Weapons in Space. The Bushie Neocons ARE INSANE.

[Q]

Published on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 by the New York Times
Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs
by Tim Weiner
 
The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials. The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy. It would almost certainly be opposed by many American allies and potential enemies, who have said it may create an arms race in space.

A senior administration official said that a new presidential directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space, including spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts.
Any deployment of space weapons would face financial, technological, political and diplomatic hurdles, although no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction.

A presidential directive is expected within weeks, said the senior administration official, who is involved with space policy and insisted that he not be identified because the directive is still under final review and the White House has not disclosed its details. Air Force officials said yesterday that the directive, which is still in draft form, did not call for militarizing space. "The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space," said Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman, who said that the White House, not the Air Force, makes national policy. "The focus is having free access in space."

With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.

"We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space," Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. "Nonetheless, we are thinking about those possibilities." In January 2001, a commission led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the newly nominated defense secretary, recommended that the military should "ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space." It said that "explicit national security guidance and defense policy is needed to direct development of doctrine, concepts of operations and capabilities for space, including weapons systems that operate in space."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0518-02.htm

[dbonds]

1. Just ways to give more money to their friends.

[Q]

4. It will also make the US a 'rogue nation' and a target...

...for the rest of the world...worried that our demented leader will incinerate anyone or anything he deems to be his enemy.

If God is on his side...who can oppose him?

[deadparrot]

2. I'd say it's ironic

on the eve of the Star Wars: Episode III premiere.

[IChing]

16. Don't be so proud

http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/sounds/Proud.wav

[tabascoatic]

3. its them aliens

Man, their a bunch of liars. Their just afriad of those damn aliens;-).

[RebelAgainstEmpire]

5. As if they're

the only ones. There are plenty of people around the globe that would love to have that ability. We're headed that direction anyway. If it's not Rumsfeld and Kristol, it'll be someone else.

If human beings are good at anything, it's war.

[Q]

7. The world is not headed in this direction...

...only the Bush Empire. They want complete control of the entire planet and its resources. What better way than to put offensive weapons in space and call them 'defensive'?

[Eloriel]

6. I've always thought that this space stuff --

as originated by Reagan, anyway -- was intended to fend off aliens. It literally made no other sense to me, for one thing. And it fit the cowboy image he had well too.

With Bush, I think it's total world domination, nothing less. After all, Hitler WAS defeated from outside.

[baldguy]

8. Placing weapons in space is illegal.

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Bureau of Arms Control

Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967
Entered into force October 10, 1967

Narrative

The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.

...

Signed by United States 01/27/67
Ratified 10/10/67

[Q]

9. So was...

...stealing the 2000 election, allowing 9-11 to happen and invading a country that posed no threat to us.

I don't think a little piece of paper will deter them.

[Donna Zen]

18. Two treaties

I'm not sure of the other one, but the one you have cited is on the list. Anyway, they intend to pull out of both of them.

[ticapnews]

10. Wasn't this a James Bond plot?

Or Austin Powers?

Dear George: If we give you sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads will you go play with them and leave the rest of us alone?

[Todd B]

11. How long until the Star Wars references? :)

Considering all the references to Cheney as Darth Vader (although I always thought Bush would be Darth Vader while Cheney is the Emperor ), how long until the obligatory Death Star reference is brought up?

I mean, come on, you know if the opportunity came to build a Death Star, they'd jump at the chance. Hell, they're already destroying the planet now - why not just make it quicker and do it all at once?

Seriously though, when the Bushes can't even get the freaking missile defence shield working properly, how much do you think they'll have to spend in order to get weapons in to space? The cost of implementing a decent health care or education system maybe? Hmmm?

[tabascoatic]

13. you kidden me

Man, they got that whole reference thing messed up. Bush, is that Jar Jar Binks guy, lol.

[Donna Zen]

12. NASA $$$

I have no link to this so file it as hear-say, but according to a NASA employee, money for this has been salted away at the Pentagon for some time. The person said that the eventual plan is for NASA to be taken out of the public space business and put under the control of the Pentagon.

Why space? Because one of the downsides of this war (as if we need another one after counting the dead) is that it exposed our plans and capabilities to those who may someday be our foes. By studying the recent data, those countries who are currently behind our technological warfare, will be able to plan asymmetrically. Thus, the US needs new "stuff" and that "stuff" will be placed over the heads of the countries who dare to challenge the US.

OK_that is what I heard. Dismiss it or as I have done, file it away, and when you see articles like the one cited in the NYT, compare your notes.

ps. This whole damn thing reminds me of Philip K. Dick's "The Zap Gun."

[baldguy]

19. Radio Free Albemuth

[Donna Zen]

20. Their Home Planet

[sinkingfeeling]

14. It was on the PNAC wish list. Soon 100% of our tax $$$ will go to the

Pentagon while our seniors starve to death.

[Al-CIAda]

15. Yes sir PNAC= the weaponization of space.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. But we need it after we go to Mars. Bush has promised we're going to Mars.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3467

$1billion is all.. We could install Stuckey's across the damn Local Group with the money they've stolen via Iraq!