US leaders are saying that they want

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of US military plans for space control, including the potential for a military monopoly over near-Earth space. Participants explore the legality of such actions under existing treaties, particularly the 1967 Space Treaty, and express various opinions on the motivations and consequences of these plans.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the US aims to establish a military monopoly over near-Earth space, potentially refusing access to other nations.
  • There is mention of a loophole in the 1967 Space Treaty that may allow the US to deploy military assets in near-Earth space without violating international law.
  • Some argue that the US government's desire for control reflects a broader ambition to dominate globally.
  • Others speculate on the implications of military actions against satellites of other nations and the potential for escalating conflicts.
  • A few participants question the validity of claims regarding US military intentions and cite conventions suggesting the US will refrain from deploying weapons in space to avoid an arms race.
  • Concerns are raised about the impact of US supremacy on international cooperation in space exploration and the potential hindrance to other nations' capabilities.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of any one entity controlling space or the planet as a whole.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus, with multiple competing views on the motivations behind US space policy, the legality of proposed military actions, and the potential consequences for international relations and space exploration.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various treaties and military statements, but there are unresolved questions regarding the interpretation of these documents and the implications of military actions in space. The discussion includes speculative claims about future military capabilities and geopolitical strategies.

Dissident Dan
Messages
244
Reaction score
1
US leaders are saying that they want control of space

US military commanders have been unveiling a plan in which the US would make a military monopoly out of space.

According to the linked article below,
Recent proposals that have been circulated at Space Command and NRO briefings suggest that access to "near-earth space" may be refused to other nations.

All GPS satellites are located within near-earth space, which covers the orbital distance from Earth to the moon. A fleet of spacecraft will be developed, designed to attack and destroy future satellites of enemies and rivals. The rapid-launch "military space plane," the potential cost of which has not been disclosed, would also be used as a mobile "bodyguard" for US space installations. It would be the first "space plane" in history with a directly military function.

The 1967 Space Treaty forbid weapons in "outer space", but there is a loophole, because it apparently does not address the near-Earth area where most man-made satellites orbit.

Until now, international treaties have forbidden the deployment of weapons in outer space, although a loophole exists which allows the United States to use its satellites for military intelligence.

The 1967 Space Treaty - the first international legislation on space exploitation - also stated that outer space should be free for exploration and use by all states, and would not be subject to national appropriation by occupation or any other means.

US Officials are saying that others will have no say in the matter:
According to James Roche, the US Air Force Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects designed to achieve American military control of space.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...08.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/08/ixnewstop.html

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is an element in American government that wants to rule the world. This is just a single expression of that urge.
 
I'm just waiting for the excuse Bush would make to reallocate more funding from civil services and education into the offense budget.
 
Nevermind at least it will stop Drax having his evil way!
 
I'm not surprised. As Zero mentioned, it's that element in American politics that wants to dominate everything.

The pros and cons of the situation (from the government's viewpoint):

Pro: Complete control of near Earth space

Con: No one to exploit
 
Originally posted by Andy
Nevermind at least it will stop Drax having his evil way!

Drax the Destroyer??
 


Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The 1967 Space Treaty forbid weapons in "outer space", but there is a loophole, because it apparently does not address the near-Earth area where most man-made satellites orbit.
Acuatlly, the loophole is simply that GPS and spy satellites aren't, stricly speaking, weapons. And I think spy satellites were specifically addressed (allowed) in the ABM treaty with the USSR.

One thing that stuck me in the article:
All GPS satellites are located within near-earth space, which covers the orbital distance from Earth to the moon.
Near Earth space by that definition is where ALL satellites are located and only a small number of deep space probes have ever been launched (less than 100). But the term "outer space" is generally considered to mean anything outside the atmosphere. It sounds like maybe the Air Force is trying to make "outer space" equal "deep space" which I don't think is correct.http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html is a link to the treaty and its predicessor.

There is an element in American government that wants to rule the world. This is just a single expression of that urge.
Yes. And I'm succeeding, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drax the Destroyer??

Ummm Drax from Moonraker, it will save james bond having to sneak on board a shuttle to get there wouldn't it.
 
Moonraker was great but that Holly Goodhead got on my nerves.

Any more sources on this issue?
 
  • #10
Yea she got on my nerves as well but still wouldn't mind her getting on something else of mine
 
  • #11
Here is an older link that seems to be related:

http://www.space.com/news/space_control_021015.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Kinda comical, when will they ever learn, NO ONE entity can rule this entire planet, no one government, no one nation, no one leader, it is GUARANTEED not to survive!

Goes against the very nature of Humanity, and FREEDOM!
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Zero
There is an element in American government that wants to rule the world. This is just a single expression of that urge.
I'm not sure where DD gets his quotes, but I am
pretty sure that I recently read of conventions
and US military commissions that concluded that the
US will not put any weapons systems in space so
as not to encourage any sort of arms race there.

As for the last quote, that's just ridiculous. Is that
a comical site DD ?

Peace and long life.
 
  • #14
I think that space is up for grabs, eventually there will be nuclear weapons mounted on LEO satellites targeting GPS and spy sats as well as ICBM launching facilities. But if we start taking out other nations' satellites, for example during war, there's no telling how they'd react. Not every nation is as flimsy as Iraq was, weakened by sanctions.
 
  • #15
i remember an article about this in this month's scientific american.

i think bush and congress have made it clear that they will be the global controller, and they will do whatever suits their interests, whether it be attacking a sovereign nation (or two) and overthrowing the ruler because they don't like him, or banning all countries except for themselves from doing anything in space.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure where DD gets his quotes, but I am
pretty sure that I recently read of conventions
and US military commissions that concluded that the
US will not put any weapons systems in space so
as not to encourage any sort of arms race there.

I listed a link to the source of my quotes. I also listed a link to a related article. Here is a more related one:
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050

As for the last quote, that's just ridiculous. Is that
a comical site DD?

What, "According to James Roche, the US Air Force Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects designed to achieve American military control of space."?

I don't know what about that you found particularly odd.
The eetimes.com link also mentions the "no veto power" thing. Although, I would like to see the complete statement and surrounding statements. Paraphrasing has its dangers.
 
  • #17
Your damn right!

Many have tried to unite the planet into a cohesive whole. We can, and should. We are bickering over minutae while the entirety of the universe is just sitting there, waiting to be exploited.

If we have to subjugate every significant faction on this planet to do so, I hope that I may E-Mail my progeny on Titan some day, regardless.

I don't care how we do it. Just get our eggs out of this basket as soon as we can dammit!
 
  • #18
This policy isn't about uniting the world. It's about US supremacy, semi-subjecting everyone else. I think that it will have a negative effect on space exploration, because it is not a plan designed for exploration, but for Earthly military uses, and will restrict other nations' ability to explore space. The only good thing that it would do for space exploration is perhaps yield some relevant advances to space technology.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
11K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
26K