Comments on: Bush: Space is for Soldiers

By: michael

michael — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:04:05 +0000

Come on, the U.S. seeks world power. Space is the place where domination can be dissolved. Therefore, the U.S. extorts complete irresponibility to U.N. or other national interests. Star wars is nice to the U.S.A., but bad for the people who live there…

By: Logan_7

Logan_7 — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:18 +0000

i dont think this is the best idea for the people of earth i mean we arent always just going to be just america and the part that bothered me the most about this hole thing is this “The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space“
the united state will oppose the devleopment of new leagal regimes, who is to say what is someone trying to prohibit use of space if some goes to some where else and start there own thing does that mean that they have the right to stop us

By: pjgoober

pjgoober — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:00:38 +0000

This is a beautiful and awesome thing. God bless George W. Bush. Think of these as guidelines to tell other nations what will earn them the enmity of the US. This is for thier own good. It’s much better this way then having things too fuzzy. Now there will be less miscalculations. I want my children protected by complete US space dominance.

By: Djzleite

Djzleite — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:50:18 +0000

As always US of A imposing their own rules to the world instead cooperating, they

By: Puhleeze

Puhleeze — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:38:47 +0000

Hmm. Let’s just spot-check the article’s facts, shall we?
>…of Clinton’s five goals for U.S. space
>programs, two mention national security; of
>Bush’s six goals, four are related to national
>security and defense.
>While the Clinton policy aimed to highlight
>international cooperation and collective
>security in space, the Bush NSP takes a go

By: antares

antares — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:05:32 +0000

It is evident from the tone of the article where Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine fall on the political spectrum. Ms Hitchens has authored a paper titled

By: Murc

Murc — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:24:33 +0000

good, We are heavily invested in space, and we need to make sure to be able to protect those assets.

By: Noah (the other one)

Noah (the other one) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:00:42 +0000

A Chinese laser does not justify the militarization of space. Neither does terrorism, ICBMs, or protection of commercials interests, although this last is closest to the truth.
Militarization itself is a commercial interest, and the unrestrained capitalist ideal is to create marekts out of every possible nook and cranny. There is no more profitable (or expensive) way to do that than in orbit via taxpayer subsidy.
This is simply a gold rush, completely without ethics, responsibility or humanity.
For more on war profiteering: http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:34:52 +0000

I don’t think it is such a crime to read an article lampooning the current administration’s approach to defense issues. The policies they set impact the entire defense community and it is fair to say call out when that impact is negative. Its not like they are arguing for the administration’s ouster or promoting one party over the other.
Everyone sees technology, defense and politics differently and that inherently colors our assessment. The Bush administration’s approach to policy promulgation is overly ham-handed and secretative. That characterization plays out pretty clearly in Theresa and Haninah’s post.
I only hope the level of discourse on this site remains as reasonable as it has been so far.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:27:41 +0000

I think everyone is reading too much into this. Of course Bush is going to assert US primacy in space. He’s a little more blunt than previous Presidents about it, but most of this is not that different than the things Clinton would have done.
I’d actually love a go-it-alone approach to space. Understand that, as of now and the foreseeable future, international restrictions on the use of space would in actuality only limit the one country wealthy enough to make extensive use of space: us. And it’s not like international space projects have been a big success: the international space station is “international” almost in name only. US funding, US technological know-how, and US resources built 99% of the thing. The biggest thing any other country did was Russia toting parts up in their rockets when the shuttles went down.