Re: [Marxism] Star wars

[James Essig <jessig22000@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bush's space initiative appears to be an election year attempt to negate the 
idea that he lacks vision for the country. (Certainly, he appears unready to 
waste a great deal of money on it.)  But it may be more than that.  And worse.

A real danger exists that the US intends to militarize space.  I will try to 
write a longer post later, but I will provide just a few cites and comments.

 According to an article by Kevin Bonsor called "How Space Wars Will Work, he 
comments that the U.S. Space Command's Vision for 2020 report recommends "that 
space weapons must be developed to protect U.S. satellites, and other space 
vehicles, as other countries develop the ability to launch spacecraft into 
space."  China's entry into space, especially, is causing concern.


And in an article, reprinted by Alternet 
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17329, Bill Berkowitz notes that 
Lieutenant General Edward Anderson, a deputy commander of US Northern Command 
told an audience at a geospatial intelligence conference in New Orleans that 
war in space is inevitable.  And two years ago, "he told the House Armed 
Services Committee that 'We must prepare now to ensure our continued access to 
space and deny space to others if necessary.'"



Similarly, "in 1996, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy, 
was quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology: 'Some people don't want to 
hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but-absolutely ? we're going to fight in 
space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. . . 
. We will engage terrestrial targets someday ? ships, airplanes, land targets ? 
from space.'



A year later, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space, Keith R. Hall, 
speaking at the National Space Club said, 'With regard to space dominance, we 
have it, we like it and we're going to keep it.'"

Bruce Gagnon has written a more recent article for the Global Network Against 
Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space called "Bush Plays With Fire: Launching a 
Dangerous Space Policy."  
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/bush_plays_with_fire.htm  He 
observes that "The U.S. never signed the 1979 Moon Treaty that was created at 
the United Nations to prevent a rush of land claims and military bases on the 
planetary body."

The moon could be an extremely effective military base from which to launch 
missiles against targets on earth.  Talk about taking the high ground!

In addition, the moon may well have valuable resources.  Gagnon points out that 
"Scientists have discovered valuable resources on the moon including helium 3, 
a fuel that is seen as a replacement for the dwindling supply of fossil fuels 
back here on Earth.  In a New York Times op-ed, written by science writer 
Lawrence Joseph in 1995, he says that ?If we ignore the potential of this 
remarkable fuel; the nation could slip behind in the race for control of the 
global economy, and our destiny beyond....

"Again in a New York Times op-ed piece called ?A New Pathway to the Stars,? 
space writer Timothy Ferris wrote on December 21, 2003 that ?Another possible 
energy source of the future ? nuclear fusion reactors burning clean, safe 
helium 3 ? has its own lunar connection.  Helium 3, rare on Earth, is abundant 
on the moon."

The space initiative is clearly an election year gimmick.  But the danger is 
that it may be more than that.

Tom O'Lincoln <suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It would be interesting to know what listers think about George Bush's
announcement of a new space program. I assume that it's partly to create a
feel-good effect for the election, of course.

In Australia I get the impression it will be used to give a warm and fuzzy
gloss to "Missile Defence". Last night on TV this news item was the
occasion to run old footage of Kennedy announcing the plan to go to the
moon.

I expect we will be torn, as we have in some earlier debates, here, between
opposition to the undoubted military agenda behind it and sympathy for the
undoubted genuine scientific spin-offs.

There is also the environmental side perhaps. My almost immediate thought
when Bush talked about going to Mars was: "what's the rush, we haven't
finished wrecking this planet yet".

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism