Weapons in space

[Beawulf]

I have always thought it is really odd, that a country so righteously democratic doesnt have compulsory voting, or failing that only gets voter turn out of about 60%

 

 

The global warming is certainly a pressing issue, I'm embarrassed that the current Australian government is so spineless that it unquestioningly follows US policy. I hate to think that they want to wait till it is too late before taking action.

 

 

also the world is in a sorry state when the greatest power wont recognise the geneva convention

 

back on topic though, I can understand what some are saying, that it is better the devil we know to let US be the one with the weapons. I dont think they need to have such weapons, the ability already exists to destroy all life on Earth. Perhaps by deploying such weapons they would be opening up the posiblity of access to terrorists. I doubt terrorists would be able to develop and launch their own, but they could probably hack in and take over control.

 

 

 

[TetsuoShima]

ok several points to adress here as a political science degree holder from the university of Miami

 

1st the race to put weapons in space is a legitamite goal to protect the interest of the United States .The treaty that was abstained by the United States was not vetoed by the United States which they would have had a right to do .

 

Why would they want to veto it, now the whole world has agreed they won't do it, but the US still can since they didn't sign and so are not obligated to comply. By veto-ing it, everybody would have been able to put weapons in space.

 

2nd The United States is no more corrupt than any other government in the world and they all put thier interests first as well .I am not a fan of G W Bush but every country has a right to put the rights of thier people and corporations above those of other countries and if you are all going to bash the United States for thier enslaving the proletariat you ought to be looking at countries such as China who are way more corrupt and way more willing to violate international law .

 

Aha, the cat's out of the bag!!!

 

3rd you throw out laws strictly meant to weaken the military base of the United States and expect us to happily comply.It gets real easy to pick on the country with the strongest military but last time I checked The United States wasnt exactly out there looking for world conquest.Can the same be said for some of the Terrorist countries and for China for that matter ?

 

You do realise that it was this sort of reasoning that got the atomic bomb made. If it were not for the US, the bomb would not have been developed for quite some time. Russia had given up on developing it and only did so in the end by stealing US research. I'm quite certain plans to build 'space-weapons' will also be stolen and build by other nations. Better to not develop them at all!!

 

For those of you out there who think that we in the US are slaves remember that we are allowed to freely leave our country and also remember that McCarthiesm came and went so will the Bush era of politics and with the economy doing poorly probably sooner than later

 

Ah, but do you realise that a true politician is known for keeping the people just satisfied enough that they won't do that, and still take away as much from him as possible in between dinners while you're paying for it! Think carefully about this, what was the last actual freedom a politician ever gave you and now think about what was the last freedom they took away. Wich one was easier to find?

[GorunNova]

1st the race to put weapons in space is a legitamite goal to protect the interest of the United States .The treaty that was abstained by the United States was not vetoed by the United States which they would have had a right to do .

Too bad the US's apparent plans in that direction might start World War III... -_-'

 

2nd The United States is no more corrupt than any other government in the world and they all put thier interests first as well .I am not a fan of G W Bush but every country has a right to put the rights of thier people and corporations above those of other countries and if you are all going to bash the United States for thier enslaving the proletariat you ought to be looking at countries such as China who are way more corrupt and way more willing to violate international law .

The question is... is de-facto enslavement of the proletariat any better than blatant enslavement? ... and that doesn't change the fact that quite a few humanitarian treaties have dissolved, or at least have been vetoed / unjoined by the US... and the fact that the US hasn't ratified the International Criminal Court means that much of international law doesn't apply to them.

 

3rd you throw out laws strictly meant to weaken the military base of the United States and expect us to happily comply.It gets real easy to pick on the country with the strongest military but last time I checked The United States wasnt exactly out there looking for world conquest.Can the same be said for some of the Terrorist countries and for China for that matter ?

It is the countries with the strongest militaries that have to be watched the most... don't think that I like China better than the US, or think they're on par in a social sense... but there are distinct signs that the US's military supremacy are getting to some heads... and a massive conflict will likely be the result.

 

finally, I am a democrat and to say that the goals of the Dems and Republicans are the same shows that you have little knowledge of the workings of the US government . 60 million peoplke did vote to oust GW that is a record number of negative votes for any president in US history and on an ordinary election would have easily won the day.

I should point out that the last democratic government in the US was impacted to a large degree by character assassination, and the unfortunate choice on the part of Bill Clinton to give them something real to lock onto (i.e. the Monica Lewinsky case).

 

When another democrat president is elected, I fully expect to see another massive character assasination mechanism put into place.

 

security became a large issue in this country because of 9/11.It made a people who thought they were relatively secure become very uneasy so it is a typical response to make sure that the people inside our borders are safe .While I vehemently disagree with the policies of GW and admit that Fox news is highly slanted ,I would maintain and remind you all that alot of information that americans get is gleemed off the internet and not at all censored .

... Rome started conquering the known world due to exactly the same fears. A barbarian raid ended up with Rome being burned, and thus Rome began to take over places that were, could be, or suspected were a threat to the safety of Rome.

 

There are more ways than military conquest to control other countries, and the US has used them all. To say otherwise would be to deny facts.

 

For those of you out there who think that we in the US are slaves remember that we are allowed to freely leave our country and also remember that McCarthiesm came and went so will the Bush era of politics and with the economy doing poorly probably sooner than later

Heh... it might explain why Immigration Canada's website got a HUGE burst of hits from US IPs after Bush's last election ^^

 

The only real solution to the problems down there are for people to VOTE. Almost half of the country doesn't vote, and the other half is made up of special interests, religious block-voters (who were VERY enamoured of Bush, I might add), and supporters of corporate interests (Heh... makes me think of recent tax cuts in that sector...). Oh, yeah, and generously mixed with good citizens who DO care about their country ^^

 

The world is NOT just made up of the US... they have to start keeping the world in mind, or we WILL have World War 3, sooner or later.

[GorunNova]

Ah, but do you realise that a true politician is known for keeping the people just satisfied enough that they won't do that, and still take away as much from him as possible in between dinners while you're paying for it! Think carefully about this, what was the last actual freedom a politician ever gave you and now think about what was the last freedom they took away. Wich one was easier to find?

 

... and even though I live across the border up here, I can see the huge numbers of freedoms down there that have been limited or removed in the last 10 years.

 

It's pretty bad when a US soldier came over here to seek asylum and citizenship, claiming he was ordered to commit war crimes... but we'll have to see whether he was talking bull or not.

[GeneralLee]

I'm curious what everyones opinion is on this issue.

 

Recently the US government has said that they are not planning to put weapons into space.

 

 

Huh? Have we forgotten about the "Star Wars*" initiative, and the Ronald Reagen years? This was in effect and discussed almost 25 years ago, or earlier actually. We (the USA) had the technology in the 1970's. "They" say it was never initiated, but was it not, really?

 

I just came accross this thread now as I type this, so pardon the lateness.

 

Do those of you who have posted in this thread, seriously think that the USA does not already have all of those weapons in space already?

 

 

Edit: *Strategic Defense Initiative - SDI

 

[mcant]

just a small point on the UN resolution post previously. dont you find it amusing that Micronesia abstained, LOL, yeah right and they have such a massive space programme?

 

plus of the 160 odd who voted against it, isn't that a bit like we cant do it so no one else should?

 

lets be honest the UN is a joke with most banana republics votes up for auction to the highest bidder

 

Can anyone remind me of the Hienlein short story that had an idependent space guard ready to nuke anyone who worked themselves?

[coolcat13]

a 60% voter turn out is rather large .The distinctions were clear enough in the Bush camp it was vote for me and i will put security above all else in the Kerry camp it was I will put security as a primary issue but consider the impact on world politics

 

Americans decided narrowly that the interest of the US should be put above the world relations . A point I vehemently disagree with .However you do not see the US playing for military or economic conquest if you did do you think we would allow our jobs to go overseas .

 

America may not be perfect and may not even be the best country to live in but it does try .I am not fond of the Bush tactics used in the last election or against McCain for that matter but I will say that a party will not follow in lockstep a President that has bad policy for long and you are seeing alot of dissension in the GOP ranks .So to you outsiders I say just give it time and the Bush era will crumble .remember too that the blue sections of this country have a large say in things as well

[Beawulf]

is 60% really a good turnout? surely in a nation as patriotic and wonderously democratic every person would be racing to have their say. a 60% turnout to me says that nearly half the nation doesnt care and may as well be under a dictatorship.

 

 

I wouldnt be suprised if they have already started putting weapons up... I cant say I believe everything they say

[GorunNova]

Sorry, but given I live in a country where 65% turnout is unusually low, I have to say I'm not that impressed ^^'

 

I agree, if 40% of the country doesn't vote... that's NOT a good thing, and reflects badly on how voters see the governmental system.

 

With that many non-voters, it's obvious a large chunk of the country thinks the system is either broken, or so distant from them that they figure there's no point...

[Beawulf]

Sorry, but given I live in a country where 65% turnout is unusually low, I have to say I'm not that impressed ^^'

 

I agree, if 40% of the country doesn't vote... that's NOT a good thing, and reflects badly on how voters see the governmental system.

 

With that many non-voters, it's obvious a large chunk of the country thinks the system is either broken, or so distant from them that they figure there's no point...

 

just out of curiousity, where are you from? :D

[GorunNova]

Canada... we've dipped to 60% of late, but from 1900 to 1993 we've never dropped below 67%, and averaged 75.4% over that time with a peak of 90% in 1917 (probably due to conscription being a huge issue)

 

The current dip is probably because of the massive corruption of our previous (and possibly current) liberal party, and the demoralization that has caused. I suspect with all the reforms sliding into place, the next election will have a slightly better turnout... assuming they stick, and assuming the liberal party gets a clue ^^'

 

Edit: Still, I think even an average of 75% isn't good... it should be in the mid eighties, lowest...

[Beawulf]

In Australia it is compulsory for everyone (elligable) to vote, it is probably easier for us because of the much lower population.

 

If it were possible I would expect any democratic country to make it compulsory

[GorunNova]

Hell, yes! Voting is the most important thing you can do, politically. If the average joe doesn't vote, the special interests etc. will vote for him, effectively.

 

Edit: I think the biggest problem with the US is the two-party system. You're either one of the two parties, or you're independant and about as likely to get real power as a snowball is likely to survive under a blowtorch.

 

More choice means more interest in voting.

[Beawulf]

is there only 2 parties because the constitution says so, or is it because they are the only ones with enough power to exist?

 

We have several political parties here (heaps infact), if any of them gets the numbers they can get into power, or a group of parties can form a coalition to get the majority.

[TetsuoShima]

is there only 2 parties because the constitution says so, or is it because they are the only ones with enough power to exist?

 

We have several political parties here (heaps infact), if any of them gets the numbers they can get into power, or a group of parties can form a coalition to get the majority.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot more political parties in the US, but only the two you are referring to are big enough to have their candidates selected for presidency. In the parliaments I believe it does occasionally occur that a different party (from the two biggest) gets a representative in a seat.

 

The disadvantage of having a lot of smaller parties is that they can't get anything done at a reasonable speed because they are all struggeling to get the most use of the little power they have. This is in turn also its advantage, because the power is more difficult to abuse. Furthermore, the big party system has the effect of overrepresenting the middle way, the parties cannot take extreem sides, since this would cost them votes. Sure they each have their own points of view and points of interrest, but they are not nearly as far appart as some political parties in countries where there is need for coalitions.

 

In the end the difference in system is not all that important, since I've never ever seen/met/spoken to a politician who could be trusted to do the right thing. They all say one thing and then go on and do the next.

 

A pretty good example from my country: There was this proposition, people were fiercely against it according to all polls and from my own experience I can support the theory that the people really did not want this proposition to come to life. The party that call itself 'the peoples party' was one of the true supporters of this proposition. During the election their slogan was: we do what the people want! There was no mention at that time yet of the proposition. When it was time to vote, they held the decisive vote and they voted for, while if they would have done what the people wanted, they should have voted against.

 

Afterwards one of their representatives said: we really supported this issue and we wanted to push it through. The reporter asked: but the people didn't want this. The representative said: we still wanted to push it through!

 

There you go about trusting politicians!

 

Well, I appear to have gone off topic with this, excuse me for that, I got carried away!

[daffydk]

is there only 2 parties because the constitution says so, or is it because they are the only ones with enough power to exist?

 

We have several political parties here (heaps infact), if any of them gets the numbers they can get into power, or a group of parties can form a coalition to get the majority.

 

I think you are refering to the US?

 

There are actualy several parties but the democrats and the republicans are powerful and get lots of money. But there is the green party, liberatarian, reform, and independents and so forth. Even a communist party!!

 

Check out http://www.gp.org for green party.

http://www.lp.org for liberatarian

http://www.cpusa.org communist party

and so on...

 

Any candidate from any part can get on a ballot however they have to get a certain number of signatures and that varies based on the states.

 

Also anyone that gets more than 5% of the vote in an election is eligible to get federal funding for next election equal to what the democrats or republicans get...usualy worth 100s of millions of dollars.

 

 

[Beawulf]

ah I see. very interesting.

 

You get my vote Daffy! hehe B)

[GorunNova]

There's a difference between having more than 2 parties and having more than 2 parties with any influence at all... the US has more than 2 parties, but they have effectively no power at all.

 

Edit: 5%?!?... they're lucky if they hit 1%, and have NO chance at proper funding.

[Beawulf]

I just watched the second bbc documentary available on this site about the risk of asteroids and comets hitting the planet.

 

 

from the point of view of protecting the earth against this sort of threat we probably should get weapons up into space as soon as possible.

 

I wonder what it would take.....a high powered laser to melt down the comets as much as possible....or how about something that can change the trajectory to make it miss earth all together, and then when the object is moving away blast it to pieces

 

yeeehaaaw!

 

you know you're a redneck when your satelite has a gun rack

[MrDad]

Has anyone here read Lt. Col. (Ret. USAF) Philip J. Corsos' book 'The Day After Roswell'? It was his assertion that the ETs such as those in the roswell wreck had unfriendly, if not hostile, intentions. The space race and the Cold War military buildup were a response to this threat, and space-based weapons are only a logical extension.