Speaking of Star Wars.......

[Frodo]

personally i think that the weaponization of space is perhaps inevitable -if not us, someone else most certainly will do it.  regardless of who deploys weapons in space, it will most certainly be done, sooner or later.  and i would rather it be the United States rather than someone else. 

in an age when China is rising slowly but steadily to the status of a regional power, and perhaps even a global power on par with that of the United States -the current reigning hegemon- it is only prudent that we use whatever means that are at our disposal to ensure our own security in a world in which everyone is seeking some way to check the power and ambition of the most powerful nation that the world has ever seen. 

the liberals on this board should not fool themselves into thinking that if we don't weaponize space, no one else will.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs

By TIM WEINER
Published: May 18, 2005

The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials.

The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy. It would almost certainly be opposed by many American allies and potential enemies, who have said it may create an arms race in space.

A senior administration official said that a new presidential directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space, including spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html?hp&ex=1116475200&en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage 

[The Duke]

I essentially agree with you that we should not be naive about the inevitability of this, and we should not ignore the advantages of weaponizing space.  However, if this money is coming at the expense of other defense projects that are of more immediate need, then I'll have to oppose it in the end.

In a perfect world, The Defense Department would have verything it needs.  But in the real world, sometimes very useful ideas have to be let go of to pay for the things that are the top priorities.

[Gabu]

I would like to be an idealist and say "no, absolutely no weapons should be put into space; that's just asking for trouble and paranoia", but given that there would then be absolutely no incentive for someone else not to do it, and given the fact that I would rather it be the United States than, say, Russia, I'm undecided on the matter.

[Ebowed]

Gabu's post sums up my position exactly; I voted 'no' but I do have reservations.

[John Dibble]

I voted yes, simply because other countries would do it if they got the chance. I agree with Gabu on the risks - armed rebellion, if it became necessary, would be virtually impossible(though, that sort of depends on the nature of the weapons in space) unless the rebels could somehow get into space themselves. Such a risk is not all that great, but it's a possibility to be considered.

[Blue Rectangle]

The primary purpose of National Defense is to, well, defend the nation.

Weapons in space may be distasteful, but the possibility being discussed would be one of the few systems that directly defends the nation from attack.  For example consider a tank, which is really only useful as an offensive weapon, mostly to destroy other tanks.  The chance of that happening in a war stateside is nearly zero.  Unfortunately, the probability of a nuclear attack on a civilian American target is far more likely.  The emotional argument against weaponizing space just isn't strong enough for us to ignore the mission of National Defense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I believe that we should continue to undertake the neccessary R&D to be able to build anti-satellite weaponry and defend our satelites against such weapons, it is to the great advantage of the US military if we can keep space from becoming a battlefield.  Not deploying such weapons until other nations appear likely to be doing the same would help with that goal.  That said, I doubt if we can mantain space as a weapon-free zone, any more than we have been able to keep other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it would definitely be to advantage to keep space weapon-free as long as practical.

[A18]

What kind of "space weaponry" are we talking about?

[Jake]

What kind of "space weaponry" are we talking about?

I would think Anti Satellite Systems like what the Russians built (thought about building ?) during the Cold War.  I'd also agree with putting nuclear weapons on a space based platform if that was feasible.  Also, I'd assume any space based ABM system could use space based missles/lasers which would fall under this as well.

[A18]

Oh, I obviously support it then.

[AuH2O]

The US actually fielded an ASAT missile (carried by F-15s) but Democrats in Congress made us get rid of them. Sort of like when we built a missile defense system for an ICBM facility and Democrats shut it down a day after it went online.

At the very least, we have to be able to defend our satellites, which cannot be done without actually having armaments in space, and even then it's difficult.

Space-based weapons also have incredible offensive and defensive potential.

[bgwah]

I support it.

America should stop wasting money on trying to civilize Muslims and put more money into spaceships and space exploration.

If the United States wants to ensure its super power position, it must monopolize space. China and India won't be able to  with us if we control the entire ing universe. Hahahaha!

[J. J.]

Yes, one that can be aimed both downwards and upwards.