More US contempt for 'Allies'

[a_unique_person]

http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050



COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — While much of the talk around the Pentagon these days focuses on "transformation" of the military, some of the United States' closest allies worry about another buzzword being used in subtler ways at the National Reconnaissance Office: "negation."
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time—not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.

At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto power."

Beginning next year, NRO will be in charge of the new Offensive Counter-Space program, which will come up with plans to specifically deny the use of near-Earth space to other nations, said Teets.



with friends like these, who needs enemies.

[Richard G]

with friends like these,(France, Germany, Russia, all allies at one time) who needs enemies.

Indeed.
(emphasis mine)

[Supercharts]

Also because we landed on the Moon we are not giving that back either.

[Kodiak]

Sovereignty...ain't it a b!tch? :)

[NoZed Avenger]

France not agreeing with US: Independence.

US not agreeing with France: Contempt.


Got it.

NA

[Jon_in_london]

Rather:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
France agreeing with US: Independence.

US not agreeing with France: Contempt.

NA

Or have you forgotten your (nation's very short) history?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Rather:



Or have you forgotten your (nation's very short) history?

Meaning?

[Jon_in_london]

French intrevention was essential to your rebellion.

Ergo, France agreeing with US = Independence

[max]

jon
p=ss off back to palestine

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
jon
p=ss off back to palestine

I have never been to Palestine.

Cant you spell 'piss' max?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Rather:



Or have you forgotten your (nation's very short) history?

No. I have not forgotten.

Of course, it is also completely irrelevant to the point I was answering and making.


NA

[max]

Jon
yes I can sure spell p=ss and smell it. but forum rules is forum rules.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
French intrevention was essential to your rebellion.

Ergo, France agreeing with US = Independence

As was US intervention essential to France's independence during a little spat we call WWII...

Your point?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kodiak


As was US intervention essential to France's independence during a little spat we call WWII...

Your point?

My point?

You demand eternal grattitude (servitude?) from the French, while forgetting their role in the creation of your country.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
You demand eternal grattitude (servitude?) from the French, while forgetting their role in the creation of your country.


I demand nothing. I have forgotten nothing.

NoZed Avenger pointed out a salient bit of hypocricy when he posted:

France not agreeing with US: Independence.

US not agreeing with France: Contempt.

You brought up the American Revolution, and I countered with the liberation of occupied France during WWII.

Our points cancel each other out.

What are you left with?

French hypocrisy.

[Jon_in_london]

Where does the french hypocrisy come from?

I dont see any...........

[NoZed Avenger]

I wasn't pointing out any hypocrisy on the part of the French.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I wasn't pointing out any hypocrisy on the part of the French.

Yes, but Kodiak is

[Thumper]

The French used the American Revolution to their own advantage. They didn't help us out from the kindness of their heart. In fact, the monarchy was rather alarmed at the popular uprising. But any chance to inflict damage on the English at that point in time could not be ignored.

[athon]

Has anybody ever heard of 'two wrongs don't make a right'?

I for one fell that this sign of American arrogance (like any country's arrogance) does not bode well for any nation willing to form ties of any sort with them. For instance, Australia's PM is rubbing up against Bush like a cat at tea-time, all in the name of military protection. Our defence force is small, considering the size of our defendable territory. What if we were to rely on the US as an ally - they could at any stage simply say 'Well, it's our right to say - yer on yer own with this one'.

Athon

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by athon
Has anybody ever heard of 'two wrongs don't make a right'?

I for one fell that this sign of American arrogance (like any country's arrogance) does not bode well for any nation willing to form ties of any sort with them. For instance, Australia's PM is rubbing up against Bush like a cat at tea-time, all in the name of military protection. Our defence force is small, considering the size of our defendable territory. What if we were to rely on the US as an ally - they could at any stage simply say 'Well, it's our right to say - yer on yer own with this one'.

Athon

In fact, they have been accused of doing just this in the past. When it came time to choose between pleasing Australia or Indonesia, Indonesia came up trumps. Realpolitik is alive and well today, it has not gone away.

[athon]

Good point. That made me all the angrier when one of the reasons touted for invading Iraq was 'freeing an oppressed people'.

East Timor, anybody?

Athon

[Agammamon]

Of course the American opposition to the EU's plan to put up a GPS system has made them more determined to do it. Only problem now is it looks like it may be sunk due to infighting over who gets how large a cut of the pie.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Thumper
The French used the American Revolution to their own advantage. They didn't help us out from the kindness of their heart. In fact, the monarchy was rather alarmed at the popular uprising. But any chance to inflict damage on the English at that point in time could not be ignored.

That's a very fair point, but don't forget the US only got involved in WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war on America. The US didn't help France out of the kindness of their hearts either.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


That's a very fair point, but don't forget the US only got involved in WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war on America. The US didn't help France out of the kindness of their hearts either.

Yup, and (it must be said), only after the cash-cow of America (aka British Empire) had been sucked dry.

[DialecticMaterialist]

with friends like these, who needs enemies.


Are you saying mere disagreement now makes the US the equivalent to an enemy?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Are you saying mere disagreement now makes the US the equivalent to an enemy?

Didn't you know?

France not agreeing with US: viewed as independence.

US not agreeing with France: viewed as contempt.


:rolleyes:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yup, and (it must be said), only after the cash-cow of America (aka British Empire) had been sucked dry.

cash-cow????

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.


cash-cow????

Yaaarrr!!! cash-cow that you milk for money (untill they look like going broke, then you better do something to guarantee your creditor will be able to pay).

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yaaarrr!!! cash-cow that you milk for money (untill they look like going broke, then you better do something to guarantee your creditor will be able to pay).

Those loans were paid back? I thought they were forgiven via the Marshall Plan.

[Genghis Pwn]

1. The French only entered the American Revolutionary war to humiliate the Brits. They only did it to give the Brits a black eye, not because they loved Americans. Read some history books.

2. If the US decides to keep space only for itself in terms of military applications, that is our choice -- and might be a very smart choice.

[Agammamon]

You're right it is our choice but there is one teeny problem. The only way to guarantee space superiority is to start knocking stuff down. That, unfortunately, would be an act of war comparable to blockading onother countries ports or otherwise denying access to the sea.

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Those loans were paid back? I thought they were forgiven via the Marshall Plan.

ASFAIK, it wasn't until last year that Britain actually finished paying off its war "debts" to the US. I can't find any source for this right now though.

Graham

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yaaarrr!!! cash-cow that you milk for money (untill they look like going broke, then you better do something to guarantee your creditor will be able to pay).

Jon is it barely possible that the US entered World War II because of Pearl Harbor and the fact that Germany and Italy declared war on the US?

thus having nothing to do with cash cows...

I mean whatever was owed by the UK would have paled to the amount of money spent on the war itself and the Marshall Plan.

The idea that the US went into World War II to protect loans from the UK doesn't seem to hold up.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Agammamon
You're right it is our choice but there is one teeny problem. The only way to guarantee space superiority is to start knocking stuff down. That, unfortunately, would be an act of war comparable to blockading onother countries ports or otherwise denying access to the sea.

The other way to guarantee space superiority (the method being "openly discussed" by the NRO) is to develop the capacity to knock stuff down if we wished. The same way we have superiority on the seas, without blockading ports.

MattJ

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Graham


ASFAIK, it wasn't until last year that Britain actually finished paying off its war "debts" to the US. I can't find any source for this right now though.

Graham

I heard this too. Also that just about every Labour government since the sixties (apart from this one) suspended payment of the debt, with the Tories starting it up again.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The other way to guarantee space superiority (the method being "openly discussed" by the NRO) is to develop the capacity to knock stuff down if we wished. The same way we have superiority on the seas, without blockading ports.

MattJ

It doesn't make for good friendships, though, achieving a state of intimidation. As Saddam found out, you can't force respect and loyalty.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It doesn't make for good friendships, though, achieving a state of intimidation.

I reject the premise. The power of our Navy doesn't result in a state of intimidation on the high seas.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I reject the premise. The power of our Navy doesn't result in a state of intimidation on the high seas.

MattJ

Well, it all depends on who's nuclear powered and armed fleets of aircraft carriers you are referring to, I guess.

For example, New Zealand will not allow nuclear armed ships to dock in it's ports. The US has made it pay a heavy price for that policy.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, it all depends on who's nuclear powered and armed fleets of aircraft carriers you are referring to, I guess.

For example, New Zealand will not allow nuclear armed ships to dock in it's ports. The US has made it pay a heavy price for that policy.

Fill me in. What is a 'heavy' price?

[Zep]

So...you are saying that if we in Australia decided that we wanted to put up some satellites of our own, made here and using our own rockets and launch facilities, etc, that the USA would feel it their right to shoot them down just because we transgressed some artificial and arbitrary property boundaries set by a bunch of bunker-nuts? Or even simply because they are not US property? That destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of another country's property is thus justified?

Say, what would YOU do if we shot YOUR satellites down, guys??

Zep

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Fill me in. What is a 'heavy' price?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/28/nz.lange/



Former New Zealand chief claims Quayle threatened him
March 28, 2002 Posted: 1:14 PM EST (1814 GMT)



Lange says he faced massive pressure to drop the anti-nuclear policy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Joe Havely
CNN Hong Kong

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (CNN) -- Former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange has claimed that ex-U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle threatened to have him "liquidated" over his country's anti-nuclear policy in the 1980s.

The extraordinary allegation was first made in an interview with New Zealand's One News broadcast Tuesday night. Quayle rejected the claim. In an e-mail from Quayle's Phoenix, Arizona, office, Quayle said Lange's allegation was "complete and utter nonsense -- it's so ridiculous it deserves no further comment."

The report also was described as "preposterous" by the U.S. Embassy in Wellington.

"We would hate to challenge the memory of a former prime minister, but the suggestion that former vice president Quayle threatened to kill him is preposterous," a spokeswoman told CNN.

In the One News interview Lange said the apparent death threat was made by Quayle during a meeting with the Australian cabinet.

"There were veiled threats and there were specific threats," he said. "It was announced at one stage to the Australian cabinet that I would have to be liquidated."

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I reject the premise. The power of our Navy doesn't result in a state of intimidation on the high seas.

MattJ

North Korea may disagree

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Zep
So...you are saying that if we in Australia decided that we wanted to put up some satellites of our own, made here and using our own rockets and launch facilities, etc, that the USA would feel it their right to shoot them down just because we transgressed some artificial and arbitrary property boundaries set by a bunch of bunker-nuts? Or even simply because they are not US property? That destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of another country's property is thus justified?


No, I don't think so. I realize that AUP is trying to paint that as the US position, but I don't see that it is. Did you see that statement somewhere by any US official?

Your argument here is exactly analogous to the Naval argument. We have the capability of blasting every Aussie ship out of the water... therefore we consider it our right to do so, and the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars of another country's property is thus justified? No.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


North Korea may disagree

North Korea is not an ally. I've got zero problem if they feel intimidated.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

wacky assassination conspiracy here



Thanks for the laugh.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No, I don't think so. I realize that AUP is trying to paint that as the US position, but I don't see that it is. Did you see that statement somewhere by any US official?

Your argument here is exactly analogous to the Naval argument. We have the capability of blasting every Aussie ship out of the water... therefore we consider it our right to do so, and the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars of another country's property is thus justified? No.

MattJ

That sounds exactly like the 'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' argument.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That sounds exactly like the 'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' argument.

What arrangement would you prefer?

[Frostbite]

What keeps other countries to deploy their own spy satellites?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Frostbite
What keeps other countries to deploy their own spy satellites?

That's a good question, IMO. Assuming this was to be US government policy, how would they prevent other states fro launching satellites?

Does the technology exist to shoot down a satellite?

There is a limited amount of space in the atmosphere, especially if your confined to a certain band of heights. I suppose that if they put up enough satellites of their own that might prevent anyone else putting any up.

Graham

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Frostbite
What keeps other countries to deploy their own spy satellites?

Nothing. Many other countries have their own spy satellites.

What the posters here object to is the NRO's attempt to formulate a plan to shoot down the satellites of our enemies.

The plan is horrific to them because the NRO is proposing to form a plan that would enable us to:

actively [deny] the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time—not just adversaries, but even longtime allies

The NRO's position is then assumed to be the US's position, and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If they don't like it, I vote for sending Quayle to kill their leaders. :rolleyes:

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Graham


That's a good question, IMO. Assuming this was to be US government policy, how would they prevent other states fro launching satellites?

Does the technology exist to shoot down a satellite?


source (http://www.space.edu/LibraryResearch/abstracts/wood/tate.html)

ASAT testing has existed since almost the inception of space programs. In 1959 a Bold Orion missile successfully intercepted the Explorer VI satellite and proved that ASAT technology was feasible. The US was quick to develop further technology to explore the possibility of an operational ASAT. The Satellite Interceptor (SAINT) program which underwent research and development from 1959 to 1962 was the US's first attempt at developing an operational ASAT system.

Since the downfall of the Thor program (in 1975) the US has possessed no operational ASAT system. The F-15 aircraft-launched Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) ASAT tested in the early-mid 1980s was the most significant development in ASAT technology. It was proven capable in operational tests, but was canceled in the late 1980s due to political considerations before it became operational.

(1975 date added by me)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I reject the premise. The power of our Navy doesn't result in a state of intimidation on the high seas.

Oh yes it does...but I have no problem with that (nor should anyone else).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


What arrangement would you prefer?

[admitted strawman]a_u_p is probably hoping for complete American disarmament and surrender of sovereignty to the UN...[/admitted strawman] :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
If they don't like it, I vote for sending Quayle to kill their leaders. :rolleyes:

Would he use a p-o-t-a-t-o-e gun?? :D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Oh yes it does...but I have no problem with that (nor should anyone else).

I meant it in the same way that he meant it. The British, or the Chinese, or any other nation, are not afraid to send their ships out onto the ocean, nor do they refrain from building ships simply because our navy is more powerful, and would destroy theirs if it ever became necessary.

This is (I think) what AUP is objecting to re: space.

MattJ

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I meant it in the same way that he meant it. The British, or the Chinese, or any other nation, are not afraid to send their ships out onto the ocean, nor do they refrain from building ships simply because our navy is more powerful, and would destroy theirs if it ever became necessary.

This is (I think) what AUP is objecting to re: space.

MattJ

Sorry, aerocontrols, I knew what you meant. No country has made their motives and intentions more clear than the United States of America.

It still surprises me to this day how the Taliban, then Iraq, and then UN member nations like France, Germany, and Russia were skeptical of our intent to back up our globally-broadcast warnings and plans of action. The only thing that surprises me more is that the US has been doing this for at least 50 years (since Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor speech --- maybe before that...).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Thanks for the laugh.

If you read the link, he says he did not think he would actually be assasinated, I think it was more a case of Dan Quayle letting him know how much he was hated by the US. The person making the claim is the ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, and no fool. He is a very intelligent man.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you read the link, he says he did not think he would actually be assasinated, I think it was more a case of Dan Quayle letting him know how much he was hated by the US. The person making the claim is the ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, and no fool. He is a very intelligent man.

I did read the link, and I did notice that.

I asked you to tell me what you meant by 'a heavy price', and you told me. Your definition of a 'heavy price' is somewhat different then my own, it seems. Which is why I asked you to spell it out.

I was expecting stories of economic boycotts or fomenting internal coups, and you come up with... well, your usual, I suppose. At the minimum, I expected you to talk about New Zealand's status in ANZUS.

Again, the laugh was much appreciated.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I did read the link, and I did notice that.

I asked you to tell me what you meant by 'a heavy price', and you told me. Your definition of a 'heavy price' is somewhat different then my own, it seems. Which is why I asked you to spell it out.

I was expecting stories of economic boycotts or fomenting internal coups, and you come up with... well, your usual, I suppose. At the minimum, I expected you to talk about New Zealand's status in ANZUS.

Again, the laugh was much appreciated.

MattJ

It was a few years ago, so I cannot find many links to what was done. The fact that a vice president would make such remarks shows how low the US was prepared to stoop.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It was a few years ago, so I cannot find many links to what was done. The fact that a vice president would make such remarks shows how low the US was prepared to stoop.

If the allegation is true, then it indeed shows how low the Vice President was willing to stoop. I don't accept that the allegation is true, however.

But what I find amusing is how far this comes (true or not) from being 'a heavy price' paid by New Zealand.

The US has made it pay a heavy price for that policy.

Even believing the worst:

1) The threat wasn't taken seriously

2) New Zealand apparently didn't alter a single policy.

heavy price indeed.

MattJ