7 ms·

Sounds like a job for the space force.

by throw7 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
consumer451 7y ago
This is going to be a bit of a rant, but I hope not too off-topic. I am a huge fan of space exploration, however I was really disappointed by the online space community’s lack of objections at the further militarization of space. Maybe it is still not entirely inevitable and there is a precedent of global agreement on no weapons in space[0]. I know that most folks have industry ties and maybe that is the cause of their acquiesce. I have an argument which I believe to be an entirely non-political and objective reason as to why we need to continue down the evolutionary path of becoming a nearly non-violent species. We also need to do that in relatively short order. I was really hoping that space exploration was going to be that shiny leading example of non-violence. If anyone wants to talk about that further, then please give a reply. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  I am for non-violence and against the militarization of space, but I'm at a loss as to how to convince others of this. Most non-violent movements are religious at their core, and if people don't already believe in non-violence and don't believe in a religion which tells them not to be violent, they are not likely to be convinced to change their ways and adopt non-violence. It's possible, though currently unlikley, that leaders of religions who interpret their scriptures as calling for non-violence as a core value become more influential in society. Unfortunately, the world seems to be heading in the opposite direction right now, and as we saw with the assassinations of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, such leaders are vulnerable to being eliminated by people who have no problems with violence. To ultimately be successful there has to be a grassroots, widespread, decentralized change in consciousness among the masses, and we are very far from that. The one distant ray of hope that I see is more widespread use of psychedelics, which have the potential to increase empathy and a feeling of connection to and unity with the world and others. This is a pretty long-term hope, however, and it still has the potential to be squashed if there's another backlash from the powers that be.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I'm also for non-violence and am against militarization, but, sadly, violence and military conflict are inevitably not going to go away starting from 2020 onward. [Insert rant about coordination problems / game theory / tragedy of the commons / Moloch] means the US needs to be there to counter other nations that are going to try to militarize it. In an ideal world, such a military force would only act defensively, not offensively or imperially (e.g. colonizing planets, moons, and rocks purely in the name of the United States), but I guess that's not too likely in the long-term. When cyberwarfare started to become a real possibility and not just sci-fi, would you have argued that the US creating cyberwarfare divisions is wrong and shouldn't be done, even as just about every other major country was doing the same? If you were president of the US right now, what would you do if you vetoed a space force and then a few months later, Russia and China simultaneously announced the creation of their own space forces? Given the current state of the world, I believe adding additional military capabilities is just necessary, even though I'm also an idealist who detests violence, war, and death of all kinds, targeted at any being. If we lived in the year 2520 and all militaries have been disbanded for centuries and every country has been living in peace with one another for the same length of time, then, yes, I'd agree that breaking that precedent with the creation of a space force would be wrong. But unfortunately, we're not there yet, and it's possible we may not be even in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now. (Yes, I know there's a chicken-and-egg logic there, but I can only refer back to the implied coordination problem rant.)
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      There are actions we can take that lead to escalation or deescalation. The US used to lead, at least in some ways, towards a more peaceful world. Together with the Soviet Union, the US got rid of thousands of nuclear weapons. Now we are headed back in the other direction. The US still leads, but it's leading towards more conflict. Over and over again you see countries following the US as it, for example, starts to justify assassinations, wars, and torture in the name of fighting terrorism. The US unilaterally withdraws from nuclear non-proliferation agreements and nuclear proliferation heats up. As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Just today it was announced that the US is reversing course on a ban against use of land mines. A major nuclear conflict is likely to result in hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths. We have to pull back from the brink rather than always edging closer and closer to it, and this won't be achieved through more militarization.. especially not in a more multi-polar world where the US is daily losing more and more of its technological edge. Achieving a non-violent world isn't going to happen overnight, and it likely won't happen without setbacks, but the US could take the lead and steer towards peace instead of towards war.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > the online space community Lol who's that?
  - consumer451 7y ago
    I am just a non-industry fanboy, so I meant presences like r/spacex[0], Tim Dodd[1], TMRO[2], NSF[3], etc... [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ [1] https://everydayastronaut.com/about/ https://everydayastronaut.com/about/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeQYemGBA3zkt2WY5dpRxsw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeQYemGBA3zkt2WY5dpRxsw [3] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ Maybe I missed some places where space geeks were not so happy about Space Force. If so, please share.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Why on earth do you think the Outer Space Treaty bans weapons in space space, and that space isn't already weaponized? Yes, it bans nukes in space - but that's all. It doesn't ban communications satellites, a huge strategic military asset. Same for spy satellites. There's a reason the US government has historically put so much into space, and it's not NASA research. (USAF or NRO research, instead)
  - consumer451 7y ago
    I misspoke in that sentence. What I should have said was that there is a precedent for global treaties on limiting space based weapons. In the case of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty it bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on the moon. This certainly needs an update. No bringing any asteroids or comets near earth's gravity well either, please. In regards to your second point, I am simply talking about offensive weapons here. I believe that the only offensive weapons currently in space are likely to be the handguns which Soyuz Cosmonauts bring to the ISS "for protection against bears upon landing." IMO a treaty should have long been in effect which bans everything including any ground-based anti-satellite weapons entering space (energy or kinetic), and the Russian handguns. Of course treaties are not foolproof, but perfect really is the enemy of good in this case.

Sounds like a job for the space force.

by throw7 7y ago

Sounds like a job for the space force.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

consumer451 7y ago

This is going to be a bit of a rant, but I hope not too off-topic. I am a huge fan of space exploration, however I was really disappointed by the online space community’s lack of objections at the further militarization of space. Maybe it is still not entirely inevitable and there is a precedent of global agreement on no weapons in space[0]. I know that most folks have industry ties and maybe that is the cause of their acquiesce. I have an argument which I believe to be an entirely non-political and objective reason as to why we need to continue down the evolutionary path of becoming a nearly non-violent species. We also need to do that in relatively short order. I was really hoping that space exploration was going to be that shiny leading example of non-violence. If anyone wants to talk about that further, then please give a reply. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

pmoriarty 7y ago
I am for non-violence and against the militarization of space, but I'm at a loss as to how to convince others of this. Most non-violent movements are religious at their core, and if people don't already believe in non-violence and don't believe in a religion which tells them not to be violent, they are not likely to be convinced to change their ways and adopt non-violence. It's possible, though currently unlikley, that leaders of religions who interpret their scriptures as calling for non-violence as a core value become more influential in society. Unfortunately, the world seems to be heading in the opposite direction right now, and as we saw with the assassinations of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, such leaders are vulnerable to being eliminated by people who have no problems with violence. To ultimately be successful there has to be a grassroots, widespread, decentralized change in consciousness among the masses, and we are very far from that. The one distant ray of hope that I see is more widespread use of psychedelics, which have the potential to increase empathy and a feeling of connection to and unity with the world and others. This is a pretty long-term hope, however, and it still has the potential to be squashed if there's another backlash from the powers that be.
- meowface 7y ago
  I'm also for non-violence and am against militarization, but, sadly, violence and military conflict are inevitably not going to go away starting from 2020 onward. [Insert rant about coordination problems / game theory / tragedy of the commons / Moloch] means the US needs to be there to counter other nations that are going to try to militarize it. In an ideal world, such a military force would only act defensively, not offensively or imperially (e.g. colonizing planets, moons, and rocks purely in the name of the United States), but I guess that's not too likely in the long-term. When cyberwarfare started to become a real possibility and not just sci-fi, would you have argued that the US creating cyberwarfare divisions is wrong and shouldn't be done, even as just about every other major country was doing the same? If you were president of the US right now, what would you do if you vetoed a space force and then a few months later, Russia and China simultaneously announced the creation of their own space forces? Given the current state of the world, I believe adding additional military capabilities is just necessary, even though I'm also an idealist who detests violence, war, and death of all kinds, targeted at any being. If we lived in the year 2520 and all militaries have been disbanded for centuries and every country has been living in peace with one another for the same length of time, then, yes, I'd agree that breaking that precedent with the creation of a space force would be wrong. But unfortunately, we're not there yet, and it's possible we may not be even in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now. (Yes, I know there's a chicken-and-egg logic there, but I can only refer back to the implied coordination problem rant.)
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    There are actions we can take that lead to escalation or deescalation. The US used to lead, at least in some ways, towards a more peaceful world. Together with the Soviet Union, the US got rid of thousands of nuclear weapons. Now we are headed back in the other direction. The US still leads, but it's leading towards more conflict. Over and over again you see countries following the US as it, for example, starts to justify assassinations, wars, and torture in the name of fighting terrorism. The US unilaterally withdraws from nuclear non-proliferation agreements and nuclear proliferation heats up. As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Just today it was announced that the US is reversing course on a ban against use of land mines. A major nuclear conflict is likely to result in hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths. We have to pull back from the brink rather than always edging closer and closer to it, and this won't be achieved through more militarization.. especially not in a more multi-polar world where the US is daily losing more and more of its technological edge. Achieving a non-violent world isn't going to happen overnight, and it likely won't happen without setbacks, but the US could take the lead and steer towards peace instead of towards war.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> the online space community Lol who's that?
- consumer451 7y ago
  I am just a non-industry fanboy, so I meant presences like r/spacex[0], Tim Dodd[1], TMRO[2], NSF[3], etc... [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ [1] https://everydayastronaut.com/about/ https://everydayastronaut.com/about/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeQYemGBA3zkt2WY5dpRxsw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeQYemGBA3zkt2WY5dpRxsw [3] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ Maybe I missed some places where space geeks were not so happy about Space Force. If so, please share.
DuskStar 7y ago
Why on earth do you think the Outer Space Treaty bans weapons in space space, and that space isn't already weaponized? Yes, it bans nukes in space - but that's all. It doesn't ban communications satellites, a huge strategic military asset. Same for spy satellites. There's a reason the US government has historically put so much into space, and it's not NASA research. (USAF or NRO research, instead)
- consumer451 7y ago
  I misspoke in that sentence. What I should have said was that there is a precedent for global treaties on limiting space based weapons. In the case of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty it bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on the moon. This certainly needs an update. No bringing any asteroids or comets near earth's gravity well either, please. In regards to your second point, I am simply talking about offensive weapons here. I believe that the only offensive weapons currently in space are likely to be the handguns which Soyuz Cosmonauts bring to the ISS "for protection against bears upon landing." IMO a treaty should have long been in effect which bans everything including any ground-based anti-satellite weapons entering space (energy or kinetic), and the Russian handguns. Of course treaties are not foolproof, but perfect really is the enemy of good in this case.