Posted on 06/03/2005 9:17:13 AM PDT by CHARLITE
FOR some time now the Air Force has been pressing the White House for a new national-security directive that would permit the deployment of space weaponry. A decision could come within weeks. Most space-to-ground weapons remain futuristic, but previous presidents and Congresses have chosen not to deploy anti-satellite weapons, fearing that doing so would set off an arms race and endanger the information systems the United States relies on. The new directive, if approved, would constitute a historic change in policy as radical as President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war.
Yet the idea of putting weapons in space has its roots in American national mythology and in a strain of 19th-century strategic thinking that, curiously enough, seems quite close to that of the Bush administration.
In January 2001 the National Space Commission, which had been led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense designate, warned the incoming President Bush of the potential for a "space Pearl Harbor." The bumper-sticker phrase dramatized a real concern for American defense planners. Over the years the military has become more and more dependent on satellites for navigation, targeting, command-and-control and other essential functions, yet satellites are highly vulnerable. They can be shot down with guided missiles, their ground transmitters can be attacked and the communication links between the two can be jammed.
The space policy of the Clinton administration emphasized defensive measures and arms control to deal with these threats, but the Rumsfeld commission called for "the option to deploy weapons in space."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Space Weaponry and the Fear on the Left
Have you ever heard of a war being won with a weapon you didn't have? Well the brain-dead surrender monkeys of left whine that we should just stop improving our massive capability and go sip wine on the left bank, like delusionists do. Today, Frances Fitzgerald of the NYT pens "Immaculate Destruction" warning about those crazy Republicans that want to be prepared to win wars, now and in the future. They intend on weaponizing space. They intend to keep ahead of the curve in the deterrence game. What has America become? Sane? Not according to Frances.
Now as a counter Frances is pushing Star Wars "defense". See, not offense, just defense. Reagan always seems to win in the end, doesn't he. Now he has the left trailing behind the wagon, eating dust advancing last millenium's strategy while Rumsfeld begins our journey into "Real Star Wars"; controlling our adversaries with unmatchable power and capability the unobstructed view from space provides.
Those who fear that space weapons will be employed anytime soon must realize that to use such weapons we would need an adversary. None appears on the horizon. China is too busy making shirts and pants and Russia enjoying its oil boom. So settle down. The atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. Sixty years ago and then just to show the world what a nightmare looked like. Keeping your enemies afraid of you is part of the game. Unless you are the op-ed weasel of chicken heart (NYT's variety)who wants to disarm, grab hands and sing cumbaya as some Wahhabi lobs off your head.
Comments: RAMcDonald
Why (sniff!) my good man! It's not curious at all! Bush is a throwback. A primitive. Not nearly as sophisticated as a NYT reader. Or a European. No, no, I'm afraid he's a19th century man. Wants to bring back Jim Crow and all that, you see.
I presume this is the same Frances Fitzgerald who wrote "Fire in the Lake," right up there with "A Bright and Shining Lie" as the worst piece of anti-Vietname War propaganda ever published?
Naturally, she won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for this POS.
The New York Times must be pretty worried if they are wheeling this leftist fossil out of the closet.
How come the Left never makes any distinction between offensive and defensive weapons? Why is the Left so dead set against the US protecting itself from incoming missiles?
If/when the US is attacked, the left thinks we deserved it.
Why wasn't this posted as an editorial?
An oversight on my part, I suspect. Did it in a bit of a rush this morning.
Thanks for your enlightening comments concerning the distinction between the Times' regular columnists and guest columnists.
Char :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.