It's Official: We Own Space - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 11:00 AM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
It's Official: We Own Space

Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A01

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs.
The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.
Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.
"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."
Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.
The official also said the administration has briefed members of Congress as well as a number of governments, including Russia, on the new policy. The public, however, has not learned much about it: The policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement.
The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.
In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites.
Because of the political sensitivities, several analysts said, the Pentagon probably will not move forward quickly with space weapons but rather will work on dual-use technology that can serve military and civilian interests. But because many space initiatives are classified, Krepon and others said, it is difficult to know what is being developed and deployed.
Some of the potential space weapons most frequently discussed are lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite.
The new Bush policy calls on the defense secretary to provide "space capabilities" to support missile-warning systems as well as "multi-layered and integrated missile defenses," an apparent nod toward placing some components of the system in space.
The new document grew out of Bush's 2002 order to the National Security Council, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to assess the nation's military and civilian space policies. The review has already led to a major shift in emphasis at NASA, away from research and unmanned exploration to returning Americans to the moon and then sending them on to Mars.
Some sections of the 1996 Clinton policy and the Bush revision are classified. There are many similarities in the unclassified portions, and the NSC and the Defense Department emphasized that continuity. But there is a significant divergence apparent in the first two goals of each document.
Bush's top goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there."
Clinton's top goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."
The Clinton policy also said that the United States would develop and operate "space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space" only when such steps would be "consistent with treaty obligations." The Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."
A number of nations have pushed for talks to ban space weapons, and the United States has long been one of a handful of nations opposed to the idea. Although it had abstained in the past when proposals to ban space weapons came up in the United Nations, last October the United States voted for the first time against a call for negotiations -- the only "no" against 160 "yes" votes.
The U.S. position flows in part from the fact that so many key weapons systems are now dependent on information and communications from orbiting satellites, analysts said. The U.S. military has developed and deployed far more space-based technology than any other nation, giving it great strategic advantages. But with the superior technology has come a perceived vulnerability to attacks on essential satellites.
The new policy was applauded by defense analyst Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said that he supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, as well as its emphasis on protecting military assets and placing missile defense components in space. He also said that he liked the policy's promotion of commercial enterprises in space and its apparent recognition that private satellites will need military protection as well.
The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701484_pf.html


Long Live the Empire
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 11:22 AM
RFC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Good, now maybe the Clinton's can sell some of it to N Korea!
post #3 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 12:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, since we can't seem to manage Afghanistan or Iraq, maybe we have a better chance in places where there are no people.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #4 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 01:25 PM
RFC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
maybe you should quick go to one them places and show them how to do it!
if we didn't have concern for the non combatants (people) I'm sure we could have
ended it with 2 maybe 3 air strikes.

but some tarts wouldn't like that either

Last edited by RFC; 10-18-2006 at 01:28 PM.
post #5 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 05:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFC
maybe you should quick go to one them places and show them how to do it!
if we didn't have concern for the non combatants (people) I'm sure we could have
ended it with 2 maybe 3 air strikes.

but some tarts wouldn't like that either
Well, you'd better commit to genocide then, and get it over with. I hear they need someone new to try in the Hague.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #6 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 06:58 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
hague is
hague is not the place to try
hague is vague?
hague is 'laughing stock'
hague is good news
hague is ferocious but unreal
hague is slipping
hague is not the place to try milosevic
hague is questioned by the cambridge campaign for peace
hague is not the place to try milosevic the tribunal is effectively the legal arm of nato in the balkans seumas milne thursday august 2
hague is openly a firm supporter of the eu
hague is not nuremberg
hague is washington's unilateralist bent a threat to multinational organizations?
hague is 'laughing stock' sir edward heath is stepping down from the commons former conservative prime minister sir
hague is having his image re
hague is very efficiently located near both amsterdam
hague is a very accessible city
hague is just 40 kilometers
hague is a great place for a holiday
hague is 'mistaken' over macpherson
hague is ferocious but unreal the conservatives think that the euro is their ultimate weapon full coverage of election 2001
hague is slipping special report
hague is a refined and elegant city dating back to the 13th century
hague is not our problem
hague is not the place to try milosevic the tribunal is effectively the legal arm of nato in the balkans seumas milne thursday
hague is the place where the gouvernement
hague is likely to draw
hague is chief technology officer of fieldserver technologies
hague is the country's seat of government and residence of the royal family
hague is located in the residential area of the hague
hague is reflected by the presence of many foreign embassies and international organizations
hague is also the permanent home to a multitude of european and global organizations
hague is a very attractive city
hague is investigating a number of top
hague is the administrative capital of the nation and the home of the court and government
hague is open
hague is "which angle first"? comment from redrose
hague is home to the royal house
hague is more a scapegoat for anti
hague is the third un city in the world
hague is home to a large number of
hague is more sexual than the disney cartoon mermaid
hague is an unavoidable institution
hague is the seat of the dutch legislature
hague is still leader of the conservative party
hague is wrong over exclusions
hague is mainly residential; its economy is based largely on government and administrative activities
hague is characterised by both an established presence of traditional industries such as food service companies
hague is also home to the opcw
hague is a beautiful city
hague is where i live
hague is a city of contradictions
hague is an attorney
hague is the seat of the dutch
hague is still parc or
hague is famous
hague is a dutch international school catering for the needs of secondary pupils who are not dutch and also for those dutch
hague is the seat of government of the netherlands
hague is the base for the dutch parliament and its ministries
hague is located in the centre of the "randstad"
hague is over
hague is famous for the delftware porcelain which has been produced here since the 17th century
hague is all that is good in the
hague is known as a trumpeter
hague is an old city
hague is most aware of its long indies history during the pasar malam besar
hague is an important milestone for the court
hague is government center
hague is provided by one poll by mori
hague is the administrative capital of the kingdom of the netherlands
hague is a much more modern illustrator than foreman
hague is accommodating nowadays
hague is very honoured with the arrival of the world peace flame
hague is located opposite the voorburg railway station and only 3 km from the city centre of the hague
hague is only a ten minute drive
hague is approximately 16
hague is courting the evangelical christian vote here in the uk just as george bush is doing in the us
hague is the local representative for reno
hague is among the most important and interesting cities in the netherlands
hague is bound to do more harm than good
hague is supposed to provide answers to all these questions so the protocol can be fully implemented by 2002
hague is only a few minutes away too
hague is the third largest city in the netherlands
hague is casting a
hague is easy to reach by car
hague is a technical issue for those who voluntarily surrendered
hague is a stocktaking of environmental policies and measures on the urban municipal level in the first place
hague is located in an area of where communication and accessibility with the rest
hague is encountering criticism that he is a political lightweight
hague is a serious musician
hague is a deanery of the diocese of haarlem
hague is both reasonable and necessary
hague is doing his job as leader of the conservative party? q6
hague is the composer
hague is the charming 5
hague is the first town in the county to get their ducks all in a row
hague is the royal residence as well as the seat of dutch government
hague is has vit b deficiency in his brain
hague is well worth visiting and boasts a number of attractions
hague is situated on top of the nederlandse congres centrum
hague is home to the netherlands' royal household
post #7 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 07:06 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Can we stay on topic?
Who wants to help me put a space real estate startup company? Since space is ours, then I don't see why we should not be entitled to partition it for development as tax payers.
I hereby lay claim to all space between the Earth and the Moon and will institute a tax on any traffic or devices aloft within this area. I would like to put my claim retroactive to 1957
DP is offline  
post #8 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 07:54 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Stay on topic?
post #9 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 09:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
How can you own a vacuum of infinite volume? One could claim it. Heck, I claim the Sun.

Establishing rights of ownership, now that's a problem. Every-time I drive a wooden stake into the corona the silly thing burns right up.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #10 of 28 (permalink) Old 10-18-2006, 09:18 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
I claim squatter's rights.


Oh never mind -- I was thinking of the ozone.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Space... how much do/don't you need? iNeon Off-Topic 28 04-03-2006 03:36 PM
    Space Saver MBS430 W220 S-Class 0 12-07-2005 02:56 PM
    If you need more space in your ML... _Dennis_ W163 M-Class 16 11-16-2005 10:45 PM
    OT Need More Space 00 ML430 Bulldog W163 M-Class 8 03-01-2005 11:29 AM
    I just saw official price of SLK55 AMG is $61220 and official 0-60mph is 4.9s. Brian_R170 R170 SLK-Class 21 11-20-2004 07:28 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome