Bush Takes Sanctions against Enemies into Outer Space

[SteveGrenard]

Bush takens sanctions against enemies into outer space today:





Seattle Post Intelligencer

By TERENCE HUNT. AP WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT. WASHINGTON –

President Bush has signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

The policy says that space systems should have rights of passage without interference, and that the United States would view any deliberate interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Space.html

[Darth Rotor]

Bush takens sanctions against enemies into outer space today:





http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Space.html
LBJ: space is the ultimate high ground. (Military terrain reference.)

This comes as no surprise, given the massive integration of space based systems for the US and NATO military readiness.

Nothing to see here, really.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

LBJ: space is the ultimate high ground. (Military terrain reference.)

This comes as no surprise, given the massive integration of space based systems for the US and NATO military readiness.

Nothing to see here, really.

DR

I disagree. I think there are some interesting aspects to this which need to be discussed.

Is this the carrot and a stick approach? Bush to islam: Be good, be our friend and we will let you go into space? Be bad and you will have to stay home? I think there are issues here.

Plus there is this from last Spring:


Malaysia considers Islam in space
By Jonathan Kent
BBC News, Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia's choice of astronaut will blast off with a Russian team in 2007

A two-day conference on Islam and life in space is under way in Malaysia, in a bid to answer questions faced by would-be Muslim astronauts.

Malaysia is due to send an astronaut into space with the Russians next year.

The country's first spaceman is almost certain to be a Muslim, which raises a number of practical issues.

For instance, Muslims wash before they pray but not only is water a precious commodity in space, but it is also impractical in weightlessness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4941816.stm


How do Muslims Pray in Space?


Kuala Lumpur (AFP) Apr 20, 2006

How do Muslim astronauts pray in space? Malaysia's National Space Agency is holding a conference to consider such questions as the country prepares to send its first citizen into orbit.

A nationwide competition in the majority-Muslim country has narrowed the field to four astronaut candidates, three of whom are Muslims.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Malaysia_Conference_Considers_How_To_Practice_Isla m_In_Space.html



Inquiring minds might like to hear from those knowledegable about how muslims in space will know which way to face to line up with Mekkah? Would Saudi Arabia be willing to set up a gigantic beacon in Mekkah so that whenever they pass over, it will light the city up and they just have to face down toward the light to pray? Would this work?

[Beerina]

It's directed at China, not Muslims.

[Cylinder]

The new space policy simply reiterates the old one with the exception that it actually states what was already an unspoken policy in 1996 - that the US would oppose new treaties that try to broaden limits to military and dual uses of space such as missile defense systems and "edge of space" aeronautics.

[SteveGrenard]

It's directed at China, not Muslims.


WHITE HOUSE President Bush is posting what amounts to a "no trespassing" sign, of sorts, on outer space.
He's signed an order that asserts the U-S right to keep space from being exploited by America's adversaries for hostile purposes.
The first space policy revision in nearly ten years also says Washington will oppose treaties or other restrictions that try to limit America's access to space.
The policy says "freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power" -- although the White House says it does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space.

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=5555666&nav=2FH5




Bush's New Space Policy Prioritizes Defense

October 18, 2006 6:30 a.m. EST
Nidhi Sharma - All Headline News Staff Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - President Bush has reportedly signed a newly revised space policy, which prioritizes the country's defense forces and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space. The document, which was released early October with no official announcement, stresses on security issues.
According to the document President Bush aims to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives."
Additionally Bush hopes to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the Washington Post reported Wednesday, quoting the document.
A senior administration official, who asked not to be identified, told the Post, "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period."
It is the first full revision of overall U.S. space policy in 10 years. In contrast, the Clinton policy focused more on balance of science and security and the Bush policy goes one step ahead of it by opening the door to developing space weapons.
The Post quotes Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information, as saying that the Bush policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
According to the report, the U.S. is opposed to the development of new governmental regimes or other international legal restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005215724


From the above the general terms seems to indicate all enemies. I could find only one reference to support your assumption this is aimed at China and that’s from the Washington Post:


The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite.

The Washington Post story probably deserves a read. It is the most comprehensive look at the action:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html?nav=rss_email/components

The question is whether or not the Malaysian-Russian (and therefore Muslim) launch into space is covered under Bush's revised space access initiative or not? Does anyone think Bush wouldn't have a problem with Iran, for example, launching into space?

[Cylinder]

The question is whether or not the Malaysian-Russian (and therefore Muslim) launch into space is covered under Bush's revised space access initiative or not? Does anyone think Bush wouldn't have a problem with Iran, for example, launching into space?

For those answers, you should read the document (http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf) itself .

[Kopji]

Just a small note. There have already been two Muslims in space and it did not cause any riots.

'Deep Dish' Ansari:

Ansari, who is on an eight-day visit to the International Space Station (ISS), became the first Muslim woman and first Iranian in space as well as the first private female space tourist. The launch was six days after her 40th birthday.

http://www.anoushehansari.com/

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060921184117btruevecer0.1222956&chanlid=mena


And the Sultan

Prince Sultan ibn Salman ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud of Saudi Arabia, the first Arab, the first Muslim and the first member of royalty in space.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198601/a.prince.in.space.htm

[bozothedeathmachine]

Is there a physical (distance-based) limitation of sovereignty? The airspace over a country falls under that country's sovereign rule. Basically, sovereignty extends in a vertical column over a country's land. There's never been a need to define a vertical limit to that column. Is there now that need? For instance if it were to be limited to, say, 30,000/48,000km miles that would cover anything is geosynchronous orbit (~26,200 miles/42,000k). If that's the case other satellite is almost every other orbit (LEO, MEO, or HEO) would constantly be violating the sovereignty of the country under them.

[Darth Rotor]

Just a small note. There have already been two Muslims in space and it did not cause any riots.

'Deep Dish' Ansari:


And the Sultan
That's cool. I wonder if she had to wear a veil under her space helmet.

DR

[drkitten]

Is there a physical (distance-based) limitation of sovereignty?

Legally speaking, I don't believe so.

There are existing treaties that declare "space," which starts (IIRC) at something like 50 miles up, to be a demilitarized zone, and no weapons can be deployed in space. And there is by US policy no "sovereignty" in space (although of course nothing is stopping Granada from claiming a little wedge-shaped piece of airspace extending up into infinity -- a claim that no one else will care about.)

In practice, this has made claims of sovereignty worthless to pursue; without space-based weapons, there was no way to enforce a claim that a Soviet comsat is violating US airspace (or vice-versa). Rather than losing face by rattling demonstrably inadequate sabers, no one really made a huge deal out of it.

That's one of the reason that the Bush doctrine is something of a shift. He's claiming the right to deny other countries access to space, which in turn means that he's prepared to back it up by force, if necessary.

[fuelair]

[QUOTE=drkitten;2016687]Legally speaking, I don't believe so.

There are existing treaties that declare "space," which starts (IIRC) at something like 50 miles up, to be a demilitarized zone, and no weapons can be deployed in space. And there is by US policy no "sovereignty" in space (although of course nothing is stopping Granada from claiming a little wedge-shaped piece of airspace extending up into infinity -- a claim that no one else will care about.)

In practice, this has made claims of sovereignty worthless to pursue; without space-based weapons, there was no way to enforce a claim that a Soviet comsat is violating US airspace (or vice-versa). Rather than losing face by rattling demonstrably inadequate sabers, no one really made a huge deal out of it.

That's one of the reason that the Bush doctrine is something of a shift. He's claiming the right to deny other countries access to space, which in turn means that he's prepared to back it up by force, if necessary.[/QUOTE/]

One of the very few things he has done ok on. (Don't get me started on what we should have done when we were the only ones with A bombs - yeay Heinlein!!!!)

[zakur]

The Klingons aren't going to take this lying down.