posted on July 2, 2001 02:08:18 PM
With the 225th celebration of the declaration of American independence comes a frightening glimpse into a dark techno-fascist future from the Bush regime. The Times of London on Saturday, June 30 reports that the military review being conducted by U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is considering what amounts to gutting U.S. conventional forces for the sake of Bush's so-called missile defense shield, the Republican 'Stars Wars' fantasy. But the implications of this radical shift would go much further than just changes in military tactics; it conceivably undercuts the very notions of freedom that we commemorate on the Fourth of July. According to the Times report: "Mr Rumsfeld's experts are seriously considering scrapping the decades-old two-wars strategy, under which America was supposed to be capable of handling two big conflicts simultaneously.... The result could be a reduction in land forces, ships and aircraft. Changes in strategy would also help to resolve the problem of how to replace aging equipment. Bases could also be closed. Since 1988, 95 significant military bases have been closed, saving $14 billion, and it has been estimated that up to a quarter of the surviving bases could also face closure under Mr Rumsfeld's review."
And why are Bush and 'Secretary Strangelove' considering this radical move away from a military run by soldiers and sailors,generals and admirals to a military controlled by computer geeks and software engineers? Because 'Star Wars' is theology for the Bush-Reagan ultra-conservative world view. No matter how many 'missile defense' tests have been failures, and despite the rock-hard logic of the 'A-bomb in a suitcase' argument, the right-wing of the Republican party pushes on because of a mystical belief that God will make the technology work so that the United States can be the greatest empire the planet has ever known. While the devotees of the Bush dynasty may find it thrilling to contemplate a future world of corporate hegemony and global domination of fundamentalist Protestant values --- the rest of us recognize that such a vision means the end of individual freedom, privacy, and security as we now know it. Because, most importantly, the Times of London article says: "Also facing the axe is the idea that space should be free of offensive weapons to avoid an extraterrestrial arms race. Under the new thinking in Washington, space is likely to be viewed as a legitimate battleground, if only to ensure the protection of America's rapidly growing network of military and commercial satellites."
The inspiring 1969 moon walk words "we came in peace for all mankind" are being supplanted in the Bush era with "...space is likely to be viewed as a legitimate battleground." Bush and 'Strangelove' may have daydreams of Wookies flying starships battling the evil empire of Saddam's rogue rockets, but the reality is Hitleresque in its devotion to the same kind of techno-militaristic mechanization that produced the blitzkrieg and V-2. Consider a world orbited by lasers, nuclear weapons, and
super-surveillance satellites. Think about the value of national sovereignty for other countries 'shielded' under an American umbrella of space weapons. The rational for this 'protection' may be terrorist threats or rogue nations, but in the Bush New World Order who will decide who constitutes a terrorist or what defines a 'rogue' nation? Will some Bush family loyalist in the Pentagon, CIA, or State Department conclude that anti-globalist demonstrators in Toronto are dangerous enough to be monitored by U.S. satellites? Will continued French opposition to 'Star Wars' make them a nuclear-capable rogue nation? Can the FBI decide that environmental activists in the U.S.practicing civil disobedience are sufficiently terrorist to warrant surveillance from space? Will any and all rocket launches by the space programs of China, Russia, France, Britain, and India be subject to U.S. review to determine whether or not they should be blasted into pieces during boost phase?
In January 1933 Adolph Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. In December 2000 George W. Bush was appointed to the presidency by the U.S. Supreme Court. Like Hitler, Bush's primary support comes from corporations and fanatic ideologues of the right. It is a fact that neither Hitler nor Bush obtained a clear mandate from the people. It is furthermore historically evident that lacking the constraints (as the Declaration of independence puts it) of "deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed," leaders inevitably go their own way or the way that rewards their political
benefactors. Bush with his unilateral disregard for the internationally conceived Kyoto treaty and his disdain for the 1972 ABM treaty walks the world down the same path as Hitler, a blind ally walled by conceit and arrogance. The so-called missile defense shield, better named Star Wars, is a scheme cloaked in the propaganda of national security and 'world peace' that threatens to expand warfare into outer space and the reach of big government and huge corporations into every aspect of our social and political lives.
While finding historical parallels with the Nazi era can be helpful in warning us of the repetition of history, the common sense and
determination to defend liberty by freedom-loving citizens can stop this Bush slide into totalitarianism. A Democratic U.S. Senate is presently in position to protect representative government and the primacy of the will of the people. Now, we must let those senators understand that we will not accede to the radical subversion of that will to this most un-American of White House occupants. --Dave Chandler, 1/2/01
posted on July 2, 2001 02:25:55 PM
The words Bush and future shouldn't be put in the same sentence krs. (Unless there is the word "no" in front of "future".)
posted on July 2, 2001 02:53:51 PM
I'm guessing that Dave Chandler is someone that could never get his editorial in print on a major news source because of his love of those great buzz words that have found a home on the internet, "fascist, blitzkrieg, Hitler, Nazi. etc."
Did I dream the senate voted against the Kyoto treaty by a margin of 95 to 1 in its present form?
"Bush with his unilateral disregard for the internationally conceived Kyoto treaty..."
posted on July 2, 2001 04:31:46 PM
Now we are preparing for a conflict in outer space??? When I first read this article, I thought that I was reading London's version of the Onion for a few minutes.
Just two months ago, Rumsfeld said that the latest moves were not a step toward putting weapons such as lasers and satellite-killers in space. Now, Rumsfeld is the "Space Tsar" and we are talking about a specially trained "space force".
Tom Daschle said that putting weapons in space would be "the single dumbest thing I have heard so far from this Administration. It would be a disaster for us to put weapons in space of any kind under any circumstances. It only invites other countries to do the same thing."
But now, the idea that space should be free of offensive weapons to avoid an extraterrestrial arms race has been questioned and space is
being considered a legitimate battleground...if only to ensure the protection of America's rapidly growing network of military and commercial satelites.
posted on July 2, 2001 04:34:47 PMThe inspiring 1969 moon walk words "we came in peace for all mankind" are being supplanted in the Bush era with "...space is likely to be viewed as a legitimate battleground."
and he is correct. From the 2000 Space Commission report (Members of the Commission were appointed by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence.)
...the present extent of U.S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which this dependence is increasing and the vulnerabilities it creates, all demand that U.S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security priority.
another reason:
This could include joint work on different ASAT weapons (lasers and interceptor missiles) and the improvement of the accuracy of Chinese space launches by linking them with the Russian Glonass (Global Navigation Satellite System). Russia has already proposed that China should become a 'co-owner' of Glonass. Russia is upgrading Glonass, having launched three satellites last October. In addition, China could receive 949 and 971-class nuclear submarines armed with long-range cruise missiles, Tu-22M3 bombers and MiG-31 fighters.
posted on July 2, 2001 04:44:33 PM
Actually, I'm all in favor of streamlining the millitary; but only to make it more efficient and cost effective, not to fund an insane governement boondoggle in the making.
Rome survived a thousand years as an Empire. If you look at its history of conquest, you will learn that Rome defined boundries that it was practice for emporers to not cross. On the occasion that an emporer did go outside of these bounds and conquer someplace further away for no other reason than to go down in history, upon his death the conquered peoples were given their freedom and Rome was shrunk back to it's prudent limits. The Roman Empire being so vastly complicated that not one thing can be called the defining factor in any historical result, certainly there are those decisions that did keep the empire together.
So where are our prudent limits?
We have bases throughout the world that would be better off closed. Past base closings were hard on the local populace, internationally or locally. We may have yet to reap the monetary benefits because it is so expensive a process to shut down a base. But is must be done -- for prudence sake.
We have a base or bases on Okinawa and in the news today, ANOTHER millitary rapist was caught and who knows how far the peaceful inhabitants of Okinawa will go to get rid of us?
Surely there are places wherre we do need new bases, such as in Oman anf Yemen to help protect our oil supply lines. And there will be other new bases in the future that are yet to be defined by politics as much as economics. but the bottom line still is: Where are our prudent limits?
Let us reduce our need to import oil in a hurry. A $50,000 homeowner tax credit to be used to convert all homes to Solar power and water heating; all vehicles to run on electricity and alchohol; electric plants that burn oil and coal to be shut down permanently. If we could do these things, these things that are in our power to do so right at this moment if we so choose to do so, we would NOT need any bases in the Middle-east. In fact, we could get out of the Middle-east altogether!
We could also get out of Japan and Germany. How many of you do not know that we American taxpayers pay the entire burden of defense for both Japan and Germany every year? Do you know how much that amounts to? Just that amount could reduce your tax bill for a REAL tax savings! With our indebtedness to Japan and Japan's huge trade gap in their favor with us, let THEM pay for their own defense against a soviet union that no longer exists!
Germany is almost at the point of recovering financially from the joining of the eastern half. Therefore, let us pull out our millitary bases where we clearly are not wanted, except by local businesses. We need not be there any longer, as the European Union can provide what the United Nations Peacekeepers won't.
Save that tax-paying dollars; pump it into educating our kids: free College all the way through Phd doctorates for anyone who maintains a 3.0 or better (a B+ average). But for sure, don't spend it on another boondoggle meant only to enrich certain corporations.
high power lasers and some type of electronic weapon - designed to destroy U.S. synchronous orbit satellites were in advanced stages of construction. That project, along with a number of other directed energy systems such as the plasma ABM system that the Russians proposed for joint tests with the U.S. at the Vancouver summit in 1993, may not have been abandoned.
[i]The explosive kill
vehicle is rocket launched to coincide with the period during which the earth's
rotation will put the weapon into the same orbital plane as the target
satellite. Once the ASAT achieves orbit, ground controllers maneuver the object
for one to two revolutions of the earth until it is close enough to the
target for its own guidance system to activate. [/i]
posted on July 2, 2001 05:09:05 PM
This is unbelievable!!!
As part of this leap forward in thinking, Mr Rumsfeld’s experts are seriously considering scrapping the decades-old two-wars strategy, under which America was supposed to be capable of handling two big conflicts simultaneously. The new strategy would call for the Armed Services to fight one big war while conducting several other smaller operations. In this concept, substantial resources devoted to keeping units up to strength to fight two wars could be released for other priorities, such as missile defence, protection of satellites and counter-terrorism.
The result could be a reduction in land forces, ships and aircraft. Changes in strategy would also help to resolve the problem of how to replace ageing equipment.
Bases could also be closed. Since 1988, 95 significant military bases have been closed, saving $14 billion, and it has been estimated that up to a quarter of the surviving bases could also face closure under Mr Rumsfeld’s review.
posted on July 2, 2001 05:42:33 PM
At one time airplanes were used for reconnaissance only in warfare. One day a spotter took along a revolver to shoot at the enemy spotters.
posted on July 2, 2001 05:54:35 PM
Before that there had been a few incidences in which a pilot dropped a rock on or near troops in the field.
Either way, those things occurred in actual times of war. No country spent the largest proportion of it's resource in preparations for wars which in all likelihood would not happen. Now, here, war has been made an industry of itself that requires nearly insane and continuous justification to sustain. That industry survives while the answer to the question of whether or not the product of the industry would be effective in it's purpose can never be answered because the technology is ever changing and every 'advance' requires further development of the industry.
The entire premise of endless fruitless preparation defines the word boondoggle in every aspect and the republican party has existed for it's furtherance since the end of WW2.
posted on July 2, 2001 11:07:29 PM
You can be sure that an effect of the military hardware in orbit will be strict control of civilian access to space. The recent crap with our space tourist makes clear the government wants complete control of who goes into orbit.
They sure don't want the embarrassment of a civilian lifter taking mass up for $700 or $800 a pound when their attachment to obsolete equipment makes their cost about $10,000/lb to LEO. Now it will be a national security issue - like going on a military base to lift.
posted on July 2, 2001 11:27:59 PMthe government wants complete control of who goes into orbit.
I wonder if this civilian rocketeer will be allowed to complete his goal. I'd love to go into space but I don't think I want to take this fellow's spot.
posted on July 3, 2001 04:34:33 AM
He kind of reminds me of the fellow who wanted to fly down in California just a few years ago. He tied a couple surplus weather ballons to a lawn chair and filled them with helium. The first anybody knew about him was when a 727 approuching LAX radioed to complain that they had just passed a gentleman in a lawn chair at about 15,000 feet. The FAA was NOT pleased with him.
posted on July 3, 2001 05:38:26 AM
hehehe... yeah, I remember seeing the news about Lawn Chair Larry when it happened. It was one of those stories you tend to remember. I believe he's one of the exceptions and won a Darwin Award even though his stunt didn't kill him. I've always wondered what the conversation was like between the airliner and the control tower when he was discovered.
I'd be surprised if the Oregon Rocketeer is ever allowed to pull his stunt. If I can't build a plane and fly it without getting an experimental permit I'm sure the amatuer rocketeer won't have much of a chance either.
"So this is a wake-up call to the Congress not to spend tax dollars," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. "Because if they spend and go back on a spending spree, the Congress risks tapping Social Security's money, and Congress should take no step that would put Social Security within reach."
So, how is a Missle Defense Program going to be funded?
I think that they'll just have to cut Medicare and social services more to afford the new boondoggle. After all, that's always the first place in any budget that gets hit by RepubliKlan politicians.
