MSN Communities - BlueHummingbird News
Messages : National Missile Defense
Message 1 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbird (Original Message)Sent:
2/16/2001 1:22 AM
Feel free to voice your opinions on this matter or
to start a new discussion
Message 2 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 2/16/2001 11:11 PM
Message 3 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/13/2001 10:38 PM
I think that we've headed down a path that will
reach no satisfactory conclusion. In fact, I feel
that we have needlessly endangered the future of
mankind by starting a whole new arms race.
Message 4 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/18/2001 11:43 PM
Please visit the web journal that I have started
on this issue. The following was my first entry in
Date: 2/13/2001Headline: National Missile Defense
I don't think it likely that the development of
this new technology of warfare will be stopped
peaceably. It is highly popular in the United
States, but I think it sets a bad precedent to
place weapons in space.
We should have a treaty to keep
weapons out of space and not ignore it.
March 18, 2001: I heard a blurb on the CBS
Evening News last night that the Bush
administration had decided to back off a little
on this system since the science hasn't come
along as well as expected.
Message 5 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/29/2001 4:14 PM
Will US intransigence over a system that won't
work and hasn't yet been developed lead to world
Message 6 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/11/2001 10:20 PM
I think I will only post news clippings in the
web journal from now on. These are the next
messages that I posted there:
Let's consider that all the leaders of the world
go along with this plan to put a "defense"
system in space, who will be the ones who are at
thecontrol of these orbital weapons? Do you
expect world leaders to be in agreement on this?
Date: 2/14/2001Headline: NMD
What will this require of the NATO alliance -
for the European Union to have total
responsibility for the ones over their
territory? Will we give them to Russia and deny
them to China? Won't all the other nations want
something similar in orbit for "self-defense"?
Do we want to force the hand of the rest of the
world's militaries? If this goes forward, won't
it create a totalitarian one-world government
that is governed by the ones who are at the
controls of this machinery? I think only if it
doesn't start a nuclear world war. And then
what would be left? It would be strange if the
United Nations was silent on this issue.
Date: 2/18/2001Headline: Possible Scenarios?
Why turn back the recently-made progress in
world-wide relations? Isn't the hawkish stance
of the new administration seen as a threat by
Russia and China? What happened to "detente"?
Now who's to say if the old Soviet Union doesn't
reassemble, or that Russia doesn't form an
alliance with China? Once you get something
started, it's harder to stop it. This adds fuel
to a new arms race.
(You know that the only option for any nuclear
capable opponent is to rely on an all-out
surprise first strike. It's good to have a good
idea of what the odds and consequences are
before you head toward war over something.)
Message 7 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/21/2001 5:28 PM
You can see that my position on this then is that
the rhetoric for a missile defense system alone
could be enough cause for any country in the world
to start putting weapons in space, especially if
the ABM Treaty is abandoned and the US itself is
the first. And, that before any missile defense
could be fully operational the US could also be
bombarded by thousands of nuclear missiles in a
first strike attempt. Some other people might say
that war is inevitable.
Message 8 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/21/2001 5:36 PM
IMHO, this certainly raises the risks.
Message 9 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/30/2001 3:12 AM
I feel sorry that America looks like it will take
the military high ground and not the moral high
road by becoming the first to place weapons in
orbit and thereby threatening to take control of
space. This is not the process of agreement and
diplomacy, but that of war and subjugation. I hope
people will come to their senses before it's too
Message 10 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/1/2001 6:59 PM
Another scenerio might be that the Russians sell
nuclear missiles and more technology to China and
North Korea or others in Asia. It looks like an
arms race now to me. Can this so-called shield be
of any use?
Message 11 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 12:43 AM
Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to China. How
many ICBMs can they build or buy before his stars
wars weapons are ready? We don't even know that a
shield will work or do much good at all anyway.
Runners take your marks. Ready, set, go! The race
Message 12 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 12:58 AM
sorry for the typo the other day, i meant scenario.
Message 13 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 5:08 PM
When you place weapons in space, you are not
talking about a shield any more or even defense.
Lasers in orbit could attack any target on earth.
This would not be a shield but a cloak of daggers
over the earth.
Message 14 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/8/2001 1:11 AM
Message 15 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/9/2001 12:42 PM
(The page numbers change, so look for
Or, here's one:
Message 16 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/25/2001 6:17 PM
I use several aliases at yahoo. here's the latest post:
I think Bush wants to manufacture robots, drones,
and space lasers to fight wars for him. And when
the missiles start flying, he'll need the military
men and women to impose order on our own luckless
population under martial law.
Message 17 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/7/2001 9:52 PM
I see that old messages that I have links to will
be deleted. In the future I will not only give the
link to my messages, but also the content of them.
Message 18 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/13/2001 10:24 PM
I wonder what those three military shipments from
China to Cuba recently were. I guess our
satellites have the evidence. I hope they weren't
missiles. Not another Cuban missile crises, I
Message 19 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/13/2001 10:26 PM
shucks, another typo. i meant crisis, singular.
Message 20 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/17/2001 3:15 PM
U.S. to proceed on missile plan
Rice: Time to move past 72 ABM treaty
So I guess the "consultations" with our allies and
Russia are over. But, I'm sure we'll let them know
how things are going.
Message 21 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/25/2001 8:52 PM
What if any other nation did what the Bush
administration has done? What would we say if they
said they were going to place anti-missile systems
to counter our missiles anyplace on earth? What if
they said that they would be placing weapons in
space and taking control of the skies? Do you
think that it would rile any Americans? Would
Americans see it as a threat? ... a nuclear arms
race threatens the whole world, as does putting
weapons in space.
Message 22 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/17/2001 11:33 PM
Pentagon Presses Congress for Anti-Missile Support
By John Whitesides
Tuesday July 17 2:01 PM ET
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officials
warned Congress on Tuesday that failure to pay
fully for research on a missile defense system
could impair the administration's ability to
negotiate a new arms pact with Russia. ... "
This suggests to me that there will be no
negotiations and no new arms pact, just a limited
threat or bluff from this administration.
Message 23 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/18/2001 1:56 PM
Democrats Are Warned on Missile Stance
By JAMES DAO July 18, 2001
"WASHINGTON, July 17 Buoyed by a successful
antimissile test on Saturday, the Pentagon warned
Senate Democrats today that a protracted fight
over the administration's ambitious missile
defense plans would undermine President Bush's
effort to overhaul the 1972 Antiballistic Missile
Treaty in coming talks with Russia.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz said threats by the Democrats to cut Mr.
Bush's proposed $8.3 billion missile defense
budget would give Russian leaders "the mistaken
impression that they can somehow exercise a veto
over our development of missile defenses." ...
"The unintended consequence of such action could
be to rule out a cooperative solution, and leave
the president no choice but to walk away from the
treaty unilaterally" an outcome none of us surely
wants," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
The administration's first preference was to amend
or replace the treaty in talks with Russia.
Failing that, Mr. Bush would unilaterally withdraw
from the pact before the Pentagon broke any of its
provisions, Mr. Wolfowitz said.
With today's appearance, just days after a
prototype interceptor shot down a mock warhead 140
miles over the Pacific, Mr. Wolfowitz stepped up
the administration's efforts to confront Democrats
who strongly oppose swift deployment of missile
defenses, as many Republicans have urged. … "
So now this administration is going to blame the
democrats if or when Bush withdraws from the ABM
Message 24 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/19/2001 10:41 PM
I was just wondering about what would happen in
the future, if the Bush administration put up a
space-based weapon and the Russians or someone
else decided to shot it down.
Message 25 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/19/2001 10:43 PM
i mean shoot :) lol
Message 26 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 3:37 PM
From discussions at Yahoo! News - Message Boards:
....More anti-missiles for a missile defense just
means more missiles being prepared to launch as an
offense. And the US position of taking control of
space bodes nothing good for world relations. ...
that threatens everyone who is not in control of
this technology. ...
It seems there are a lot of people in America who
are comfortable with an arms race, throwing away
treaties, and weaponizing space. But, I'm not one
Space was supposed to be the last frontier, one to
be entered into without weaponry - as agreed by
most nations on earth. (Outer Space Treaty) This
is not just the beginning of a "limited missile
defense shield"; this is a line you shouldn't buy.
It is the start of an arms race in space - the
militarization of space. The US rulers seem to
think that it is a game which they will win, and
they seemingly don't care much about the
consequences to world peace. They want the right
to call down fire-power from the heavens too. NMD
is just the start, and you can call it anything
you like. Offense and defense are much alike. The
goal is control and conquest. ...
How hard could it be to overcome this "shield"? -
answer: not very...
Russia just tested a scramjet missile - according
to The Washington Times. You should not
underestimate either country's (China, Russia)
reaction. The technology is available to anyone,
once it appears. ...
The point is - who is going to take over control
of space and by that control of the whole world?
And, technology is sold to the highest bidder.
That's capitalism. Now Russia, China, N. Korea,
etc. have the incentive to upgrade all systems and
build new factories. We'll see how it turns out.
Will the US actually share power with other
countries if it controls space? And if this grand
plan fails, what then?
Message 27 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 5:38 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Message 28 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 5:50 PM
I deleted the previous message because the URL I used was too long.
maybe this is better
Message 29 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/4/2001 11:19 PM
"Military Chief Urges Space Weaponry - 08-01-2001
The United States' expanding commercial stake in
space makes it likely the military will be called
on to put both offensive and defensive weapons in
orbit, the Air Force's top general said Wednesday. "
Maybe now you know why it is important to the Bush
administration to get rid of these "old out-dated
relics" of treaties. Some of these treaties were
made to keep weapons out of space. For whoever
controls space militarily, rules the whole world
from on high - unless it starts a nuclear world war first.
Message 30 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/5/2001 4:34 PM
(Portions of) The Outer Space Treaty of 1967
RECALLING resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon
States to refrain from placing in orbit around the
earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from
installing such weapons on celestial bodies, which
was adopted unanimously by the United Nations
General Assembly on 17 October 1963,
Outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of
use or occupation, or by any other means.
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to
place in orbit around the earth any objects
carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of
weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons
on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in
outer space in any other manner.
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear
international responsibility for national
activities in outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies, whether such activities
are carried on by governmental agencies or by
non-governmental entities, and for assuring that
national activities are carried out in conformity
with the provisions set forth in the present
Message 31 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/7/2001 9:15 PM
I think having treaties to keep weapons out of
space is better than having weapons in space. It
just doesn't seem to me to be in the best
interests of the human race to escalate militarily
to an arms race in space. Nor does it seem
necessary to me for the US to become the sole
dictatorship of the world by taking military
control of space. It seems more likely than not to
lead to warfare and conflict. It could possibly
pit the US against all other nations. The Outer
Space Treaty of 1967 would have to be another
international treaty from which this
administration would have to withdraw.
Message 32 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/9/2001 5:13 PM
As far as communication satellites are concerned,
if it comes to warfare, I've heard that the
electromagnetic pulse from one nuclear explosion
in nearby space would be enough to take out a
whole constellation of satellites. That would
likely have to be the first of many nuclear
missiles launched in war, if it comes to that.
Message 33 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/13/2001 3:08 AM
Still arguing at yahoo! :)
Msg: 478 of 552
I would assume it would have to be more powerful
incentives than these for the Russians to withdraw
also from the ABM treaty. I would think they would
love to see the US flap in the breeze of world
opinion over this NMD plan. World opinion can be
(Sorry, I didn't keep the link to the article this
was in response to.)
Msg: 485 of 553
Nonsense? That is what the administration said
they wanted most, mutual withdrawal. I'd be
willing to bet that there will be no "Amendments
and Protocols" to the ABM Treaty. The debate will
only be that, a debate. Russia has proclaimed its
postion on this many times, and has made the
statements with other nations of the world. Like I
said, the US would have to offer some powerful
incentives for Russia to agree to the modification
of or the withdrawal from this treaty. Of course
this administration would go ahead anyway as they
have said; no matter of "world opinion" seems to
bother them yet.
Msg: 490 of 553
Like I said, they would have to have some powerful
incentives to abandon or change the treaty. What
incentives could the US give, and how would it be
in their best interests? If the US starts a new
arms race, one that will include space, how are
they negatively effected? The arsenal they have
now is a better defence against war than some
fanciful anti-missile defense.
Msg: 495 of 553
US unilaterism threatens Russia's strategic world
position, if it goes along. But doesn't if they
don't go along with the abandonment of the treaty.
They have enough nukes not to worry, unlike China.
They also have agreements with China and other
China's (oops, see correction below) premier just
visited a particle accelerator in Siberia. Lasers
and space weapons can be constructed by many
nations nowadays. The knowledge is common in
universities throughout the world. But space is
the last place we need to place weapons because it
is the most destablizing of all scenerios, unless
the whole world is in agreement on it. NMD is just
the start of the program, and it will take much
money and many years to be effective against any
likely assault from even a "rogue nation".
Counter-measures are much cheaper. Even China
could send two missiles with multiple warheads for
every unbuilt kill-vehicle. And again, don't
underestimate the wrath of world opinion even if a
few countries agree. Does the US want
world-dominance of a hostile populace?
Correction: Sorry, I think it was probably
NKorea's president who visited the particle
accelerator in Siberia. I couldn't find a link for
the article anymore, but maybe I could find it if
I searched around a bit.
Msg: 501 of 553
Once the treaty is gone, the step after getting
the ground-based anti-missile system is the sea
and space-based "anti-missile" systems, And, the
goal of controlling space militarily is
Msg: 503 of 553
The whole scheme is unworkable and bound to cause
more conflict. They should back out of this now
while they still can!
Msg: 547 of 553
MAD still exists. We can never get away from it
until all nuclear weapons are gone.
Msg: 549 of 553
Why I say this is that the consequences of any
nuclear war is liely to cause cataclysmic changes
and clouds of radiation. (Read the book "Alas,
Babylon" sometime.) Everyone knows no one wins in
a nuclear exchange. I guess though if humanity
wants to destroy themselves, they will.
Msg: 551 of 554
And, when do the real tests come using X-band
radar? The real tests are actual warfare and any
combination of any number of decoys, multiple
warheads, and multiple missile launches. And, what
if they detonate one in space first, destroying
all your satellite reconnaiscance at the outset?
Msg: 552 of 554
Seems to me the US has set out the doormat labeled
"trouble" and is begging anyone to walk across.
Message 34 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/14/2001 12:14 AM
"The emporer has no clothes." I don't see why it
is necessary for me to tell you the obvious.
Message 35 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/14/2001 12:18 AM
oops :) LOL, I meant "emperor."
Message 36 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/15/2001 12:42 AM
more on the previous thread at yahoo:
Msg: 568 of 577
Re: Russia is hurting
The Russians have said they are willing to
negotiate changes to the treaty, but the Bush
administration is in a hurry to withdraw from it
rather than waste time trying to modify it. The
Bush administration doesn't want to be held or
bound to any treaties, and want to start right
away on the missile shield.
Msg: 571 of 577
Like Bush said when he heard how many nuclear
warheads we have, "Why do we need so many?" It
doesn't take 14,000 nuclear warheads to destroy
the whole world.
Msg: 573 of 577
One thing I don't quite understand is that if an
arms race is supposed to be good for our economy
and we can afford many billion$s of debt to create
an NMD, why much small expenditures to maintain
their existing missiles and produce new technology
will ruin Russia's economy. I think Republicans
give to much credit to Reagan for the collapse of
the Soviet empire.
Msg: 577 of 577
How many warheads does a country need to wipe out
a civilization at once? It's not as many as we
each have now. The financial problem with that is
in the maintenance of the excess. These high
numbers of the current arsenals of warheads and
their delivery systems is a fallacy of deterrence
by numbers. If Russia and the US wanted to
annihilate each other - a thousand warheads each
would be overkill. They don't need more quantity,
And, by pushing this "Star Wars" program over
their objections, it only heightens the tensions
between the peoples of the nations and the
propostion that nuclear war might quickly become a
possibilty. And that their forces are aging would
seem to add to the notion of any urgency to that
Instead of forcing a missile defense on an
unwilling world, this administration should have
continued with the practise of diplomacy, as the
Clinton administration did. And not come off
looking like a blow-hard with nothing as of yet to
show for the reality of the working of this beast
of Star Wars.
Message 37 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/15/2001 12:50 AM
message board at space.com
If they are going to put weapons in space, then I
would guess that logically the space station
itself would be put to use as a weapon.
Message 38 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/19/2001 4:32 PM
This administration totally discounts the
Russians. They're getting ready for a war with
China. But first, they want to get a foot in the
door with a "few missiles" for a defense "shield".
When the number of missiles and budget grows
larger, they expect the citizens of the US to
accept that as a part of "security".
Message 39 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/22/2001 2:29 PM
The Bush administration would definitely have to
have an agreement with the Russians if they went
forward with the militarization of space. The
Russians, Chinese, or someone else could very
possibly highjack the weapon or just destroy it.
How are all countries in the world supposed to
agree to this prospect of space weapons? It seems
that war would be almost inevitable to break out
over this. And weapons in space would not be as
preventative as it will likely be billed as being,
but rather a provocation.
Message 40 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/22/2001 3:09 PM
Re: he who rules space rules the univer
08/20/01 06:06 pm
Msg: 589 of 633
So it's the "good guys" who throw away treaties
that have been created to keep peace?
And, it's the "good guys" who want to militarize
space and start a new arms race? And who looks
after the "good guys" to make sure they don't go
08/20/01 06:52 pm
Msg: 591 of 634
They say absolute power absolutely corrupts. It
will be even harder for the American public to
control anything once weapons start filling the
skies. The ones in control will be the ones who
control the space lasers, unless it all spirals
out of control and war starts over this.
08/20/01 08:43 pm
Msg: 592 of 634
They would definitely have to have an agreement
with the Russians if they went forward with the
militarization of space. The Russians, Chinese or
someone else could very possibly highjack the
weapon or just destroy it. How are all countries
in the world supposed to agree to this prospect of
08/21/01 08:57 pm
Msg: 606 of 634
I really don't see how war could be avoided
myself, if we deny the use of space to others and
are the first to break a long-standing taboo and
put weapons in orbit. I don't think many others in
the world could view it any other way than an evil
plot. :) The "good guys" or peacemakers would aim
to keep space free from weapons.
08/22/01 03:06 pm
Msg: 637 of 637
I agree that the technology and plans should be
developed to counter any threat to our interests
in space. But once you start to deploy weapons in
space, you breach the peace.
Message 41 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/23/2001 2:21 AM
08/23/01 12:39 am
Msg: 661 of 670
My point being that you can make all these plans,
but you'd better not implement them unless it is
necessary. I don't see any reason to yet, but the
threat of this heightens the chance and almost
08/23/01 01:53 am
Msg: 667 of 670
Of course I think the military-industrial complex
will manufacture the necessity.
08/23/01 02:01 am
Msg: 669 of 670
Throwing away treaties facilitates the military's
goals, but not that of the citizens.
Message 42 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/24/2001 12:41 AM
08/23/01 01:52 pm
Msg: 705 of 737
I'm not surprised either. I just think it is a
foolish plan that will lead to war. I would have
but a faint hope the rest of Congress can do
Message 43 of 43 in Discussion
From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/24/2001 7:45 PM
note: in msg #33, "populous" should be populace (so I changed it here).
To clarify what the American people want,
maybe we should call for a vote of confidence in
the administration of George W. Bush. Do we want
him to lead us into war with his dreams of space
weapons and defense missiles, and say to hell with
Sent: 5/19/2001 7:59 PM
If we don't care what the rest of the world
thinks, we'd better bring ALL our troups home from
overseas before they get kicked out.
Sent: 5/21/2001 3:57 PM
You don't think the rest of the world notices
the appearance. You Republicans say you want the
US to go it alone. That's a pretty stupid
strategy. One that leads to war.
Sent: 9/5/2001 2:17 AM
Actually, the double-speak from
this administration makes it unclear exactly what
they are thinking, except that their policy has
already been laid out. I only know it's not good
and hasn't been good. They think they own the
world and are not about to opt for cooperation
with our neighbors. It's the America first policy.
They are only looking to keep the upper hand and
dictate their own delusional policies to the
world. They are not preparing any options for
peace, but only the option of war.
More Messages - Next Page
Index of News Archive
News Articles: NMD and Foreign Policy
BACK to start of Space Weapons messages