The dozen space weapons myths
Jim Oberg
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/826/1
by James Oberg, The Space Review
Monday, March 12, 2007
The successful Chinese anti-satellite missile test two months ago, the
launch on Thursday of the Pentagon's robot rendezvous craft that can
service-or terminate-other satellites, and an impending US test of an
orbiting rocket-tracking sensor package (the controversial NFIRE mission)
have blasted "space warfare" back into the front of national attention. The
timing is critical, too, with changing political winds in Congress and new
agendas still taking shape.
Probably the greatest impediment to productive debate over alternative
national security strategies for space is the torrent of misinformation and
disinformation that seethes around the subject. Sometimes deliberately
contrived, but more often innocently ignorant and enthusiastic, these myths
and misconceptions can short-circuit and detour news media coverage, public
debate, political maneuvering, and even international diplomacy.
Some of the most alarming accusations in recent official speeches by
ambassadors, delegates, and even heads of state seem to be based not on
sound research, technical intelligence agency analyses, or even direct
face-to-face inquiries, but on unwarranted reliance on the most inflammatory
and off-base news media reports. It's "diplomacy by headline", and it's
frighteningly off course. The consequences of such carelessness could be
even more serious miscalculations.
As an attempt at a roadmap through this space minefield, here is my own take
on the ideas that need to be avoided or discarded on the trek towards a
useful plan for handling the subject and for developing a workable,
reality-based response to the problem.
1. The United States already has satellite killers, why shouldn't anyone
else?
It's not just the hard-line Russian commentators or the North Korean press
that alleges that US military forces are already armed to the teeth for
space warfare: the same explicit assumption often appears in the mainstream
Western press as well. Sometimes the argument even goes, "Well, there's no
official acknowledgement of them-that proves they exist in secret" (as if
the absence of evidence were transformed into evidence of presence).
But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by
Congress (see "Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs", The Space
Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer
technology has been developed. Laser tests seem focused on interfering with
satellite observation equipment, as well as to determine how to develop US
countermeasures against other countries using lasers to interfere with US
observation satellites. Non-destructive radio spoofing seems to be the limit
of the amount of force-short of setting off a nuclear weapon in space, which
would be suicidal-the US is currently prepared to use against space objects.
2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny
access to space" to those players it deems hostile, which translates to
pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground
infrastructure.
Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official
complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right "to deny
adversaries access to space for hostile purposes," and that it claimed the
right (some say "tacitly") for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly
Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: "They [the US]
want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there."
But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such
intent to "deny" access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages
and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some
over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless
to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US
government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most
alarmingly stark terms.
3. The US is planning to deploy space-based weapons (including nuclear
weapons) to attack other objects in space and on the ground.
Many of these stories deal with weapons that travel through space on their
way to surface targets-as military missiles have done since about 1944.
Stationing weapons in space for use against ground targets has long ago been
recognized as far more expensive and less flexible than basing them on
Earth, say, in a submarine. Even planning a space-to-space attack can take
hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a
proper position. This goes double for nuclear weapons: putting them into
space on a permanent basis was last taken seriously in the Sunday comics in
the late 1950's. So these accusations seem to confuse proposed projects
(usually already rejected-that's why the proponents go public with their
ideas) or even Hollywood science fiction for actual hardware.
4. The embryonic US "National Missile Defense" (NMD) system will give the US
an unfairly asymmetric and destabilizing military advantage by threatening
low-orbit satellites.
References to the "latent antisatellite capability" of the embryonic US
anti-missile system in Alaska are somewhat disingenuous since Russia has a
deployed anti-missile system with launchers around Moscow and in Kazakhstan,
with much the same capability and nobody seems to complain. Most discussions
leave the impression the Russian system simply doesn't exist. Furthermore,
range and tracking systems and warhead lifetimes restrict anti-missile
systems to very low satellites, if any.
5. Sensor tests of a proposed space-based missile interception system are
first steps on the road to using such a weapon as an anti-satellite system.
Equating a boost-phase anti-missile weapon (based at sea, on an aircraft, or
even in space) to an anti-satellite weapon overlooks a fundamental design
difference, their guidance mode. To kill a missile during ascent, before it
has a chance to deploy its warheads and decoys, relies on chasing down its
most visible feature: its hot rocket plume. Russian and US space tests have
observed such rocket plumes for decades: there were tests from the Mir space
station, and from at least one Space Shuttle mission, and there are ongoing
tests from new satellite projects. Their purpose isn't just to develop a
kill vehicle, but also to examine how an opponent might do so, and thus what
features of one's own missiles might be modified to make them more
survivable. But these experiments shouldn't deflect attention from one key
fact: satellites don't have hot rocket plumes, and sensors developed to
chase such plume generators (i.e., attacking missiles) wouldn't even see a
passively orbiting satellite. It can't be a target if it's invisible to the
weapon system under development.
6. The Soviet Union opted out of the "space arms race" in 1983 by
declaring-and following-a moratorium on further testing of anti-satellite
weapons.
"Moratorium" is the wrong word, often deliberately so, because Moscow
insisted it had never done anything it now had to stop. Once it became clear
that the Reagan Administration was going to respond to a decade of
space-to-space combat tests of an operational Soviet "killer-satellite",
Soviet premier Andropov applied diplomatic and propaganda pressure (to
encourage Western political forces) by announcing that "the USSR would never
be the first to test anti-satellite weapons"-a cynically-phrased promise
that belied the fact that they had already been the first many years
earlier. The promise was widely described in the West as a declared
cessation of acknowledged space weapons testing, but Moscow insisted it was
not, since it claimed that since it had never began testing, there was
nothing it was doing that it was obligated to stop. That sounds like the way
space lawyers (and space propagandists) quibble.
7. The Soviet "killer satellite" of the Cold War was big, clunky, and
ineffective, so no US response was needed.
While Western advocates of not developing space weapons could not, with a
straight face (as Moscow did), proclaim there were no Soviet space weapons,
they found a next-best-thing argument. Sure, the weapons existed, but they
didn't work, so they were nothing to worry about. But the widely-reported
"low reliability" numbers were generated by often guessing about a test's
success, and then conflating results from operational, deployed models with
research missions with more advanced and experimental guidance systems
(which did fail a few times before working right, at which point tests of
that variant were stopped). Following the Soviet collapse, Russian military
space historians were able to release documentation that demonstrated the
high reliability of the operational Soviet "killer satellite" and thus the
wish-away delusions of many Western experts. Determining it was operational
into the early 1990s was also easy: US spy satellites observed that the rail
lines from the hangars to the launch pads were the first areas plowed of
new-fallen snow.
8. A "killer satellite" (like the Soviet weapon) is no more of a threat than
any other kind of "satellite killer".
Some experimental ASATs in the 1980s and 1990s were ground launched (like
the recent Chinese shot), and some (all Soviet) were space-to-space by an
attacking craft already in orbit. The enormous advantage of an orbital
system (even if launched only hours or days before making its attack) is
that simply by selecting a larger booster, the weapon can be sent into
nearly any orbit of potential interest, at any altitude. With proven support
hardware from other space projects, a killer satellite with a lifetime in
years could be quickly built for deployment in orbits close to potential
targets. These days, much smaller vehicles could be launched and then
maneuvered, undetected, into such ambush orbits. They could even use the
Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key
US observation, communications, and navigation satellites.
9. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) prevented the development of orbital
nuclear weapons and this success is an example for new treaties to do the
same for anti-satellite weapons.
This treaty is widely touted as having outlawed the placing of nuclear
weapons in orbit. The USSR went and built and tested and deployed a system
to do exactly that: to place warheads in low atmosphere-skimming orbits that
could approach their targets "below the horizon" of defense radars (or
approach them from unexpected directions), paving the way for a
thermonuclear first strike. The weapons were not explicitly forbidden by the
treaty, so building them was not illegal, and using them in wartime would
have entirely mooted the question of "legality". The treaty allowed Western
specialists to convince themselves they had kept the genie in the bottle,
but the Soviets had their fingers on the cork.
10. Without new treaties there is no legal protection for US military space
assets.
Proponents of an anti-weapons treaty are essentially saying that the rest of
the world is dying to formally agree to leave the United States in
possession of an overwhelming military advantage based on space-based
assets, and to willingly submit to any future utilization of those
capabilities. If the military forces of at least half a dozen other nations
are not at this time working out ways to neutralize the US space-based
military advantage, they should be court-martialed for incompetence and lack
of imaginative planning. And if they are making such plans, the efforts
become even more potentially effective if the US can be persuaded that they
are not making such preparations. Experience has shown that paper makes a
very poor shield against potential attack, and parties that thought so have
almost always been eventually faced with unpleasant and costly surprises.
11. Rules and treaties can be helpful, even if they "leak", because anyone
breaking them can be identified and punished by the international community.
This rationalization of the tacit confession that treaties can be
disregarded, with the claim that it doesn't really matter, ignores the
one-time criticality and "single-use-sensitivity" of a reliable space
weapons treaty. An enemy really only needs to break it once to gain enormous
temporary military advantage, and after having done so, and exploited that
advantage, who will be around to "punish" them? It's not like a fine for
littering, as some arms control advocates have analogized: it's like hoping
some all-powerful referee will declare a "do-over" after Pearl Harbor. Prime
example: the Soviet Union's orbital nuclear weapon, built and tested and
deployed while the 1967 Outer Space Treaty expressly forbade its use-and
once used, it would render the legal proscription obsolete. Yet this 1967
treaty is widely held up as a "model" for broader space treaties to emulate.
12. Other nations are justified in building "space weapons" because the US
has done so, or is about to do so.
This argument never seems to work both ways. It always justifies any other
country's space weapons, laying the blame on something the US has done, may
do, is thinking about doing, or is merely accused of doing in the mass
media. But it never seems to justify any US hardware-development response to
actual space weapons deployed by other countries, from the cannon mounted on
a Soviet manned space station, to its operational killer satellites and
orbital nuclear weapon launchers, to the recent Chinese anti-satellite
missile test. The US did not respond in kind to those weapons because they
made no military sense-there was no mindless reflex, but instead a rational
assessment of security requirements. Those assessments usually can be made
regardless of the actions of other parties, especially regarding the level
of required space weapons.
Perhaps as befits a subject related to outer space, there seems no limit to
the use of misinformation and disinformation in public arguments about
"space weapons". One final example is from Russian complaints in recent
weeks about US plans to deploy anti-missile systems in Poland and
Czechoslovakia. The US says they are focused at potential Iranian missiles
aimed at North America. Russian spokesmen insist they are intended to
destroy Russian missiles retaliating against the US in a nuclear exchange.
The Russian statements are so preposterous one has to wonder either at the
intelligence of the speakers, or at their estimate of the lack of
intelligence in their target audience (true, the complaints have been taken
seriously in much of the Western mass media). The technological flaw is
simple: missiles launched from Czechoslovakia, say, cannot ever hope to
intercept missiles launched from Russia against America, because-now, pay
attention, Western mass media-Earth is round.
If you look at a flat map and use a ruler, a missile flight path from Russia
to North America might indeed seem to fly directly westwards and cross
Poland and Czechoslovakia. But run the path on a globe, with a string, and
you can see that the true paths run to the northwest from Russia, out over
Iceland. The only destinations of long-range Russian-based rockets that
cross Czechoslovakia would be Brazil or Venezuela: not likely enemies.
Russian military missiles are fast-burn boosters, so there is only a two- or
three-minute interval when an infrared-guided anti-missile could actually
see and hope to hit its target. The flight path is so far north of the
proposed bases that to reach the missile in that interval would require a
rocket able to achieve 20 to 40 G's and a burnout velocity four times escape
velocity from Earth's gravity: far greater power than any rocket ever built
or even just imagined. If this interval is missed, the would-be anti-missile
would then be in a hopeless "tail chase" of the Russian missile, requiring
the anti-missile to be much bigger and much faster than its target.
Nobody is building such an anti-missile, and probably nobody knows how to
even start. So by principles of rocket science, the recent Russian
complaints can be exposed as fraudulent. Is it too much to expect that,
fifty years after Sputnik, diplomats and journalists and policy wonks begin
to get a few clues about how rockets really work, and how propagandists play
to baseless fears and ignorance?
If we can't even get verifiable facts and limits correct, there's no hope of
developing a trustworthy set of international reality-based agreements
regarding constraints on future actions in space or on Earth.
Willie...@gmail.com
question, why did the administration adopt such inflammatory words in
its National Space Policy 2006 document? That's what you're referring
to right?
You claim that Heads of State (I presume Putin) said things they
garnered from the press. Diplomacy through headlines you said. I
don't see it that way. Putin and others are responding to specific
words produced by the White House itself.
If the documents I cite are not the ones you were talking about then
what 'actual documents' are you talking about. Can you point to them
so we can read them for ourselves? You make very inflammatory remarks
yourself about foreign heads of state without supporting your remarks,
and while ignoring very clear pointers to specfic White House
documents others have cited in their remarks;
This is an article that talks a little about the problem in the press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html
And this article is about the 2006 National Space Policy Act - which
is what I think you're referring to, since that's what all the fuss is
about;
http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf
I think the statement from this document that people are concerned
about is the following one;
"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the
ground and space
segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests.
Consistent with this
policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and
freedom of action in
space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or
developing
capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to
protect its space
capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary,
adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national
interests;"
Since the US reserves the right to unilaterally define what
capabilities it believes might be hostile to the U.S. without any
definition of terms, or what circumstance under which the U.S. might
take action to preserve its rights, or what actions the U.S. might
take to impede the rights of others - some reading this statement
might easily come to the conclusion that a great many sins could be
hidden here.
Especially by those such as the Russians and the Chinese who remember
the Gulf of Tonkin 'attacks' by Vietnam which Johnson used as a
pretext to escalate the police action to a war, or Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq which Bush II used to invade Iraq.
Certainly US Citizens have little to fear, but for those space launch
capabilities that exist outside the US and are not directly or
indirectly controlled by US interests, either commercial or civilian,
and if those launch centers are used to launch spy sats and other
satellite infrastructure to match US space capabilities or counter
them, certainly such space launch capabilities could fall under US pre-
emptive attack according to certain readings of this paragraph.
OF COURSE those who have spent considerable wealth developing those
capabilities are going to complain about it! That's why that
statement should never have been put in like that.
I would bet a dollar to a donut that there was bloody hell by the
State Department for this phrase - but it was put in anyway. Which
is typical of this Administration. To hell with the real threat to
national security such actions engender. The U.S is big enough,
strong enough, and gosh darn it, good enough to say it like it is.
This Administation doesn't realize that the rest of the world doesn't
feel this way about the US. That they might fear the US the way the
wife of an abusive husband might fear his gun collection and cringe
every time he retires to the barn for a bit of target practice.
http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach
This Administration forged ahead with a very biased Space Policy
despite what apologists for the Administratoin say about it. As a
result the US is in far worse shape today than it might have been.
This isn't surprising because this Administration forged ahead in Iraq
based on biased intelligence. As a result, this Administration
creates more terrorists and more troubles and more opposition for the
US.
We're not creating an environment conducive to US peace and
prosperity. And this hurts all Americans.
In this limited case for example, a secret capacity to wipe out an
unhardened launch center using conventional stealth forces is far more
effective than bullshit bluster that creates hardened assets in
response to it that can only be taken out by a limited nuclear strike
by the U.S if the need arose.
Our words can operate like insecticides. They may have a pallative
initial effect quieting immediate opposition, but later those toxic
words can create hardened opposition that is resistant to our ultimate
aims of peace prosperity and freedom for Americans
We can show our strength invading Afghanistan and defeating it in days
- and then create new opponents to the US where none existed before by
mismanaging the peace after.
This administration says needless things that actually makes things
more difficult for the US and leads us further away from freedom peace
and prosperity for our own citizens.
More thought must be given to this administrations policies and
actiions to really serve the nation well. Needless to say its a bit
late to say this - but perhaps future Administrations will learn from
this Administations mistakes.
Despite his mistakes, which are legion, one still has to respect the
difficulty of the job of President of the United States, and the
dedication all who hold that office bring to bear on their jobs.
On Mar 12, 10:02 am, "Jim Oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> The dozen space weapons myths
[snip]
> 2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny
> access to space" to those players it deems hostile, which translates to
> pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground
> infrastructure.
>
> Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official
> complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right "to deny
> adversaries access to space for hostile purposes," and that it claimed the
> right (some say "tacitly") for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly
> Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: "They [the US]
> want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there."
>
> But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such
> intent to "deny" access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages
> and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some
> over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless
> to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US
> government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most
> alarmingly stark terms.
[snip]
> If we can't even get verifiable facts and limits correct, there's no hope of
> developing a trustworthy set of international reality-based agreements
> regarding constraints on future actions in space or on Earth.
Then provide verifiable facts - ie the documents you're talking about.
Cheers
William
Rand Simberg
Willie...@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>I think the statement from this document that people are concerned
>about is the following one;
>
>"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the
>ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its
>national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States
>will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in
>space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or
>developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions
>necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference;
>and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities
>hostile to U.S. national interests;"
Replace the word "space" with the word "the high seas." How does it
differ from our current policy?
Jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:465ad727....@news.giganews.com...
Little if any. And which country has the most powerful navy?
What Mr Oberg is attempting to do is exclude intent from
the debate. He states accurately, no doubt, that we don't
have space weapons x,y and z. But glosses over the words
this administration, and our military, have stated that make
our....intent...absolutely clear.
Don't misunderstand my criticism of Oberg's position as
stating I oppose our policies. Quite the opposite, I want
our country to own the high ground and by leaps
and bounds. I'm as big a hawk as they come.
But I just can't for the life of me understand why Oberg
denies the obvious? This country is literally screaming
to everyone that'll listen that we see no reason not to
move our military into space just as soon as we
damn well please. Combined with the unilateral
attack against Iraq, our adversaries got the
message several years ago and started
working on their own systems. So now we
see the results starting to pour in, a new
space arms race.
But to try to claim the US didn't start this arms
race, and intend to win, is just ridiculous.
s
Rand Simberg
"Jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:465ad727....@news.giganews.com...
>> On 12 Mar 2007 15:31:38 -0700, in a place far, far away,
>> Willie...@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>> way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >I think the statement from this document that people are concerned
>> >about is the following one;
>> >
>> >"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the
>> >ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its
>> >national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States
>> >will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in
>> >space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or
>> >developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions
>> >necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference;
>> >and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities
>> >hostile to U.S. national interests;"
>>
>> Replace the word "space" with the word "the high seas." How does it
>> differ from our current policy?
>
>
>Little if any. And which country has the most powerful navy?
>
>What Mr Oberg is attempting to do is exclude intent from
>the debate.
No, actually that's what most opponents of the US do. They completely
ignore all the cries of "Death To America! Death to the Great Satan!"
Jim Oberg
that the US policy was to "deny access to space" to
unfavored nations -- that was the dominent theme
in almost all the press coverage, the specific words that
brought down the wrath of "right-thinking people"
all over the world. And the words are counterfeit,
as your own post proves: the policy makes no such
assertion. Talk about 'diplomacy by headline' -- you've
provided the proof.
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173738697....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> You make a lot of good points, but your point two really begs the
> question, why did the administration adopt such inflammatory words in
> its National Space Policy 2006 document? That's what you're referring
> to right?
>
> You claim that Heads of State (I presume Putin) said things they
> garnered from the press. Diplomacy through headlines you said. I
> don't see it that way. Putin and others are responding to specific
> words produced by the White House itself.
Here's how I explained my complaint to Kaufman:
Date: 03/01/2007 11:15AM
Subject: 'war of words' over space war
Dear Mark -- Finally got some breathing space, and wanted to get to
some issues
before the next round of 'space weapons' rhetoric
In your piece "Talk of Satellite Defense Raises Fears of Space War",
December 17, 2006; Page A12"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600791.html
you report how some people are growing alarmed over supposed US moves
to weaponize outer space. But I'm worried that you overlooked where much of
this alarm is really springing from. It may not actually be from the actual
US space policy, as described in released ?white papers? and public speeches
by administration officials such as Robert Joseph. Instead, a lot of it
(most of it?) might be traced to inaccurate accounts in the major news
media.
This theory can be documented, and some of your own material provides
support. Referring to a Russian space agency official, Vitaliy Davydov, you
wrote that ?he called the Bush space policy ?the first step towards a
serious escalation of the military confrontation space?.? This statement is
not accurate ? what Davydov denounced was NOT ?the Bush space policy? at
all, but instead, was the way that you yourself had described it on the
front page of the WaPo last Oct. 18 in a story
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html)
where you reported that the US ?asserts a right to deny access to space to
anyone ?hostile to U.S. interests.?? There's a difference.
Davydov?s comments were reported in a Novosti news agency story last
November 29, in which Davydov asserted that "now the Americans say that they
want not only to move into outer space but want to dictate to others who can
move there", and it was this ?dictate? that Davydov expressly identified as
a step towards military confrontation. However, this ?dictate? came not from
the actual space policy document but from your story.
I can't find it in the actual policy document. I really wonder how you
did. And as far as I can tell, your piece was the first description of the
policy in those terms (if you were quoting some other source, please let me
know and I won't give you the credit for starting that meme).
The policy
(http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf) doesn't talk
about denying anyone access to space. Rather, it states that the United
States will "preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in
space. ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities
hostile to U.S. interests." It looks a lot like current US policies towards
'freedom of action' of non-territorial terrestrial areas such as oceans (and
airspace over them).
Compare this to the Clinton-Gore policy document 10 years earlier:
"...the United States will develop, operate, and maintain space control
capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if directed, deny
such freedom of action to adversaries." The key verb, "deny," is common to
both policies, and neither policy is talking about denying access. That
which is to be 'denied' is any hostile action by adversaries ? hardly an
unreasonable policy to advertise.
Nevertheless, within days of your first article, the 'deny access'
meme spread around the entire planet and was quoted angrily in Europe,
Russia, China, Canada, and elsewhere ? all expressing strongly negative
views of the ?Bush Administration plans?, apparently without anyone ever
actually reading the original plans. They trusted your second-hand account
to be accurate -- but was it, really?
Further, according to Novosti, ?Davydov spoke out against the American
plans to station weapons in space.? It was this specific subject, not
mentioned in your December article, that was described as an action that
would be ?global and will hang over the entire world." But what plans? These
alleged plans spring not from official records but from the writings of
lobby groups such as the ?nonpartisan Center for Defense Information? that
you extensively quoted from. But the imminent reality of the programs
remains highly debatable, as even you admit when you wrote that funding for
them might (or might not) be sought this year ? hardly the sort of project
that is a looming threat, or even 'a plan'.
A serious question is this -- did your published accounts inflame the
situation by making the policy sound more confrontational and unilateral
than it really was? You have a lot of influence and it's based on a
reputation for accuracy. I only ask -- did you live up to those standards in
this case?
I addressed some of these issues recently on msnbc.com's website:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15656337/
Just asking a tough question -- the way friends and colleagues
should!
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> This Administation doesn't realize that the rest of the world doesn't
> feel this way about the US. That they might fear the US the way the
> wife of an abusive husband might fear his gun collection and cringe
> every time he retires to the barn for a bit of target practice.
The rest of the world feels the way Hollywood tells them to feel,
seems to me. 'Anti-Americanism' is the purest form of 'cultural
imperialism' i've ever seen -- AMERICAN culture brainwashing
much of the world, or at least, the easily-duped portions.
I'm partially joking...
Comparing the US to an 'abusive husband' is about as
unfair and moronic an analogy as I've run into in a long,
long time.
Hyper
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > You make a lot of good points, but your point two really begs the
> > question, why did the administration adopt such inflammatory words in
> > its National Space Policy 2006 document? That's what you're referring
> > to right?
>
> > You claim that Heads of State (I presume Putin) said things they
> > garnered from the press. Diplomacy through headlines you said. I
> > don't see it that way. Putin and others are responding to specific
> > words produced by the White House itself.
>
> Here's how I explained my complaint to Kaufman:
> Date: 03/01/2007 11:15AM
> Subject: 'war of words' over space war
>
> Dear Mark -- Finally got some breathing space, and wanted to get to
> some issues
> before the next round of 'space weapons' rhetoric
> In your piece "Talk of Satellite Defense Raises Fears of Space War",
> December 17, 2006; Page A12"
>
>
> you report how some people are growing alarmed over supposed US moves
> to weaponize outer space. But I'm worried that you overlooked where much of
> this alarm is really springing from. It may not actually be from the actual
> US space policy, as described in released ?white papers? and public speeches
> by administration officials such as Robert Joseph. Instead, a lot of it
> (most of it?) might be traced to inaccurate accounts in the major news
> media.
>
> This theory can be documented, and some of your own material provides
> support. Referring to a Russian space agency official, Vitaliy Davydov, you
> wrote that ?he called the Bush space policy ?the first step towards a
> serious escalation of the military confrontation space?.? This statement is
> not accurate ? what Davydov denounced was NOT ?the Bush space policy? at
> all, but instead, was the way that you yourself had described it on the
> front page of the WaPo last Oct. 18 in a story
Mr. Oberg,
Although you make several cogent points regarding the whole ASAT &
space weapons debate, I couldn't help but notice that you haven't
addressed a rather important issue:
Why spend much needed funds to defend people who didn't ask for or
desire it against improbable threats? Why risk fanning the Russian,
Chinese, etc. paranoia when the US needs to foster cooperation against
more immediate threats?
Jorge R. Frank
news:1173745312.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
> Although you make several cogent points regarding the whole ASAT &
> space weapons debate, I couldn't help but notice that you haven't
> addressed a rather important issue:
>
> Why spend much needed funds to defend people who didn't ask for or
> desire it against improbable threats? Why risk fanning the Russian,
> Chinese, etc. paranoia when the US needs to foster cooperation against
> more immediate threats?
He did address it. His entire point is that the Russian and Chinese
paranoia is being fanned not by US space policy itself (there is *no*
material difference between Bush's 2006 space policy and Clinton's 1996
space policy), but by inaccurate and biased reporting of that policy by the
Washington Post and others.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
Right. And the trend is as technology improves, our ability
for surgical strikes improves. Those enormously expensive
and high tech space 'capabilities' may be most useful
going after the few most extreme people we want.
Kinda like that machine the evil-Kirk had that could make
his enemies dissapear with the turn of a knob.
Bzzzt!
Jonathan
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns98F1C86A...@216.196.97.131...
> "Hyper" <hyper...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1173745312.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Although you make several cogent points regarding the whole ASAT &
> > space weapons debate, I couldn't help but notice that you haven't
> > addressed a rather important issue:
> >
> > Why spend much needed funds to defend people who didn't ask for or
> > desire it against improbable threats? Why risk fanning the Russian,
> > Chinese, etc. paranoia when the US needs to foster cooperation against
> > more immediate threats?
>
> He did address it. His entire point is that the Russian and Chinese
> paranoia is being fanned not by US space policy itself (there is *no*
> material difference between Bush's 2006 space policy and Clinton's 1996
> space policy),
That may be true. But the difference is now we're spending
nine billion a year on missile defense alone. And now we're
issuing directives and stating space warfighting doctrine.
The difference between then and now is 'then' we were
talking about it, 'now' we're doing it.
Missile Defense Agency
Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07)
Budget Estimate
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Final%20Budget%20Overview%20FY%202007%20MDA.pdf
Joint Doctrine for Space Operations
The Services, in accordance with Department of Defense (DOD)
Directives, shall integrate space capabilities and applications into
all facets of their strategy, doctrine, education, training, exercises,
and operations of US military forces.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_14.pdf#search=%22Joint%20Doctrine%20for%20Space%20Operations%22
>but by inaccurate and biased reporting of that policy by the
> Washington Post and others.
Shoot the messenger.
Jorge R. Frank
news:IknJh.7046$B7.1184@bigfe9:
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> news:Xns98F1C86A...@216.196.97.131...
>> "Hyper" <hyper...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1173745312.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Although you make several cogent points regarding the whole ASAT &
>> > space weapons debate, I couldn't help but notice that you haven't
>> > addressed a rather important issue:
>> >
>> > Why spend much needed funds to defend people who didn't ask for or
>> > desire it against improbable threats? Why risk fanning the Russian,
>> > Chinese, etc. paranoia when the US needs to foster cooperation
>> > against more immediate threats?
>>
>> He did address it. His entire point is that the Russian and Chinese
>> paranoia is being fanned not by US space policy itself (there is *no*
>> material difference between Bush's 2006 space policy and Clinton's
>> 1996 space policy),
>
> That may be true. But the difference is now we're spending
> nine billion a year on missile defense alone. And now we're
> issuing directives and stating space warfighting doctrine.
>
> The difference between then and now is 'then' we were
> talking about it, 'now' we're doing it.
Ah, so the Russians and Chinese did not get paranoid about Clinton's policy
because they were convinced he didn't mean it, but are paranoid about
Bush's (identical) policy because they are convinced he means it?
>>but by inaccurate and biased reporting of that policy by the
>> Washington Post and others.
>
> Shoot the messenger.
The messenger must be shot, if he fabricates or distorts the message.
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Replace the word "space" with the word "the high seas." How does it
> differ from our current policy?
>
Harder to fire shot over enemy's bow due to orbital mechanics?
(Cut to Shenzhou raising skull and crossbones.)
Pat
Hyper
SORRY, I made a silly mistake.
I read the abobe post and than the article regarding ABMs in Europe,
and posted a non-sequitur.
Apologies again.
Willie...@gmail.com
Where does it say that anyone who develops a capacity to build attack
ships that operate on the high seas will be subjected to attack by US
forces? I'm not saying we don't have that policy, I'm just unaware of
where we have stated that for the high seas.
Just asking for a reference.
Cheers
William
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:1173914141....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Where does it say that regarding space?
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
Rand Simberg
>Rand,
>
>Where does it say that anyone who develops a capacity to build attack
>ships that operate on the high seas will be subjected to attack by US
>forces? I'm not saying we don't have that policy, I'm just unaware of
>where we have stated that for the high seas.
I dunno. Where does it say that anyone who develops a capacity to
build attack spaceships that operate in space will be subjected to
attack by US forces?
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
I didn't think the great Jim Oberg would sink to name calling. I
guess that shows a measure of the weakness of his argument in this
case that he has to shift it away from the facts.
Jim, I didn't compare the US to an abusive husband, I didn't even come
up with the image., I merely repeated as some have said in Europe,
that many in the world view the US with suspicion given European's
interpretation of our actions over the past 50 years following World
War 2 - and gave an example of an abusive husband who had an interest
in guns. The point is, while the husband may never use those guns to
kill his wife, the wife might be forgiven for suspecting it to be a
real possibility given their history together. Americans like me are
fond of recounting for example what we did for Europe in World War 2.
This is very similar to an abusive husband reminding his abused wife
of the wonderful time they had before they were married.
The parallels are clear for most foreigners. And this example has
been given throughout Europe in a variety of venues. I didn't create
it whole cloth. I will say Europeans view the typical American male
as an abusive gun owner. Those who don't know Americans and have
never been to America see spousal abuse and gun ownership in America
as huge problems, so the story is cogent TO THEM..
But its not the headlines of left wing assholes that's the problems.,
Its the words and actions of this administration that people in Europe
are responding to.
I will say that my daughter and her mom are Swiss citizens. I'm an
American and proud of it. So, since I visit them regularly and my
European operations, I get an earful from well-meaning Europeans I
associate with. So, I guess I'm tainted by the evil European
outlook! haha..
The point is we would be far more effective in the world if we had a
little better appreciation of how we are perceived by others and used
that knowledge to formulate our actions.
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:IknJh.7046$B7.1184@bigfe9:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> >news:Xns98F1C86A...@216.196.97.131...
> >> "Hyper" <hyperbor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't mistake the little tempest here as reality. Clinton as
President was every bit as believeable as Bush. They are the
President for God's sake.
The differing response to the two leaders derive from a simple fact.
Clinton's policy is not identical to Bush's policy. They are quite
different. Clinton's policies were formed with intelligence and
sensitivity to foreign attitudes and beliefs. Bush's policies were
not. Clinton for example never demonized the French and likely would
never have demonized anyone for speaking the truth about the bogus WMD
charges.for example. This difference alone, explains the different
attitudes toward each of these Presidents. Clinton thanking the
French for saving him a later embarassment would improve the
atmospherics between the two countries, Bush demonizing the French for
stating the truth and later making excuses and not stepping up to the
plate and taking the heat. Is it really that surprising that Clinton
was more trusted than Bush? Sheez.
Like I said, the President's job is a difficult one, and Bush has the
unfortunate lot of being President in interesting times. But Clinton
foiled several attempts by al-queda while President and Clinton warned
Bush about rising threats of terrorism, which Bush ignored until 9/11
- and we have forgotten it was Newt Gingrich ina Republican led
congress that didn't give President Clinton the authority to go after
bin laden following the FIRST attack on the world trade center.
The thing is, President Bush lied to the American people and lied to
the world about WMDs - and he continues to lie about how things were
totally different after 9/11. The first attack on the WTC should have
been a wakeup call, but the Republican led congress didn't give
President Clinton the authority to act because it would have made him
too Presidential and it flew in the face of what they were attempting
to do to him with unfortunate decisions he made in his personal life.
This Republicans used to define the democratic party until Mark Foley
and other Republican leaders were also caught in the cross-hairs.
The point is most folks outside the US don't trust Republicans or
Americna conservatives. They view them as extremists who will do or
say anything for their cause - regardless of what is fair or right.
Bush proved himself to be a liar a cheat a man of low moral character
in the period leading up to our invasion of Iraq. To many foreigners
a president that wipes his dick on the oval office curtains after a
blow job is preferable to a president that wipes his ass on the
constitution after he fails totally at doing his job of protecting and
preserving peaceful prosperous life here in America.
That last came from a joke by the way I heard in New York recently.
Its easy to Mondy morning quarter back, and I don't mean to attack
Bush in any way. I respect and admire the man and much of what he
does. But when we ask why people don't trust him why people have the
attitudes they do, its not because they're idiots who believe some
left wing asshole. Its because they are responding to the actions
words and stated goals of the man himself.
If Bush were to take a little more care to understand those who
criticize him he would be more effective at achieving HIS goals in the
world., Unfortunately, I don't think he really gets that. Well not
at first, I think now he had learned a little.
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> Jim, I didn't compare the US to an abusive husband, I didn't even come
> up with the image., I merely repeated as some have said in Europe,
> that many in the world view the US with suspicion given European's
> interpretation of our actions over the past 50 years following World
> War 2 - and gave an example of an abusive husband who had an interest
> in guns. The point is, while the husband may never use those guns to
> kill his wife, the wife might be forgiven for suspecting it to be a
> real possibility given their history together. Americans like me are
> fond of recounting for example what we did for Europe in World War 2.
> This is very similar to an abusive husband reminding his abused wife
> of the wonderful time they had before they were married.
First you say you never did it, and then you do it again. There's
excess unclarity in the way you use analogies, I suggest:
Jonathan
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173914897....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I have the good fortune to have worked in a remarkably
diverse office. Where at least three forths of the people
are recently from overseas. It's fun to get them to reveal the
attitudes they have about the US when chatting about
politics. Most western europeans I talked to think
we're not just dangerous, but absolutely nuts.
But the eastern europeans have a rather different
view. They see Europe as all talk and no action.
And the US as the only country that might actually
do something about international problems.
But the touchiest subjects lately involve the
politics of central and south america.
It's wise to watch what one says until
you know if someone is pro or anti Chavez.
In general the pro-Chavez view is pervasive.
All those corrupt Latin 'democracies' have
botched it up so bad they started a huge
leftist movement.
I think our policy should be a balance
between principle and public opinion.
>
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Jim, I didn't compare the US to an abusive husband, I didn't even come
> > up with the image., I merely repeated as some have said in Europe,
> > that many in the world view the US with suspicion given European's
> > interpretation of our actions over the past 50 years following World
> > War 2 - and gave an example of an abusive husband who had an interest
> > in guns. The point is, while the husband may never use those guns to
> > kill his wife, the wife might be forgiven for suspecting it to be a
> > real possibility given their history together. Americans like me are
> > fond of recounting for example what we did for Europe in World War 2.
> > This is very similar to an abusive husband reminding his abused wife
> > of the wonderful time they had before they were married.
>
> First you say you never did it, and then you do it again. There's
> excess unclarity in the way you use analogies, I suggest:
That's your reading. Your reading is incorrect. I am not talking
about US behavior here. You keep saying I am. I am talking about the
non-US reaction to US behavior. These are two different things that
you seem to have trouble differentiating in your mind.
> You wrote:
>
> "they might fear the US the way the wife of an abusive husband might fear
> his gun collection and cringe
> every time he retires to the barn for a bit of target practice."
Yes, I'm talking about the fears of non-US citizens. You wrongly
believe that I am talking about something else.
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Public opinion isn't as important as principle. But you fail to
delineate WHAT principle. Clearly our principle focus should be what
is good for the United States? What is best for our way of life?
Plainly operating in ways that inflame and disrespect other nations
creates more trouible than operating in ways that don't. We shouldn't
be surprised at consequences to OUR actions. When Jim Oberg tells us
that its left wing assholes who write misleading headlines that's the
cause of our diplomacy failures he's obviously off-the-mark I mean,
are we really surprised by French reaction to the US after they were
demonized by this administration for speaking the truth? Sheez.
So, when this same administration says unfortunate things in the
national space policy act we shouldn't be surprised at negative
reaction. Telling folks that its just left-wing press does the public
a disservice.
Willie...@gmail.com
<mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote:
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm paraphrasing Greg - how some might see it. The fact is the words
could be exactly the same but others might read it differently when
applied to space. Why? Well, we have a long history of conduct that
informs other nations of our likely behavior in the future regarding
laws of the sea, we don't have that history with regards to space.
Also, this President's conduct during the Iraq invasion does not
inspire trust. These are the issues that are driving this conflict -
it the responsibility sits squarely on the President, not left wing
headline writers as Jim Oberg asserts wrongly.
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
>..... These are the issues that are driving this conflict -
> it the responsibility sits squarely on the President, not left wing
> headline writers as Jim Oberg asserts wrongly.
I've seen Bush blamed for everything from Katrina and wildfires
to gas prices to male fertility drops, so it's only consistent to see
him now blamed for the carelessness of anti-Bush journalists too.
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> The differing response to the two leaders derive from a simple fact.
> Clinton's policy is not identical to Bush's policy. They are quite
> different. Clinton's policies were formed with intelligence and
> sensitivity to foreign attitudes and beliefs.
OK, and under Clinton, the French diplomats accused of taking
bribes from Saddam -- and all the other international 'watchdogs'
bought (or rented) for twenty billion dollars of Iraqi oil money to
look the other way from -- from what, do you think? -- would be
pardoned, after a night in the White House. Yeah, that's a difference.
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> So, when this same administration says unfortunate things in the
> national space policy act we shouldn't be surprised at negative
> reaction. Telling folks that its just left-wing press does the public
> a disservice.
Even if it's true, as my specific examples sure seem to indicate?
Do you really really think the policy SAYS what it is misquoted as
saying -- "US will deny access to space for players deemed hostile"??
Which of us has a problem with basic reading comprehension?
Janitor_of_Lunacy
>
> Joint Doctrine for Space Operations
>
> The Services, in accordance with Department of Defense (DOD)
> Directives, shall integrate space capabilities and applications into
> all facets of their strategy, doctrine, education, training, exercises,
>
To a large extent JP3_14 is concerned with recon, intel gathering,
situational awareness (such as support of Blue Force Tracking), and
communications (using both commerical and military resources.) There
is really nothing specific about actual space weapons. It is an
attempt to make space-borne C4ISR assets "purple" (i.e. joint.) In the
past, the problem was that special forces used their own SATCOM, the
Army used its SATCOM, the USMC and USN used the Navies, the USAF used
theirs, everything worked in stovepipes, and, to top it off, there
typically wasn't the ability to use realistic SATCOM in US-based
training exercises, since the satellites were perched over Europe and
Asia.
Jonathan
"Jim Oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45f93ea3$0$16926$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I think the problem is your inability to place yourself in the
shoes of the opponent. Everyone knows the US is the
only country with the money, the ability and desire
to militarize space in a substantial way. They see us
spending the big money on missile defense, combined
with a policy that is rather aggressive by just about
anyone's standards.
If you were 'them' what would you think?
If Putin were to sit down and read the following, our
official military space doctrine, where the term 'space forces'
is used ...72 times...would he need to read any western
press to form his opinion?
s
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
Jim, I'm not blaming Bush for anything. Your inability to
differentiate what is being said with what isn't beind said is truly
amazing.
Bushi is who he is. I don't blame him for anything. Bush is the
President of the United States and doing his damnest for all of us
good and honorable citizens of the United States. I honor him for
what he does and honor his position. He was freely elected by the
majority Americans freely informed by an unbiased press. Hoorah!
However, when heads of state criticize Bush for things that he does,
like invade Iraq on flimsy pretext and when heads of state express
concerns about Bush's intent in his recent Space Policy Act, they're
not being misdirected by left-wing journalists nor are they engaging
in diplomacy by headlines - as you wrongly assert. They are
responding to the actions and policies of the Bush administration.
You consistently fail to address the point of my discussion and insist
on calling me names and changing the subject. That's very dishonest
of you sir. I wouldn't have expected such of you. Ah well, live an
learn. I lost a bundle on Enron too, because I believed Ken Lay.
haha...
Jonathan
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173926514....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 14, 9:30 pm, "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173914897....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I think our policy should be a balance
> > between principle and public opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Public opinion isn't as important as principle.
I believe that collective wisdom or intelligence
is the highest of all. If we listen carefully and
completely, public opinion finds the proper
balance between our long term principles
and our short term needs. Since public opinion
is a debate involving all possible opinions, the
extreme views on each side are staked, which
allows a true middle or compromise opinion
to find its way out.
A single, or few, decision makers are far more
likely to go off half-cocked based on their own
extreme view. Such as based only on principle
or only on self interest.
> But you fail to
> delineate WHAT principle. Clearly our principle focus should be what
> is good for the United States? What is best for our way of life?
We should always attempt to do what is best for us and them.
Only considering our own interests creates a negative sum
situation. Taking into account others as well creates a
positive sum outcome. Where both sides benefit instead
of one winning and the other losing. It's the difference between
war and coevolution.
> Plainly operating in ways that inflame and disrespect other nations
> creates more trouible than operating in ways that don't. We shouldn't
> be surprised at consequences to OUR actions.
With Iraq, for instance, it's in our interest and the Iraqi people
that he be overthrown, and a proper democracy replace him.
It's in the interests of the countries in the region and for
the future of the world's oil supplies....the world economy.
We should consider first the effects on us and the Iraqi
people in such decisions. The opinions of mostly bystanders
is not very important. When Europe objects to the invasion
while the vast majority of Iraqis want a democracy, we
should stick to our principles and do what is right and
is wanted by those most directly effected.
> When Jim Oberg tells us
> that its left wing assholes who write misleading headlines that's the
> cause of our diplomacy failures he's obviously off-the-mark
It's hard to see how a few slanted articles have been the source
of foriegn opinions. The facts on the ground and our own words
are far more persuasive.
>I mean,
> are we really surprised by French reaction to the US after they were
> demonized by this administration for speaking the truth?
I hate to part ways here, but the French looked to me like
the world's biggest hypocrites in this. They wanted to use
the Iraq war to catapault themselves into a position of
world leadership through rhetoric only. Without having
a military, or the will, to back up their words they
would become a force for emasculating the concept
of international law. Worse then the UN.
Not to mention they were mostly worried about losing
all their oil contracts they had with Saddam. It was the
FRENCH that opposed the war out of concerns over oil.
And Saddam owed Germany billions for weapons sales
they wanted repaid, same with Russia.
The Euros opposed the war out of greedy self interest
while pretending it was out of principle. We stood on
our principles that we have a right, if not duty, to
help liberate others from an oppressive dictatorship.
It was the US that recognized and acted on the
almost certain future that Saddam would eventually
become another N Korea. Saddam would become another
madman with a nuke someday, only sitting on top
of the world economy.
Just like we can't do anything to N Korea now, we
would have to sit there and allow Saddam to control
our economy and that of the world. Doing nothing
would almost certaintly give us a future with a
couple of nuked cities. Probably very large
cities like Jerusalem and Baghdad.
> Sheez.
>
> So, when this same administration says unfortunate things in the
> national space policy act we shouldn't be surprised at negative
> reaction. Telling folks that its just left-wing press does the public
> a disservice.
>
And it's a odd expression of patriotism. I want other
countries to respect and fear our military capabilities.
And believe our words and promises are credible.
I feel safer.
s
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > The differing response to the two leaders derive from a simple fact.
> > Clinton's policy is not identical to Bush's policy. They are quite
> > different. Clinton's policies were formed with intelligence and
> > sensitivity to foreign attitudes and beliefs.
>
> OK, and under Clinton, the French diplomats accused of taking
> bribes from Saddam --
Jim, Bush isn't accused of using bogus information to try start a war
in Iraq, Bush actually used bogus information to make critical
decisions that affected all Americans and actually started a war in
Iraq.
People can be accused of a lot of things. I'm talking about something
very simple. Namely, that heads of state don't trust Bush and his
intents based on HIS actions. You wrongly have stated that they are
engaging in diplomacy by headlines and are being led around by left-
wing journalists. This is manifestly not the case. You calling me
names, and changing the subject and bringing up issues unrelated to my
point don't change my point and don't address my point either. So,
either address my point or quit wasting bandwidth with bullshit.
> and all the other international 'watchdogs'
> bought (or rented) for twenty billion dollars of Iraqi oil money to
> look the other way from -- from what, do you think? -- would be
> pardoned, after a night in the White House. Yeah, that's a difference.
Well, look, you're not addressng my point, you're bringing up another
one.
You are implying that Clinton bribed leaders because someone accused
himof that. And that somehow bribing leaders to keep the peace is
immoral whilst lying to the American people, and lying to the world
and unilaterally invading Iraq is somehow not immoral. I think you
just want to bring things to a level where you feel you can call me
names. So, I won't say that Bush has been accused of a lot of
nefarious dealings, enriching lots of people from the war our great
nation is engaged in. But people get accused of lots of things. That
doesn't make it true.
So, rather than argue over pointless things that aren't true, and
rather than pursue a subject you abandoned, which is the fact that
you're dead wrong that heads of state are being led around by left-
wing journalists, when in reality they're reacting to Bush himself..
I will take up another question your statement implies, namely;
Lets say Jimmy Oberg is right and that Clinton engaged in inside deals
involving huge payoffs to keep the peace in the world, allowing
America to avoid outright war. Let's say these accusations are
correct. Ok. And let's say Bush being cut of a different sort of
cloth reviles such deals. Because obviously Bush growing up in the
energy sector of Texas, owning an oil company, being close friends
with Ken Lay, and Halliburton president Dick Cheny, would shudder at
such immoral behavior as paying someone money for favors.
Let's assume all this that Jimmy is saying here is true.
So, I have one question;
Who is doing his job better? A president like Clinton who according
to Oberg dishonestly paid kickbacks of millions of dollars to keep the
peace and isolate America from terror attacks, or an honest man like
Bush who spends tens of billions of dollars per month honestly
engaging America in a righteous war to defend it from WMDs?
To my mind, being President is a tough job no matter how you do it.
But, if I were unlucky enough to have the job, I would certainly
consider paying bribes in the millions of dollars to keep the peace -
if the alternative is the loss of tens of thousands of American lives
each year to terror and war, and tens of billions of dollars per month
in war costs.
Jim Oberg
Jim Oberg
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote
> Jim, Bush isn't accused of using bogus information to try start a war
> in Iraq, Bush actually used bogus information to make critical
> decisions that affected all Americans and actually started a war in
> Iraq.
As I recall, there already WAS 'war in Iraq', started by Saddam,
suspended by the UN after smashing Saddam's military, a
ceasefire declared dependent on Saddam obeying specific
restraints which he then repeatedly broke -- as even post-invasion
on-scene investigations confirm. Sure, lots of diplomats -- many of
them we now know secretly in the pay of Saddam -- argued that
he should be allowed to keep getting away with it. I don't see, in
hindsight even, how the U.S. was justified in taking that risk.
But we're off topic. I guess I'm calling you names.
Jim Oberg
"Janitor_of_Lunacy" <janitor_...@msn.com> wrote
stuff..
Shades of a well-informed commentator. Please, frequent this
thread often! There are plenty of folks who will appreciate it,
me included!!
Janitor_of_Lunacy
> "Janitor_of_Lunacy" <janitor_of_lun...@msn.com> wrote
> stuff..
>
> Shades of a well-informed commentator. Please, frequent this
> thread often! There are plenty of folks who will appreciate it,
> me included!!
Sure. I'm actually a regular here (but not for the past few months),
but my company has stopped carrying newsgroups, so I'm using my old
google account. One of the things I do for a living is actually read
field manuals. (I've gotten into some exchanges elsewhere about the
new Army Psyops manual. The reason why it looks like a "blueprint for
what the government is doing to us" is that it actually is basically a
lessons learned from the advertising and political world, so its more
like the Army has learned to do to others what business and
politicians have been doing for years.
Ami Silberman
Janitor_of_Lunacy
>
> If Putin were to sit down and read the following, our
> official military space doctrine, where the term 'space forces'
> is used ...72 times...would he need to read any western
> press to form his opinion?
>
>
> s
No, because he would understand the doctrine. Of course, then his
opinion would probably be different. From the JP 3-14 glossary
"Space Forces: The space and terrestrial systems, equipment,
facilities, organizations, and personnel necessary to acess, use, and,
if directed, control space for national security."
Once again, most of the document discusses the use of space to support
terrestrial operations in a Joint Environment. (Which, BTW, all
deployments are considered.) Of the occurences of "space forces" which
have anything to do with space weapons, or the use of weapons in
space, the following is the only relevant one.
pg. 11 "Space force application operations consist of attacks against
terrestrial-based targets carried out by military weapons systems
operating in or through space. Currently there are no space force
applicaation assets operating in space. (last sentence is in bold type
-- AAS)
I will also note that the USSPACECOM has been merged with STRATCOM as
of late 2002. The STRATCOM mission statement reads:
"Provide the nation with global deterrence capabilities and
synchronized DoD effects to combat adversary weapons of mass
destruction worldwide. Enable decisive global kinetic and non-kinetic
combat effects through the application and advocacy of integrated
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); space and global
strike operations; information operations; integrated missile defense
and robust command and control." Previously, STRATCOM was only
responsible for global deterrence, enabling decisive global kinetic
effects via space and global strike operations, and combating
adversary weapons of mass destruction. So basically, SPACECOMs C4ISR
responsibilities were merged into STRATCOM with its global strike
capabilities.
Jim Oberg
how should WE interpret that so-called team's mission?
Janitor_of_Lunacy
> >>http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_14.pdf#search=%22Joint%...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, a good start would be their English language homepage
http://www.mil.ru/eng/1862/12068/12088/12224/index.shtml
It appears to be pretty equivalent to either STRATCOM without the
strategic strike capability, or the SPACECOM with the additional ABM
responsibilities.
Has anyone in this discussion other than me actually read large
chunks of JP 3-14?
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote
Not here you're not calling me names, you're just changing the subject
bringing up irrelevant things. I mean it doesn't take a genius like
you to realize there was a distinct difference for Americans before
Bush decided to invade and after regardless of how you want to make
word hash out of the cogent points I made. I only hope we find some
sort of solution before our dollars go into free fall like they did
after the Vietname fiasco.
Jonathan
"Janitor_of_Lunacy" <janitor_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1174064350....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 8:42 pm, "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > If Putin were to sit down and read the following, our
> > official military space doctrine, where the term 'space forces'
> > is used ...72 times...would he need to read any western
> > press to form his opinion?
> >
> > http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_14.pdf#search=%22Joint%...
> >
> > s
> No, because he would understand the doctrine. Of course, then his
> opinion would probably be different. From the JP 3-14 glossary
>
> "Space Forces: The space and terrestrial systems, equipment,
> facilities, organizations, and personnel necessary to acess, use, and,
> if directed, control space for national security."
Would you agree that infrastructure comes before deployment?
And that the vast majority of a fighting force is the support
for the actual weapons and fighters? Something like ten to one?
The doctrine sets out the rules for that infrastructure.
We're designing and building the needed infrastructure
for space forces. That clearly implies we intend to build
the weapons.
I mean, if a country were to build a bunch of missile silos, wouldn't
it follow they intend to put a missile inside?
>
> Once again, most of the document discusses the use of space to support
> terrestrial operations in a Joint Environment. (Which, BTW, all
> deployments are considered.) Of the occurences of "space forces" which
> have anything to do with space weapons, or the use of weapons in
> space, the following is the only relevant one.
The entire point of the joint doctine is in the title. It merges
space forces and operations into every relevant aspect
of our military. It makes space just another part of the
package.
This is the /exact/ definition of 'militarizing' space.
>
> pg. 11 "Space force application operations consist of attacks against
> terrestrial-based targets carried out by military weapons systems
> operating in or through space. Currently there are no space force
> applicaation assets operating in space. (last sentence is in bold type
> -- AAS)
And having space forces or weapons operating ...in..space would
be the very last place they'd be deployed. Since they are most
vulnerable when...in..space.
>
> I will also note that the USSPACECOM has been merged with STRATCOM as
> of late 2002. The STRATCOM mission statement reads:
> "Provide the nation with global deterrence capabilities and
> synchronized DoD effects to combat adversary weapons of mass
> destruction worldwide. Enable decisive global kinetic and non-kinetic
> combat effects through the application and advocacy of integrated
> intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); space and global
> strike operations; information operations; integrated missile defense
> and robust command and control." Previously, STRATCOM was only
> responsible for global deterrence, enabling decisive global kinetic
> effects via space and global strike operations, and combating
> adversary weapons of mass destruction. So basically, SPACECOMs C4ISR
> responsibilities were merged into STRATCOM with its global strike
> capabilities.
Let's just be plain about our military goals. We want the ability
to target and hit anything in real time anywhere in the world.
Day, night or bad weather. Expanding into space is a very
effective way of accomplishing that.
I don't object to our side having that capability at all.
I just insist we call things what they really are.
>
Jonathan
> Since Puyin's military has a group called the 'Military Space Forces',
> how should WE interpret that so-called team's mission?
We should worry about the Russian military about as much
as we worry about Poland's military. They can have all the
intent they want, but if they can't afford to build it who cares?
We can afford to build it, and we're busily doing so, while
Putin and others piss and moan about it.
It's only the Chinese that have responded in any meaningful
way with their space dirty bomb they just demonstrated.
I think that test showed that either we dominate space
completely, or a war would end up creating so much
debris that space would be denied to everyone for
a number of years.
We had better be planning on dominating space with
all kinds, every kind, of space force, asset or weapon.
Raghar
> Since Puyin's military has a group called the 'Military Space Forces',
> how should WE interpret that so-called team's mission?
Fight. What else should they do? They would surely will not throw away
money for salaries of these persons, just to have a group for danger
assessment with respect to orbital space.