U.S refuses to say no to Space Weapons

With the upcoming meeting between 65 World Nations at the Geneva Convention the United States continues to lobby and support an agenda that focuses on earth based Nuclear Fissile material. Being backed by only the UK it is unlikely that the US will get their way on this.



This is just typical of the DOD and the Pentagon. Spend spend spend spend spend. That’s what the Cold War was about, the military industrial complexes unfathomable siphon on public resources. Space is the next money maker. New ideas and weapons make lots of money for the bureaucracy.

Is anyone really surprised that the American Government is refusing to sign a treaty with other world nations in regards to NOT weaponizing space, claiming that the 1967 treaty barring WMD from space is sufficient. However, given the US's withdrawal from the commonly accepted Geneva Convention laws I would not be surprised to see the US pull out of the 67 treaty citing unknown/unspecified threats against National Security.

Not to mention the DoD's research into "Rods from God"...are they not WMD? Who knows but what I do know is that we DO NOT need weapons in space....horrible awful no good BAD idea.


[edit on 13-6-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

[edit on 13-6-2006 by UM_Gazz]

Clearly, with the incredible possibilities, the US has to take the initiative on weaponization and control of space. There are treaties right now that prevent nuke weapons, and the US is party to them, and indeed, it shouldn't weaponize space, but there is no reason it shouldn't be prepared to or to not research such options. There's just too much at stake when it comes to that.

I believe the US has the right to defend the people of the United States and the resources we are putting up into space. Of course I don't want an arms race since that seems like a silly use of resources. However a few defensive systems that could almost guarantee a small rogue nation like North Korea could not successfully hit the US or other friendly Asian countries with a nuclear strike would be great in my opinion.

I get what yall are saying and on pricipal I agree with you. But space is a very differnt venue when it comes to weapons in that any defensive technology can immediatly be used as an OFFENSIVE weapon. Also, is it not the very mentalilty that I have protect myself against you the mentality that ensures an arms race?


Either way atleast your arguments seem to be thought out and not knee jerk reactions.

The biggest problem with teh weaponization of space is that we're usually talking about nukes. Considering what happened with Skylab, I really don't think we want an orbital nuclear platform out there either!

And, of course, the US has signed treaties to the effect that it will not weaponize space.

I'll agree 100% about banning NUCLEAR weapons in Earth orbit. Which is pretty much what these treaties say. I won't agree with any treaty that bans defensive conventional weapons though. I have always been fond of the developement of a kinetic energy weapons system.

space based laser platforms and other ways to prevent satelites from being damaged or destoryed by an agressive nation is fine and violates no treaties. Nuclear weapons in space though are banned by treaty.

Unless the U.S. abrogates the existing treaty dealing with space based weapons, the DOD is just whistling dixie. I do not think congress would go along with such plans.

I have to agree with people here. Nukes in space is just too dangerous; too many things could go wrong.

But lasers are another thing. Having the ability to knock out a satellite is an invaluable advantage.

In order to protect the first world from infiltration by secular humanist globalists the US has to go to space and secure it for its allies. This will put the opposition behind a number of decades I think.

All WMD are still banned from being put into Space. All weapons are also banned from the surface of the Moon.

This is really only dealing with conventional weapons Lasers, Kinetic energy weapons etc.. in earth orbit. Space is already militarized and has been for decades.

No surprise the US is protesting. Very much research and resources for the past 30 years has been spent on achieving Air/Space/Planetary dominance. The DOE and Nasa have many Space Aimed/Use projects. If you think they havent had Space based platforms or craft and for sometime you may need to study the DOE/NASA/USAF releases over the past twenty -thirty years again. A few of the Nevada and California DOE/USAF facilites have very modern and used looking rocket/space/specialised deployment facilities with a few bases havin the odd oval shaped landing pads being added at some(can be seen closely on Google and other imagery).
In short if they agree to No space weapons they infact will have to decommision over Half of all DOE/NASA/USAF projects existing not to mention tier programs. Not gonna happen folks because the US economy is to dependant on the Military/Space programs not to mention it keeps any opposing forces from thinking about total conquest. IMO.

Man putting weapons into space is the only way we are going to be flying aroudn touring the solar system. If we begin putting them there, Russia, Europe and China will too. Then each one is going to start building more advanced spacecraft to navigate the vaccuum of space with more ease. After awhile eventually someone makes a management mistake and somebodies economy collapses. This continue until only one is left (hopefully US) and now we have all kidns of # in SPACE!! Now we can unite the world and then begin a mission to find aliens and disect the secrets of their telekenetic abilities to be used in our own people. Trade and all thqat, intergallactic war... etc.. etcc

Sorry I ranted. But I agree with everything I just said.