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."
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
For the most part, agreements between one or two are effective (a bilateral agreement is like a contract), while agreements between many are simply meaningless gestures that only bind the honest.
Remember that governments aren't honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how many nations have space weapons? usa, china & russia, now my maths isn't that great but i count that as an agreement between the us and one or two other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Pakistan and India, both of whom have both nuclear and space programs? What about Iran now being a space power, and claiming to be a nuclear power? The days of Russo-American nuclear hegemony are now over. The old cold war agreements are no longer effective at promoting worldwide security.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Translation: Illegalizing guns means only criminals will have guns.
Illegalizing space weapons means only criminals will have space weapons.
China supports this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama: "Today I have signed an executive order banning all space weapons."
China: "Yay! We fully support this."
*China blows up all U.S. satellites*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
U.S.: responds to first strike and rains down 1,400 nuclear warheads on China
so what's your point again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, blowing ALL our satellites up could only be interpreted as precursor to chinese nuclear strike. Your imagined body count in that scenario is low, over a billion would die. your Flexible Response would apply to destruction of one or a few satellites, perhaps. sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Blowing up a US satellite does not equal a first strike to a US city. It would be very hard to convince the rest of the world (much less the citizens of the US) that such a disproportional retaliation is warranted.
However, the ability to also destroy China's satellites is a nice deterrent due to the fact that retaliation is swift, proportional, and no one is vaporized in the process. Well... Not yet.
I have to agree with the GP that Obama may not have what it takes to maintain a national defense. I mean sp
Re: (Score:2)
wasn't talking about A satellite or even a few, but ALL. Being severly near-blinded in our global monitoring capability, the only possible valid assumption U.S. could make in that case is that nuclear strike by China was next.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S.: responds to first strike and rains down 1,400 nuclear warheads on China
One good hit on the Three Gorges Dam would probably suffice.
Let's hope there is sufficient deterrence value for all sides not to go down that road.
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha, not now nor in the next 30 years would that be possible
Re: (Score:2)
This is as good as an arguement as saying "Cylons show up and nuke earth". Also, why would you piss off your favorite customer who buys all of your cheap crap?
Iran... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saves money, too (Score:5, Interesting)
To generalise wildly, countries with large military R&D spending and manufacturing tend not to be good at consumer products. Military "GNP" is akin to making lots of expensive goods and then putting them all on a bonfire.
In the present case, Obama can achieve several things: reduce the cost of government, please the bluer segments of the US, and perhaps give Bill O'Reilly and co heart attacks. Potential triple win for the new Administration, and no-one gets hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Examples (Score:5, Interesting)
As for your knowledge of WW2 history - I'm sorry, it is utterly inadequate. Apart from the possibility that, had Britain defeated Hitler in the mid-30s the main language of Europe would be Russian, what makes you think the US, which was pretty pro-Hitler at the time, would have let us? Roosevelt had to overcome some pretty entrenched attitudes to give the UK the limited support that he did.
If you read the European history books, you will see that the 30s were pretty much a diplomatic failure. Had the West had the support instead of the fence-sitting attitude of the US, had Britain and France properly supported Austria, Poland and the Czechs, and had Weimar been supported instead of undermined, would Hitler have been allowed to form a Government? We will never know, but one thing is clear: despite its military buildup, Germany lost.
Re:Examples (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the more spectacular takeovers of American production happened back in the 1970's and 80's, in the solid-state electronics field. First the Japanese, then the Koreans and a few others, discussed openly how they were going to do it. Their argument was based on an uncomfortable fact: At the time, developing a solid-state manufacturing facility cost on the order of $1 billion US dollars, and required about a decade of building, training and testing to get it to the point of producing working products. They observed that American management was no longer capable of making decade-long investments. Managers were judged on this quarter's results, and "long term" mean looking at most a year into the future. Americans could no longer build electronics plants, because managers of such investments would be fired within a year due to their zero profitability. So, the Asians argued, anyone who was willing to invest in 10 years of development time could take the entire business away from the Americans who had already done the basic research.
They were right, of course, and this argument still works. American firms invest in short-term marketing research, and make small tweaks to their products that can be profitable right away. Any manager that pushes for longer-term, more expensive research or development will be out of a job before the investment pays off.
There was also a good Help Desk [ubersoft.net] cartoon yesterday about how US industry works these days.
Re: (Score:2)
That's definitely wild generalizing.
Re:Saves money, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Military "GNP" is akin to making lots of expensive goods and then putting them all on a bonfire.
Exactly. Orwell had a point about this in 1984. And since everybody in /. loves Orwell here it is:
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.
Prophet or not, the man has/had a point there, although it's not directly applicable to modern societies of course.
Re:Saves money, too (Score:5, Insightful)
As I recall, the US economy got a boost from reduction in arms spending post-Communism, in the Clinton era. I remember discussions in the UK before that on how Japan benefited commercially from not having a significant military, meaning that not only did they not have to pay for it out of taxes, but engineers who might be making missiles could work on things like better cars.
There was the talk of the peace dividend we'd see after "winning" the Cold War but it never materialized. We're spending more now than ever on the military.
To generalise wildly, countries with large military R&D spending and manufacturing tend not to be good at consumer products. Military "GNP" is akin to making lots of expensive goods and then putting them all on a bonfire.
There was a good little book, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers (I think) and the author said there was a rule of thumb that could be seen through the nation-state era -- exceed a certain percentage of GDP spent on the military and see yourself become marginalized. Anyone who has played Civilization immediately grasps the principle here. Your have x resource units per turn. Your economy will grow at a rate of y and your military power at a rate of z. Too much money spent on the military, you end up not having an economy that can support it, not to mention you'll be driving around with obsolete weapons while your opponents have modern kit. Too little money spent on the military and your thriving cities will be snapped up by your militant neighbors. And it doesn't help that the bastard computer cheats.
The rule of thumb the author came up with was 5%. Keep it at or below that, your economy will keep up a reasonable rate of growth. Exceed that and you risk hollowing yourself out. He calculated that the Soviets were spending something like a third of their GDP on the military. The result is that they had a first world military by some standards but a third world economy that simply could not support it. An analogy would be the freakish weight-lifters who have so much muscle mass that their hearts are struggling just as bad as if the guy was a 500lb tub of lard.
The whole problem with the military-industrial complex is that there's too damn much money to be made in producing weapons. Get enough weapons lying around, people are inclined to use them.
Re:Saves money, too (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no evidence to support such a broad generalization. For example, the country that brought you the Stealth Bomber also designed the iPod.
That doesn't mean that spending more on defense than all the other countries on the planet put together does not have an impact on our general competitiveness, but that impact is complex. For example, high tech military R&D encourages people to go into engineering. On the other hand, the firms or divisions of firms doing military engineering aren't doing much directly relevant to consumer products, and the practices aren't very transferable to consumer products. On the other hand to the other hand, military R&D and engineering supports infrastructure useful to all kinds of R&D and engineering, such as engineering schools and basic research.
There's probably at least a score of "other hands" to consider in a generalization like that.
I would venture one alternative explanation. This explanation doesn't explain everything, but it is certainly worth thinking about. The fact that we spend so much money on defense technology reflects our affluence. We are so wealthy that we buy the military equivalent of luxury goods. A Honda Accord is for most situations perfectly adequate for commuting, but many people who can afford it prefer a Mercedes. Likewise, we might not necessarily need one all weather ultra-flexible (and complex) defense system where two cheaper ones might do, but whether or not it is truly cost-effective, there is no doubt that the more complex system is a tour de force.
The relevance to consumer products is this: they're expensive to make in a country that can afford a bomber that can fly from the US Midwest to the Middle East to 100,000 lb of ordnance. And in consumer goods, while you can make lots of money with luxury niche products, the greatest gross figures are in catering to the masses.
It is always the high end of the low end that you have to watch, which is why Linux equipped Netbooks are such a threat to Microsoft's monopoly. It's not doom, it's just a beachhead on the edge of their profitable territory that they can neither afford to occupy, nor leave unoccupied.
Re:Saves money, too (Score:4, Funny)
China made the stealth bomber?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan didn't spend money on the military because they weren't allowed to. It worked out for them because they basically got a free military from the US.
The US has to spend money on a military, and lots of it. No other country will seriously come to our aid in the event of actual war. We have a HUGE area to protect. I'm all for trimming the fat, but if you think our military budget can be slashed without putting the US at serious immediate risk, you're incredibly naive.
Also, it seems to me that the vast
No worries (Score:4, Funny)
What is special about space? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conventional methods could mean a missile will take an hours to get there. In that time the receiving country can detect, arm and launch their missiles at you. So targetting their missile silo's is kind of pointless, a
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.
Stupid Stupid Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we all know that everyone else will uphold the same morals.
Sorry, but this is just political grandstanding for his base. If the does follow through he will simply gimp the US going forward
Re: (Score:2)
2) Secretly arm space
3)...
4) Blow the crap out of everyone, from space, and celebrate in the nuclear holocaust
re: No, it's grandstanding because .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, it's still a promise any leader can make with no repercussions. (Technology still isn't advanced enough to make "space weapons" feasible.)
The things that we DO make use of in space are spy satellites, which don't really fall under the category of "weapons" - since they're passive devices.
And don't forget, just because a nation promises they're banning the USE of such devices doesn't mean they aren't still spending big R&D dollars on their development. Once a prototype emerges that really looks promising and affordable enough for the military to accept - you'll see a leader lift the ban.
"Great idea!" (Score:3, Insightful)
says the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.
Obligatory (Score:2)
When you outlaw space weapons, only outlaws will have space weapons.
No, move into space in a big way. (Score:2)
But we can do it right. Stick some money into nuclear propulsion (not Orion, try a closed cycle gas core nuclear rocket [wikipedia.org]). If we're not limited to chemical power we can lift a lot more weight [nuclearspace.com]. Make
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.
Astronauts (Score:3, Insightful)
weaponizing space not so nice (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a game we can't afford to play. The cost of wrecking satellites is trivially low compared to the cost of replacing them. I would put space warfare on the same level as chemical warfare, if not in terms of human cost but damage done to the treasury. In WWII, both sides had the gas masks in case the other side used it first but neither did for fear of the chemical counter-attack. And this is in a war where carpet-bombing cities was considered an acceptable tactic.
Here's a question: years ago I read that a poor man's ASAT would be a booster capable of reaching a retrograde orbit on the same orbit as the target. It doesn't contain a guided kinetic kill video, just a big bucket of sand. The sand is released after the orbit is circularized and it becomes a giant, fine-grained shotgun blast that will destroy any satellite on the same plane. Is this one of those hoary chestnuts that just isn't true or is it very plausible?
The other question which I know is serious and yet unanswered: how much shrapnel would be left from an unrestricted space war? Would we be denying ourselves the use of certain orbits for hundreds of years? Low earth orbits will see the junk slowed by the atmosphere and burn up in time but high orbits would be free from the drag and could be there indefinitely. Would it even be possible to armor satellites sufficiently to survive the debris or would we have screwed ourselves but good?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would we be denying ourselves the use of certain orbits for hundreds of years?
Man! That would be annoying! No amateur radio contacts via the satellites put up there for that purpose [amsat.org] :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone let the Soviets, er Russians know (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole space weapons ban was a farce when it was signed, why would that be any different now?
Aside from the FOBS system developed in 1966 and deployed in 1968 (the Space Weapons treaty was signed in 1967, I believe):
"...Nor were the anti-space-weapons treaty advocates anywhere to be seen in the face of other Russian orbital weapons: hardware built to go into space and operate there, not just merely fly up and down on earth-launched vertical sorties. The Russians built an orbital anti-satellite system that apologists pooh-poohed as "unreliable". The Russians put an air-to-air cannon on a manned spacecraft in order to kill astronauts who got too close--not a peep from the "weapons-free space" crowd. In 1987 the USSR launched the 80-ton Skif-DM, what was to be the first in a series of "space battle stations" to carry a 1-megawatt carbon-dioxide laser into orbit for anti-missile and anti-satellite tests, while preparing the Kaskad cruisers to be armed with space-to-space missiles tested on Progress missions--no objections ever recorded from keep-space-free-of-weapons advocates."
(http://www.thespacereview.com/article/744/1)
To suggest that space will NOT be a field of conflict is naive to the degree of the papal ban on crossbows in the middle ages, or the early calls to prevent the arming of aircraft. To claim unilaterally that the US *won't* do it will eventually be seen as the 21st century equivalent of "not reading other gentlemen's mail".
Pollyannas don't do geopolitics very well.
Historical diplomatic successes (Score:3, Interesting)
Far too often in these discussion I encounter ideologues that, instead of approaching each potential negotiation and evaluating it on its merits, apply ideological assumptions and assert that we shouldn't "appease" our enemies. The fact of the matter is, all negotiations have a winner and a loser - and as a global hegemon, the US is in a position to make sure we win. Reflexively spurning negotiation for ideological reasons takes one potential tool out of our hands. Part of the problem is the practical difficulty in selling a hard-nosed analysis of a potential treaty to the public: policymakers can't exactly tell the electorate "Don't worry, we're totally taking Ivan to the cleaners on this one" and then turn around and say "Please sign on the dotted line, Mr. Putin." With that in mind, I present some historical examples of successful applications of "soft" power in order to advance a nation's interests.
(1) England and anti-slavery: By the mid 19th century, there was a Western European consensus that slavery was evil. England successfully argued that since it was so evil, nations should have broad authority to investigate and disrupt the slave trade, and secured agreements to that effect. England happened to have the world's largest navy and command of the sea. Obviously, it was incumbent upon them to take their warships and investigate and disrupt your merchant shipping, dock in and poke around the coastal cities of your client states, etc. etc. to defeat the evil practice of slavery. All it all it was a great excuse to give Her Majesty's Navy an excuse to poke their noses into other people's business and ignore traditional maritime borders. (Not that there wasn't genuine abolitionist sentiment behind these agreements as well. That was the beautiful thing: the abolitionist sentiment could be exploited to emphasize England's existing strategic advantages.)
(2)Petraeus and Iraqi Nationalists. Concurrent with the troop surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus reached out to Sunni insurgents who previously were hostile to American forces and started paying their salaries while encouraging them to oppose foreign fighters and join the political process. I suppose appeasement is OK when it comes from a 4-star general. Consequently, the "Anbar Awakening" occurred and former insurgents became the "Sons of Iraq." It may be premature to describe this as a success, as Petraeus himself readily acknowledges that our gains are tenuous unless we build on them, but for now no one - and certainly no one on the right - has stepped up to argue against the all-but-sainted Petraeus' strategy.
(3)1790s America and the Barbary Pirates:In the 1790s the US had no navy to speak of. For about a decade we paid tribute to the Barbary pirates, because it was more cost-effective than letting them sink our ships. Tribute payments accounted for up to 20% of the federal budget at that time. A full fifth of the budget: imagine the neocon howls of outrage at this indignity. Both Washington and Adams were opposed to tribute in principle and understood that tribute would eventually lead to more piracy, but saw that it was the practical solution for the short-term: transatlantic shipping was essential in growing the young nation's tax base, as there was no income tax then and tariffs were a substantial source of federal revenue. By 1800 America had a brand-spanking-new Navy built just in time for the more hawkish Jefferson to suspend tribute payments, send in the Marines, and kick some pirate butt. Many people are familiar with the butt-kicking "Shores of Tripoli" part, but tend to overlook the decade of swallowing our pride and paying up that made it possible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with you, your analogy has a flaw. I do not believe that there are a lot of 'evil nations' out there just waiting to rob the US of everything they have or some such thing.
Most outside aggression the US faces today stems from past administrations' behaviour toward other nations. Right at this moment, the US cannot afford to let its guard down at all.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a naive view. American invervention in many countries has understandably stirred up a lot of discontent, but the problem of Islamic aggression has much deeper roots than US misdeeds. I'm from Finland, an obscure Nordic country with little foreign policy to speak of, and even I get hate. I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees. Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values. Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Re:Childish (Score:4, Interesting)
Dear Finlander I don't agree your view of the Muslims hate Europe because they hate your freedom. I think the issue is more materialistic then cultural or emotional. The bottom line is they hate Europe because Europe is richer. By Europe I mean not only EU but also US. Actually I should even call it Christendom as oppose to Muslim world. Also there is the element of exploitation of Europe those countries. Maybe Finland as a country did not do that but England, France etc. those countries did their fair share of colonialism in Middle East. So this issue of Muslim aggression is not something that is started yesterday it has its roots all the way back to 1800.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problems in the Muslim world have very little to do with the West. They are same reasons that communism and just about every other evil form of politics takes hold, poverty and ignorance exploited by politicians. The Muslim world is so extrema because their poverty is so extrema. More exactly, the income gap is so extrema across the Muslim worlds. The west is a scapegoat for criminals to stay in power. It is not that much different from say Venezuela, Bolivia, or say the Nazi party and the Jews, Israel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the problems with the Muslim world - a.k.a the Middle East, is that they were once a actual "1st world level group" who were brought down to "3rd world levels" due to the actions of the 'West', first in the form of the British Empire, and afterwards in the form of the American 'empire' as we attempted to set up various puppet governments to prevent the spread of Communism.
And while some of it was due to their own arrogance (aka the Ottoman Empire in WWI) a large portion of it was due to the intenti
Re: (Score:2)
Your experience is very interesting and since I do not have any experience with muslims in the first place, I do not doubt yours.
I'll have to ask you, though, whether you are sure that the reasons you were given were the actual cause of this 'hate' against the west, or just a symptom.
I would imagine that, like a lot of people who yell 'think of the children', those reasons might have been presented to the population just to keep an already lit fire burning.
It is, after all, much harder to get humans to move
Re: (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 the
Re: (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...
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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:5, Interesting)
but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush gets so much criticism because of statements like this, but it is very true. They see our freedom as the antithesis to Sharia Law and responsible for our moral decay.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
No they don't. They hate us because we are the haves and they are the have-nots. They hate us because we don't do anything to help them out. Their hatred has little to do with freedom and little to do with religion and everything to do with poverty.
If you keep a group of people in poverty, make it difficult for them to get an education, give them very little opportunity to pull themselves out, you make them ripe to be manipulated. Religion is a great manipulator. "God says the reason you can't feed your family is because the USA keeps screwing with us. Take them down and our lives will be better."
Give people an education, give them hope that they can make their lives better and the problem goes away. It's harder to get leverage on someone that has something to lose.
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:5, Insightful)
I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees.
Do listen to what people in 'Europe and the West' say about Muslims and Islam? I constantly hear people say that their culture is backwards and ignorant, and that the only thing that will solve the problems in the middle east is for them to embrace Christiantity and our way of life... well... that or a 'nuke from orbit'.
How is that any different from what they say about us?
Or is the only difference that they have 'zealot terrorist organizations seeking to cause us harm'? I suppose that's a difference... we only have state sanctioned organizations seeking to alternately exploit them for resources and that only cause them harm if they don't fall in line.
Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values.
It would change everything.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
That's just idiocy. They don't "hate us because we are free". They disagree with us on religious issues. They hate us because we exploit them and interfere with them, and they (perhaps rightly) see our relative wealth as a direct result of that exploitation and interference.
And extremists use the religious differences to fan that hatred into self-damaging levels of action.
But if we didn't interfere and exploit them, sure, the religious disagreement wouldn't go away, but it would settle down to the same level of agreeability that all relgious factions reach when you have mutual respect.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right because only bullies can bring peace. Just ask Stalin how killing people leads to stability.
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, of course. We can't prove the non-existence of something, after all.
The question is, where is the evidence that Obama thinks this way? Just because you can arrive at the conclusion "we oughtn't pursue space weapons" from the premise "owning a weapon makes you a bully" doesn't mean that the premise is logically necessary. A->B does not imply B->A.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Allies decided before the fall of Germany that they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. If the Japanese were not yet willing to accept unconditional surrender after the first bomb, then the war wasn't over yet.
That's not to say that the second bomb was justified, but politically, the Allies were not going to accept anything less than unconditional surrender.
Re: (Score:2)
And just ask the Jews of WWII how being disarmed helped them. Ask Neville Chamberlain how diplomacy in the face of your enemies worked out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
And look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising... where barricaded Jews starting with a handful of rifles and pistols made asses of the Nazis for months.
You know, it never fails to amaze me how people can demand that "only the government should have guns".
First, there's plenty of evidence (see Nazi Germany) that governments often do very bad things to their populations, and that having no means to resist them just makes the government's job easier. You may still wind up dead resisting, but at least you will have died standing up for yourself instead of dying like cattle at the slaughter. Peaceful non-resistance against violence only works when those committting the violence have a conscience and a moral code against doing it. Otherwise, you just wind up dead like those cows.
Second, there's usually the implication that personal protection (particularly the use of force for it) is the government's responsibility. Legally speaking, the courts have consistently ruled otherwise--law enforcement has no obligation to protect individuals.
As a whole, I see this denial of responsibility, and the desire to foist it off on someone else, to be a form of cowardice. The same people who will deny any responsibility to protect themselves, or who refuse to do so with force because it's "bad" and they "don't want to hurt anyone" (or some other "moral" objection) seem to have no problem asking--nay, demanding--that somebody else, whom the demander has probably never met, risk his life and put his ass on the line to protect the demander's life and ass, using the same force that the demander refuses to use himself.
If you're going to be a damn pacifist, live what you preach. Don't use force to defend yourself. Back down any time someone confronts you and makes any kind of physical threat. And don't sit there demanding that someone else use force on your behalf and do things that you refuse to do for yourself.
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: (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:4, Insightful)
Give them they're fucking country back?
Give them security by removing Isreals atomic option?
Why is MAD an ok tactic for the west but banned in the middle east?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals, there is a defining line.
Any way back to the original topic, non-space based weapons currently have the ability to hit any target on Earth plus they are cheaper to maintain as they do not require a shuttle launch plus in the case of a nuclear sub they are very hard to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Why we want to preserve the status quo in space (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Obama is pursuing a very rational course here. In short, the US does not want to start an anti-satellite arms race, because we're already so far ahead in the satellite race - why reset the game board to zero? A couple of points to consider:
1)In current US military doctrine, superior satellite coverage is a key "force multiplier" by providing C4ISTAR advantages (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). US military planners are particularly keen on these so-called "force multipliers" because they field a comparatively small force numerically.
2)The US has a huge interest in maintaining the status quo in space. The US has a strategic advantage in satellite coverage, and that advantage is currently very difficult to assault in a wartime, short-time-horizon scenario.
3)For the US, declaring "space" a "neutral zone" would basically mean that a whole bunch of military equipment that makes our soldiers fight better is legally considered off-limits
4)Compliance with a space weapons ban is comparatively easy to monitor, because deployment of anti-satellite technology requires testing.
So for the US, a space weapons ban is a no-brainer. The trick will be getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on (at this point no one is suggesting a unilateral ban on space weapons and such a policy would obviously be inane from a national security standpoint.)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to take a bet on whether or not China and Iran sign on and comply?
The Iranian satellite (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... You missed a news report - Iran launched a satellite of its own a few days ago.
Made possible by Russian technology. Read up on the history of Iranian satellite technology - they used Russian launch pads until last year.
Which actually brings up another good point - a nonproliferation agreement has the positive secondary effects of preventing technology transfer to potential rogue states. Again, nonproliferation only works to the extend that compliance is verifiable - which, with ASW, is possible at the testing phase. Note that the Iranians had to do dummy launches, which we detected, for a full year before getting a satellite into orbit. This wasn't some sudden bootstrap of Iranian technology that caught us flatfooted, though you wouldn't know it from reading the sensationalistic press reports.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many rape victims do you know spend 500 billion+ [wikipedia.org] on defense??
But you're right, I'll feel so much better when we have missles in the sky pointed at the entire fucking planet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I've been trying to figure out how to tell people that Obama is a man who happens to be black, and because of this hysteria, he has arguably been given far more trust than any president should be given.
There are plenty of arguments for why we should have space based weapons. If you read the right books, we need them to be prepared to repel alien visitations. Other opinions are equal to the notions of what would have happened if the US had decided that we don't need automatic weapons.
In the end, you will have them. The only question is how much damage are you willing to sustain before deciding to build them.
There is another angle. Space based weapons can be built using civilian space travel/exploration technology and the other way around. I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing. Nobody is perfect, but this 180 degree shift doesn't make sense unless he is just pushing the program underground or plying for political favor somewhere. Neither of those options speak well of him, and neither explanation bodes well for the security and safety of the citizens of the USA.
Those who criticize him for it are quite right to do so, not to mention they are within their constitutional rights to do so. We need to think critically and criticize where it is appropriate. Letting the executive branch run around wildly is what happened over the last 8 years. Time for that to stop. If that means Obama has to explain himself in detail and quite often, so be it. We need transparency and wisdom in the Whitehouse.
Saying that any criticism of Obama is racism is exactly the kind of thinking that Bush used: Any criticism of the Executive branch is unamerican. This, my friends, is what fascism looks like.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA you linked:
Nuclear weapons have tended to prevent or contain conflicts between those nations that possess them. Today's nuclear nightmare tends to focus less on a doomsday exchange with similarly armed rival states than on the nightmare of "loose nukes" falling into the hands of terrorists unaligned with any state and therefore beyond the reach of deterrence. A new batch of nuclear weapons, unfortunately, isn't going to change that.
I know this is a bad analogy, but knives and bows/arrows are still a threat. All the saber rattling with Iran was not about "...terrorists unaligned with any state and therefore beyond the reach of deterrence." It's about a state that they worry is trying to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Kim Jong Il is not a loose terrorist. It's easy to argue that the original reason of MAD is still valid, and that the nuclear deterrents are still needed.
Take this thread altogether and it appears that Obama is working to disarm the USA altogether. Whatever it means I think 'we the people' are owed an explanation that makes sense. When it _looks_ like our defenses are coming down, and troops are being deployed on home soil I think it's high time to be worried; high time to be asking the Executive "WTF are you doing?"
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Childish (Score:5, Insightful)
How is proposing to abide by existing space treaties banning space based weapons "disarm the USA altogether". Obama isn't some hippy Dove. He wants to pull out of Iraq, and beef up the USA military presence in Afghanistan. Diplomancy isn't surrendering. Obama has made it clear that he will fight when it makes sense, but make diplomacy a higher priority.
Obama is pragmatic enough to change course if other nations activities in space were an actual threat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you're talking about the ABM Treaty? If so, you realize that since Bush withdrew that it is null and void?
In so far as actual threat from space-based weapons - I'd say that the major developments in that area concern ASAT weapons and micr
Re:Childish (Score:4, Interesting)
The rest of your post I more or less agreed with, but I differ with you on this comment. Were you asleep during the last 8 years? Or did you just fail to notice that the majority of American people trusted George Bush Jr. to invade a country on completely false pretenses. Moreover, often those that questioned that line were denounced as traitors. Not just the government, we the people allowed this. I'd say the American people trusting Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it has to do with that the American people are gullible, they treat every president that way at first.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is key, it doesn't take more than one location to hide bio weapons.
Probably going to get hit with the modstick for this one, but thats because the people who continue to support the war until the job is done are/were at work. /sarcasm
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of arguments for why we should have space based weapons.
True, but you only need one argument: They're awesome. [mahq.net]
Re:Childish (Score:4, Insightful)
History doesn't really back your views. When in history have nations ever managed to live in complete peace without a balance of power? What nation in history hasn't sought the greatest diplomatic advantage? The only reason countries that lack military options cry to the UN is because it gives them a diplomatic advantage. If those same countries had military supremacy you'd be hearing the very same leaders talking about the need to go it alone.
Look - I'm a big fan of the US taking a less active role in running every other country on the planet. I think that every dollar spent on the gulf war should be added as a tariff to oil imports. Then those who opposed the war don't have to pay a dime for it if they either avoid driving or buy certified non-middle-east gas. It would also help to reduce dependence on oil from the nations that seem to require an invasion every decade or two, and the oil barons will be lobbying less for invasions if they know their products will rise in price every time an invasion is launched. The US should be getting out of the intervention business.
However, the US absolutely should maintain a position of military supremacy. All those nations that get along just fine without big armies do so only because the country that is spending all that money on the military is a nice one. Sure, Europeans might like to hate the US, but they certainly would rather see US flags on aircraft carriers than Chinese ones (or the old Soviet ones). I trust the US government politicians about as far as I can throw them, but I don't see any better options around. For its part the US needs to do a better job of being a nice world policeman, and it wouldn't hurt if other nations realized that the US taxpayers are doing quite a bit to deter conflict in all those other nations that take the lack of a need to have an army for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it worry you that the only reason the US don't get attacked is a superior army and that they can browbeat everyone into submission?
Oh, wait, I forgot about terrorism. Guess why they attack you.
Re:Improving security by lowering defenses (Score:5, Insightful)
So the only way to be safe is to keep building bigger weapons? I don't suppose youve ever looked into the 50 year immediately following WWII? Whats that meme round here "those that don't understand the mistakes of history bound to repeat them".
Not only is heading towards a cold war situation generally a bad idea, but given the current economic situation America doesn't stand a chance. China has a manufacturing capability much greater than America and given how china virtually owns America, you cant even hit china with trade sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously... who gives a shit what he thinks? He's the captain of a sinking ship.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Not Space Weapons? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have more weapons on land, air, sea, even underwater than anyone else
...and you're still terrified.
How is arming yourselves even more going to solve the problem?
You have three potential threats:
1. Russia/China/etc: Have no interest in attacking the US, they have their own problems, they don't need yours.
2. Terrorism: The only successful counter to terrorism has been to make the underlying causes irrelevant.
3. Internal: Good luck with that...
On top of which there is a fourth real threat coming directly from the economic system that is collapsing around your ears and which is most certainly not going to be solved through wasting money on fantasy projects, isolationism, or "reds under beds" paranoia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a responsible way?