From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Jul-15-1999 10:30
#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 them?
From:xxxxxx Jul-16 12:30 am
#66.2, in reply to 66.1 prev 2 of 10next
Illuminatis is actually going to attack a remote alien planet using
alien UFO technology.
From:BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Jul-19
#66.3, in reply to 66.2 prev 3 of
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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-9 3:51 am
To: xxxxxxxx #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
I wouldn't like a particle beam weapon in orbit above my
head. (Uh, please be careful where you point that
From: xxxxxxxxx Oct-20 4:12 am To: BlueHummingbird
(BLUEHUMM) #66.18, in reply to 66.11 prev 18 of 24next
THE KILL VEHICLE SURVIVE???
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM)
Oct-20 4:07 pm To: xxxxxxxxx #66.21, in reply to 66.18 prev 21 of
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
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.)
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???
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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-24 9:01 pm To:
ALL #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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM)
3:59 pm To: xxxxxxxxxxxx #56.3, in reply to 56.2 prev 3 of 3
looks to me like it could be the start of a military coup of all the
BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Oct-26 3:56 pm To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx #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?
I think you are vastly underestimating the
abilities and potential of these weapons.
(BLUEHUMM) Oct-28 11:00 pm To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx #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
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
(BLUEHUMM) Nov-5 11:22 pm To: xxxxxxxxxx #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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 12:35 am To:
xxxxxxxxxx #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.
BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 1:05 am To: xxxxxxxxxxx #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 To:
xxxxxxxxxxx #56.29, in reply to 56.27 prev 29 of 29
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
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
Edited 11/9/99 10:34:24 PM ET by BLUEHUMM
BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-13 4:09 am To: xxxxx #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
BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 1:21 am To: xxxx #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.
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
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.
move that it be left on the table pending a second to the original
motion. Is there a second to this new motion?
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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-23 9:51 pm To:
xxx (23 of 33) 1703.23 in reply to 1703.22 prev next
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
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
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
From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-25 3:16 am To:
xxx (30 of 33) 1703.30 in reply to 1703.28 prev next
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.
the fatal flaw means self-destruction, and/or mutual
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.)
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...
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
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.)
does the rest of the world feel about this?
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. But, it doesn't have to be
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
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.
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.
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, 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.
It's very possible that extraterrestrials
caused the failure of the last test (2000), but I don't expect that
even that would stop those who are creating this new technology of
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.
PETITON: Stop Star
Wars Petition Online
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?