posted 10-19-2006 07:37 AM               

BTW - before this post gets deleted/slammed I am not posting this with any personal political motive, but for discussion only!

posted 10-19-2006 09:05 AM               

The Bush National Space Policy: Contrasts and Contradictions

quote:

---

And yet, for now, and for the foreseeable future, the United States remains hamstrung from pursuing both the policy objectives suggested by the new NSP and any space warfighting strategy not by any outside force, but by the realities of domestic politics, technological challenges and cost hurdles. Given the fact that the United States currently benefits the most from the status quo in space, it seems apparent that current declaratory policy is running the risk of busting that status quo with no good plan at hand to handle the consequences of doing so.

---

posted 10-19-2006 09:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Headline news in one of the UK's leading newspapers, but not known for it's love of Bush.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1902195.ece

BTW - before this post gets deleted/slammed I am not posting this with any personal political motive, but for discussion only!

Paul Bramley

---

posted 10-19-2006 09:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
If we need to defend our space assets in the event of war, we should be prepared to do so. But I really don't understand the need to make public pronouncements about it ahead of time. "Bring it on" may be a reasonable strategy, but it's sure dumb to say so ahead of time.

---

If the goal is to place weapons in space, it would be a violation of existing UN Space Treaty (not that the Bush administration cares about existing treaties anyway! :-) ).
Maybe saying it out loud is a direct response to a US satellite being aimed at by a Chinese laser. So maybe it's just a way of saying "if you want to mess with us, we'll be ready".

posted 10-19-2006 03:48 PM               

The more weapons are created by any nation, the more other nations will develop weapons. It is an endless cycle of world history dating back to the romans, greeks and egyptians.

Nations should start working more for Peace and Less for Weapons.

posted 10-19-2006 09:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
If the goal is to place weapons in space, it would be a violation of existing UN Space Treaty (not that the Bush administration cares about existing treaties anyway! :-) ).
Maybe saying it out loud is a direct response to a US satellite being aimed at by a Chinese laser. So maybe it's just a way of saying "if you want to mess with us, we'll be ready".

Chris.

---

Where does the NSP mention weaponizing space???

Name the treaty/treaties that the Bush Administration doesn't care about???

The NSP is in many ways quite similar to the US approach on the high seas. Freedom of Navigation is paramount, and the US Navy is tasked with conducting naval operations around the globe to demonstrate our right to operate freely (ie, the South China Sea). In the NSP, the US declares its right and the rights of all nations to use space peacefully, and it declares that we will oppose any nation that attempts to deny us those rights.

So why is the new NSP being viewed as controversial?

posted 10-19-2006 10:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
In the NSP, the US declares its right and the rights of all nations to use space peacefully, and it declares that we will oppose any nation that attempts to deny us those rights. So why is the new NSP being viewed as controversial?

---

quote:

---

The policy’s central theme – protecting U.S. rights to “unhindered” action in space – is not a new thrust, that goal was apparent in the Clinton policy as well. However, in contrast to the 1996 policy, the Bush document is dismissive of not only the rights of other space-faring powers, but actively hostile to the concept of collective security.

---

quote:

---

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests.

---

posted 10-19-2006 11:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
If the goal is to place weapons in space, it would be a violation of existing UN Space Treaty (not that the Bush administration cares about existing treaties anyway! :-) ).
Maybe saying it out loud is a direct response to a US satellite being aimed at by a Chinese laser. So maybe it's just a way of saying "if you want to mess with us, we'll be ready".

Chris.

---

posted 10-19-2006 11:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States never ratified the Outer Space Treaty...

---

quote:

---

On the 19th of [December 1966] the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967.

---

posted 10-20-2006 06:18 AM               

As more nations attain access to space and develop the capability to harm those assets the need to protect them will become greater. 40 years ago very little of our economic activity was tied to space. Today it is much more a part of daily economic life. I suspect you'll see a similar policy continue under any U.S. administration.

While I would love to live in a 21st century where weapons were obsolete and unecessary, this simply isn't reality. In fact, I'm a bit astounded that we find ourselves in 2006 in a world where the dominant conflict is based upon theologically-based differences.

posted 10-20-2006 06:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
This seems as something of a natural historical progression to me. Once more national assets and more economic activity becomes dependent upon assets in space (GPS, communications, remote sensing) nations will move to protect those assets.

As more nations attain access to space and develop the capability to harm those assets the need to protect them will become greater. 40 years ago very little of our economic activity was tied to space. Today it is much more a part of daily economic life. I suspect you'll see a similar policy continue under any U.S. administration.

While I would love to live in a 21st century where weapons were obsolete and unecessary, this simply isn't reality. In fact, I'm a bit astounded that we find ourselves in 2006 in a world where the dominant conflict is based upon theologically-based differences.

Mark

---

Well said, Mark.

As for an earlier remark in the thread regarding SDI and JV2020:

1. SDI was clearly a program with Republican sponsorship and leadership -- and it played at least a peripheral (if not central) role in driving the Soviet Union into ruin. Not a bad outcome.

2. JV2020 was published in the year 2000, and was created and approved by the US Joint Staff under the Clinton Administration (the Chairman, GEN Shelton, was appointed by Clinton). So, I'm not sure what this has to do with Republican leadership.

Finally, I would encourage discerning readers to judge the new Space Policy on its merits while giving consideration but not complete reliance upon Ms. Hitchens' analysis. CDI is a "non-partisan" organization, but Ms. Hitchens has an ongoing arms control agenda.

There is nothing wrong with having an arms control agenda. However, someone who says, "I am happy to debate those who disagree with my views about the lack of necessity, and strategic wisdom, of a space warfare strategy ..." might have a difficult time writing a non-partisan review.

Ref: The Space Review, June 27, 2005 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/397/1

posted 10-20-2006 08:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I had always suspected the USA, under Republican rule, was desperate to weaponize space (SDI, Joint Vision 2020).
North Korea was merely the pretext they have been waiting for.

---

posted 10-20-2006 09:40 PM               

I asked Harrison Schmitt about this when I met him in Houston. He believes that space exploration should be privatized. When private companies see an advantage to space and lunar exploration, they can advance the technology better and faster than the government.

Hoefully this scenario would lead to better motives for exploration, not just weapon systems.

posted 10-21-2006 02:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
Competition is what drove America into space. That is an unfortunate reality of our nature as human beings, fear drives us to build more weapons.

I asked Harrison Schmitt about this when I met him in Houston. He believes that space exploration should be privatized. When private companies see an advantage to space and lunar exploration, they can advance the technology better and faster than the government.

Hoefully this scenario would lead to better motives for exploration, not just weapon systems.

-Tahir

---

The thing is that there's no "market" for commercial ventures in space. Private telecommunications, remote sensing? Yes. Who financed the rockets to launch the satellites? The Government. Tourism? Sure. You need to be a) rich and b) healthy and c) you won't reach orbit unless you ride a rocket developed by the Government. Want to develop private rockets? Nobody will do it (because they don't have the necessary financial ressources) unless they secure launch contacts from? from? the Government. And when private "entrepreneurs" develop their own systems, they go bankrupt for reasons as the one just mentionned, or lack of vision (Iridium).
As to Harrison Scmitt's obsession about Helium-3, it's really becoming silly. We can't lift our sorry butts off the ground, and he wants private companies to develop, launch, mine, use lunar resources? Name one company that has the financial resources to do that- not to mention that helium-3 requires nuclear fusion-based reactors, which as of today don't work and when they do, for a few milliseconds, they consume more electricity than they supposed to produce. If you're looking for fuel, look first at the ones under your nose: solar, hydrogen, etc...
Only the Government can provide the resources to finance private enterprises in space, through the civilian space program or more likely the military. Provided of course that military developped systems aren't used to annihilate our specie. But hell, we don't need the military's help, we're already doing a pretty good job on our own.

posted 10-21-2006 02:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Well said, Mark.

As for an earlier remark in the thread regarding SDI and JV2020:

1. SDI was clearly a program with Republican sponsorship and leadership -- and it played at least a peripheral (if not central) role in driving the Soviet Union into ruin. Not a bad outcome.

---

For the Russian "elite", government, state-owned companies and mafia gangs (great tourists with a lot of money- no one's complaining. Do I hear money-laundering? lol.), for sure but otherwise, it's arguable. And at the rate at which the US Government spends money it doesn't have (not your fault, though, the rest of the world is financing it), you might well be next. But since you're not alone facing this situation (any industrialized nation making money at the Government level?), we'll just have to wait until it falls apart. Dramatically, our generation might not see it but whenever I look at young children (and their children), I can't help but think that they'll have to pay for OUR way of living. But I guess that's off topic.

posted 10-21-2006 02:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
This seems as something of a natural historical progression to me. Once more national assets and more economic activity becomes dependent upon assets in space (GPS, communications, remote sensing) nations will move to protect those assets.

As more nations attain access to space and develop the capability to harm those assets the need to protect them will become greater. 40 years ago very little of our economic activity was tied to space. Today it is much more a part of daily economic life. I suspect you'll see a similar policy continue under any U.S. administration.

While I would love to live in a 21st century where weapons were obsolete and unecessary, this simply isn't reality. In fact, I'm a bit astounded that we find ourselves in 2006 in a world where the dominant conflict is based upon theologically-based differences.

Mark

---

I fully agree with you on that.
Because the world has changed (and is changing), existing treaties ought to be renegotiated/amended. Or at least we ought to try, because if we don't- and simply decide to violate them, future prospects for humankind look pretty grim.
And I'm not quite sure that the dominant conflict is purely theological-based. Economic wealth distribution is probably a major factor behind all this- and it's a major source of future conflicts, too.

posted 10-21-2006 07:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
And I'm not quite sure that the dominant conflict is purely theological-based. Economic wealth distribution is probably a major factor behind all this- and it's a major source of future conflicts, too.

Chris.

---

There are "wealth distribution" issues all over the world, but you don't see young men in Mexico (for example) strapping bombs to their chests ...

posted 10-21-2006 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
There are "wealth distribution" issues all over the world, but you don't see young men in Mexico (for example) strapping bombs to their chests ...

---

Speaking of delivery devices in this interesting historical context (21st-century conflicts), I would note that the rich-poor divide in the Middle East combines with a history of religious intolerance.

This, er, incendiary combination is not present in Mexico, for example.

Our great Western liberal political tradition, in fact, formalizes religious toleration. The Founding Fathers, among others, realized that tolerance was the only way out of the genocidal conflicts that visited medieval and early modern Europe as Protestants battled Roman Catholics, and vice versa ad nauseam. What would ~they~ have done with weapons in space, I wonder?

There. We're back on topic.

posted 10-21-2006 10:38 AM               

I find it fascinating to think of the Gemini spaceraft still in use, having been incrementally improved over the past 40 years, even if for military purposes. They may already exist, but the topic would make for an interesting alternate history.

For example, how things might be different if the X-20 were improved and scaled up as a shuttle (carrying only crew) and the heavy lifting were left to the Saturns.

I've seen a great study (on paper, but it is probably around on the web) from the 60's on uprating the Saturn V with solids. The beast would take off with around 25-30 million pounds of thrust and could take extraordinary weights to orbit.

posted 10-22-2006 06:57 AM               

"When private companies see an advantage to space and lunar exploration, they can advance the technology better and faster than the government."

When governments see an advantage, the resources applied to the problem are way beyond anything private industry could do.
Apart from the obvious Apollo era, just look at the US military black projects. There is no way private money could make the advances in weapon systems and technology (in the black world to the tune of $billions), at the same rate.
If the US government would see the benefit of going to Mars in the next 10yrs, the level of investment committed, if at least equivalent to the 60s level of committment to the Moon landing, would be tens of $billions.
This will not come from private industry if they perceive an equivalent free market advantage to space exploration. You will get parallel development of technologies. with accountants requiring a cautious r&d budget.
We do need private industry involved in space exploration. But to get to the Moon and Mars "Now" rather than possibly in 15 to 30 years, we need the government to say, "Mars in 10yrs....failure is not an option". Then watch the NASA budget go to $50bill per year ( still a fraction of the military budget) and the rebirth of mankinds push into the cosmos.

A dream ...perhaps. But so was Apollo.

posted 10-22-2006 10:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by star61:
A dream ...perhaps. But so was Apollo.

---

Chris.

posted 10-22-2006 10:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
What would ~they~ have done with weapons in space, I wonder?

---

Chris.