What's the difference between a ballistic space-based weapon and a spy satellite? A spy satellite weighs and costs more... Nerd From Hell
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryon Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Borg are coming! > > > Doh! I accidentally hit the send button mid-post! > > >From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The US has every intention of deploying weapons in space, ... > > > >What is interesting is not this statement, but that it has been more > >than 40 years since the US first tested a nuclear weapon in space. > > > >Why are new reporters just now paying attention to a "U.S. 'negation' > >policy in space" that has been around for two generations? And why > >are they paying attention to the ability > > As I took it, the main topic of concern was the proposed > denial of access > to space spy/intelligence technology, even for US allies. I > came across to > me almost as "The US will forbid all other countries to have any > spy/intelligence > satellites." I've seen spin on this that the point is the > US is intent on > developing greater capabilities to enforce denial (selectively) if > necessary, > rather than this being a broad new policy of space denial to > all other > nations, > at all times. The article doesn't really come across that > way, though. > > > to hit land and sea-based targets anytime, anywhere. > > > >which was a stated goal of the Star Wars project a > generation ago? (I > >still remember vividly diagrams of the lasers that would be put into > >the Space Shuttle's cargo bay.) > > Wasn't Star Wars more about intercepting incoming ballistic > missiles, rather > than destroying ground targets? > > >Why this surprise? It is as if the writers have not paid > attention to > >any military development since 1944. > > > >You don't have to be a space opera science fiction reader to have > >heard about space warfare or space-to-planet bombardment ... or do > >you? > > I didn't see much in the article that discussed bombardment. > It seemed > focused on intelligence and communications. The surprise seems to be > over the interpretation I mention above, enhanced by the "If > allies don't > like > the new paradigm of space dominance ... they'll just have to > learn to accept > it." and "no veto power" quotes. I don't think Reagan ever > forbade the UK > from putting up spy sattelites... > > -bryon > > _________________________________________________________________ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
