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: US Claims Control Of OUTERSPACE!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It is my belief that all it really is, is the US's ability toput/use weapons in space.

Yes, your intitled to your belief.
MY opinion on the other hand is that the current administration is less diabolical and more pathetic.
I believe that the US want's to assert itself as topdog, expressing control over other nations, while making a name for themselves in history.
After all, if you own space, you own the planet. Just common sence.




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This is kinda why I have always been suspect of when people say that other nations woould be able to go into space and discover everything the U.S is hiding, but it seems that this president wants to deny as much space exploration as possible.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests"
news.bbc.co.uk...


That doesnt sound good to me.


"The document rejects any proposals to ban space weapons. "

What are the ruskies going to say ?

"The notion that you would do defence from space is different from that of weaponisation of space. We're comfortable with the policy"
right....

so putting weapons in space is ok, as long as they are defeding things in space..

does that really make a difference to the country the satellite is hanging over?

"Dont mind the missles up there jimmy, they are only up there to attack 'other' satelites''

"The Bush administration says there is no shift in its policy"
"US adopts tough new space policy " - TITLE

"The Strategic Defence Initiative, or "Star Wars" programme as it came to be known, was abandoned in 1993"

Im glad bush hasnt changed 'his' proposals.. but it seems he's changed the direction of AMERICAN policies.

What is it about the american president that makes him believe he can do what he wants?
HE is going to start a weaponisation of space...


"A renegade Russian arms expert has splashed cold water over his own country’s concerns about potential U.S. space weapons.

Only a day after Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov appeared to threaten a response to any U.S. effort to put weapons in space, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, a senior scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Center for International Security, told journalists that such a reaction was unnecessary because “in the near future as there are no such projects in the world.”
www.msnbc.msn.com...

I think this dood has just been found out now..

"If some state harbors plans to deploy weapons in space or starts doing this, we will certainly take measures in response to this," Ivanov said.

I think its time the dooms day clock ticket forward, because the american president is going to ruin this great world we call earth, simply by being a total fool.
Whos to blame?
The leader making the idiotic decisions, or the populace blindly following.

apologies, I started a thread today, with the above post.
Buuttt after searching i found this one, so ill place my comments here.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
If the US government wishes to preserve its right to "defend" its space-based assets, I say that the precedent has been set.

I think that entrepeneurs such as Sir Richard Branson and that Bigelow Aerospace fellow have shown us the True future of space-operations: Private, commercail enterprise!

And what do you get when commercial ships begin arming themselves?

Privateers!

What do you get when commercial spacecraft begin arming themselves "to protect their assets"?

Space Pirates!

Aye matey, reach for the Asteroids and hand over yer beryllium!

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I thought about it, "MySpace.usa", or 43space.uni? Signed on Aug 31st... released on October 6th... tryin' to slide it under the radar. ATS is our "DEW-line"... I like that.

Victor K.

43'



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It seems right that the US will seek to protect is spaced based assets, in this time of nuclear proliferation.

Another thread mentions upto 30 countries being capable of aquiring nuclear weapons, NK just lit the touchpaper.

In a effort to protect its (unrevealed) upper hand the US does not want anyone going up there and messing with its space based beam weapons, bunker busting 'rods from god', gps systems for guidance of ICBM's and other black star wars type things.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Logically, the us would be dealt a increddibly large blow should someone knock out a few satellites.
So, its fair enough to think of defending them...
but against what?
Is there a looming threat that is coming into play?

They should of consulted the russians, and other various space countries as to the nature and the points of this policy.

becuase if I was the russians, id be pretty alerted at this.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I read about the chinese sending some dodgy beams up to blind the US sattellietes somewhere on here, maybe thats what they mean?

There was also one theory that the north koreans blew up the space shuttle with some kind of beam weapon?

Now they have the justification/remit to go and destroy the dodgy beam weapons?

Its late and I am tired!



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
From a rational perspective, I can see the need as more and more countries have developed space programs. We aren't in the space race with Russia anymore and will have to defend ourselves and satelites from foreign sabotage which is very possible now. On the other hand, this does sound like Bush trying to domineer yet another front which does not belong to anyone let alone one country. I am split on this one. One question though. Why does this sound like a precursor to something larger or monumental that the public isn't aware of????



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Look, the real truth is this: You/we ARE space, time, mass, matter, and energy. The U.S. is just claiming more ownage over all of us; in the literal sense of what we truly are and even in the lowered state of consciousness that most of the realities of Earth currently function on. Hello... time to wake up humanity. Stop focusing on politics, money, legislations, power, and look more towards our existence... please.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeepCoverUK
I read about the chinese sending some dodgy beams up to blind the US sattellietes somewhere on here, maybe thats what they mean?

There was also one theory that the north koreans blew up the space shuttle with some kind of beam weapon?

Now they have the justification/remit to go and destroy the dodgy beam weapons?

Its late and I am tired!

Your correct, China have a new laser that can blind satellites. Maybe just a reaction to that.

There's an ATS thread here about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I think this law is passed towards countries like Iran to keep them from placing sattelites up. They don't want them having any type of forwarning of impending attacks by countries hostile towards them I guess. I still can't see how one leader can make such a universal decision on his own with such an expansive area such as the space surrounding our planet. I think he's nuts



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Reading the actual unclassified document the major goal of this policy is to prevent interference with any assets that we have in space.


The United States considers space systems to have the rights of passage through and
operations in space without interference. Consistent with this principle, the United States
will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights;


That part doesn't sound too bad ... basically leave our stuff alone.


The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or
celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental
right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;


This is basically making space, in the US Administrations ideal, the same as international waters. Rights of free passage, no sovereign nation, etc.


The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space
segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this
policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing
capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space
capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space
capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests
;


Bold text added by me for effect. That bold statement is that one that causes me to pause. National interests are kind of vague. Are we saying it's okay for us and our allies to have spy satellites looking down on the world but in some un-friendly country launched the same style spy satellite then we would feel justified in taking it out of orbit? Are we the only ones allowed to gather intelligence from space? I would have less concern if the wording was preventing weapons from being placed into orbit which would be able to strike at US soil ... that is a clear danger.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It just seems that the one section allows for almost any reason to be given to prevent an unfriendly country from launching satellites. This is definitely something that should be done through an international consortium.


[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_10_06_usspace.pdf]US National Space Policy -- PDF _/url]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I did not think much of this until I saw what the poster said above me.

What does it mean?!? I don't know. But with the way thing are probable not good!



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

If people drop their weapons there would be no war...

[edit on 18-10-2006 by dAlen]


I could not let this one go. How do you propose this to be accomplished?
Would Russia disarm - No!
Would China disarm - No!
Would France disarm - No!
Would Pakistan disarm - No!
Would Iran disarm - No!
Would India disarm - No!
and so forth and so on - No!

Would we be attacked and occupied if we disarmed - Yes!!!!!!
Are we stupid enough to disarm - No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could anyone dumb enough to propose this be elected to office - No again.

Another issue at hand here is if a hostile country like the NK were to get a weapon into orbit, who would protect the countries who are not equipped to deal with it. The US and our allies of course. No one else would be capable even if they wanted too which they don't.

This is a very adult world we live in. Granted its a horrible way to operate but until there are no despots in control of powerful weapons it is necessary for the survival of civilization. The best way to avoid this is to not allow unstable countries to launch the weapons into orbit in the first place. Maybe a hundred years from now this fictional Utopia will become a reality, but i doubt it very much. This world is full of bad people who are more than willing to die and take us all with them. Do you think the Terrorists are joking when they publicly state their intention to wipe Western Civilization off the face of the Earth? Think again.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I remember the russian"killer satellites"being talked about but never proven.Yet the u.s.does have the right to protect its space assets against such present or future.And yes the chinese did"paint"one of our birds last wk.(dont think damaged tho)But remember these sats.are very expensive to build and get placed in proper orbit.Aside from cellfones,GPS,tv,storm tracking they are a vital intel.tool



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
They arent denying anyone access to space. That is a ridiculous statement Knights... They are denying threats.


Basically, they want their hands in whats going on out there for MY defense. Frankly...THANK GOD.


They are denying threats to US NATIONAL SECURITY.

Not threats to the environment

Not threats to people

Not threats to life

Threats to US NATIONAL SECURITY

Certainly not your YOUR defense. You are a peon US NATIONAL SECURITY refers to any threat to the growing US Military protected global-capitalist-NWO. If you think otherwise you are grossly deluded.

They are saying flatly...

The US will have the right to produce weaponry in space.

Any threat againsts the US coalition will be shot down.

Sri Oracle



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Sooner or later someone was going to do it.... It just so happened to be the US that made the first move... If they hadnt of done it someone else would have done it sooner or later......



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Nobody is "claiming" anything, territorially speaking. All the US has actually done is express its intent to commit acts of war in that theater if there should ever be hostilities with a nation which has space assets.

It is universally understood that nations will sometimes interfere with eachothers maritime activities during times of conflict. For instance blockades may be used. Blockades are not provided for in law; they are an act of war. A policy that allows for blockades is not a claim upon the coasts of other nations, but a reservation of the sovereign right to make war.

So it is in space, in my opinion. I see no indication that the US intends to withdraw from agreements assuring the political neutrality of space, anymore than we have done to international waters.

Military neutrality is somewhat another story, as the analogy breaks down there due to differences is treaties respecting space and international waters. In that respect, the US had definately embarked on a policy that allows for the violation of military neutrality in space (although in theory that's a story as old as GPS and spy satellites).

In so many words, be attentive to the nuance between an obsession with building military defenses and "claiming" territory. The former can indeed lead to the latter, but they are not inseparable concepts.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I think there are a few people trying to read too much into this. There isn't anything really NEW in the policy. Every country still has access to do what they want in space. Any country that threatens US spacecraft or US territory will have to accept that the US will defend itself...nothing new there. I'm sure China, Russia, Japan, and anyone else would agree that if their satellites were messed with that they would do what they had to on the ground or in space to protect their people and property.

The policy also goes on talking about promoting PEACEFUL missions with other countries.

The only problem I have is with the nuclear powered missions policy. An accident would affect more than just the US...it's not going to destroy a country, but flying a nuclear rocket over my house isn't a comfortable thought. The international community should have some input.

The US is just opening it's space policy bid at the highest price. Better to start your price as high as possible and then negotiate down rather than give away your position and profit with your opening offer.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join