China Tests Anti-Satellite Laser Weapon 552
schnippy writes "U.S. intelligence agencies believe that China has successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon by destroying one of their old weather satellites. The test, if confirmed, would be an order of magnitude more provocative than earlier reports of Chinese blinding lasers being. Arms Control Wonk has a good writeup on what this will mean for U.S. policy."
Re:"their" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just what the world needs... (Score:1, Interesting)
I also notice military news generated more buzz when China was the subject.
Re:Provocation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't know about Grenada, Vietnam is free of american troops, South Korea WANTS american troops inside.
Cuba has a small US garrison inside, in what seem to be not US soil, but more US army and CIA soil.
Some people in Iraq are happy for the US actions, some are not.
On the other side of the comparation, China invaded Tibet, and chinese army is everything there - police, occupation force, government. I don't think there are many tibetan people happy about that.
So, with all my anti-USA attitude, I think China here is having an even lower moral stance than US of A
Re:not a laser (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just what the world needs... (Score:1, Interesting)
BTW, pay attention to America. If any real provecation starts, it will be easy for current leadership to declare Martial law and control the citizens. That is due to allowing the military to control citizens, new spying (transportation, all telecommunications, mail, all of our spending via banks/CCs), and soon to be announced new federal ID required of all citizens to control immigration.
Just a predication.
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely you can. However the methods you'd have to use arent "democratic".
That's why the old Soviet system fell apart. Gorbachev questioned whether the Soviet system had to be quite so heavy handed. The answer turned out to be "yes".
Re:Funny that we should view this as "provocative" (Score:2, Interesting)
Just got hammered to -1 for asking the question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does China still have Most Favored Nation status with the US?
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Exactly what is the only country in the world, that has ever used nuclear weapon? Yes, the one with most hostile outer policy towards anyone, who doesn't cooperate as USA wants them to. However, if I remember USA has not signed any treaty about preventing the development of biological weapons, and they actually are trying to get funding for new type of nuclear weapons..
If USA can, other countries cant.. Makes sense, doesnt it? Im more afraid USA having these weapons instead of some other country, because only USA is able to do such large scale screw ups without thinking first.
China just need to put dollars in market (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:5, Interesting)
As an American who put in over a year overseas, I know our foreign policy reputation at this time. It's not kind. I have been recognized on the streets as an American and confronted on my political beliefs. I'd like to think I gave the "right answer", but I honestly don't know what would have happened a few times if I had expressed support for my president. Let me just let you know, there are many of us (maybe less than 50%, but more than 10%) who believe the French were right in holding off invasion plans and who believe the United Nations was founded in order to prevent another World War II. A seemingly unending bureaucracy it may be, but it's checked by the majority of countries with a last sanity check of the consensus of a diverse group with the most vested interest in a stable world.
We're fighting to change the political future of our country. It's slow, and it's built upon a mountain of vested interests in large corporations and minimization of energy insecurity.
Feeling free to disagree (Score:1, Interesting)
I think this statement is not offensive for the sake of a difference in value judgment, but rather offensive for gross oversimplification and lack of logic.
The United States wants an end to sectarian violence in Iraq that prevents a democratic government from being successful. Likewise, sectarian fighters in Iraq want to continue committing acts of violence not only to kill their hated local enemies, but to embarrass the foreign invading power. To write that the US is "killing people" for not "doing it our way" suggest that the US is lining up random people (read: children) and executing them because the populace will not bow down the will of the US. I think that's completely unfair and inaccurate, though if you are skeptical of liberal capitalism then you may see it as spot-on and righteous (since, in that case, you would likely define the United States as the Enemy).
I must add here that I have given the short view what the Bush administration wants to achieve in Iraq. I completely disagree with what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq: it is short-sighted, politically correct, and destined to fail at the cost of American blood and treasure. My intent in disagreeing is to suggest to you that your view is inaccurate, which does not imply that the Bush administration is correct. I have to add this because of the tendency in this retarded political climate for people to immediately pigeon-hole me into "Bush worshipper" or "Bush hater" based on their own particular flavor of black-and-white thinking. I'm not talking about you, of course, but about the others who may read this and flame me as a "wingnut" or a "moonbat".
You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history.
I see you write that, and I can't help but think of Saddam Hussein, who, through tyrannical rule, forced three peoples (in this case mainly divided among religious borders) to "work together" when they didn't want to. In fact, the notion that Saddam "brought stability" to Iraq is one that I have largely seen propagated by Europeans who oppose the Iraq war! Are you one of the ones to argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein because he prevented civil war from happening? If so, then it seems to contradict what you've written here ("You can't force two peoples...."). If not, then it would seem that the American nation-building fiasco is justified on some levels. Perhaps you see it a different way, but I see your position existing between a rock and a hard place.
Feel free to disagree, but that's my (possibly biased) point of view.
Of course you're biased. So am I. It only means that we have values and we stick up for them. There's a good chance that you'll think my values suck and I may likely have the same opinion of yours. The one thing I might ask of you is this: have you ever in your life radically changed the way you thought based on receiving and understanding contrary evidence? The number of times that you've done that is a measure of how open-minded you are. I'm generally not very impressed by individuals who "stand up for what they believe". Anybody can do that! It takes a very brave individual to change what they believe, and an even braver one who will examine things that they know are False(TM) knowing full well that it may change the way that they think and might even change who they are.
That said, Long live Western Culture! Islam delenda est!
Re:"their" (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:On War (Score:3, Interesting)
Other animals don't make war.
Of course, other animals definitely do kill each other, and not just for food. Animals kill for sport, out of aggression or fear, for territory, etc. But they don't make war.
War is industrialization, mass-production, and most importantly strong authority, all applied to the natural tendency of people to kill. War is the cold mechanization of violence.
One can make a very arguable case that people will always kill, and I tend to agree. But the question of whether people will always form massive hierarchical structures which methodically and rationally cause as many deaths as possible - this is more debatable.
Massive power structures are required for real war to be waged. Primarily, the participants have been governments, but we've also seen religious sects make war (for example the crusades, or more recently the "Islamic Jihad"), and perhaps one day in the future we'll see a corporation make war.
I do not believe that massive power structures are inherent to human nature, as there are many societies which avoid them. There's obviously some kind of tendency to form strong governments and establish territorial borders, but I don't think it's strong enough to justify the assertion that it'll always be the unchangeable status quo.
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:2, Interesting)
We never said that we'd wipe them off the map. In fact we don't want to destroy them at all. They are part of our territory. Why would we nuke part of our territory?
You can stay deluded if you'd like, but maybe you'd like to absorb a dose of reality.
Why this is modded insightful is beyond me. This is the reason why China needs such tests, because the Americans are threatening us.
Re:How is this provocative ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Class, here is your assignment. Find an old map and point out for me the state/nation/country called "Palestine". Wrong. Whatever you pointed to... wrong. It didn't exist as a country.
How about try this one on for size: "Why won't any of the nations who proclaim the same religious beliefs (Islam) as the Palestinians give them a chunk of land, to at least have a homeland?"
I never knew the answer until I listened to a man from the region call in to a local radio show. He said what others are afraid to say publicly, but that makes sense. All the other Arab nations in the region are *afraid* of the Palestinians! They are a fanatical people who want to take over / overthrow whatever government is in place and put a fundamentalist extremeist organization in it's place. Something so extreme that the other Arab nations in the region don't even want the 'Palestinian refugees' in their (Islamic) countries! Why would this be? Wouldn't it be more likely that if you really agree with someone, with their cause, you would be willing to give them sanctuary wherever you could find space in your own nation, until such time as they had their 'own' home back?
We did that here in America when Katrina hit. We did that with Hatians, with Cubans... the list goes on and on.
Why won't the Arabs offer sanctuary to the Palestinians? Why are they forced to huddle on the West Bank and Gaza strip?
What happened to the land that was given to the Arabs of the region (actually to Emir Abdullah) called Palestine, and why don't the Palestinians call this land home? Oh that's right, because the Emir was so afraid of the 'Palestinians' that he basically drove them out.
Most of you people need a history lesson, and need to stop 'learning' your history and view of world events from the modern media. I'm sure no one will mention what the Jordanians did to the region... ethnic cleansing...