US to 'deny the use of space' to Europe , starting 2004

spongebob

Rumsfeld loves the idea apparently.

The Military Doctrine of Negation is imminent, starting in 2004 it seems. This is what the Canadians have said about it so far.....and they share their Airspace Defence with the Americans.

"Negation implies treating allies poorly," Robert Lawson, senior policy adviser for nonproliferation in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, said at a Toronto conference in late March. "It implies treaty busting."

More Here .

M

Lemming

I wonder what marvellous excuses Rummiebaby & his little glove puppet bushter will come up with when a Euro satellite gets shot down.

Come to think of it .. I'd just LOOOOVE to see them try that one on with the Chinese*

Go Team
U
S
A

:rolleyes:

*sarcasm alert.

Come to think of it, this entire post is sarcastic

Manach

If one wanted to be catty about it, the denial of space travek is being done quite effectively by the use of the French Arieane rocket.

spongebob

Very funny Manach

Rumsfeld and his merry merry men intend to disable European sats such as the Envisat with bursts of lasers from the ground which will overload the sensors.

Basically the premise is, we can do what to it we want once it is overhead....even if it is a non military Sat

Lemming

Originally posted by Muck
Rumsfeld and his merry merry men intend to disable European sats such as the Envisat with bursts of lasers from the ground which will overload the sensors.

Basically the premise is, we can do what to it we want once it is overhead....even if it is a non military Sat

Not a very well thought out plan really is it?

Two can play at that game. Who needs lasers? A missile will do a more "permanent" job for far less the cost. Last I checked, the USA weren't the only show in town with THAT capability.

Besides, whatever happens with Europe, it's China I'd be watching on that note.

bonkey

So when do they intend to rename the ISS to the USSS then?

jc

Hobbes

Anyone read the /. story a while ago about China having quite possibly the first moon base (planning for 2006-2014).

What got the most attention? That when China gets a moon base it will be able to take over the world by lobbing large asteroids at the planet. Seriously too much saturday morning TV for some people.

Also I wonder how the US plans to enforce negation? The EU plans to put up it's own GPS systems over Europe (while telling US to remove it's Sats from that space). I very much doubt the US would shoot one down.

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
So when do they intend to rename the ISS to the USSS then?

jc

Probably after they've finished with their mastabatory fantasies :rolleyes:

Rumsie et al. must have very strong wrists by now

DadaKopf

I wonder whether it's likely at all that the Democrats' election platform will be the massive misuse of public funds for outlandish military projects (everyone remembers Star Wars) to the detriment of medicare, education and jobs, the net result being a scrapping of such programmes.

It's probably unlikely, though, since the politicians and the press have maintained a constant state of fear since 2001 and the people feel they need these things, even if they also know Bush and his friends are in this purely for the money.

Here's that National Security Strategy of the United States of America document that article referred to.

DadaKopf

I find it interesting, though, that the US has entirely taken the burden of global terrorism/militant Islam on her shoulders, even though it's a thoroughly international concern. Plainly, it's because it suits America's appetites to play that role even though the best way to combat global terrorism would be through international co-operation and the sharing of information. Now Washington is acting like a moody teenager again, and how many times have we all heard our parents complaining that staying in our room all the time is bad for us?

spongebob

In this story Here you can see how Bruce is setting out to negate the negation...so to speak.

M

mike65

G'wan Bruce!

As for the main notion its plainly nuts and proberly a ploy
vis-a-vis the Democrates and the next presidential campaign
(which effectivly starts in 5 months!). Given the acurancy of US
Mars-shots I'd not worry about them trying to shoot down an Ariane
or anything else...

edit! This goes back more than a year or two, in fact its origins are Clinton era!
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1999/0299bell.html (check grey section near bottom)

Check this from 1996 which is er interesting...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap09/v3c9-4.htm#Offensive Counterspace Operations and here
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap09/v3c9-3b.htm


Mike.

Sparks

Mike,

As for the main notion its plainly nuts

This goes back more than a year or two, in fact its origins are Clinton era!

Both statements were also true regarding the neocon agenda as set out by PNAC.

mike65

Originally posted by Sparks
Mike,
Both statements were also true regarding the neocon agenda as set out by PNAC.

Ah but this counterspace programme is the policy of a government dept,
not a "think tanks" big wheeze...(note for those not reading
indymedia (;) ) PNAC is "Project for the New American Century")

Mike.

Sparks

Ah but this counterspace programme is the policy of a government dept,
not a "think tanks" big wheeze

Yes, but remember that Peter Teets (the guy that made the speech and who heads the NRO, which makes all the US military's space-related purchases, and who'd be issuing all the contracts for any program designed to do the denying of NEO to the rest of us), just happens to be the ex-Chief Operating Officer of Lockheed-Martin, who'd be getting a lot of the contracts.

From a report from a year or so ago:

Peter B. Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force - Mr. Teets is the retired
President and Chief Operating Officer of Lockheed Martin Corp., a position
he held from 1997 through 1999. He began his career with Martin Marietta,
Denver, Colo., in 1963, and held various positions with Martin Marietta
until the merger with Lockheed Martin in 1995. After the Lockheed Martin
merger in 1995 and until 1997, Mr. Teets served as President and Chief
Operating Officer of the Information and Services Sector. Teets remains
on the Board at Lockheed Martin and also sits on the Board of Directors at
the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory. Teets has openly advocated the
weaponization of space. At a March 6, 2002 conference in Washington, DC, he
asserted that "weapons will go into space. It's a question of time. And we
need to be at the forefront of that."

And I think that everyone here knows who PNAC are, given recent events.

Éomer of Rohan

The EU plans to put up it's own GPS systems over Europe (while telling US to remove it's Sats from that space)

I imagine the oh so self inflated term 'consequences' will feature in the US response if the dinosaurs are still in charge.

I find it interesting, though, that the US has entirely taken the burden of global terrorism/militant Islam on her shoulders, even though it's a thoroughly international concern. Plainly, it's because it suits America's appetites to play that role even though the best way to combat global terrorism would be through international co-operation and the sharing of information

A hundred years later and still they play cowboys and red Indians. I am not saying who is who.

Anyone read the /. story a while ago about China having quite possibly the first moon base (planning for 2006-2014).

Like I said in a different thread, the sooner this happens, the better for the geo-politicostrategic balance of power and for all those nations sick and tired of US interventionism - actually, if you think about it, it is the best thing that could happen for the 1.3 Bn Chinese citizens on earth; their government, which the US concludes might 'leapfrog' earth-bound powers on things like nuclear fusion reactors, finally having a lot of money could build the chinese education, health care, mass transit, social welfare etc systems to their socialist potential - we might even, extreme amount of change to go through like, have the world's first socialist power.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Like I said in a different thread, the sooner this happens, the better for the geo-politicostrategic balance of power and for all those nations sick and tired of US interventionism - actually, if you think about it, it is the best thing that could happen for the 1.3 Bn Chinese citizens on earth; their government, which the US concludes might 'leapfrog' earth-bound powers on things like nuclear fusion reactors, finally having a lot of money could build the chinese education, health care, mass transit, social welfare etc systems to their socialist potential - we might even, extreme amount of change to go through like, have the world's first socialist power.

Ah, but it wouldn't be truly socialist would it??
Unless of course it lost it's unofficial title as one of the most complained about regimes by amnesty international.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Ah, but it wouldn't be truly socialist would it??
Unless of course it lost it's unofficial title as one of the most complained about regimes by amnesty international.

With the sort of resources that would be generated by a fusion reactor then the Chinese could probably outstrip any capitalist nation on earth and they might actually decide to follow up Marx's theory rather than simply paying it lip service.

Oh yes, and the US are the nation AI complains about most.

Plus, read what I said;

we might even, extreme amount of change to go through like, have the world's first socialist power

extreme amount of change to go through being a key part of that sentence.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Oh yes, and the US are the nation AI complains about most.

Plus, read what I said;

extreme amount of change to go through being a key part of that sentence.

If they haven't changed in the last thirty years in terms of human rights, they aren't going to do so now that we are in the 21st century.
They have no space shuttle,moon landing or mission to mars in that timeframe either, though only now are they starting to get their finger out, on that score...

And despite, what you say, regarding AI's attitude to the U.S, I'd choose to live there given a straight choice over China any time, safe in the knowledge that I'd have more rights to free speech and protest.
mm

Hobbes

Man have you actually been to China?

Originally posted by Hobbes
Man have you actually been to China?

Nope, but I did have a friend there for six months on an engineering contract.
On their second day there all the women disappeared from the village.
Scary or what.
Having said that, it's on my list of places to go to, but really, I wouldn't be keen to live in a country, that displaces thousands of people to build the worlds biggest Dam,or that drives tanks over its own people in Tianamen square.
mm

Hobbes

Really? what village is that then?

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I wouldn't be keen to live in a country, that displaces thousands of people to build the worlds biggest Dam

Yes, it would be preferable to build a series of nuclear stations, or perhaps thermal generation ones and produce massive amounts of pollutants...not to mention the increased running costs etc.

Or maybe they shouldnt have done either, and just forgotten about meeting the energy demands which will inevitably grow as the nation tries to bring itself into a more modern world. Stay in abject poverty...much better idea.

But, of course, such large-scale flooding in the name of progress only happens in those oppressive regimes, doesnt it......a "proper" government would never build something like that, would it???

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
But, of course, such large-scale flooding in the name of progress only happens in those oppressive regimes, doesnt it......a "proper" government would never build something like that, would it???

jc

Whoops, methinks, I should have added,I might have had some choice, here in the west or at least be adequately compensated.
I might have been able to get on to my local representative and have a meaning full chat about the situation.
Or indeed object at the open meeting held to discuss the environmental impact study on the scheme, and complain about the potentially serious damage.

Meanwhile,I'd be campaigning for wind turbines to be located on the hill overlooking my valley, not nuclear power stations.
{apologies for going off topic here}
mm

Sparks

Whoops, methinks, I should have added,I might have had some choice, here in the west or at least be adequately compensated.

Surely you jest!

I might have been able to get on to my local representative and have a meaning full chat about the situation.

Not without a larger brown envelope than the developer's...

Or indeed object at the open meeting held to discuss the environmental impact study on the scheme, and complain about the potentially serious damage.

Oh, you can shout all you want, that's your right. Thing is, as demonstrated quite happily time and again in this country and others, most especially in the "example" of western life that used to be the US, noone will do anything about your complaint unless they have something to gain from it.

And if I remember correctly, building the dam is also supposed to help control the annual flooding that causes damage ...

Meanwhile,I'd be campaigning for wind turbines to be located on the hill overlooking my valley, not nuclear power stations.

I don't know why, if built properly a nuclear power station is a better solution. Note that "if built properly" clause, by the way. That's the one clause which gives me pause regarding the dam - the fact that there are complaints relating to the standard of engineering in the construction.

bonkey

But lets not turn this into a "better solution for power generation" thread. We're already well off the beaten path....

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
But lets not turn this into a "better solution for power generation" thread. We're already well off the beaten path....

jc

Ah, darn it:D and I was looking foward to an evenings discussion with Sparks on the subject...
I'm actually going for a chinese instead,no pun intended:p
mm

Sparks

But lets not turn this into a "better solution for power generation" thread. We're already well off the beaten path....

We're not all that far off the beaten path JC :
The chinese need energy so they build the dam;
But the dam could be replaced by a better power generation system;
Such as an orbiting solar power satellite system;
Which the Chinese space programme is needed for to put in orbit;
Which means that the US policy of denying NEO is relevant!

See, told you it wasn't too far to go....