Are we seeing the start of a new cold war in space with Russia and China?

[bigtree]

If we have a military-free Mars/Moon project then I believe we will honor the Russian's interest and bring them aboard. Indeed, in the future, NASA and others envision an international Mars effort.

But it is not clear whether we'll go that route, as we did with the space station. Especially since Russia shares everything with our supposed rival China.

The manner in which this administration has intermingled their Mars/Moon missions with military objectives will undoubtedly alienate perceived rivals like China, and by extension, Russia.

The main impetus behind our militarization of space through the introduction of space-based lasers is the Pentagon's desire to protect and defend our GPS (global positioning) satellites against an attack by a rouge nation (they presume China). They further want the capability to attack the Glosnass satellite positioning system which happens to be shared by China and Russia.

Also, their missile defense plans envision using space-based lasers to shoot down as many as 20 North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 missiles at a time that could reach any part of the U.S., and that missile is currently untested. Space-based lasers on permanent or floating platforms.

The (unproven) nuclear propulsion technology that future Mars/Jupiter missions will employ is intended to demonstrate in ground tests the technology required for space reactor power systems which would power the space lasers. The nuclear reactor would would utilize new blends of "recycled" uranium fuel.

China has just as much stake in its satellite system as we do ours. Russia will surely be sidelined by the U.S. in any of our military pursuits. Russia will likely align with China in any adversarial atmosphere. China's recent foray into manned missions may be a direct reaction to our plans for military dominance in space.

Remember, China or Russia don't have to be successful in reaching the Moon or Mars to pose the perceived threat that the Pentagon could use to escalate their militarism. That's the reason that American must insist that the administration present its aims in a way that doesn't suggest military dominion over space. The world may not stand still as we scramble for dominance. Our aggressive posture portends a new cold war in space.

It's not clear how Russia would find the resources to go it alone. But I wouldn't underestimate their ability to find allies who would work against our aim to dominate military space.

Resistance to our colonialist agendas are evident in the rejection of our ambitions in Iraq by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘usable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

To me, a new cold war in space seems inevitable if we continue to allow Bush to hide his ambitions for the militarization of the planets, the moons, and the heavens behind a seemingly benign program of space exploration.

Until he and his minions in NASA and the Pentagon are forced to level with the American people and the world about their true ambitions to dominate military space, we will further their deadly agendas with every seemingly benign mission we cheer for.

[burrowowl]

1. I think you

have made a pretty good analysis.
However, Europe might start playing a role too.
Bu$hco want to militarize space. Space exploration should be a World thing for peace.
I'm sad about them scrapping the Hubble.

[KansDem]

2. Space war according to PNAC...

From the PeeNAC Paper (the REAL reason Bush is all hot for space exploration):

Therefore, over the long haul, it will be
necessary to unite the essential elements of
the current SPACECOM vision to the
resource-allocation and institution-building
responsibilities of a military service. In
addition, it is almost certain that the conduct
of warfare in outer space will differ as much
from traditional air warfare as air warfare
has from warfare at sea or on land; space
warfare will demand new organizations,
operational strategies, doctrines and training
schemes. Thus, the argument to replace
U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space
Forces – a separate service under the
Defense Department – is compelling. While
it is conceivable that, as military space
capabilities develop, a transitory “Space
Corps” under the Department of the Air
Force might make sense, it ought to be
regarded as an intermediary step, analogous
to the World War II-era Army Air Corps,
not to the Marine Corps, which remains a
part of the Navy Department. If space
control is an essential element for
maintaining American military preeminence
in the decades to come, then it will be
imperative to reorganize the Department of
Defense to ensure that its institutional
structure reflects new military realities.
(page 69)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Right on cue, Mr. Bush!


Don't Pee-NAC on me!

[bigtree]

3. And O'Keefe

NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that,

"I don't think we have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html