US to spark space Arms Race ... with China?

[Martino]

Though not specifically mentioned, I can't help thinking China's space success is fueling this, since the US's other 'adversary' at this time, al Qaida, is unlikely to have a space programme:

US adopts tough new space policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6063926.stm

The US has adopted a tough new policy aimed at protecting its interests in space and denying "adversaries" access there for hostile purposes.

The document - signed by President Bush - also says "freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power".

The document rejects any proposals to ban space weapons.

But the White House has said the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space.

However, some military experts warn that by refusing to enter into negotiations on space weaponry, the US is likely to fuel international suspicions that it will develop such weapons.

The 10-page strategic document states that the US national security "is critically dependent upon space capabilities, and this dependence will grow".

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," it says.

The document also sets out US commercial ambitions, saying it is committed to encouraging and facilitating a growing entrepreneurial space sector.

It is the first revision in US space policy for 10 years, and it is a forthright one, the BBC's Nick Miles in Washington says.

It addresses concerns voiced in a 2001 Pentagon report that said technological advances would enable potential enemies to disrupt orbiting US satellites, our correspondent says.

Unclassified details of the policy published on the internet say space capabilities, including spy and other communication satellites, are essential for national security.

But the White House said the policy was not a prelude to putting weapons in orbit and that there was no shift in US policy.

"The notion that you would do defence from space is different from that of weaponisation of space. We're comfortable with the policy", White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

President Bush authorised the policy in August but it was not released until October.

During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan proposed a defence shield using laser or particle beam technology to "intercept and destroy" incoming nuclear missiles.

The Strategic Defence Initiative, or "Star Wars" programme as it came to be known, was abandoned in 1993.

[Faithless]

Bush is good to his repub peops, you got to give him that.

Going after Saddam for daddy.

Taking-up Star Wars again, for Ronnie baby.

[Player 0]

The Soviets had plans to build an elaborate network of space based weapons, didn't really seem to take off to well, maybe it was a little too expensive for them, maybe government should learn to manage their funds better, you know which one right?

The one with 12 trillion dollars worth of debt.

[LaiSteve66]

* sigh * more neo-con toys.

[Martino]

* sigh * more neo-con toys.

Joe Public has never cottoned on to the fact that a number of the space vehicles we've sent up were nuclear-powered, but I wonder how any government would handle the PR should it want to send up something really heavy duty.

[Azn Retribution]

Meh china already has the ultimate weapon.
the economic weapon.
They just call in all that money they lent us.
and close their markets.

True, it would hurt them.
but it would hurt us far worse since we pretty much don't produce shit anymore.

[thaite]

Part of the strategy of winning the Cold War was to engage the Soviet Union in an arms race, outspend them and run them into collapse. The US knows that space is a desirable frontier for China. I will not be surpised if this is different take on the same tactic.

[haplesshobo]

Meh china already has the ultimate weapon.
the economic weapon.
They just call in all that money they lent us.
and close their markets.

True, it would hurt them.
but it would hurt us far worse since we pretty much don't produce shit anymore.

Actually, that scenario seems unlikely for several reasons.

First of all, the Chinese sell more to America than the other way around so closing their markets wouldn't harm us as much as it devastates them. With China as a trading partner, it benefits the US by keeping inflation low by making products cheaper. If something happens, you'll see prices rise and interest rates, which are low from a historical perspective, go up. So, something that costs you $5 at Wal-Mart might end up costing you maybe $5.50 or $6. But, such a move would be disastarous for China. Its shedding all those state industries and laying off those workers so China needs to continue to grow at around 11-12% each year for the economy to be able to absorb all those workers. With America as China's biggest customer, such a move would cripple China's economy.

And, more importantly, the money China uses from its trade goes into treasury bonds which are non-callable. That means that those bonds have long maturities, where you can't just decide to call in that debt before the date on the bond.

[LaiSteve66]

True, it would hurt them.
but it would hurt us far worse since we pretty much don't produce shit anymore.

Someone else would step in to supply the demand. The U.S. is the largest market in the world and where there is demand in this market, there will always be a supplier.

[Player 0]

In the end the US will suffer the most from its reckless spending, just like it is now in Iraq, if the situation continues as it has the US economy will be in serious trouble.

[friedfishribs]

Part of the strategy of winning the Cold War was to engage the Soviet Union in an arms race, outspend them and run them into collapse. The US knows that space is a desirable frontier for China. I will not be surpised if this is different take on the same tactic.

That was the strategy, but SDI never really contributed to that. The problem with the "Star Wars" initiative is that it's easily beaten by cheaper conventional weapons. At the peak of the arms race, even if SDI was operational, the Soviet Union had enough nuclear missiles to easily overflow its capacity. Simple counter-measures, like a ground-to-space missile, could also take out any satellites before a nuclear strike.

The Soviets knew this and they didn't spend a dime setting up their own equivalent space defense network.

The only reason SDI is being brought back up in the present is because Bush wants the ability to unilaterally attack other sovereign nations with conventional forces. Right now, the only bargaining capability a "rogue nation" has in the face of US aggression is by developing the nuclear bomb. With a space defense system, US forces could attack other nations without worrying about the threat of WMDs. So this isn't as much of an "arms race" as it is an attempt by the US to make itself ungovernable by the global community. Of course, it can likely spin off into an arms race, but I doubt that that's the actual strategy.

Right now, the US is set on developing space-based weapons. It's the final frontier for the military-industrial complex.

[Yeahman]

Meh china already has the ultimate weapon.
the economic weapon.
They just call in all that money they lent us.
and close their markets.

True, it would hurt them.
but it would hurt us far worse since we pretty much don't produce shit anymore.
I seriously doubt China would purposely collapse their own economy just to stick it to the US.

Part of the strategy of winning the Cold War was to engage the Soviet Union in an arms race, outspend them and run them into collapse. The US knows that space is a desirable frontier for China. I will not be surpised if this is different take on the same tactic.
It wouldn't work with China because they in a much stronger economic position than the USSR was.

In the end the US will suffer the most from its reckless spending, just like it is now in Iraq, if the situation continues as it has the US economy will be in serious trouble.
The budget deficit is below 2% of GDP which is below the 40-year average.

That was the strategy, but SDI never really contributed to that. The problem with the "Star Wars" initiative is that it's easily beaten by cheaper conventional weapons. At the peak of the arms race, even if SDI was operational, the Soviet Union had enough nuclear missiles to easily overflow its capacity. Simple counter-measures, like a ground-to-space missile, could also take out any satellites before a nuclear strike.

The Soviets knew this and they didn't spend a dime setting up their own equivalent space defense network.

The only reason SDI is being brought back up in the present is because Bush wants the ability to unilaterally attack other sovereign nations with conventional forces. Right now, the only bargaining capability a "rogue nation" has in the face of US aggression is by developing the nuclear bomb. With a space defense system, US forces could attack other nations without worrying about the threat of WMDs. So this isn't as much of an "arms race" as it is an attempt by the US to make itself ungovernable by the global community. Of course, it can likely spin off into an arms race, but I doubt that that's the actual strategy.

Right now, the US is set on developing space-based weapons. It's the final frontier for the military-industrial complex.
The Soviets certainly were worried. It was that single factor that ended the Reykjavik summit. And the USSR did spend to try to create an SDI of their own.

[friedfishribs]

The Soviet Union developed counter-measures to SDI, but never bothered with an equivalent system. Gorbachev's main fear of SDI was not as a defense program, but rather as an offensive space-based weapon delivery system. If a satellite can target and counter a missile in-flight, it can certainly send missiles of its own as a preemptive strike.

[yoMAMA]

this is probably the strongest reason china and us won't fuck with eachother:



goldman sachs earns 4 billion $$$$ from chinese investment...

in 6 month!:eek:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aMt3k0Ohn71w&refer=home

[Made in China]

China is too weak to fuck with anyone. Feeding 1.3 billion people is hard enough. China's population is humongous. Projecting its power outside its borders will not be an option until it can fully accomodate the growing needs of the 800 million rural farmers deep inside China.