Obama's Proposed Space Weapon Ban 550
eldavojohn writes "Obama's proposed ban on space weapons is a complete 180 from George W. Bush's stance on them. Space.com looks at the two sides of the issue and quotes Michael Krepon explaining, 'The Bush administration rejected space diplomacy. We refused to negotiate on any subject that could limit US military options. We have a shift from an administration that was very dismissive of multilateral negotiations [as a whole], to an administration that is open to that possibility if it improves US national security.' You may recall discussing the necessity of space based weapons and Michael Krepon from 2005."
Re:Childish (Score:5, Informative)
You needn't reason with Stalin. He's dead.
You needn't reason with Hamas. They can't attack you (provided you're not in Israel).
So what's left is Ahmi. And he's if anything a loudmouth. He has to be. He's a politician after all, and he's saying what his voters want to hear. Do you think he's stupid? Attacking the US would mean immediate retaliation and the Iran, while anything but a backwater country, can't hold out much longer than the Iraq did, when facing a military machinery like the US army. He would lose. And he knows that.
Ahmi wants to stay in power. That alone is enough reason for him not to attack any place the US could consider important enough to launch a retaliation strike.
Re:Saves money, too (Score:5, Informative)
Then we'd have seen terrorism emerge way earlier. Learn your history, but learn it well.
Germany was economically crippled and, worse, humiliated after WW1. A swift retaliation after Hitler decided to occupy some of the countries, wiping him off the map and forcing Germany to surrender yet again would not have solved this problem. What led to WW2 wasn't simply the emerge of Hitler. The core reason was the humiliation of Germany at the peace treaties of WW1 and the ensuing thirst for revenge, and the extreme fear on the French side with a doctrine that dictated that Germany has to be crippled to the point where it could never pose a threat to France ever again.
The solution was only found after both sides found that it's better for peace to accept the mutual right to exist.
Misleading Summary (Score:5, Informative)
This is a misleading summary, albeit cribbed from the first story linked.
This is the basis of the story for both articles linked, it's a part of the Agenda found on Whitehouse.gov:
link [whitehouse.gov]
A ban on weapons that interfere with satellites is very different from a ban on space weapons. The former I could support, it's an agreement to protect the common good, mankind's access to space, from the possible disastrous consequences of ringing the planet with debris. The latter I would have deep reservations about.
Re:What is special about space? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because launching a big freakin' rocket (big enough to put stuff in orbit) will go unnoticed. Especially when you already have satellites in orbit looking for events like that. Do you really think that the militaries all over the world aren't keeping track of the stuff the other side has put up there?
So if you target a countries known military bases/silos/leadership from space you can prevent them from retaliating.
Yes, if you can orchestrate that one, magnificent strike that will take out a few hundred targets in fifteen minutes or less (with weapons coming from satellites that are scattered over several orbits all around the globe). Oh, and don't forget bagging all those missile subs, too, because each one you missed will mean a dozen nukes coming your way.
Conventional methods could mean a missile will take an hours to get there.
If an ICBM (or any other ballistic missile, for that matter) takes longer than an hour, it's probably not going to come down at all anymore.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Informative)
from past administrations' behaviour
This again, eh? Tell me exactly WHAT Bill Clinton did to earn us a 9-11? In 1992, AQ attacked 2 hotels in Yemen, targeting US troops. What did Bill Clinton do to anger them? In 1993, AQ tried to blow up the WTC...again, what did Clinton do? He wasn't known as a war hawk or anything. How did his policies earn this? In 1994, AQ set off a bomb in Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing one person. This was a test for a bomb attack on US planes, later. Again, under Clinton. How did he anger AQ? 1998, two US embassies (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed. Then, the USS Cole in 2000. I'm sure this was because of Clinton's policies.
Bush really hadn't done anything with foreign policy before 9-11.
Is it possible that violence and war will always be simply be a fact of life? You can't always ascribe it as someones fault. Like your bullshit attempt to say the US just got what it deserved.
Re:Childish (Score:3, Informative)
Dishonest revisionism (Score:4, Informative)
For bunnies sakes, the UN did not agree to the invasion of Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War (the one lead by GW Bush).
The security council never allowed such invasion, the US, UK and a few countries trying to ingratiate themselves with the US (Spain for example) went ahead an invaded in spite of not having a legal leg to stand on.
The inspectors were working in Iraq one week before the invasion, They had a mandate from the UN to investigate, which the US and the UK decided to ignore.
The UN secretary at the time, Koffi Annan, publicly acknowledged that the invasion was illegal.
Re:Dishonest revisionism (Score:3, Informative)
Just because the UN didn't feel like following through with their threats, doesn't mean the US, UK, or any other country had to lay down. Oh, and Koffi Annan has the spine of a marshmallow.
Re:Childish (Score:4, Informative)
Tell me exactly WHAT Bill Clinton did to earn us a 9-11?
Nothing. However, his predecessor stationed US troops in Saudi Arabia, a big PR mistake. Imagine that Iran stationed troops at the Vatican and count the ways in which THAT would rub you the wrong way.
Re:weaponizing space not so nice (Score:3, Informative)
Sniper rifle is about 900 m/s.
Satellites in Low Earth Orbit travel at about 8000m/s.
It seems all you need to do is put some sand in orbit in opposite direction for a nice head-on collision with devastating results.
Re:Childish (Score:2, Informative)
Hans Blix said himself, that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well". Furthermore "access has been provided to all sites" and "with one exception it has been prompt." Source [un.org]
These historical huge demonstrations of concerned citizens were a dead giveaway, weren't they?
Re:Childish (Score:3, Informative)
Islam was at war with Christianity from the very start [wikipedia.org], and while Christians no longer have forced conversions, Muslims have no problem with coercion to force conversion. As outsiders, we are all enemies or future converts in the Islamic mindset, and any display of diplomacy on the part of Muslim leaders should be looked on as an attempt to further their goals of converting us all, or if not us, getting in position to convert our children in the future. Muslims have been at this for almost 1400, and they aren't going to stop just because they have a current (temporary) technological disadvantage.
You probably aren't aware, but individuals who publicly convert from Islam to Christianity (and maybe even renounce Islam to become atheist) are subject to the death penalty, and doing so in a western society invites death threats [google.com]. Note that link to Google is about Muslim conversion to Christianity, and almost every link is about somebody being killed or threatened. The Islamic religion will only be peaceful when everybody is Muslim.
Yes you're childish (Score:5, Informative)
You're the child if your view of the world is so black-and-white that you only see either negotiating always no matter how futile, or never negotiating at all. Choosing when to do one or the other is called discernment. Don't deliberately ignore it. Obama has never said he thinks you can reason with everyone, that's coloring you added based on your own view.
Here's a clue for you: Obama didn't try to negotiate with the Talaban when he authorized a cross-border strike into Pakistan, now did he? Clearly he believes that sometimes negotiation is pointless, and the only ambassador you should send is a laser guided bomb. So much for your childish view of his view.
He's not an idiot. He knows sometimes you can negotiate, and sometimes you can't. He wisely thinks that negotiation should be preferred, and writing off anyone who doesn't immediately cave in to your demands as incapable of being negotiated with is detrimental.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Childish (Score:3, Informative)
And maybe the voters want to hear it because the UK and the US were behind the overthrow of the democratically elected president and replacement with a pro western dictator back in 1953. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Childish (Score:1, Informative)
It goes back further than that to the times of the invasion of Europe by the followers of Islam. They hate Europe because they are the infidels: non Muslims and worse yet, ones that don't wish to be subjugated. Do yourself a favor, open your eyes, and read some history. Islam has always been spread by violence and oppression. The openness and freedoms enjoyed by Western nations are an abomination to hard core Islamists.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Informative)
The well-educated and well-off among them hate us just as much. UBL was a billionaire engineer. The 9/11 conspirators initially met in coffee houses in Europe; these were not poverty-stricken desperate people. They also hate us for being successful when they "know" they are Allah's chosen. I've heard this described as cognitive dissonance, which is one of the better explanations out there I think. Part of their brain knows they are destined for greatness, the other sees how far behind the West they are. The result is a violent backlash against reality.
Poverty is a problem, yes. But they say with great frequency that they hate our freedom. It has made us loose, it has corrupted our women, it has made our children fat and indolent, etc. The appreciation of individual freedom we take for granted in America and Europe is not part of their culture.
Give people an education, give them hope that they can make their lives better and the problem goes away.
Not quite. Morocco has the biggest problem in all of Africa in human trafficking, despite having one of the highest standards of living. The relative difference in standards of living between Morocco and nearby Europe has apparently prompted many people to sneak into Europe for a better chance at life. As long as we are better off than they are, it doesn't matter if they get an education or hope.
Re:Childish (Score:2, Informative)
As stated by someone several posts up, the west are the scapegoats. Unfortunately, the poor and uninformed have little choice but to believe their so-called leaders.
Re:Childish (Score:3, Informative)
You really need to either educate yourself (go and visit the countries, even - I have) or stop trying to willingly mislead people about the realities of life in Saudi Arabia.
Re:Childish (Score:3, Informative)
How very magnanimous! Not.
So you're willing to give a "pass" to some people of certain specific religions, even though they're not "pure" like you. And any non-Abrahamic religions get substantially shabbier treatment, right?
Although as I'm about to point out, even the "people of the book" don't get such a great deal...
No, you made the mistake of assuming that someone was too stupid to make such a distinction. But there are some fates far worse than forced conversion, including living as a second-class citizen -- which in the real world is how most Muslim nations treat "people of the book" within their borders.
Our history books say otherwise. There are documented military campaigns during the lifetime of Mohammed, well before the Crusades, which resulted in the deaths of many non-Muslims. You must have a pretty twisted view of history to ignore everything that happened prior to the Crusades. Not every tale of conversion in the time of Mohammed is a happy one, and those who refused to convert... well, many died. It's not as rosy a picture as you would like to paint for us.
Oh, you think our history books are a pack of lies? Right back atcha. But if you're a truly courageous individual, maybe you'll be interested in the historical accounts written by non-Westerners which clearly back me up.