Us protects its space interest.

BlitzKrieg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6063926.stm


I'm all for proactive (not pre-emptive policies) over reactive ones, but this is one that makes one scratch his head. It sort of makes you giggle because the detail:

However, some military experts warn that by refusing to enter into negotiations on space weaponry, the US is likely to fuel international suspicions that it will develop such weapons.

Is going to be very very true.

But aside from that, is there a need to come across so aggressively? I dont mean military or what not, just the formality and wording, gives the impression that this is an issue that needs to be solved RIGHT NOW! when one looks at the current military climate, you would think space weapons would be very far down the list of potential forms of attack.

Though it could be a way of justifying and safegaurding all those nice new spy satelites.

but for some its just another reason to take a swipe at the US, though its a right strange one.

flogen

My question is, would this hold up in an intergalactic court?

The Corinthian

The policy is part of the full spectrum dominance strategy and was originally developed in the mid 1990’s by the US to maintain the strategic advantage it presently has in not only outer space, but also in all military and strategic fields and even cyber space.

Where it will potentially affect us is with the European Galileo GPS project which was not only developed in direct competition to the US’s own system but also has eventually encompassed countries such as China. Whether the US would go so far as to disable it in the present climate is questionable, but it is certainly on the hit list of the policy under discussion.

flogen

Oh, and wouldn't the US have to pull out of this before it started developing space weapons?

lizzyrocker

I'd suspect this new policy is a reaction to the apparant attempts of China to blind U.S. Satellites using laser technology, See the link below for further details

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america

It ties up with what the bbc report states:

It addresses concerns voiced in a 2001 Pentagon report that said technological advances would enable potential enemies to disrupt orbiting US satellites, our correspondent says.

Frederico

lizzyrocker wrote:

I'd suspect this new policy is a reaction to the apparant attempts of China to blind U.S. Satellites using laser technology, See the link below for further details

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america

It ties up with what the bbc report states:

Yeah I heard about this too, well done to the Chinese, well within their rights to blind any satellites spying on them.

bonkey

Frederico wrote:

Yeah I heard about this too, well done to the Chinese, well within their rights to blind any satellites spying on them.

Thats highly arguable.

A parallel would be to say their well within their rights to sink any ship in international water which they believe is spying on them. However, to do so would constitute an act of war.

Similarly, attacking an aircraft in international airspace would be considerable as an act of war.

So why is space different?

Sesshoumaru

bonkey wrote:

Thats highly arguable.

A parallel would be to say their well within their rights to sink any ship in international water which they believe is spying on them. However, to do so would constitute an act of war.

Similarly, attacking an aircraft in international airspace would be considerable as an act of war.

So why is space different?

because america is bad mmkay

Victor

flogen wrote:

My question is, would this hold up in an intergalactic court?

It only has to hold up in galactic courts as it has no intergalactic aspect.