No one is signing an arms reduction treaty or giving up weapons while Russia has troops in Ukraine. That's an object lesson in relying on paper barriers that the whole world is watching.
I mean, true, but also, nobody is going to give up weapons while the US is kidnapping heads of state, launching decapitation strikes and invading a half dozen new countries.
Only direction this goes is towards escalation now. All for ego.
People like,Troy Meink, should never be allowed to speak on behalf of our future.
No country will ever trust a US led disarmament treaty. Unless entire population stands up to show we won't put up with this ever again. And that the military and leaders back the people's will.
I remembered the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as preventing militarisation of space. It turns out, not wholly. Celestial bodies (the moon, asteroids, etc) are out of bounds completely and are only for 'peaceful purposes'. For space itself, the ban is on WMDs, like nuclear weapons, in space anywhere.[0]
But the US has maintained a polite fiction that space is not weaponised/militarised. This is a break from that. The wording[1],
> The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.
is stated as 'That phrase was very well thought out.'. It looks like they're positioning it as purely defensive.
Which is allowed but being open about it legitimises the concept of weapons in space. It's worrying, and potentially destabilising. I expect they mean it as a deterrent but I frankly this it's irresponsible in that it invites an open presence from other countries too.
17 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] threadIf it worked both straits would be open yesterday.
People like,Troy Meink, should never be allowed to speak on behalf of our future.
No country will ever trust a US led disarmament treaty. Unless entire population stands up to show we won't put up with this ever again. And that the military and leaders back the people's will.
But the US has maintained a polite fiction that space is not weaponised/militarised. This is a break from that. The wording[1],
> The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.
is stated as 'That phrase was very well thought out.'. It looks like they're positioning it as purely defensive.
Which is allowed but being open about it legitimises the concept of weapons in space. It's worrying, and potentially destabilising. I expect they mean it as a deterrent but I frankly this it's irresponsible in that it invites an open presence from other countries too.
[0]: You can download a PDF here: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000... and the relevant section is Article IV.
[1] https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/us-...
(I can't read the FT link, paywall, but the FT is not a great source these days anyway.)