Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

One the REAL reasons they want to weaponize space (SDI, Star Wars)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 09:18 PM
Original message
One the REAL reasons they want to weaponize space (SDI, Star Wars)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=4&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_sc/france_spy_satellite

The French just put another 7 satellites in space, including one that can focus on an object the size of a textbook.

They want star wars so they can disrupt the capabilities of would be upstarts, like the French.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. With the way *co is polluting our very planet's ecosystem,
they should just press the damn button and be done with it.

If they think they're making anything safer for anyone, they are not.

Any survivors will live in a toxic slime, regardless.

Either dump greed and money or hit the button and end everybody's misery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, that and...
huge unbelievable kickbacks, err, I mean contracts, for the military-industrial complex. Something I would not be opposed to if we started on a whole new Gemini-Mercury-Apollo scale space program AND it was required by law that any corp. getting the contracts had to hire and manufacture within the U.S.

A program of that scale with those requirements would mean a massive upturn in good, high-paying jobs of a sort that we haven't seen since, well, about 1963.

If you were to couple that with a similar program directed toward producing cost-efficient alternative energy sources and actually rolling them out and revamping the energy infrastructure the U.S. might just be able to reclaim the status it had from the 1950s through the 1970s.

The BFEE doesn't want that though. They want their petty little wars and the ability to maximize profit to the CEO (and maybe the shareholders) whilst externalizing every single cost possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. exactly. Big-time corporate welfare
for years and years to come.

Arms races are very good for the arms business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Military Industrial Warriors In The Bush Administration and Space Dollars

Lockheed and possibly Raytheon stands to receive the lion's share of future space contracts because of Boeing's suspension for spying on Lockheed.

With the new money appropriated for homeland defense ($38 billion for FY 2003), virtually all of the big defense contractors ? Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon have started hawking their products for use in domestic security.

With a share of 24% of U.S. arms exports, Lockheed-Martin is the world's largest arms exporting company. Lockheed leads the pack of defense contractors who do business with the U.S. with valuable Pentagon contracts worth a total of nearly $30 billion and an advertised $70 billion backlog.

A World Policy Institute review found that 32 major policy makers in the current administration have significant ties to the arms industry now, and prior to joining the administration.

-Rumsfeld was chosen as defense chief to usher in the next cash cow for the military industry: Space-Based Weaponry. He chaired the Rumsfeld Commission a.k.a.: "Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States" Wolfowitz was on the board, and Iraq reconstruction's Gen. Jay Garner was there too.

-Peter B. Teets, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, is the former president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin who retired from the company in late 1999.

Teets now serves as the director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO, Undersecretary of the Air Force, and chief procurement officer for all of military space, controlling a budget in excess of $65 billion, a figure that includes $8 billion a year for missile defense and $7 billion annually for NRO spying.

To date it is believed that the NRO has provided more than $500 million each to Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. "A key player in supplying revolutionary breakthrough technology has been, and will continue to be, the National Reconnaissance Office," Teets said February in a Pentagon briefing.

As reported by Karl Grossman of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Stephen Hadley told an Air Force Association Convention in a speech September 11, 2000, "Space is going to be important. It has a great feature in the military."

-Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of DOD, and former assistant to Dick Cheney, was a Northrop-Grumman consultant.
Wolfowitz, along with Condi Rice and Richard Perle, and others, formed the Bush campaign foreign policy and national security team with others, which Ms. Rice named "The Vulcans," after a statue of the Roman god in Rice's hometown.

Wolfowitz is a longtime member of the PNAC, and a veteran of both the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

-Colin Powell, owned more than $1 million in General Dynamics stock before joining the administration.

-Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy was a General Dynamics contractor and a former president of Lockheed.

- Undersecretary of Defense Michael Wynne, was Senior Vice President for International Planning and Development at General Dynamics before joining the administration.

- Richard Perle, White House Defense Policy Advisor, worked for Trireme, a company of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies, and agreed to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.

Perle accepted an offer from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to chair the Defense Policy Board, which is a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of former government officials, retired military officers, and academics. Its members include former national-security advisers, Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the C.I.A. The board meets several times a year at the Pentagon to review and assess the country's strategic defense policies.

-Karl Rove, Senior Advisor to the President is a Boeing shareholder.

-Michael Jackson, Deputy Secretary of Transportation is the former Vice President, Former CEO of Lockheed Information and Management Services and a shareholder.

-Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation is a former Vice President, shareholder of Lockheed, who fell out of Congress and into Lockheed's financial cradle.

-Otto Reich, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America was a paid consultant for Lockheed when the company was seeking a reversal of the U.S. ban on the sale of high tech weapons to Latin America.

-James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force is a former president of Northrop-Grumman, a subsidiary of Lockheed. "We have encouraged and exploited the rapid advancement and employment of innovative technologies and have taken significant action to implement the findings of the Space Commission in our new role as the executive agent for space," he said to a Senate committee in 2002.

-Dov Zakheim - Under Secretary for Comptroller of Defense was a paid advisory board member of Northrup-Grumman.

-Nelson F. Gibbs, Air Force; Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics is a former corporate comptroller for Northrop-Grumman.

-Sean O'Keefe, NASA Administrator was on a paid advisory board of Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

-I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs was a Northrup-Grumman consultant.

-Retired general Jay Garner, who served briefly as the administrator for postwar Iraq, is the President of SYColeman Corp., which is owned by L-3, one of Lockheed-Martin's communications technology units.

In their new positions, these military industrial warriors are well-positioned to make decisions on procurement and research programs that will directly or indirectly benefit their former employer (Lockheed),which has major portfolios in nuclear weapons, missile defense, and military space systems.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. dude. That's a lot of great info
is there a link to that, or is that what you've compiled yourself?

I'm impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. These are excerpts from my book 'Power of Mischief'
Sorry, I left for work after I posted. Here:

Download the book for free!
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Power%20Of%20Mischief4.pdf

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/pompage.htm

Here's my list of numbered, linked references for the book (253 links):
http://returningsoldiers.us/biblio.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. well that a given
garnering ownership of the industries that will benefit from your own policies is a condition precedent to setting the policy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's not the French alone
They're afraid of the whole EU acting as a single bloc, especially if it conflicts with "US interests." China is another one that frightens them as well. They don't want to live in a world where others are on equal footing. They want to dominate everyone instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. US could shoot down Euro GPS system if used by China (article)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-04zc.html

London (AFP) Oct 24, 2004
The United States could attack Europe's planned network of global positioning satellites if it was used by a hostile power such as China, The Business weekly reported Sunday.

Galileo, a constellation of 30 satellites and ground stations due to go into operation in 2008, is being launched by the European Union and the European Space Agency to tap into a growing market of global satellite positioning.

China last month became a partner in the Galileo program, which could help provide services such as communications for the 2008 Beijing Olympics but also has applications for strategic military use.

According to a leaked US Air Force document written in August and obtained by The Business, Peter Teets, under-secretary of the US Air Force wrote: "What will we do 10 years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system of perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"

(continued)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. GPS and Glonass
Edited on Sun Dec-19-04 10:33 AM by bigtree
In 2000, Russia and China signed documents on cooperation in the use and advancement of Russia's global navigational system Glonass.

Glonass, which is a twin of the American GPS system, is able to determine the exact position of an object anywhere on the globe, determine speed, and check time with an error of as little as one millionth of a second. The system has important military applications and is especially important in delivering pinpoint military strikes.

The U.S. GPS system is currently the most popular system of its kind and is used for military and civilian purposes throughout the world. However, the U.S. government restricts the use of the signal and reserves the right to cut off its availability if dictated by national security interests.

China plans to install Glonass terminals at airports and on planes, and Russia has allowed China to finance a group of Glonass satellites.

At the same time, The European Union and Ukraine agreed to cooperate in the creation of an all-European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) to allow them, and others, to bypass the U.S. system. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-00h.html

In response, in 2000, the Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Sunnyvale, CA, a $53 million contract to begin development of modernization changes for up to 12 Global Positioning System (GPS) Block IIR satellites. Lockheed Martin has delivered 21 of these satellites; 12 satellites remain in storage for future launches. http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/PA/Fact_Sheets/gps_fs.htm

A GPS satellite built by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force, was successfully launched from Cape Canaveral in October. The satellite, designated GPS IIR-9, was the eighth successful launch of the new-generation GPS IIR spacecraft, boasting improved global coverage and increased overall performance of the GPS constellation. http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsreleases/rec93

The satellite joined the GPS IIR-8 satellite launched on Jan. 29, 2003, along with the 26 other operational GPS satellites now on orbit.

President Bush, with our money, in concert with Lockheed, intends to outdo the Chinese, the Russians and the European Union in the space satellite tussle as these other countries move away from the our paternalistic control of our space positioning system.

So, in effect, we're isolating ourselves over here with our defense systems and everyone else in the world is uniting on the other side. No wonder they're getting paranoid over at the Pentagon.

The DOD's "Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China," states that, "If present trends continue, Beijing believes it will achieve the status of a 'medium-sized' great power by 2050 at a minimum. " China also wants to become the preeminent Asian power by generating enough 'strength' so that no major action will be taken by any other actor in Asia without first considering Chinese interests." http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/china06222000.htm

Two of the world's nuclear powers, Pakistan and China, signed a communique recently which described their cooperation as an "indispensable" factor in maintaining peace and stability in Asia.

The document was signed by Pakistani President Musharraf and China's Hu Jintao. In a speech to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Musharraf described the partnership with China as, ". . . deeper than the oceans, higher than the mountains." http://www.rense.com/general44/asape.htm

"The past belongs to Europe," he said, "the present belongs to the United States, and the future belongs to Asia. China's role is critical . . . not only because of its economic strength and its performance, but also because of its geographic might."

Beijing has helped Pakistan initiate work on the Chashma nuclear power plant in Punjab province next to an existing 300 megawatt nuclear power plant also built with Chinese assistance. The CIA in a report this year cautioned that China, Pakistan, and Iran continue to work together on ballistic-missile-related projects. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/edcoursesyllabi/pk-weapons.html

Pakistan, as a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty will have to obtain any future plutonium from China. Pakistan relies heavily on China for its military and nuclear materials since the U.S. first learned of its nuclear ambitions in 1990.

We have consistently looked the other way as the same corporations who supply Russia with weapons' technology - who in turn supply China - inflate our own nation's arsenal.

The Pentagon just can't seem to keep our own military contractors from proliferating their sensitive technology around the globe. They are pitting nation against nation in a death race as they steadily increase our military corporation- compromised arsenal. And then they turn around and destroy the weapons again in phony conflicts.

They lord over our defense' dollars in our government houses and shepherd the money into some death merchant's bank account. Where's the security?

According to the 2000 Pentagon report submitted to Congress, China was acquiring short-range missiles at a much faster rate than US officials previously thought. The report said that China was aiming the weapons at Taiwan, and possibly at US targets.

It also states that, "Beijing's primary priority is to prevent further steps by Taiwan toward permanent separation, with a long-term objective of eventual reunification under China's terms." Those are fightin' words to the administration's hawks..

This year, U.S. met with Taiwan officials in charge of national defense and national security affairs to "nudge" Taiwan to take a serious look at China's growing missile threat and take active steps to build up a comprehensive missile defense system.

After the meeting, Taiwan awarded Lockheed Martin a lucrative military communications contract that could be worth more than two billion dollars.

Taiwan, however, recently rejected U.S. manufactured armored vehicles and submarines as too costly. Taiwan had to lodge a protest after a U.S. envoy denounced its decision as "silly".

The Pentagon estimated in last year's assessment that China's military had acquired 350 ballistic missiles and was adding them at a rate of 50 a year.

"But the report contradicts the urgency in its own warnings with its assessment that the technological level of China's defense industrial complex is too far behind that of the West to produce weaponry that could challenge a technologically advanced foe such as the United States or Japan for an indefinite period of time."

Message: Prepare for a new cold-war arms race with China.
In 2001 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited China's build-up of missiles, as he justified the Bush administration's announced intention to restart star-wars.

"The truth is that the Chinese have been building more, they are building more, they are going to build more - quite apart from any ABM treaty," Rumsfeld told CNN.

In a recent letter to Lockheed, the State Department listed 30 violations of arms export regulations relating to help given to Chinese satellite launchers and rocket development organizations.

The letter, addressed to Lockheed Vice President Richard Kirkland, alleged that the company violated a ban on providing technical assistance that would improve China's space launch vehicles.

One of the State Department's complaints was that the company illegally gave its Chinese partners a scientific assessment of a Chinese-made satellite motor.

Four of the charges related to an alleged visit by Lockheed officials in January 1994 to Hohhot, China, for test firings of motors for use in launching a communications satellite, and for discussions with officials of the Chinese company involved in carrying out the project.

That should have been enough to squash credibility of Lockheed and that should have been the end of America's association with the treasonous double-traders.

But the hunger to be just like the bully boys of the Eastern Bloc kept the Pentagon from cutting ties. Lockheed would merely change managers, CEOs, dirty sheep's clothing; merge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. And China will shoot down ours
Really, its extremely easy to shoot down GPS satallites and neuter military forces that are using them.

Of course, you would cause a massive mess for commercial aviation, shipping and everything else that uses GPS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Remember the PNAC document said they had to prevent the
rise of any potential rival. I don't remember them differentiating between economic or military rivals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mediaman007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Just like nature levels, so do societies...
Nature wears mountains down and fills in water (oceans, lakes, ponds.) Likewise societies will build the coalitions necessary to counter the strength of one society.

If we persist in our "go it alone" policy, don't be surprised if the Europeans find an ally in China. These countries are aware of U.S. policy and how it affects them. They will find a way to maintain equal footing with the United States.

World War II was an example of balancing. The Cold War was an example. Now the Neocons have made the World unstable (my take is LIHOP). After the fall of the Soviet Union we received only 10 years of the "peace dividend." It was not the terrorists who destabilized the World. It was our knee-jerk reaction and lack of vision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Indeed...
...How did America rise to such prominence despite it's populist and somewhat isolationist attitude passed down from our founding fathers?

Only from Europe's descent. Didn't WW1 and 2 decimate Europe's control over other societies? At the turn of the 19th century, Europe had colonies around the globe. Now, America is the new empire.

Reports of the BFEE being quite helpful to Hitler in his early years, point out the hidden efforts that led to the destruction of European power, and the ultimate replacement of that power with American power.

*************

Bigtree, thanks for your background on the Military/Industrial Complex. We all need to be constantly reminded of that tangled web.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Russia and China are coming together to protect themselves
from bush's ambitions.

The sooner bush's dreams of dominion over the earth are dashed, the better. We are suffering now because of it, two, three years down the road, the backlash will be even more severe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It's long-term; Bush is not the end-all, be-all of what is wrong here
Just because we could get rid of Bush does not mean the country automatically changes course and moves away in the opposite direction. Politicians are removed from office all the time. It's the people behind the politicians you should worry about. For them, it is simply a matter of finding another individual who will do their bidding.

You make it seem as if Bush's removal is going to change US foreign policy wholesale when all Bush has done is accelerate and radically expand a policy of domination and hegemony that has been in place in Democratic and Republican administrations for decades. The problem is systemic. It's the whole system, and it's all rotten. Bush is just the latest symptom of the rot.

These nations were going to come together anyway, I believe. We're moving into a world where the EU will grow, and where China will become a 2nd superpower. We're moving into a multipolar world once again where there are several world powers, not just one. Whether the US sees it as a natural realignment of world power or as a direct threat to its power remains to be seen, but if corporatism holds sway over US policy, we will end up in a war sooner or later with new and big powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I agree, but it is bush who has aggressively pursued domination
through military means. He's screwing that up big time.

Yes we need to reform the whole system, but first we need to stop the neo cons.

Political triage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. extremely thoughtful analysis mediaman
I agree with your prognosis. This is the "true" market force at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. I thought they wanted to turn them on us.
I'm being sarcastic, but sometimes I wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. replace "us" with "the Human Race" and your statement
becomes quite accurate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borgnine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
21. The reason the current Bush is a supporter of Star Wars...
...is that he thinks it'll mean he can meet Jar Jar Binks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC