Are the militaries of the world provoking a hostile ET response?

Are the militaries of the world provoking a hostile ET response?

From ancient astronomy to the first man in space, our race took great interest in exploring what lies beyond in the vastness of space. Searching for logical explanations of the mysterious, deep space phenomenon, fascination of human colonization on Mars and the quest find the answer to our most controversial question, “[I]Are we alone in the universe?[/I]” However, over the years, space exploration has been spiraling into a dark, sinister path of lies, secrecy, and fear just as more legit, unexplainable UFO sightings take the rise.

[I]What do we have to fear of observing civilizations?
What do our leaders find so threatening about these UFO’s that they must lie to us?
Why keep secret space faring races? (if that is what they are)[/I]
Those questions have been answered, but not accepted by many whom strongly believe.

Forget lies, forget secrecy, we should worry about the fear. The fear of dragging conflict and war to the stars and beyond. This most certainly is a negative image placed upon Humanity by militarizing space and manufacturing “Terrestrial Space Based Weapons” and “Anti-ET Space Based Weapons”. Have we used these weapons? We can’t be too sure. Do these weapons exist? Definitely yes, but this obviously sends a strong message that our “Leaders on this planet are provoking a hostile response from Extra Terrestrial civilizations.” Doing so, poses an imminent threat to people here on earth. Militarizing space is something to fear since we still remain a type-0 civilization and this, most certainly, will provoke a hostile response.
Why will space based weapons and militarization of space result in a hostile response? Let’s take a brief look at the difference between “Owning land and Owning parts of space”, We have the right to “Own land” such as ones private property, government property, and the land we call our country. Land can be bought, land can be sold, land can be given, land can be taken but only through the Law or the Rules of war. (correct me if I’m wrong.) Our laws only govern the people on this planet, nothing more. Now you may ask me, “What do the Laws that govern us and the people of the planet have to do with anything?” I’ll tell you. “Our”([I]Human[/I]) laws don’t govern what goes on in space or whom should own a portion of it. Even by government, one doesn’t have the right militarize or create space zones for personal use. Some would say, “Why can’t we own parts space?” Put it like this, one must have common sense to know the answer, and not have a “Down-To-Earth” mindset. Space simply cannot be governed or owned when we share it with thousands upon thousands of advanced/intelligent space faring civilizations. Another strong reason why one cannot own or militarize space is because if we placed laws that governed space, (If we owned portions of space) they would not be widespread (Known of) throughout the Galaxy and the Universe. Traveling Alien civilizations would see our military presence as a threat when fired upon for unknowingly trespassing into Militarized Space Zones and will likely provoke a hostile response. Space is a free-zone, quiet, peaceful, but deadly in many areas. Supernova’s, Galaxies and Planets Colliding, and other dangerous cosmic events or phenomena, basically the only violence that should exist in space is natural cosmic events.

Getting a treaty to ban space based weapons and the militarization of space will be difficult since leaders of the United States of America, Israel, China, Russia agree to having them.

As seen in this article

NTI: Issue Brief: Future Space Security
www.nti.org...

[I] Issue Introduction
Growing U.S. and global dependence on space assets for a wide variety of scientific, economic, and military purposes has raised concerns about what might happen if such assets were to be threatened by hostile countries. Today, only the United States and Russia have tested space weapons of any sort, but a handful of other countries (including India and China) are believed to be conducting at least initial research into lasers and kinetic kill systems intended for space attack. With Russia’s old anti-satellite system believed to be no longer operational and with the tentative nature of other foreign programs, the United States sits in a leadership position in this debate. At the Conference on Disarmament (CD), however, there is a stalemate in talks due to China’s freezing of negotiations on all forms of arms control (including the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty) until the United States agrees to negotiations on a treaty to prevent the weaponization of space. Both sides have refused to budge, resulting in a stoppage of business at the CD for the past two years.
Thus far, the Bush administration has enunciated a largely military-driven response to space vulnerabilities, suggesting the inevitability of space-based weapons—both for missile defense and to protect U.S. satellites and other spacecraft. The administration has argued that treaties would only constrain law-abiding countries and that there would be no way to stop hostile states from violating these agreements. By contrast, many foreign governments and administration critics have made the case that diplomatic measures may be much more effective than military means in protecting space, particularly in the increasingly crowded realm of low-Earth orbit (60 to 300 miles above the Earth). They argue that it would be best to establish binding treaties before threats to space assets emerge. A variety of issues are involved, including complex questions regarding the nature of space debris that weapons tests will generate, as well as uncertainties regarding commercial and political implications.
Issue Brief
Space is a realm currently used for scientific, commercial, and military purposes. Satellites make weather reporting possible, allow people to call and transmit data overseas instantaneously, and facilitate the flights of precision-guided munitions (of the type used in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan) to their targets with great accuracy. What worries the Bush administration and many military planners is what might happen if these assets themselves were to be threatened in some future war or by a rogue state or terrorist attempting to cripple the U.S. economy. While such threats today merely exist in theory, it would not be beyond the capability of almost two dozen countries to develop and deploy crude anti-satellite weapons that could be launched into space to attack U.S. assets. For example, a country might launch a small satellite packed with pebbles or nails and direct it into a high-speed collision with a critical U.S. satellite or spacecraft. Orbital objects travel at speeds of approximately 18,000 mph, meaning that such collisions would certainly be fatal. Critics note that such weapons do not yet exist, that their development and testing would be transparent and therefore possibly preventable, and that the United States has other military means to prevent their use. But there are other issues as well.

Hi OP, Nice piece.

In my opinion forget about space based human weaponry as it's nothing to do with the real picture. Forget about whats her name who appeared on the National Press Club trying to represent the supposed fears of
Von Braun re SB Weapons.

It's my opinion races other than humans --present day, are controlling the show, almost world wide.
Some have their agenda in Human collectorral survival and others have their agenda in the health of this ball we live on.

The many more and the two above mentioned have no understanding, except the many EBEs who have, perhaps through hybridation, know what the human innocents and the high purpose Illuminati groups pose as a threat and in some arenas -- plan int steps, mass reduction of this world's population.

In addition, I coming to believe a more and more, based on my readings, a serious magnetic shift and partial crust rotation effecting the earths population will soon occur. Perhaps in our lifetime? Most importantly, within our Children's lifetime.

So, I suggest we not worry about 'space based weaponry'. At least for the short term.

Decoy

NOTE: edit: repeated words, decoy

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Decoy]

Continuation of Article

If the United States hopes to develop an effective national missile defense, it will need to rely on a variety of space-based sensors and tracking radars and possibly constellations of space-based lasers and kinetic kill satellite weapons. In wartime, these systems could create inviting targets for U.S. adversaries. For these reasons, the Bush administration wants to investigate its options and develop weapons capable of meeting these threats before they arise. Few analysts, however, have worked out the possible long-term implications of such deployments on the physical environment of space (particularly low-Earth orbit) or their political ramifications. Existing treaties governing space (see chart below) ban the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in orbit, ban nuclear testing in space, and forbid states from engaging in activities might threaten other parties without providing prior warning. They also require compensation for damage caused to spacecraft and call for all activities to be carried out for “peaceful purposes.” Nonetheless, there are gaps in these agreements and room for possible differences of interpretation of various clauses that may open the door to space weapons. In addition, there is the possibility that certain states may simply violate the treaties altogether, if push comes to shove.
Possible Types of Weapons
Space weapons under consideration today consist of several basic types. First, ground-, sea-, and air-based missile defense interceptors all use low-Earth orbital space as a location for the interception of ballistic missiles passing through space, usually at altitudes of a few hundred miles or less. The bulk of weapons in the current missile defense test program of the United States consist of this type of non-space-based interceptors. Second, space-based weapons are being considered for future development, testing, and deployment against ballistic missiles, but probably not until sometime after 2010 (due to technical obstacles). These systems include kinetic kill interceptors that would destroy missiles by collision alone and space-based lasers that would send high-powered beams at rising missiles in order to disable or destroy them. A third type of space weapon is anti-satellite systems, of which various designs are possible. Some might be direct-ascent missiles that would be launched into space and either collide directly with or detonate conventional explosives near their targets to destroy them. Others might be space-based systems that would be moved into companion orbits and exploded near target spacecraft. Although treaties currently prevent the testing of nuclear weapons in space, nuclear-tipped anti-satellite and anti-missile systems could be developed if the existing treaty regime were to collapse under political pressures caused by uncontrolled space weaponization. Despite U.S. leadership in space, the Bush administration has tasked the Defense Science Board with investigating possible low-yield nuclear weapons for missile defense purposes if existing kinetic kill systems fail to achieve their goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Space-Related Arms Control Treaties*

Treaty: Limited Test Ban Treaty
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1963
Key Provisions: Bans nuclear weapons testing in space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaty: Outer Space Treaty
Entry into force (Yr.): 1967
Key Provisions:
-Bans WMD in orbit
-Bans military installations on the Moon
-Bans claiming of territory in space or on celestial bodies
-Requires prior notification in case of planned harmful activities in space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaty: Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) Treaty I
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1972 (U.S.- Soviet)
Key Provisions: - All ban interference with satellites engaged in treaty verification (similar provisions in each of these treaties)

Treaties re-introduced by different name?
*Same Key Provisions as the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) Treaty I*
-INF Treaty
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1987
-Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaty: Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Object
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1972
Key Provisions: Requires payment of compensations for damage caused by spacecraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaty: Convention on the Registration of Space Objects
Entry into Force (Yr.): 1976
Key Provisions: Requires international notification of the function and orbit of all space launches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*This chart does not include the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972-2002), which terminated with the U.S. withdrawal in June 2002.