- #1
grant555
- 6
- 0
I was wondering how many people think that we are moving towards a militarization of space? I am really impressed with the probes like Cassini and the latest probe, but I feel that ulterior motives could be at work.
Chronos said:Scientists should 'moo' and flutter their eyelids like milk cows when asked 'can we use this knowledge to create a weapon?'
Echo 6 Sierra said:I don't think it's quite so much the military that should be viewed as being good or evil but the administration that wields it.
I am not sure if German scientists decided about USSR, i.e. I don't believe the Germans had much of a choice. The Russians simply moved the German scientists back to Russia, in some cases. Germany and Berlin were divided into US, British, French and Russian sectors at the end of the war. I think von Braun and his colleagues were lucky enough to be in or get to the US sector. The US had a high priority to get the German scientists.russ_watters said:That is precisely what happened with the early space race (Manhattan Project, too) - the fleeing German scientists decided between the USSR and the USA.
An interesting question, grant555. I have not done much reading on this topic, but did a google search now and came up with some information:grant555 said:
I was wondering how many people think that we are moving towards a militarization of space? I am really impressed with the probes like Cassini and the latest probe, but I feel that ulterior motives could be at work.
O'Keefe [former administrator of NASA] also began another, less heralded transformation at NASA by filling many top agency positions with former military officials, many of whom had no previous space experience. Jobs ranging from chief financial officer and general counsel to the head of the new exploration programme — retired Navy Rear Admiral Craig Steidle — have gone to people with Pentagon backgrounds. This partly reflects O'Keefe's work experience, but also signals the Bush administration's interest in fostering a closer relationship between military and civilian space programmes.
The use of military expertise extends to outside advisers, such as retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, a former head of the US Missile Defense Agency, who has been tapped to head NASA's oversight committee for the Moon mission. In a speech to the Air Force Association last month, Lyles praised O'Keefe for "getting to an organization that looks very much more like the Department of Defense".
That trend may continue after O'Keefe's departure. Rumoured successors include several military men, among them retired Air Force General Ronald Kadish, who recently led the US missile defence programme.
Reference: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041213/pf/432787a_pf.html - Date: 15 December 2004
ARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
Pentagon Brass and Military Contractors' Gold
By Leslie Wayne
The New York Times, June 29, 2004
Edward C. Aldridge's storied career exemplifies the dizzying spins of the revolving door between the Pentagon and its military contractors. He has been secretary of the Air Force, president of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation and, most recently, an under secretary of defense.
Now, he is a member of the Lockheed Martin Corporation board, a detail that did not prevent him from being named to head President Bush's commission on space exploration. Lockheed is one of NASA's biggest contractors, and only Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, objected and called for Mr. Aldridge's removal, complaining of conflict of interest.
But Mr. Aldridge, who receives $155,000 a year from Lockheed and owns $115,000 in company stock, stayed put. Last month, the commission called for privatizing much of NASA. One of the biggest potential beneficiaries is United Space Alliance, a Lockheed company that operates the space shuttle and does more business with NASA than any other contractor.
More: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/062904.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
And finally, from the [b]Union of Concerned Scientists[/b]:[QUOTE][i]space weapons[/i]
For nearly a half-century, the cooperative and peaceful use of space has yielded immense benefits to humans worldwide. Although space has been "militarized"—military satellites have been deployed for purposes ranging from the verification of arms control treaties to providing targeting information to military forces on Earth—it has not yet been "weaponized." Despite Cold War tensions and the technical capability to do so, no nation has deployed destructive weapons in space or destroyed the satellites of another nation.
However, this norm may be breached in the near future. The Bush administration appears to have a serious interest in anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and the Pentagon has announced its intention to pursue a testbed for space-based missile defenses by 2008. The testbed deployment would entail putting one or more missile-targeting interceptor satellites into orbit.
Weapons in space are likely to be politically destabilizing. They may threaten the commercial, scientific, and military use of space, all without clearly reaping their intended security benefits. The international community, notably including Russia and China, Canada, and the countries of the European Union, supports creating a treaty to ban weapons from outer space. Serious multilateral discussion about "rules of the road" for space is needed.
Which rules and norms are established is especially important for the United States, the country most reliant on space assets. The United States owns and operates the vast majority of satellites orbiting today, and space has become critical to US economic, scientific, and military interests. Though the United States and the former republics of the Soviet Union have long dominated the use of space, currently many states are investing in space assets and have developed or are developing the ability to use space peacefully.
Insight into the Bush administration’s troubling plans can be found in the January 2001 report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Donald Rumsfeld shortly before he became Secretary of Defense. Although the report stresses defensive space operations, it endorses also the notion of "space control" and specifically calls for anti-satellite technology, stating that "The U.S. will require means of negating satellite threats, whether temporary and reversible or physically destructive."
More (including a link to the above-mentioned report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space management and Organization): [PLAIN]http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/index.cfm[/URL][/QUOTE]
Moooo *flutters eye lids*Antiphon said:It's better to find out first if the military you work for will use it for good
or evil. Arming good is always better than not arming it and much much
better than arming evil.
Astronuc said:I am not sure if German scientists decided about USSR, i.e. I don't believe the Germans had much of a choice. The Russians simply moved the German scientists back to Russia, in some cases. Germany and Berlin were divided into US, British, French and Russian sectors at the end of the war. I think von Braun and his colleagues were lucky enough to be in or get to the US sector. The US had a high priority to get the German scientists.
Smurf said:Moooo *flutters eye lids*
Astronuc said:The military, particularly US, is looking for a strategic advantange. So much communication is now handled by satellites. The nation which controls space will have a significant strategic advantage against all other nations.
We can do better than that ... we have PICTURES!Critical_Pedagogy said:Can you say "The Evil Empire"?
russ_watters said:What do you mean? The Soviet Union dissolved 14 years ago.
The Smoking Man said:We can do better than that ... we have PICTURES!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushgulfwars2.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvaderseparated.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushemperordictator.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushdarthw.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushdarkside.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrevengetwit.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushspacealien.htm
And from the moonbase:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushminime.htm
Pffffft - they're 5 games behind Boston. Not this year either...loseyourname said:Yes, but the Yankees keep going strong.
Not if you can't get into orbit without permission.J20gU3 said:the military can never secure the whole of space so there will always be places to explore :)
The current state of militarization in space is a topic of ongoing debate and controversy. Some experts argue that there is a significant level of militarization already occurring, with the use of satellites and other space-based technologies for military purposes. However, others argue that there is still a clear distinction between civilian and military space activities.
The potential risks of militarizing space include an escalation of international tensions and conflicts, the creation of space debris that could pose a threat to other satellites and spacecraft, and the potential for the weaponization of space leading to a new arms race.
The militarization of space has the potential to impact international relations in several ways. It can lead to increased tensions and distrust between nations, as well as potentially triggering an arms race. It can also have economic and political implications, as countries with advanced space capabilities may have an advantage over those without.
Currently, there are no specific international laws or treaties that regulate the militarization of space. However, there are several agreements and conventions that address the peaceful use of outer space, such as the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty. Some countries also have national laws and policies in place regarding the use of space for military purposes.
Some potential alternatives to militarization in space include promoting international cooperation and collaboration in space exploration and research, developing diplomatic solutions to conflicts, and investing in non-military space technologies and applications such as satellite imaging for disaster response and climate monitoring.