PDA

View Full Version : Marines in Space



ToSeek
2003-Oct-13, 04:43 PM
Not just John Glenn, but a systematic capability:

Why we must sustain human spaceflight (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzj.html)

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-13, 04:56 PM
Uhhh... that's actually kind of scary... :o

Argos
2003-Oct-13, 06:19 PM
This seems to violate international agreements on military-free space.

sarongsong
2003-Oct-13, 06:23 PM
Last night, remote viewer Ed Dames, in a radio interview w/Art Bell, seems convinced there's a US vs. China race to establish military superiority over Earth from our Moon. Something about "pop-up" weapons from the edge of the back-side, that could be fired, then pop-down into their sub-lunar "caves", or whatever. Made the point that satellites or other vehicles are too vulnerable for this.

Normandy6644
2003-Oct-13, 06:23 PM
I think it's supposed to be an option for peacekeeping, i.e., there's a problem in some far off land and the marines are needed to help out. Now why the local military and gov't couldn't handle the problem is beyond me, but I think I understand their motives.

Doodler
2003-Oct-13, 06:27 PM
Sounds good to me :) Next in development, carbon-carbon re-entry shells that decellerate and fall apart at a given altitude allowing for a parachute to deploy. Starship Troopers, anyone?

Reacher
2003-Oct-13, 06:40 PM
Starship Troopers, anyone?

I was thinking Halo 8) , but either way... :D

TrAI
2003-Oct-13, 08:12 PM
I think it's supposed to be an option for peacekeeping, i.e., there's a problem in some far off land and the marines are needed to help out. Now why the local military and gov't couldn't handle the problem is beyond me, but I think I understand their motives.

Yes there might be a strategic value in rapid respose units of this kind. The problem is of course who's version of peace these are to keep... The intentions for creating and using such a system might be good, but intentions are to often based on the reference point of the person who have them, and these are usualy that their side is in the right...

There wouldnt exist any effective protection against a craft dropping down in this way, would it? A country wishing to protect its own intrests would have to develop similar systems, but the treshold for using these might be lower than for nuclear missiles(this means no cold war/MAD type scenario to reduce use of the system), if you can deliver an armed force into the heart of your enemys territory you have some intresting options... Since the risk would be smaller than sending your soldiers inn by other ways, you might act prematurely...

Then one have the question how one would use this against terror, unless it is for retaliation, and retaliation is not something one should do prematurely... If this was a system with the singular purpose to deliver emergency suplies, medical help, and such to sites of big natural disasters, accidents, and terror attacks, yes, it would be good. But its hard to prevent a the use of such a technology for other reasons, and a troop delivery system like this might be seen as a direct prelude to invation by some contries, or at least an active threath for them to conform to the views of the contries with this capability... Its not like we dont have plenty of ways to kill eachother allready...

But then again, there might be a possibility that terror prevention is just a conveniant sticker to put on something to get it approved in the current climate, and it will be used for the real good reasons, not some leaderships potentialy corrupted view of right, but that is probably to much to hope for...

On the good side this might lead to the development of bether space transport systems, and accelerate exploration of space.

Swift
2003-Oct-13, 08:26 PM
I really have mixed feelings abou this.

I dislike this military use of space. It is a violation of international treaty. And unless the military has sudden invented a real cheap way into space, it seems like an unbelievably expense way to drop some troops into a location.

On the flip side, it may be the only way to get the government to spend some money on space systems.

I agree with TrAI that this is "just a conveniant sticker to put on something to get it approved in the current climate". 40 years ago it was the commies, say the bad word and get a budget treat, now its the terrorists. I'm sure multi-billion dollar space weapons are a very effective technique against teenage suicide bombers hiding in refugee camps.

George
2003-Oct-13, 09:05 PM
On 22 July 2002 Lt. General "Buck" Bedard signed the Small Unit Space Transport and Insetion (SUSTAIN) need statement "blazing a trail to a new expeditionary assault support capability for the next chapter of Marine Corp history."

But will it be enough "Bang" for the "Buck"?

Tuckerfan
2003-Oct-13, 10:54 PM
Hmmm. The local NPR station just announced that the Air Force Team in Tullahoma, TN (http://www.arnold.af.mil/) had just been given a couple hundred million dollars to continue work on the hypersonic spacecraft which is supposed to be able to go from New York to Tokyo in 30 minutes. Looks like we know why.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-14, 12:22 AM
I keep seeing US Marines dropping in on Parliament Hill. I'm 100% certain this wouldn't happen, but I can't get it out of my head.

:o :o :o :o :o

What really scares me is if a country not friendly to Canada/USA/England/UN/NATO gets the tech to do this.

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Added: Sorry about the smilies, but imagine a North Korean team landing on Capitol Hill or the Whitehouse lawn and you can see what I'm thinking.

Colt
2003-Oct-14, 01:29 AM
Like most of you this could be a good or bad thing.. I think some of you are blowing the threat of invasion out of proportion. I highly doubt that it would ever really be large enough to land an invasion force large enough to do any real good. It's be more like putting a red ant in the middle of a nest of black ants. They would cose in and destroy the red ant. -Colt

russ_watters
2003-Oct-14, 01:50 AM
At a couple of hundred million dollars for each insertion, I doubt its going to be a real possibility any time soon.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-14, 01:56 AM
Like most of you this could be a good or bad thing.. I think some of you are blowing the threat of invasion out of proportion. I highly doubt that it would ever really be large enough to land an invasion force large enough to do any real good. It's be more like putting a red ant in the middle of a nest of black ants. They would cose in and destroy the red ant. -Colt

Hey, he's talking about me! :)

No, an invasion wouldn't be big. It would be dealt with easily. I was thinking assassination. Still, it seems rather difficult when an undercover op or an actual invasion would do...

Anonymous
2003-Oct-14, 02:19 AM
The Air Force has had pretty much the same idea for quite a while.


http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c12/v3c12-1.htm#

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-14, 03:20 AM
Can someone please tell me how this doesn't break any treaties?

sarongsong
2003-Oct-14, 03:37 AM
The US signs treaties, not KEEPS them, remember? #-o

Archer17
2003-Oct-14, 03:51 AM
Last night, remote viewer Ed Dames, in a radio interview w/Art Bell, seems convinced there's a US vs. China race to establish military superiority over Earth from our Moon. Something about "pop-up" weapons from the edge of the back-side, that could be fired, then pop-down into their sub-lunar "caves", or whatever. Made the point that satellites or other vehicles are too vulnerable for this.I wouldn't believe everything I hear on C2C Sarongsong, seriously! "Remote-viewing" is a myth. For those not schooled in woowoo definitions, "remote-viewing" is when you can see things with your mind. Remote-viewers supposedly can sit in a chair at CIA HQ and see what's happening in the Kremlin or, in this case, the dark side of the moon! :roll: This kind of stuff belongs in "BABBling," not here.

Archer17
2003-Oct-14, 04:30 AM
The US signs treaties, not KEEPS them, remember? #-oThe militarization of space is inevitable, whether we (the US) does it or not. Anyone that refuses to believe this is not up on things. I'm for breaking any treaty that would allow a potential enemy to have hegemony over the "high ground," space in this instance. Not to do so would would be not only be irresponsible as far as the protection of our population goes, but would be inviting our enemies to do just that. Sorry, sarongsong, but treaties are supposed to be beneficial to all parties .. if they're not, they're not worth the paper they are written on. The question is, would you rather us have military dominance in space or our enemies? It's a direct question, no "Greenpeace" answers please ..I'm sure we all wish we could sniff the flowers together in harmony, but that's not the way it is. People out to hurt us or our way of life don't play by the "rules." Do you think a "don't fly hijacked planes into buildings" treaty would've really stopped 9/11?

sarongsong
2003-Oct-14, 06:14 AM
I wouldn't believe everything I hear on C2C Sarongsong
Care to re-phrase that, in light of my actual words?

This kind of stuff belongs in "BABBling," not here.
Can you say "thread"?

The question is, would you rather us have military dominance in space or our enemies?
TSC'S question was:

Can someone please tell me how this doesn't break any treaties?
The question to you is: "Why sign a treaty you will not honor?"
I can think of at least 200 the US has broken.

russ_watters
2003-Oct-14, 06:22 AM
The question to you is: "Why sign a treaty you will not honor?" There are plenty of good reasons, the most obvious of which is simply that times change.

The ABM treaty comes to mind. Though the arguement can be made it wasn't in force anymore anyway.

kucharek
2003-Oct-14, 07:32 AM
Sounds good to me :) Next in development, carbon-carbon re-entry shells that decellerate and fall apart at a given altitude allowing for a parachute to deploy. Starship Troopers, anyone?

And that's the usual point where someone comes up with MOOSE (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm)... ;-)

How would such guys be called? "Marines" is somewhat odd, no water around...

BTW, where's Ripper? Last post was 1 October.

Archer17
2003-Oct-14, 07:39 AM
I wouldn't believe everything I hear on C2C Sarongsong
Care to re-phrase that, in light of my actual words?Sure .. "Last night, remote viewer Ed Dames, in a radio interview w/Art Bell, seems convinced there's a US vs. China race to establish military superiority over Earth from our Moon. Something about "pop-up" weapons from the edge of the back-side, that could be fired, then pop-down into their sub-lunar "caves", or whatever. Made the point that satellites or other vehicles are too vulnerable for this." .. good enough? Very relative to the topic, I must add.

This kind of stuff belongs in "BABBling," not here.Can you say "thread"? sure I can say "thread"... here goes: "thread" .. I say again, this remote-viewing nonsense belongs in the BABBling forum, "thread" of your choosing. Is that better?


TSC's question was: Can someone please tell me how this doesn't break any treaties?You didn't answer his question. You engaged in commentary.
The question to you is: "Why sign a treaty you will not honor?"
I can think of at least 200 the US has broken.You counted 'em huh? I gave you my response as to the treaty discussed in this thread. Are you counting this one, is it up to 201 now? If I cared, I'd ask you why you bothered to look them up .. but I think I know. If you want to engage in US-bashing or remote-viewing, do it elsewhere.

Bawheid
2003-Oct-14, 07:47 AM
The question is, would you rather us have military dominance in space or our enemies?

It isn't a bipolar world anymore, if in fact it ever was. Is China classed as an "enemy"? Or Brazil, or France?

If you sign a Treaty you keep to its terms, that is how you know who the good guys are.

Archer17
2003-Oct-14, 07:59 AM
The question is, would you rather us have military dominance in space or our enemies?

It isn't a bipolar world anymore, if in fact it ever was. Is China classed as an "enemy"? Or Brazil, or France?

If you sign a Treaty you keep to its terms, that is how you know who the good guys are.I disagree. I think China will strive to have a military capability in space and maybe others down the road. Who knows? It would be a big mistake to end up vulnerable just to be a "good guy." If everyone played by the rules I'd be a staunch supporter of a demilitarized-type space treaty myself but treaties don't mean squat nowadays and despite what some harp about, it's not just us. There's countries, like N Korea for instance, that can't abide by ground-based treaties, so being a "good-guy" doesn't mean we have to compromise our options. As long as we have enemies I'm in favor of a strong military capability, included a space-based potential. Having said that I think this topic is straying into non-astronomy territory so I'm done here. There was a "space weapons" thread somewhere that talked about this, I think it was in the BABBling forum.

Bawheid
2003-Oct-14, 08:16 AM
I think we are drifting back into the "China to the Moon" thread and should heed BAs warning there.

To give a historical example, the League of Nations was not a failure. It didn't stop WWII but it clearly showed who was in the wrong and by abiding by the various Treaties the Allies had the moral high ground. This allowed them to fight with the full backing of world opinion and of their own populations.

That is why it is imperative to abide by Treaties which have been signed, if they are no longer valid go back to the UN and get another treaty.

Argos
2003-Oct-14, 01:45 PM
I think it's supposed to be an option for peacekeeping


Yep. The peace of the cemeteries



but I think I understand their motives.

Me too.

Doodler
2003-Oct-14, 02:23 PM
No water for the Marines? LMAO, reminds me of something a Navy SEAL once said when he was on a two man patrol in Viet Nam nowhere near a river. An Army Lieutenant asked him the same thing about being nowhere near water. The SEAL looked back at the Lt and said, "There's water in my cantina, isn't there? Close enough for me."

As for Treaties, if they no longer serve the valid interests of a signatory nation, then there is no reason to hold yourself to them. But this line of debate treads deadly waters.

End of line. If there are going to be competing nations with personnel in space for extended periods and outposts being manned constantly, there will be a vested interest in the security of those facilities. Harsh as it is to accept, where humans go, their wars will follow. Starry-eyed idealism will not change the reality of human politics. If any kind of resource exploitation begins to take place in orbit, the first obejective of any conflict will be to deny those resources to your adversary, meaning you destroy the infastructure that supports it. Operating with the mindset that 'Its in space and we shouldn't fight in space because its not polite' is the strategic equivalent of pulling your pants around your ankles. This doesn't even mean a conflict with China in particular, its entirely possible there will never be one like that, but as more nations move to the forefront and begin manned space programs (I have good money on the ESA at #4 within a decade or two, followed by India coming in #5 by 2030-40, just ahead of Japan at #6) conflicts of interest are going to arise with the open possibility of combat in space. We need to be prepared for this eventuality.

Bawheid
2003-Oct-14, 02:37 PM
As for Treaties, if they no longer serve the valid interests of a signatory nation, then there is no reason to hold yourself to them. But this line of debate treads deadly waters.


Indeed it does. If a country signs a Treaty it holds itself bound by its terms. Whether there is a long or short term gain to be made by breaking a treaty is irrelevant.

If you find yourself with a technological lead, but a country across the Pacific has a larger population, a larger manufacturing capacity, is catching you technologically, and you fear their motives, at what point do you launch a pre-emptive strike?

Quasi
2003-Oct-14, 06:38 PM
I don't particularly see the need to completely abolish all militaristic uses of space. Face it, in the 20th century just about EVERY major technological achievement has been developed by the military and then later converted for civilian use. Airplanes owe most of their current existance to every war since WWI, modern rocketry was developed by the Nazis for delivering destructive payloads, radar was developed by the British to detect enemy aircraft, helicopters were developed to deploy troops in remote locations, GPS was made to track troop movements, the list is endless.

Why not let nations try to get a piece of space, Lord knows theres more than enough for everyone. Along the way the rest of us will have gobs of new technology and exploration data as a by-product. And besides, who cares if nations deploy weapon in space? It wont change a single thing, weapons are just tools, its the men that control the tools that are the problem. With current technology we can blow Terra Firma up about 15 times over anyway, adding an extra 2 or 3 times to that doesn't exactly make things much worse.

I certainly wish we could do it any other way but lets face it, governments won't spend money on space unless it benefits them, and private citizens won't spend the billion/trillions needed unless they are VERY certain they could get a decent return on investment. Lets just let all the buracrats play soldier while we reap the true rewards.

Mespo_Man
2003-Oct-14, 06:59 PM
From all my reading of the U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, the ideal "insertion" vehicle for the Marines would be a Toyota truck. The flatbed can be configured for a host of bolt-on weapons platforms, it is cost-effective, and will not arouse suspicion with the locals.

The Toyota has additional advantages of NOT blazing across the sky at Mach X and announcing it's arrival with sonic booms. It does not require a heavy lifting rocket platform. As a matter of fact, it runs on regular unleaded gas! If the vehicle encounters hostile fire, the squad can quickly dismount into the nearest ditch or culvert.

Talk about "low Earth orbit". How about sneaking into the belligerent country on foot in the dead of night. The SEALS are good at that. And other Special Forces, etc.

Keep the high ground of space free for cost-overrun space spations.

(:raig

Ilya
2003-Oct-14, 08:42 PM
Several of you had asked whether transporting armed troops through space violate any international treaties. One or two rhetorically asked "Explain how does this NOT violate any treaties". And several more said that said treaties SHOULD be violated or nullified.

Frankly, I am appalled at the amount of ignorance displayed by all sides. Outer Space Treaty prohibits placing Weapons of Mass Destruction into orbit or onto other planets - i.e. nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It says nothing about guns, grenades and the like, and in fact every Soviet cosmonaut crew (and I am pretty sure all Russian ones) carried a pistol for self-protection in the event of wilderness landing. At least one Salyut station carried a Gatling gun; conventionally armed satellites or even "space fighters" are not prohibited by OST.

Moreover, since proposed vehicle would not actually enter orbit, it would not fall under Outer Space Treaty at all. Just like (suborbital) ICBM's are not prohibited by OST (although nuclear-armed satellites are), these Marines could conceivably carry a backpack nuke with them and still not be in violation of any treaty.

informant
2003-Oct-14, 09:51 PM
Indeed, Article IV of the treaty is curiously ambiguous. It prohibits military manoeuvers on celestial bodies, but does not make clear whether this includes objects orbiting Earth, or in interplanetary space…


Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortification, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Article VII is also worth looking at:


Article VII

Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.

No mention of damage caused by troops inside such object, unless they are counted as “component parts”. :)
Curious...

Outer Space Treaty (http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/outers_t.htm)

Ilya
2003-Oct-15, 02:34 AM
liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.

No mention of damage caused by troops inside such object, unless they are counted as “component parts”. :)
Curious...


Nuclear warheads atop ICBM's are specifically designed to "cause damage" yet are not prohibited by Outer Space Treaty. It simply does not apply to suborbital objects.

Kaptain K
2003-Oct-15, 02:41 AM
This:

The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
looks like a loophole big enough to drive a nuke through! :o

informant
2003-Oct-15, 09:35 AM
Nuclear warheads atop ICBM's are specifically designed to "cause damage" yet are not prohibited by Outer Space Treaty. It simply does not apply to suborbital objects.
Of course. What I find interesting is that the most crucial part of the treaty does not seem to apply to orbital objects either. Only to "celestial bodies" - as if anyone were going to set up military facilities in those any time soon. Cleverly written.

Doodler
2003-Oct-15, 03:52 PM
Ugh, that thing is written like the Marquis of Queensbury's rules for boxing. How nauseously Emily Post... nevermind... The US will pull out of that load of tripe the minute it interferes with the missile defense shield.


Article XII

All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited.

That'll be the day. Look forward to putting China to the test on this one. :)


Article XI

In order to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, States Parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively.

Most DEFINITELY this one too :D

informant
2003-Oct-15, 07:14 PM
The US will pull out of that load of tripe the minute it interferes with the missile defense shield.
No need to. The treaty was written so that it would never interfere with the missile programme of any country in the foreseeable future.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-16, 05:03 PM
I dislike this military use of space.

--As stated earlier, the use of space has been pioneered by the military. Until recently, every astronaut we had was a military pilot. The gov't spends far more on launching things into space than any commercial enterprise does.
In fact, I'd estimate that about 90% of space vehicles are military in nature, so you can safely say that the miitarization of space is not only the predominant type of space activity, but is essential to even getting to use space for commercial uses at all.
Being against the military in space is kinda pointless. It's almost solely a military playground as is. Even surveillance satellites are a type of 'weapon'. Or can be though of as merely a componant of our overall militay 'weapon'.
The fact is that exploring the solar system is firstly about resources. Resources that will be limited by factors such as location and ease of utilizing. No different than earth, those resources will need protecting. Makes sense that the military will be needed to do the protecting.

informant
2003-Oct-16, 05:20 PM
I agree that the military poineered space exploration. Just look at the astronauts of the Apollo programme. That's because space exploration has been, so far, a national undertaking, not a private one. However, they were military in a peaceful mission. There is a difference.

I cannot agree with the identification of surveillance and military activity in general. A spy satellite is not a weapon, just as intelligence is not the same as an arms race.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-16, 07:43 PM
Those same spy satellites direct Tomahawk cruise missiles with the TerCom system. Every bombing route, every possible target is identified by orbital platforms.
If the guidance system of a weapon is a satellite, is the satellite itself not part of the weapon system?
Alot of our precision bombs are GPS guided. I dare say that we already use satellites as active componants of weapons systems.

Doodler
2003-Oct-16, 09:03 PM
Yes and no. Yes, they are a part of the weapon system, but no, they are not the delivery mechanism, which seems to be the specific element targeted by the treaty.

Madcat
2003-Oct-17, 02:56 AM
If you keep to a treaty that is no longer to your advantage you're not a good guy you're just an id...

Okay....

This is getting political [-X .... I say it's an interesting idea. Kay? :)

Ripper
2003-Oct-23, 01:17 PM
Make no mistake, information is power. In both Gulf Wars the Iraqis had more manpower and more firepower in theatre. That is not even counting the fact that being in a prepared defensive posture is considered to be a three fold force multiplier. The key to any modern battle is information and targeting. This is true in all phases of conflict. Those who are saying that we need more troops to stabilize Iraq are ignorant of modern warfare. What we need is better intelligence. One Battalion of Marines could take out all of the remaining Baathist hardliners and foreign fighters in Iraq. The trick is finding them. As time goes by our intel will improve. We are starting to make arrests at the rate of dozens at a time.

I will take all of the spy and GPS satelites I can get, but real intel has to be gathered the old-fashioned way.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-23, 07:55 PM
Exactly right, ripper. The old fashioned way is HUMINT. However, HUMINT is incredibly difficult to obtain and usually fatal to the spy if the bad guys even suspect it. We're not as good at HUMINT in the middle east as the Brits.
One reason is that the Clintoon regime put a ban on dealing with bad guys to get the worse guys. Imagine if the cops here had to work like that. All we'd ever catch would be low level flunkies. But by cutting a deal with them, we can get the info on the big boys. The CIA was ordered to cease and desist that sort of work in the 90's. Politically incorrect. Boo Hoo.
Until we take the gloves off, and I mean REALLY take them off, all we are doing is buying time until the next attack.
In that interim, I'm all for arming space, the ocean floor, even hamsters if it means keeping an attack from happening. If we have to invade every arab country, so be it. They'd still be herding camels if it wasn't for the oil they sit on. So I'm not inclined to care much about whether our actions are politically correct or not. The entire population of the middle east is not worth the life of a single American to me.
Besides, it's naive to think that if we don't arm space, that no one will. Better to be ahead than behind when being caught with your pants down means massacre of 9/11 proportions or worse.

sarongsong
2003-Oct-26, 01:05 AM
"With no fanfare, the Bush Administration is taking military control of what it terms 'near space', thereby laying claim to the area of the Solar System that lies between the Earth and the Moon's orbit...success of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depended on the use of more than 50 military satellites to direct U.S. missiles and bombers to their intended targets. "I'd call this the first real space war," says Brig. Gen. Larry Jones..."
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=336_0_3_0_C

Jobe
2003-Oct-28, 07:59 AM
In that interim, I'm all for arming space, the ocean floor, even hamsters if it means keeping an attack from happening. If we have to invade every arab country, so be it. They'd still be herding camels if it wasn't for the oil they sit on. So I'm not inclined to care much about whether our actions are politically correct or not. The entire population of the middle east is not worth the life of a single American to me.
Besides, it's naive to think that if we don't arm space, that no one will. Better to be ahead than behind when being caught with your pants down means massacre of 9/11 proportions or worse.


I don't even know where to begin with this post. It's exactly this ignorant bigoted attitude, and willingness to indiscriminantly kill non-americans that provokes terrorist behaviour in the first place. That is not to say that I think it is deserved- but your "kill first, ask questions later" approach will begat violence.

If you want some real security, try opening your eyes and mind to the billions of people on earth who aren't american, and giving a rats *** about people in general, the human race, not just those in the USA.

Ripper
2003-Oct-28, 12:26 PM
What encourages terrorist attacks is weakness. You can't reason with them. All you can do is find them and kill them. Believe it or not, I have no hatred for the people of the Middle East. I have spent too much time sitting on floors drinking tea with them in a dozen countries from Afghanistan to Morocco. There is one major problem that seems to be almost universal in the Middle East. If you are interseted, read about the recent comments by the Malasian Prime Minister.

Killing innocents is counter productive in any military situation.

Archer17
2003-Oct-28, 01:45 PM
..If you want some real security, try opening your eyes and mind to the billions of people on earth who aren't american, and giving a rats [bad word deleted] about people in general, the human race, not just those in the USA.It doesn't take a seer to realize this thread is doomed but I couldn't let your rant go by without comment.. Before you get on your soapbox and start preaching about the USA maybe you better open your eyes. It seems the Bali bombing killed many of your fellow citizens and last time I looked, Australia wasn't part of the US. There's NO justification/rationalization for terrorism period.

Ripper
2003-Oct-28, 02:05 PM
I will take Archer 17 one farther. Terrorists usually kill more of their own people than of their perceived enemy.

Jobe
2003-Oct-29, 02:15 AM
It doesn't take a seer to realize this thread is doomed but I couldn't let your rant go by without comment.. Before you get on your soapbox and start preaching about the USA maybe you better open your eyes. It seems the Bali bombing killed many of your fellow citizens and last time I looked, Australia wasn't part of the US. There's NO justification/rationalization for terrorism period.

I agree completely. I don't think there is any justification or rationalization for terrorism either.

I'm specifically referring to the fact that this persons comment- that he would rather kill everyone in the middle east than one american- is outrageous.

I notice nobody jumped on him for that one, although apparently I'm on a soap box.

Australians sure did die in Bali, but that doesn't mean I would rather every person in Java die than one Australian. I want to see the end to terrorism as much as the next person.

I guess I'm just a big hypocrite for speaking out against genocide.

[-(

*deserts stupid thread*

Archer17
2003-Oct-29, 02:32 AM
..I agree completely. I don't think there is any justification or rationalization for terrorism either.

I'm specifically referring to the fact that this persons comment- that he would rather kill everyone in the middle east than one american- is outrageous.

I notice nobody jumped on him for that one, although apparently I'm on a soap box.

Australians sure did die in Bali, but that doesn't mean I would rather every person in Java die than one Australian. I want to see the end to terrorism as much as the next person.

I guess I'm just a big hypocrite for speaking out against genocide.

[-(

*deserts stupid thread*It's the way you came across Jobe. You weren't poster specific. Don't trash my country or allude that it has to be "nicer" to avoid terrorist attacks. You probably wouldn't believe me if I told you who was the biggest contributor to foreign aid to Afghanistan (the country that harbored Bin Laden) prior to 9/11. Yes, us Americans who don't give a 'rat's behind'. I agree with you on one thing .. this thread is getting stupid. It definitely doesn't belong in the astronomy forum.

informant
2003-Oct-29, 12:50 PM
I'm specifically referring to the fact that this persons comment- that he would rather kill everyone in the middle east than one american- is outrageous.

I notice nobody jumped on him for that one, although apparently I'm on a soap box.
The Bad Astronomer does not look kindly on political arguments on this board. This thread runs the risk of being locked. I think no one wants that to happen.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-29, 06:23 PM
I don't even know where to begin with this post. It's exactly this ignorant bigoted attitude, and willingness to indiscriminantly kill non-americans that provokes terrorist behaviour in the first place. That is not to say that I think it is deserved- but your "kill first, ask questions later" approach will begat violence.

If you want some real security, try opening your eyes and mind to the billions of people on earth who aren't american, and giving a rats [bad word deleted] about people in general, the human race, not just those in the USA.

--Well, nowhere did I advocate killing all of the middle east. I merely placed more value on Americans lives. I advocate killing of our enemies, whoever they are or what ever numbers they appear in.
However, given the deaths of others if it keeps Americans alive, then yeah, I'm all for that. Us or them, I'll take us, thanks.
Dunno, might stem from dedicating my entire adult life to defending Americans. It may be politcally incorrect, but I'd counter argue that the 'ignorance' comes from people who have never been anywhere else to draw a comparison to the US.
America first? You betcha. We are the leader of the civilized world, and having been all over the middle east, I can tell you from first hand experience that the region simply isn't very civilized. If not for the oil under their feet, that entire area would still be herding camels, chucking spears at one another. Having seen the desperete poverty in countries with unimaginable weath and the entire religious fanatisism of the place, I just dont see much value to it other than keeping my car running.
It's as harsh a reality as planes slamming into our buildings.
But before you cast accusations, I'd like to know what YOU'VE done for the people you're so quick to defend at our expense. I've handed out more food, innoculations, built shelters, and protected from aggression people from all over that sand box than any so called philanthopist I've seen.
Maybe the way I stated it grates of fragile sensitivities, but that's not my concern. Bottom line is that I've dedicated my life to serving this country and everyone else- EVERYONE- is secondary.

Jobe
2003-Oct-30, 03:14 AM
I can tell you from first hand experience that the region simply isn't very civilized. If not for the oil under their feet, that entire area would still be herding camels, chucking spears at one another.

Speaks for itself really.

Here was me thinking the arabs invented mathematics.

Yojimbo
2003-Oct-30, 05:12 AM
Well,
this military in space could happen
But why

TPTB are behind 99% of all terrorist plots.

The only purpose that I see behind it is so that the US can say they did it first.

It won't stop terrorism though. That's the greatest tool that TPTB have :cry:

daver
2003-Oct-30, 05:22 PM
Here was me thinking the arabs invented mathematics.

I suppoe it depends on what you mean by "Arabs". Mostly I think of the Greeks when I think of the invention of pure mathematics, but they got a lot of stuff from the Persians. The Arabs are popularly credited with introducing the zero and positional notation to the Western world, but i don't believe they invented it themselves.

informant
2003-Oct-30, 05:40 PM
Neither the Arabs nor the Greeks invented mathematics. The ancient Babylonians and the ancient Egyptians already had math, and later the Chinese, the Indians (from India), and the Mayans used it too, independently. The Arabs acquired the zero concept in the Middle Ages from Indian mathematicians. Which does not mean that the Arabs did not contribute a lot to mathematics themselves.
Or have anything to do with the conversation... :roll:

Kaptain K
2003-Oct-30, 06:59 PM
FWIW - Algebra is an arabic word. :o

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-30, 08:44 PM
And all of the digits that we use were invented by the Arabs.

informant
2003-Oct-30, 08:47 PM
The Indians. Sorta (http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html).

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-30, 09:20 PM
Hmm. Interesting. I thought always thought that they were Arab in origin. Thanks.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-30, 09:39 PM
Yippee. They may or may not have invented mathmatics. Problem isn't with their past achivements, it's in the lack of new ones over the past 1000 or so years. You're dealing with a culture that has chosen to remain in about 1200ad. It's their choice, just like the Amish choose to live about 3 centuries behind everyone else. Just don't call them modern in the context of civilization.
The middle east's culture is horribly barbaric compared to western standards. I'm not saying we're all roses and sunshine, but that makes the arabs even worse by comparison.
I'll absolutely agree that the middle east was at one time (a very long time ago) the hub of knowledge and advancement. Under Muslim rule, Jeruselem was a free and open city until the christians came along with their crusades.
But that's about where the middle east's clock stopped. Blame it on the pope if you want. But they have chosen to cling to a culture and mindset that became outdated about the time the west started making real progress.
Now of course that is my assessment with my western mindset. I'm sure they'd argue that our love of porno, booze, fast food, and materialism is not really much of an advancement. So it's subjective.

Jobe
2003-Oct-31, 12:33 AM
The middle east's culture is horribly barbaric compared to western standards.

So everybody runs with Arab/math thing, to keep on topic- but I guess you just can't help being an incurable bigot.

Ilya
2003-Oct-31, 01:53 AM
Arabs HAD a high culture at one point - and yes, they preserved Greek mathematics while Europe slid into Dark Ages. And I can point exactly when that high culture ended - 1449, when Ulug-Beg, probably the most educated and enlightened ruler of his time, was murdered by the "mad mullahs" all but identical to the rabid Islamists of today.

They succeeded in dragging Arab culture back into theocratic feudalism just about when Europe got out of the same.

SollyLama
2003-Oct-31, 05:27 PM
So everybody runs with Arab/math thing, to keep on topic- but I guess you just can't help being an incurable bigot
--Gee, that contributed so much to the conversation. I was sure I read a 'no insulting' rule on here somewhere.
I'll try to show better judgement and not respond to political correctness dogma with the fervor it deserves to be treated with.
What I will do is point out that rather than clinging to the political correctness at all costs, even if it denies reality, that perhaps some experience in the world outside of a college campus and liberal teachers, or that whole fantasy about how we're all just the same and if we could hold hands and get along....blah blah blah.
Been all over the middle east. It's nowhere you'd want to be. No culture you'd want your mother or sister to have to endure. Nowhere you'd want to have to rely on a criminal justice system or look for a representitive gov't. No place you'd even want to use a toilet (usually just a hole in the floor). Certainly no place to be able to voice your opinion about anything the secret police might not like.
Some one who has actually been outside of the US's protective cocoon would know those things. Someone not clinging to the political correctness partyline might have the intellectual honesty to be able to evaluate the two types of cultures.
It's pretty funny since this 'bigot' has risked his own life to liberate arabs in Kuwait, build shelters and protect muslims in Kosovo. Fed children from my own supply of food from Africa to Bahrain. Enforced UN sanctions to keep Saddam from committing genocide on Shiites and Kurds.
But keep talking. It's fairly amusing.

Jobe
2003-Nov-01, 04:42 AM
So everybody runs with Arab/math thing, to keep on topic- but I guess you just can't help being an incurable bigot
--Gee, that contributed so much to the conversation. I was sure I read a 'no insulting' rule on here somewhere.
I'll try to show better judgement and not respond to political correctness dogma with the fervor it deserves to be treated with.
What I will do is point out that rather than clinging to the political correctness at all costs, even if it denies reality, that perhaps some experience in the world outside of a college campus and liberal teachers, or that whole fantasy about how we're all just the same and if we could hold hands and get along....blah blah blah.
Been all over the middle east. It's nowhere you'd want to be. No culture you'd want your mother or sister to have to endure. Nowhere you'd want to have to rely on a criminal justice system or look for a representitive gov't. No place you'd even want to use a toilet (usually just a hole in the floor). Certainly no place to be able to voice your opinion about anything the secret police might not like.
Some one who has actually been outside of the US's protective cocoon would know those things. Someone not clinging to the political correctness partyline might have the intellectual honesty to be able to evaluate the two types of cultures.
It's pretty funny since this 'bigot' has risked his own life to liberate arabs in Kuwait, build shelters and protect muslims in Kosovo. Fed children from my own supply of food from Africa to Bahrain. Enforced UN sanctions to keep Saddam from committing genocide on Shiites and Kurds.
But keep talking. It's fairly amusing.

What I find amusing is the assumptions you've made about me. Infact, I've never been to the United States, I live in Australia. When you refer to a 'party line', I can't help but feel you must have me mistaken for someone else.

I don't think everyone in the world could hold hands and get along, but I believe in letting other cultures live according to their own rules. You yourself referred to the 'relative' nature of cultural values.

I believe in a touch of humility with diplomacy, and instead of pointing the finger at so called barbaric civilisations, taking a good long look at your own.

However, I don't think any of my friends, colleagues or aquaintances would call me politically correct.

I've been to many places around the world, and have seen such things with my own eyes. Did it occur to you that maybe I'm not sheltered or ignorant, but I just have a different viewpoint? I never took a gun with me on my travels. Of course, if you're genuinely defending your country then I think that's courageous, and I applaud you for your contribution to humanitarian efforts, but that's not the issue here. (please don't read sarcasm into this)

The issue here is no matter how much you try and tell me you know and have experienced, you still deep down think that people in the middle east are, to quote you "Spear Chuckers", and no amount of self righteous rhetoric is going to change the fact that you are a bigot.

Please don't think that I am anti-American. I have met many Americans before and found them to be largely good people. There can be no doubt on the cultural and political influence of the USA on the western world. Infact, my country and yours seem to have good diplomatic relations and most people here are very glad of that.

To me, you are trying to blur the lines between people with a different culture, and terrorists. I feel that is deeply wrong, and felt compelled to speak out even though its off topic and possibly hazardous to my continuing membership of this board.

I truly hope we can drop this stupid discussion now, and agree to disagree. This is supposed to be an astronomy board.

Abbadon_2008
2008-Jan-09, 02:32 PM
I think that once a Nation has the ability to deploy and effectively operate military forces in space, then the military itself should be restructured.

If troops can be deployed in space, then they must be trained and equipped for space ops. The distinction between Marines and Army, for instance, would seem meaningless, as both branches would, and should be reconfigured for space ops. Thus, the Space Marines are born, and would operate aboard ships and stations, and trained for making landings on hostile worlds, operating in a variety of environments -- air, land, sea, and space -- and boarding enemy ships and facilities.

The Navy and Air Force would merge into an Aerospace Force. Though surface vessels and aircraft would remain in use, the new focus would be on air AND space operations.

Of course, none of this would ever take place until international cooperation can be forged, and our aerospace industries can be kicked into overdrive.

3rdvogon
2008-Jan-09, 02:49 PM
Of course, none of this would ever take place until international cooperation can be forged, and our aerospace industries can be kicked into overdrive.

And of course not until our species has established a large and permanent presence on several other planets/moons or off-world habitats. For the simple reason as long as military conflicts are largely concerned with territorial concerns here on earth any kind of Space Force is only going be an adjunct (even if possibly an important one) to the battles that will be waged by inevitably much larger terrestrial forces.

Ilya
2008-Jan-09, 02:50 PM
Talk about resurrecting an old thread! How did you even find it?

NEOWatcher
2008-Jan-09, 02:59 PM
Talk about resurrecting an old thread! How did you even find it?
It's a newbie taking a logical approach by starting at the beginning to get caught up with the site. Maybe?

Abbadon_2008
2008-Jan-10, 12:17 AM
It's a newbie taking a logical approach by starting at the beginning to get caught up with the site. Maybe?

It's more like a newbie found a topic he could really sink his fangs into.:lol: