Link







1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?



2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?



3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.

Ok... here's the truth about the matter of national security.

1. The US has more missle defense systems than any other nation, and most of NATO and the UN combined. The likelihood of an ICBM hitting US soil would be slim to none. Furthermore, one Seawolf Class sub is alone the world's 3rd most powerful nation alone. It has more firepower than all of China. No intelligent and self-preserving nation will attack US soil in our life time.

2. Attacking one satellite, albeit frightening, only proves that they can shoot down spy satellites, etc. We only use satellites of that nature for intelligence gathering, and it would be very difficult to stop us in that most of our intelligence gathering satellites furnish the same data. In other words, we for instance don't have just one satellite covering Asia (or the middle east, etc).

3. Reagan's peace through strength policy HAS worked. It will continue to work. Any UN nation knows that we have nuclear subs as or more powerful than their whole nation's army, and a first strike is highly unlikely. This is also coupled with long-range bomber capability and ICBM's. I can't see China saber-rattling to the US.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?

Since I don't orbit the Earth very often, my fear factor has not been perturbed. I can see those concerned about space trash getting upset. Satellites aren't cheap, and they don't last forever.

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

Um, where do you get that notion? From the linked article:



Isn't spending 34 times as much as China enough? How much more do you want? Talk about tax and spend attitude, or I guess it's spend and charge it. Whatever, it's spending money in a windmill of hands over fists. That's sluggish? Holy cat, what's your idea of brisk?

3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.

Last time I checked we spend around half a trillion on defense, which doesn't include the super secret stuff that you're referring to. Last time I checked, we spend more than the top military spenders combined. We are superior in the military. How much more superior do we need to get? This goes back to #2, which seems to me a large pile of #2.

But I guess there are those in the military/industrial complex who simply can't get enough taxpayer money, you know, to protect us from threats while we orbit the Earth in our little satellites.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?

Actually this could turn out to a good think. After reading the Space 2020 pdfs that was spit out by the pentagon last year this finally shoots down (pun intended) the notion of one-nation dominance in space. Two thumbs way up!

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

Depends on how you define sluggish. As the leading advocate for their use, I wouldn’t describe this pace as sluggish. While on one hand I do acknowledge the inevitable uses of space – some that might be realized in our life, I would focus my efforts on the free access of space. An idea that does not require permission slips, backroom deals, and advertising campaigns just to have access to your own satellites. To accomplish this every nation must act in a way as to not threaten their neighbours..more on that later.

How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.

You really need to rephrase that question TFI. What is the best way to ensure equal access to space without throwing out the balance of power. The way you have worded the use of space denotes a narrower meaning that space should be limited to the use of a single country and no amount of diplomacy can fix that dilapidated argument.

I guess I could accept your argument in a battle of nation states because it would take the joint cooperation of a nation to build something like that. Definitely not a bunch of jihadists dressed up by Hollywood.

Therefore to answer your question would require the joint cooperation of the all the superpowers and equal access of the joint superpowers. Basically you need is a more successful version of the nuclear proliferation treaty with a comprehensive up and coming catagory for developing nations. Yeah man, I’m talkin’ the UN all over again except in space. For one nation to have the ability to to spy on, to control or decide is simply an unacceptable argument.

I will note that technically no laws were broken, no overtly offensive actions were taken but since your own article states that China is the third nation to accomplish this feat this evoked a knee jerk reaction of “its mine!”

There is a huge gap in reasoning between the need to deter foreign threats with military superiority by building weapons in space and taking down a satellite. Huge. For all intents and purposes this missile is an intercontinental ballistic missile fired up. Yippee. This events wasn’t overly offensive, threatening, and to be truthful, barely classifies as rude.

I wonder if the terrorist who hijack these systems will live in cave as well?

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

I'm not certain how one would quantify "sluggish" given the fact that we've spent $70.7 billion on ballistic missile defense between 1984 and 1994. The portion spent thus far does not show a drop off in spending in recent years, on top of that, it is a fair sum of money considering the other important things we have in this country that are equally deserving of our attention and money.



Given the fact that the "big stick" approach isn't working as it was supposed to in the middle east, I believe that we should work on the diplomacy angle a bit more, if not more sincerely. This lack of sincerity is very distressing, key diplomats have noted in the past that the administration's dismal efforts that have cost us in prestige and status in the middle east. I doubt we have, or ever will, overplay it's usefulness. Right now, the problem appears to be that too many people in power view it as useless, something that is not worth spending time and effort on. We will need multi-party talks and to help things in the long run, to ramp up cultural exchange visits and goodwill activities and competitions. So in essence, we need a plan for the short and long term of things. We have a lot of time yet to help bring things about to a good mutual understanding. China's economy depends upon where their money is pegged to ours and trade is very profitable for them. I doubt they will toss it down the toilet by provoking us, though we need to

1) Well it would explain why my cell service is so spotty.
2) Sluggish? Um. Right. I hear Ireland is really spending up a storm on space defense...
3) Wouldn't it be easier if you just told us what to agree with you on?

Where in God's name did you dig this up from? Would you give me a source? As far as I know missile defense is still in the testing phase. In fact the whole concept of missile defense is likely an expensive boondogle according to many experts. Maybe keeping a few around to catch a stray accidental missile might be wise if some accuracy can be established.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?

It comes as no surprise that others have this capability, the Russians have had it for a while. However, its effect on our security should not be underestimated. We use satellites extensively for our intelligence and probably even more important communications. Our ability to respond to an attack would be significantly degraded if those satellites were taken out.

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

As I have argued in the various 'star wars' threads, I think it is important to continue developing protection against missles. This must be done in a prudent and practical matter, of course. I think our spending on this has gone through peaks and valleys...and needs to settle somewhere in the middle.


[b]3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? b]

It is ALWAYS better to negotiate from a position of strength. ALWAYS. Without strength, one is always at the mercy of those who have it. The key is in using that strength wisely.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?

Um...not much. China has shown it can "defend" its "airspace". There is no aggression or threat in this. The right of self-defense is an important part of national sovereignty.

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

"Sluggish"? I agree with the other posters. "Sluggish" is not the word I would use to describe US defense R&D: more like "aggressive". US spending on its defense far out-paces China by like 3 orders of magnitude.

3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.

Here's my modest proposal. We should privatize military spending completely. Let's open the market. Private enterprises could own spy satellites who contract those services to the highest bidder; the same goes for missile defense systems. The military itself could be privatized. Contracts could be awarded to various military-force enterprises to further interests of nations or private businesses. Why not have the defense industry sell hardware to whomever they want? If we perceive a threat, then we can purchase contracts from such companies with an exclusivity agreement for some period of time. Moreover, we should offer private ownership of our nuclear missile stockpile (launch determined by majority vote). We could create a vibrant exchange market in such defense assets. Think of the efficiencies to be gained. Unless, of course, you're anti-capitalist.

With this world-view, national security becomes an intricate web of defense industry/contracts crossing national boundaries. Nation states would be loath to upset the economic trade by engaging in direct conflict (as well as, of course, avoiding the destruction of national population/infrastructure). Instead, we would have proxy conflicts in less advantaged areas (like we do today) except that it's possible for the less advantaged areas to buy military defense contracts from the same aggressor enterprises.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?
I never thought we were “safe” at all. If anything the world is less safe. NK with nukes and ICBMs , Iran with long range missiles that can hit Israel and disrupt oil flow etc.

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?
We are “sluggish” now because of the war but R&D has gone on. Thanks to Bush we have a missile defense system being fielded and an Airborne Laser system to be fielded soon. I expect the Dem controlled Congress to cut funds for R&D and all major new systems.

But the Military has not been sleeping. This may have been expected and it is believed Russia has the capability as well.

This from 2004:
The U.S. Air Force has filed a futuristic flight plan, one that spells out need for an armada of space weaponry and technology for the near-term and in years to come.
Called the Transformation Flight Plan, the 176-page document offers a sweeping look at how best to expand Americas military space tool kit.
The use of space is highlighted throughout the report, with the document stating that space superiority combines the following three capabilities: protect space assets, deny adversaries access to space, and quickly launch vehicles and operate payloads into space to quickly replace space assets that fail or are damaged/destroyed.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/te...und_040222.html

3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.
We have a superior capability – the issue is keeping it requires spending money. Outside Homeland Security I expect the Dems to propose deep cuts in Military spending.

1) How does this event affect your perception of being safe from future threats?

I don’t worry about it at all. China used something of there own to destroy something of there own, its pretty simple to me. Nations work on issues that pertain to them, I don’t think china is somehow disarmed of this reality. I also do not feel very threatened by china, I mean what would china get out of war overall? Personally I don’t think they would get that much, plus I think China enjoys its economic relationship with the U.S a bit.

2) Should the US maintain its sluggish attention to research and development in the area of defense and space?

I don’t think the U.S should spend money on some missile defense system that can be out developed. We should pour resources into issues that would resolve the need for such overall, or maybe public education for another option. The reality to me is a war with china and the us would be nuclear, and in my opinion giving the amount of such means no winner, period, probably for the earth overall.

3) How can the politicians and their supporters (on both sides) come to a compromise on the issues of national security and the need to deter foreign threats through a superior military capability? Comments regarding diplomacy are welcome, but let's not overplay its usefulness.

Simply point out the fact we have the means to deliver nuclear death to the planet in total, I would suggest in a pretty good deterrent. Threats to me wont come in this angle anymore, a traditional sense that is. The kind of threat as posed by terrorism is how I expect war to really occur anymore, past issues such as genocide occuring in parts of the world that is. I mean really what’s the chance some object could be worked out to detonate in the asteroid belt and land a nation killer size lump of matter into a mathematically worked out point? So I guess we need to address that fear now, because it could happen!!! Its not only that but who would you blame huh…

Huh? Where do you live? In the US?
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr...;contentID=3747
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

I could post links all day.

ICBM's can be intercepted by:
- US War plane, in effect a suicide interception
- US War ship shooting it down
- US Missile defense

Sure, the idea that a warhead can be shot down above the atmosphere is a stretch, but the notion that an ICBM could be launched from China and hit US soil is even more far fetched.

China has been rattling its sword for years over Taiwan and has said it could take the Island Nation anytime. If that were to take place, since we may defend Taiwan, the fist shot would be to take out our spy satellites. This would allow them many hours or days to move in.

IMO we would not launch a nuclear attack on China over Taiwan, but a bloody battle could ensue.
The rule in defense is be ready to defend assets or lose them on day one of any conflict.

Thus is maybe why Clinton felt the need to improve the economic situation of such a giant nation and worked on issues that would bring about some form of mutual stability with them also. I fear of course the current leaderships actions with China could hurt us a great deal all around the board though, I would like to add that during 9-11 China suspended economic activities that would have aided them in order to not take advantage of us, maybe just maybe they are not the dire threat so posed simply because of what the reality of war involving U.S and China would truly mean, not only this but maybe they just don’t plan to take over the world!

I do not believe they are a “dire threat” and neither does the Bush Admin. But that said it is the job of the government to assess the capabilities of any country that could ever become an adversary in the future and certainly China fits that bill. Even though we have good relations now and they are dependant on us economically, as you might remember a few years ago when they were sparring with Taiwan the Chinese military made it clear that they had nukes (and our W nuke design stolen by a spy) and that they could hit and destroy our west coast at any time. We need to be prepared for the worst even as we do our best to keep good relations with China.


As the Pentagon tries to prepare the U.S. military for the future, military planners are looking to China as the next potential large-scale threat to the United States. The Defense Department’s most recent assessment of China’s power raises concerns about China’s military modernization and 2005-07-20 23:45:37
Taipei, July 20 (CNA) A newly released Pentagon report on China's military power will help the international community better understand that Taiwan faces an ever-increasing military threat from China, Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu said Wednesday.
The nation's top China policy planner made the remarks while meeting with Hans Van Ballen, a Dutch lawmaker who concurrently serves as vice chairman of the Liberal International, a global association of liberal parties in major countries around the world.
Noting that the Pentagon report clearly states that China's rise poses a threat to regional security, Wu said the report can serve as a reminder to the European Union that it would send the wrong message to China if it lifts its arms embargo against China. "A lifting of the E.U. arms ban at a time when China is expanding its military muscle at an alarming pace would mislead Beijing's leaders into thinking that it could invade Taiwan, " Wu said, adding that such a scenario could destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.
According to Wu, the U.S. authorities briefed Taiwan's representative office in Washington, D.C. on the gist of the Pentagon report before it was released MOnday.
Wu told the Dutch lawmaker that the Pentagon evaluations of china's military buildup and strategy against Taiwan are in compliance with the Taiwan government's assessments
contends Beijing could one day try to dominate Asia or challenge U.S. hegemony
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...50720-cna01.htm

It makes the world a safer place to be. Space was the US's last hope for complete control of the planet. Remind yourself of the comments US officials made about the US dominance in space. Able to strike anyone down, anyone, anywhere, without warning. Sounds like the sort of weaponry one wouldn't want only one entity to own, complete and whole, right? Of course, it's only American people who find a need to debate and question China's 'evil intentions' in relation to their new space clout. And again, it seems to be only American people who believe they have the sole right to use weapons in space and any other nation's desires for the same would be 'for the use of evil doers'. How about a fair representation here? Try this: If it's ok for the US to place weapons in space, it's ok for other nations to place weapons in space or to make ways to destroy the other nation's weapons in space. If it's ok for an American to shoot an wounded Iraqi in the head inside a Mosque in Iraq it's ok for anyone to shoot an American in the head inside their Catholic or Protestant or whatever Church in the United States. If it's ok for Americans to laugh about murdered Iraqis, it's fine for others to laugh about murdered Americans.

Considering that 50% of the federal budget is for freebie programs for mostly undeserving, I don't think that a maximum of 20% of the budget on defense is much more than a snail's pace. After WWII, defense made up 76% of the budget. Consider the fact that defense is one of the centerpieces of the Constitution, while Social Security, Welfare and other gimmees aren't even mentioned. The UN is nothing but the Tower of Babal of the modern era. The reason most Americans today have grown up feeling very safe (almost invincible) is because we have the best military in the world....by light years. If we don't keep it that way, you'll soon understand what others much less fortunate feel like. Here is chart showing military spending as a percentage of GDP. Notice the closer to the US you are, the less you have to spend on military.

removed image in accordance with the rules

What I see is public that on one hand complains about body armor, and on the other wants to cuts defense spending. Silly reports about families buying night-vision goggles for our poor, defenseless soldiers when we're one of the few countries that even have them. One of the replies here actually recommended more money for education. Every year we have the biggest education budget in history, and every year our kids are getting dumber. I laugh are this recommendation, it is madness. With the kind of spending we have now, we couldn't repeat the R&D miracle that got us to the moon if we wanted to. That was big spending, not what we have now. Our technology is getting old. Our helicopters are of 60's, 70's and 80's technology; as well as most of our fixed wing fleets. Our ground equipment is 70's and 80's. The airborne laser system is an experiment, not a field weapon system. I wonder how old our nukes are. But gollygee, let's spend more on education where we know we'll get the largest ROR, right? We're graduating McDonald's candidates and hip-hop performers. Congratulations on your well spent tax dollars.

Well I guess that should be taken up with the government then. I mean its nothing like billions being spent on the same old story with a new phrase of give it a chance. I mean if we want to talk about security issues I think the big one would be adapting our forces to face a modern threat, not build some missile defense net to rally against who? China... I hardly think so.

No we have no real change being poured into our military, so what we have is all that great military stuff, which was built for a traditional war such as WW2 that is hard pressed to be used for its purpose in the GWOT. I don’t hear to much going on about this, but we should fear monger about China, while our troops stay in the same thing with our elected leader talking about give it a chance like its something new. Yes we have had sometime to take stock of our situation and what are we doing about it, not a whole lot. A big move to step on the constitution and start a Vietnam, but hey, China destroyed one its satellites, dare we ever experiment with anything that has to do with space, for that would mean china would have to prepare for all out war with us!!!

If our education system was top notch, there should be no worry about any school having up to date top of the line equipment for education, I don’t think this exists, heck I don’t think we can say our schools collectively have up to date and useful textbooks.

As about hip hop, well I know I would be sad to if my offspring attempted to have any kind of a life that dealt with music or art, as for McDonalds, well if you look a college like MIT has to turn away many students applying to attend on a scholarship with 4.0 grades that speak more then one language and typically can build robots, but hey bush got into Yale with a C average, talk about affirmative action.

We have new weapons systems in the works. The question is will the Dems continue to fund them.. FCS - http://www.army.mil/fcs/ and the new aircraft like F-22 and ATF, and UAV/UCAVs http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/ will help defend us and FCS is being geared to urban warfare.

But you question about who would/can attack us with nukes is a little naive. China has threatened to do so but they probably won’t, but then the Germans in 1930 were thought to be non aggressive as well. North Korea can hit us now – and as you know Iran and others are developing nukes and missiles to deliver them. Remember that systems to stop this threat take decades to develop and field. You don’t “come up with it” when a threat arises.

The China test is a warning that our satellites are not safe and if they took out our GPS system a lot more than your car navigation system would have real problems.

As far as education we have a poor system in this country despite spending more than our industrial rivals. Bush NCLB has helped but you can bet the Dems will GUT this in favor of their union buddies. Idiots like Teddy K are famous for this now.

Well as the Russian empire collapsed the world did not enter nuclear war. Now I would hope that same basic rational thinking would reign in in china, being you don’t gain anything from a nuclear war save death. If china or the world for that matter did not have nukes I would be far more worried, and my money is on the idea we would be in world war 5 or 6 by now. Nukes happen to be a great counter to the conservative mind overall, save for the religious nuts, I don’t know how nukes would play out in those hands, you know the kind that say god told me to do this or that, like our president.

As for Ted Kennedy, I really don’t know anything about him, or care to learn actually, so, to bad. Sorry I support socialist systems like education, I think we should revert back to the good old days where only the elite could have an education.

The world was “safer” under the MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario then today. Today we could be held hostage to nuclear “blackmail”. China can take Taiwan and tell us to stay out or else – and we would have no choice. What if NK attacks the south and tells the US that we get nuked if we intervene? Without a missile defense shield this is only 2 of the numerous bad situations that could develop in the next 25 years.

The old maxim of Reagan still holds “Pray for peace – prepare for war”


What country are you from gordo?

Oh on, now its the American hater avenue, boy that’s one not old yet. As for Regan, I have nothing against him he was a great actor.

I have served this country, so for all the rhetoric about this and that, if you have not then you might want to check yourself on that one, you know the whole deal about actions speaking louder then words and all that jazz. Plus last time I checked this was a free country, though I suppose that idea might be a bit liberal and so possibly anti American too.

China and the U.S business relations produce a rather large sum of money to say the least, and I am sure this avenue will only grow. Heck I could say in the next 25 years it might be the most powerful economic reality on the face of the planet.

To bad we wont get off of oil now, we will wait until its almost depleted so the economy can suffer that much more, but hey by then the environment will be shot and I am sure some new actor with a bible will be president.

No clue what you are speaking of. When you said you did not know Ted Kennedy I just wondered where you were from. He is as well known (in many ways) in the US as anyone ever has been.

.


Right and they will have a very powerful military. We need to take things they do and their capabilities very seriously. That is my point.


And I agree on oil. We need to 1. Develop our own resources and use OUR oil and 2. Develop alternatives quickly. Unfortunately “quickly” is decades and that assumes we keep up the present effort. In the past as soon as the price of oil dropped (like in the late 70s) all efforts to develop alternatives ended.