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.

 

Bush May Deploy Nuclear Weapons in Space

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Bush administration may rethink space treaty

I don't know how anyone else feels about this but I spent two years in the USAF at Headquarters Strategic Air Command and news like this scares the s*it out of me! This is the worst possible scenerio the arms race can get into. This reduces reaction times for retalitory strikes down to a few minutes from an already insane 30 minute launch window. This is Pure insanity!!! We could end up in a full blown nuclear war because the Russians or the Chinese couldn't tell the difference between a space-born first strike and a meteorite shower! The US has been developing these space-borne nuclear weapons over the last ten years and if Bush withdraws from the Space Treaty than that means he either has it fully deployed or it is near fully deployed, because only an IDIOT would withdraw from the Treaty without having the weapon systems already deployed.




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Why is it that America can flaunt international treaties at will without repurcussion, but is the first to complaain when others do it? And then they wonder why the world hates them?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Why is it that America can flaunt international treaties at will without repurcussion, but is the first to complaain when others do it? And then they wonder why the world hates them?


Some examples please. We withdrew from the ABM treaty becuase we could not because we broke it. The same if this into effect. Lets face it, the next race is in space and throught centuries, you are more likely to win if you hold the high ground. China is not going to space for the fun of it.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Any orbiting weapons platform is a huge mistake. Nobody will take kindly to such things. I mean, we're supposed to be dismanteling our nukes, not upgrading our launch capabilities. If we do this, all that will happen is the rtest of the world will become more paranoid, we don't *need* this, we have ground based weapons which we could use. Unless our intent is first strike, strike without warning, destroy the enemy before they even know we are mad at them...this is a rediculous thought.

See, it's this kind of stupidity which causes me to vote Nader.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   


Some examples please. We withdrew from the ABM treaty becuase we could not because we broke it. The same if this into effect. Lets face it, the next race is in space and throught centuries, you are more likely to win if you hold the high ground. China is not going to space for the fun of it.


NK has withdrawn from the NPT, but you are giving them a hard time... there is an example for you.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
When Bush thinks stuff like this I start to have hope for
the country. This is NOT just about nuclear weapons in
space, but about using nuclear "pulse units" for Orion
design space craft that will open up the solar system to
exploration and colonization. What killed Orion back in
the beginning of its' design and possible testing was the
damn treaty that restricted nuclear weapons in space.
"Pulse units" are small nuclear bombs used to power the
Orion design space craft.. the treaty restricted their
development. It is about changing the restriction on
private property on other worlds that prohibits the
commercialization of space. The ability of individuals
and groups to "own" their property is one of the pillars
of freedom, and provides for economic growth by
corporations. It is about getting the country back on
track and "holding the high ground" to insure domestic
security of the country. Damn I wish Bush would be less
crackers in some behaviors and more progressive in his
actions. Less like a religious fruit cake and more
analytical. He really is a man of extremes. If he gets re-
elected and starts the country back on the promise of
space travel I'll forgive him every other breach of
campaign promise.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
So what happens if the platform his hit by meteors or something goes wrong and it slips into the atmosphere or something and it either goes off or leaks radioactive particles everywhere.
Bush needs to be stopped, first he wants to create mini-nukes and now the possibility of this is outrageous. Everyone wants to stop NK and Iran from making nukes yet the US keeps flaunting new nuclear projects left and right.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
For serious, the Orion project would be too dangerous, we cannot put so many lives at risk for early exploration. If we can't go about it safely, then we need to wait until we have the technology necessary to get this done with a much less risk. I think the fact that "what goes up must come down" is warning enough for most people. We simply can't do this. Besides, this is about expanding out power, we want to be even more of a threat. Why can't we calm the **** down and be cool about stuff?

We're always crossing the line, and doing it for ourselves..this is EXATLY why so many dislike the United States, it's arrogance and it's making decisions for the rest of the world. If Bush can get the UN to approve, then I will support it..or atleast support it a little. But if Bush wants to put the entire globe at risk for American Supremacy, then he needs to be removed from office/not re-elected.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
YAY! We already ruined our world, lets start ruining space!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   
wondering how the electronics will function during af massive solarstorm. Im sure that a massive solarstorm will fry every bit of electronic in space... send that loony back to his ranch



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Were have you been ? what do you think Nasa was launching in thoes secret shuttle missions ? toster ovens?
Ovesly no one can prove we ALREADY have nuks in orbite but there were quite a few shuttle flytes that were top secret so what you you think were on thoes flytes?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I believe that we may not have "Nukes" in space, but we may have platforms that could be used to launch them. The government most likey has tested extensively with methods of space born weapons, but it is probably just being developed and not actually deployed.... yet.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rotwang
Bush administration may rethink space treaty
The US has been developing these space-borne nuclear weapons over the last ten years and if Bush withdraws from the Space Treaty than that means he either has it fully deployed or it is near fully deployed, because only an IDIOT would withdraw from the Treaty without having the weapon systems already deployed.

But we are talking about Bush here!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyFox2
Unless our intent is first strike, strike without warning, destroy the enemy before they even know we are mad at them...this is a rediculous thought.


Look at the nuclear weapons the US has put it's money into to evelope.

SSBNs - First strike
B-2 bomber - first strike
MX "Peacekeeper" missle - first strike (though I believe it has been dismantled)

That has always been the policy/strategy (even if we didn't admit it).

As far as putting nukes in space - it is a risky situation to be sure, but I would rather have the US get there first then let someone else beat us to it.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Remids me of an episode of SG1 where Daniel jackson builds orbital platforms to defend against the Gou'old.

Eventually it turns out the power corrupts him, and he destroys Moscow, as the Russians where complaining about the Platforms, to show them a lesson........

It was all a dream that the young Harthesis planted in his mind to show that power corrupts, and that the plan for Orbital Weapons in the hands of one person/faction would only be a bad thing...



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by stumason
Why is it that America can flaunt international treaties at will without repurcussion, but is the first to complaain when others do it? And then they wonder why the world hates them?


Some examples please. We withdrew from the ABM treaty becuase we could not because we broke it. The same if this into effect. Lets face it, the next race is in space and throught centuries, you are more likely to win if you hold the high ground. China is not going to space for the fun of it.


well, you say that the nuclear weapons are illegal....but you have nuclear weapons.....so....how is that.....you can have, but others not?
and what about the human rights.....you are allways saying that to cuba...but you are killing people in vieques (a puerto rico island) and irak

[edit on 28/10/04 by vertexc]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rotwang
Bush May Deploy Nuclear Weapons in Space

most likely other technologically advanced countries will find a way to take those down right after those are in space...

usa is not the only country that has laser technology

ohhh, and dont forget Longitudinal Wave radar weapons... takes about a sec to take down anything in orbit



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Why is it that America can flaunt international treaties at will without repurcussion, but is the first to complaain when others do it? And then they wonder why the world hates them?



Money makes the world go 'round.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vertexc

well, you say that the nuclear weapons are illegal....but you have nuclear weapons.....so....how is that.....you can have, but others not?
and what about the human rights... you are killing people in ...and irak

[edit on 28/10/04 by vertexc]


5 countries are allowed nuclear weapons by the UN, known as the Nuclear 5. They are:
USA
France
UK
Russia
China

Saddam and insurgents have killed far more iraqis than any of the countries in the MNF. People like Saddam, the NK emperor and the countries which use shia law have commited far worse human roghts abuses than the US.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Why is it that America can flaunt international treaties at will without repurcussion, but is the first to complaain when others do it? And then they wonder why the world hates them?


I BET THE PERSON THAT FOUND THIS THREAD IS ANTI AMERICA ... THAT IS WHY BECAUSE ALL YOU ASS HOLES GO LOOKING FOR IT AND WRITE ABOUT IT AND TELL US THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO DO. OH AND WE ARE ABOUT TO DO THIS. AND WE ARE ABOUT TO DO THIS !!!! ... Whatever ... Bomb us and we willl kill you ...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join