Since the argument is against hypothetical future involvement in space, perhaps you would be so kind as to outline as to the scope that the NMD would use space.
How was such apparent in my first post? I merely asked why wait. And you divined from that a cold war mindset? Puhlease.
Oh, I see, so asking "why wait" evinces a cold war mentality that says what...exactly?
I thought I was simply asking why wait to prepare for a threat until that threat has already presented itself?
I'm glad you're here to inform me what I am really thinking...
As your primary definition of militarize?Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
Given that, how can you argue that it isnt 'really' militarization?
It doesnt use space any more than it has been used since the late 1950s.Since the argument is against hypothetical future involvement in space, perhaps you would be so kind as to outline as to the scope that the NMD would use space.
See that last part? In four "questions" you gave me a clear insight into your rationale. You made assumptions out of fear and prejudice to validate your position.Hmmm, so we just wait until after China develops technologies to weaponzie space and then we respond...with developing similar technology presumably? And that is rational how?
Why wait? What? China's going to get mad and do what? Exactly what they were planning to do anyway?
What assumptions did I make? That you think we should avoid even preparing to militarize or weaponzie space to avoid offending the ChiComs?
Why is that such an unreasonable assumption?
Um, no...So the criticism of Bush "militarizing space" was empty and he did nothing to suggest the relationship of space and NMD might change?
The NMD 'weaponizes' space to the same degree as ICBMs and all the previous national missile defense programs. To argue that Bush wants to 'weaponize' space necessitates that it wasn't 'weaponized' before.
Originally Posted by SWM