Well, no one, of course. But George Bush is right on about this one. National security isn't about being fair, it's about being in a position of strength.
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority.
I agree with this guy:
This is interesting as well:
Bravo.
There is no sane reason to even talk about a ban on space weapons. The talk would be pointless. A ban would be even more pointless and not because weapons in space are a good thing, but because everything in space is, or could be, a weapon. And like any other sort of disarmament issue there is nothing but good faith to enforce the ban and bad guys don't have any.
Should I repeat that? Or should I just say "Nork! Nork!"
Oh, and just in case someone at the UN thinks that the UN should administrate extra-terrestrial humans... that's a good reason to reject *anything* they try to do to regulate space. You want a peice of it? Get your back-side up there and stake a claim, Buddy.
In the mean time we have a natural right, and obligation, to protect our national interest.
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority.
I agree with this guy:
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.
This is interesting as well:
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.
Bravo.
There is no sane reason to even talk about a ban on space weapons. The talk would be pointless. A ban would be even more pointless and not because weapons in space are a good thing, but because everything in space is, or could be, a weapon. And like any other sort of disarmament issue there is nothing but good faith to enforce the ban and bad guys don't have any.
Should I repeat that? Or should I just say "Nork! Nork!"
Oh, and just in case someone at the UN thinks that the UN should administrate extra-terrestrial humans... that's a good reason to reject *anything* they try to do to regulate space. You want a peice of it? Get your back-side up there and stake a claim, Buddy.
In the mean time we have a natural right, and obligation, to protect our national interest.
Comments