• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenges loom as Obama seeks space weapons ban

Gibberish said:
Peace should be obtained through acceptance and agreement, not through fear.
Click to expand...
There is what you think 'should' be, and then there is what is.
Given that there will never be universal acceptance and agreement, peace is then kept through deterrent.

If the powers of this world all agree to not utilize weapons in space and also to act against those that do this world will be a much better place then if everyone had a few thousand nukes attached to satellites pointing at each other.
Click to expand...
Nukes in space?
How unimaginative, pointless and needless. There's nothing a nuke in space can do that cannot be done with current nukes.
 
I heard it's because the Satellite with focused energy capability was scheduled to be painted black and have a pistol grip added to the controls.
 
Shewter said:
I heard it's because the Satellite with focused energy capability was scheduled to be painted black and have a pistol grip added to the controls.
Click to expand...
No flash hider?
 
Goobieman said:
There is what you think 'should' be, and then there is what is.
Given that there will never be universal acceptance and agreement, peace is then kept through deterrent.
Click to expand...
Determent would obviously still exist since countries in the agreement would be allied to act against those that went against the agreement. There is no positive for anyone to have military presence in space.

When you have one power above all others rebellion and conflict is inevitable. If we have multiple counties on equal ground then the only people to worry about are those that are against equality (terrorists, fascists, etc.).

Goobieman said:
Nukes in space?
How unimaginative, pointless and needless. There's nothing a nuke in space can do that cannot be done with current nukes.
Click to expand...
It was only an example. Insert any weapon that suits your taste.
 
Goobieman said:
No flash hider?
Click to expand...

Nah, they've got a heavy fluted bull barrel.

However, there was talk about adding a bayonet lug. I guess Biden flipped out about that. Said something about "assault satellite"....
 
Gibberish said:
Determent would obviously still exist since countries in the agreement would be allied to act against those that went against the agreement.
Click to expand...
So you agree -- peace can be obtained thru means other than acceptance and understanding.

You are assuming such an agreement exists, and presuming that the contries in that agreement can actually act effectively.

There is no positive for anyone to have military presence in space.
Click to expand...
There is clearly a 'positive' for the countries that have them, especially against the countries that do not.

When you have one power above all others rebellion and conflict is inevitable.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

If we have multiple counties on equal ground...
Click to expand...
I have no problem with other countries, especially our allies, also having weapons in space.
 
Shewter said:
Nah, they've got a heavy fluted bull barrel.

However, there was talk about adding a bayonet lug. I guess Biden flipped out about that. Said something about "assault satellite"....
Click to expand...
No womder Obama wants to ban them.
 
Goobieman said:
So you agree -- peace can be obtained thru means other than acceptance and understanding.
Click to expand...
No. Restraining groups through intimidation and force is not peace. The peace that would exist is through the countries that agree not to advance their military measures and ally with those that also agree.

Goobieman said:
You are assuming such an agreement exists, and presuming that the contries in that agreement can actually act effectively.
Click to expand...
I assume the whole point of taking these steps is to put such an agreement in place. Not that it already exists.

Goobieman said:
There is clearly a 'positive' for the countries that have them, especially against the countries that do not.
Click to expand...
The concern isn't over those countries that cannot place such weapons. It is of those that can. What benefit is there of the US, China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Great Britan, India, etc. having weapons in space? This scenario only leads to fear and aggression.

Goobieman said:
I have no problem with other countries, especially our allies, also having weapons in space.
Click to expand...
This leads to the same issue we see with Nuclear weapons. We have them, our allies have them, and those that we don't want to have them are trying to get them because of the fear that we might use them.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
No. Restraining groups through intimidation and force is not peace.
Click to expand...
Peace is the absence of conflict. Deterrence creates an absence of colflict.

The peace that would exist is through the countries that agree not to advance their military measures and ally with those that also agree.
Click to expand...
And what about those that do not agree? What creates peace with them?

I assume the whole point of taking these steps is to put such an agreement in place. Not that it already exists.
Click to expand...
Adn you aslo assume that that the contries in that agreement can actually act effectively against those that are NOT in agreement.
Note that this creates conflict.

The concern isn't over those countries that cannot place such weapons. It is of those that can.
Click to expand...
Yes... and the countries that can have an advantage over those that cannot. This is a 'positive'.

What benefit is there of the US, China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Great Britan, India, etc. having weapons in space?
Click to expand...
1: deterrence
2: Advantage over the other countries that do not have said weapons.

This scenario only leads to fear and aggression.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

This leads to the same issue we see with Nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1947.

We have them, our allies have them, and those that we don't want to have them are trying to get them because of the fear that we might use them.
Click to expand...
The notion that the only reason countries like Iran and NK want nukes is because we have them is absurdly and patent silly. If we were to give up out nukes, NK and Iran (etc) would laugh and keep working on theirs.
 
Gibberish said:
The article specifically states that he also plans to look at threats to US spacecraft, offer contingency plans to keep information flowing, and a plan to defend US spacecraft. Basically he is saying there should be a ban on weapons in space but the US will still be putting measures in place to protect itself and it's spacecraft.

I have no problem with this. In fact it is quite an intelligent move. This sets precedence that America will not be placing weapons in space and will not accept the placement of weapons in space by any foreign nation, and seeks other nations to follow. This removes the likelihood that the world will end up in the same situation that is currently is in with Nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

In the war of armor and ammunition, the ammunition always win. And if China knocks our birds out, and we tie our hands unable to return the favor...

That's just plain stupid.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Another version of choosing ice cream over the cow.
Click to expand...

You got it all wrong...again. Its more like forgoing ice cream to utilize the dairy products of the cow in a way that is much more healthy for the country.
 
American said:
Why the hell is that dumb dick seeking a space weapons ban? Who the hell has got them or about to get them? What is this, a preemptive ban?
Click to expand...

China has already shown that it can knock satellites out of space with its recent anti-satellite tests.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
In the war of armor and ammunition, the ammunition always win. And if China knocks our birds out, and we tie our hands unable to return the favor...

That's just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes so lets all make the biggest guns possible and who ever makes the biggest gun of them all and fires first wins.
 
Goobieman said:
Peace is the absence of conflict. Deterrence creates an absence of colflict.
Click to expand...
If you are fighting someone in a bar and I hold a gun to your head and tell you stop is that peace?

Goobieman said:
And what about those that do not agree? What creates peace with them?
Click to expand...
What is there not to agree with? Why would they need weapons they don't ever need to use?

Goobieman said:
Adn you aslo assume that that the contries in that agreement can actually act effectively against those that are NOT in agreement.
Note that this creates conflict.
Click to expand...
I am assuming that counties that do not want to start wars will be in agreement yes. None of this has moved forward so we don't know who and who will not agree to this.


Goobieman said:
Yes... and the countries that can have an advantage over those that cannot. This is a 'positive'.

1: deterrence
2: Advantage over the other countries that do not have said weapons
Click to expand...
If the country doesn't have the ability to create such weapons we already have an advantage over them.

Goobieman said:
Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1947.
Click to expand...
Speculation. Though we can also speculate they have caused the most tension and have led to military defense spending and thoughts on how to kill each other faster.


Goobieman said:
The notion that the only reason countries like Iran and NK want nukes is because we have them is absurdly and patent silly. If we were to give up out nukes, NK and Iran (etc) would laugh and keep working on theirs.
Click to expand...
Of course they would because the weapons already exist. I am talking about stopping them before they exist.
 
Gibberish said:
If you are fighting someone in a bar and I hold a gun to your head and tell you stop is that peace?
Click to expand...
Depends. Do I stop? If so, then yes.

If you define "peace" as "an absence of an actionable conflict of interest" then peace will never exist.

What is there not to agree with? Why would they need weapons they don't ever need to use?
Click to expand...
You have 2 sets of countries:
1 set agrees not to advance their military measures
1 set does not.
What brings peace between the 2 sets, and among the 2nd set?

I am assuming that counties that do not want to start wars will be in agreement yes. None of this has moved forward so we don't know who and who will not agree to this.
Click to expand...
You didn't address what I said.
-The countries that agree to not have weapons in space must actually be able to do someting against those that do for their agreement to have any effect
-By threatening to act against the countries that have weapons in space, you are creating conflict, not peace.

If the country doesn't have the ability to create such weapons we already have an advantage over them.
Click to expand...
So? More advantage is better than less advantage.
And so, having weapons in space is a 'positive'.

Speculation.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Deterrence works.

Of course they would because the weapons already exist. I am talking about stopping them before they exist.
Click to expand...
So, you agree that the notion that the only reason countries like Iran and NK want nukes is because we have them is absurdly and patently silly. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Yes so lets all make the biggest guns possible and who ever makes the biggest gun of them all and fires first wins.
Click to expand...

Not allowing yourself to get a gun while the other guy has no such constraint is the recipe for death.
 
Gibberish said:
Peace should be obtained through acceptance and agreement, not through fear.

If the powers of this world all agree to not utilize weapons in space and also to act against those that do this world will be a much better place then if everyone had a few thousand nukes attached to satellites pointing at each other.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Then if ever an astroid is hurling towards us we won't be able to do **** about it.
 
scourge99 said:
And we should all fight like gentleman by standing in lines and taking turns shooting volleys at one another. That is how wars are fought.:roll:

This ban is senseless. If space weapons become practical and/or useful then China, Russia, the US, or any other major power is going to build them regardless of treaties.

Treaties go out the window when inevitable war occurs. The winners prosecute the losers for broken promises.
Click to expand...

Historical precedence would surgest that Russia and China would follow the ban as its in their interest to do. Even during the Cold War America and Russia agreed to limit the production of certain types of weapons because spending a **** load of money on the arms race wasnt helping either side. So in a situation with alot less tension such as todays you would expect the same to happen.

The huge amount of money that weapons in space would necesitate is in everyones interest to avoid but at the same time no one wants another country to dominate that arena so theres an enivitable tendancy towards insecurity and competition. Agreeing not to enter this arena is in everyones interest.
 
MrVicchio said:
Not allowing yourself to get a gun while the other guy has no such constraint is the recipe for death.
Click to expand...
Not allowing others to own guns either would be part of the deal.

Like I said, this is all assuming a majority of the major powers are in agreement with this. If we are alone in not wanting to build weapons in space then we will be forced to build weapons in space.
 
talloulou said:
Good idea. Then if ever an astroid is hurling towards us we won't be able to do **** about it.
Click to expand...

Bruce Willis will just have to get more creative the next time he needs to stop an asteroid.
 
Red_Dave said:
Historical precedence would surgest that Russia and China would follow the ban as its in their interest to do. Even during the Cold War America and Russia agreed to limit the production of certain types of weapons because spending a **** load of money on the arms race wasnt helping either side. So in a situation with alot less tension such as todays you would expect the same to happen.

The huge amount of money that weapons in space would necesitate is in everyones interest to avoid but at the same time no one wants another country to dominate that arena so theres an enivitable tendancy towards insecurity and competition. Agreeing not to enter this arena is in everyones interest.
Click to expand...

I agree.... But, recently China made a grandous display of its ability to knock satellites out of the sky! Make no mistake. This was a message to our military that our non lethal military systems are vulnerable, even in space. This a major concern of our military which has recently invested so much on high-tech communication and battle management systems where satellites are likely a major player of combat command and intelligience.

Space has many advantages as it is the soverign territory of no country. Satellites can easily spy, eavesdrop, relay data, send data, or receive data, and provide immensly significant intel on countries all from the safety of space. As these systems become more complex countries will need ways to counter such technology during conflict. Weaponized satellites, for defense or offense, seem inevitable as the advantages of space systems increase. That is, such technology is too powerful to leave intact for your enemy to utilize freely.
 
Gibberish said:
Not allowing others to own guns either would be part of the deal.

Like I said, this is all assuming a majority of the major powers are in agreement with this. If we are alone in not wanting to build weapons in space then we will be forced to build weapons in space.
Click to expand...

Hehehe, you're as naive as Obama if you think a piece of paper will keep potential enemies from exploiting this weakness.

The greatest threat to our military strength is the loss of our communication, navigation and spy sats. Everyone knows this, and only a foolish country would say "Yeah, hey we'll agree not to create space based weapons."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom