West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Matrix Heart on May 20, 2005, 07:47:48 AM
-
Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the US put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official.
According to a New York Times report yesterday, the Bush administration was moving towards implementing a new space policy that would move the US closer to placing offensive and defensive weapons in space. Russia, China and many US allies oppose any weaponisation of space, partly out of concerns that it would lead to an extremely expensive post-cold war arms race.
Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.
In an interview yesterday, Mr Yermakov emphasised that Russia's priority was to solve the problem diplomatically. Russia has voluntarily declared that it will not be the first country to place weapons in space in an effort to encourage the US to move away from space weaponisation.
Force is "not a subject for discussion right now", Mr Yermakov said. "It depends on what happens, and why it happens, upon what agreements we have with the US government, and what understandings we have with the US government."
He added: "Our policy is not to create situations that would lead [to] confrontation. If we don't find such understandings with the US government, and we find ourselves in a situation where we need to react, of course we will do it."
The White House denied that President George W. Bush was about to sign a new directive on space policy that would permit the weaponisation of space.
"The US has no intention to weaponise [space]," said a senior administration official. "The policy review was not initiated at the request of the air force or the department of defence, and the policy, while not yet finalised, would not represent a substantial shift in American policy."
Any new policy would replace a 1996 policy implemented by the Clinton administration calling for a less militaristic approach to space. The 1967 treaty on outer space prevents countries from putting only weapons of mass destruction in space. Other countries are concerned that some of the weapons being considered by the US could be considered new types of WMD.
One weapon the air force would like to develop is the Common Aero Vehicle, which would give the US the ability to launch precision-guided strikes at any point on the globe within a short time frame. The internal US debate over whether the Pentagon needs to put weapons in space gained momentum in 2001 following the conclusions of a commission that warned of the possibility of a "space Pearl Harbor" that could destroy US commercial and military satellites.
"If the US is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor', it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on US space systems," said the commission, which was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld before he became US defence secretary.
The commission's report concluded that the US needed "superior space capabilities" to prevent and defend against hostile acts "in and from space".
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3b1030dc-c804-11d9-9765-00000e2511c8.html (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3b1030dc-c804-11d9-9765-00000e2511c8.html)
-
if it's true, then fuck bush for trying to control/intimidate the world..
the only positive i see of this if some crazy ass martians decide to invade...
i wouldnt be surprised if there already are missiles in outer space...
-
Long Live Russia
-
Russia would get stomped too....NEXT!
they should bring on some aliens, they're the only ones that can challenge the US
-
If you fuck with russia you fuck with china. America knows better than to do that. They might be US allies but that doesnt mean that they like America
-
Watch out tho, Poland has USA's back.
-
once agian, you guys need to know the pecking order of things... if i were to rank the world's military, it would look something like this
1. US
2. US
3. US
4.China
down the list is russia
-
once agian, you guys need to know the pecking order of things... if i were to rank the world's military, it would look something like this
1. US
2. US
3. US
4.China
down the list is russia
What are you gonna do when your computers are not working :D and you can't play Star Wars :o
-
once agian, you guys need to know the pecking order of things... if i were to rank the world's military, it would look something like this
1. US
2. US
3. US
4.China
down the list is russia
What are you gonna do when you computers are not working :D and you can't play Star Wars :o
don't know what you're talking about but i think you're trying to convey what you feel when you've run out of dipset pictures to look at... i've never been taht depressed though so i can't say what would happen
-
once agian, you guys need to know the pecking order of things... if i were to rank the world's military, it would look something like this
1. US
2. US
3. US
4.China
down the list is russia
What are you gonna do when you computers are not working :D and you can't play Star Wars :o
don't know what you're talking about but i think you're trying to convey what you feel when you've run out of dipset pictures to look at... i've never been taht depressed though so i can't say what would happen
lmao your weak
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/starwars.html
-
man if the us goes down. the world goes down with us... there's no surviving...so i'm not worried about when that time comes
and i know it was weak, i'm sorry to make you thinkg of bad days like that
-
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
-
once agian, you guys need to know the pecking order of things... if i were to rank the world's military, it would look something like this
1. US
2. US
3. US
4.China
down the list is russia
Well either way, i know bush dosen't want no war against china or russia...millions of lives are going to be lost...huge casualities on both sides...this aint fucking iraq we talkin about...
-
^^ thats right, if U.S goes into all out war with russia it's the end, U.S knows better than that... or do they ?
-
^^ thats right, if U.S goes into all out war with russia it's the end, U.S knows better than that... or do they ?
lets hope they do..
-
no major war is going to happen for a long time. First of all, US knows better than to go against a top superpower. Second, everyone knows that it all over if one nuke goes off and if war starts there is always a possibility of nukes.
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
smart guy ::)
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
smart guy ::)
And that means what to me? Do you think there are actually REAL stats about how many missiles any country has? You are gullible.
-
Shit would be like Star Wars...
-
Russia would get stomped too....NEXT!
they should bring on some aliens, they're the only ones that can challenge the US
what you need to know is that there are a few countries in the world that have the potential to destroy the United States. Victory by nuclear power is IMPOSSIBLE. Russia, China, France, Israel, Britain, and others have enough nuclear silos to survive a nuclear attack by the U.S. that they could launch and destroy washington D.C. in a minute. The U.S. would never take that chance. This is called Mutual Second Strike capability. Russia has about 7,000 nuclear warheads, The U.S. about 9,000 and China has about 500. These countries would never use nuclear force against each other because it would be an almost 100 percent chance that the aggressor would be destroyed, even if he attacks first - because of the amount of weapons each country has. For this reason, the U.S. goes to war with little countries, where it doesn't need to use nuclear powers, and thus maintains dominance of the world. I'm starting to think that the main reason we ever went to Iraq was dominance of territory. We can't let China, Russia, or anyone else fuck with our world empire.
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
smart guy ::)
And that means what to me? Do you think there are actually REAL stats about how many missiles any country has? You are gullible.
It works both ways 10,000 - 20,000 - 30,000 we're dead either way.
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
smart guy ::)
And that means what to me? Do you think there are actually REAL stats about how many missiles any country has? You are gullible.
It works both ways 10,000 - 20,000 - 30,000 we're dead either way.
Okay...I was trying to make a point about something else, and you want to pick a fight about the amount of missles a country has. If the US does ever get in to a war with someone else with nuclear capabilities, it is going to be hand-to-hand combat from start to finish. I'll take it farther saying if anyone, the US, Russia, China, ect, tried using nukes in battle, the rest of the world would annihilate them.
So you keep worrying about false numbers the government wants you to believe while I'm over here wondering what kind of "feasible" force Russia is talking about.
-
I really want to know what kind of "force" Yermakov is planning. I'd like to see Russia try to invade. They'd land in Cali first. I'd like to see them try to secure south central.
But seriously, this whole deal is kind of stupid. The US has the most missles, nukes, ect...why piss everyone off and put them in space? Well, I'll tell you this right now, I am not looking forward to liberal reign in 2008, but Bush is a fool. Better than Kerry or Gore, but still a fool.
http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/Nuclear%20map.jpg
smart guy ::)
And that means what to me? Do you think there are actually REAL stats about how many missiles any country has? You are gullible.
It works both ways 10,000 - 20,000 - 30,000 we're dead either way.
Okay...I was trying to make a point about something else, and you want to pick a fight about the amount of missles a country has. If the US does ever get in to a war with someone else with nuclear capabilities, it is going to be hand-to-hand combat from start to finish. I'll take it farther saying if anyone, the US, Russia, China, ect, tried using nukes in battle, the rest of the world would annihilate them.
So you keep worrying about false numbers the government wants you to believe while I'm over here wondering what kind of "feasible" force Russia is talking about.
They would bomb Florida(Space Center) dumbfuck no hand to hand combat.