Blue Hummingbird

More discussions at Delphi forums:

On the Subject of Space Weapons:

I propose that the whole world ban weapons in space.
Is there a second to the motion?

From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Jul-15-1999 10:30 pm
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 them?

From:xxxxxx Jul-16 12:30 am
To:BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM)
#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.

From:BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Jul-19 12:20 am
To:xxxxxx
#66.3, in reply to 66.2 prev 3 of 10next

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 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 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 To: xxxxxxxxx #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."
BlueHummingbird

#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.)
BlueHummingbird

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 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 event?
BlueHummingbird

From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) 3:59 pm To: xxxxxxxxxxxx #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.
BlueHummingbird

From: 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?
BlueHummingbird

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
I think you are vastly underestimating the abilities and potential of these weapons.
Sincerely,
BlueHummingbird

From: BlueHummingbird (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 all.
BlueHummingbird

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!
BlueHummingbird

From: BlueHummingbird (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 space.

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.

From: 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.
BlueHummingbird

From: BlueHummingbird (BLUEHUMM) Nov-9 2:14 pm To: xxxxxxxxxxx #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.
BlueHummingbird
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 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

From: 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.
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
<<"WHY!!???">>

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
BB:<>
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
BlueH
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?

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 that way.

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?

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 warfare.


At TalkCity Discussions:
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.


SIGN ONLINE PETITON: Stop Star Wars Petition Online

New! BlueHummingbird News
Date: 2/14/2001
Headline: NMD

Story:
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?

Next Page - UFOs

Back to Page 4