His ignorance is encyclopedic - Abba Eban
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum

Militarization of Space

User Thread
 38yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Revolución is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Militarization of Space
A national space policy has just been approved by the Bush Administration, with serious international implications. Naturally, a missile-impervious United States causes a major security dilemma for its stately rivals, but perhaps more importantly it bears the disturbing overtones of the potentiality for offensive capability.

The claim is that "The notion that you would do defence from space is different than the weaponisation of space." Of course they're different notions, but are they really different means? I'm far from certain.


US seeks to monopolise space
From Aljazeera.Net on Wednesday 18 October 2006 10:53 PM GMT

Analysts say the new US policy fails to admit the rights of others

George Bush, the US president, has approved a new national space policy which seeks to deny adversaries the use of space technologies deemed hostile to the US.

The new document replaces a 1996 space policy. It was approved by Bush on August 31 and was published quietly by the White House on October 6.

"United States national security is critically dependent upon space capabilities, and this dependence will grow," the strategic document says.

"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 US national interests."

The text also rejects any treaties forbidding space weapons.

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space."

No weapons

The US government said the new policy document did not signify moves towards using weapons from space.

"It's not a shift in policy," Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said.

"The notion that you would do defence from space is different than the weaponisation of space."

Nonetheless, the policy document has surprised some.

"While this policy does not explicitly say we are not going to shoot satellites or we are going to put weapons in space, it does, it seems to me, open the door towards that," Theresa Hitchens, director of the Centre for Defence Information, said.

According to Hitchens, this view is confirmed by US army documents that clearly express an interest in space weapons.

Shift in direction

Hitchens noted the new policy also represents a significant shift from the previous policy document initiated under Bill Clinton, the previous US president.

"This is a much more unilateralist vision of space. The United States in this policy seeks to establish its rights but fails to acknowledge the rights of other countries in space, where the Clinton policy was very careful to acknowledge the rights of all nations in space," Hitchens said.

The US currently dominates space. Russia has lost most of its means and China is still in the development phase.

But the US supremacy in space faces threats from other countries. "The United States is in particular concerned about China," Hitchens said.

"While both China and Russia have been promoting a space weapons ban, it is clear to me that the Chinese at the same time are considering ways to do damage to US space assets."

Source
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A56CACD-3CDB-4367-A6B7-12081C9AA
B48.htm


Alternative Source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6063926.stm



The issue of missile defense was the salient reason that prompted me to vote against Stephen Harper in the 2005 Canadian Federal Elections (meaning that I voted liberal), so it is necessarily one that I consider to be very relevant to the international community.

Thoughts? Feelings?

| Permalink
"A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past."
 44yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Wayback is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Hmm . . . Star War agenda was set into motion long ago & has been active but it generally is draped with 'scientitic studies', which is why the space administration has such a huge expense account. So the government doesn't repair & / or replace levies & dikes in places like New Orleans => suppling the needs of the people
Thus we have to wars to justify & maintain their expeditures on National Security.

| Permalink
Militarization of Space
  1  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Registration
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy