US condemns China 'space weapon'

[jujuman13]

Do let us continue to cosy up to Communist Red China! (said with a degree of sarcasm.)
I agree it is the lowest form of wit.
Link
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | US condemns China 'space weapon'

 

[jfuh]

Do let us continue to cosy up to Communist Red China! (said with a degree of sarcasm.)
I agree it is the lowest form of wit.
Link
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | US condemns China 'space weapon'

I don't know if we are in any position to "critique" China. They blew up an aging weather satellites don't we also conduct kill vehicle tests with the National missile defense net? We also backed out of the ABS treaty. Also we had the capacity even before that withe pegasus missiles.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

I really doubt that they beat the US to the punch, but if the US can weaponize space it seems pretty obvious that somebody else is going to attempt the same. Arms race #2, the new Red Menace. It'll be different this time though as both nations are significantly more interdependent than the US and USSR.

 

[Cremaster77]

The interesting part is the faux outrage that the position that the US government has taken with regards to this

Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."

The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

When one country weaponizes space and unilaterally backs out of treaties designed in part to prevent the proliferation of these weapons, should it be surprised when other countries then proliferate these weapons and try themselves to weaponize space?

 

[Goobieman]

When one country weaponizes space and unilaterally backs out of treaties designed in part to prevent the proliferation of these weapons, should it be surprised when other countries then proliferate these weapons and try themselves to weaponize space?

When did we weaponize space?

What treaty did we back out of that was designed to prevent the proliferation of ASAT weapons?

Also, please note that the US isnt the only state comdemning the test.

The United States, Japan, Australia and a host of other countries voiced concern on Friday .

Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki, said his government had asked China for confirmation, and for an explanation of what its intentions were.

“We are concerned about it firstly from the point of view of peaceful use of space, and secondly from the safety perspective,” Mr Shiozaki said.

Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign minister, said his country did not want to see “some sort of spread, if you like, of an arms race into outer space”.

 

[jfuh]

When did we weaponize space?

What treaty did we back out of that was designed to prevent the proliferation of ASAT weapons?

Unilaterally backing out of the ABM for starters began the weaponization - we can do it, but none of you can attitude.
Next, your right there is no ASAT treaty hence I don't see what all the fuss is about with China having an ability to shoot down sats. Maintains a good balance of power

Also, please note that the US isnt the only state comdemning the test.

Japan will just about condemn anything that china does and really, given her history has no right whatsoever to yell against China.
As for Australia, seriously since when did Australia matter?
Canada is the same as US, they do just about anything we tell them to. And as you noted earlier, there is no ASAT treaty so what's all the fuss about? What's also interesting is since when did you of all ppl begin to care what other nations said?

Well actually I take back some of it, the "kill" did indeed produce hundreds of new debris which now need also be tracked and could cause problems for other orbiting sats. Other than that, so what?

 

[Goobieman]

Unilaterally backing out of the ABM for starters began the weaponization - we can do it, but none of you can attitude.

Unilaterally?
You make it sound like we could have done it some other way, and that we weren't fully within our rights to do so.

You also seem to forget that if this is your standard, space has been 'weaponized' since the 1950s.

And when did we ever say no one else could build a NMD?

Next, your right there is no ASAT treaty

So... we didnt back out of a treaty that had anything to do with this.
Thank you.

Japan will just about condemn anything that china does and really, given her history has no right whatsoever to yell against China.
As for Australia, seriously since when did Australia matter?
Canada is the same as US, they do just about anything we tell them to.

Thats it -- you dont like what they have to say, so you try to marginalize those that said it.

How well do you suppose the Japanese, Canadians and Aussies -- 3 of our closest and most capabale allies -- will like being characterized as insigificant lap dogs?

Compared to yours, Bush's diplomacy skills are top-shelf.

 

[jfuh]

Unilaterally?
You make it sound like we could have done it some other way, and that we weren't fully within our rights to do so.

Of course there is an alternative, not backing out of the treaty to begin with.
Tell me just how much safer has this backing out made us? Billions of dollars spent, it's not designed to protect us from China, Russia or other powers, the kill ability is at best ~30% and we are still none the safer from the real threats from terrorists - who wouldn't even bother with an ICBM. So yes, we unilaterally backed out of the ABM treaty and restarted the space race weaponization.

You also seem to forget that if this is your standard, space has been 'weaponized' since the 1950s.

Until the signing of the ABM treaty.

And when did we ever say no one else could build a NMD?

When we signed the ABM treaty.

So... we didnt back out of a treaty that had anything to do with this.
Thank you.

I don't think I said we did, no thanks needed.

Thats it -- you dont like what they have to say, so you try to marginalize those that said it.

No, I'm showing why they said it.

How well do you suppose the Japanese, Canadians and Aussies -- 3 of our closest and most capabale allies -- will like being characterized as insigificant lap dogs?

Awww so it's about their feelings? Who the hell cares?

Compared to yours, Bush's diplomacy skills are top-shelf.

This is supposed to justify or validate anything?
IF Bush's diplomacy skills are so top-shelf, why then have we not resolved N.K.? Iran? Why are all our allies backing out of Iraq? Please, at least support your own premise without the bs spin. Bush has no diplomacy skills and I'm not a diplomat

What's all the fuss about since there was never any treaty to begin with? So what the Chinese now can shoot down sats, ok, we've had that stand off with the soviets since the 50's big deal. Who are we to condemn them?

 

[Goobieman]

Of course there is an alternative, not backing out of the treaty to begin with.

I'm sorry -- I was looking for a way to accomplish the same goal.
Was there one?

Tell me just how much safer has this backing out made us? Billions of dollars spent, it's not designed to protect us from China, Russia or other powers,

China has a very limited ICBM set -- so it will protect us from them.
And you’re right, it wont protect us from the Russians -- but then again, it was never intended to. How is it not doing something it was never intended to an argument against it?

The kill ability is at best ~30%

The testng shows otherwise.
In fact, taken as a whole, considering the GBI and SM-3 testing results, our ability to shoot down ICBMs is rather impressive.
Never mind that being able to shoot down 30% is infinitely better than being able to shoot down 0% -- and saving just ONE major city from a 2MT airburst more than pays for the cost.

and we are still none the safer from the real threats from terrorists - who wouldn't even bother with an ICBM

Again, the NMD isn’t designed to stop these attacks, so how is the fact that it wont in any way an argument against it.
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That defense A does not protect us from Threat B is not an argument against defense A.

So yes, we unilaterally backed out of the ABM treaty and restarted the space race weaponization.

How does a ABM system weaponize space?
And if an ABM system weaponizes space, how was space not weaponized prior to and while under the ABM treaty?

Until the signing of the ABM treaty.

The ABM treaty did not eliminate ABMs.
In fact, under a different focus, the NMD systems would have been perfectly 'legal' under the ABM treaty.

Originally Posted by Goobieman
And when did we ever say no one else could build a NMD?

When we signed the ABM treaty.

Really.
Specifically. how did the ABM treaty prevent anyone from building a ABM system -- especially countries like the UK or Japan or anyone else who was not party to said treaty?

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Thats it -- you dont like what they have to say, so you try to marginalize those that said it.

No, I'm showing why they said it.

Yes -- you attacked who they are rather than what they said.
In doing so, you're characterizing them as insignificant lap dogs.
That’s not marginalization?
Then what is it?

Originally Posted by Goobieman
How well do you suppose the Japanese, Canadians and Aussies -- 3 of our closest and most capabale allies -- will like being characterized as insigificant lap dogs?

Awww so it's about their feelings? Who the hell cares?

That’s an excellent way to deal with your closest allies.
Now, what did you say when GWB essentially said the same thing about the French and Germans?
Be honest now...

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Compared to yours, Bush's diplomacy skills are top-shelf.

This is supposed to justify or validate anything?

Yes -- it's shows that your attitude here isn’t one that anyone with half a brain would want in a public arena. Given that, and the fact that you attacked them rather than what they said, it's hard to see how your argument regarding their statements has any meaning.

 

[Cremaster77]

When did we weaponize space?

What treaty did we back out of that was designed to prevent the proliferation of ASAT weapons?

Also, please note that the US isnt the only state comdemning the test.

Here's a link
Here's a couple interesting quote from the article:
"as of April 2003, the Bush administration had begun increasing the funding for and widening the scope of research and development of space-relevant technologies, including improved tracking of space objects, new launch and propulsion technologies, and development of lightweight sensors and kill vehicles. High-energy laser technology has also seen a large funding increase; supporting projects include development of the techniques necessary for propagating laser radiation through the atmosphere and an emphasis on decreasing the system weight to make transporting the laser system by airplane or launching it into space more feasible. "

"However, some of the systems the United States is currently developing to intercept ballistic missiles would have considerable inherent capability to be used as ASAT weapons, and could therefore significantly increase US ASAT capability.

Indeed, while the technologies being developed for long-range missile defenses may not prove very effective at defending against ballistic missiles, some could be much more effective against satellites, since, in many ways, attacking satellites is an easier task."

Read the article and it shows you how the US and Russia have been developing ASAT technologies for the past 30 years, on and off (now back on under the Bush administration). This is not a Republican/Democrat issue as ASAT technology has been developed by the US under both party's administrations. But the US has already launched an ASAT and killed an aging satellite in the past. Should we be shocked that another country that feels threatened by the US would develop similar technology? Space has been weaponized for years.

 

[Goobieman]

Read the article and it shows you how the US and Russia have been developing ASAT technologies for the past 30 years, on and off (now back on under the Bush administration). This is not a Republican/Democrat issue as ASAT technology has been developed by the US under both party's administrations.

Exactly. This isn't a Bush thing.

But the US has already launched an ASAT and killed an aging satellite in the past. Should we be shocked that another country that feels threatened by the US would develop similar technology? Space has been weaponized for years.

Exactly. This isn't a Bush thing.

But, as I pointed out perviously, the US isn't the only country with negative comments regarding the Chinese ASAT test.

 

[jfuh]

I'm sorry -- I was looking for a way to accomplish the same goal.
Was there one?

Sure, it's called diplomacy.

China has a very limited ICBM set -- so it will protect us from them.
And you’re right, it wont protect us from the Russians -- but then again, it was never intended to. How is it not doing something it was never intended to an argument against it?

It was meant to protect us from China? Really?Tell me since when did China become a "rogue state"? Afterall, it was the BS that bush sold to us about it - the system is designed to protect against rogue states. What now your calling bush a liar?

The testng shows otherwise.
In fact, taken as a whole, considering the GBI and SM-3 testing results, our ability to shoot down ICBMs is rather impressive.
Never mind that being able to shoot down 30% is infinitely better than being able to shoot down 0% -- and saving just ONE major city from a 2MT airburst more than pays for the cost.

Testing show otherwise?
That's right, we spend billions of dollars on 30% on a good day.
Is it better than 0% depends on how you look at it, because 70% odds are good enough to bet on for a miss. Not to mention that the MD system is only secondary to the real protector - MAD.
The ppl that MD was designed to protect against will still launch regardless of and they won't even bother with an ICBM.

Again, the NMD isn’t designed to stop these attacks, so how is the fact that it wont in any way an argument against it.
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That defense A does not protect us from Threat B is not an argument against defense A.

Mad resolves the make believe threat A. Threat B is the real and only threat that billions need be spent on.

How does a NMD system weaponize space?
How was space not weaponized prior to and while under the ABM treaty?

I'm not going to be your school teacher, do your own homework if you do not understand how NMD weaponizes space.

The ABM treaty did not eliminate ABMs.
In fact, under a different focus, the NMD systems would have been perfectly 'legal' under the ABM treaty.

Lol, different focus all you want goobie.

Really.
Specifically. how did the ABM treaty prevent anyone from building a ABM system -- especially countries like the UK or Japan or anyone else who was not party to said treaty?

It doesn't, it prevents signatories. Just as Kyoto is inapplicable to us today. You sign a document, then you honor the contents of said agreement.

Yes -- you attacked who they are rather than what they said.
In doing so, you're characterizing them as insignificant lap dogs.
That’s not marginalization?
Then what is it?

It's showing the exact reasons why they and only they bitched about it.

That’s an excellent way to deal with your closest allies.
Now, what did you say when GWB essentially said the same thing about the French and Germans?
Be honest now...

Go and read my posts. I said they were irrelevant and have no right to be bitching considering they were doing business with Saddam as well as Russia.
What did I say of Bush, I said he was nuts and a war mongrel. Like I said, since when did you start caring about what other countries thought of us. How is it any validation of the argument here?

Yes -- it's shows that your attitude here isn’t one that anyone with half a brain would want in a public arena. Given that, it's hard to see how your argument regarding their statements has any meaning.

Yet this still does not validate any points you've made. Try again.

 

[jfuh]

But, as I pointed out perviously, the US isn't the only country with negative comments regarding the Chinese ASAT test.

Who said anything about bush? Oh right, you are.

Compared to yours, Bush's diplomacy skills are top-shelf.

Japan, Australia, Canada have "condemned" this test because they do what we tell them to do. Not to mention that Japan would bitch about anything that China does other than respecting Japan's authorita as a colonial power. So spare the "other nations" are also condemning justification. Even you admit that there have been ASAT for years so what? What's all the fuss about?

 

[Cremaster77]

Exactly. This isn't a Bush thing.


Exactly. This isn't a Bush thing.

But, as I pointed out perviously, the US isn't the only country with negative comments regarding the Chinese ASAT test.

I never said it was a Bush thing. What I said was that the US government is stupid if they are genuinely surprised that China would attempt to develop their own ASAT weapons, particularly given reliance of the US military on satellite technology. To have a policy that essentially states that space is US territory is pointless and serves only to further deteriorate US relations with other countries. The US policy says that the US will oppose any action that will prevent the US "freedom of action" in space while we are currently developing the same technology to prevent other countries "freedom of action". This only serves to enforce the concept that US is an imperialistic nation bent on subjugating other nations around the world.

 

[Goobieman]

Sure, it's called diplomacy.

Really. Funny -- I thought invoking the rights afforded to you under a treaty WAS siplomacy.
Perhaps you can suggest another way we could have pulled out of the ABM treaty.

China has a very limited ICBM set -- so it will protect us from them.
And you’re right, it wont protect us from the Russians -- but then again, it was never intended to. How is it not doing something it was never intended to an argument against it?

It was meant to protect us from China? Really?Tell me since when did China become a "rogue state"?

Tell me when I, or anyone else, said it was intended to protect us from China.
I said it -does- protect us, but given China's small arsenal, that’s simply a side effect of it protecting us from rogue states who might have similarly sized arsenals.

Afterall, it was the BS that bush sold to us about it - the system is designed to protect against rogue states. What now your calling bush a liar?

I'm not calling anyone a liar -- you're simply not comprehending what I'm typing.

Testing show otherwise?

Yes.

The SM-3 system has shown itself very reliable in testing, with 6 kills out of 7 tests, all done under "increasingly realistic, operational conditions".
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

The GBI system has as well, with a 6 kills out of 9 intercept tests, with 2 of the 3 misses being the result of failures in systems not par of the NMT.
Ground-Based Midcourse Intercept Flight Test History - CDI
National Missile Defense Testing

So, no matter how you look at it, the testing shows better than 65% effectiveness - and if you look at it in a meaningful way, its higher than that.

That's right, we spend billions of dollars on 30% on a good day.

Aside from the fact that you’re wrong -- 30% is better than 0% on every day.

Not to mention that the MD system is only secondary to the real protector - MAD.

MAD doesn’t stop madmen, just the people the NMD is designed to protect us from. After all, deterrence doesn’t stop the missiles once they are in the air, and you can’t deter madmen.

Mad resolves the make believe threat A. Threat B is the real and only threat that billions need be spent on.

The you’re simply unaware of the threats we face - willfully or otherwise.

I'm not going to be your school teacher, do your own homework if you do not understand how NMD weaponizes space.

Given you don’t have the capacity, that's a good thing,
But... lets say that AMBs do indeed weaponize space.
You didn’t answer the other question:
How was space not weaponized prior to and while under the ABM treaty?

The ABM treaty did not eliminate ABMs.
In fact, under a different focus, the NMD systems would have been perfectly 'legal' under the ABM treaty.

Lol, different focus all you want goobie.

You didn’t address the issue here.
Fact of the matter that the ABM treaty didn’t prevent anyone from building ABMs, and so your argument to this effect fails.

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Really.
Specifically. how did the ABM treaty prevent anyone from building a ABM system -- especially countries like the UK or Japan or anyone else who was not party to said treaty?

It doesn't, it prevents signatories.

No, it doesn’t. Signatories to the AMD treaty can still build ABMs, as can anyone that's NOT a signatory.

So, I ask again:
When did we tell anyone they could not build ABMs?

You sign a document, then you honor the contents of said agreement.

We did. To the letter.

It's showing the exact reasons why they and only they bitched about it.

I'm SURE they'll be happy to know you think so much of them.
Is this how you’re supposed to treat allies?

Now, what did you say when GWB essentially said the same thing about the French and Germans?
Be honest now...

Go and read my posts. I said they were irrelevant and have no right to be bitching considering they were doing business with Saddam as well as Russia.

BS. Prove it.

Yet this still does not validate any points you've made. Try again.

It certainly does -- when you attack the person and not what the person says, its because you have no legitimate criticism of what they said.

 

[Goobieman]

To have a policy that essentially states that space is US territory is pointless and serves only to further deteriorate US relations with other countries.

We have the exact same policy regarding sea lanes and the open ocean. That policy has been in place for decades.
Has tha policy caused our relations with other countries to 'deteriorate'?
How?

The US policy says that the US will oppose any action that will prevent the US "freedom of action" in space while we are currently developing the same technology to prevent other countries "freedom of action". This only serves to enforce the concept that US is an imperialistic nation bent on subjugating other nations around the world.

Again:
We have the exact same policy regarding sea lanes and the open ocean. That policy has been in place for decades.
Has tha policy caused our relations with other countries to 'deteriorate'?
How?

 

[Cremaster77]

We have the exact same policy regarding sea lanes and the open ocean. That policy has been in place for decades.
Has tha policy caused our relations with other countries to 'deteriorate'?
How?

Do we react this way when other countries conduct naval exercises? No one has made the claim that only the US is allowed to have weapons at sea, yet we make the claim that only the US has a right to weaponize space. Our policy is not the same between space and sea.

 

[Goobieman]

Do we react this way when other countries conduct naval exercises?

Depends. We have expressed express similar concerns. Happened several times in the cold war -- never sure if it was an exercise or a prelude.

No one has made the claim that only the US is allowed to have weapons at sea,

We haven om effect, said that -we- would control the sea and make sure no one else does. Its the same thing.

 

[jujuman13]

IMO the reason that the US objects to the destruction of this satellite is because of the newish american defense system that can both detect and down a rocket that is launched and aimed at the US.
By showing their capability of taking down a Satellite, China is clearly and unequivocally telling the US (without threatening the US) that it has the capability of destroying their system of defence.
By taking out the appropriate Satellite that is a key part of the technology that both detects the rocket (ICBM) launch as well as attack by the US destroying rocket / Missile.

 

[Goobieman]

IMO the reason that the US objects to the destruction of this satellite is because of the newish american defense system that can both detect and down a rocket that is launched and aimed at the US.

The NMD is completely ground-based.

By showing their capability of taking down a Satellite, China is clearly and unequivocally telling the US (without threatening the US) that it has the capability of destroying their system of defence.

I does have the power to do a lot of damage to our defense infratructure, but not like you think.
Note that we have the ability to take down their satellites, and so this will eventually establish a deterrent to that more than anything else.

 

[jfuh]

Really. Funny -- I thought invoking the rights afforded to you under a treaty WAS siplomacy.
Perhaps you can suggest another way we could have pulled out of the ABM treaty.

Now why would I want to do that? It's nothing I support to begin with. BTW, what's siplomacy?

Tell me when I, or anyone else, said it was intended to protect us from China.
I said it -does- protect us, but given China's small arsenal, that’s simply a side effect of it protecting us from rogue states who might have similarly sized arsenals.

So tell me what happens IF china fires nukes at us, since it is not a rogue state then do we allow the nuke to go through?
Though you have not said with so many words that the system was intended for China, you have thus implied so. Scenario, Russia fires 3 nukes at us, do we use the NMD?

I'm not calling anyone a liar -- you're simply not comprehending what I'm typing.

So then is China a rogue state?

Yes.

The SM-3 system has shown itself very reliable in testing, with 6 kills out of 7 tests, all done under "increasingly realistic, operational conditions".
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

The GBI system has as well, with a 6 kills out of 9 intercept tests, with 2 of the 3 misses being the result of failures in systems not par of the NMT.
Ground-Based Midcourse Intercept Flight Test History - CDI
National Missile Defense Testing

So, no matter how you look at it, the testing shows better than 65% effectiveness - and if you look at it in a meaningful way, its higher than that.

The most recent test from your own source

IFT-14 was planned for the first quarter of FY2004 [October 2003], to test Lockheed's Objective Boost Vehicle, the primary delivery system for the kinetic interceptor. The flight was originally scheduled for mid-2003. By November 2003 it was announced that Integrated Flight Test-14, or IFT-14, will take place in the spring of 2004, rather than the end of 2003 as originally planned. The change in schedule was made so that Missile Defense Agency (MDA) could choose between the two boosters under development by Orbital Sciences [ORB] and Lockheed Martin [LMT]. IFT-14 was originally planned as a fully integrated flight test with an intercept by the production kill vehicle, which is built by Raytheon [RTN]. In that test, the booster, either the one designed by Lockheed Martin or Orbital, would fly out of Kwajalein. IFT-14 was to be the first test of the booster—other than the surrogate used in previous flight test--designed specifically for the BMD system. The Missile Defense Agency announced 15 December 2004 it was unable to complete a planned flight test after the interceptor missile experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched from the Ronald Reagan Test Site, Republic of the Marshall Islands, in the central Pacific Ocean. A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched from Kodiak, Alaska at 8:45 p.m. Alaska Standard Time, December 14 (12:45 a.m. EST, December 15). This was the first time a target missile was launched from Kodiak to support an integrated flight test. As the ground-based interceptor at Kwajalein Atoll was preparing to launch approximately 16 minutes later, it was automatically shutdown due to an unknown anomaly.

The system is quite the dud. The tests have been conducted with knowing exactly when, where and what trajectory the incoming "threats" were yet even with all that information you're showing an estimation of 65%. Yet the system has yet to be tested in real world scenarios not knowing when, where or what vector the nuke is coming in or for that matter if decoys are set off.

Aside from the fact that you’re wrong -- 30% is better than 0% on every day.

MAD doesn’t stop madmen, just the people the NMD is designed to protect us from. After all, deterrence doesn’t stop the missiles once they are in the air, and you can’t deter madmen.

MAD men do not control nations. As much as little kim (the closest to being mad) he's quite sane and knows exactly what he's doing.
Deterrence stopped the Soviet progression, deterence stopped the Cuban Missle Crisis (Castro certainly didn't do anything). Deterrence does stop ICBM's even after launch - called self-destruct. You're mad men with capabilities and means do not exist. The Nuke sub captain who could, never existed.

The you’re simply unaware of the threats we face - willfully or otherwise.

So says you, and you are the wiser because of what?

Given you don’t have the capacity, that's a good thing,
But... lets say that AMBs do indeed weaponize space.
You didn’t answer the other question:
How was space not weaponized prior to and while under the ABM treaty?

I believe I already had. Go back and re-read. So let me repeat myself again; it already was; but hardly the same way that it has now been opened up with no way of negotiating out of it as we've lost credibility to back up our treaties.

You didn’t address the issue here.
Fact of the matter that the ABM treaty didn’t prevent anyone from building ABMs, and so your argument to this effect fails.

That's BS and you know damn well it is. The ABM treaty prevented the signatories from building such systems, not non-signatories. I addressed the issue plenty. As you say, you're not comprehending. For otherwise by your logic are we, a non-signatory required then to abide by Kyoto?

No, it doesn’t. Signatories to the AMD treaty can still build ABMs, as can anyone that's NOT a signatory.

No, signatories of the ABM can not build ABM's. The USSR and the US were allowed 2 places to build a missle shield, the USSR protected Moscow and the US Grand - Frok North Dakota. A National missile shield greatly extends that capacity, significantly increasing the weaponization of space.

So, I ask again:
When did we tell anyone they could not build ABMs?

May 26, 1972

We did. To the letter.

Then we withdrew from it.

I'm SURE they'll be happy to know you think so much of them.
Is this how you’re supposed to treat allies?

lol, so what's it about when giving all other allies the finger to go to Iraq? How's that treating them? like I said, since when did you care about how our allies felt?

BS. Prove it.

I can't prove it on this site because the comment written back in 2003 was on another site not on this one. However I can give you this thread that shows just what I think about the Europeans when they were bitching about us.

It certainly does -- when you attack the person and not what the person says, its because you have no legitimate criticism of what they said.

Ok, let me ask you then, do you think that these countries said what they said because of the protection of human lives and the greater good? or because to preserve their self interests with US?
I'm showing exactly why it is they said what they said.
All this, and still you have not answered the underlining question, so what? China can shoot down sats what about it, who are you or anyone else to condemn such an action? Is it a human rights violation?

 

[jfuh]

The NMD is completely ground-based.

Is it? Then show that ground only based systems detect ICBMS out of the line of sight.

 

[talloulou]

U
Japan will just about condemn anything that china does and really, given her history has no right whatsoever to yell against China.
As for Australia, seriously since when did Australia matter?
Canada is the same as US, they do just about anything we tell them to. And as you noted earlier, there is no ASAT treaty so what's all the fuss about? What's also interesting is since when did you of all ppl begin to care what other nations said?

How Ruuude!

 

[Goobieman]

Now why would I want to do that? It's nothing I support to begin with. BTW, what's siplomacy?

We pulled out of the treaty according to the terms of the treaty. That’s diplomacy. You suggested that we do something other than what we did – withdraw unilaterally, through diplomacy, as the treaty allows for – and so if you can’t offer a way we could have done so that would satisfy you, then your requirement here is meaningless.

So tell me what happens IF china fires nukes at us, since it is not a rogue state then do we allow the nuke to go through?

Only a true idiot would ever think so. Apparently you don’t understand what I meant by “side effect”. The NMD was intended to nullify China’s ICBM fleet no more than Rogaine was intended to help re-grow hair.

Though you have not said with so many words that the system was intended for China, you have thus implied so. Scenario, Russia fires 3 nukes at us, do we use the NMD?

No, you have inferred it. You think, somehow, it supports your argument against it.. No one, and that’s no one, has ever said that the NMD was built because of the threat from China or Russia.

So then is China a rogue state?

Nope. Why would you think so?

The system is quite the dud.

Not according to the test results.

And please note that once you contril for the failures in the surrogate sstems used to allow the tests to take place at all, the NMD is FAR better than 65% effective.

The GBI and SM3 testing, at worst, provides proof of concept -- that is, it is perfectly possible to develop a system that will effectively shield he US from incoming ICBMs. There's really no other intellectually honest way to interpret the results -- YOU simply dont WANT to see the testing as successful because you dont WANT the US to be able to shoot down incoming ICBMs.

The tests have been conducted with knowing exactly when, where and what trajectory the incoming "threats" were yet even with all that information you're showing an estimation of 65%.

Pretty darned good for a system in its infancy. Some systems go into operation with a considerably smaller success rate. I also note you completely ignore the impressive success of the navy’s AEGIS/SM-3/ABM program -- why?

Yet the system has yet to be tested in real world scenarios not knowing when, where or what vector the nuke is coming in or for that matter if decoys are set off.

And this is relevant, because… you think we won’t know when a missile is launched, where it is launched from, where its headed and if it releases decoys? Why do you think that? How does the NMD system not allow for these things?

MAD men do not control nations. As much as little kim (the closest to being mad) he's quite sane and knows exactly what he's doing.

You go ahead and leave the fate of any number of cities on the US west coast to the rational mind of of Kim Jong.. I’ll do the sane thing and support the deployment of a means to shoot down his missiles.

Deterrence stopped the Soviet progression, deterence stopped the Cuban Missle Crisis (Castro certainly didn't do anything). Deterrence does stop ICBM's even after launch - called self-destruct

Deterrence only works when rational people are the ones being deterred.
BTW - What’s ‘deterence? What’s 'Missle'?

You're mad men with capabilities and means do not exist.

Tell me: why is Kim Jong developing nukes and missiles that can deliver them?

I believe I already had. Go back and re-read. So let me repeat myself again; it already was; but hardly the same way that it has now been opened up with no way of negotiating out of it as we've lost credibility to back up our treaties.

Oh, I see – so space –was-- weaponized before now – in fact, is had been weaponized since the 50s.. So, what’s the big deal? And how, by following the terms of the treaties we sign, have we “lost our credibility” in terms of being able to negotiate weapons treaties?

That's BS and you know damn well it is. The ABM treaty prevented the signatories from building such systems, not non-signatories. I addressed the issue plenty.

So then – how did we, tell the UK, China or any other non-signatory that they could not build ASATs or ABMs, as you claimed?

No, signatories of the ABM can not build ABM's. The USSR and the US were allowed 2 places to build a missle shield, the USSR protected Moscow and the US Grand - Frok North Dakota[/COLOR]

Um.. first you say that the treaty said that we could not build ABMs, and then you immediately contradict yourself, saying that we could. Make up your mind.

The point here, of course, is that the ABM treaty, by allowing ABMs, did NOT de-weaponize space, and as such, space had been weaponized continuously since the late 50s – and so there’s no real change here.

BTW - what's a Frok?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goobieman So, I ask again:When did we tell anyone they could not build ABMs?
May 26, 1972
How does the ABM treaty keep the UK or Japan from building ABMs?

Then we withdrew from it.[/QUOTE]
According to the terms provided in the treaty. So what?

lol, so what's it about when giving all other allies the finger to go to Iraq? How's that treating them? like I said, since when did you care about how our allies felt?

So you admit – giving our allies the finger, as you did, is a bad idea, Very good of you.

I can't prove it on this site because the comment written back in 2003 was on another site not on this one. However I can give you this thread that shows just what I think about the Europeans when they were bitching about us.

Convenient. Given your other posts here you’ll forgive me if I consider your claim as BS.

Ok, let me ask you then, do you think that these countries said what they said because of the protection of human lives and the greater good? or because to preserve their self interests with US?

ts in their best interest for China to not be able to shoot down satellites. This is wholly independent of it being in OUR best interest for the same. Of course, such a thing never actually occurred to you…

I'm showing exactly why it is they said what they said.

According to YOU. I wont bother to ask you to show that your assertion is true, because
I know you can’t.

All this, and still you have not answered the underlining question, so what?

LOL
YOU'RE arguing againt the weaponmization of space, and then when preseted with a case where someone is weaponizing space, you ask: so what?
LOL

 

[Goobieman]

Is it? Then show that ground only based systems detect ICBMS out of the line of sight.

Silly you. All radar detection is LOS.