U.S. Plans Global Weapons by 2025

[JMHX]

The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory.
Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq.

The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,988612,00.html

--

Now, does this bother anyone, or am I the only person who doesn't like the idea of the United States becoming a wholly self-sufficient global police state?

[Spike-J-Wolfwood]

It’s things like this that makes the rest of the world hate us. This is a preemptive act of aggression and makes everyone else either uncomfortable or trigger-happy.

I'm sure that pointing machines of death at other people will create an atmosphere of world peace. World peace being the peace in the world after everything in the world has been killed.

[Mr-Chuckles]

Leave it up to the US government to produce more tension in the world, leading to confilict, war, death.

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/2/03 02:54 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory.
Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq.
The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US).
------------------

Now, does this bother anyone, or am I the only person who doesn't like the idea of the United States becoming a wholly self-sufficient global police state?

it's scary mainly because America itself (at times) is already more liken to virtual police state (imho) and seeing this expanding by overwhelming dominance by decades of overspending on fairly unessasary military budgets which edge us ever closer to a reality only previously portayed in movies as dire moral warnings to future mankind!

[FUNKbrs]

how is this not the icbms we already have? I mean, we have already put nukes in orbit (whether we admit it or not). If anything this is a scaling down of present weapons towards smaller bombs from space, not a scaling up. Why do you think we did all that space crap? You don't really think that was purely to advance science do you?

[Goatchrist]

At 7/2/03 02:43 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: it's scary mainly because America itself (at times) is already more liken to virtual police state (imho) and seeing this expanding by overwhelming dominance by decades of overspending on fairly unessasary military budgets which edge us ever closer to a reality only previously portayed in movies as dire moral warnings to future mankind!

Yeah right!

And I agree with the other dudes that all countries would hate America more than they do today, because the would live under "Damokles Sword"(dunno if this is also the english word,sorry)

[FUNKbrs]

At 7/2/03 02:58 PM, KoRnFreakeR wrote: Yeah right!

And I agree with the other dudes that all countries would hate America more than they do today, because the would live under "Damokles Sword"(dunno if this is also the english word,sorry)

Nice mythology reference. Too bad the US has been able to drop nukes on any part of the planet since the 80's (that I can prove). The US being able to attack anywhere in the world in nothing new. Just now well have weapons that attack from afar that are a bit more....discerning. Nukes blow up a lot of shit, so we need long range weapons that are a little more specific in target area.

[Ted-Easton]

That would be interesting to hear FUNK. Make a new topic and describe this theory about the space-based nukes.

And I'd really like to hear the US government justification for doing this. What line are they using this time? Terrorism? National security? WMD?

[FreidanX]

My first thought was that the U.S. would probably go bankrupt/the world would end over the next 25 years but...

At 7/2/03 02:56 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: how is this not the icbms we already have? I mean, we have already put nukes in orbit (whether we admit it or not).

While it is most certainly true that the U.S. may already drop nukes anywhere on the planet... I agree with KornFreaker's sentiments that it is nonetheless... disconcerting. Once you have a fully instituted and publicized space-based nuclear weapon program, exactly how much more powerful and, most importantly, threatening can a nation get?

:If anything this is a scaling down of present weapons towards smaller bombs from space, not a scaling up.

... ? A nuke is a nuke isn't it? Even if they do miniaturize their nukes, do you really think it would be done in such a way as to also reduce it's overall destructive power?

:Why do you think we did all that space crap? You don't really think that was purely to advance science do you?

Now that's getting a little silly. I prefer to think it was at least partly for the sake of science. They sent probes to the outer planets, but I don't think it's becuase the U.S. wanted to build an orbiting missile-battery around Neptune...

I just don't think that humans have any right to make space their next battle-ground... The U.S. better make sure every other country is too dirt-poor in the future so that they're not able to follow suit.

[Shangui]

Even if the US manage to build such a weapon, it's likely that the population might see all that's wrong about it, especially the fact that it will cost a LOT of money to send an operationnal battle platform in space. Using a nuclear weapon or a weapon like this only means that the targeted countries might reply with nuclear weapons themselves. Has we can see right now, by the year 2025, most countries will own fonctionnal nuclear technology.

A question does come to my mind, why would the US build such a weapon if not to plan some kind of global domination by force ?

[poxpower]

Oh so very predictable of them/you... er...

goal = getting everything they want and feeling secure
cost = billions of wasted dollars
consequences = more hate towards anerica
funny side = it won't even protect from terrorist attacks.

It's obviously a way to feel more secure because of the North Corea's growing threat. Is it nevessary? Somewhat...

The real problem here is that North America is filled with wastefull selfish people, so if they/we take control of the earth like that, and if we don't change our ways, 2 possible futures we have:

1. Massive war that will destroy most of the earth
2. Complete destruction of the Earth's ressources

[JMHX]

I like (for lack of a better word) the fact that they aren't even bothering with warheads at this point. They're just going to drop huge rods from space onto the ground and scare the bejesus out of anyone who opposes the policies of the United States. You mark my words, if we ever do that, we're going to be the ones ushering in a World War.

...oh wait, since we would have the ability also to track every man, woman, child, and vehicle in a city:
http://www.drudgereportarchive...om%2Fdsp%2Flinks%5Frecap%2Ehtm we'll be able to stop people before they can even leave their homes! Joy.

[Ted-Easton]

HA!
They're actually going to use giant rods from space?
That's going to be fun- especially if they use them frequently.
A new policing tactic-
Just like you see in COPS, one of those big long chases. All they do is call up the satellite programming station, and they fire a dozen of these rods down and builds an instant cage that springs up in front/around the car!

Not likely, but it would be fun to see the guy in front of you (who just gave you the finger) suddenly get himself impaled on a giant metal rod from outer-space.(It just sounds cooler if you say "outer" first.)

[poxpower]

Hahaha yeah. Imagine the kickass movies they could do with THAT concept. "Killer rods from space" and it would be about how people got randomly killed after the sattelite system got hacked by terrorist lol. Or maybe the system is just going to rebel against humankind and kill us all with giant metal rods haha!
" We have to make them use up their rods! Until they have no more rods to throw at us"
Heads will roll!
Rods will fall!

[JMHX]

That raises a very good point -- what if this technology were ever hacked? If you can pinpoint a Pinto and hit it with a rod that could dig deep into the ground, imagine if the target were a nuclear plant. The safeguards around a global policing system like this would have to be on a scale never seen before.

[Commander-K25]

Why is this such a bad idea? Technology will inevitably advance and make these sort of things possible, and no sane country that could afford it would want to be left behind.

This will inevitably save money because we can withdraw our troops from foreign countries, and this will cause less of this 'resentment'. It's easier to be mad at an enemy that has troops around than at one who is a faceless power halfway around the globe. It's a psychological thing, really.

Besides, the world's amassed nuclear arsenal is already enough to destroy the planet several times over and can be launched from anywhere to anywhere on the globe. How are these new technologies worse?

[FreidanX]

I see maybe ONE good thing about the technology:
Turn it around and use it to destroy incoming meteors.

[poxpower]

You know those movies they made in the early 90's, with some guys in "the rebelion" trying to fight against their governemt and all... that's EXACTLY the kind of thing that they are "predicting". The Big brother thing.... grrrr.

Have no worry we ( well, at least I ) knew it was inevitable, and it won't save any money, as the military will hog up some money for it at first, asking for a bigger budget, and they'll keep it afterwards by wasting their money on some other weapon program.

If we don't start to take care of our planet, a simple handful of men will control the fate of the earth, and that fate will be destruction, that's 100% sure.

Putting this much power in the hands of so little people is reckless and will lead to our doom, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Let's just hope computers rebel against us soon and encase us all in a Matrix to prevent our destroying the earth.

[Commander-K25]

Wait a minute people, you're waking this way out of context. The complaints you're making are just as valid as the complaints against nuclear weapons which the world has had for decades. Why are you complaining about this, but not about the already existing arsenals of ICBMS that exist all over the world?

[JMHX]

At 7/2/03 11:42 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Wait a minute people, you're waking this way out of context. The complaints you're making are just as valid as the complaints against nuclear weapons which the world has had for decades. Why are you complaining about this, but not about the already existing arsenals of ICBMS that exist all over the world?

We have two sets of world-threatening weapons right now (nukes and ICBM's). We don't need a third that possesses the ability to strike down anything at any time from space with just the push of a button.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/3/03 12:09 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: We have two sets of world-threatening weapons right now (nukes and ICBM's). We don't need a third that possesses the ability to strike down anything at any time from space with just the push of a button.

What's the problem with it? The real application is not nuclear, because it's already covered. Conventional weapons are most likely to be the intended payload. What's the problem with this? Do you want to send fleets and bombers and soldiers to foreign lands with all of their support personnel and equipment, the costs for transporting everything and supplying everyone, then the time it takes to set up once there and the inherent danger in having people in the field. Or, we could just launch it from orbit. It's a much safer solution.

....Or you could not be more threatening to the rest of the world.

[JMHX]

At 7/3/03 02:16 AM, nailbomb wrote: ....Or you could not be more threatening to the rest of the world.

Yes, and it's hard to hijack a soldier. You could knock that space system out of commission if you tried hard enough, or just route it to fit your needs. We have enough weaponry and ways of delivering destruction as it is. There is no need for yet another painfully precise way of bombing a city.

[Sophia-7]

This new technology is really no different than the U.S's existing nuclear capabilities, just a different strategy, maybe it is because other countries are developing their own strategic defence initiatives (?)

The point about using these weapons against meteors is a good one as we need to learn how to make them change course and not blow them up into hundreds of parts as this would cause even more damage to the World.

The world is not going to last another 10 billion years anyway.Once the Sun becomes a red dwarf we would have to produce our own light and shield the enitire planet anyways...and even if we managed that, in another 15 billion yr's the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with our Milky way...

[misterx2000]

I agree with the above statements, the taxpayers' money would be better spent on diplomacy and aiding those who are still starving, dying of disease, homeless, and the enviroment too.

[Ted-Easton]

We (and other nations) have some defence against ICBMs, but it's more than a little hard to defend against a Giant Rod of Death.

[FUNKbrs]

giant rods of death? not nearly as scary as "giant bombs that blow skin off of bones", but I'll go along with it. Why? because theyd be so much more damn useful. In this, there is no MAD. It's better infrastructure for conventional weapons, which can only be an improvement. And lets face it, "white elephants" are causing a lot more hate for the US than our military power. Most terrorists are pissed off about US bases on their lands. But if the bases are no longer needed, then so is the hate.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/3/03 03:24 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Yes, and it's hard to hijack a soldier. You could knock that space system out of commission if you tried hard enough, or just route it to fit your needs.

You keep making the argument that it could be "hijacked", but once again, the same could be said for nuclear missiles. Stringent security measures are what keep these weapons secure and will surely be implemented on space-based weapons, as well.

We have enough weaponry and ways of delivering destruction as it is. There is no need for yet another painfully precise way of bombing a city.

But technology is constantly advancing. You've got to move and upgrade with it, or fall behind and die.

[Kenney333]

Wow, yet another stunning move by the US. i mean, first the patriot act, which lets them do whatever they want to their own citizens, now this, giving them the ability take the world hostage and police it, they have got to stop building weapons and i really think that the UN isnt doing its job if it doesnt draw the line and just start trying to impose their rules on it, rules created democratically by councels that represent the whole planet.