BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

To Boldly Go... To War?

WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 18 2006 8:30 PM

Submitted by legionnaire. Edited By legionnaire.

TAGS: space, military, defense, Bush

In what may be the most well known split infinitive of the Western world, the phrase "To boldly go" conjures utopian visions of mankind working together and putting aside our petty differences to explore the universe and expand our knowledge. Which more and more is seeming to be based on some of the nerdier delusions from the 60s that the world was about to enter the age of Aquarius. Forty years later, back on Earth it would seem that the more dystopian vision of space exploration imagined by writers like William Gibson is closer to the truth. While scientific exploration continues, more and more space is becoming an environment for corporations to throw satellites into and for the military to monitor what's happening below. A new National Space Policy revealed today by the Bush administration furthers that aim, indicating that the militarization of space will proceed unabated.

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.

Outer space as the dominion of a single terrestrial power seems almost as ludicrous as.... England controlling North America. But nevertheless, the plan is that space will be an environment to provide for "private enterprise" and US security, and other countries will have to learn to accept it, at least according to the new policy.

The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.

"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."

The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.

So at least overtly the US is denying the deployment of offensive weapons into space, which is probably a good thing. However, that doesn't mean that plans don't exist for those capabilities, and with talk of "layered missile defense shields" including space-based components, the first steps towards weaponizing space have already begun.

52 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

magicunicorns

I'm lost

August 2004

OCT 18, 2006 08:55 PM

I like how a porno site has people willing to take ONE news article and make judgements about national policy.

You are sitting in a comfy chair editing a webpage while people elsewhere are analyzing actual information about threats to this country.

Go ahead and ignore history and biology. Go ahead and wish for a utopia where we live in peace.

I hope a democrat becomes president so liberals stop questioning the government's actions. He will still sign the papers and still send our boys to war (or at least bomb our enemies from the air).

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:06 PM

magicunicorns said:
I like how a porno site has people willing to take ONE news article and make judgements about national policy.

You are sitting in a comfy chair editing a webpage while people elsewhere are analyzing actual information about threats to this country.

Go ahead and ignore history and biology. Go ahead and wish for a utopia where we live in peace.

I hope a democrat becomes president so liberals stop questioning the government's actions. He will still sign the papers and still send our boys to war (or at least bomb our enemies from the air).

Do you feel better now?

Would you now like to address the point of the thread: the hubris of the US in staking out space and extending preemption to beyond the earth's surface?

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:13 PM

magicunicorns said:
He will still sign the papers and still send our boys to war (or at least bomb our enemies from the air).

But will he want to bomb them from SPACE?

robnjess

Plainsboro, NJ

October 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:15 PM

doesn't or rather shouldn't everyone wish for peace?

JekyllAndHyde

Nottingham, MD

April 2005

OCT 18, 2006 09:20 PM

Private enterprises? So when is Weyland-Yutani going to start making their employees unwitting fodder so they can find and tame an ultimate weapon against its enemies?

eviled

I'm lost

July 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:24 PM

Points to the man with the Aliens reference.

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA

April 2005

OCT 18, 2006 09:27 PM

robnjess said:

doesn't or rather shouldn't everyone wish for peace?

reminds me of a Thrice lyric; "to be at peace would be a sin... and surely un-american".

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA

April 2005

OCT 18, 2006 09:28 PM

magicunicorns said:
I like how a porno site has people willing to take ONE news article and make judgements about national policy.

there's a lot more than one.

if you're not angry, you're not paying attention

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD

January 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:34 PM

magicunicorns said:
You are sitting in a comfy chair editing a webpage while people elsewhere are analyzing actual information about threats to this country.

That threat assessment did wonders for us in Iraq. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc. didn't make one mistake. It was glorious.

JekyllAndHyde

Nottingham, MD

April 2005

OCT 18, 2006 09:37 PM

eviled said:
Points to the man with the Aliens reference.

Why thank you sir.

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:38 PM

JekyllAndHyde said:
Private enterprises? So when is Weyland-Yutani going to start making their employees unwitting fodder so they can find and tame an ultimate weapon against its enemies?

A subsidiary of Haliburton, circa 2100 A.D.

wickedgrin

Birmingham, AL

October 2004

OCT 18, 2006 09:41 PM

This policy would basicaly be the same as the one that most countries have for the ocean. Just on a larger scale.

CountVertigo

Ann Arbor, MI

June 2005

OCT 18, 2006 09:44 PM

.

Listen carefully. This is the sound of my pot calling your kettle black:

Says the guy who is sitting in his own chair a-lookin at pictures of boobies and thinking his slant on the world is somehow closer to the Way Things Are. Oooh, you shame us all with your withering argument and your obvious pragmatism.

You dodged the issue, maybe because you have fuck-all good to say about the idea of Orbital Weapons and such because there is fuck-all good to say about Orbital Weapons and such. Just think, man, suppose all your worst nightmares come true and Hillary Clinton gets elected? We'll totally bomb Jesus.

From Space.

Gringo

Liberty Lake, WA

May 2006

OCT 18, 2006 09:53 PM

Didn't Reagan talk about a similar program back in the 80s? Talk about progress.

<Note: sarcasm added for effect.>

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

OCT 18, 2006 09:57 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that (neo-)conservatives think we're criticizing Bush because he's a "conservative" and not because he's appallingly arrogant, corrupt, and power-hungry. Or that we would not criticize similar plans and policies coming out of a "liberal" president (not that we'll get one of those any time this century. Moderate, at best.).

And yeah, claiming space = stupid. Especially since I thought they were cutting funding and otherwise undermining our space program...

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4