• 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!

Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So, to all the people that whined and cried about Bush "militarizing space" with the NMD (and if you don't remember who you are, I do)...

What do you think about this?

Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Wait... let me guess...
This is different.
 
Goobieman said:
So, to all the people that whined and cried about Bush "militarizing space" with the NMD (and if you don't remember who you are, I do)...

What do you think about this?


Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Wait... let me guess...
This is different.
Click to expand...

Why the **** do we even need to go back to the moon. Been there once, ain't **** there. China can go look for themselves if they want. The moon is worthless. It would only be good for maybe longer maned flights since you don't need to break free of the earths gravity fully. But there's nothing there, no resources of any kind. So regardless, things would have to be shipped from Earth to the moon.

I think NASA needs to be divorced from the Executive branch.
 
Ikari said:
Why the **** do we even need to go back to the moon. Been there once, ain't **** there. China can go look for themselves if they want. The moon is worthless. It would only be good for maybe longer maned flights since you don't need to break free of the earths gravity fully. But there's nothing there, no resources of any kind. So regardless, things would have to be shipped from Earth to the moon.

I think NASA needs to be divorced from the Executive branch.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point...
 
Goobieman said:
So, to all the people that whined and cried about Bush "militarizing space" with the NMD (and if you don't remember who you are, I do)...

What do you think about this?


Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Wait... let me guess...
This is different.
Click to expand...

Two similar technologies operating completely separate from one another, that seems....wasteful. As long as he doesn't weaponize space (something he campaigned on) I see this as a good, logical change.

It is also a good way to match China's space initiatives without having to increase NASA's funding.

I see this as the difference between weaponizing space and preparing for weaponized space. If China continues with plans to target satellite warfare I expect Obama to respond as any reasonable person would.
 
shiznit770 said:
Two similar technologies operating completely separate from one another, that seems....wasteful. As long as he doesn't weaponize space (something he campaigned on) I see this as a good, logical change.
Click to expand...
Oh.... so, this IS different, as "Weaponizing" space and "militarizing" space are not the same thing.

Apparently, its OK to militarize space so long as that doesn't include weapons.

:roll:

Of course, this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I think you missed the point...
Click to expand...

No I got the point. I just see a bigger fundamental problem. That being NASA is controlled by the Executive. If the President says "I want a manned mission to Mars", NASA must work on a manned mission to Mars, regardless of the scientific credibility or feasibility of the project. Thus I think NASA should be divorced from the Executive and let the scientists worry about what to study. We'd get more done.

I think that combining NASA and the military would be horrible and couldn't lead to anything good. Plus I don't really think we should weaponize space. In the end, I think this is an effort for Obama to try to get back into some sort of race, in this case manned moon missions with China. But on that front, I don't see a point. There's nothing of value on the moon and we've already been there.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh.... so, this IS different, as "Weaponizing" space and "militarizing" space are not the same thing.

Apparently, its OK to militarize space so long as that doesn't include weapons.

:roll:

Of course, this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
Click to expand...

To use your phrase...

"I think you missed the point"

Allowing two organizations using similar technologies to share is not the same as militarization/weaponization. I did not mean to distinguish between the two or create a separate terminology for Obama.
 
shiznit770 said:
It is also a good way to match China's space initiatives without having to increase NASA's funding.

I see this as the difference between weaponizing space and preparing for weaponized space. If China continues with plans to target satellite warfare I expect Obama to respond as any reasonable person would.
Click to expand...

:rofl

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?
 
Ikari said:
No I got the point. I just see a bigger fundamental problem. That being NASA is controlled by the Executive. If the President says "I want a manned mission to Mars", NASA must work on a manned mission to Mars, regardless of the scientific credibility or feasibility of the project. Thus I think NASA should be divorced from the Executive and let the scientists worry about what to study. We'd get more done.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The president cannot simply direct NASA to start conducting research on whatever he likes. As you should already know, NASA cannot conduct such research unless it has the funding to do so. The President cannot and does not have the authority to reprogram appropriations made by Congress. Hence, Congress would have to authorize the expenditure of dollars on such a program and then appropriate the actual funding.

That you didn't know this kinda wrecks your credibility here.

I think that combining NASA and the military would be horrible and couldn't lead to anything good.
Click to expand...

Uh, your inability to think is irrelevant.

Plus I don't really think we should weaponize space. In the end, I think this is an effort for Obama to try to get back into some sort of race, in this case manned moon missions with China. But on that front, I don't see a point. There's nothing of value on the moon and we've already been there.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Obama is pursung some race to the moon? Or are you just, you know, talking off the cuff, again?
 
JMak said:
:rofl

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?
Click to expand...

Some people realize that the Cold War has lapsed and there are opportunities for diplomacy and peace.
 
shiznit770 said:
Allowing two organizations using similar technologies to share is not the same as militarization/weaponization. I did not mean to distinguish between the two or create a separate terminology for Obama.
Click to expand...
You said that "As long as he doesn't weaponize space..."

Sounds like you're trying to draw a distinction between that and 'militarization', which is, unquestionably, what you do when you couple NASA and DoD efforts.

And, again...this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
 
shiznit770 said:
Some people realize that the Cold War has lapsed and there are opportunities for diplomacy and peace.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything?

I'm asking you why you think the US should restrain herself and wait until after a threat emerges before "preparing" for such a threat?

BTW - why do you insist on completely (and deliberately, I think) misrepresent other poster's comments?
 
We've been "militarizing" space since Reagan, and it's not like Clinton shut it down.

I'm definitely for it. Since the begining, really, nations have depended on Navies to enforce their will abroad. It'd be nice if instead we could shuttle Marines in and out of mild escalations without being dependent on foreign bases and ships, though that's definitely a ways off.
 
So as we are in the "worst economy" since the depression, we need another trip to the moon? :lol:
 
Goobieman said:
You said that "As long as he doesn't weaponize space..."

Sounds like you're trying to draw a distinction between that and 'militarization', which is, unquestionably, what you do when you couple NASA and DoD efforts.

And, again...this then begs the question:
How does the NMD weaponize space?
Click to expand...

Who brought up NMD? If it sounds like I'm trying to distinction I'm sorry, I am not. How does coupling NASA and DoD efforts necessarily militarize/weaponize space?
 
JMak said:
What does this have to do with anything?

I'm asking you why you think the US should restrain herself and wait until after a threat emerges before "preparing" for such a threat?

BTW - why do you insist on completely (and deliberately, I think) misrepresent other poster's comments?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the mindset that you maintain even now. The philosophy you stand by fueled the Cold War. It is ridiculous to believe that weaponizing space will protect you from China or Russia.

Show me where I completely misrepresented another poster's comments and I'll apologize.
 
They are discussing the possibility of using military missiles as lauch vehicles. That's it. And yes, that is completely and utterly different than putting weapons in space
 
shiznit770 said:
Who brought up NMD?
Click to expand...
That's the issue under dicussion when people argue that Bush wants to militarize space.

If it sounds like I'm trying to distinction I'm sorry, I am not.
Click to expand...
So, why is it OK to militarize so long as you do not weaponize?
 
Goobieman said:
That's the issue under dicussion when people argue that Bush wants to militarize space.


So, why is it OK to militarize so long as you do not weaponize?
Click to expand...

Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
2 : to equip with military forces and defenses
3 : to adapt for military use

I guess I see your argument of semantics. Joining the two branches seems to give NASA more of a military character....but as I, and I think many others, understand it, the affinity to the term ends there.

Weaponization of space is what was spoken out against. If you look at the argument instead of focusing on the word I think you will see this.
 
shiznit770 said:
It has to do with the mindset that you maintain even now. The philosophy you stand by fueled the Cold War. It is ridiculous to believe that weaponizing space will protect you from China or Russia.
Click to expand...

I see. So you impute to me a "mindset" then decode everything I post via this mindset decoder ring you possess, and then post whatever pops out?

I simply asked you why the US should wait until after China prepares herself to prepare itself?

And your response it...I'm of the Cold War mentality and I don't get how ridiculous it is to believe that weaponizing space will protect me (an argument that I have not even made)?

You're intellectually dishonest.

Show me where I completely misrepresented another poster's comments and I'll apologize.
Click to expand...

I just did.

Well?
 
shiznit770 said:
Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
2 : to equip with military forces and defenses
3 : to adapt for military use

I guess I see your argument of semantics. Joining the two branches seems to give NASA more of a military character....but as I, and I think many others, understand it, the affinity to the term ends there.

Weaponization of space is what was spoken out against. If you look at the argument instead of focusing on the word I think you will see this.
Click to expand...
Aha.
So the militarization of space is, in and of itself, OK.
Its the weaponization that you disagree with.

So... how does the NMD weaponize space?
 
JMak said:
I see. So you impute to me a "mindset" then decode everything I post via this mindset decoder ring you possess, and then post whatever pops out?

I simply asked you why the US should wait until after China prepares herself to prepare itself?

And your response it...I'm of the Cold War mentality and I don't get how ridiculous it is to believe that weaponizing space will protect me (an argument that I have not even made)?

You're intellectually dishonest.

I just did.

Well?
Click to expand...

I need no decoder to see the Cold War mindset within you. It was apparent with your first post. I apologize that it is simply easier to give the example than explain to you again your line of reasoning's place in history.
 
Goobieman said:
Aha.
So the militarization of space is, in and of itself, OK.
Its the weaponization that you disagree with.

So... how does the NMD weaponize space?
Click to expand...

No, I simply said I agree that merging of the branches gives NASA somewhat of a military character to it. To most this does not necessarily militarize space. The logical mind would recognize that the characterization is not fitting.

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.
 
shiznit770 said:
I need no decoder to see the Cold War mindset within you. It was apparent with your first post. I apologize that it is simply easier to give the example than explain to you again your line of reasoning's place in history.
Click to expand...

So you just divine it?

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... :doh
 
shiznit770 said:
No, I simply said I agree that merging of the branches gives NASA somewhat of a military character to it. To most this does not necessarily militarize space.
Click to expand...
Didn't you provide:
Militarize
1 : to give a military character to
Click to expand...
As your primary definition of militarize?
Given that, how can you argue that it isnt 'really' militarization?

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.
Click to expand...
It doesnt use space any more than it has been used since the late 1950s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom