Comments on: US Should Forego Space Weapons…For Now

By: oyun oyna

oyun oyna — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:50:06 +0000

Thanks so much

By: demophilus

demophilus — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:06:24 +0000

…or maybe someone in China is trying to point out that they don’t have to blow up satellites if they can jam teh Internets.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:58:23 +0000

looks like its time for an updated spam filter…

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:55:19 +0000

Are you going to risk lives just for cost? Did you know you can’t buy lives with money, Christian?

By: demophilus

demophilus — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:45:37 +0000

WADR, some of you need to re-read the article. For example:
”…the US military already possesses or is acquiring a range of terrestrial-based weapons with significant inherent ASAT capabilities…“
Read between the lines; you’ll figure it out. You’re not Chicken Little, and the sky isn’t falling.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:42:35 +0000

Please excuse my first comment.
It was posted in response to a cryptic poem put up by someone who seemed of Chinese origin. It seems to have been pulled, which is a shame, since I think It added “flavor” to the article.
I am sure many people all over the world come and take a look to see what we are up to.
Our openness is our greatest strength and our perceived greatest weakness by people who do not understand us.
As for the article, anything we really work on is going to be in the “black” side, so I do not see what this article is bringing to the table.
Obviously a weapons race in space would be a bad thing.
But seeing how we have the most too loose, and them the most to gain, does anyone here think they are going to stop?
If they had to answer to voters about the Taiwan issue, it would have been settled already.
But they do not and they want it bad.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:16:26 +0000

One of the arguments for not pursuing ASAT technology is that the US would be particularly vulnerable to an arms race because of its dependence on space-based assets. I can understand the logic of not wanting to encourage the development of these systems by potential opponents, but what I don’t understand is how anybody believes that an opponent intent on harming the US wouldn’t target such a vulnerability. The term “a space Pearl Harbor” sounds alarmist and tends to be dismissed as a result, but the danger is very real.
Too bad that BMDO didn’t go ahead with Brilliant Pebbles. It sounds like it was close to something deployable, and would’ve been an incredible capability compared to today’s mid-course system.

By: Macs

Macs — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:58:14 +0000

We've been hearing this from the Left in government circles ever since Ronald Reagan proposed SDI over 20 years ago. It was ridiculed as a Rube Goldberg, impossible, unnecessary, a provocation, ad infinitum ad nauseum. For me at least, it is a no-brainer to do all we can to develop defenses against Ballistic Missiles, whether it is lasers on planes or satellites, ground-based interceptors, or whatever. It is "MAD" to put ourselves at the mercy of nutcases like Kim Jong-il simply because the Left in America wants to emasculate the United States for the sake of their One-World agenda. So I am skeptical of these assertions that we shouldn't develop BMD because they are too expensive. There probably hasn't been a single major weapon system in the history of the US that wasn't at first thought of as too expensive or ineffective. I remember the same complaints being lodged against the M1 tank and the B1 Bomber back in the 80's by the likes of Ted Kennedy and his sidekick from Taxechusetts. But I don't believe anyone would say that we shouldn't have the M1 or the B1 today, because they have certainly proven themselves.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:34:40 +0000

Well,
That