Imperialism
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061019...s_061018184046

New US space policy targets rivals' capabilities by Jerome Bernard
Thu Oct 19, 1:58 AM ET

WASHINGTO (AFP) - President George W. Bush has approved a new national space policy aimed at denying "adversaries'" the use of space capabilities deemed hostile to US interests.

Bush authorized the new policy on August 31 and the document, which replaces a 1996 space policy, was published quietly by the White House on October 6.

"United States national security is critically dependent upon space capabilities, and this dependence will grow," the strategic document says.

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," it says.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

The text also rejects any treaties forbidding space weapons: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space."

The US government assured this new policy was not a first step toward a weaponization of space.

"It's not a shift in policy," White House spokesman Tony Snow told journalists traveling aboard Air Force One, the president's plane.

"The notion that you would do defense from space is different than the weaponization of space," he added.

The new policy has raised some eyebrows.

"While this policy does not explicitly say we are not going to shoot satellites or we are going to put weapons in space, it does, it seems to me, open the door toward that," Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, told AFP.

According to Hitchens, this reading was confirmed by a series of US army documents that clearly express interest in space weapons.

She noted the new policy also represents a significant shift from its 10-year-old predecessor initiated under then-president Bill Clinton.

"This is a much more unilateralist vision of space. The United States in this policy seeks to establish its rights but fails to acknowledge the rights of other countries in space, where the Clinton policy was very careful to acknowledge the rights of all nations in space," Hitchens said.

The United States currently enjoys supremacy in space, while Russia has lost most of its means and China is still in the development phase.

The Americans are the only ones capable of using satellites for combat operations and are doing it better and better if one compares the two wars in the Gulf and wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon, an expert at the Brookings Institution, testified during a congressional hearing in June.

But the US supremacy in space faces threats from other countries. "The United States is in particular concerned about China," Hitchens said.

"While both China and Russia have been promoting a space weapons ban, it is clear to me that the Chinese at the same time are considering ways to do damage to US space assets," she said.

Before becoming the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld warned against a "Space Pearl Harbor" and insisted US interests needed to be better protected.
__________________________________________________ _____________


Will they ever learn from History?


Ponrauil

This I think is the point of the article:

Considering the regime that is in power, only thinking about themselves is what they do best.

Kathleen

yeah it's not too different from them saying you can have nukes, so can you, you can;t, yeah you're ok but as long as you don't have as much as us....

all it does is build resentment. you really would think they'd know this as it doesn;t take a genius to find out.

what exactly happens when china does get to the stage it can have military tech in space?....

While I'd like to see the US in space, I'd prefer it be private entities and not the US military. I see no reason why space should be any different than earth. Territories, borders, nations and ownership of property should still be protected out there but we shouldn't be preventing people from staking claims. It's big enough for everybody.

I'm we should tell businesses and private individuals that we won't stand in their way if they want to do anything in space. We'll get out there a lot quicker than if we've gotta wait for the US government to get us out there.

Adrian

That is the job of government, to promote and protect itself and its people and its way of life.

You don't seriously think China would not do the same thing were it in the same position. Except that China's government is far worse than America's, so there would be more reason to complain.

And how about North Korea?

And what do you think the Geneva conventions are? And everything the UN supposedly stands for?

World law dictated by one governing body for the promotion of its ideals.

I am not saying this is a good idea or not (I haven't actually read up on this in any way excepting this opinionated article), but the blinded view that this is somehow unique or must be a detriment to the moral integrity of the only selfish Bush 'regime" (were it really a regime, as hard-line liberals so cleverly hyperbolize, you would have left by now on your morals) is careless and frail and vacant. Someone mentioned here that you must learn from history.

One could say that what they learned from history is that wars are costly and often catalyzed by abuses of power.

One could also argue that wars and quarrelling, history shows, are inevitable and may the best one win and live to analyze the history of it later.

B

HOw exactly to you differentiate private business and government? Do you truly/seriously believe there is a difference???????

Who says we'd support the Chinese government?

This is about doing the right thing, not about what we can possibly get away with and how we can get the biggest benefit for ourselves.

I agree with that to a point. But if you take the argument to the logical limit - every country would think that they could rule space and that no one else can be there.

My point is that we live in a finite world and things can't always be in favor of the US. Cooperation is something that is mandatory in this day and age of instant information and shrinking boundaries. There is an arogance to the present government that I dislike intensely. That doesn't mean that China (or anybody else) would be any better or handle things any differently.

Kathleen

What we actually learn from history is that history doesn't learn us anything.

I'm afraid that the forth coming century will be rather messy.

Care to elaborate?


?

I don't see the link between the Geneva Conventions (ratified by 194 countries), the UN (192 countries) and this unilateral decision from just 1 country that they're the ones who'll call the shots on what can be done or not by other countries in that field.

Ponrauil