Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US leaders are saying that they want

  1. Jun 8, 2003 #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,
    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.

    US Officials are saying that others will have no say in the matter:

    What do you think?
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2003 #2
    There is an element in American government that wants to rule the world. This is just a single expression of that urge.
  4. Jun 8, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    I'm just waiting for the excuse Bush would make to reallocate more funding from civil services and education into the offense budget.
  5. Jun 9, 2003 #4
    Nevermind at least it will stop Drax having his evil way!
  6. Jun 9, 2003 #5
    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
  7. Jun 9, 2003 #6
    Drax the Destroyer?!?!
  8. Jun 9, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: US leaders are saying that they want control of space

    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:
    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 [Broken] is a link to the treaty and its predicessor.

    Yes. And I'm succeeding, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Jun 10, 2003 #8
    Ummm Drax from Moonraker, it will save james bond having to sneak on board a shuttle to get there wouldnt it.
  10. Jun 10, 2003 #9
    Moonraker was great but that Holly Goodhead got on my nerves.

    Any more sources on this issue?
  11. Jun 10, 2003 #10
    Yea she got on my nerves aswell but still wouldnt mind her getting on something else of mine
  12. Jun 10, 2003 #11
    Here is an older link that seems to be related:

    http://www.space.com/news/space_control_021015.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  13. Jun 10, 2003 #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!
  14. Jun 10, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  15. Jun 11, 2003 #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.
  16. Jun 11, 2003 #15


    User Avatar

    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.
  17. Jun 12, 2003 #16
    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:

    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.
  18. Jun 13, 2003 #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 dont care how we do it. Just get our eggs out of this basket as soon as we can dammit!
  19. Jun 16, 2003 #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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook