U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy 475
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:4, Interesting)
We were the dominant power in Pearl Harbor too. It doesn't take a lot to destroy a space station. That said, this is a pissing match I have no interest in having. I can see defending sites, systems, and transportation. By trying to claim ownership of a chunk of space is just retarded.
-Rick
Defense contractors celebrate. (Score:1, Interesting)
I wonder if this means they think they can shoot down space flights with democrats aboard - since I actually know a few republicans who think that sincerely and deeply believe that democrats (through their weak polices on homeland security) are a bigger threat to national security than north korea.
Aimed squarely at China (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)
*sigh*
Looks like they already modded you down. And so it begins.
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:3, Interesting)
A step toward nuclear space flight? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Bush finds it easier to sell the treaty breakage as a security measure than to sell it as a first step towards Mars.
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the many problems with this policy is that those "certain portions of space" are six dimensional and time-varying. What the U.S. is trying to "defend" amounts to certain orbits. This is not like defending your coastal waters, which have zero momentum relative to your nation's landmass. For one, it is possible to change from an orbit that does not overfly a given country to one that does with relatively trivial delta-v.
Because of this, there is little or no practical value in preventing others from accessing just some orbits. Now, the U.S. government, particularly the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld, has a long history of doing stuff that has no practical value (often at the cost of American lives.) So it is possible that this policy will be acted upon in an ineffectual but relatively harmless way. But given the grip of fear that still has a big hold in the U.S. it is a matter of some concern that those who would put security before all else might decide to deny everyone access to all orbits.
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, it says the USA can act in anyway it chooses in space, and others can't. It basically says no one can fuck with our space toys, but we can fuck with anyone else's space toys. It basically says that "Rules Don't Apply to Us".
It is, very simply, typical fascist horseshit that the Bush Junta has been coughing up for years, only this time it affects satellites. nice.
I'm not going to cough up line item to line item - /. It's not THAT much to read, and it's all there in black and white. DIY.
Now, I'll propose that 90% of the responses to THIS will be from pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy, and yes, Bush DOES deserve demonisation for this, as it is part and parcel of his evil Evil EVIL neocon agenda. And for that, the pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy will likely mod me "Flamebait" or "Overrated" and anyone with half an ounce of sense will mod me "Interesting" or "Insightful".
Imagine if the Bush Junta said "the laws of the sea no longer apply to us." Imagine what kind of a row that would make. It's just the same thing, only in orbit in the vacuum of space.
RS
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell do you know that? From the linked article "The document, much of which is classified..." Good chunks of the document are classified. People HAVE to read between the lines.
Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-Bush, knee-jerkers, but you are also making unsubstantiated claims.
more likely to be launch interdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Iranians were to begin to launch satellites, or say they were, and there were sufficient evidence -- possibly some of it secret -- that their real intentions were to develop suborbital or quasi-orbital intercontinental ballistic missile technology, and the US decided it was possible to knock the test missiles down reasonably safely, then I'd have no problem with them doing so.
Where it gets tricky is if China wants to launch national technical means a.k.a. spy satellites that overfly US strategic assets, map out targets, et cetera, within the contintental US. Is this the kind of thing we'd want to knock down? It's hard to really say, for two reasons: (1) Experience in the Cold War showed that spy satellites were stabilizing technology, because they prevent hysteria and nasty surprises. When each side is well-informed about what the other has, and is up to, decisions tend to be calmer and better. (2) This business has been thrashed out before, in the 16th-17th centuries, with respect to navigation of the high seas. In addition to being a very expensive process, the end result was a general agreement that freedom to travel -- even for a warship -- peacefully anywhere in international waters is guaranteed, unless you are actually at war. Do we really need to repeat the bloody experiment in space to probably arrive at the same conclusion?
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:2, Interesting)
I have friends in many other countries, and every time the US does this I am ashamed to be an American. While these countries have their own faults, and some have been ridiculed here on Slashdot many times, I still feel very strongly that they are much more concerned about true peace than the current US administration.
At least my friends in Asia can see why I want to move there before it is too late. The big question for me is only which country... the one that cooperates with the US on most things but has a very high cost of living, or the one that is powerful enough not to be afraid of the US but has a much lower standard of living. Decisions, decisions...
p.s. I also find it hard to believe that the "Emperor Zurg" headline is real. In true Slashdot fashion, I'll comment first on it and _then_ check.
Re:Why is it so wrong to say (Score:2, Interesting)
Most countries with an advanced military have plans they can enact if attacked by any country or likely grouping of countries. The have plans depending on the method of the attack as well. The Canadians have one if we invade them and we have one incase they invade us. These are frequently looked at changed and updated. Military planning cannot afford to be shortsighted, it has to look at even the most unlikely situations, otherwise you end up with places like Iraq.
Do you walk into a bar and think about how you would defend yourself against everyone of those people, if they attacked one at a time, 2 at a time, 3 at a time, the short guy and that fat guy in the corner?
No, but i expect my country to asses every possible threat, and be ready for the reasonable ones.
Once again I'm not talking about the person who said it, I am talking about the overall idea and the meaning of the statement.
All it is saying is that we will respond if you interfere with our usage, or damage out space based assets. It is a staement pure and simple, it is not a threat it is a promise. In warfare you damage your enemies ability to fight, if they rely on space based assets then you destroy said assets. You also defend your because if an enemy has spaced based assets then more than likely they can hit yours.
I apologize for the other post it was rude, malformed, and i missed the preview button.
Re:more likely to be launch interdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
For actual space colonization and mining, I'd say no. For control of Earth's orbitals that could be used by Earth's various governments to control the entire Earth. Yes, we wouldn't fight WWIII with China over this, but we would fight "smaller" countries like Iran or NK that tried to get into space. I'd think China, Russia, EU, Japan, and India would be "safe" from any US actions. It's the smaller countries that can't be easily controlled by the big boys that the US really wants to keep Earth bound.
Let's be honest, the US doesn't control the Earth. We have our strings of control over various other governments, but they hold our strings as well. I'd say that the entire EU was more worried about our Iraq adventures mainly because there was a feeling that the US would try to liberate the entire region for its resources for our use. Those middle eastern countries with oil have strings that have a pretty tight hold on us. We are trying to break them, but we can't do it within 5 years though. We need to learn how to use our position to better control the rest of the globe. They are catching up far to quickly and they are just as smart as we are.
The rise of the politics of fear. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you havn't already seen it, PLEASE check out "The Power of Nightmares":
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmar
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+o
from the wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page:
Re:Old News (Score:3, Interesting)
They can be both, depending on the actual weapons. The issue is that striving for them is seen as 'pro-active' by its proponents, and agressive by almost everyone else.
Everyone understands this except the American public. Not unlike many other topics.
Lets get something straight here.
The USA is at the moment the most powerfull nation on the planet. Every nation in that position has ended their own rule once they fell into arrogance, thinking they can do what they want. This is in no way specifically American, just like seeing that as aggresion is not bound to any specific nation, rather, those are merely dictated by the situation and the very few who have some control over it. Names change, 'tools' change, but the game stays basicly the same.
Yes, generally spoken the 'public' is arrogant, and due to that can be manipulated. Its not that many people are not capable of thinking about what their 'leaders' do, its more a matter of not wanting to. This again is nothing specifically American.
I happen to come from the Netherlands, and many of you here probably heard about the killing of a politician here, Pim Fortuyn. Now, I am not going to debate his views on things, I merely want to point at that many people in my country were following him more for his personality and presentation then for many of his ideas.
I could point at many people following facist movements in the 30s, to the idea of 'give the people bread and games' from Roman times, its all the same thing. People don't care about many things untill they start affecting their life directly.
That is, untill someone presents it in a way that raises emotions among people.
That all doesn't change that it is good to point out the wrongs of things that happen in part due to policies of the USA, but don't blame Joe Sixpack for behaving basicly in the same way as most humans throughout history have done.
Yes because Islam is a religion of Peace(tm) (Score:0, Interesting)
The reality is the nightmare is real. There are nine nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea). Now that NK and Iran have joined the nuclear club, there will be about 30-40 nuclear powers and the reality is major US and Western cities will get nuked. Period. Pope calls Islam violent and Muslims murder an elderly nun, behead a priest, and crucify a little boy. Nightmare is real.
Brazil is thought to have a nuke program, Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey and Oman are all starting one in reaction to Iran. Japan, Singapore, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and of course Taiwan will also likely start nukes up if they havent already in reaction to either NK or their neighbors. South Africa was supposed to get rid of their nukes post-Apartheid but no one really believes them.
[Creating nukes is not that hard to do. Oppenheimer did not even test "Little Boy" because the gun-type uranium bomb is dead simple (though fragile and inefficient). Implosion bombs require precision manufacturing, plutonium undergoes about 17 state changes after smelting, and precision timing of the implosive charges. However the West does not have a monopoly of talented technical people and the tech is over 60 years old. Ballistic missiles are even older, the V2 was a ballistic missile that entered
What Space does is allow whatever nation that commands it first (China, India, Iran, whoever) to have absolute dominance over the world. China controlling space does not mean peace and holding hands singing kumbayah. It means surrender to Muslim fanatics in exchange for China getting cheap oil. Because China could nuke us and suffer zero retaliation.
Control of Space = nearly foolproof Ballistic Missile Defense.
SOME nation will control Space. That's a given. It's either the US, or China, India, possibly Japan. Choose which nation you want to control it, or be damned. Either way don't be a fool. There is no agreement, no negotiation, no "deal" to be made to stop the militarization of space. Unless you believe in Unicorns and Santa Claus.