Belligerence in Space

[Sayonara]

That's more along the lines of what I'm looking for, thanks (although it would be nice if you could leave Kerry and Bush out of it).

[TimeTraveler]

civilians run the American government.

 

LOL. Don't we wish this were true. America is in the process of losing control over itself. I don't mean that on a political level but on a fundamental level.

 

However onto the topic, this is how we should be thinking:

 

http://www.space.com/news/garwin_spaceweapons_041108.html

 

As to my opinion, any time we develop new ways to kill and destroy sickens me, but taking it into space crosses all the lines. If the US military begins to think they own space, we are in trouble. No offense to my country but we are in a state of recklessness from 9/11 and we need to back up for a bit and breathe.

 

USA is a peaceful nation and yes sometimes you have to do certain things keep peace in the world, but it seems to me we have been causing alot harm than good.

[Sayonara]

Whoever gets into space first ("properly") will dominate it. That's a fact. I can see why the .gov or .mil would want to secure that for the USA.

 

What's worrying is that it seems to be an automatic assumption on their part that the 4.5% of humanity represented by the American people are somehow by default entitled to not only the majority of consumable resources on the planet, but also to the only chance of developing to the next ecological level that any of us have.

 

And if anyone tries to compete, says the airforce, we'll smack them down. They won't mind.

 

I recognise the ecological drive behind it, but I don't see how "screw you all, we're the future of this species" can be justified as a civilised human philosophy.

[atinymonkey]

The only thing interesting about this plan will be China's response, if they even take it seriously. It's a very archaic attitude to have, that space can be laid claim to. Especially as the commercial use of space is outstripping the military. Virgin Galactic in 5 years time will have more active spaceships than NASA. It just sounds like the blustering of a military establishment that probably thought it would be in spacefighters by 1999. Unless the Stargate actually does exist, all that report shows is a wish list.

 

I trust I don't need to explain why a rogue nation with nukes and satellites in orbit is a bad thing.

Nope. But you may have to explain why you don't think the US is a rogue state, because that's how the international community and the UN view it. We have no control over it, nether does the UN, therfore it is rogue in our perception.

[Aardvark]

Whoever gets into space first ("properly") will dominate it. That's a fact. I can see why the .gov or .mil would want to secure that for the USA.

 

What's worrying is that it seems to be an automatic assumption on their part that the 4.5% of humanity represented by the American people are somehow by default entitled to not only the majority of consumable resources on the planet' date=' but also to the only chance of developing to the next ecological level that any of us have.

 

And if anyone tries to compete, says the airforce, we'll smack them down. They won't mind.

 

I recognise the ecological drive behind it, but I don't see how "screw you all, we're the future of this species" can be justified as a civilised human philosophy.[/quote']

 

Don't worry Sayonara, there's a big gulf between words and reality, the USA may think it is automatically entitled to 'space supremacy' but no one else does. And the USA won't be the unchallengeable top dog for ever, a quick look at history shows that no one nation can have a global monopoly on power for ever. In the end, at the very least they will have to amilorate their actions and co operate with others.

 

That said, i have a low regard for the judgement of anyone seriously calling the USA a 'rogue' nation. The USA is a sovereign state, the UN or anyone else has no right to seek to 'control' it. Putting the USA in the same club as North Korea is foolish at best.

[atinymonkey]

That said' date=' i have a low regard for the judgement of anyone seriously calling the USA a 'rogue' nation. [/quote']

Why, because it doesn't sound patriotic?

 

The USA is a sovereign state,

 

The US is not a sovereign state. Unless the US is finally deferring to King George's rule.

 

the UN or anyone else has no right to seek to 'control' it.

 

Hence the word rogue, as in under nobodys control!!

 

Putting the USA in the same club as North Korea is foolish at best.

 

I never did. But, since you want to do comparison, in the past week alone the US has killed more innocent civilians than North Korea has managed since the 1960's. Which country has the peaceful isolated existence and which one kills the most innocents in foreign lands?

[Sayonara]

And the USA won't be the unchallengeable top dog for ever, a quick look at history shows that no one nation can have a global monopoly on power for ever. In the end, at the very least they will have to amilorate their actions and co operate with others.

That's not the primary concern.

 

The difference between this and historically similar situations is that once you get control of space with these kind of weapons, that's it. Nobody else has a chance to match you unless you allow it, which is of course wide open to arbitrary selectivity and preferential treatment.

 

If the USA ever has these weapons up there, I think they (meaning the .mil and .gov, not necessarily the civilian population) have demonstrated that they would be quite happy to use them to keep other nations and races down, and they won't give a shit what anyone else thinks because hey - nobody can do anything about it.

 

 

That said, i have a low regard for the judgement of anyone seriously calling the USA a 'rogue' nation. The USA is a sovereign state, the UN or anyone else has no right to seek to 'control' it. Putting the USA in the same club as North Korea is foolish at best.

I think it's fairly obvious that atinymonkey was referring to the child-in-a-playground-like lack of accountability that the USA .gov displays in international politics, rather than likening them to the dastardly pinkos.

[Ophiolite]

Pangloss, what would your attitude be to plans by the EU to 'take out' the US GPS satellites to prevent them aiding hostile forces in some future conflict? On the spectrum ranging from 'I wouldn't mind at all' to 'that is an act of war'.

Since the US military plan exactly this action against the European GPS I wondered if you had an equal opportunity approach for the Europeans.

[Severian]

Well, it is all very well for them to say that they will attack neutral targets in space, but if they actually do it I would have thought they would be in big trouble. The US legal system is presumably sufficiently robust that the owner of the satelitte would be able to sue the USAF for billions and billions of dollars. No?

[YT2095]

but also sufficiently robust enough to keep a claimant tied up in litigation for centuries too

 

just look at what Bill Goats has done over the years to smaller companies, the Military can do much more!

[Sayonara]

Well, it is all very well for them to say[/b'] that they will attack neutral targets in space.

The strategy is not confined to firing on targets in space, but also ground control centers, communication systems, and launch facilities.

[Aardvark]

I never did. But' date=' since you want to do comparison, in the past week alone the US has killed more innocent civilians than North Korea has managed since the 1960's. Which country has the peaceful isolated existence and which one kills the most innocents in foreign lands?[/quote']

 

Actually North Korea takes the lead in the dead people stakes. No one knows how many people have died in the man made famine in North Korea but UN estimates are in the millions. And implying that North Korea has a 'peaceful isolated existence' is a clear example of poor judgement.

 

The USA is a soveriegn state, i take it from your comment that you were obliquely refering to federal structure of the USA, an irrelevance.

 

I fail to see what patriotism has to do with thinking it a matter of poor judgement to call the USA a rogue state. The USA not being under other nations or organisations control does not make it a rogue state, it makes the USA an independent, sovereign state.

 

By common parlance North Korea is a rogue state, when you call the USA a rogue state you are trying to put it in the same club, to deny that is disingenuous at best.

[Aardvark]

The difference between this and historically similar situations is that once you get control of space with these kind of weapons' date=' that's it. Nobody else has a chance to match you unless you allow it, which is of course wide open to arbitrary selectivity and preferential treatment.

 

If the USA ever has these weapons up there, I think they (meaning the .mil and .gov, not necessarily the civilian population) have demonstrated that they would be quite happy to use them to keep other nations and races down, and they won't give a shit what anyone else thinks because hey - nobody can do anything about it.[/quote']

 

No, i don't think the USA will be able to seize a permenant advantage in space, whatever their declarations. My reading of history shows that that just does not happen.

 

 

I think it's fairly obvious that atinymonkey was referring to the child-in-a-playground-like lack of accountability that the USA .gov displays in international politics, rather than likening them to the dastardly pinkos.

 

On the contary, his use of language clearly shows he is trying to draw an equivalence between the USA and nations such as North Korea.

[Sayonara]

No, i don't think the USA will be able to seize a permenant advantage in space, whatever their declarations. My reading of history shows that that just does not happen.

I am not sure which part of history you could be referring to.

 

 

On the contary, his use of language clearly shows he is trying to draw an equivalence between the USA and nations such as North Korea.

You brought up NK, not him, and it was you who decided that all rogue nations are so labelled because they share attributes other than 'not playing ball'. Looks like a contrived argument to me.

[atinymonkey]

Actually North Korea takes the lead in the dead people stakes. No one knows how many people have died in the man made famine in North Korea but UN estimates are in the millions. And implying that North Korea has a 'peaceful isolated existence' is a clear example of poor judgement.

 

*sigh* My reference was to innocents killed in foreign lands by each country. It was not in reference to unsubstantiated rumors of famine in either of the states. North Korea has attacked no other country but South Korea during the civil war. They are insular and have provoked no actions that could make them as either insurgents or a rogue state.

 

The USA is a soveriegn state, i take it from your comment that you were obliquely refering to federal structure of the USA, an irrelevance.

 

The US has no sovereign, and so they are not a sovereign state. They are, in actual fact, a democratic republic. This is not irrelevant, but quite important. Unless your making a reference to corporations controlling the ruling majority, which is a contrivance for another discussion.

 

I fail to see what patriotism has to do with thinking it a matter of poor judgement to call the USA a rogue state. The USA not being under other nations or organisations control does not make it a rogue state, it makes the USA an independent, sovereign state.

 

No, I don't see it that way. The illegal practivce of hostile occupation in direct opposition to the international ruling council make them a rouge state. The govement acts of it's own violition, beholden to no country or law but it's own. It may be harsh to label it rogue, but that's how it acts in reality and that moniker fits.

 

By common parlance North Korea is a rogue state, when you call the USA a rogue state you are trying to put it in the same club, to deny that is disingenuous at best.

 

It is nothing of the sort, I am not being in the least insincere about my opinions nor do I need to be. Having Korea labeled as rogue implies that it performs rouge actions. Korea, of course, does not perform any actions whatsoever outside it's own borders. It is in essence controlled by China, and in that respect the nearest thing it could be called is a puppet state. I appreciate that the whole fear of Johnny Communist has resulted in Korea being put into the axis of evil, but it's only aspect of none conformity is it's communist system of government. You can't even claim that the refusal to allow weapon inspectors is the action of a rogue state, as the US has never allowed inspectors access either.

 

[ QUOTE]I think it's fairly obvious that atinymonkey was referring to the child-in-a-playground-like lack of accountability that the USA .gov displays in international politics' date=' rather than likening them to the dastardly pinkos.[ QUOTE']

 

On the contary, his use of language clearly shows he is trying to draw an equivalence between the USA and nations such as North Korea.

 

Nope. As I pointed out earlier I drew no comparison between the US and Korea, you drew the comparison in a rather blase strawman (post 30). All I did was point out the dichotomy of a country willing to attack 'rogue states' while at the same time refusing to yeald to any international group or countries opinion.

[bloodhound]

Well, like someone said, talking about it is not the same thing as doing it. if they did happen to do it, they they would be in a big hole. i.e sanctions etc.

[Aardvark]

You brought up NK' date=' not him, and it was you who decided that all rogue nations are so labelled because they share attributes other than 'not playing ball'. Looks like a contrived argument to me.[/quote']

 

NK is known as a rogue nation. Therefore to call the US a rogue nation is a clear attempt to draw an equivalence with NK.

[Aardvark]

You brought up NK' date=' not him, and it was you who decided that all rogue nations are so labelled because they share attributes other than 'not playing ball'. Looks like a contrived argument to me.[/quote']

 

NK is known as a rogue nation. Therefore to call the US a rogue nation is a clear attempt to draw an equivalence with NK.

[Aardvark]

*sigh* My reference was to innocents killed in foreign lands by each country. It was not in reference to unsubstantiated rumors of famine in either of the states. North Korea has attacked no other country but South Korea during the civil war. They are insular and have provoked no actions that could make them as either insurgents or a rogue state.

 

The US has no sovereign' date=' and so they are not a sovereign state.[/quote']

 

 

You do like sighing. Maybe you should sigh in sorrow for the dead of famine in North Korea. Unsubstantiated? Don't you think the Red Cross, or World Vision or the World Food Program count?

 

For an insular nation maybe they should have avoided state sponsored terrorism in Burma, kidnappings in Japan and getting their ambassador recalled from Australia for North Koreas involvement in manufacturing and selling drugs.

 

The definition of a sovereign state is one that is independent of outside authority, not one which has a sovereign, you are both pedantic and wrong on that count.

 

The US government is as you state a 'democratic republic', authority is ultimately vested in its people. That is who the US government is beholden to. Vesting authority in the people does not make the US a rogue state. The moniker does not fit.

 

Incidentially, North Korea doesn't define itself as communist. Communism or Marxist Leninnism are not mentioned anywhere in its constitution. It's a weird despotism and it isn't a puppet of China, would that it were. It's one of Chinas biggest headaches, not a puppet.

 

To deny that your use of the phrase 'rogue nation' was meant to raise parrells between North Korea and the US is not credible. By common parlance North Korea is considered a rogue nation, so calling the US a rogue nation is to try and draw an equivalance between the two nations.

[Aardvark]

*sigh* My reference was to innocents killed in foreign lands by each country. It was not in reference to unsubstantiated rumors of famine in either of the states. North Korea has attacked no other country but South Korea during the civil war. They are insular and have provoked no actions that could make them as either insurgents or a rogue state.

 

The US has no sovereign' date=' and so they are not a sovereign state.[/quote']

 

 

You do like sighing. Maybe you should sigh in sorrow for the dead of famine in North Korea. Unsubstantiated? Don't you think the Red Cross, or World Vision or the World Food Program count?

 

For an insular nation maybe they should have avoided state sponsored terrorism in Burma, kidnappings in Japan and getting their ambassador recalled from Australia for North Koreas involvement in manufacturing and selling drugs.

 

The definition of a sovereign state is one that is independent of outside authority, not one which has a sovereign, you are both pedantic and wrong on that count.

 

The US government is as you state a 'democratic republic', authority is ultimately vested in its people. That is who the US government is beholden to. Vesting authority in the people does not make the US a rogue state. The moniker does not fit.

 

Incidentially, North Korea doesn't define itself as communist. Communism or Marxist Leninnism are not mentioned anywhere in its constitution. It's a weird despotism and it isn't a puppet of China, would that it were. It's one of Chinas biggest headaches, not a puppet.

 

To deny that your use of the phrase 'rogue nation' was meant to raise parrells between North Korea and the US is not credible. By common parlance North Korea is considered a rogue nation, so calling the US a rogue nation is to try and draw an equivalance between the two nations.

[Aardvark]

I am not sure which part of history you could be referring to.

 

 

Pretty much any period where there was a large dominant power.

 

For instance in the 19th Century the British ruled the waves. No other nation or combination of nations could challenge the Royal Navy. However times change, new technologies such as torpedo boats and submarines were developed which made some of the naval supremacy obselote. In addition other powers rose and insisted on building ships, the shipyards of the US, Italy and Japan soon provided hard competition.

 

Unless the US declares that no other power is allowed in space at all and backs that up by destroying any non US presence then in time other nations will develop space technology and capability. It is clear the US isn't doing that.

 

Sometime in the future other powers will be in a position of strength, the US will suffer economic problems or weak leadership or suffer some form of crisis. It happens to every power. When that time comes it will be unable to hold on to the monopoly of space any more than the Spanish could keep a monopoly of the Americas or the Portugese of the trade with the East Indies.

 

Not even the Roman empire lasted forever. That is why i'm not worried about these silly bombastic statements issuing from Washington.

[Aardvark]

I am not sure which part of history you could be referring to.

 

 

Pretty much any period where there was a large dominant power.

 

For instance in the 19th Century the British ruled the waves. No other nation or combination of nations could challenge the Royal Navy. However times change, new technologies such as torpedo boats and submarines were developed which made some of the naval supremacy obselote. In addition other powers rose and insisted on building ships, the shipyards of the US, Italy and Japan soon provided hard competition.

 

Unless the US declares that no other power is allowed in space at all and backs that up by destroying any non US presence then in time other nations will develop space technology and capability. It is clear the US isn't doing that.

 

Sometime in the future other powers will be in a position of strength, the US will suffer economic problems or weak leadership or suffer some form of crisis. It happens to every power. When that time comes it will be unable to hold on to the monopoly of space any more than the Spanish could keep a monopoly of the Americas or the Portugese of the trade with the East Indies.

 

Not even the Roman empire lasted forever. That is why i'm not worried about these silly bombastic statements issuing from Washington.

[Sayonara]

NK is known as a rogue nation. Therefore to call the US a rogue nation is a clear attempt to draw an equivalence with NK.

Since you are the one who drew the comparison between atinymonkey calling the USA a rogue nation, and other people calling NK a rogue nation, I fail to see how that shows atm is illustrating an equivalence between the two. I can see you doing it, but not him.

 

Also, calling two things by the same name does not make them the same thing. For instance you could call me a renegade, but it doesn't mean I shot my commanding officer and rode off on a Harley.

[Sayonara]

NK is known as a rogue nation. Therefore to call the US a rogue nation is a clear attempt to draw an equivalence with NK.

Since you are the one who drew the comparison between atinymonkey calling the USA a rogue nation, and other people calling NK a rogue nation, I fail to see how that shows atm is illustrating an equivalence between the two. I can see you doing it, but not him.

 

Also, calling two things by the same name does not make them the same thing. For instance you could call me a renegade, but it doesn't mean I shot my commanding officer and rode off on a Harley.

[Sayonara]

Pretty much any period where there was a large dominant power.

Never before has anyone been able to target and destroy a unit or facility anywhere on the planet within minutes of receiving their orders.

 

 

For instance in the 19th Century the British ruled the waves. No other nation or combination of nations could challenge the Royal Navy. However times change, new technologies such as torpedo boats and submarines were developed which made some of the naval supremacy obselote. In addition other powers rose and insisted on building ships, the shipyards of the US, Italy and Japan soon provided hard competition.

Actually the collapse of our naval supremacy came from within, with the development of the Dreadnought. It was this that spurred other nations on to advance their naval technology and close the gap. So maybe there is a moral in there.

 

 

Unless the US declares that no other power is allowed in space at all and backs that up by destroying any non US presence then in time other nations will develop space technology and capability. It is clear the US isn't doing that.

Not right now, but the point of this thread is that the US military has expressed the desire and/or intention to make themselves capable of firing on arbitrary targets for whatever reasons they can come up with.

Putting anything up there that might in any way be used (eve if it's misuse) against them (or even looking like you're about to) could be seen by them as a hostile act. You've already seen footage of shoot first, ask later; I can be sure of that.

 

 

Sometime in the future other powers will be in a position of strength, the US will suffer economic problems or weak leadership or suffer some form of crisis. It happens to every power.

It's not my concern that they will have an Iron Claw that never goes away again; it's my concern that they will have one at all, for any period of time.

 

 

When that time comes it will be unable to hold on to the monopoly of space any more than the Spanish could keep a monopoly of the Americas or the Portugese of the trade with the East Indies.

The Spanish weren't capable of firing the rods of god platform at any target in the Americas or surrounding oceans by simply pressing a button. Really, historical comparisons of this sort are pointless. It's like saying that the Roman Empire was logically impossible because stone age man never conquered the world, whereas the Roman Empire could and did develop because their resource system, communications and weaponry were far more advanced.