gwen (gwenix) wrote,
gwen
gwenix

  • Mood:

OMG, I'm so laughing.


Shortly before his appointment as secretary of defense, for instance, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a blue-ribbon commission investigating the role of space in national security. It concluded in January 2001 the likelihood of an attack on U.S. space systems needed to be taken seriously to prevent another "space Pearl Harbor."

Land, sea and air have seen conflict, the report noted, asserting space will be no different. "Given this virtual certainty, the U.S. must develop the means to both deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space."

The report remains consistent with the Defense Department's current position on weapons in space, a Defense spokesperson confirmed.


More here. If I weren't laughing so hard, I'd be crying since this falls under the category of "why the fuck is my tax money going to this?"

But nowhere does the article say the actual valid argument against, namely that it doesn't work. Further, there is NO ONE ELSE who is doing this currently, so the Perl Harbor analogy is quite silly. And further, eolh just pointed out that us being the first to put star defense in means that everyone else will build star weapons with our counter-measures in mind, rendering them ineffective.

Way to go GWB! I'm imagining a star wars salesman knocking on the White House door, "Excuse me sir, can I interest you in a space weapons program?"
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 4 comments