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.

 

NEWS: Air Force Seeks Bush Nod For Space Weapons

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The U.S. Air Force is seeking President Bush's approval of a national security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing White House and Air Force officials.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
A senior administration official said a new presidential directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a less aggressive use of space, involving spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts, the report said.

Any deployment of space weapons would face financial, technological, political and diplomatic hurdles, as well as almost surely opposition from U.S. allies and potential enemies alike, fearing an arms race in space.

With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them, the newspaper said.

A presidential directive is expected within weeks, the senior administration official told the Times, adding that the directive is still under final review and the White House has not disclosed its details.

Air Force officials said the directive did not call for militarizing space. "The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space," said Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman. "The focus is having free access in space."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What would happen if they militarized space? Can "Star Wars" be far behind? I find this to be a very interesting topic. I woulds like to hear your opinions about the subject.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
correct me if i'm wrong here. but isn't the us a signitory to a treaty that SPACIFICALY BANS THE WEAPONIZATION OF SPACE?

or are they planing on just ignoreing it? just as there has been a tendancy lately to ignore what does not suit the administration and their goals. is america the good disapearing right before our eyes? i for one hope not. where have the ideals of the founding fathers gone? the ideals of most who fought and died to both bring about those ideals, and those who fought to defend them? many laying down their very lives so that others should be and remain FREE.

i have been saddened and disapointed by the goings on. how far will it ultimately go?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Im convinced that other extraterrestrial civilizations will not allow this. Expect ufo interventions if US government do so.

[edit on 18/5/2005 by Musclor]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
yes i believe the weaponizing of space is banned, though it (a treaty) didnt stop bush from pulling out of the abm treaty.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Yes you are correct, the United States has signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which expressly prohibits any militarisation of space.




From the U.S State Department website regarding the 1967 Outer Space Treaty
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.

After the Treaty entered into force, the United States and the Soviet Union collaborated in jointly planned and manned space enterprises.


Yet another example of the Bush administration having one set of rules for themselves and an entirely other set of rules for everyone else.

How would the feel about Iran weaponizing space? Or how about China weaponizing space? What about Russia? Or North Korea? They would vehemently cite the Outer Space Treaty and call for U.N sanctions I pressume, much like their attempts to instate sanctions on Iran for a "suspected" breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If they hold the Non-Proliferation Treaty in such high regard and demand other countries adhere to the treaties they are signatories to, why did they pull out of the ABM treaty and now why are they going to violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?

A little consistancy please!

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Maybe ya'all should read that last paragraph quoted above again....


Air Force officials said the directive did not call for militarizing space. "The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space," said Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman. "The focus is having free access in space."


No need to get yourselves worked into a lather yet.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   


Air Force officials said the directive did not call for militarizing space. "The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space," said Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman. "The focus is having free access in space."


Is it me or does it sound like they are saying they need space weapons for free access in space? Are they saying they need to develope these weapons to insure access?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
If my clock is correct, i beat you by about 6 or 7 hours with this story.

ATSNN submission thread here


Of course nobody replied to mine lol



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
ChemicalLaser,


With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them, the newspaper said.

How much clearer can that be? The weaponisation of space is planned by the Pentagon and this is a push for it.


Air Force officials said the directive did not call for militarizing space. "The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space," said Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman. "The focus is having free access in space."

They are saying the focus of the directive is not about militarizing space but they dont not say that it wont happen. They are clearly stating that the focus is having (U.S) free access in space. The focus could be about anything but the means to enforce that focus could be military in nature.

Its a literary slight of hand and does nothing to categorically deny that the Space Weapons the Pentagon has already developed will not be implemented.

The micro-satellites mentioned here are anti-satellite devices. Meaning that they will be used, in a war situation, to knock out enemy satellites. That is clearly prohibited in the treaty.


Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.


The peaceful nature of space is paramount and these apparently pre-emptive measures by the United States are breaking the treaty. This is against the law and they should be held accountable for breaking the treaty.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Well,I think some of us don't know what they are talking...
The threaty of 1967 is against PERMANENT placement of weapons in space...
In 1993/4 Clinton signed the aditional protocol against ALL use of weapons in space...
In every International Threaty there is an option to cancel our participation,because of HIGHER INTERESS,after 90 days notification...
The same reason why Iran have to build up they nuclear tech up to 90% and then just leave the NPT and have a nuke...but this is another issue...
As far as I understand it,all those programs are not intending to permanently base weapons in space,so the threaty of 1967 is not broken...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
ZMax, Ive read the entire treaty and I didnt once see the word "permenant" there.


Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies, which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 October 1963,


Furthermore the withdrawal from the treaty requires more than 90 days:


Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification


It seems youre the one whom is uninformed here. Maybe you shouldnt accuse other people of being wrong when in actual fact it is you who is mistaken.

Also there are provisions for leaving the NPT:


1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

The United States rightly expects countries to remain a part of this Treaty mainly because it has the nuclear weapons under the NPT. It is not disadvantaged here.

If the United States is allowed to remove itself from the 1967 OST then it cannot hold Iran to the NPT. So is breaking treaties in the best interest of the U.S's national security? The answer is, no. Breaking treaties will see the rule of international law scrapped and we'll find ourselves back in the 19th century.

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
How about post a link to your sources, subz.




seekerof



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I think the Bush doctrine is quite simple here... we will do as we choose in the name of national defense and "the war on terror" unless and until someone stops us.

Who, exactly, will stop this deployment of space-based weapons? The French? LOL. The Chinese? Surprisingly, you would think that China would be our greatest threat under present circumstances, but lets think about a few things...

1 -- The U.S. has quickly become China's most valuable trade partner. After the collapse of the USSR, China became well-aware that living in a vacuum would be their eventual demise. They are FAR too intelligent and proactive not to become part of the world economic community if it will help them maintain their system of government.

2 -- George Bush (Sr.) was once the US embassador to China (i.e., the head of our intelligence agency there) and has very, very close relations with many high-ranking chinese officials. The Chinese trust that a "Bush" administration will seek goals commensurate or independent of the goals of the Chinese people, but not in opposition. They know that a cold war with the U.S. would be a financial disaster for their economic agenda, so why play that game?

3 -- If the U.S. deploys space weapons, the Chinese will feel entitled to do so as well, allowing them to achieve parity with the U.S. and greater dominance over other countries.

Predicition --

I expect there to be some concession made by the U.S. in the face of Chinese opposition to the deployment of space weapons. On the surface, the matter will go away in an "agree to disagree" manner. The political underbelly will see the U.S. ceding military dominance in the south pacific and allow China to take a greater role there... leading to an eventual Chinese threat to Japan (remember -- with asian cultures, ancient enemies are once and always enemies... the Chinese have a score to settle with Japan and we can expect that to escalate over the coming years... will Japan be the sacrificial lamb that we feed to China as part of the emergence of the New World Order? Think about it...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I think this could be a dangerous provocation of the Russians as well. This is one area where they are still competetive. They could get worked up and create some really crude and effective countermeasure which will defeat the purpose of what the US does. And they have an extremely reliable launch platform. So deployment for them would be trivial.

I wish that spiral in the arms race wasn't happening.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
My apologies Seekerof:

NPT treaty
Outer Space Treaty

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Are these nuclear weapons in orbit? I see nothing in the article that says anything about them being nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Youre quite right djohnsto77, I was actually waiting for this point to be brought up.

The way I interpreted the Treaty is that Space to Earth weapons were the main focus in the treaty. The shear difficulty in getting weapons into space would assume that the only weapons worth putting up there are WMDs. Putting up an anti-personel weapon into space for picking off individual soldiers here on Earth is just not going to happen.

The Treaty however safeguards any States property in Space. Any Space to Space weaponry would contravene a nations right to partake in Space endeavours.


Desiring to contribute to broad international co-operation in the scientific as well as the legal aspects of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes

Outer Space Treaty

No one can claim that Space to Space weapons (nuclear or not) are peaceful in purpose. Hence they are expressly prohibited under the OST.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
No one can claim that Space to Space weapons (nuclear or not) are peaceful in purpose. Hence they are expressly prohibited under the OST.


Weapons designed to take out an enroute ICBM while it travels through space would be a defensive rather than offensive.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Are these nuclear weapons in orbit? I see nothing in the article that says anything about them being nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.


Maybe this will clarify some issues here?


The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

* the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
* outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
* outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
* States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
* the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
* astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
* States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
* States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
* States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Keep in mind also "Brilliant Peebles."


Undoubtedly, the militarization of space is an inevitability, and yes, the US will be breaking this treaty. But in doing so, other major nations will be forced to likewise break the treaty.

The treaty was and is a result of the Cold War. It has outlived its usefulness to varying degrees, but certainly is in need of modifcation or amending. With the move by humanity, in general, into outer space, weaponization and militarization of space is again, an inevitability.




seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
djohnsto77, there is no distinction between offensive or defensive weapons in the treaty. The treaty prohibits all weapons in space, that includes defensive weapons.

I happen to disagree that the weaponisation of space is inevitable. There should be a concerted effort, using the OST, to prevent it. Accepting it to be inevitable is a major lapse in judgment.

Has the nuclear arms race not taught mankind anything? The United States is capable of preventing another arms race is Space and all it need do to prevent it is to doing nothing. If indeed another country tries to weaponise space then the United States will find complete support for economic sanctions and any other means of preventing said nation from weaponising space.

Simply conceeding that its inevitable will cause major problems in the future IMHO.

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join