Beawulf Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I'm curious what everyones opinion is on this issue. Recently the US government has said that they are not planning to put weapons into space. That being said they are spending 500 million a year developing such weapons as antisatellite weapons, space-based antimissile systems, laser beam weapons and bombardment satellites using kinetic impact, directed energy and possibly nuclear explosions. and the air force is pushing for the approval to deploy these weapons 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review in the US said that it should be a priority to have a monopoly on weapons in space and to deny other nations the ability. the U.S. Space Command has a doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance," saying that "the nation which dominates outer space will dominate the Earth." Space, according to the Space Command, is a legitimate and final frontier from which the United States should project its power. Personally I find this all a bit unsettling, I dont think any nation should have that much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Well, I don't like the thought of weapons (of mass destruction) in space either, but that would be one way to ensure that humanity would be united in the long run, if only the US had these weapons and they used them appropiately to achieve this objective. Now I'm a European myself, but I'd still prefer the US to have these weapons, than say India/Pakistan/some terrorist. In the long run it will be unavoidable that coutries will put weapons in space, but I'm willing to bet big that once the US does it, a lot of other countries will follow, France will for sure!! And the US will have no possibility of stopping these countries from doing so, since only developped coutries would have the resources for this and so a boycot would do just as much harm to the US's economy as to the opposing countries. Ultimately, this might even lead to WW3 if both groups decide to stick with their positions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 What it is, is that the US government is saying one thing and doing another... as usual. They want everyone else to leave space alone while they stick their foot up there. I have long since stopped trusting the motives of the US Government... if I ever really trusted them at all. I'm not very sure things will work out if the US has weapons in space... With the diminishing rights of US citizens, the overt callousness of the US government, and their obvious pushing of multinational corporate interests over those of their own citizens and normal people around the world... Let's just say I hope -nobody- puts weapons in space yet... things are WAY too unstable right now for that to be a good idea, regardless of who happens to be behind the controls. Edit: We're already marching headlong into World War 3... if the US puts weapons in space, that march will turn into a sprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodoxxx Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And of course the U.S. goverment would never lie to us. If they say there are no weapons in orbit then thats it. After all they told us the truth about Vietnam, Sadams weapons of mass destruction and George Bushes Connection with the Bin Laden family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And of course the U.S. goverment would never lie to us. If they say there are no weapons in orbit then thats it. After all they told us the truth about Vietnam' date=' Sadams weapons of mass destruction and George Bushes Connection with the Bin Laden family [/quote'] Ooh, I think I must have missed something in the news then. What's this about George Bushes connection with the Bin Ladens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Now , I'm not 100% on this BUT : I thought there was an International Law banning Space Based weapons , PERIOD. (2nd) But , hey , when was the last time "International Law" stopped the US doing anything?? Absolutely correct, I never knew the US minding about any laws, not even their own! :D btw, nice avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Now , I'm not 100% on this BUT : I thought there was an International Law banning Space Based weapons , PERIOD. (2nd) But , hey , when was the last time "International Law" stopped the US doing anything?? exactly. IF there is a way to put weapons in space, the US will be the first to do it and they wont hesitate for 1 second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And of course the U.S. goverment would never lie to us. If they say there are no weapons in orbit then thats it. After all they told us the truth about Vietnam' date=' Sadams weapons of mass destruction and George Bushes Connection with the Bin Laden family [/quote'] Ooh, I think I must have missed something in the news then. What's this about George Bushes connection with the Bin Ladens? I can see somebody hasn't seen the highest grossing documentary in history. Although it's a piece of propoganda, rent Fahrenheit 911, it's well done in that inimicable Michael Moore style. He's also written a book documenting every fact he presents in the movie. Moore's propaganda is slick. He'll start a sentence with a fact and then conclude with an interpretation, never bothering to divide the two. Still, I think he's more "fair and balanced" than FOX "News" could ever hope to be. Also, check out TruthOut, a free daily news clipping service that W doesn't want you to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And of course the U.S. goverment would never lie to us. If they say there are no weapons in orbit then thats it. After all they told us the truth about Vietnam' date=' Sadams weapons of mass destruction and George Bushes Connection with the Bin Laden family [/quote'] Ooh, I think I must have missed something in the news then. What's this about George Bushes connection with the Bin Ladens? I can see somebody hasn't seen the highest grossing documentary in history. Although it's a piece of propoganda, rent Fahrenheit 911, it's well done in that inimicable Michael Moore style. He's also written a book documenting every fact he presents in the movie. Moore's propaganda is slick. He'll start a sentence with a fact and then conclude with an interpretation, never bothering to divide the two. Still, I think he's more "fair and balanced" than FOX "News" could ever hope to be. Also, check out TruthOut, a free daily news clipping service that W doesn't want you to see. In all fairness to George B.u.s.h., he is not the one setting the policy for the United States. He may have pushed for the war against Iraq, he/his party may have push for a policy benefiting businesses rather than common people but some of the really big issues is a Standard US policy. Weapons in space or loooong term foriegn policy is not determined by some guy in office 4 or 8 years max in office of US presidency. This is the truth that 'documentaries' such as F.9/11 shield so well either intentionally or unintentionally. Even if Gore or Clinton or whoever, the strategic interests of US will remain 99% the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodoxxx Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Many thanks again to elderbear. The TRUTH OUT website is a bit of a revelation, much more informative than "The Smoking Gun" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 (2nd) But , hey , when was the last time "International Law" stopped the US doing anything?? Heh... the US has broken or at least not ratified a disgusting number of international treaties on bioweapons, mines, nuclear weapons, and space-based weapons platforms since Bush came into power... why should any of the smaller countries honour them if the US won't? These and other actions by the US Gov't are making the world enormously unstable -_-'... ... the US never ratified the International Criminal Court, either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Many thanks again to elderbear. The TRUTH OUT website is a bit of a revelation' date=' much more informative than "The Smoking Gun"[/quote'] Well, actually, I stopped reading it after about 5 minutes, because it made me feel real uneasy. How can humanity be so blind!!! Edit: heh, heh, well reading it again actually quite explains how they can. Foolish me! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 ... well, the fact that a huge chunk of people working in North America are too busy slaving at minimum wage jobs to think, and those that have money are too comfortable to care what the hell is happening outside their bubbles... ... also, when's the last time you've seen an honest government? They don't want to take anything approaching a moral stand unless driven to it by force. And the news... these media corporations want to keep people happy and supportive of the status quo and their interests... 'Will stories like that boost our ratings?' they ask themselves, and decide (for us) that we're not interested in seeing this stuff. Hell, in the US they can report that everybody is happy, and fire or buy off protesting reporters with no problems, thanks to a case for unlawful dismissal that got overturned in appeal just over 10 years ago. As long as they can keep a veneer of integrity to fool people, they can air anything they want, accurate or not, meaningful or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 ... well, the fact that a huge chunk of people working in North America are too busy slaving at minimum wage jobs to think, and those that have money are too comfortable to care what the hell is happening outside their bubbles... ... also, when's the last time you've seen an honest government? They don't want to take anything approaching a moral stand unless driven to it by force. And the news... these media corporations want to keep people happy and supportive of the status quo and their interests... 'Will stories like that boost our ratings?' they ask themselves, and decide (for us) that we're not interested in seeing this stuff. Hell, in the US they can report that everybody is happy, and fire or buy off protesting reporters with no problems, thanks to a case for unlawful dismissal that got overturned in appeal just over 10 years ago. As long as they can keep a veneer of integrity to fool people, they can air anything they want, accurate or not, meaningful or not. Yes - everybody is happy, but make sure and sensationalize dangers that the viewer cannot do anything directly about: drive-by shootings, armed robberies, child-molesters, rapists. While the violent crime rate has dropped, the percentage of news time dedicated to it has climbed. Fnord! Gotta keep everybody lulled into complacency and anxious at the some time - it makes for maximum pliability and the ability to get away with the destruction of the scientific process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 It's amazing how often the least educated and worst idiots and incompetents end up with power - usually also induced by crazy religious dogmas or likewise "JUSTIFYING" their methods and interests... Crazy.. and I thought the government was supposed to enforce the will of the people, not force ITs will on the people. From what I've seen and heard, most people are pretty ok throughout the world, but it's easy for outsiders to deem an entire country based on its government - however it could also be debated that the people is equally responsible for its government. However - back to most people again; Most people are against wars, crimes etc. yet the military and defense initatives are incredibly powerful - usually with the ignorant excuse that "it's for the people's own good" like the very people they're supposed to protect (which they rather seem to control) are nothing but sheep. I have mixed feelings about this - I can't even comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Actually, I should have said, "Hell, in the US they can report that everybody in the world is happy" or some other rediculous statement ^^'... the point I was trying to get across is they can blatantly lie on the air, fire/pay off reporters that don't want to lie, and it's all legit in the courts. Edit: ... and since virtually all the news outlets are owned by five (or some small single digit number around there) big media companies, they can all agree to say the same lie, keep the ratings up, and squish the careers of anyone who disagrees, since they do have a habit of having a collective blacklist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Gotta keep everybody lulled into complacency and anxious at the some time - it makes for maximum pliability and the ability to get away with the destruction of the scientific process. Oh, yeah... -_-'... most of the climatologists in the world are now screaming about global warming, and the Bush administration is dancing around with fingers in ears singing something or other... I suspect "I'm in the Money", myself -_-'. Triple post avoidance edit: Most people are against wars, crimes etc. yet the military and defense initatives are incredibly powerful - usually with the ignorant excuse that "it's for the people's own good" like the very people they're supposed to protect (which they rather seem to control) are nothing but sheep. Sure... but in the US, how much influence does the average person really have, especially since all a government needs is 51 people out of 100 in any particular state to support them? The other 49 people don't even get opposition representation on a federal level... unless I'm mistaken about the US electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Sure... but in the US, how much influence does the average person really have, especially since all a government needs is 51 people out of 100 in any particular state to support them? The other 49 people don't even get opposition representation on a federal level... unless I'm mistaken about the US electoral system. In the electoral system you do need majority not necessarily 51% since 3 candidates may alter the 51/49% thing. But to address your main point the government is not just the US presidency which is determined by the electoral college system. There is the equally powerful Congress which is in itself made up of two divisions. And the equally powerful judicial branch. So the 49% of people do get opposition when they elect senators or house repressentatives. And even though the judges are appointed by the president, they are given life terms so they are supposed to work for the people and not for the president. Its not like they will get fired for going against the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcat13 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 ok several points to adress here as a political science degree holder from the university of Miami 1st the race to put weapons in space is a legitamite goal to protect the interest of the United States .The treaty that was abstained by the United States was not vetoed by the United States which they would have had a right to do . 2nd The United States is no more corrupt than any other government in the world and they all put thier interests first as well .I am not a fan of G W Bush but every country has a right to put the rights of thier people and corporations above those of other countries and if you are all going to bash the United States for thier enslaving the proletariat you ought to be looking at countries such as China who are way more corrupt and way more willing to violate international law . 3rd you throw out laws strictly meant to weaken the military base of the United States and expect us to happily comply.It gets real easy to pick on the country with the strongest military but last time I checked The United States wasnt exactly out there looking for world conquest.Can the same be said for some of the Terrorist countries and for China for that matter ? finally, I am a democrat and to say that the goals of the Dems and Republicans are the same shows that you have little knowledge of the workings of the US government . 60 million peoplke did vote to oust GW that is a record number of negative votes for any president in US history and on an ordinary election would have easily won the day . security became a large issue in this country because of 9/11.It made a people who thought they were relatively secure become very uneasy so it is a typical response to make sure that the people inside our borders are safe .While I vehemently disagree with the policies of GW and admit that Fox news is highly slanted ,I would maintain and remind you all that alot of information that americans get is gleemed off the internet and not at all censored . For those of you out there who think that we in the US are slaves remember that we are allowed to freely leave our country and also remember that McCarthiesm came and went so will the Bush era of politics and with the economy doing poorly probably sooner than later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Impressive "defensive" speech and rightly so; however, being a student, your first line should have been that issues such as this easly blow up to something based on rumor rather than fact - just like any media-propaganda thing and that it IS merely a discussion first and foremost. I hope this thread is truly only on a discussion basis and what-if, since there are not enough facts to prove that what has been discussed IS happening. In the spirit of non-trolling; no one should bash (let he who is without sin cast the first stone..) nothing. However another thing is how the US has behaved and no it's no better than other countries behaving in the same manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now