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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:35 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"

Ah well if I read this section I know they are speaking about developing succesor of the f22 which can go into space or uav which can go in space ect.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

as posted by subz
The treaty prohibits all weapons in space, that includes defensive weapons.

Not necessarily all, subz.
Basically those labeled nuclear or weapons of mass destruction. From my UN clarification link in my initial post to this thread [on page one]...


* 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;


Would or did this treaty envision satellites or platform equipped lasers, X-ray lasers, chemical lasers, particle-beam weapons, and kinetic kill vehicles, etc.?
I do not recall ever seeing any type 'weapons of mass destruction' label placed on lasers or like type weaponry.





seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
More on "Brilliant Peebles" and other space weaponry:
The Bush Administration and space weapons
Brilliant Pebbles
Estimated Costs and Technical Characteristics of Selected National Missile Defense Systems
Space-based defenses – prospects for the future

Though "Brilliant Peebles" is listed or labeled as "terminated," I have a feeling that another like program has been activated or will be implemented.





seekerof



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
To my knowledge anything capable of killing more than one person and is not of conventional means (i.e. conventional explosives) is classed as a weapon of mass destruction. The only reason it applies to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons at this date is because no other non-conventional weapons exist. That includes lazers.

The defintion of WMDs is:


Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Weapons of Mass Destruction are also known by the abbreviation WMD.

Definition of WMDS

If at any time in our future lazer weapons capable of "infliciting massive destruction to property and/or population" then they will surely be classifed as WMDs. Its a semantic point at the moment and will indeed be a matter for international lawyers to include lazers in the accepted definition if they arise.


The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes

Outer Space Treaty

Although non-WMDs are not specified in name as prohibited the "exclusively for peaceful purposes" pertains to any weapons no?

As an after thought, to be completely and utterly pedantic (not like me
) arent the current crop of powerful lazers utilizing chemicals any way?

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
To my knowledge anything capable of killing more than one person and is not of conventional means (i.e. conventional explosives) is classed as a weapon of mass destruction. The only reason it applies to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons at this date is because no other non-conventional weapons exist. That includes lazers.


Who's saying that these aren't conventional explosives? As long as they have sufficient oxidizing material, as most conventional explosives do, they'd be perfectly capable of detonating in space against a nuclear warhead.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Subz,
You are right...I assumed from the NPT that every other IT is 90 days from canceling...But 1 year is also not a problem,since the program will nead dacedes of research to be ready...And every other state is wellcome to join USA...just look what was driving are science - war...Internet,microwave owen,space exploration and many other discoveries are product or by-product of military activity...

For the "permanent",I have to admit the word was not used,but I assume "placing in orbit" is more in terms with space terminology for permanent:




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,


You can't be orbiting Earth and in the same time not being permanently in space...
I say this because every ICBM with WMD on board will have to go in space,and this will ultimatly brake OST...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
That still leaves us with the line:


The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes

Outer Space Treaty

Conventional weapons cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be classed as peaceful.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I don't think they're going to want be place these weapons on the Moon or Mars anytime soon subz.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It is certainly debatable.
Found this mention:


Currently, there are many international agreements that have prohibited the deployment of such weapons into space. One such agreement is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which covers outer space, the Moon, and other celestial bodies. The one loop hole in this treaty is that it doesn't say anything about the area just above Earth, where most satellites are in orbit. However, the treaty does prohibit placing nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, into Earth's orbit. But the question is, are lasers and particle beams weapons of mass destruction? The treaty further prohibits the construction of military bases and fortifications on any celestial body, including the Moon.

In November, 1999, 138 United Nations members voted to reaffirm the Outer Space Treaty. Only the United States and Israel abstained from the vote. Based on that vote, which upheld the ban on weapons in space, it would seem that space weapons will remain grounded for the time being. So, for now, thoughts of Death Star-like weapons and X-Wing fighters, battling it out thousands of miles into space, will have to be put on hold.

How Space Wars Will Work

Basically taking the above into consideration, I was mistaken, in a sense, to say that the US would be in violation. According to the last paragraph, the US would not, because it did not "reaffirm" the 1967 Space treaty.

Also, intelgurl's past ATSNN thread on these weapons would be a definate addition to this topic.
Directed Energy Weapons, An ATS Analysis & Discussion




seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
ZMax, I conceed that any country has the right to pull out of this treaty but just imagine the consequences.

Can you imagine the World without any international treaties? If the United States breaks yet another international treaty we may as well rip up every single treaty the World has ever produced. They cease to be a voluntary document that holds the World together and stabilizes international relations and become a piece of paper.

Yes the United States is well within its rights to remove itself from this treaty but will the Untied States be willing to enter into the inevitable arms race that it will cause. Is there really not enough problems here on Earth that we need them in Space also?

The removal from the OST is surely to be under the auspices of National Security and protection of US assets in Space. My point is that the ONLY thing protecting the United States assets in Space is the very treaty they are trying to scrap. Making weapons for space is all well and good if you can be 100% guaranteed that you will beat any enemies space weapons. You cannot have that much faith in your own weapons.

Think of the amount of money involved in producing and implementing Space-based weaponry. If another country tried to interfere with the United States assets in space the resulting sanctions would be a breeze to get through the UN Security Council. Now imagine this country trying to push on with the extraordinarily expensive process of space weapons whilst under economic sanctions. Its just not possible. This will ensure 100% that the United States assets will be safe, indeed the only way they are 100% safe.

That leaves us with the only benefit for the United States to dump this treaty. That it wants offensive weapons which will be of immense use in any further Wars, of this there is no doubt. That is what I fear the major push for this abolishment of the treaty is for.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
subs,
I understand your concern of the possible anarchy...
But just look from the other side...Every little country with dictatorship government is braking IL whenever it likes...and what the ICommunity is doeng?NOTHING...And don't say NK is producing WMD because of Bush...they were working on the bomb ever since the treaty with Clinton of 1993 and they admit it publicly...In a World where everyone is waiting for the World Policeman(USA) to implement order,and in the same time is crying for the same reason...the only rule that will work is the Rule of Jungle...And we must be very happy that the Strong in our case is USA,not NK or Iran...It's not right,but when USA is the only state calling the killings in Darfur genocite,and every other,even states like France and Germany(these particulary should know what is to kill thousands) are closing their eyes,because any action will endanger their quality of life...I don't see future for IL,UN or any other IOrganization...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Doing more reading i've found a proposed treaty that would prevent all weapons from entering space. Truly if the United States was concered about protecting the "access to space" the agreeing to this proposed treaty would be the best way to ensure that.

So far the current United States government has shown no interest in this treaty to prevent the weaponisation of space which can only point to its desire in the contrary.


Space Preservation Treaty
Reaffirming the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and of approving concrete proposals on confidence building which could prevent such an arms race, as set out in United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 56/535 and 55/32 on the prevention of an arms race in outer space,


Space Preservation Treaty

Surely there would be no need for defensive weapons in Space if this treaty comes into effect.

This is also a helpful link for all Space Treaties: International Space Treaties



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

as posted by subz
Surely there would be no need for defensive weapons in Space if this treaty comes into effect.


I would agree wholeheartedly with this mention you have made, subz, but we are not living in a 'perfect' world.


I do believe that the weaponization, in some form, limited or otherwise, is an inevitability.




seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
ZMax the rule of the jungle is not the safest path to follow. Can you be guaranteed under the rule of the jungle that you will catch all those whom plot against you?

If International Law is upheld by the United States in its entirity, not just when its convenient, and all other countries are forced to do the same then we can all work to a better future. It seems lofty to think about it in such terms but imagine if the rule of law was scrapped domestically.

Would you feel your safety is guaranteed when their are no laws? Would you feel completely safe that your guns will protect you around the clock? Or would you rather rely on the collective safety of the law being enforced by law enforcers?

I know which one I'd prefer.

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
subz,
you must excuse me but in UNSC we have 4 more states with veto,so sanction will not work...Embargo...every state is in its right to empose one...USSR had an embargo on USA...look what happaned(thank God)...
Then the weapon systems I understand will be used in space are for destroing of incomming ICBM,hitting enemy satellites,and only the tungsten space shell(witch will hit Earth with spead of 8 km/s,producing explosion like of small nuke) is attacking weapon...Every other thing can be done now by every state with space launch capability and nuclear bomb...just the amount of destruction will be greater...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Nobody cared about my previous post, but this is actually what is gonna happen if they do this mistake.

When will human madness stop ? We need an electroshock.

[edit on 18/5/2005 by Musclor]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
subz,
the History is the only cure for you...
Do you remember the League of Nations and WWII...I'll remind you...Hitler left the LN and anounce war...the end is well known...
I see you believe in democracy,but you forget what is needed for democracy to work:
-free market
-human rights
-RULE OF LAW

Even in the kindergarten,there is someone who impose law...In the World between states must be someone to do it too...It's really nice to have 16 resolutions on Iraq,douzens on Israel and the Arabs...It's not helping...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

the History is the only cure for you...


Theres no need to be derogatory.

Can the UNSC members veto sanctions that are leveled against their own country? I dont think the situation has ever arisen but it seems rather odd that a UNSC country could veto any sanctions against it thereby making them above the law.

Regardless, if this push is for ensuring the free access of space for all then how does trashing this treaty achieve that? Some one isnt being completely forthright here.

[edit on 18/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
yeah...it's funny...the reason for the veto is that the 5 most powerful nation will unite to preserve Peace....History has tells us that most of the conflicts since UNSC was founded came exactly from those 5 nations...
That's IL again...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Would any one criticise the United States for pushing for "vetos" to be removed from the UNSC voting system? I know I wouldnt
There are major flaws in International Laws but the only reason they are not sewn up is that they benefit powerful countries sometimes and they are not likely to fix the problems for that reason.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join