Bush Seeks to Block Enemies From Space

Lol..

News: America declares war against alien planets. Bush to blame. Democrats cry for peaceful talks with Venuzian and Martian species.

LunarTick: Thats what I want to know! This is personal, after all!

When they can keep planes out of the NYC airspace, then try for outer space!!

When they can keep planes out of the NYC airspace, then try for outer space!!

Isn't that a bit like saying "We will help people out of poverty once we find a way to prevent it"?

Everything within the orbit of the moon is US spacespace (rather than airspace).

Are you serious? How can we claim to possess that entire region?

ComSen...Isn't that a bit like saying "We will help people out of poverty once we find a way to prevent it"?

In every case, the Congress has proved incapable of getting the job done. Funding rich friends is all they get right.

hmm.... my bad then. i wasnt sure if that was the case or if the US had actually claimed that territory. i wouldnt be surprised if we did lay claim to it.

May the Force Be with him ;)

send him now! please!

How is this provocative? It's not instigating anything? He's implementing a plan in the future so we have actual regulations to follow. What were we to do if someone say like CHINA *cough* READ THE RECENT NEWS *cough* were to do something with our satellites?

No more GPS system for consumers and our military. No more sate-lite guided lasers that save civilian lives. No more satellite up-link systems for our networked global military to communicate with. No more satellite tv for you watch after a hard day of working in the office.

WHAT IF, a country planned to put Nukes in space?!?

We wouldn't have the policy in place to stop them. Now we do. Stop crying.

As much as Venezuela's President Chavez is a kook, he's right about Bush's thinking that he owns the world. And now he wants to own outer space too? What an arrogant S.O.B.

This sorry excuse for a leader has done more harm in the world than any science fiction writer could have dreamed up. Please, please, PLEASE hurry up 2008...PLEASE!!!!

Bush also said the United States would oppose the development of treaties or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space.

So we're saying we are allowed to do whatever we want with space and we will actively oppose anybody who says otherwise. Sounds just a bit hypocritical to me, but I don't think you'd be able to understand that.

So we're saying we are allowed to do whatever we want with space and we will actively oppose anybody who says otherwise. Sounds just a bit hypocritical to me, but I don't think you'd be able to understand that.

that was my first thought as welll. "space is ours, don't come up here." How can we declare that we want our freedom in space, but we're unwilling to allow other countries the same.

This is oe reason Europe is in the process of building a duplicate system to the US GPS system. It is pretty much a waste of money but Europe believes that it can't trust the US to ensure access to the GPS system

Hotshot Gunner wrote

As much as Venezuela's President Chavez is a kook, he's right about Bush's thinking that he owns the world. And now he wants to own outer space too? What an arrogant S.O.B.

So where did Bush say he wanted to own outer space? Huh? My impression is he wanted to protect the US from attacks from other countries by preventing those countries from launching weapons, spy satellites, etc in a time of war.

So I take it you are against the US if it is attacked?

Those where actually my thought exactly. I find this sad and funny at the same time. Is that possible?

The problem is, this is not beneficial. It's Manifest Destiny all over again which any historian will tell you was a bad policy for the country, for any country. The universe isn't the domain of the US alone. Or any country. There is some very vague wording in this about the point of this new Manifest Destiny. It's not for the betterment of the human race; not for protecting countries to do research and exploration, but for military applications. There are several examples given in the article which lead one to believe that the US would have the "right" to subjugate any other country to advance our space initiative -- where does the US get this vast authority from? Doesn't Germany, for example, have the same rights to explore the universe? I think they do; I think every sovereign nation does -- that includes China, North Korea, Iran, as well as our allies. I think there's a huge problem in this country in not recognizing that every country is a sovereign entity and the US has no right to dominate the planet or universe. (my response copied from the seed below)

By the way, this was seeded last week, with a more in-depth article attached to that seed.

The declaration reads like a Monroe Doctrine for Space. Why on earth would it be necessary for a normal member of the world community to issue such veiled threats.

When Russian Communism fell and the US became .. temporarily .. the sole super power, there was a great chance at avoiding new arms races, power blocks, etc and extending the membership of western style democracies - as South Korea, Germany, Japan and others were successfully integrated into this sphere since WW2. 9/11 strengthened that opportunity. The US has pissed away the opportunity with its heavy handed, exceptionalist brand of world politics. Now China, Russia and others are forming counter-blocks to this American bullying.

Its a shame, it didn't have to be like this.

Bush seeing the need for a Monroe Doctrine in Space is another sad example.

The issue isn't whether or not it is beneficial to the country. It's his way of bullying others because his attitude is always "If you're not with us you're against us." He doesn't approach issues from the standpoint of "How can we come to an agreement on this?' Instead it's "Well, this is what I want so pony up or shut up."

There are times, of course, when a tough stand is necessary; but this spoiled brat wants everything his way or it's the highway. Push someone too far or too often and they'll eventually reach a point where even if it means getting their ass kicked they'll fight just to protect themselves.

He's probably frustrated because he was pampered when he was a kid and never had a chance to act out his "I wanna be a bully." fantasy in a regular school and so he has to act it out now. Too bad for the world.

KevinB: Wow everything that Bush does receives criticism from every lunatic on Newsvine even if it is ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL to the country. Amazing.

And here I was being amazed that Bush has staunch supporters even despite statements symptomatic of a massive recto-cranial inversion. Different strokes, etc.

As the joke goes, "Were [Bush] to eat a baby on live television, thirty percent of the population would still support him, and a third of them would blame the 'liberal media' for making the baby look so delicious."

Beneficial for the country - hmmmm - who's country? Your country? I guess everyone on Newsvine is from America.

Picture that - the US claims space - and the rest of the world has issues with it. Who would've thought!

I simply don't trust any policy from Bush that involves more military spending. I agree that we should be doing more to ensure satellite communications don't get interrupted (either intentionally or unintentionally) but I don't think the solution is to give more bloated military contracts out.

Here's some better solutions:

How about funding programs to develop cheaper launch vehicles to make replacing damaged satellites faster and easier?

How about creating redundancy? The US actively fought against the European Galileo project that offers a GPS like system. The reason? We didn't want to lose control of the technology. That's not an acceptable policy to have anymore.

Why aren't we investing more money into ground based communications? Our internet info structure in America is downright embarrassing in some places. We should be investing money into creating alternatives to satellite communications (where possible) by enhancing our communications backbones and getting on the telecom industry to provide consumers with cheaper/faster internet services. Instead we're pushing the ridiculous Network Neutrality act out there which would literally cripple the internet as we know it. This is worse threat than some hypothetical Star Wars-ish fight over satellites.

Wait how is Net Neutrality ridiculous?

I think it was more that Net Neutrality got shot down, which is the ridiculous part.

^^ Er that's right. Sorry for the confusing wording.

Beneficial for the country - hmmmm - who's country? Your country? I guess everyone on Newsvine is from America.

Popular folklore here dictates it's the only country that matters and any of us who disagree with our current "@!$%# The World" foreign policy are Nazi sympathizers at best. God help me, it would be so much easier to just sit on my ass and watch CSI: Miami and be a happy zombie. Lord, give me head trauma!

ahh okay thanks :)

Wow everything that Bush does receives criticism from every lunatic on Newsvine even if it is ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL to the country. Amazing.

KevinR as you have caled me a lunatic ... I'd appreciate a response to my test case under your understanding of this beneficial doctrine.

Please have the decency to try and keep a sraight face if your response says that the US interpretation would do anything ither than support US spy satellites but be outraged at Chinese Spy satellites.

While you may disagree with me at least hopefully you can now see why many find this Monroe Space Doctrine yet another example of US foreign policy heavy-handedness.

KevinR has a tendency to do that. He'll call you names and tell you that you're a moron for being wrong, but when asked specifically why he thinks you're wrong, he disappears.

Personally I think KevinR is a lunatic. He speaks in irrational riddles and criticizes logical thought. I find it amazing that people are still in support of someone who is obviously trying to turn control of everything over to elitists that have their hand up Bush's you know what.

My pet theort is that KevinR is actually a different person with the initials KR. He certainly hews to the talking points closely enough to be the man actually writing them.

Adipic, that may be true.

How would Chinese Spy satellites fit under this new doctrine? How about USA spy satellites?

Well, by what I read, if China is attacking the US (as in a war), the US is declaring the right to prevent them from launching anything.

It seems that those against this declaration do not want the US to be able to defend itself against attacking enemies.

How would Chinese Spy satellites fit under this new doctrine? How about USA spy satellites?

Well, by what I read, if China is attacking the US (as in a war), the US is declaring the right to prevent them from launching anything.

It seems that those against this declaration do not want the US to be able to defend itself against attacking enemies.

LOL What an incomplete answer.

Answer half the question and ignore the issue. USA satellites?

Sorry. I thought it was obvious. US satellites would not be attacking the US, so they wouldn't apply to the doctrine as I understand it.

Fair enough ... tHanks .. so you agree the doctrine is provocative and threatening.

so you agree the doctrine is provocative and threatening.

No, unless you are a US enemy and plan on attacking the US and would rather the US not defend itself.

OK I will go slow.

You admit a double standard to Chinese satellites (bad in your/US view) versus US Spy satellites (OK in your/US view)

To many of us this double standard is very offensive. Clear?

You admit a double standard to Chinese satellites (bad in your/US view) versus US Spy satellites (OK in your/US view)

To many of us this double standard is very offensive. Clear?

So you're saying that countries (such as the US) should let it's enemies attack them and not prevent or thwart those attacks?

There's no double standard. Those other countries can say that they won't allow the US access to space if we attack them. Your logic does not make sense, except for enemies wanting to attack us.

lol your statements only make sense if the USA was at WAR with China.

Which unfortunately may happen given the current regime's confrontational attitude over everything.

your statements only make sense if the USA was at WAR with China.

Well if you had read my message in 5.6 that started this discussion, I said

if China is attacking the US (as in a war)

Firsty, that sounds like a threat to the Presidents life. Expect some visitors soon.

Doesn't sound like a threat to me. Sounds like an opinion. Anyway, can you really kill a man who has no soul? I mean, he barely registers as human -- he'd fail a Voight-Kampff test within seconds.

It would probably only count as a threat if it were credible, i.e. firsty had a multiple-stage rocket capable of escape velocity for the length of the trip.

And besides, think of the novelty. George W. Bush could be our first moronaut.

heheh.

of course, if i left out "into space," i'd probably get a visit pretty quick, despite the fact that i'm alluding to a 35-year-old quote.

the only rockets we have in america go backwards.

From the article you linked, Dave:

Twelve astronauts walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The experience changed all their lives - some more dramatically than others. Buzz Aldrin battled with alcoholism while Apollo 14's Edgar Mitchell became a paranormal investigator. Following Apollo 15, the late James Irwin became a born-again Christian, heading to Mount Ararat in search of Noah's Ark.

And we're to assume that those changes were because they made a trip to the moon? That the moon was to blame for one man's alcoholism, or for another man's career choice?

I agree, political enthusiasm for visiting the moon has died considerably, and shuttle tragedies like the Challenger and Columbia don't particularly help. But that paragraph makes it seem like we're wary of the moon for a rather... silly... reason.

I'm torn on whether or not humans have any right to expand into space. On one hand, I'd like to be able to leave Earth and all its pettiness behind, but... on the other hand I realize that humans wouldn't be leaving Earth behind at all. We'd just be taking our problems to another planet. Go read Bradbury's Martian Chronicles for an interesting take on that dilemma.

Actually, space has plenty of one of the most sought-after commodities in the history of humanity: space. Almost every war has been fought over real-estate-related issues. Orbital space is not different. I'd wager that it's actually lt more important than a few hundred extra square miles of farmland. Why? Information.

The scary part is the "The US needs freedom in space, and we're preserving it if we have to blow the rest of you f---s out of the sky" part.

The modern world runs on information. Seeking information. Aggregating information. Analyzing information. Distilling information. Orbital space is the best vantage point for both observation (spy satellites, GPS networks) and broadcasting (the hundreds of communications satellites out there right now). Think of what actions can fall under Bush's proclamation: Anything and everything that can possibly be shoved under the umbrella of "protecting American space freedom and countering interference with American space plans." It's a preemptive decree of entitlement to all of space.

David Mc Girr: Does anyone realise there is very little in space itself?
The only real stuff to protect is the stuff we as a species put there.

Just to play devil's advocate here, space has one other thing, and it can be considered important: potential. Literally. To get to practically any spot on Earth from there, it's all downhill. See also Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" for a demonstration of this practice.

You know how from space you can see a lot more land than you can from just the air? Imagine targeting missiles that way. Warheads are hard enough to defend against when they're launched from ground positions. From overhead they could be almost impossible to catch. The "nuke from orbit" option would be attractive to any tin-pot despot who wants nothing less than sovereign control over his country, his neighbors, his enemies, etc.

Whether this is just a hamfisted attempt to defend against said "nuking from orbit" (despite the fact that no other country in the world has the capacity to launch such a strike that we know of) or an attempt to claim space so he can eventually develop the capacity himself is left as an exercise for the reader.

Plus, it could be a response to this.

And, just because there's nothing in it doesn't mean that people don't want it.

Sorry if I was a tad broad in my citation. The part of this article I should have drawn your attention to was this

Nasa should have no problem finding volunteers to crew the long-duration moonbase announced by President George W Bush.

Bush vowed to put men on the moon. Now he wants to "protect" space. Anyone else think he should concentrate on problems on this planet before trying to get to another one that we'll (or he'll) just @!$%# up anyway?

-Dave

Star Wars (SDI)?

Doubtful many congress critters have any idea how satellites work much less an understanding of the issue.

This is rocket science, you know. Magic and smoke and mirrors.

And rubber bands. How else do you think they get those liftoffs?

Don't forget about the fireworks. That's why you see all those nice colors. Weeeeeee.

Well, I don't hear God making a claim for it. But then I guess God would also own America so who are we to say terrorists can't come here?

I have a feeling that the big picture here isn't being covered by this article and that none of you actually read what little is there to begin with. What Bush is talking about is "hostile purposes" meaning crafts that take out our satelites or carry warheads aimed strait down at our heads.

It's simply an attempt to protect our interests. No one said, hey you can't go into space because your not American. Not hat we could stop anyone to begin with.

and baseball bats.

And twangy country music.

Also, I think maybe bombs, computer programs, and also common sense.

Oh, and also beautiful women. HATE beautiful women.

Oh, and also beautiful women. HATE beautiful women.

well then my town is still in danger.