Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump wants to militarize space

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    The only benefit that I can foresee coming from this proposed Space Force it that it will deprive the Air Force of funding. Apart from that, Space Force is a loser.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      Your standards.

      By my standards anything that agrees with the US Consititution, Bill Of Rights OR the New Testament - is a leftist AND a liberal.

      Keep on trying
      If there is no gulags in program, it's definitely Right Wing.
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by phil74501 View Post

        So you don't have a "right wing" in Europe?
        We do. Neo-nazis, separatists, populists and stuff like that.
        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          The only benefit that I can foresee coming from this proposed Space Force it that it will deprive the Air Force of funding. Apart from that, Space Force is a loser.
          I'm looking at the long game here. We need to get back to space. As someone (not here) pointed out, it's impossible to dominate space. However, anything that get's up back in space is a good thing. Also, I just ****ing want to be able to call someone a Space Marine in my lifetime or a Space Pirate.
          Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            No you're not...
            Yeah, I am. You're just so far to the right you couldn't see my left ass check if I was a 800lb doubleganger of Ronald Reagan.
            Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Trump is calling for a new branch of the military, a "space force."

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...cid=spartanntp

              This amounts to militarizing space. This is something that's been avoided by the major powers outside reconnissance up to now. One can bet that any "Space Force" will want to start finding ways not to just cheaply put their forces in space but to supply weapons to them in doing so. If he gets this, it could start a brand new arms race between the US, China, and Russia in particular, with possibly some other powers joining in. I can't see the EU jumping into this as they are spending next to nothing on defense and are loathe to increase that spending.
              Before I read up and get caught up here, I've got a beef to kick out.

              Has to do with the sloppy mis-use of language and terms, most often seen from the MSM and Leftie-Loonies, and would appear to be meant to blur and obsificate not only language used, but more importantly the concepts considered.

              Once one or more Nations had reliable and effective orbital photo reconnaissance satellites in orbit, "SPACE" was militarized!

              Been that way for about 4-5 decades or so for now!

              What we really are talking about and considering is if "SPACE" should be "WEAPONIZED" despite decades old International Treaties against doing such. NOTE that this doesn't mean there aren't capabilities of a few Nations to provide an Earth/Surface based anti-satellite~satellite destruction capability.

              For USA this would translate into how much and how quick can we employ our "anti-sat" abilities, and/or how much of such do we have ???

              With international treaties prohibiting placing weapons in SPACE, such as LEO or beyond, Weaponizing Space means either ignoring the Treaties or renegotiating new ones. Also, there remains the matter of how many nations have clandestine weapons already in space/orbit and are remaining mum on such ...

              Logic of military history and perspective strongly suggests that Space~LEO and beyond, will be the next battleground of any future conflict. For example, so many recce, commo(C3), and Navigation capabilities of the USA military are dependent upon Space Systems, that by default one should expect we have already found work-arounds to "weaponize" on short notice if "the balloon goes up".

              Just one example; GPS was largely funded out of the USA DoD (R&D)budgets and has been "arranged" for global and international use ... Thank you USA (yeah, like that will happen from the rest of the world).

              Come a certain conflict threshold passed, and don't doubt that encryption protocols kick-in and only USA military will be able to have within feet accuracy using GPS. All others will be lucky to use it with a hundreds of yards/meters accuracy.

              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                If there is no gulags in program, it's definitely Right Wing.
                So you are saying that "gulags" is a definite leftie~liberal sort of thing ???
                Last edited by G David Bock; 21 Jun 18, 03:26.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  So your are saying that "gulags" is a definite leftie~liberal sort of thing ???
                  Liberals aren't lefties. They're exactly at the opposite.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                    Liberals aren't lefties. They're exactly at the opposite.
                    Not by USA definition and use of those terms.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      More regarding Militarization versus Weaponization of Outer Space ~ LEO and beyond.

                      After the Francis Gary Powers episode of getting a U-2 aircraft shot-down over USSR airspace/territory in May 1960, we find that within a decade or so, orbital satellite capabilities for Recce are exceeding those of high flying terrestrial aircraft and future "Powers" episodes are fading fast.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

                      As LEO satellites show increasing ability for high resolution imaging and other sensory data collection, the USA is not only no longer in need of atmospheric overflight to know what lies behind the Iron Curtain, but now from neutral ground of high~LEO we can get as good and increasingly better gauge of the "lay of the land" behind the USSR. By the 1970's, "Space" has been militarized.

                      What remains is if Space will become weaponized, or more correctly, When ???
                      (and by whom initiating ... ???)

                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                        Not by USA definition and use of those terms.
                        The difference between left and right is defined by question of possession of means of production. Liberals support the owning of tools of production by elites and per consequent are on the right.
                        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                          The difference between left and right is defined by question of possession of means of production. Liberals support the owning of tools of production by elites and per consequent are on the right.
                          EXCERPT:
                          ....
                          In the United States, the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European and worldwide usage. In the United States today it is most associated with the definition of modern liberalism which is a combination of social liberalism, public welfare and a mixed economy,[1] which is in contrast to classical liberalism. In the 19th century it was not a common term in American philosophy or politics, partially because the two main parties were a mixture of populist and nationalist elements. ("Conservatism" was not a common term until the mid-20th century as well.) The Democratic Party was the party of free trade, low tariffs and laissez-faire entrepreneurialism, while the Republican Party advocated national citizenship, transparency and government efforts to stabilize the currency. Liberalism in the United States was primarily defined by the self-proclaimed liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. While the emphasis on mutual collaboration through liberal institutions as an alternative to the threat and use of force remained consistent with international liberalism, United States liberals also claimed that individuals have a right to expect the government to guarantee social justice. This was in part a consequence of the influence of the ideas of British economist John Maynard Keynes on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal had the effect of stealing the thunder of social democratic forces and the necessity to prevent social unrest strengthened this development. As the term socialism can be understood as communistic (as in U.S.S.R.), many to the left of center moderated their views, aligning with the New Deal liberals. The Democratic Party is identified as the liberal party within the broader definition of liberalism thus putting it in contrast with most other parties listed here. Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, and a mixed economy (and therefore modern liberalism). The Republican Party experiences a somewhat fractured economic viewpoint with some members supporting strong free-market and libertarian views (and therefore economic liberalism) and others championing pro-business stances, though both sectors typically mix their fiscal views with strong aspects of social conservatism. The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, (though still only getting 12% of the vote in congressional elections), and particularly centers itself on free markets and individual liberty, which is more in line with classical liberalism. (Main article: Liberalism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States)
                          ...

                          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          Meanwhile, we are drifting into a topic for another thread.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I'm talking about classical definition of the term and not a local variant.
                            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                              I'm talking about classical definition of the term and not a local variant.
                              1) Which is why I posted that link.
                              2) This is a USA hosted forum with majority members from USA, so we use the term here in that manner as shown above.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Well, the local variant in the US has also become something of a pejorative. Politicians of every stripe in the US studiously avoid being tarred a "liberal." That is why in the US the term has moved to Progressive. Saying you're a "Libertarian" on the other hand tends to connotate more of classic liberalism.

                                Classical Liberalism in general terms:

                                Decries the welfare state
                                Argues for free markets with a minimum of government interference.
                                Criticize group rights and champion individual rights
                                That the legal system should protect individuals from the government as much as provide a system to resolve crimes and civil issues
                                That the citizenry as a whole provide for the common defense

                                So, classical liberalism is very much a construct of the Right not Left.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X