Friday, February 10, 2006

USA Wants USA Weapons In Space--Against Wishes Russia, China and India

By Elaine Meinel Supkis

Again and again, the Pentagon tries to militarize space. The latest gambit is to put up weapon systems that can destroy satellites in order to "protect" our satellites. What? If no one else has weapons in space, why do this?

From Reuters:
The military's role in deterring attacks on commercial satellites is set to be strengthened in the first broad overhaul of U.S. space policy in a decade, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

The policy would remove any ambiguity about official responsibility for figuring out who was behind any attack on U.S.-owned commercial satellites, said Air Force Col. Anthony Russo, head of the U.S. Strategic Command's space division.

Russo said recent drafts of the policy, which he said could be announced within months, did not rule out weapons in space.

Instead, they speak of taking "all appropriate measures to defend our space assets," he told a reporters at a forum organized by the private Center for Media and Security.

"All appropriate measures is a pretty broad statement," Russo said. "It doesn't rule out weapons in space. It doesn't say go build them either."
Boy, aren't they coy? So clever. "Maybe yes, maybe no," from the world's most overarmed, over extended military? They all have this horror vaccuui. They see an empty space, they have to fill it.

In the Game of Go, if you fill all the empty spaces, you lose, you know. The importance of making rational choices means the winner of that game is the one who has the most territory with the least number of stones.

In this case, no one, so far, is threatening any satellites.
Currently, no known weapons specifically designed to apply force are stationed in space -- an absence that Russia, China and many others strongly support.
Way back, years ago, I lobbied for the USA to sign the "Peaceful Uses of Space Treaty" but just like the Kyoto Accords, our rulers wanted the option to be nasty and took it. We won't sign the landmine treaty for the same reason. We want to use them. We pretty much signed off of the Geneva Conventions, too.

Well, our rulers don't obey American laws or honor the Constitution, so probably this is all moot, anyway.
Russo described President George W. Bush's emerging national space policy as an "evolution" from the current one, issued in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton.

"The new bit clarifies that (the military's responsibility) extends to commercial assets that are not necessarily providing U.S. government services," he said.
Since corporate America owns our government, why not make it seamless? After all, our foreign policy towards Central America was run for years and years by banana importers!
Tens of thousands of incidents involving possible attacks on satellites are reported each year, he said. But only a handful of these turn out to be deliberate efforts to pirate services or interfere for political reasons.
OK. Clue me in. What exactly are these "thousands of incidents"? Stealing bandwidth? Like college kids tapping Roadrunner lines? Huh? Good grief. It would be like Time Warner blowing up fraternities for stealing bandwidth.

Exaggerating dangers so we can have an excuse to create very serious dangers is modus operandi for this regime. Just like 9/11 could have been prevented by simple police work that is already possible under pre-Patriot Act laws, so, any future problems with our satellites can be taken care of via diplomatic UN type means. Blowing up stuff in space is an insane solution.

The real plan is to shoot down any European, Indian, Russian or especially Chinese satellites before we launch attacks on one or several of these countries when our demented ruler launches WWIII. Just to prevent the temptation to start WWIII, we must prevent the militarization of space.

Cue Darth Vader's marching song.
Previous Similar Articles
To return to homepage click here
To read more science news click here
Washington Pest

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home