It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Three Star AF General "retires" after space lecture

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

The treaty is really not as restrictive as people think. The only weapon system banned from orbit is a WMD, and that only because the reaction time is too low if they're ever deployed. The Soviets placed either a 23 or 30mm gun on Salyut-3. It was tested at least twice before the station was deorbited.




posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Except we don't. On an engineering table doesn't mean working.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: chr0naut

The treaties only prohibit WMDs in orbit. They say nothing about other weapons types.


They actually go beyond orbit and refer to much more than weaponry.

Please refer to my previous link.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Except we don't. On an engineering table doesn't mean working.


i dunno... I have been hearing rumors along the same lines, then to hear a General talk about it... almost confirms it for me.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, I know. I've actually read the Outer Space Treaty. But we're a long way from placing anything beyond orbit, so it's easier to simply refer to orbit. And nothing in them bans any other activity being discussed.


The Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.[6][7] It is mostly a non-armament treaty and offers insufficient and ambiguous regulations to newer space activities such as lunar and asteroid mining.[8][9][10]

en.m.wikipedia.org...


edit on 12/12/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Comments along these lines are many times either taken out of context, or more is read into them. Ben Rich is a prime example of that.



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

The treaty is really not as restrictive as people think. The only weapon system banned from orbit is a WMD, and that only because the reaction time is too low if they're ever deployed. The Soviets placed either a 23 or 30mm gun on Salyut-3. It was tested at least twice before the station was deorbited.


A higher atmosphere ballistic trajectory is an orbit (admittedly decaying), which makes every ICBM something contrary to the treaty.

Nearly everyone capable of lofting a satellite (including NGO's) has something in orbit deploy-able as a weapon. At 17 thousand mph, to 20 thousand mph, orbital velocity, even a tiny screw is deadly.

And, who ever is going to audit or prosecute? So everyone does whatever they like.


edit on 12/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No, it doesn't. Actually read the treaty.


States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

2009-2017.state.gov...


The U.S. Minuteman 3 ICBM is a three-stage booster. The payload is a single W62 nuclear warhead with a yield of 170 kilotons. The booster places the warhead on a suborbital trajectory. At its height, the vehicle is outside the Earth’s atmosphere.

www.space.com...


Nearly everyone capable of lofting a satellite (including NGO's) has something in orbit deploy-able as a weapon. At 17 thousand mph, to 20 thousand mph, orbital velocity, even a tiny screw is deadly.


And how many of those are nuclear? Because unless those screws have nuclear warheads, they're not banned.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
For me..this dude has high aspirations...i mean he was being groomed from Major. He was one of those dudes that commanded a room and you just knew he was going somewhere...hes the only commander that I ever followed. That is what makes me wonder why he knowingly wrecked his career.

Whatever he knows...it got to be big. And God knows the AF would never give up anything.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

He's not wrong. We're doing next to nothing in space compared to China. It's all politics and BS.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Yup..and in the meantime we are putting an expensive bandaid on legacy platforms.
Lockheed and Boeing are so bound up by congressional bs, and ever changing demands from the AF, that its no wonder they cant build another SR71 type program in two years.



a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jimmyx

Because there's more than one source that talks about it. The SecAF at the time was against Space Force being split off, which is on the record. He made comments in support of Space Force, which is on the record. There are multiple people saying that they were told not to speak out in support of Space Force no matter what their personal feelings were, which can be found in several articles.


I thought it was Navy who got the Space Force?



The Navy has been behind all of the hidden suppression...they are in deep and have been bad bad boys they run the SSP the covertly run space force....they will and must be shut-out of this and what they have must be rooted out and taken from them and transferred over to the Space Force Army controllers.

The American Navy will be purged.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: lakenheath24

He was pushed into retirement because he spoke out after being told not to. At that level, it's a guarantee of retirement at the least.

There's a lot of wiggle room in there. On the engineering benches doesn't mean it's readily available, or even works for that matter.


I used to drive Uber. In one of my trips I had a a person from Joint Base Andrews who was pretty high up on the ladder. I told him about my suspicions for the Navy's secret Space presence. He told me that the Air Force is MUCH farther along in having a Space presence. He alluded to a Space fleet already in place.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If Julian Paul Assange had fallen in love with Philip Morris instead of those two Swedish girls he might never have spent any time in prison.

I've read about 5 or 6 different future-tech commercial rollout plans in this thread.
This secret military technology is eventually independently discovered and developed anyways.

Its fun to try and reverse engineer the tech to figure out the date it was declassified.
I'd guess this tech belongs back with paper punch cards and Mary Poppins.

What are the issues with 100 Ghz+ technologies?

dp.la...



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I agree with the General on this.
To let China dominate space,especially the military aspect of space would be a colossal mistake,and may well spell the end of the free world.
It would be worse than how the world has has allowed China to rise to almost super power status through trade,and that has been a bad enough mistake IMHO.
Whoever dominates space WILL become the richest and most powerful country on the planet.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Just to add a little fuel for the fire (or is it firing?):

spacenews.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Thanks for the link. Basically they want a layer to shoot down geosync sattellites. Could be a step towards a moon base.



a reply to: anzha



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

He's not wrong, he just went about it wrong.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Could be an attempt to corral and mine 16 Psyche. Its got enough gold to make every human a quintillionaire.




www.google.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
I agree with the General on this.
To let China dominate space,especially the military aspect of space would be a colossal mistake,and may well spell the end of the free world.
It would be worse than how the world has has allowed China to rise to almost super power status through trade,and that has been a bad enough mistake IMHO.
Whoever dominates space WILL become the richest and most powerful country on the planet.



China has been caught using nasa’s images. Hilariously nasa watermarks their stuff and China used it. I don’t believe the hype with China. People seem to forget China uses inflatable tanks to make it seem like they have a bigger army. What I do believe is that at some point our military wants more funding and I don’t put it past them to create a need for a new budget.

A space force probably is intended to use a ton of old black budget stuff developed in the Cold War years. What people need to understand is just how far ahead of the curve in terms of technology we are. Let’s put it this way the concept for the internet was in the 50’s the concept for quantum computing was in the 80’s. The SR71 was built in late 60’s early 70’s and stealth tech is a concept from the nazi’s to bypass radar which we got to see in the late 80’s early 90’s. They cloned a sheep in the early 2000’s “non military. The crap planes we put out are only a slight advantage while we probably have something on a different level if you look at black budget funding also I would say they probably hid a massive project with 911 to make sure it wasn’t leaked.

This old stuff I bet works is costing a ton of money to house and isn’t really achieving any objective- so what do you do? You create a space force because even if other countries figure the tech out they are still behind by 40 to 30 years.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join