Escalation in the Weaponization of Space?

[drunken monkey]

I find it quite funny that no one bats an eyelid when the British PM announces plans to renew and update the UK's nuclear submarine systems but when old commie China knocks out one of their own satellites for testing, the whole world shouts out in rage.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

I find it quite funny that no one bats an eyelid when the British PM announces plans to renew and update the UK's nuclear submarine systems but when old commie China knocks out one of their own satellites for testing, the whole world shouts out in rage.

Why should it be funny?

That is probably a good idea since they were last used successfully in the Falkland Islands War back in 1982. They still can't find the remains of that Argentinian Cruiser that was sunk by a British nuclear powered sub (conventional torpedoes). However, I believe the surface Navy should have priority in anti-ship missile protection considering how deadly the French Exocet missile was and that includes Chinese Silkworm missiles.

[nismogt_rfreak]

The UK is an ally, though. They don't have any intentions on using that tech against us. We know that China is going to want to wipe out the defending US troops in taiwan when they try to add it to the people's republic. It'll be a real bitch planning deployment if we can't get sattelite photos of the area.

[drunken monkey]

I find it funny because there is no real need for further development of a Nuclear defense system for the UK, not to mention the questions of the legality of further development of such weapons as well as the legality of their (indiscriminate) use.

Originally, the UK held such a defense system as deterrent during the Cold War years but with the old Soviet Union gone (a different debate), what need is there for the UK, a member of the EU and of the UN to continue developing a system purely for deterrent.

Then there's the original treaty signed way back when that the members of which agreed to disarming and only keeping a limited stockpile. That is also ignoring the original quesionable nature of that agreement for gradual nuclear disarmament (of those who already possess them) and agreement not to develope (those who do not); something that was decided by those who already had Nuclear weapons and effectively creating a members club of those who had weapons who didn't want anyone else having them.

[YogsVR4]

Now the rest of the world will be in an anti satallite killer race.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

I find it funny because there is no real need for further development of a Nuclear defense system for the UK, not to mention the questions of the legality of further development of such weapons as well as the legality of their (indiscriminate) use.

Originally, the UK held such a defense system as deterrent during the Cold War years but with the old Soviet Union gone (a different debate), what need is there for the UK, a member of the EU and of the UN to continue developing a system purely for deterrent.

Excuse some of us dumb Americans because we are not enlightened on the issue concerning this hot button issue in the U.K. At least give us something to look at to understand and possibly debate. Here is something from the BBC to start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4805768.stm

[drunken monkey]

....that's just it.

it isn't some hot debate.
the whole thing was announced and then.... nothing.

From what I gather, unless there is huge opposition to it, which is unlikely considering who is most likely to be sitting the PM's chair, that 15-20(ish) Billion is going to be put into the project.
The other slight bit of curiosity is that the development program is to be carried out alongside their American counterparts (as in all fairness, they are planning to extend the lifespan of existing weapons and not design new ones) during such a time when th current PM seems all too willing to do whatever it takes to please the US President. That is also not taking into account the fact that the weapons we have are essentially bought from the US with the UK only having a hand in the design of the delivery system. What this whole thing is, ignoring the war/defence aspect, is essentially the UK putting money into a joint project with the US that in a round-about way, increases our war budget and goes towards decreasing the US's. Then there is the ongoing servicing that the weapons store requires which again, equates to a bill every year from your government to ours.

[xeroinfinity]

We have 100's if not 1000's of nukes still baried out west in silo's, and our's should work(well when they were built and are tested weekly).
And you know we tested on Islands and in the weastern US for 30-40 years before we had what we wanted/needed.

Like when North Korea tested them under ground last year.
I realy dont see any more harm in that, then what we did for generations.

LOTS of "peacefull" Nations have simular weapons(nukes) at thier desposal but probly would never use them, if they even work at all from long term storage.

just my 7.5 cents

[blindside.AMG]

Those assholes better not blow up the Sirius Satellite.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

but when old commie China knocks out one of their own satellites for testing, the whole world shouts out in rage.

Remember Tianamen Square? No? Don't worry, neither does the Olympic Committe. I mean why does the world freak out about something China does that could be used as a weapon? We could just ask any member of China's Fulong Gong spiritual movement about it. Oh wait, we can't ask any of them. They're all dead or in "re-education camps".

[drunken monkey]

wow, did you really just copy and paste someone else's 6 year old words?

anyway, you do know that I'm HK Chinese right?
yes the Tianemen Square incident was a bad thing that alludes to what the PRC government under Deng Xiao Ping was like but you do realise that it was over 15 years ago and nearly everyone who sat on the board then is now retired or dead, right?

and considering that they might not be your words, did you mean falun gong?
you do know who these people are, right?
while the way china has basically banned the following is far from commendable, it's not like the falun gong are squeeky clean themselves; in fact, if some things reported are true, then they are far from clean.

[nismogt_rfreak]

Originally Posted by blindside.AMG

Those assholes better not blow up the Sirius Satellite.

XM is better anyway.

[fredjacksonsan]

Lots more ramifications to blowing up satellites than your XM/Sirius radio.

GPS. Global Telecom. Satellite TV. News feeds. Recon. Weather prediction.

So much these days depends on satellites. Granted there are a LOT of them up there (at least 4000, according to http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980202e.html and perhaps as many as 8000 according to http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/onli...4/4a/4a.1.html) and it would take a very concerted effort to down them all.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

wow, did you really just copy and paste someone else's 6 year old words?

Mad Magazine

The thing is people should worry. I mean China doesn't have the cleanest track record. Yes TS was over 15 years ago but it was still a bad thing. Also, the rumors of concentration camps in China today is something to worry about as well.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by nismogt_rfreak

XM is better anyway.

Maybe two years ago. Sirius has added tons of exclusive content, and has been growing by leaps and bounds. Just look at their growth compared to XM (who once dominated the market). With the addition of Nascar this year, the growth potential has gotten even better.

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Mad Magazine

The thing is people should worry. I mean China doesn't have the cleanest track record. Yes TS was over 15 years ago but it was still a bad thing. Also, the rumors of concentration camps in China today is something to worry about as well.

There are many countries that we consider good with a far worse track record than China (US and Britain for example). How many times has China invaded Britain or the US? How many times have the US and Britain invaded China? The British even started wars with China for the right to sell drugs to it's people. Looking over the complete history of China's wars, they were rarely the aggressor. Hell, they made it 4000 years without a single war of conquest.