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: Russia to Use Force if US Starts Space Arms Race

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The United States is petrified of terrorists yet they continue to increase the reasons why people would become terrorists. They foster a climate of hatred and retribution that does nothing to combat terrorism. The war on terror may as well be called "the instigation of terror"

The United States is petrified of terrorists yet they rip up the Worlds treaties when it suits them. Rather short sighted when considering the safety net they provide for all nations (including the United States). The incredibly shortsighted move to weaponize space is in no ones interests. You must see that.

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Another example of how Americans think its perfectly acceptable to break any treaty they wish so long as its for their personal protection.


lasers in space dont violate any treaty, nuclear/bio weapons do but not 'conventional' weapons in space, russia is only doing this because they dont want to lose influence over us, not for any moral reason.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Ive read the Outer Space Treaty and it specifically states that no equipment shall be put into space that is not peaceful in nature. That doesnt name all weapons by name but does so by inference.


from the Outer Space Treaty

Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,



from the Outer Space Treaty
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,



from the Outer Space Treaty
States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.


Outer Space Treaty

As can be seen, whilst not mentioning lasers or conventional weapons specifically, its quite clear on the nature of everything going into space. It HAS to be peaceful in nature. Any form of weapon is not peaceful by definition and putting weapons in space will break this treaty.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
No Treaties?

What about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967? Although not a "signed" treaty, it was accepted by the world as a binding contract.

And the US is about to drop out of it.

BUT

There is the other side of the coin. Does anybody REALLY think that all major countries of the world don't have space weapons already?

Check out this link
www.ucsusa.org...

It explains space treaties



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
More of your anti-US rhetoric Subz?.... Perhaps you should notice that there are terrorists attacking China and Russia also, not only the US...and there are quite a few countries that hate China and Russia too, you can add some of the former Soviet states, South Korea, and Japan.

Your poisoned fingers, and tongue, don't ever stop working for a day in your campaign against the US.
and you call yourself a pacifist?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I understand what everyone is trying to say, but if no one is allowed to weaponise space, then when do we expect advances to come? One of the first things humans created on earth were weapons to survive. We may not think there is a threat now, but what if one were to come, and we had NO countries that were allowed to 'weaponise' space. I can understand what they don't want us to do, but it's just another step that must be risked in order for the advance of science.

About someone's comment about us blowing Russia into the stone ages. I can't agree with that because Russia has a HUGE arsenal of nuclear weapons...even if we wiped out nearly their entire population in the day...they would still have enough nuclear weaponry to easily wipe out our entire country and probably all others too.

Just my thoughts.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

as posted by subz
Another example of how Americans think its perfectly acceptable to break any treaty they wish so long as its for their personal protection


We been through this already, subz.
The US, along with another nation [Israel], did not reaffirm the 1967 Space Treaty in 1999. Since they did not reaffirm it, thus not sign onto it again, there is no breach or breaking of the/a treaty.
Air Force Seeks Bush Nod For Space Weapons---my third post down

Also, there is the issue of whether or not the weaponry that will be utilized [satellites or platform equipped lasers, X-ray lasers, chemical lasers, particle-beam weapons, and kinetic kill vehicles, etc] are deemed weapons of mass destruction.




seekerof

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonspire
Has anybody seen some of those Russian women? Very hot!


I'm about to get married to one on May 29th, so I agree




Anti-ballistic weaponry works about 35% of the time (on a good day) If the US is going to be attacked by nuclear weapons, it won't be from missles. You can only see that kind of crap on "24".

No, our main concern should be when the terrorists, that want to do us in, finall hijack a ship and blow up some kind of weapon in one of our major harbors! I am MORE concerned with that than worring about Russian, N Korean or even Iranian nukes.



You know, there was a discussion board on the CNN site back in 2001. It's long since has been shut down. Anyway, there was a heated discussion about the upcoming tests and possible deployment of some anti-missile system in the US. I argued that there were other threats that need to be addressed first, such as terrorism. I was laughed at and told that there is no possibility of a terrorist attack in the US, and space weapons and stuff were the real deal. The conversation took place in August 2001...

As an aside, I'm fairly certain that the Russian official used an awkward
phrase (typical) which was translated not entirely correctly. He did mean vigorous action but necessarily military force. I could find the quote in Russian, unfortunately, but I'm pretty convinced that was the case.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
BTW, is anyone who is responding in here aware of the Chinese space program?

Who do you think is working in this program in China?.... Does China have a civilian space program?.... It seems some people in here think so....

Let's actually see what the truth is....if anyone is interested....


Blasting off from a remote space base in the Gobi Desert atop a Long March 2F rocket, a single Chinese astronaut named Yang Liwei is circling the planet every 90 minutes aboard the Shenzhou 5 spacecraft, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.
................
"I will not disappoint the motherland. I will complete each movement with total concentration. And I will gain honor for the People's Liberation Army and for the Chinese nation," Chinese news media reported Yang as saying before the shot.


Humm...why would he say he would gain honor for the military in China?....couldn't it be because the Chinese military owns everything including their space program?....

Let's continue.


In fact, according to a Pentagon report released in July, China's space program will result in making them a greater military threat.

"While one of the strongest immediate motivations for this program appears to be political prestige, China's efforts almost certainly will contribute to improved military space systems in the 2010-2020 timeframe," the report to Congress said.

The report quoted a Chinese naval captain, Shen Zhongchang, as writing: "The mastery of outer space will be a requisite for military victory, with outer space becoming the new commanding heights for combat."


Excerpted from.
www.space.com...



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Russia to Use Force if US Starts Space Arms Race

Little known article seldom seen or viewed but the Russians have no reason whatsoever to be running thier lips complaining here.
Why?


LONDON (April 14, 1997 3:55 p.m. EDT) -- While the former Soviet Union was publicly denouncing the U.S. "Star Wars" initiative in the 1980s, it was secretly developing its own space-based weapon systems, including a space battle station, according to Jane's Intelligence Review.

But there was a key difference in the Soviet and American approaches: The U.S. program was aimed at defending the country against ballistic missile attacks, while the Soviet program was designed to destroy enemy targets on the ground as well, the magazine said.

Since the Soviet break-up in 1989, Jane's said, the Soviet program "has lost most, if not all, of its funding." The U.S. government is still funding a multibillion-dollar research program for a scaled-down version of the "Star Wars" missile defense system.

The Jane's article, "Red Star Wars," was written by Steven Zaloga, a military analyst for the Teal Group Corp. of Fairfax, Va., a defense and aerospace consultancy. He has written extensively on Russian missile development.

Zaloga said recent Russian revelations provide intriguing details on the Soviet program and show that Moscow's propaganda campaign against "Star Wars" was partly intended to hide "one of the Soviet Union's most secret defense programs."

Soviets Secretly Developed Space-Based Weapons: Copyright © 1997 The Associated Press

Opps, lets throw India into the mix next:
India working on space weapons: IAF chief: From 2003






seekerof

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Weren't Russia and CHina both working on some sort of space mission together?

I have to go now, but i will look for it later and if i find anything I'll post it.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Well then. Being that this mister yermakov is expressing such things he's speaking for the old KGB's Putnik (putin) and therefore he is supporting Iran and their Nuclear endeavors.

Where is the UN Sec Council when North America needs-em ?

Dallas



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
As an aside, I'm fairly certain that the Russian official used an awkward
phrase (typical) which was translated not entirely correctly. He did mean vigorous action but necessarily military force. I could find the quote in Russian, unfortunately, but I'm pretty convinced that was the case.


Bingo! Just fount the Russian text. My theory was correct. It's not really "use of force" per se, but rather a forceful reaction. The choice of words a bit ambiguous, but not malevolent.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
More of your anti-US rhetoric Subz?.... Perhaps you should notice that there are terrorists attacking China and Russia also, not only the US...and there are quite a few countries that hate China and Russia too, you can add some of the former Soviet states, South Korea, and Japan.

Your poisoned fingers, and tongue, don't ever stop working for a day in your campaign against the US.
and you call yourself a pacifist?



From ATS T&C
2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Next time I forward you to a moderator and place you on my ignore list.

Try to stick to the topic eh?


Originally posted by Seekerof
We been through this already, subz.
The US, along with another nation [Israel], did not reaffirm the 1967 Space Treaty in 1999. Since they did not reaffirm it, thus not sign onto it again, there is no breach or breaking of the/a treaty.


I have to respectfully disagree Seekerof. Not reaffirming the treaty is not the same as withdrawing from the treaty. The treaty is quite clear on the process of withdrawal from it.


From the Outer Space Treaty
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.


Outer Space Treaty (U.S Department of State)

I also think the fact that the U.S State Department has this Treaty under the section of "Current Treaties and Agreements" also backs up my point some what
(top right of page in blue text)

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The truth is that all countries with the capability are doing some sort of research into space based weapons. Why not be the first and have the upper hand since space based weapons will most likely be the pinnacle of military power in the future.

Russia, China forming space alliance



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Im not making excuses for other countries but isnt it only prudent to prepare for any eventualities? To my knowledge the only country that has signaled its prepared to actually launch their space weapons is the United States.

It would be irresponsible for Russia or China not to develop what it knows the United States to of been doing since the Reagan era.

Dont get me wrong I dont condone any Space Weapon research but it seems to me that Russian and Chinese space weapon research is to keep up with the admitted U.S Star Wars program. If they signaled an intent to launch it then they would break this treaty and should face sanctions.

But is there any proof or statement that they intend to be the first to launch their space weapons?


Russia has voluntarily declared that it will not be the first country to place weapons in space in an effort to encourage the US to move away from space weaponisation.

Russia Urges U.S to avoid Space Arms Race

Yeah they are all developing space weapons but guess who's the only one considering actually launching them?

I feel the Russian and Chinese space weapons program are only in place incase the United States actually carries out what its suggested. They really cant afford it economically so they wouldnt be doing unless its to combat a credible threat to their technological parity.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
It appears from your article that the US is worried about attacks on its satellites. I would have to say that we are beyond the point of talking about putting weapons in space. I saw a test that appeared to be 2 satellites shooting lasers at each other in the late 80’s while star gazing from an alfalfa field in Southern Ohio during the summer.


The Russians and the Chinese talk a lot but are they telling the truth. They are no different than the US in the sense that they put out a lot of information and some of it is true and some of it is false. I just hope a free country dominates space other than a communist country.

I would have to say that China has the money to weaponize space coupled with Russian space experience they could achieve the goal of creating space based weapons.

I would have to say the race is on and has been for some time. Mankind is determined to exterminate himself one way or another. It is our nature to be a predator.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The Soviet Union was for a time way ahead of America in the "weaponization" of space. And the setting up of hardware to control and detect such devices.

America, OTOH, was investing in technologies that could kill satellites and orbiting installations from the ground or from mobile airborne platforms. Having the technological finesse to produce air-launched missiles accurate enough to hit a small satellite, and lasers powerful enough to damage spy optics from the ground, we didn't need to.

The Soviets needed to base their hardware in orbit for it to be effective. Only a fool would believe they de-orbited everything or deactivated the stuff up there.

Bottom line, Russia doesn't want the US catching up to their progress, and sadly, they have the capability to do something about it. Which is interesting, if we launch a space based weapon, and they destroy it with a pre-existing, orbitting nuclear device (cause with nukes, "close" is good enough) many ATS members and the "international community" will make the US as the bad guy. Nevermind other hardware was already in place long ago.




Originally posted by Kriz_4
I expect they may launch a missle against the weapon and I would support that too. No country owns space and no country should be allowed to weaponise space.

Any sane person knows that the only reprecussions against Russia would be economic or attacks againt their sattelites at most. The US would not go for an all out war with Russia.

As for all this bombing them into the stoneage rubbish, of course that would not happen, we all know Russia are capable of the same in return.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

And how exactly do you propose we blow them into the stone ages? Would this be with the same military that is taxed to the limit just trying to maintain order in Iraq? And Russia is just going to sit by idly and let us bomb them? Right....



There is a difference between the wars we're fighting now (no distinguishable enemy; guerilla tactics) and a might on might war. A human could kill a kitten easily, but could easily be killed by a tiny little black widow spider. You can't compare the types of wars that would be fought.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
This is no different than any other advance in weaponry. A nation should advance its defensive capabilities (including the capacity for offensive reaction) as much as it can so long as it faces the threat of hostile action from another. Let's just suppose that nobody ever lies- that Russia, America, China, and the other significant powers of the world all swear off of space weapons and keep their word.
So what happens 100 years from now when some quack- maybe even a private corporation, succeeds in the secret development of these weapons and deploys them? So now somebody who we all that was harmless suddenly has an offensive capability nobody else has and the nations of the security council have no way to react?

If I were president (god help us all if I'm ever the best man up for that job) I'd sit down ask the Russians and other nations to work on it with us so that we all had this new technology. No race, no destabilization. Just a peaceful effort to further the stabilizing effects of deterrence and develop technology which may find its way into peaceful civilian use as well in the future.

Think about it- why shoud things like missile defense be the articles of an arms race? I think the UN's top priority above all others should be to deploy a shared internationally-staffed missile defense system with the purpose of destroying any and all ICBMs ever launched for any reason in the future.

Then there's the question of offensive weapons. If there's going to be an offensive weapon of enormous power, do we want just one nation to have it, or shouldn't there be an internationally controlled one sworn to retaliate against any power who dares use such technology?

Russia is asking America to turn it's back on the future. America expects the world to see it as our right to develop a tremendous advantage in offensive capability. Both are a little off. Compromise! Both sides just want to be safe, so let's be safe. Let's preempt a destabilizing development by creating this thing together at a reduced cost (by sharing the burden) and see to it that nobody is ever in the position to launch an unanswerable first strike on anyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join