Scientists Warn On Space Weaponization

Associated Press ^ | 20 May 2005 | Nick Wadhams

[thegreatbeast]

...the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.

Well I certainly feel better now that the UN is going to be on the job.

What wankers!

[Stonedog]

saying the move would be prohibitively expensive and could set off a new arms race.

Now that's a counter-intuitive statement if I ever heard one. "It's gonna cost a buttload, so everyone will wanna do it." Makes sense to me.

[Wiz]

United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.

US will veto it. This treaty is nothing but a liberal's dream.

[1FASTGLOCK45]

Wankers is well said, also, Why are we going to trust some "Union" of scientists? Normal Unions are bad enough.
The UN needs to STFU because they don't know what they are talking about. It's like passing a law saying no one shoot unarmed people.

[DTogo]

A scientists' group on Thursday warned the United States against weaponizing space, saying the move would be prohibitively expensive and could set off a new arms race.

Probably the same group of scientists who think spending hundreds of billions on an unproven theory like Global Warming is, by contrast, worth it.

[The Red Zone]

"And they have looked at things that could -- or technologies that could -- threaten our space systems.

Which isn't difficult in principle: all you have to do to kill a $50 million satellite is to hurl a rock at it with sufficient speed. It's not attacks on land from space that are a big problem. It's attacks on space from anywhere.

[Porterville]

Funny, I ain't no scientist but I recommend we weaponize space and kick commie ass. And kill Islamo-fascist in the nutz.

[taxesareforever]

A scientists' group on Thursday warned the United States against weaponizing space, saying the move would be prohibitively expensive and could set off a new arms race.

Unlike the ISS or robots on Mars. Now, back to the asteroid interceptors, how much would they cost? Oh, I see, you really are against spending on weapons which secure your freedoms.

[DannyTN]

Oh, a treaty. Why didn't we think of that. We can get rid of all our weapons. All we need are treaties.

[King Prout]

oh, for [expletive]'s sake.
more transparent "let's try to hobble the US as the rest of the world plays catch-up" crap

[King Prout]

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group that opposes weapons in space, said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.

This American patriot, a watchdog individual opposed to The Union of Concerned Scientists and the United Nations, says the United States should consider launching the UN and the UoCS into the sun, thereby preventing those idiots from interfering with pragmatic exploitation of near-Earth space and taking away any justification for paying them any further mind.

[Neanderthal]

"Wankers is well said, also, Why are we going to trust some "Union" of scientists? Normal Unions are bad enough. The UN needs to STFU because they don't know what they are talking about. It's like passing a law saying no one shoot unarmed people."

This is an old Marxist group that I think has been around since the time of Stalin. Back then the Reds were not very astute when it came to naming their front groups. They always included the term "Union" somewhere in the name, as in "American Civil Liberties Union" or "Union of Concerned Scientists," etc.

[John Lenin]

Yes, the US should back down so the Russians and Chinese can secretly work behind the UN's back ...

[CasearianDaoist]

Yes they are, they have opposed any weapon system.

[sgtbono2002]

>>>>United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them<<<<<

This is a boatlaod of crap. Even if the rules prohibited interference with unarmed satellites, how does that take away justification for interfereing with armed satellites and which are unarmed and which arent? How does this stop anyone from arming a satellite? What makes the UN think that weapons in space are to protect satellites?

[Red Sea Swimmer]

What's a few nukes between Planets ?

[Red Sea Swimmer]

Gustav Holst composed a beautiful piece of music called "The Planets".

Maybe a new composer working with a space armaments dealer could come up a new Nuclear Weapon Cosmic Symphony ? The only problem I can foresee is that there just may not be anyone around to listen to it.

P.S. The mad scientists thinking about this plan for you- beaut space weaponry should hire and watch a film made in 1987 in New Zealand called "The Quiet Earth". The last scene in the movie is very powerful.

[F105-D ThunderChief]

This only proves you can have both hands in your pants, and still be a scientist!

[Jaysun]

What a joke. The idea of continued US superiority always makes the UN lose their erection. Too bad.

[KarlInOhio]

I don't see why we need this treaty. After all, according to the 1929 Kellogg-Briand Treaty we have already said that we "condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another." That's provided us with 76 years of peace.

What's going to prevent a country from just spending a few million extra to get France to veto any enforcement effort in the UN Security Council?