You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama seeks space weapons ban
2009-01-26
President Barack Obama's pledge to seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy while posing the tricky issue of defining whether a satellite can be a weapon.

Moments after Obama's inauguration last week, the White House website was updated to include policy statements on a range of issues, including a pledge to restore U.S. leadership on space issues and seek a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites.

It also promised to look at threats to U.S. satellites, contingency plans to keep information flowing from them, and what steps are needed to protect spacecraft against attack.

The issue is being closely watched by Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, the biggest U.S. defense contractors, and other companies involved in military and civilian space contracts.

Watchdog groups and even some defense officials welcomed the statement, which echoed Obama's campaign promises, but said it would take time to hammer out a comprehensive new strategy.

Enacting a global ban on space weapons could prove even harder.

For instance, it was difficult to define exactly what constituted a "weapon" because even seemingly harmless weather tracking satellites could be used to slam into and disable other satellites, said two U.S. officials involved in the area who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Michael Krepon, co-founder of the private Henry L. Stimson think tank on space, cited recent reports that the Pentagon was using two smaller satellites launched in 2006 to fly near a dead missile-warning satellite and investigate what happened. The Defense Support Program satellite, DSP-23, built by Northrop, failed on orbit in mid-September.

"This incident clarified how important it is to have rules of the road for technologies that could have many different applications," Krepon said. "There are lots of benign reasons to have a closer look at an object in space. But we all know that when satellites make close passes they could also do things that are not benign."

Two years ago, China used a missile to destroy one of its own satellites in a test that raised worries about a new arms race in space. The incident may have created thousands of pieces of debris. Last year, the United States also destroyed one of its own satellites, saying its toxic fuel tank could pose a danger if it fell to Earth.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#29  he's a preening pile of bullshit who's found that facts, realities, and the actual responsibilities of the Presidency have rendered most of his empty-suit promises inoperative. Now he's grasping for fig leaves to soothe the easily-led. Check the hands vs lips and then gut him publicly if he follows through
Posted by: Frank G   2009-01-26 20:36  

#28  bambi's either very stupid or a very naive (or both). This is one subject that should never even be brought up. Continue research, continue testing, gain & maintain an advantage. And, keep it quiet.
Posted by: Herman Flineck aka Broadhead6   2009-01-26 20:31  

#27  ION OBAMA, PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > OBAMA'S VIETNAM: AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-01-26 20:25  

#26  Lest we fergit, NET POSTERS > many argue or believe that any and all Muslim States have the right to NUCLEAR ENERGY, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, + ADVANCED MILTECHS INCLUDING BALLISTIC MISSLES.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-01-26 20:22  

#25  Bambi should be banned.
Posted by: 3dc   2009-01-26 20:12  

#24  Wonder what bambi thinks about the gun on the international space station? Ever since the early days of the soviet space program russian space capsules have packed a firearm.

Posted by: bruce   2009-01-26 19:16  

#23  ZF is right. He's just getting started.
Posted by: ex-lib   2009-01-26 17:34  

#22  Here's a 'military capability' that SHOULD be banned. Who knew?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-01-26 17:28  

#21  I just want to point out that my desired High Energy Directed Microwave Emitters would not be space weapons. They would be signaling devices for people who were previously unaware that they are in fact....dead. And well done.

And they would also be merely devices made to amuse and keep me from being bored.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2009-01-26 15:45  

#20  To quote from a Tom Clancy novel: Law without force is impotent. Bans do not work without enforcement. How do you enforce a ban on space weapons without having space weapons? Leftist lunacy drives me bonkers.
Posted by: ThealingBorgia 122   2009-01-26 13:48  

#19  Why not ban weapons in Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon as well? I'm sure our enemies will abide by our ban.... How about we ban nuclear development in North Korea and Iran?

This is just plain stupid. There _will_ be weapons in space. Either we will put them there or our enemies (China, Russia, etc...) will - they are not quite as stupid as that.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-01-26 13:32  

#18  Thanks for the info, LH.

But thoughts of broken eggs being necessary for omelets come to mind.

Agree on vouchers. Teachers unions are compsoed largely of people who worship at the altar of perfect income security, vouchers threaten that, so they are opposed.

Ceding space to other nations would be a huge mistake. It is our future - perhaps not today or next week, but at some point. If you believe that America's memeset is the one to send out to the stars, you are obliged to defend our supremacy in space.
Posted by: no mo uro   2009-01-26 13:06  

#17  Part of the problem is defining what exactly is a weapon and where it enters into the space ban. Are earth based interceptors a "Space Weapon"? Ground lasers? Things which can "accidentally" wander into the path of another object?

Either way, it is a hell of a lot easier to say it than do it and getting other nations to play along is almost downright impossible. Whoever holds the high ground has a better chance of winning a war and space is the ultimate high ground.
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-01-26 12:36  

#16  Already sorta covered in #9, LH.

It's aimed at the Chinese. The Chinese won't play.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-01-26 12:31  

#15  so does anyone have anything else to say about, er, space weapons?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-01-26 12:09  

#14   "ban home schooling"

as info, theres a whole bunch of hippie type leftie home schoolers. I don't think he wants to alienate them. And the teachers unions dont care as much about that as about vouchers.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-01-26 12:08  

#13  I swear to the hypothetical Almighty, if that mirror-ball bastard loses the high ground to the Chinese, there's no hole deep enough to hide his craven ass.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-01-26 11:43  

#12  When the leper messiah and his crew fail in the arena of "fixing the economy" (and they WILL fail), they'll need other things to pursue in order to project an image that they are actually accomplishing something.

That's when they'll go after Catholic and other hospitals that won't perform abortions, ram unions down our throats, push a greenred environmental agenda, ban home schooling and mandate a cultural marxist high school history curriculum, try to confiscate firearms, etc.

I figure 12-16 months, although I will concede it could be earlier.
Posted by: no mo uro   2009-01-26 11:26  

#11  #10 i'll suggest everyone start buying guns real fast, it's only a matter of time before they come up

If Americans are buying anything, it's firearms. Few have seen anything like the current increase in sales. It is absolutely incredible.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-01-26 10:38  

#10  i'll suggest everyone start buying guns real fast, it's only a matter of time before they come up
Posted by: rabid whitetail   2009-01-26 10:33  

#9  I suspect this is a way for him to limit ballistic missile defense without having to go on record as wanting to shut it down as such.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-01-26 10:17  

#8  Whether it's been troop reduction in Iraq, GITMO closure, or interrogation methods - everything we've seen from Obama thus far has been all sizzle and no steak.

The conservative party line is that Obama is too scared or too moderate in reality to indulge in a leftist binge. I think he's just getting started on his job and needs to figure out how to get things done before anything can happen. And the media will cover for him every step of the way.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2009-01-26 09:58  

#7  That will keep the Russians and the Chinese from putting weapons up there. Yep.

What a dipwad.
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-01-26 09:56  

#6  Get me Kucinich! Stat!
Posted by: Barry O.   2009-01-26 09:33  

#5  What an idiot.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-01-26 09:14  

#4  Â“Â…but said it would take time to hammer out a comprehensive new strategy.”

Whether itÂ’s been troop reduction in Iraq, GITMO closure, or interrogation methods - everything weÂ’ve seen from Obama thus far has been all sizzle and no steak. If even the rubes on the progressive left can recognize the giant loopholes in the fulfillment of his campaign promises you can bet the USÂ’s international adversaries are able to distinguish the reek of bullshit in his symbolic actions.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2009-01-26 09:09  

#3  That'll stop the asteroids. I guess its Rube Goldberg back ups of installing solar sails or ion engines early enough to deviate the orbit. Not. Yep, sure we'll have at least 10 years notice to get it all together.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-01-26 08:32  

#2  Well, guess I'd better finish that Death Star soon...
Posted by: Darth Vader   2009-01-26 08:05  

#1  He'll be banning the 81mm Mortar and the Entrenching Tool before his tenure ends.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-01-26 07:28  

00:00