Posted on 02/24/2008 4:10:26 PM PST by drc43
In last week's space spectacular, a U.S. missile did more than turn a dead satellite into bits of space scrap. It also blew another hole in hopes that the world's nations could forge a treaty making outer space a weapons-free realm, analysts say.
Wednesday's orbiter shootdown by a U.S. Navy missile came just eight days after Russia and China, at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, submitted a draft treaty to ban weapons from space.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
We just did what China did, so what’s their beef?
Awwwwww, did we hurt their widdle feelings? GOOD!
That's from TR, and I don't mean Tim Russert.
Damn straight. F' em. I'm fed up with America being the world's apologist for (what was) our strong military and every cow fart on the planet causing global warming....
From a quick Google, it appears that the writer likes to opine on ‘global warming’ as well.
What a klutz!
China has already successfully tested their anti-sat weapon, and it was a more rigorous test than our so-called “shootdown” because it took out a satellite in a much higher orbit.
Russia has had a functional anti-satellite system since the early 80s. We suspended our only dedicated anti-satellite system after an “agreement” with the Russians, but after a couple of successful tests. A move I thought was stupid at the time and still think was stupid.
Given the obvious strategic value of the high orbitals does anyone seriously think the U.S. should allow a hole in that capacity when our two greatest potential adversaries have workable systems?
Fricking liberals.
How come when China does it, they’re sending a clear and unified message that talks are needed to prevent the weaponization of space, but when the US does it we’re “blowing holes in diplomacy?”
END FUNCTION “Rhetorical Question”
How come when China does it, they’re sending a clear and unified message that talks are needed to prevent the weaponization of space, but when the US does it we’re “blowing holes in diplomacy?”
END FUNCTION “Rhetorical Question”
Since the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is being ignored as far as the weapoins aspect is concerned, they might as well ditch the Treaty and we can finally begin space development (40 years late).
“Speak’ softly, actually.
> We just did what China did, ...
No, we didn’t (this time, our intercept faux pax was in 1985).
Last week’s intercept was engineered to assure that the
resulting debris would all re-enter within weeks at most.
The Chinese debris will pollute LEO for decades.
> ... so what’s their beef?
Standard find-something-to-whine-about liberal rant.
The intercept was about preventing a failed intelsat
from becoming a weapon.
Because it was the evil U.S.A. /s
That treaty would keep weapons out of space about as well as the Treaty of Versailles kept Hitler out of the Rhineland.
And if you believe russia and china wouldn't put secret weapons in space thinking they were the only ones that can, i have some beach front property for sale in middle USA, pretty cheap!
Primer for AP. Sword: offensive
Shield: defensive
See the difference?
Never surrender the high ground. Ask Israel.
I simply cannot tell you just how much I don't care that the world's hopes have been smashed into smithereens...
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.