Bush likely to back weapons in space

[vern_humphrey]

gilliam:

They shoot very weak lasers and other weak weapons at missles and satellites. They don’t reach the Earth. I don’t know how you would use them as an offensive weapon unless you shoot down someone’s satellite. Even then, you are opening up yourself to a counter strike.

Personally, I think it is just envy and they want to make sure they can hurt the US somehow.

Let me point out that those who fear the US might become a rogue nation ARE rogue nations. Both Russia and China have killed tens of millions of their own people.

I think we can rightfully say, there is no comparison.

 

[jdnation]

**Scientists Warn Of
US Space Weaponization
**By Nick Wadhams
Associated Press Writer
5-20-5
UNITED NATIONS – A scientists’ group on Thursday warned the United States against weaponizing space, saying the move would be prohibitively expensive and could set off a new arms race. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group that opposes weapons in space, said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them. “The United States has a huge lead in the space field – it can afford to try out the multilateral approach,” said Jonathan Dean, a former U.S. ambassador and an adviser on global security issues. The Union’s demand comes as the administration of President Bush is reviewing the U.S. space policy doctrine. Some scientists worry that the review will set out a more aggressive policy that could lead to the greater militarization of space. On Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must be protected. "There are changes that have occurred over the last eight or nine years, and there are countries that have taken an interest in space, McClellan said. “And they have looked at things that could – or technologies that could – threaten our space systems. And so you obviously need to take that into account when you’re updating the policy.” The Bush administration has also included some money in the budget for space-based weapons programs to defend satellites, strike ground targets and defend against missile attacks, said Laura Grego, a scientist with the union. Any complete weapons system in space would be very expensive, running into the many billions of dollars. Developing a shield to defend against a single missile attack would require deploying 1,000 space-based interceptors and cost anywhere between $20 billion and $100 billion, said David Wright, a union scientists and co-author of a recent report on the feasibility of space weapons. And such a system would require a huge expansion of U.S. launching capability. The United States currently launches between 10-12 large rockets a year, while with space interceptors, it would need to launch many times more that each year. Wright argued that space-based ground attack systems were not yet practical either. One, dubbed “Rods from God” – which would fire rods of tungsten from space – would cost 50-100 times as much as a similar attack from the ground. “The fact that it’s still being considered I think suggests that there’s some sort of emotional attachment to it for putting weapons in space rather than a hard-nosed analysis,” Wright said. Any such move would also likely draw swift international condemnation. In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space. But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.

 

[jdnation]

vern humphrey:

Let me point out that those who fear the US might become a rogue nation ARE rogue nations. Both Russia and China have killed tens of millions of their own people.

I think we can rightfully say, there is no comparison.

Well it’s not really about which one is the rogue nation here, it’s more about the fact that everyone views each other the same way.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

The Union of Concerned Scientists,

I don’t think I would listen too hard to them. They hate everything that has to do with the Pentagon and most of what has to do with Congress.

They also said not to build any more nuke plants, and now we are dependent upon foreign oil.

Oh, yea, they are also against burning fossel fuels.

Oh, yea, they are also against burning wood fuels and coal.

Oh, yea, they were also against almost everything Reagan did to end the cold war.

Oh, yea, they were also against the 1991 Iraq war

Oh, yea, they were also against the Liberation of Iraq

Oh, yea, they are also against us having any nukes

Oh, yea… oh, yea… oh, yea… if you would listen to all they say, we would be living in caves.

They are concerned all right, about, well, just about everything having to do with the US.

 

[jdnation]

gilliam:

They shoot very weak lasers and other weak weapons at missles and satellites. They don’t reach the Earth.

Just considering the possibility of developing weapons that could attack the ground from space as the first article speculated.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

Just considering the possibility of developing weapons that could attack the ground from space as the first article speculated.

Lots of speculation out there… which is healty, I guess.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

Well it’s not really about which one is the rogue nation here, it’s more about the fact that everyone views each other the same way.

It’s about survival. The United States is NOT a rogue nation, China and Russia are. We have a right and a duty to protect ourselves, and in the process shelter and protect all other freedon-loving nations.

 

[jdnation]

vern humphrey:

It’s about survival. The United States is NOT a rogue nation, China and Russia are. We have a right and a duty to protect ourselves, and in the process shelter and protect all other freedon-loving nations.

So Russia and China don’t also have a right to protect themselves? The point the US argues to keep weapons away from Iraq and Iran is because they are afraid they will use them. Right? So why wouldn’t this apply against the US as well? Wouldn’t Iraq and Iran simply argue that they’re also be using them to protect themselves? Maybe even in the process protect all other Muslim faith-loving countries?

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

So Russia and China don’t also have a right to protect themselves?

So Nazi Germany and Japan didn’t “also have a right to protect themselves?”

jdnation:

The point the US argues to keep weapons away from Iraq and Iran is because they are afraid they will use them. Right? So why wouldn’t this apply against the US as well?

Because the United States is not Iran or Iraq, We are a democracy, and have a long history of helping other nations and defending them against aggressive dictators.

jdnation:

Wouldn’t Iraq and Iran simply argue that they’re also be using them to protect themselves? Maybe even in the process protect all other Muslim faith-loving countries?

They can argue anything – that wouldn’t make it true.

 

[jdnation]

vern humphrey:

So Nazi Germany and Japan didn’t “also have a right to protect themselves?”

Have Russia and China attacked you? CAn you definately show that they are purposely providing assistence with the intent of harming you? Are they currently going about invading other countries with ill intentions?
vern humphrey:

Because the United States is not Iran or Iraq, We are a democracy, and have a long history of helping other nations and defending them against aggressive dictators.

What does democracy have to do with anything concerning threaths from outside? And while its good that the US does help others, could you have ever said countries like Iran and Iraq, that do not have the quality of life the average US citizen has, nor the wealth of a nation like the US, were in any position to go around the world defending or providing aid to anyone?

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

Have Russia and China attacked you? CAn you definately show that they are purposely providing assistence with the intent of harming you? Are they currently going about invading other countries with ill intentions?

Yes, to all of the above. Both China and Russia have a long history of providing all sorts of assistance ot enemies of the United States, and on occasion derectly engaging in combat with US forces.

They also have a long history of bloody repression of their own people and the captive people of other nations whom they have occupied.

jdnation:

What does democracy have to do with anything concerning threaths from outside?

Do you mean we are not allowed to defend ourselves? Under any circumstances?

jdnation:

And while its good that the US does help others, could you have ever said countries like Iran and Iraq, that do not have the quality of life the average US citizen has, nor the wealth of a nation like the US, were in any position to go around the world defending or providing aid to anyone?

Do you have a point lurking somewhere in that question?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[jdnation]

vern humphrey:

Yes, to all of the above. Both China and Russia have a long history of providing all sorts of assistance ot enemies of the United States, and on occasion derectly engaging in combat with US forces.

So what? The US has allies too and that would obviously make them enemies of other nations. That’s the way it works.
vern humphrey:

They also have a long history of bloody repression of their own people and the captive people of other nations whom they have occupied.

One could bring up the history of the early settlers and the native Americans or negro slaves, but what’s the point?
vern humphrey:

Do you mean we are not allowed to defend ourselves? Under any circumstances?

So according to you, only democratic nations have been attacked throughout history for no other reason than that they are democratic?
vern humphrey:

Do you have a point lurking somewhere in that question?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Putting it another way, could poor diseased starving people in Africa be capable of contributing food and medical aid to other nations?

 

[Shoshana]

vern humphrey:

Yes, to all of the above. Both China and Russia have a long history of providing all sorts of assistance ot enemies of the United States, and on occasion derectly engaging in combat with US forces.

Well, there is recent history that Sadaam is your enemy…and yet you (the US) and him were the best of buddies against Iran…

Countries have slept with each at one point or another…strange bedmates. And, in the morning, declare it didn’t happen! Men!..

 

[gilliam]

Shoshana:

Well, there is recent history that Sadaam is your enemy…and yet you (the US) and him were the best of buddies against Iran…

No, we were not “best of buddies against Iran”. We tolerated Saddam, but we condemn many of his acts. That does not equate to “best of buddies.”

We were “best of buddies.” with your nation. And in many ways, we still are.

At no time in the history of the US did we ever have a relationship with Iraq that comes close to our relationship with Canada.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

So what? The US has allies too and that would obviously make them enemies of other nations. That’s the way it works.

You learn that at the National War College?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

jdnation:

One could bring up the history of the early settlers and the native Americans or negro slaves, but what’s the point?

I’m glad you figured that out for yourself. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

jdnation:

So according to you, only democratic nations have been attacked throughout history for no other reason than that they are democratic?

Did I say that? Please post a quote.

jdnation:

Putting it another way, could poor diseased starving people in Africa be capable of contributing food and medical aid to other nations?

What’s your point?

 

[mikworld]

use the force Bush…ha ha ha
Back when Regan was in office, the concept of project Star Wars, quite literally, was on the table. Sounds like we are going for it again.
Jeez. Can’t we make peace on our world instead of taking our wars outside of it?
God Bless,

Justin

 

[Shoshana]

gilliam:

No, we were not “best of buddies against Iran”. We tolerated Saddam, but we condemn many of his acts. That does not equate to “best of buddies.”

We were “best of buddies.” with your nation. And in many ways, we still are.

At no time in the history of the US did we ever have a relationship with Iraq that comes close to our relationship with Canada.

No, our relationship is a lot deeper than Iraq…although I feel we are just as hated sometimes…:crying: Thank you anyway for your kind words…

This was a fast read for me…interesting…but according to this, you did more than tolerate Saddam…

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/180px-Saddam7.jpg en.wikipedia.org/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Upon invading Iran on 22 September 1980, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein boasted he would be in Tehran in 3 days.

Iraq’s army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and her satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviets and the French [1] (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm), as well as from the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including European facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany [2] (dw-world.de/dw/article/0,716376,00.html) along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. Much of Iraq’s financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. **Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), allegedly also supplying weapons **[3]

to be continued…

 

[Shoshana]

(iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php). The United States also engaged in a series of naval battles with Iranian forces in 1987 and 1988. The cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government said that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat which had been in the same general area as the civilian plane shortly beforehand. Perhaps the most important support for Iraq was allowing the neutral oil tankers heading to Iraqi ports to fly the American flag, and thus be safe from Iranian attack, guaranteeing Iraq’s revenue stream for the duration of the war. The American government had, at the same time, also been secretly selling weapons to Iran; first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly (for details see the Iran-Contra Affair).

Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in 1982, but Iran’s insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. In the final years of the war, Iraq received more and more foreign aid and began to build a more modern, well-trained army, air force, and navy. In 1988 Iraq launched another offensive into Iranian territory and began serious air attacks on Iranian cities, such as Tehran. Iran felt militarily isolated and, being threatened with war by the US, offered to open peace negotiations. Iraq accepted, since the Iraqi economy and population had suffered from the war for 8 years, and they wanted to solidify their position.

The war was characterized by extreme brutality, including the use of chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq. Very little pressure was brought upon Iraq by the world community to curb such attacks or to condemn its earlier initiation of hostilities. Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources. The tactics used in the war resembled those of World War I, with costly human wave attacks commonly used by both sides, but by Iran in particular.

Blessings,
Shoshana

This from Wickipedia…

 

[jdnation]

vern humphrey:

Did I say that? Please post a quote.

I asked what democracy had to do with hostilities, and you gave some vague answer about defending yourselves without answering the question.
vern humphrey:

What’s your point?

You boasted that the US was different from Iraq and Iran because it was a democracy, AND because it provided aid and military help to others. Even if a country like Iraq wanted to help others it does not have the ability to. That is all.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Let those other countries go complain to the UN and see where it gets them.