kwantize
Active Member
Posts: 142
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:40 pm
FAS is obviously trying to defuse existing weaponisation
policy; they don't know who they're dealing with. Which is
odd because they have the <a href='//www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf'>United
States Space
Command, Vision for 2020</a> document*:
<blockquote>During the early portion of the 21st century
space power will also evolve into a separate and
<em>equal medium of warfare</em>…The medium of
space is the fourth medium of
warfare…Robust capabilities to ensure space
superiority must be developed--<em>just as they have
been</em> for land, sea, and air [ie, cluttered with
weapons, just like the land, sea, and air]…Included
in that planning should be the prospects for space defense
and even <em>space warfare</em>…Development of
ballistic missile defenses [<i>sic</i>] using space
systems and planning for precision <em>strike from
space</em>…Control of Space is the
ability…to deny others the use of space, if
required…Robust negation systems…Global
Engagement is the application of precision <em>force
from</em>, to, and <em>through space</em>. USSPACECOM will
have a greatly expanded role as an <em>active
warfighter</em>…space-based global precision strike
capability…NMD will evolve into a mix of ground
<em>and space</em> sensors <em>and
weapons</em>…augmented by the deployment of space
force application systems…Space-based strike
weapons…same level of joint operations between
space and the other mediums [<i>sic</i>] of war-fighting
as land, sea, and air currently enjoy
[<i>sic</i>]…Truly joint military forces require
fully integrated space power</blockquote>
Even Space Mercenaries:
<blockquote>The most evident benefit of Global
Partnerships will be decreased
pressure on existing military infrastructure and
operations, and reduced maintenance costs by off
loading functions to civil
and commercial providers.
The military can no longer
rely solely upon DoD
owned and operated capabilities.</blockquote>
Of course there's also <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf'><i>Rebuilding</i>
[sic]
<i>America's Defenses</i> [sic]</a>, famous for saying the
New Cæsars must take over the planet but will need a
Pearl Harbor to get things going. Around p. 54:
<blockquote>emergence of space as a key theater of
war…the ability to conduct strikes from space
appears on the not-too-distant horizon…space
dominance may become so essential to the preservation of
American military preeminence that it may require a
separate service…
<p>The Clinton Administration's adherence to the 1972 ABM
Treaty has frustrated development of useful ballistic
missile defenses [<i>sic</i>]
<p>Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to
terminate the "Brilliant Pebbles" project…since a
space-based system would violate the ABM Treaty, the
administration killed the "Brilliant Pebbles" program,
choosing instead to proceed with a ground-based
interceptor and radar system—one that will be costly
<em>without being especially effective</em> [<em>Note
well, ye who peddle here the "missile
shield"</em>]…While there is an argument to be made
for "terminal" ground-based interceptors as an element in
a larger architecture of missile defenses, it deserves the
lowest rather than the first priority…to be most
effective, this array [of] global reconnaissance and
targeting satellites should be linked to a global network
of <em>space-based interceptors (or space-based
lasers)</em>…No system of missile defenses can be
fully effective without placing sensors <em>and
weapons</em> in space.</blockquote>
It's not "news" that BushCo wants space weapons. Whaddya
think that "going to Mars" crap was about, if not trying
to pry more money out of the already-taxed-to-oblivion
flock to salvage a space program and build that Full
Spectrum Dominance?
<blockquote>Canadians need to take more responsibility for
our own defence, and of course we have a responsibility to
our allies.</blockquote>
Even if I accepted "the US is an ally" - signing onto the
US'
missile "defence" is more like once again fobbing off our
defence than taking responsibility for it. Allies change;
no-one demonstrates that better than the US, which changes
its list nearly continuously.
<p>*Thanks to <i>The New Pearl Harbor</i>, which I just
finished reading highly recommend, I have some idea what
documents <i>Guardian</i> means. Or maybe FAS
<em>does</em> know who it's dealing with, and is trying
<em>anyway</em>. Good on them. Into the valley of death
rode the 600…or something.
