But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force,
Posted on 05/20/2005 3:15:06 AM PDT by Flavius
Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the US put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official. ADVERTISEMENT
According to a New York Times report yesterday, the Bush administration was moving towards implementing a new space policy that would move the US closer to placing offensive and defensive weapons in space. Russia, China and many US allies oppose any weaponisation of space, partly out of concerns that it would lead to an extremely expensive post-cold war arms race.
Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.
In an interview yesterday, Mr Yermakov emphasised that Russia's priority was to solve the problem diplomatically. Russia has voluntarily declared that it will not be the first country to place weapons in space in an effort to encourage the US to move away from space weaponisation.
Force is "not a subject for discussion right now", Mr Yermakov said. "It depends on what happens, and why it happens, upon what agreements we have with the US government, and what understandings we have with the US government."
He added: "Our policy is not to create situations that would lead [to] confrontation. If we don't find such understandings with the US government, and we find ourselves in a situation where we need to react, of course we will do it."
The White House denied that President George W. Bush was about to sign a new directive on space policy that would permit the weaponisation of space.
"The US has no intention to weaponise [space]," said a senior administration official. "The policy review was not initiated at the request of the air force or the department of defence, and the policy, while not yet finalised, would not represent a substantial shift in American policy."
Any new policy would replace a 1996 policy implemented by the Clinton administration calling for a less militaristic approach to space. The 1967 treaty on outer space prevents countries from putting only weapons of mass destruction in space. Other countries are concerned that some of the weapons being considered by the US could be considered new types of WMD.
One weapon the air force would like to develop is the Common Aero Vehicle, which would give the US the ability to launch precision-guided strikes at any point on the globe within a short time frame. The internal US debate over whether the Pentagon needs to put weapons in space gained momentum in 2001 following the conclusions of a commission that warned of the possibility of a "space Pearl Harbor" that could destroy US commercial and military satellites.
"If the US is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor', it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on US space systems," said the commission, which was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld before he became US defence secretary.
The commission's report concluded that the US needed "superior space capabilities" to prevent and defend against hostile acts "in and from space".
But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force,
ping
Russia is so full of crap. Let's call their bluff.
ping!
Russia should stop building new aircraft carriers to avoid acceleration of arms race on sea.
Yes, usually full of bluster.
Uh Huh,
I wonder if Vladimir Yermakov is made from the same burlap as McNamara?
It's false prophet brady bill bunch language.who's going to protect us if we do not make it deadly expensive for people who do not care about th economy in the third world to attack us?
There is no arms race once attacking is made politicaly,financialy and phyricaly expensive enough.
Space based weapons and nano technology counters and other defenses against assymetric warfare affecting ground forces are a must. China and the 3rd world have already space based balistics too.
Then it would be in our best interests to do exactly the opposite of what they require.
If we're actually talking about "eventually" putting weapons in space to protect satelites... they're probably already there.
"Da?"
"Hello Kim, Pooty Poot? This is Dubya. You might not want to mess with us."
Russia ? GO POUND SAND !!!!!
Haven't we heard this song before?
They are obviously bluffing.
How stupid do you have to be to attack the country with the space weapon the likes of which is possessed by no other, giving the US a clear advantage?
It would be like attacking the US right after World War II when we were the only ones possessing the nuclear bomb. No one could be THAT stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.