Bloomberg.com: WorldwideObama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link
Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.
Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.
The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
So, to all the people that whined and cried about Bush "militarizing space" with the NMD (and if you don't remember who you are, I do)...
What do you think about this?
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
Wait... let me guess...
This is different.
I think you missed the point...Why the **** do we even need to go back to the moon. Been there once, ain't **** there. China can go look for themselves if they want. The moon is worthless. It would only be good for maybe longer maned flights since you don't need to break free of the earths gravity fully. But there's nothing there, no resources of any kind. So regardless, things would have to be shipped from Earth to the moon.
I think NASA needs to be divorced from the Executive branch.
So, to all the people that whined and cried about Bush "militarizing space" with the NMD (and if you don't remember who you are, I do)...
What do you think about this?
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
Wait... let me guess...
This is different.
Oh.... so, this IS different, as "Weaponizing" space and "militarizing" space are not the same thing.Two similar technologies operating completely separate from one another, that seems....wasteful. As long as he doesn't weaponize space (something he campaigned on) I see this as a good, logical change.
I think you missed the point...
Oh.... so, this IS different, as "Weaponizing" space and "militarizing" space are not the same thing.
Apparently, its OK to militarize space so long as that doesn't include weapons.
:roll:
Of course, this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
It is also a good way to match China's space initiatives without having to increase NASA's funding.
I see this as the difference between weaponizing space and preparing for weaponized space. If China continues with plans to target satellite warfare I expect Obama to respond as any reasonable person would.
No I got the point. I just see a bigger fundamental problem. That being NASA is controlled by the Executive. If the President says "I want a manned mission to Mars", NASA must work on a manned mission to Mars, regardless of the scientific credibility or feasibility of the project. Thus I think NASA should be divorced from the Executive and let the scientists worry about what to study. We'd get more done.
I think that combining NASA and the military would be horrible and couldn't lead to anything good.
Plus I don't really think we should weaponize space. In the end, I think this is an effort for Obama to try to get back into some sort of race, in this case manned moon missions with China. But on that front, I don't see a point. There's nothing of value on the moon and we've already been there.
:rofl
Hmmm, so we just wait until after China develops technologies to weaponzie space and then we respond...with developing similar technology presumably? And that is rational how?
Why wait? What? China's going to get mad and do what? Exactly what they were planning to do anyway?
You said that "As long as he doesn't weaponize space..."Allowing two organizations using similar technologies to share is not the same as militarization/weaponization. I did not mean to distinguish between the two or create a separate terminology for Obama.
Some people realize that the Cold War has lapsed and there are opportunities for diplomacy and peace.
You said that "As long as he doesn't weaponize space..."
Sounds like you're trying to draw a distinction between that and 'militarization', which is, unquestionably, what you do when you couple NASA and DoD efforts.
And, again...this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
What does this have to do with anything?
I'm asking you why you think the US should restrain herself and wait until after a threat emerges before "preparing" for such a threat?
BTW - why do you insist on completely (and deliberately, I think) misrepresent other poster's comments?
That's the issue under dicussion when people argue that Bush wants to militarize space.Who brought up NMD?
So, why is it OK to militarize so long as you do not weaponize?If it sounds like I'm trying to distinction I'm sorry, I am not.
That's the issue under dicussion when people argue that Bush wants to militarize space.
So, why is it OK to militarize so long as you do not weaponize?
It has to do with the mindset that you maintain even now. The philosophy you stand by fueled the Cold War. It is ridiculous to believe that weaponizing space will protect you from China or Russia.
Show me where I completely misrepresented another poster's comments and I'll apologize.
Aha.Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
2 : to equip with military forces and defenses
3 : to adapt for military use
I guess I see your argument of semantics. Joining the two branches seems to give NASA more of a military character....but as I, and I think many others, understand it, the affinity to the term ends there.
Weaponization of space is what was spoken out against. If you look at the argument instead of focusing on the word I think you will see this.
I see. So you impute to me a "mindset" then decode everything I post via this mindset decoder ring you possess, and then post whatever pops out?
I simply asked you why the US should wait until after China prepares herself to prepare itself?
And your response it...I'm of the Cold War mentality and I don't get how ridiculous it is to believe that weaponizing space will protect me (an argument that I have not even made)?
You're intellectually dishonest.
I just did.
Well?
Aha.
So the militarization of space is, in and of itself, OK.
Its the weaponization that you disagree with.
So... how does the NMD weaponize space?
I need no decoder to see the Cold War mindset within you. It was apparent with your first post. I apologize that it is simply easier to give the example than explain to you again your line of reasoning's place in history.
Didn't you provide:No, I simply said I agree that merging of the branches gives NASA somewhat of a military character to it. To most this does not necessarily militarize space.
As your primary definition of militarize?Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
It doesnt use space any more than it has been used since the late 1950s.Since the argument is against hypothetical future involvement in space, perhaps you would be so kind as to outline as to the scope that the NMD would use space.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?