US Military Eyeing Weapons in Space

[Frodo]

Pentagon eyeing weapons in space:
Budget seeks millions to test new technologies

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  March 14, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating a space battlefield since President Reagan's long-defunct ''star wars" project during the Cold War, according to federal budget documents.

The Defense Department's budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and defensive weapons, including a missile launched at a small satellite in orbit, testing a small space vehicle that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20 times the speed of sound, and determining whether high-powered ground-based lasers can effectively destroy enemy satellites.

The military says that its aerospace technology, which has advanced exponentially during the last two decades, is worth the nine-figure investment because it will have civilian applications as well, such as refueling or retrieving disabled satellites. But arms-control specialists fear the tests will push the military closer to basing weapons in space than during Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s -- without a public debate of the potential consequences.

''Some of these things are going to be put up and tested and that is where you have the potential to cross the line" into creating actual space-based weapons systems, said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington and coauthor of a new analysis on space weapons spending.

source

[Frodo]

This is a project that Democrats would do well to join Republicans in supporting -let the peaceniks and arms control advocates look to the Green Party to embody their views if they so wish. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I agree. We need to be able to turn france into glass from orbit.

[Gabu]

Ugh.  Unfortunate, but probably inevitable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree. We need to be able to turn france into glass from orbit.

Only if we abrogate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.  That treaty bans the placement of WMD's in orbit.

[MasterJedi]

Good idea, hopefully something will come of it.

[The Dowager Mod]

Since it's not enough to be able to blow it all to hell from ground or sea based nukes.

[Akno21]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

The Democratic Party and the entire Congress needs to take a stand against "give the DoD whatever the hell it wants" economics.

[The Dowager Mod]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

The Democratic Party and the entire Congress needs to take a stand against "give the DoD whatever the hell it wants" economics.

Then the rethugs scream about time of war and all that nonsense.

[MasterJedi]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

They're all important and need to be delt with.

[Frodo]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

It isn't, and nowhere did I suggest it was.  But no expense should be spared in defending this nation against any threat, wherever it may arise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually we should probably be standing up against entrenched interests in the Pentagon that insist on acquiring and keeping weaponry better suited to the Cold War.

During the 2000 campaign, the Bush/Cheney ticket made reforming the military and updating it for 21st century threats a top priority, including gradually retiring Cold War-era weaponry, re-organizing the Army from one based on divisions to more easily deployable brigades, and acquiring ships and weaponry that could be sent anywhere more easily that present less of a target to rogue countries and terrorist groups like the submersible DD-X (something like that -from what I saw it was a submersible destroyer that could patrol shallow coastal waters, not unlike a submarine), and remote-controlled drones that has proved itself in Afghanistan and elsewhere. 

Democrats should see this is as an opportunity to pick up where the Bush administration left off, and continue transforming the military to better equip it in fighting the war on terrorism.   

[Akno21]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

It isn't, and nowhere did I suggest it was.  But no expense should be spared in defending this nation against any threat, wherever it may arise.

If we are really going to spare no expense in defending this nation, I suggest you be the first to campaign on a large tax increase. In our current financial situation it is not plausible to spare no expense without a huge increase in taxes, which is unlikely to happen.

The Democratic Party and the entire Congress needs to take a stand against "give the DoD whatever the hell it wants" economics.

continue transforming the military to better equip it in fighting the war on terrorism.   

I agree with that, I just don't think weapons in space is the way to win the war on terror.

[??????????]

I agree. We need to be able to turn france into glass from orbit.

Only if we abrogate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.  That treaty bans the placement of WMD's in orbit.

Weapons most likely exist in space at the present time.

[Frodo]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

It isn't, and nowhere did I suggest it was.  But no expense should be spared in defending this nation against any threat, wherever it may arise.

If we are really going to spare no expense in defending this nation, I suggest you be the first to campaign on a large tax increase. In our current financial situation it is not plausible to spare no expense without a huge increase in taxes, which is unlikely to happen.

I would certainly do so -we can't fight this war properly if we are not going to demand a degree of sacrifice from the American people.  That is what irked me the most about President Bush in the wake of 9/11 -instead of summoning us to sacrifice whatever is required to fight al Qaeda, he simply asked us to 'shop until we drop'.  Those were not his exact words, but that was his intent as I saw it. 

The Democratic Party and the entire Congress needs to take a stand against "give the DoD whatever the hell it wants" economics.

continue transforming the military to better equip it in fighting the war on terrorism.   

I agree with that, I just don't think weapons in space is the way to win the war on terror.

It isn't...at least not directly, but then we have other potential threats like China that we have to be concerned about at the same time.  The weaponizing of space is largely inevitable, and with the rise of China as a military power, it is only a matter of time before it decides to seek to one-up us by expanding its military might into space.  I would rather a democratic power take the lead in weaponizing space than one that rules its population with an iron fist. 

[Akno21]

How exactly is this more important than increasing port security, giving our troops the supplies they need, or any number of other things?

It isn't, and nowhere did I suggest it was.  But no expense should be spared in defending this nation against any threat, wherever it may arise.

If we are really going to spare no expense in defending this nation, I suggest you be the first to campaign on a large tax increase. In our current financial situation it is not plausible to spare no expense without a huge increase in taxes, which is unlikely to happen.

I would certainly do so -we can't fight this war properly if we are not going to demand a degree of sacrifice from the American people.  That is what irked me the most about President Bush in the wake of 9/11 -instead of summoning us to sacrifice whatever is required to fight al Qaeda, he simply asked us to 'shop until we drop'.  Those were not his exact words, but that was his intent as I saw it. 

I don't disagree with you there, and a big part of why the war on terror (and as an extension, in Iraq) is losing support is because most Americans simply don't feel connected to it in the way we have with prior wars. I'm noy saying we need Victory Gardens, but we definitly don't need tax cuts.