches where they where just being silly.
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.

Re:Is this possible?

[AKAImBatman]

What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org]. It's an agreement between the major super-powers that no Earthly country will own celestial bodies, and that these places exist for the exploration of all mankind.

I expect that this treaty would be modified once space colonies become common (a country, corporation, or individual would obviously "own" the property on which its Space Habitats reside, as it "owns" those habitats), but that's a matter that will be worked out when that bridge is crossed.

FWIW, historical property laws do offer some guidance. The original property laws provided complete ownership for everything below a property, and all the sky above a property. These laws have been modified as new technologies like airplanes and spacecraft made the skies above open space, and subways, power, and gas made the areas below into necessary points of infrastructure.

Re:Is this possible?

[Jartan]

Where do people get the idea that something like international laws actually exist? If a country decides to do something they'll just rewrite their own laws to allow it. If someone decides to ignore the UN or what not then it's not "illegal".

The only real question is whether or not they can actually back up such a claim in a way that will make other countries go along with it.

Evolution of war

[boyfaceddog]

First - land war for control of territory resulting in nation-states
Second - Sea and Land war resulting in continental/regional trade blocks
Now - Space war resulting in what? Solar System trade blocks? Space nations?

This is just the first step in preparation for fighting the next big war.

Re:I do find it quite amazing

[Jartan]

Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.

Anyone truely interested in the exploration of space should be desperate to see NASA shut down. I don't like him either but it's hardly a useful dig to complain about closing down the orbiting money toilet known as ISS. The fact is every penny Nasa gets should be spent on research and engineering to replace the shuttle with something far cheaper to launch.

In part a reaction to last month's laser incident.

[hey!]

Mostly this sounds like a routine release of non-substantive policy boilerplate, except for this:

The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."

Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?

Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".

What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.

Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.

Trying 2 prevent Space Research unifying the Earth

[nadanumber]

The uber-narcissistic Bush administration is terrified of one of the most exciting potential benefits of space research, its potential of making human beings realize just how alike we are and how precious the Earth is for our species survival, and so they hope to militarize space research and exploration to prevent its powerful, unifying effect on humanity. This kind of thinking has the potential to hurt the US tremendously because the rest of the world will cooperate on space research despite us, setting us back still further both scientifically and economically. The US is coasting on past achievements now. It won't last.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

Good God, there are a lot of Bush Hating trolls out today. Your comment speaks more of ignorance than insightfulness.

Here's the rundown of the situation:

1. This portion of the policy does not make space weaponry legal. It only says that weapons regulations should not prevent the development of technology required for space travel. Which, like it or not, is AN ABSOLUTE MUST should we humans ever want to travel in space. Chemical engines simply can't provide the power or life support capabilities that nuclear power can.

2. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was a Cold War artifact. The U.S. signed it to get certain concessions from the USSR. It also helped prevent issues like the contamination of Bikini Atol. In the future, it will continue to protect us against weapons testing, but should not inhibit craft bound for other celestial locations.

3. What exactly would putting nukes in space do that we can't already do? Allow us to bomb Iraq? Oh, too late. We already own their skies, and can reach them with ICBMs anyway. Allow us to bomb Iran? Well, we can own their skies in an instant, and we still have the ICBM option. Bomb China? See: Iran. Basically, space-based nukes would be useless. We already have the delivery systems to send them anywhere we want (*through* space rather than *in* space), at any time we want. There is no country on this Earth with the technology to stop our missiles. The only use in getting nukes in space would be to use them in Space Combat. And we're a LONG way from worrying about that.

4. The Rumsfield issue is another problem. Don't want that to happen? Donate to and support your local freedom foundation that will prosecute Supreme Court cases that further limit the President's ability. Last I checked, the Constitution is still in effect. Should the government continue to push aside our freedoms, then may I suggest you exercise your constitutional right to arm yourself to the teeth?

Government needs a Logic Advisor

[Morgaine]

"ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"
 

... means "ensure only we have freedom of action in space"

... which means "no freedom of action in space".

That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.

Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.

Competition Breeds Innovation

[BeeBeard]

Since WW II, the U.S. has loomed as the most militarily and economically powerful nation in the world. Now China is making a bid to become a hegemony of its own. This is a Good Thing [tm].

Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.

It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.

We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.

Brush up those reading comprehension skills

[TopShelf]

What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?

Narcissistic Personality Disorder Is...

[nadanumber]

a disease:

See Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) :
How to Recognize a Narcissist

at this URL

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html [halcyon.com]

We all have to deal with difficult people. Some days we can be pretty difficult ourselves. Recognizing the difference between normal difficulties and personality disorders can be crucial to decisions about entering new relationships and continuing existing relationships.

The material on Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is published for lay readers is not very informative, even though most people have had to cope with a narcissist at one time or another. If you were raised by a narcissistic parent, then you've been taught that the narcissist is always right and you're the one who's wrong. A lifetime of such mistreatment typically instills lack of confidence in your own judgment, along with habitual shame at never getting it right or being good enough to deserve the air that you breathe. The children of narcissists may not have realized that the quirks and oddities of their impossible-to-please parents are not in any way unique or special but are in fact the symptoms of a personality disorder.

The information on the Web is very repetitive and amounts to little more than the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Clinical descriptions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't describe the things that are most shocking and puzzling in everyday interaction with narcissists.

This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers.
-- Joanna Ashmun

"The study of human nature may be thought of as an art with many tools at its disposal, an art closely related to all the other arts, and relevant to them all. In literature and poetry, particularly, this is especially significant. Its primary aim must be to broaden our knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to become better, fuller, and finer people." -- Alfred Adler

naw, it's just PNAC

[YesIAmAScript]

The PNAC statement drawn up before Bush even took office says the US must dominate not only the surface of the Earth, but space and cyberspace too.

He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[florescent_beige]

I belive the part of the document that may draw attention is this:

Provide space capabilities to support continuous, global strategic and tactical warning as well as multi-layered and integrated missile defenses;

That will be seen by some as laying the groundwork for, or at least being consistent with, the weaponization of space in support of National Missile Defense. The "multi-layered" term means "not just ground-based interceptors."

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, and believe he should be impeached (not for the Iraq war, but for violations of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution), but in this case, zxnos is right.

With NK, Bush did everything that his opponents claim he should have done in Iraq. He didn't invade, he tried to let sanctions work, he worked with other countries. In particular the US has no direct influence over NK, they're a client of China. Bush tried to get China to deal with it.

What would you guys have had him do? Invade?

In space no one can hear...

[RingDev]

Your second amendment rights :P

-Rick

Re:I do find it quite amazing

[Sloppy]

You have to keep in mind that a president is not just a civilian leader; he's a military one too. It is a military commander-in-chief's duty to do certain things, and funding ISS is not one of them. Securing the ability to do other things and deny them to adversaries, is. A military commander-in-chief should try to make sure he'll have satellite surveillance, GPS guidance, and other applications when he needs it.

Does ISS have military applications? Maybe so, but the letter "I" in the acronym makes me doubt. ;-)

The flip side is that a president is also a civilian leader, and lots of Americans think that federal taxation is the right way to fund science (and a lot of other things also not mentioned in the Constitution) because otherwise, people just don't value or care enough about science to fund it voluntarily. If a scientist asks you for $50 you will refuse to pay him, but if the taxman demands $5000, you will comply, and then the middleman can give $25 (don't ask where the rest goes) to the scientist, provided that the scientist will use it for something that doesn't offend religious literalists/fundamentalists. So when a president wants to shut down something like ISS, it's going to look as if he's being irresponsible there, since no voting block is complaining about observations on ISS contradicting any important religious texts, and therefore, ISS funding is obviously a wise use of our money.

I don't know what a president can do, except raise taxes and just try to fund everything -- any idea that comes along that anyone likes. If we would all just work together united in common cause to fund all good ideas, things would be so much more pleasant. We could proudly hold our red stars high in our hands. But nooooo .. some malcontents still resist. What we ought to do, is get rid of all these troublemakers!

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Mister Whirly]

Well, for a start he could have NOT tied up a large chunk of our military in a country with NO NUCLEAR THREAT AT ALL. Or he could have offered them other economic incentives to back off on the nuclear power, instead of threating them. For as rich of a country the US is, we give out very little monetary humanitarian aid to other countries. This is part of the reason other countries of the world don't have the same rosy outlook of the US as Bush/Rummy do...

Hell even in his own country 2/3 of the people think Bush is not doing the right things. (And Rummy has a 30% approcval rating - I'd like to meet the 30% who think he is making the right decisions about Iraq. Probably the same people who thought we found WMDs there too.)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Shihar]

Crap like this makes me hate politics. Arguing against anti or pro Bush zombie is almost a waste of time. The polarization of the nation is nauseating. Nothing is more sickening then the nation getting duped into believing that there are exactly two sides to an issue and that "their" side always shares there opinion while the "enemy" is always wrong and blatantly evil. You would think people would get suspicious when every single election comes down to the wire and it seems like the population has magically split 50/50 into idiots and people who know what is going on. If you truly and honestly believe that Bush is 100% evil or a 100% right, you can count yourself among the dupes of the world that has let political parties chop of the population into two equal halves. That said, let's look at your "arguments".

1. Bush is putting nukes in space, after proving he can't do anything right, which makes him do more. All dangerous. Now upping the ante to space nukes. Insane.

I don't even know where to begin. First, Bush is not putting nuclear weapons up in space. As the previous poster stated, and you conveniently ignored, putting nukes in space serves no purpose. We have a few thousand ICBMs that can do the job just fine, not to mention a few dozen subs if you need it done even quicker. You can't even produce a reason for "Bush" (like Bush is the only person making decisions... I bet you think Bush wrote this policy paper personally, don't you?) wanting nuclear weapons up in space. I suppose you do try and justify it with the sentences, "All dangerous." and "Insane."

2. Bush specifically said in that policy that we should use nukes to put weapons in space. Of course that's his #1 priority.

Pull out a quote and prove to me this point. Otherwise your belief that Bush said "put nukes in space" comes from poor reading comprehension skills or self delusionment. I personally suspect later. Bush stated in the new policy gives a green light to considering putting nuclear reactors in space that might have violated the old test ban treaties. That is it.

Everyone knows he hates science, that he put a Republican flack to work censoring "big bang" science because it reinforced evolution science rather than Creationism.

Again, you are an idiot if you think that the 24 year old that was appointed to the PR job in NASA was appointed by Bush. That ranks right up there with thinking that Ronald McDonald hires every single burger flipper. Far more likely, some Republican page asked for a job after serving a senator or working on campaigning and got one. After it turned out that he was an idiot, he was sacked. No, it wasn't Bush's evil plan to destroy NASA. If Bush wanted to do that I imagine he would stop giving them money instead of boosting their funding. At best, you can call it a failure of hiring oversight. Judging by some of the jackasses I work with, it is a pretty universal problem.

3. "We" are only a long way from worrying about space combat because you are in denial of the apocalyptic dreams Bush pursues at every chance.

Of for fuck's sake. Bush is not the devil in disguise who spends his nights dreaming up ways to end the world. If you really believe that Bush is the embodiment of evil and is here for your soul, it makes any sort of rational conversation pretty much pointless. I think I would have an easier time convincing the Pope that there is no God... and I imagine even he would listen better then you do.

4. The Rumsfeld "issue"? That berzerk loser is unfit to command a garbage scow, and you're calling him an "issue"? Rumsfeld has been putting nukes on US missiles for years, changing our policy to "preemptive strike" even while bathing in the blood of that strategy's Iraq failure.

OMFG, he has been putting nukes on missiles for years? Wow. I bet that makes him the first secretary of defense to oversee the continued maintenance of the US nuclear stock pile. The US nuclear arsenal has shrunk

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Doc Ruby]

A lot of the Reagan/Bush Star Wars plans called for powering space lasers with nukes. It might still be stupid, but it will cost a lot of money paid to military contractor corporations. And spread fear of the US across the globe, including among sensible Americans.

That sounds like precisely the Bush Doctrine. Especially the "stupid" part.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Banner]

Wow, you called him a Bush worshipping troll in one breath, and then gave out the most ridiculous and deranged screed in the next. Dude, take a few breaths, sit down, and relax already. You sound completely unhinged. The original Post was pretty apolitical and scientific. Your response here however is so over the top that you sound deranged.

Yes, we all know now that you hate Bush and you hate AKAImbatman. However you didn't make any points as to whether the original points under discussion were good ones or bad ones. You did impress on me however that you're not someone whose advice I'd ever listen too, so you completely lost me to any points you might have wanted to make. And not because you hate Bush, but because you simply spewed like a crazy man.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Tony]

I don't even know where to begin. First, Bush is not putting nuclear weapons up in space. As the previous poster stated, and you conveniently ignored, putting nukes in space serves no purpose. We have a few thousand ICBMs that can do the job just fine, not to mention a few dozen subs if you need it done even quicker. You can't even produce a reason for "Bush" (like Bush is the only person making decisions... I bet you think Bush wrote this policy paper personally, don't you?) wanting nuclear weapons up in space. I suppose you do try and justify it with the sentences, "All dangerous." and "Insane."

I won't argue your other points (many of which are good, solid reasoning), but this is untrue. Putting nukes in space does server a strategic purpose.

A nuke launched from the ground takes a while to reach its target, giving a country like China, which has its own nuclear missiles, time to retaliate. We have submarines in place to launch missiles, but they have to get into position first, which can often take several days; and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.

An orbiting launch platform could target any spot on earth very rapidly. Most of the early thrust would occur in near-vacuum, making for great early acceleration. A submarine would be able to strike quickly once it is in position; orbiting nukes could strike even faster, without the need to get in position.

Further, a sub could be taken out by conventional warfare. Taking out a space-based nuke would be very difficult without exposing yourself to nuclear strike.

Basically, it all comes down to the magic three words: First Strike Initiative.

Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor

[Shihar]

Try using the whole quote.

"develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"

This is what the government SHOULD be doing. Defense agencies should always be "developing capabilities, plans, and options" for every single possible threat. That doesn't mean we need to build a space cruiser, but that does mean that having a plan to build one is not a bad idea. Hell, having a plan to invade Canada on hand is a good idea. Expecting and being prepared for the unexpected is what intelligence and defense agencies are there for.

I very much want my government to have a plan to deny space to whomever might need space denied to them. Sure, there are no enemies right now that demand such a wasteful and expensive capability, but it does not take a lot of imagination to envision a future where it might be prudent. Russia is one government change away from getting a hardline nationalist who feels nostalgic about the Cold War. China is one tiny democratic island (Taiwan) away from all out war with the US. North Korea... well fuck... who knows what they are thinking, but having something that can knock down their ICBMs on the drawing board is not a bad idea.

Look, I would agree that this is an overreaction if it said, "Make me some god damn space battle cruisers! Muhahahahaha!" But it doesn't. It directs that the government should plan to conduct military operations in space because it isn't an insane fear that some day in an unforeseen future those plans might be needed.

Someone needs a Logic Advisor

[Shadowlore]

"ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries" ... means "ensure only we have freedom of action in space" ... which means "no freedom of action in space".

That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.

Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.

Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?

You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.

Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.

In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:

Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space

Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space

The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.

Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers. ;^)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[LWATCDR]

"If the plant operators installed the proper scrubbers on the stacks
then there would be no air emissions."
As far as I know there isn't a single zero emmissions coal fired plant on the face of the Earth.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[drinkypoo]

The whole 'coal power has killed more than nuclear power' is bullshit. If the plant operators installed the proper scrubbers on the stacks then there would be no air emissions.

But, uh, they don't. So there are. So your comment is pure bullshit. Did you know that cancer rates doubled during the industrial revolution? Literally doubled. There's no other major influences on cancer rates at that time, but today we know that soot is carcinogenic.

But the Bush administration has prevented any EPA rules that tighten power plant emission regulation. So who's really to blame here?

Still the power companies. The ability to do a thing is not sufficient justification to do a thing. The ability to fuck over the world in pursuit of profit doesn't make it okay, it doesn't make it someone else's fault, and the fact that you would suggest that it does makes you an extremely mmature person in the area of social responsibility. I suppose you think that if someone drops their wallet, and you see them do it, it's okay to take all their money because they dropped it instead of letting them know they dropped their wallet?

Re:Better than Nothing

[FrostedChaos]

Interesting..you seem to have read the President's Vision for Space Exploration but somehow only grabbed onto the "kill shuttle" part and missed the whole "build vehicles to explore the solar system part"... or was that inconvenient to your anti-Bush rant?

That's because killing the shuttle is real, whereas the rest is just talk. Talk is cheap.

he's ignoring them

[oohshiny]

I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.

We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels under no obligation to observe international treaties since, after all, those people didn't elect him and he can drum up enough xenophobia to support breaking the treaties. So, treaties don't control Bush or what the US is doing.

Oh course he can violate any treaty:

[Lost Penguin]

We have a law to state he is not a WAR CRIMINAL.

Does any (other) sane person wonder why we need a law that specifies Bush is not a war criminal?

Neocons rejection of 'no first use' doctrine..

[nadanumber]

Honestly, most of what you said went above my head. I was speaking from my gut and my gut tells me uneqivocably that we are far less secure under a neocon government than a non-neocon one. This has been my feeling since the day I heard that George II was running. My first thought then was 'oh no, in six months we will be in a war'. I guess I was wrong..

(It was actually nine months)

The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)

We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)

Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)

Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.

Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.

The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.

Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.

That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.

The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.

Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..

In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..

If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..

Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..

If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..

It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..

the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..

There will not be a World War IV...

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Spectra72]

It is not about owing the US you self-centered child, it is about what you owe your fellow man.

So Canadians are content to let millions of North Koreans starve? They are content to let Japan and S. Korea live within missile range of North Korea nukes?

Go look at what your own government is saying today. They don't want nuke testing in North Korea any more than the US does. Your own foreign minister said that the test represented a crisis to which Canada will be forced to respond. Do you even pay attention to your own government? Or do you just refresh US news sites looking for the next thing to piss and moan about?

Our messes? In case they've stopped teaching history in Canada you may want to read up on Canada's role in the Korean War back in the day. It is not the US's fault that Canada hasn't been taking their turn manning the DMZ for 50 years.

Do you speak for all Canadians when you say you just don't give a fuck? I'll bet Canadian business and citizens working in South Korea or Japan most certainly do give a fuck.

The world is bigger than the US. More countries than the US are responsible for helping deter nuclear proliferation. More countries than the US are responsible for helping North Korea feed their starving population. (And many others do help..but apparently Canadians just don't give a fuck.)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[cowscows]

He tried to get China to deal with it because he was too incompetent to do it himself. NK wanted direct talks with the US. They didn't want to go through China. NK is worried about the US undermining their government, they're not concerned about China.

The Bush administration's big idea on NK was to cut off any sort of aid and diplomacy, and try and get everyone else to do the same. The misguided hope is that that would cause the government to collapse. The problem is that during the Clinton administration, the US as well as China and especially South Korea had been involved in detailed, complex, and relatively cordial negotiations.

The way diplomacy generally works is that the leaders make big proclamations and empty threats and whatnot, and then other people work hard behind the scenes to establish a compromise where things get settled peacefully, and neither side ends up looking like they lost. After Clinton left office, North Korea kept playing that game, because that's how politics work. Bush, however, was disinterested in playing that game (for a number of reasons). And so while the rhetoric was increasing as it always was, there was no effort put forth by the US to actually solve any of the issues. Both sides painted themselves into a corner, and this time no escape plan was hammered out.

The only difference is that NK's corner had a little ledge they could climb out on, it just involved actually testing a nuke. The US is still stuck in its corner, and even if there was a way out, it's doubtful that Bush would take it, it's just not the way his mind works. His administration views any sort of compromise as defeat, no matter who the opponent, or how high the stakes.

Re:Is this possible?

[overunderunderdone]

What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It's an agreement between the major super-powers that no Earthly country will own celestial bodies, and that these places exist for the exploration of all mankind.

Such a treaty will be a dead letter the moment there is something worth owning in space that someone also has the ability to "own" in the meaningful sense of being able to physically possess, exploit to their advantage and, possibly, defend against anyone else's interference. We'll work out some treaties that will simply codify the simple reality that "possession is 9/10ths of the law". Those nations (or "that nation") capable of obtaining actual physical possession of something of real value will do so, and treaties will be written that legitimize their possessions. I hope this doesn't come across as implying any immorality to such a situation & I don't mean it to sound cynical. Possession is where the concept of "ownership" comes from in the first place and in a region previously under no legal authority the laws legitimizing (and going into the future, regulating) ownership will start with the raw fact of physical possession. A legal structure containing an idealistic sounding fiction like "these places exist for the exploration of all mankind." is liable to cause as much or more injustice as it's actual implementation reflects the reality of the situation while it's idealistic wording (pretends to) deny it.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Jeremi]

Speaking of straw men... yes, the official line was "weapons of mass destruction", not just nuclear weapons. The problem is, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction of any type. Nor did we find any facilities for making same. The few chemical weapons we did (leftover from before the first Gulf War) find were not usable for mass destruction, and therefore were not WMDs.

In the meantime, we had the President accusing Iraq of smuggling yellowcake out of Niger (an accusation he knew to be false when he said it as part of the State of the Union speech), and Condoleeza Rice saying things like "the first smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud"... literally terrorizing the US population into supporting the invasion.

So you can take your smug comment about people not knowing set theory and shove it up your ass -- it's your deliberate mischaracterization of the situation as a set theory problem that is incorrect. The issue isn't the academic definition of what constitutes a WMD, it's the US executive branch deliberately lying to the US public in order to get public support for an unnecessary, counterproductive, and useless war. It may make you feel better to ignore that in favor of semantic games, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Jeremi]

So you're saying all of the following are figments of the Iraq Survey Group's imaginations?

I don't doubt your ability to cherry-pick details that (when presented out of context) make Iraq look sinister. However, I have to base my conclusions on the survey's main results, which you are welcome to read for youself [globalsecurity.org]. In short, while the Iraqi government were no angels, they weren't a significant threat to the US either.

It's better to go in and mitigate a possibly overstated risk than to hand some reactors and nuclear fuel over to a little pot-bellied, dog-eating dictator and wake up ~10 years later to a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Funny you should mention that... that's exactly what we woke up [dnaindia.com] this morning. So by your own measure, Bush's foreign policy has failed us.

I'll put the Bush record of mitigating world threats up against the Clinton record any time, anywhere. Maybe you won't, but clear-thinking people will compare the two and realize that in times of consequence such as these, it's not safe to vote Democrat.

Clear-thinking people look not only at the imagined hazards of voting Democrat, but also at the actual damage incurred by inept Republican policies. You can wave your arms about what you think Democrats might do, but we know for a fact what Republicans done: they've started, bungled, and lost an unnecessary war. As far as what the American public thinks about that, I think you'll find out in November.

Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor

[lawpoop]

This needs to be examined in the larger context.

Of course the military has a plan for invading Canada. You are right -- they have a plan for everything, just like every other military in the world. But Bush isn't giving instructions to the military via public speeches. He isn't reassuring the people of the US.

Bush' speech is addressed to the world. When he gets up and gives a speech to the press, his audience is the world's governments. When he explicitly says that the US is going to develop military capability to deny other countries' freedom in space, that is a defacto threat. "Don't get any ideas, or will blow your shit out of the sky".

The world governments are all well aware that the US has a military plan for every eventuality. They don't need to be reminded of it. When Bush comes out and explicitly says it in a speech about what the US is going to do in space, he is making a threat.

Don't be naive. Bush is declaring that the US controls space.