Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump wants to militarize space

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

  • G David Bock
    replied
    The New Arms Race Threatening to Explode in Space

    Trump’s call for a “Space Force” escalates a quiet, dangerous contest between the US, China, and Russia—one whose consequences no one really understands.
    ...
    In the midafternoon of January 11, 2007, US Air Force major general William Shelton sat at the head of a table in a command center at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, holding a telephone to each ear. Shelton was the commander in charge of maintaining the US military’s “situational awareness” in space—and the situation, at the moment, seemed to be deteriorating fast. One phone connected Shelton to his boss, the head of US Strategic Command, in Nebraska; the other connected to Shelton’s operations center, a windowless room full of analysts just next door. In front of Shelton was a can of Diet Dr Pepper, and arrayed around the table were the members of his increasingly nervous senior staff.

    For days, US intelligence had been picking up indications that China was about to conduct a missile test aimed at outer space. The analysts next door—and their counterparts around the world—were tracking ground-based radar signals, monitoring infrared sensors, and poring over images from telescopes in space. All of them were briefing Shelton on what they were observing in real time. At 2:28 pm (PST) their readouts showed a ballistic missile taking off from China’s Xichang Satellite Launch Center, located in the wooded mountains of Sichuan province. The missile rose into low Earth orbit, about 500 miles above Earth’s surface, and appeared to close in on an aging Chinese weather satellite.

    Then the telescopes showed a bright flash.

    Minutes later, the radar screens began to track a growing cloud of debris—at least 3,000 pieces of shrapnel that would each, Shelton knew, spend the next several years slingshotting around Earth at speeds that could far exceed that of a bullet. Shelton was stunned. The Chinese had just shot a satellite out of the sky.

    Not only was this a stupendous technological achievement—to launch a missile from the ground and hit a celestial target moving as fast as 17,000 mph—it also showed a level of audacity not seen in space for decades. “We couldn’t imagine they would go against an actual satellite,” Shelton recalls. “Because of the debris something like that creates, it’s almost unthinkable.” It felt like a wake-up call.
    ...
    For decades, America’s satellites had circled Earth at a largely safe remove from the vicissitudes of geopolitics. An informal global moratorium on the testing of anti-satellite weapons had held since 1985; the intervening decades had been a period of post–Cold War peace—and unquestioned American supremacy—high overhead. During those decades, satellites had become linchpins of the American military apparatus and the global economy. By 2007, ships at sea and warplanes in the air had grown reliant on instant satellite communications with ground stations thousands of miles away. Government forecasters relied on weather satellites; intelligence analysts relied on high-*resolution imagery to anticipate and track adversaries the world over. GPS had become perhaps the single most indispensable global system ever designed by humans—the infrastructure upon which the rest of the world’s infrastructure is based. (Fourteen of the 16 infrastructure sectors designated as critical by the Department of Homeland Security, like energy and financial services, rely on GPS for their operation.)

    Now, Shelton feared, all those satellites overhead had become so many huge, unarmored, billion-dollar sitting ducks.

    In the decade since China’s first successful anti-satellite missile test, Shelton’s premonition has largely come true: Everything has changed in space. A secretive, pitched arms race has opened up between the US, China, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, North Korea. The object of the race: to devise more and better ways to quickly cripple your adversary’s satellites. After decades of uncontested US supremacy, multinational cooperation, and a diplomatic consensus on reserving space for peaceful uses, military officials have begun referring to Earth’s orbit as a new “warfighting domain.”

    On the ground, the military is starting to retrain pilots, ship captains, and ground troops in fail-safe forms of navigation that don’t rely on GPS— like celestial navigation. The US military must relearn how to fight “unwired” and defend itself in space. “We knew how to do that, and somehow we forgot,” General John E. Hyten, the head of US Strategic Command, said in 2015.

    When former director of national intelligence James Clapper left office at the end of the Obama administration, he told me that the increasing sophistication of America’s adversaries in space was one of the top three strategic threats he worried about. Clapper’s successor, Dan Coats, warned last spring that “Russia and China remain committed to developing capabilities to challenge perceived adversaries in space, especially the United States.”
    ...
    https://www.wired.com/story/new-arms...lode-in-space/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Cross-linking related threads (pending a merge?)
    US Space Force...

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Ever
    Wild Space Weapons Ideas

    While space has been an excellent forum for peaceful exploration, it is also an excellent high ground from which to gain a military advantage. Spy satellites have been in use for decades. And in one form or another, as long as the Space Age has been around, various agencies have envisioned using space as a platform for missile launches or other activities. In this slide show, check out the top 10 space weapon concepts from over the years. (This slideshow was updated on Dec. 21, 2016).
    FIRST STOP: Missiles

    Here's a look at 10 nasty ways warfare may reach space.
    https://www.space.com/19-top-10-space-weapons.html

    It's a slide show format.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    If "all men are created equal," then why did the guy who penned that phrase own so many of them?
    All men are equally worthless, which is why you can buy so many for cheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    "All men are created equal", but equal opportunity is an oxymoron.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Anyone that believes all people are "created equal" is a leftist imho.
    If "all men are created equal," then why did the guy who penned that phrase own so many of them?

    Despite the bluster, I'm not sure that a President can create a new force out of thin air. Simply appropriating the funds and authorizing the new expenditures will require Acts of Congress, and regardless of what Trump thinks of himself, he can't impersonate Congress, at least not yet.

    But I'm the main, I agree: over the course of many generations, our Congress has simply ceded its mandate and its responsibilities to the executive, little by little, with only the occasional hiccup. The worst part is that, as a polity, we've come to expect it -- to want it. It's much easier for the Great Unwashed to view government as the work of a lone individual than as the project of a whole citizenry. It's absolves the moronic masses of a lot of unwanted responsibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    Not even close...definitely not as close as the countries you cited. If the President was "authoritarian," he wouldn't be fighting with Congress, including members of his own party, to get something done. If the President of the US was authoritarian, he could just say "We're spending X amount on NASA and that's how it's going to be." Obviously, that's not the case.
    Yet that is exactly what's happening, Trump is redirecting NASA efforts away from evironmental issues towards militarized space, Obama did the opposite.

    There's no reason to assume the next president won't do the same.

    This much power of a single indiviual over strategic issues is simply impossible here.

    Not just this issue either - Paris accord, Ocare, G7, tariffs, immigration, all these things can apparently be decided by the US president at will, your Congress is just a flowerpot.

    That puts you in the category of Putin, Erdogan, Macron and others - a presidential system.

    If you read Trump's order it says "...I have ordered the US Military.." - it does not say "I've put a proposal before Congress..."

    That's authoritarian.

    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    If there is no gulags in program, it's definitely Right Wing.
    Anyone that believes all people are "created equal" is a leftist imho.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 22 Jun 18, 04:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    I'm talking about classical definition of the term and not a local variant.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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 1–2% 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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 ... ???)

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X