COMMENTS:
It is wrong. Therefore, Bush will cheerfully give permission.
by mojo on Wed May 18, 05 10:20am
[+]
It seems the logical progression. I'm sure some military conservatives would have scoffed at mucking up the pretty sky with all these flying contraptions, why it's downright ungentlemanly! But from all that I've read on the subject space based weapons will be able to do more for less money then the land and air based forces we have now.
And in reality we've already militarized space, we use satelites for cooridinating our attacks, spying on our enemies, etc. This change will be superficial, not a fundamental break from tradition.
Satellites don't exactly kill though, herzog.
But they target for missles that do. Fine line.
Fine line... but not quite there.
I'm guessing that most nations would think that it's significanly different if the US started flying stealth bombers over their territory, rather than spy planes.
And I'm guessing even Zerhog would sense a difference between someone holding a camera on him and someone holding a gun.
The truth is: weapons in space is significantly different than cameras in space. And the world will respond accordingly.
I thought the US had reached an agreement with the USSR not to do this. But, apparently like the Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty, we can just dismiss it when we want.
No, lets let another nation do it first so they can get an edge on us...
yeah... in fact, why not kill everyone in the world just in case they decide to kill you.
Paranoid idiot.
Crank: what a brilliant point, why don't we take it even further? Why do we arm our planes? That just scares our neighbors and encourages them to build more planes with guns. Why do we arm our ships? We should just have observation and transport ships, that way no other nation will feel the need to build battleships. Why do we arm our soldiers? Why not have them walk around with cameras and clipboards and record what they see, that way the nations of the world will disband their militaries!
Unfortunately crank some of us have to live in the real world.
LSD: do agreements made with extinct organizations still count? The greeks had a mutual defense agreement to keep out the persians, is that still in effect?
Imagine if ET were to turn up one day. His first sight, as he wheels the flying saucer into a perfect parking orbit, are an array of death-ray platforms. "Uh, why don't we try the next civilization over?"
Zerhog:
You should try living in the real world, sometime, instead of your big lie world of neo-con paranoia.
In response to your latest non sequitur: placement of weapons of new locations isn't the same as disarming existing weapons. Your bitter analogy is bogus.
It's a good idea to have them but it was stupid to be open about it.
Geez tough one. In theory I believe that space belongs to us all in some way, so I don't like the militariztion of space per se. On the other hand I'm conflicted because I want America to be safe, so that clouds the issue for me. Not sure how I feel. Lets get them up there, try them out and see if it was worth it. If we can totally take out China in a few hours, cool deal, we did the right thing. :) (half kidding there)
No anything that might advantage the US in any way is a definite no-no.
Here's a shocker, I have no problem with the idea of weapons in space provided every safety precaution is taken.
With the current aircraft technology available I don't see why this is necessary. A stealth bomber or cruise missile could do the same damage from Earth as they could from space. That is if the weapons you plan on putting up there are conventional. I don't see this as anything else but trying to get fancy and more "advanced" than the others. I don't see how much advantage this will give to the US over others. It's a waste of money if you ask me.
Voted : No
Oh, dear God no!
It's not actually the idea of weapons in space that I disapprove of, per se.
It's the idea of them being put up there by the American military operating under George Dubya'.
DANGER, Will Robinson!
|
