American dominance in space

[Zoii]

I applaud any country or private enterprise that is about advancing the human endeavour for space exploration. Is a country seeking to dominate space a good thing for the human race?
'We must have American dominance in space': Trump launches new military 'Space Force'

 

[PloverWing]

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I hate the idea of space being used for military purposes; in my ideal world, space exploration is a peaceful venture undertaken by scientists and engineers from many nations working together.

On the other hand, sometimes nations are willing to invest in the military more than in science, but science accidentally results anyway. During the 1960s and 70s, the US and the Soviet Union were trying to show off to each other, because we were military adversaries. But the moon landing came out of it, and that's wonderful. So if President Trump wants to fund space exploration as a way to show that the US is first and greatest and all that -- it's a dubious motive, but at least it gets money into space exploration.

 

[Radagast]

Is a country seeking to dominate space a good thing for the human race?

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. -- JFK, 1962

 

[Douger]

I sense a decades long multi trillion dollar wealth transfer being prepared to replace the war on terror.

 

[Sketcher]

As dependent as our armed forces are on satellites, and as well-known as this is, it would be foolish to not protect them. Space dominance is a natural evolution of dealing with that need.

 

[Zoii]

As dependent as our armed forces are on satellites, and as well-known as this is, it would be foolish to not protect them. Space dominance is a natural evolution of dealing with that need.

Do you think we could get the same level of commitment if globally we established an international treaty for space in the same manner that exists for Antarctica that forbids weaponisation, mineral exploration and anything else that isn't a scientific pursuit.

 

[Sketcher]

Do you think we could get the same level of commitment if globally we established an international treaty for space in the same manner that exists for Antarctica that forbids weaponisation, mineral exploration and anything else that isn't a scientific pursuit.

Would that mean shutting down spy satellites or communication networks that multiple countries have been using for years? Or forbidding countries from taking those steps? And how would it be enforced?

 

[Zoii]

Would that mean shutting down spy satellites or communication networks that multiple countries have been using for years? Or forbidding countries from taking those steps? And how would it be enforced?

I dont know - But are we going to start blasting each other on the moon or mars. Isnt the ideal to explore space and to understand our universe enough?

 

[Sketcher]

I dont know - But are we going to start blasting each other on the moon or mars. Isnt the ideal to explore space and to understand our universe enough?

There is a treaty that we had signed with the Russians stating that neither of us could establish a military base on the moon. And that will be broken before Mars becomes relevant from a military standpoint. There are massive logistics challenges with launching attacks on the surface of the Earth from space. It's easier to knock out a satellite than to commit the resources necessary for a base on the moon and sustain it. Then there's Mars. I don't know how we would bring back anyone safely from Mars.

 

[Zoii]

There is a treaty that we had signed with the Russians stating that neither of us could establish a military base on the moon. And that will be broken before Mars becomes relevant from a military standpoint. There are massive logistics challenges with launching attacks on the surface of the Earth from space. It's easier to knock out a satellite than to commit the resources necessary for a base on the moon and sustain it. Then there's Mars. I don't know how we would bring back anyone safely from Mars.

The challenges may be hard now, but think 3000 years into the future and those challenges may seem infantile in their simplicity.

If the USA pursues a strategy of militarising space, then it poses a threat to everyone including its allies. Countries like China and Russia and Europe will be forced to respond and further de-stabilising peace and increasing the risk of catastrophe.

I say again - isnt the imperative of space exploration enough. Must the US insist on not only having a nuclear arsenal but also arming space?

 

[Dave-W]

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I hate the idea of space being used for military purposes; in my ideal world, space exploration is a peaceful venture undertaken by scientists and engineers from many nations working together.

We all heard John Kennedy's famous line: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade, ..." If you did not hear it live, then you probably heard it in any documentary on US space exploration.

What was not known at the time was that the Pentagon already had plans for a permanently manned base on the moon with hundreds of nukes aimed at Moscow. That was from the Eisenhower administration in the late 1950s. NASA has always had a military side to it.

 

[Dave-W]

Do you think we could get the same level of commitment if globally we established an international treaty for space in the same manner that exists for Antarctica that forbids weaponisation, mineral exploration and anything else that isn't a scientific pursuit.

Those agreements only last long enough for some despot like a Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot or Muammar Kaddafi to march in and take over the place.

The same will happen in space. IMO the ONLY reason Antarctica is still weapon-free is that there has been little economic or strategic motivation to take it.

Space OTOH...

 

[ubicaritas]

Those agreements only last long enough for some despot like a Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot or Muammar Kaddafi to march in and take over the place.

The same will happen in space. IMO the ONLY reason Antarctica is still weapon-free is that there has been little economic or strategic motivation to take it.

Space OTOH...

If sci-fi has taught me anything, it's that warfare in space is inevitable.

Interstellar Marines

Starship Troopers

 

[Dave-W]

Space Marines

 

[ubicaritas]

View attachment 231481

But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far away.

 

[ubicaritas]

Those agreements only last long enough for some despot like a Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot or Muammar Kaddafi to march in and take over the place.

The same will happen in space. IMO the ONLY reason Antarctica is still weapon-free is that there has been little economic or strategic motivation to take it..

A believable scenario in science fiction is warfare with a rebel colony on Mars.

 

[Sketcher]

The challenges may be hard now, but think 3000 years into the future and those challenges may seem infantile in their simplicity.

If the USA pursues a strategy of militarising space, then it poses a threat to everyone including its allies. Countries like China and Russia and Europe will be forced to respond and further de-stabilising peace and increasing the risk of catastrophe.

I say again - isnt the imperative of space exploration enough. Must the US insist on not only having a nuclear arsenal but also arming space?

Who today cares about any international treaty that was written 3000 years ago?

What it comes down to for us is that some of our critical infrastructure is now in space, and that needs to be protected. I don't want to see this turned into offensive capability against other nations or a war that puts this to the test.

 

[Zoii]

Who today cares about any international treaty that was written 3000 years ago?

What it comes down to for us is that some of our critical infrastructure is now in space, and that needs to be protected. I don't want to see this turned into offensive capability against other nations or a war that puts this to the test.

If America follows through then it will be seen as a highly aggressive act by other nations. Its predictable that China, EU, India, and a host of other nations will follow-suit with the same lame excuse of protecting assets. Ultimately all that will be achieved is a more volatile world.

Lastly you argue who cares about treaties. That rhetoric coming from the USA is exactly what concerns its allies - who now realise - just as you've stated - the USA will not respect treaties thus; is the USA an ally of anyone?

 

[Sketcher]

If America follows through then it will be seen as a highly aggressive act by other nations. Its predictable that China, EU, India, and a host of other nations will follow-suit with the same lame excuse of protecting assets. Ultimately all that will be achieved is a more volatile world.

If a war happens with a nation that has the capability of launching space missions, our satellites will be targeted. If we're not prepared for that, then military and civilian communication is essentially flatlined. Many of our guided weapons (especially precision weapons, which cut down on civilian casualties significantly) become useless.

Lastly you argue who cares about treaties. That rhetoric coming from the USA is exactly what concerns its allies - who now realise - just as you've stated - the USA will not respect treaties thus; is the USA an ally of anyone?

No, I said who cares about treaties that were made 3000 years ago. The kingdoms and empires that made them are gone. If the human race is still around in 3000 years, technology and geopolitical events will have rendered any treaty we make today obsolete, and likely that will happen well before even several hundred years have passed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I applaud any country or private enterprise that is about advancing the human endeavour for space exploration. Is a country seeking to dominate space a good thing for the human race?
'We must have American dominance in space': Trump launches new military 'Space Force'

I really don't want our nation to be the originators of the first Space Force.