US defends its opposition to ban on weapons in space

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061213/pl_afp/usspacedefenseattacks_061213224420

US defends its opposition to ban on weapons in space

1 hour, 53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States defended its opposition to a new ban on weapons in space, saying it needed to keep its options open amid threats from nations seeking ways to attack US space systems.


Robert Joseph, under secretary of state for arms control and security, said he was unaware of plans to deploy weapons in space but that the new National Space Policy does not preclude that option in the future.

Joseph also said terrorism had emerged as a new potential threat to US space operations on the ground.

"Ensuring the freedom of space and protecting our interests in this medium are priorities for US national security and for the US economy," Joseph said in a speech here on the new US space policy made public in October.

[Kagemusha]

1. You don't need weapons in space to defend against ground terror.

And the ban on weapons in space does not impact weapons on the ground, because they're on the ground.

Am I missing something?

[Book Lover]

2. Yes. DARPA's 10-, 20-, and 50-year plans (nm)

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. But what about space-based terrorism!?

I'm not a big fan of Andy Capp, but I've always like the one of the Bobby writing in his notebook Andy's apparent explanation, "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first."

"Killer satellites" are nothing new:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/ASAT/ASAT.htm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915613,00.html
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/afa/292003g.asp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805
http://www.jamesoberg.com/pearl.html

For as long as artificial satellites have orbited our planet, the idea of "killer satellites" has been out there as well. The US & the USSR both experimented with space-based weapons systems, because we both thought/knew that the other was/would.

One of the scary aspects of Sputnik was the clear implication that the Soviets could send a missile anywhere in the world.

Let's face it, people may use GPS to find their way to their Aunt's house, but those satellites were put up there so bombs and cruise missiles could find their way to their targets.

Our society has come to depend on artificial satellites, but the military was in space first.

[Pavulon]

3. Didn't china attack some birds

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america

This is happening now. This is a reality and will continue to be a battlefield. Treaty or not.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Uh, you need to go back and read your story

It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.

Using a ground-based weapon does not violate a ban on weapons in space.

[Pavulon]

12. I am sure

it was all done in the interest of science.

[SlipperySlope]

4. What ban

I don't see what ban they are talking about? Is this some treaty being kicked around?

[acmejack]

5. The Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS).

The Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) is a 501-C-3 tax-exempt, non-profit foundation whose mission is to educate about efforts to transform the space-based weapons R&D program and war industry into a world cooperative civil, commercial and military space R&D and exploration program and industry (and other industries) without the mandate to weaponize space.

ICIS educates about the U.S. Space Preservation Act and the companion World Space Preservation Treaty. These documents can and will put a literal lid on the war industry while simultaneously allowing the civil, commercial, entrepreneurial and military space R&D and exploration programs to continue once the verifiable ban on space-based weapons has been passed into world and national U.S. law.

[Lautremont]

6. It's so appropriate that your country is known as the US.

It's all about US. We want to keep space safe for US. US US US.

[RC]

7. We would not need any weapons in space it we, The United States

would quit meddling in the affairs of and/or invade defenseless countries.

How would you like it if the gun-nut in the next block came into your home uninvited anytime of the day or night, raided your refrigerator and told you how to live your life?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Correction

US Bush Junta defends its opposition to ban on weapons in space

[IndianaGreen]

11. Like the evil emperor in Star Wars, Bush wants to nuke the entire planet

from orbit. Congress should take the nuclear button away from Bush before he passes Hitler as the biggest mass murderer in history.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. See, they found these secret plans in a cave in Tora Bora

The Al Qaeda flag ship The Wedgie of Allah

When you find SOLID evidence like this, you have to take counter-measures.

[Eugene]

14. Not the old "freedom of action" excuse again!

Once again the Bushies insist that rules that might apply to them
are a bad thing. Their idea of security is being armed to the teeth.
The Bush administration has resisted nearly every security initiative
based on the rule of law.

Terrorism on the ground justifies possible weapons in space?
That's taking the post-9/11 mindset to new extremes.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

15. Bush announces outsourced head of US Space Asset Protection Agency