Archief - President of toch stiekem dictator?
Het archief is een bevroren moment uit een vorige versie van dit forum, met andere regels en andere bazen. Deze posts weerspiegelen op geen enkele manier onze huidige ideeën, waarden of wereldbeelden en zijn op sommige plaatsen gecensureerd wegens ontoelaatbaar. Veel zijn in een andere tijdsgeest gemaakt, al dan niet ironisch - zoals in het ironische subforum Off-Topic - en zouden op dit moment niet meer gepost (mogen) worden. Toch bieden we dit archief nog graag aan als informatiedatabank en naslagwerk. Lees er hier meer over of start een gesprek met anderen.
=[PraetoriaN]=
Legacy Member
Het kan nog zotter.
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A01
President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs.
The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.
Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.
"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."
Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.
The official also said the administration has briefed members of Congress as well as a number of governments, including Russia, on the new policy. The public, however, has not learned much about it: The policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement.
The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.
In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites.
Because of the political sensitivities, several analysts said, the Pentagon probably will not move forward quickly with space weapons but rather will work on dual-use technology that can serve military and civilian interests. But because many space initiatives are classified, Krepon and others said, it is difficult to know what is being developed and deployed.
Some of the potential space weapons most frequently discussed are lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite.
The new Bush policy calls on the defense secretary to provide "space capabilities" to support missile-warning systems as well as "multi-layered and integrated missile defenses," an apparent nod toward placing some components of the system in space.
The new document grew out of Bush's 2002 order to the National Security Council, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to assess the nation's military and civilian space policies. The review has already led to a major shift in emphasis at NASA, away from research and unmanned exploration to returning Americans to the moon and then sending them on to Mars.
Some sections of the 1996 Clinton policy and the Bush revision are classified. There are many similarities in the unclassified portions, and the NSC and the Defense Department emphasized that continuity. But there is a significant divergence apparent in the first two goals of each document.
Bush's top goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there."
Clinton's top goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."
The Clinton policy also said that the United States would develop and operate "space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space" only when such steps would be "consistent with treaty obligations." The Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "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."
A number of nations have pushed for talks to ban space weapons, and the United States has long been one of a handful of nations opposed to the idea. Although it had abstained in the past when proposals to ban space weapons came up in the United Nations, last October the United States voted for the first time against a call for negotiations -- the only "no" against 160 "yes" votes.
The U.S. position flows in part from the fact that so many key weapons systems are now dependent on information and communications from orbiting satellites, analysts said. The U.S. military has developed and deployed far more space-based technology than any other nation, giving it great strategic advantages. But with the superior technology has come a perceived vulnerability to attacks on essential satellites.
The new policy was applauded by defense analyst Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said that he supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, as well as its emphasis on protecting military assets and placing missile defense components in space. He also said that he liked the policy's promotion of commercial enterprises in space and its apparent recognition that private satellites will need military protection as well.
The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html
Ze hebben elke realiteitszin in het Witte Huis verloren.
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A01
President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs.
The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.
Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.
"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."
Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.
The official also said the administration has briefed members of Congress as well as a number of governments, including Russia, on the new policy. The public, however, has not learned much about it: The policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement.
The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.
In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites.
Because of the political sensitivities, several analysts said, the Pentagon probably will not move forward quickly with space weapons but rather will work on dual-use technology that can serve military and civilian interests. But because many space initiatives are classified, Krepon and others said, it is difficult to know what is being developed and deployed.
Some of the potential space weapons most frequently discussed are lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite.
The new Bush policy calls on the defense secretary to provide "space capabilities" to support missile-warning systems as well as "multi-layered and integrated missile defenses," an apparent nod toward placing some components of the system in space.
The new document grew out of Bush's 2002 order to the National Security Council, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to assess the nation's military and civilian space policies. The review has already led to a major shift in emphasis at NASA, away from research and unmanned exploration to returning Americans to the moon and then sending them on to Mars.
Some sections of the 1996 Clinton policy and the Bush revision are classified. There are many similarities in the unclassified portions, and the NSC and the Defense Department emphasized that continuity. But there is a significant divergence apparent in the first two goals of each document.
Bush's top goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there."
Clinton's top goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."
The Clinton policy also said that the United States would develop and operate "space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space" only when such steps would be "consistent with treaty obligations." The Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "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."
A number of nations have pushed for talks to ban space weapons, and the United States has long been one of a handful of nations opposed to the idea. Although it had abstained in the past when proposals to ban space weapons came up in the United Nations, last October the United States voted for the first time against a call for negotiations -- the only "no" against 160 "yes" votes.
The U.S. position flows in part from the fact that so many key weapons systems are now dependent on information and communications from orbiting satellites, analysts said. The U.S. military has developed and deployed far more space-based technology than any other nation, giving it great strategic advantages. But with the superior technology has come a perceived vulnerability to attacks on essential satellites.
The new policy was applauded by defense analyst Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said that he supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, as well as its emphasis on protecting military assets and placing missile defense components in space. He also said that he liked the policy's promotion of commercial enterprises in space and its apparent recognition that private satellites will need military protection as well.
The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html
Ze hebben elke realiteitszin in het Witte Huis verloren.
bartnijs
Legacy Member
grey-turtle zei:
ja ons klote bush heeft de wet getekend zonder overleg met de rest van de wereld, dat de ruimte van hun is.
de president is helemaal niet de machtigste man op de wereld de vs is wel het machtigste land mss en dit omdat ze appart gelegen zijn maar er staan meer atoom bommen in europa dan in amerika.
btw de paus heeft meer zeggenschap dan de president (over de wereld)
Inspector Monkfish
Legacy Member
Xarius zei:Hopen op Al Gore of Hillary in 2008, go democrats!
Feit is wel dat al de "problemen" uit de VS zeker niet door Bush komen, er zit veel meer achter dan dat.
Al Gore komt hoogstwaarschijnlijk nooit meer op en ik hoop dat Hillary nooit door de voorrondes geraakt. Wie haar kiest, kiest één van de grootste seuten (ik zet ze juist onder tipper gore) die de VS kan aanbieden.
Genious zei:De perfecte assassin ja:
Lijkt ongevaarlijk, schattig etc.
En als ge ze deftig genoeg indoctrineert kunt ge ze veel laten doen.
Te veel Gunslinger Girl
wlibaers
Legacy Member
grey-turtle zei:
Het stelt uiteindelijk niet veel voor, of is tenminste niet nieuw. Zowel de VS als Rusland zijn al decennia bezig met ruimtewapens, in het bijzonder raketten om satellieten neer te halen, en hoge kernexplosies voor grote EMP effecten. China is intussen ook begonnen met de ontwikkeling van dergelijke wapens. Dus: dit is geen echt nieuw gegeven, gewoon een update van wat al meer dan dertig jaar bezig is, en de VS zijn niet de enigen die hiermee bezig zijn.
Peephole
Legacy Member
According to recent Gallup polling, July 24-27 2006, Hillary Clinton is seen as the top Democratic Presidential hopeful for defeating a Republican contender. Among the top 4 contenders, Clinton – 35%, Edwards – 24%, Gore – 17% and Kerry – 13%, Clinton ranked first.captain asshole zei:
holycrus
Legacy Member
Om eerlijk te zijn, ik ben geneigd het te geloven...
Wist gij dat er zo ooit bloed met AIDS werd geshipt naar Europa vanuit Amerika , onder Bill Clinton. Die man is helemaal zo braf en goed niet als wij dachte, hij is evengoed een notoir killer van VELE mensen, maar die info krijgen wij natuurlijk nooit te zien lol.
Nog zo iets grappigs is dat Bush en Al Gore tot dezelfde sekte behoorden, dus het maakte eig lijk geen zak uit wie er won, Bush of Gore, ze hadden toch altijd prijs.
Wist gij dat er zo ooit bloed met AIDS werd geshipt naar Europa vanuit Amerika , onder Bill Clinton. Die man is helemaal zo braf en goed niet als wij dachte, hij is evengoed een notoir killer van VELE mensen, maar die info krijgen wij natuurlijk nooit te zien lol.
Nog zo iets grappigs is dat Bush en Al Gore tot dezelfde sekte behoorden, dus het maakte eig lijk geen zak uit wie er won, Bush of Gore, ze hadden toch altijd prijs.
holycrus
Legacy Member
Kepa zei:dunno over welke sektes en samenzweringen ge het hebt... maar zelfs al hebben ze hetzelfde doel toch kunnen ze op verschillende manieren er naartoe werken
eigenlijk gaat het over een sekte die al sinds duizenden jaren de wereld regeert en zij zijn daar allebei van dezelfde bijtak, dus zowiezo het onderliggen "benefit" zal hetzelfde zijn. Alleen de uiterlijke schijn niet. What`s the difference
Het archief is een bevroren moment uit een vorige versie van dit forum, met andere regels en andere bazen. Deze posts weerspiegelen op geen enkele manier onze huidige ideeën, waarden of wereldbeelden en zijn op sommige plaatsen gecensureerd wegens ontoelaatbaar. Veel zijn in een andere tijdsgeest gemaakt, al dan niet ironisch - zoals in het ironische subforum Off-Topic - en zouden op dit moment niet meer gepost (mogen) worden. Toch bieden we dit archief nog graag aan als informatiedatabank en naslagwerk. Lees er hier meer over of start een gesprek met anderen.