1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

New national space policy (USA)

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by palefrost, Oct 19, 2006.

  1. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0



    What right does America--or any other nation--have to say who can and who cannot have a space program? And just what would America do if some nation whose interests are contrary to the U.S. launch a missile into space? Shoot it down and potentially start WWIII?

    This bothers me. Just a whole lot . . . .
     
  2. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is merely an extension of the US attitude to nuclear arms: "No you can't have any other nuclear arms as we have the most, one of them is enough to turn the world into a wasteland, and we don't think you're responsible enough, besides, you're evil because you hate the US."

    As anybody from Matt Riley to Bush knows, the technology potentiated by a space program means that this domain holds very strong advantages for whoever has control. Go figure.

    I still like to draw the analogy of a children's spat in the sandbox- North Korea (or Kim) is the anti-social brat, the US (or Bush) is the self-absorbed paranoid rich kid. Australia and Britain (Howard and Blair) are each hanging on to one of Bush's legs, Russia (who knows) is skulking in the corner, and all the other kids (Japan, South Korea- Kim's siamese twin, the Asian countries and most the rest of the world), are worried that everybody will start kicking sand on each other. But the point is that while this seems a matter of grave importance, it is beginning to look increasingly childish, and I'm not sure I see a positive way out.
     
  3. vicki2

    vicki2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess he figures that the U.S. better claim space before anyone else does. Not many other nations go there lol.
     
  4. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Time for obscure reference to well known era!

    In Russia, space has you. And then we get nuclear showers. Who says else is a bleeding red Communist bastard!

    But seriously, the wording of that article...it shows that the major part of the US administration still promotes the US as the sheriff of the world. Which is only further going to inflame tensions.
     
  5. lizakollman

    lizakollman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thank god he might not have a chance to conquer space, if we can figure out how to get him out of office in 2008. suggestions, anyone?
     
  6. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not sure what other viable option is for an official national position is. "We're going to space, and anyone who denies us access is fair game. Anyone who threatens us from space is fair game" As a citizen I wouldnt want any other position made on access to space.

    I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the original poster. While I honestly want all capable nations to explore space, I don't want them to do it in a way that can deny my country access for defensive, offensive, or commercial purposes. Why would you expect any nation (let alone one that can assert some real influence) to have any other policy?

    And LOL space has you...
     
  7. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Honestly? By principle I have to agree with you. But- while you weren't addressing me, allow me to elaborate. I'm speficially interested in asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests." because of the way the US administration has been conducting itself around the issue of security lately. I cannot really draw any hard and fast conclusions as that would presume I know the level of responsibility that the US administration had in the security threats to their own country, which I don't. But this space (lol, bad pun) needs to be watched carefully for it is a very easily corruptible line without much more detail. Really, I think "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," is reasonable, as the concept of liberty and rights relate to social boundaries and interactions, and thus there is no limits on the environment in which it takes place. All we need be concerned about is that it has proper recourse to consistent moral treatment of all beings, which, as such things as partial repeal of the habeas corpus indicate, is in question.

    It so true too!
     
  8. l99999us

    l99999us New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And who exactly is denying the US access to space? I haven't seen anyone say anything to suggest that or anything to stop us even if they wanted to. it is Bush who wants to deny others access to space. This has nothing to do with national security but is a whole lot more to do with power and attemting to dominate. If anything things like this lead to a whole lot more hostility to the US and may even provoke other nations to see the US as a threat in this area and act accordingly.
     
  9. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its all words on paper.
    Every time a new frontier seriously begins opening up, there are always the land-grabber asshats who start out by writing their way into ownership and control of the property beyond.

    The last 50 years of space exploration has been the halcyon era, where only those brave souls who dared trod beyond what was known set the policies for its use. No more.

    Now that we have "space tourists", we are now seeing the beginnings of the "dumbnification" of the new frontier. An era where cowardly asshats who have no business setting policy for its further exploration (read: exploitation) charge forward and usurp the domain of the only worthy ones smart enough to manage it properly.

    Enter Asshat Dubya.
    Welcome to Space America.:D
     
  10. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How soon until we establish a monopoly on air?
     
  11. Agaric

    Agaric New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember back during the time of the Mars rover when Bush got all excited and declared that we start a program to colonize Mars. Would have though the moon might be a better starting point, but then again you're president, George.
     
  12. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect that the Moon would be too small to actually serve as a viable (in the long term) colonisation post, and also has a relative paucity (in theory) of tappable resources compared to Mars...which is actually a planet as opposed to a big hunk of rock. Though I dunno whether Bush was thinking that when he made that declaration...
     
  13. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The way I understood the moon-base idea was 1) its a good low gravity launching point (low gravity=less fuel to launch) for long missions 2) it sparks people's imagination and gets us thinking about space as a frontier again.

    I by no means am expert but I believe the consensus was that #1 wasn't really a great way to go because you still had to launch things such as fuel from earth to the moon. #2 on the other hand is worthwhile in my mind. Its not like sticking a flag on the moon was a really productive purpose back when Kennedy got it done, but the race to the moon lead to so many ancillary benefits its hard to deny it had value. If we can advance the science, and bring some kind of colonization closer to reality then its worthwhile spending.

    Ultimately its smart for humanity to find a backup rock to live on just in case. I'm all for us getting into space.
     
  14. lizakollman

    lizakollman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haven't we already begun this - by establishing no-fly zones and shooting anyone who flies there?
     
  15. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Air... excuse me, I meant oxygen!
     
Loading...

Share This Page