Relying on the Russian shuttle only, doesn't sound like a very good idea now.

[CK_John]

How many hostages do they have up there?

[rdharma]

1. Huh?

[LisaL]

2. I think he means the space station.

[rdharma]

3. Oh. I still don't get the "hostages" part. nt

[LisaL]

5. I am guessing he thinks that Russia could refuse to bring an American back from the

space station.

[rdharma]

6. Oh. I still don't get it..... but, whateva. nt

[wandy]

7. I agree thats probably what he is thinking. I don't think.....

that is what would happen.
More likely our people would be brought back and the Russians would proclame.
No more rides for you.

If that is all the harm that comes of this it may be a blessing in disguise.
We would have to get back into the game.
If Virgin doesn't beat us to it......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

[LisaL]

12. Well I don't think that Russia will leave the American guy on the space station either.

They might refuse to take more, but I doubt they will leave one already there.
That's crazy.

[wandy]

21. Agree, and... I wouldn't put it past US to have a hold card..............

The last two serviceable SR-71s are not flying.
Either are they in a museum.
No, that would not help here.

I wouldn't put it past US to have something (probably stored right next to the box from Raiders of the Lost Arc) that would solve the problem.

Let us just hope that the worst that comes from this is that we get back into the game.
If mankind hasent blown the planet to hell and back by the middle of next week, then you can all come round and call me some kind of consperiency freak.

I don't think US would have gotten into this arrangement if US didn't have a way out of this arrangement.

[Jenoch]

23. What does the SR-71 have to do with the space station?

[wandy]

36. Nothing! Said that...............

Nothing other than US could put one in the air if US had to.
If push came to shove, US could get our people back.
Again, the SR-71 is useless here.
The point is, somehow or another.
Don't dismiss political trade offs..
Don't dismiss enriching the MIC.

Lets just hope that that won't be the choice.

[Jenoch]

41. Word salad.

[wandy]

47. Word Salid? Not at all...........

THINK
If push comes to shove, what would you do?

Might this come to mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/slide-show-military-mini-shuttle-landing-california.htm

In terms of bringing people back. Again Useless!
As a threat?
Think of the possibilities.

[Jenoch]

49. I did not read your links.

I still do not not know why you brought up the SR-71. Please address that without bringing up any other topics. What EXACTLY does the SR-71 have to do with the Ukraine situation?

[wandy]

54. OK, here we go. If we needed to do it we likely could.............

That would not help here but other options may exist.
You know that's the thing that bugs me about Teapublicans.
They find some 'nit' focus on it and don't read into other options.

I could probably come up with about 8 million conspiracy theories here.
Not gonna play that game.

What would you do?

EOD

[Jenoch]

55. If we needed to do WHAT?

I still have no idea what the point is that you are attempting to make.

[wandy]

59. The point is that at need we will do something......

It may not be pleasant.
Now before we turn this sub thread into more of a pissing contest, tell me......

What would you do?
How would you deal with getting our people back?

[Jenoch]

66. Before we go any further,

you need to explain why you brought up the XR-71. I need to know how that figures in before I can figure out our options.

[penultimate]

71. Think about B-17s for a minute...

They flew over Europe and Russia is a country without a space shuttle, but they use capsules. Time released capsules meant to convince you that you're in space once the time for their released comes and they are released. Remember the Alamo!

[wandy]

75. Thank you. This mess needed some humor! n/t

[oldhippie]

46. That made no sense whatsoever.

What are you trying to say and why did you bring up the SR-71?

[wandy]

51. Sorry about that, sometimes I don't explain things well.....

The point is that we have options.
Some options may be diplomatic.
Some options may be military.
Some options we may not brag about or make generaly known.

It is a bad thing that you and I do not know what US is capable of.
It is a good thing that the Russians also don't know.

In no way do I intend to play the conspiracy theory game.
So.....

EOD

[MicaelS]

4. Russia uses the Soyuz, it is not a winged vehicle like our Shuttle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_%28spacecraft%29

Soyuz is a series of spacecraft initially designed for the Soviet space program by the Korolyov Design Bureau in the 1960s, and still in service today. The Soyuz succeeded the Voskhod spacecraft and was originally built as part of the Soviet Manned Lunar program.

The Soyuz spacecraft is launched by the Soyuz rocket, the most frequently used and most reliable launch vehicle in the world to date. The Soyuz rocket design is based on the Vostok launcher, which in turn was based on the 8K74 or R-7A Semyorka, a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile. Soyuz spacecraft are launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The first unmanned Soyuz mission was launched November 28, 1966; the first Soyuz mission with a crew (Soyuz 1) was launched April 23, 1967, but the cosmonaut on board, Vladimir Komarov, died during the flight's crash-landing. Soyuz 2 was an unmanned mission, and Soyuz 3, launched on October 26, 1968, was the first successful Soyuz manned mission. The only other fatal mission, Soyuz 11, killed the crew of three also during re-entry due to premature cabin depressurization. Despite these early fatalities, Soyuz is presently widely considered the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight system, as demonstrated by its unparalleled length of operational history.

Soyuz spacecraft were used to carry cosmonauts to and from Salyut and later Mir Soviet space stations, and are now used for transport to and from the International Space Station (ISS). At least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to ISS at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Maybe we should learn to mind our own business to avoid "hostage" taking and wars.

[Adrahil]

10. Yes, let's IGNORE the fact that we promised in a treaty to defend their territorial integrity...

... in exchange for them giving up their nukes.

"I'm sorry Crimea, we didn't mean it. Good luck!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Works for me.

[Adrahil]

14. Promises mean nothing eh?

.... not my way of thinking. I'm not suggesting we fire up the tanks or anything (at least not yet), but we cannot simply walk away. That would be dishonorable. And yes, I think honor and integrity matter. That treaty was designed to avoid PRECISELY this scenario.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Even if it means killing people?

See Vietnam and treaties we had with South Vietnam for a reference point.

[Adrahil]

16. Sometimes, yes.

Killing is ugly. But it's not the ugliest of things.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Oh? Do tell me about the "ugliest" of things.

[Adrahil]

43. Well, in my opinion....

... being willing to turn your back on people you promised to help when the time comes is WAY uglier. I consider such behavior beyond reprehensible.

I respect pacifists. I cannot respect those who don't keep their word, or worse, openly advocate not keeping of one's word.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Well, I'm overjoyed that you respect me....sort of.

I'm the kind of pacifist that finds no go good reason to kill. But, killing to keep one's "honor" isn't very "honorable" in my eyes.

[Iggo]

38. It is too the ugliest of things.

[Adrahil]

40. I'm sorry that your world is so poor...

... that there is nothing you would be willing to fight, and yes, even kill for.

[Iggo]

42. Who said that?

[Adrahil]

44. You did. Or at least that's the way I interpreted it.

I consider the subjection of innocents worse than killing. Perhaps I'm more sensitive since half of my mother's family was in East Germany, and several were executed for the unnamed "crimes against the state."

[Iggo]

45. Ah, you said it.

Making it up as you go, I see.

[Adrahil]

50. Well, instead of being snarky, how about explaining your position?

I mean you said it IS the ugliest of things. I assumed you meant that meant that you were unwilling to kill in any circumstance, especially since you didn't elaborate. Is your position that it is the ugliest of things, but your willing to do it sometimes anyway? If so, then say so.

[Iggo]

52. It is the ugliest of things.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

[Adrahil]

53. That doesn't explain your position.

You said I was making stuff up. Well? IS there something you are willing to kill for, or were you just being snarky? If the answer is NO, that you're not willing to kill for anything, I can accept that. I don't agree with it, but at least it'd be an actual answer.

[Iggo]

60. Hey you started it, bud.

"I'm sorry that your world is so poor..."

All I said is that killing people is the ugliest of things. Accept that.

[Adrahil]

61. So still no answer. NT

[Iggo]

62. My position is that killing people is the ugliest of things.

What about that position do you need explained to you?

[Jenoch]

26. Tell us more about the U.S. treaty with South Vietnam.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Try this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4583093

[Jenoch]

30. I asked about the treaty you mentioned we had with South Vietnam.

Treaties are enacted by a vote of the U.S. Senate. I'm still waiting for a link to the treaty you mentioned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Read it again.

Call it what you like. If it quacks like a duck....

Do you think it's a good idea to kill people because we (well, the bosses) signed a treaty?

Also, you might want to try taking a look at the run-up to WWI and all those lovely treaties that the bosses chose to stick to....and the results.


"The United States has commitments to assist South Viet-Nam in defending itself against Communist aggression from the North. The United States gave undertakings to this effect at the conclusion of the Geneva conference in 1954. Later that year the United States undertook an international obligation in the SEATO treaty to defend South Viet-Nam against Communist armed aggression. And during the past decade the United States has given additional assurances to the South Vietnamese Government.

[Jenoch]

32. I like to deal in facts.

The U.S. did not have a treaty with South Vietnam. We do have a treaty with Ukraine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Should we "honor" it?

I think not if it involves military force. And, what Ukraine are we talking about. The one that existed when we signed the treaty or the one in existence now?

[Jenoch]

39. We need to honor our obligations.

The U.S. administration that signed the treaty is no longer in power either.

[baldguy]

18. Bury your head in the sand & hope the real world goes away?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. The "real" world doesn't require that we kill people for the bosses.

The bosses take that onus on themselves.

[baldguy]

34. "What the heck are you talking about?"

By all means, let's cheer on a nation's struggle for freedom & urge them to assert their right of self-determination against those that would oppress them - but stand back & ignore their pleas for us to honor our promises of support when those oppressors come to attack them.

That's exactly what "the bosses" would want us to do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Are the protestors in Crimea equally deserving of our "protection"? Are they not Ukrainians?

Which Ukrainian freedom fighters are we to cheer on and support?

[baldguy]

37. The people protesting in Crimea are ethnic Russians.

They're the descendants of the Russians Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union put there to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check.

Your comments reveal that you don't even have a basic clue about who the players are. A perfect reflection of your parochial, uninformed attitude.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. The people protesting for civil rights were descendents of slaves

put there to replace native Americans who refused to be slaves. Should they not have protested? Or, should they have been sent back to Africa?

In fact, the Russians in Ukraine are Ukrainians who have every right to protect their country, or secede from it, in the face of undemocratic mobs.

[baldguy]

65. Russians living in Ukraine think of themselves as Russians.

More proof you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Jenoch]

67. In a survey, the ethnic Russians in Crimea identified their nationality as Ukrainian,

something like 71% as I recall. I don't have a link but I read it on one of these DU threads today.

[LisaL]

68. Yea, right.

[Jenoch]

69. You don't believe there was a post

like that on DU or you don't believe the survey had those results?

[penultimate]

72. Russia should mind it's own business too then.

I think we should stay out of it as much as possible, but Russia is plowing ahead full steam.

[Token Republican]

9. Technical Difficulties

If they were to play this card, they'd use technical difficulties as the excuse.

It worked in 1948.

[Rex]

13. NP, in a few years China will have one and they are our BESTEST FRIEND.

Globalization can be real heartburn for countries with a pony.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!

[Warren DeMontague]

19. The Dragon is probably ready to be man-rated now.

I wouldn't worry too much.

http://www.universetoday.com/107505/whats-ahead-for-human-rated-spacex-dragon-in-2014-musk-tells-universe-today/

[LongTomH]

24. That's rather premature!

In a pinch, I think SpaceX could have a Dragon spacecraft ready to rescue astronauts aboard the ISS; but, it wouldn't be fully 'man-rated.'

[Warren DeMontague]

29. As per that linked article, they're scheduled to demonstrate exactly that this year.

In addition, there are several other LEO options in the pipeline; Orbital Sciences, Boeing to name a couple AFAIUI.

[Johonny]

57. I agree

SpaceX would be more than happy to have the $$ flow their way. We as a nation have been investing in that company for a reason. The people at USAF and NASA aren't all idiots with no foresight as the original post suggests.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Agreed... despite the shitfits, outsourcing LEO transport makes some real sense.

NASA itself should focus on exploration, not re-doing something theyve been able to do for 50 years.

[penultimate]

73. Kinda expected evolution that most people would have predicted, aye?

[Warren DeMontague]

74. I understand that people are used to thinking of space exploration as a national enterprise.

However, Low Earth Orbit is no longer "exploration" territory.

Sure, for many of us who grew up reading science fiction, much of this stuff is "yeah, about time"... but really what NASA is doing right now (on a shoestring budget, no less) is some long overdue strategic thinking after years of short sighted decision-making, Starting with the fundamental flaws designed into the Space Shuttle--- essentially Nixon's fault.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Here's a good WaPo graphic on the Dragon v. Soyuz

[TheMightyFavog]

20. Russia does not have a space shuttle.

They haven't had a shuttle since they scrapped the Buran program when the Soviet Union collapsed, and that program only ever flew a single unmanned test mission.

Russia still uses the old single-use Soyuz spacecraft that has been the workhorse of the Soviet/Russian space program since the Summer of Love.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. Congrats

That's the most bizarre take I've seen on this whole thing.

[pinboy3niner]

48. Indeed. Tell you the truth, I'm more worried about HAL 9000...

[Johonny]

56. If only the United States relied on Russia for space

but we don't and the majority of the space program is fine if Russia refused to take US money to launch our Astronauts then no doubt Orbital or SpaceX would jump at the chance. We have been as a nation investing millions in that previous company for this thing we call a reason. There is the world as it is and the world you think exists I contend they aren't the same thing. America has been working to not rely on Russia for any of its space program and to have redundancy in the system. It is the reason we have a Delta IV and a Atlas V. One needs Russia one doesn't. It is what they've been doing while you were thinking about the space shuttle that not even Russia uses.