BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Jul-15-1999 10:30
pmText Copyrighted by James Patrick Holmes
To:ALL #66.1 1 of 10next
If, at the present time, the policy-makers of the
world's militaries rule that they attack unknown
craft in the earth's skies, then we are showing
to the rest of the universe the barbaric and
hostile nature of our civilization. Are we
sending them messages to come and then attacking
From:xxxxxx Jul-16 12:30 am To:BlueHummingbird
#66.2, in reply to 66.1 prev 2 of 10next
Alpha Illuminatis is actually going to attack a
remote alien planet using alien UFO technology.
(BLUEHUMM) Jul-19 12:20 am
To:xxxxxx #66.3, in reply to 66.2 prev 3
I hope not. Surely any sane person can see that
it would be impossible to win a war against
extraterrestrials with all their technology. Why
then start one? And, I hope they are not now
deploying SDI WEAPONS IN SPACE; or if they
already have, to stop and disable them. Weapons
in space were outlawed a long time ago.
Anyway, I don't think that earthlings could pose
any real threat to extraterrrestrials, since they
have been monitoring our actions for so long and
probably have the ability to override any command
made and turn our weapons back on ourselves.
Just tested, Saturday, Oct.2, - a "star wars defense" -
The Raytheon-built Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, carried aloft on a booster rocket, successfully destroyed a Minuteman missile over the Pacific.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-9 3:51 am
#66.13, in reply to 66.12
I think that "exoatmospheric kill vehicles" are a very bad idea. What if this should escalate, and nation competed against nation to put weapons in the skies? Don't you think that weapons in space should be banned?
I wouldn't like a particle beam weapon in orbit above my head. (Uh, please be careful where you point that thing.)
From: xxxxxxxxx Oct-20 4:12 am
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM)
#66.18, in reply to 66.11 prev 18 of 24next
AND DID THE KILL VEHICLE SURVIVE???
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-20 4:07 pm
#66.21, in reply to 66.18 prev 21 of 24next
I don't know. I would think it is in orbit right now. It must be an expensive piece of equipment. An "exoatmospheric kill vehicle" is a euphemism for "space weapon."
#66.22, in reply to 66.21 prev 22 of 24next
What I've read at most sites says that the kill vehicle runs into the missile. This is different than what I remember seeing before about this program's goals. I think they might be using particle beams to achieve the kill. (Maybe not, but spaced-based lasers are the next step in this program.)
From: xxxxxxxxx Oct-24 1:19 am
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM)
#66.23, in reply to 66.22 prev 23 of 24next
alright yall must not read the newspaper. some time in august i read this on the front page of usa today, we(america) have 3 "official" 747's that carry around 1 laser a piece. this laser can shoot down a missile(of any kind) over the horrizon at 50,000 ft in the air the beem has guidance mirrors at the end of the "barrel" as the laser shoots through the atmosphere it sends back signals to move the laser and keep it on course. the laser is 18 in at its base and 54 in at the end or target. they fire the lasre at the target and it takes appox. five minutes to blow the missle out of the air. why waste money with a machine you could only use once when you have cool play toys like that???
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-24 2:59 am
To: xxxxxxxxx unread
#66.24, in reply to 66.23 prev 24 of 24
my point exactly.... but the next step is orbiting lasers!
Yeh, right! "play toys"
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-24 9:01 pm
#56.1 1 of 2next
I was interested to see if anyone had opinions on the "exoatmospheric kill vehicle" that was successfully tested on October 2nd. And, of the misinformation about it.
And, also about the next step in this "Star Wars" defense, which is orbiting lasers. Why don't I find anyone concerned over this? Don't you find weapons in space to be a monstrous event?
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 3:59 pm
#56.3, in reply to 56.2 prev 3 of 3
This looks to me like it could be the start of a military coup of all the world's governments.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-26 3:56 pm
#56.9, in reply to 56.6 prev 9 of 11next
And, if such a battle should ever take place (between SDI weapons and nuclear warheads), then I think the fallout alone would have catastrophic effects upon the earth and it's inhabitants. But, why are they called defensive only and not also offensive weapons?
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
I think you are vastly underestimating the abilities and potential of these weapons.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-28 11:00 pm
#56.14, in reply to 56.13 prev 14 of 15next
I agree that this enormously expensive program is useless for the purpose stated - defense in case of all-out nuclear war, though it may be useful against a lone missile. I'm looking for the other purposes not stated. This policy is pushing us towards a new arms race, one the US would probably win, but not the outcome we might wish. It is also an abrogation of the previous ABM treaty, leaving us with no real treaties at all.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 4:40 pm
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) unread
#56.24, in reply to 56.14 prev 24 of 24
Now I see what the purposes of these EKVs and laser satellites are - They are to destroy enemy satellites!
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-5 11:22 pm
#2219.132, in reply to 2219.131 prev 132 of 136next
To me the world seems a lot less safe now that we have no treaties and weapons are being placed in space.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 12:35 am
#2219.135, in reply to 2219.133 prev 135 of 136next
Maybe I should have said a lot more dangerous. What's the difference?
Anyway, now we are in the process of putting up satellites that can destroy other satellites easily. And, the rest of the world has to watch and try to prepare themselves also. I'm sure Russia must be very nervous if it thinks we will take out their satellite communications. They have lots of nuclear warheads too and are no longer constrained by these negated treaties. And so the stakes are raised in this deadly game. Weapons in space and no treaties are definitely not making the world safer.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 1:05 am
#56.26, in reply to 56.25 prev 26 of 29next
This escalation looks to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of self-destruction. Russia will probably put nuclear weapons in orbit, if they haven't already. The US will put up more laser satellites until...
Guess I'm a pessimist after all. I don't know if any treaty will help.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-9 2:14 pm
#56.29, in reply to 56.27 prev 29 of 29
Nuclear weapons dropped from space take less than half the time, and you might not see one coming. Maintenance in a short period of time would not be needed.
EKVs and laser satellites would also be able to strike precise targets on earth without resorting to nuclear devices.
I think we need to keep weapons out of space.
Edited 11/9/99 5:46:17 PM ET by BLUEHUMM
The Pentagon and the President must think that the Russians will do nothing. I don't think that's likely. But this was no surprise to many people, since it's been in the works for so long. Only now it's here.
Edited 11/9/99 10:34:24 PM ET by BLUEHUMM
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-13 4:09 am
#2219.151, in reply to 2219.146 prev 151 of 154next
Treaties are not to be taken lightly. They are binding oaths. We need a verifiable and enforceable treaty to KEEP WEAPONS OUT OF SPACE
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 1:21 am
#2219.154, in reply to 2219.153 prev 154 of 154
You would have to have inspectors at all space launches to check the payload. Noncompliance might lead to war, but there are other methods to punish nations, and satellites can be brought down by some of the weapons we have that are earth-based or attached to jet airplanes (lasers for example). Filling the skies with satellite weapons will not make us more secure. We would not be able to defend ourselves well with this "Star Wars" shield. It is very expensive yet couldn't keep all missiles out. Even if it did destroy many missiles, that debris will fall to earth sooner or later - catastrophic in itself.
There are many means of the delivery of death from space. Even balloons could carry deadly weapons into our skies. But, this shield (SDI or THAAD) is not likely to help much. In fact, it encourages more weapons in space and a stronger attack and the option of an all-out first-strike. A new arms race in space is the road that we are on
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-22 11:37 pm
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) (9 of 33)
1703.9 in reply to 1703.1 prev next
Well it's been a week almost now, and there has been no second to the motion. So, for now, I see I stand alone.
I move that it be left on the table pending a second to the original motion. Is there a second to this new motion?
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-23 1:27 pm
To: xxx (21 of 33)
1703.21 in reply to 1703.10 prev next
<<"for it was only a matter of time before everyone had the new technology and the same order and same conflicts occured...">>
Now China has the same technology and the missiles to use it.
(Nukes and ICBMs at least)
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-23 9:51 pm
To: xxx (23 of 33)
1703.23 in reply to 1703.22 prev next
<<"It won't be long before the chinese spread the tech to their cronies and then our allies will all want nukes--this will fulfill the equalization of the world and create a more stable place.">>
"The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be." -"What is recent is easy to correct...Prevent trouble before it arises...Put things in order before they exist...The simplest pattern is the clearest... There is no greater misfortune than underestimating your enemy..." - Tao Te Ching
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-24 11:21 pm
To: xxx (27 of 33)
1703.27 in reply to 1703.26 prev next
Because now, due to this escalation of the arms race, nation will probably compete against nation to put weapons in space. (Satellites with laser beams against drones armed with nuclear warheads?)
What I don't understand is why weapons in space are so easy for people to accept, or why they think it is necessary.
From: xxx Nov-24 11:45 pm
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) (28 of 33)
1703.28 in reply to 1703.27 prev next
why is this different from, say, the race to develop naval warships or fighter planes? It isn't.
again, why are people so ready to accept planes in the air. Planes in the _AIR_!!! OH my! What hawe come to!
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-25 3:16 am
To: xxx (30 of 33)
1703.30 in reply to 1703.28 prev next
It is much different. Never before have weapons been used above the earth in this way as far as I know. But, this was their plan 40 years ago and they stuck to it, even though it has this fatal flaw.
And, the fatal flaw means self-destruction, and/or mutual destruction.
The risks are much higher. The existence of this planet is at stake. And, this is no joke.
We held a delicate balance for many years, but now all bets are off around the world.
If only you could ask Einstein. (He might say you people need to find a better way to settle your differences.)
From: xx Nov-25 7:55 pm
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) (31 of 33)
1703.31 in reply to 1703.9 prev next
We are on the verge of a Pax-Americana. America is not hostile, yet at the same time, America is strong enough to deter aggression.
Give the US military all they want to keep the peace. If they need apple trees on the moon, let's start moving fertilizer.
Weapons in the hands of good people causes peace
From: xxx Nov-25 11:17 pm
To: xx (32 of 33)
1703.32 in reply to 1703.31 prev next
I couldn't of said it better (or at least i don't feel like trying)
Also, BB is missing the point. Every time a new plane of warfare has emerged the same exact objetions that you bring up were brought up. This is the third of fourth time i have siad this...
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 12:58 am
To: xxx (33 of 33)
1703.33 in reply to 1703.32 prev
Kinda like the boy crying "wolf", huh? Now, it's at the door.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-27 12:36 am
To: xxx (35 of 39)
1703.35 in reply to 1703.34 prev next
Well, at least you are comfortable with weapons in orbit. I won't like having laser beam satellites and nuclear weapons starting to fill the skies above my head. Without a treaty to stop it, that is our future.
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Dec-9 1:18 am
To: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) (36 of 39)
1703.36 in reply to 1703.9 prev next
Well from the response (or lack of it), I guess the American public is confident that laser weapons in space will help save them and that they also feel comfortable with weapons in orbit. (hmmm. This could be the start of something big.)
How does the rest of the world feel about this?
Anyway, if the North Koreans or some other country were to send a nuclear missile to the US, what do you the the US would do? Our military would probably make that country a nuclear wasteland. What country do you think would provoke such an attack?
I'm not saying that we should not develop the science, just that we shouldn't deploy weapons in space. It sets a bad precedent. And, let's not let anyone place weapons in space. That's what those "out-dated treaties" (to quote George W. Bush) are for, to try to establish a peaceful world.
All too many people can sit in their houses and say "let's go to war", thinking they will be fortunate and that it will not harm them but someone else. In the event of a next world war, it would be probable that there would be few survivors.
Many times I think that if I were God I would not have created the human race. And, that thought is also shown in Genesis 6:5&6: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." But, the God did create mankind for His own purpose and now harvest time is near.
What some people don't seem to perceive is that life itself is worth more than money, and money can't replace it. But across the earth as a whole, life seems cheap and of low esteem, and the rich own the lives of the poor. Without money life is generally despised. Money is almost everything in our society. People need it to survive. The National Missile Defense is now estimated at costing over $100 billion. I guess you know already, or I should warn you, that money seems to be the only thing that matters across America and most the rest of the world, but with the love of money comes greed and corruption. "Must you value what others value, and fear what others fear?"
"And he (Jesus) said unto them, Take heed and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:15 KJV
And, what is the conscience of a nation that will spend many billions of dollars on weapons of destruction, but causes their own people to become homeless and leaves them to starve to death? It's a sad commentary on society when the rich get richer by destroying the poor and leaving the earth a barren desolate waste. From what I've heard, it's always been a "dog eat dog" world where violence and the threat of violence are all anyone understands. And, I'm not foolish enough to think that people will change soon. Many people feel that they will advance themselves by treading all over someone else, and history has proven them right many times. There must be about a billion petty tyrants in the world today, but it doesn't have to be that way. And, there are many mindless sheep who never question the veracity or authority of the words of those who derive their power from money.
Americans dropped the ball on freedom when during WWII our military adopted the policies and tactics of the Nazis in order to beat them at their own game. In 1947, Americans gave up their right to know what was going on when the National Security Act was passed. Soon after Roswell, when they saw the lasers and advanced technology, the "Illuminati" decided to make treaties to delay development by other countries and came up with the "Star Wars" plan when they would abandon all treaties. The CIA didn't like JFK, so they assassinated him. Bill Clinton was the last elected President of the United States when he left office and George W. Bush was put into office by the Supreme Court. You have lost the right to have your votes count. And, Americans, knowingly or unknowingly, have agreed to all this. Now we have Homeland Defense - another exchange of power - freedom for security. Although seeking to punish the US, Bin Laden has given Bush the gift of limitless, unending war.
It's very possible that extraterrestrials caused the failure of that test in 2000 by putting a field around the circuit board so that the EKV did not receive the signal to deploy, but I don't expect that even that would stop those who are creating this new technology of warfare.
I don't have any hope for peace on earth until Jesus returns either.
At TalkCity Discussions: (closed)
As you may know, the military successfully tested an "Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle" on Oct. 2, 1999. The next step in this program is to place laser beam weapons in orbit (in defiance of our treaty). I was wondering if this is of concern to any of you. Weapons in space would seem to me to make the world an even more dangerous place.
At Space.com: A SPACE DEFENSE FORCE ???
SIGN ONLINE PETITON:
Stop Star Wars Petition Online (closed)
At BlueHummingbird News (msn community, closed):
Go to Archives
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 the control of these orbital weapons? Do you expect world leaders to be in agreement on this?
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.
Headline: 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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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 war?
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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. IMHO, this certainly raises the risks.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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 late.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 5/1/2001 6:59 PM
Another scenario 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?
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 5/3/2001 12:43 AM
Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to China. How many ICBMs can they build or buy before his star 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 is on.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 5/25/2001 6:17 PM
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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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 shoot it down.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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 of them.
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... You should not underestimate any country's (China, Russia, etc.) reaction. The technology can be 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?
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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.
From: BlueHummingbird, Sent: 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 Treaty.
Re: NMD & Defense Dept Priorities wp_h
by: spacedcowboy2 06/27/02 10:55 am
Msg: 1400 of 1401
>>"We must deal with today's problems as they exist today. And that includes defense against Ballistic Missiles."<<
So to counter a threat that doesn't yet exist (a missile from NKorea, Iran, or Iraq) with a multi-billion dollar system that won't work, we have to enrage a country that does have the capability (meaning China) and start an arms race that actually lessens global security? We beat the drum for war when we needed to look for peaceful solutions to global problems. It was so nice, from the Bush administration's perspective, for Bin Laden to attack America. Now Bush's vision of a security state with him at the helm is assured, and his cronies use this to get money and power while the nation goes bankrupt. Why didn't they get Osama when he was at Tora Bora? Because they can use him to get people to back Bush and the heck with the American way of freedom and democracy?
Imagine this, China and Russia let the US spend itself into debt and use our resources chasing Muslim terrorists all over the world, doing a job for them that they approve. (And you can throw into the mix the USA going to war against Iraq to overthrow Hussein and take over his oil fields.) Then the US builds a worthless NMD and when the US puts up space lasers, they make their own pre-emptive strike with hundreds of nuclear missiles and then we see the real test of our anti-missile defenses. When hundreds of cities and bases in the US are gone there won't be much use for the military except revenge and to try to restore order in our country in the aftermath. (And with Russia having all those nuclear missiles, who's to say that they will not target them towards the destruction of China's enemies, on their behalf?)
(I don't know, but the way things are going, I expect that the US will be at war with the entire Muslim world and China very soon ... Out of all that I've written on this site, just these words here by themselves should at least be worth more than money. But why say anything more? Even if US troops kill a billion Muslims and then get their asses handed to them in a basket by the 2 million man Chinese army and America lies in ruins, who cares? So go ahead on with your bad selves and excuse me if I sound a bit sarcastic. Just don't say that I didn't warn you. I've heard many people say, how could a good God let this or that happen? I think the Creator God has judged mankind and found them to be completely worthless, and will let mankind destroy themselves in their own stupidity. But if the God were to destroy all the rich, arrogant oppressors and all the wicked sinners, it would be entirely justified. And, that's why there is a "lake of fire" among other things mentioned in the scriptures, for man has a spirit as well as a body and mind.)
(Last Edited July 2002)
News from the Associated Press:
Russia, China Make New Push To Ban Arms in Space Over U.S. Objections
By Clare Nullis
posted: 02:50 pm ET
27 June 2002
"GENEVA (AP) _ In a challenge to Bush administration plans for a missile defense shield, China and Russia on Thursday submitted a joint proposal to the Conference on Disarmament for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space _ a plan rejected by the United States.
``Outer space is faced with the danger of weaponization and an arms race,'' said Chinese ambassador Hu Xiaodi, presenting the text to the 66-nation body. ...
``We support the urgent adoption today of all measures possible in order to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space, rather than waste subsequently huge efforts and resources to have it ``de-weaponized,'' said Russian ambassador Leonid Skotnikov. ...
In a speech to the conference, U.S. negotiator Eric M. Javits reiterated Washington's resistance to any type of new regime on outer space.
``The United States sees no need for new outer space arms control agreements and opposes the idea of negotiating a new outer space treaty,'' he said.
The United States denies that it is planning to put weapons in space. ..."
If capitalism and competition are the only way to survive, then it is in the best interest of the rest of the world to kill, rob, rape, pillage and destroy America and Americans preemptively before Americans do it to them. And no American could fault them for doing so. Hasn't it been that throughout the entire barbaric history of the human race that to the victor belong the spoils? And so, the motto of the human race has been "Do unto others before they do it to you." That still seems to be the basis of the entire modern "civilized" world, but cooperation just might be a better way.
It's no wonder that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations would not be willing to share their technology with us. It is too powerful to be entrusted to warlike human beings. Mankind would surely destroy themselves and the earth we live on with the knowledge we have now. Poor feeble-minded human race!
- October 9, 2002 [edited 2003]