Look who's concerned about weaponization of space

[M.Dancer]

All foreign policy is self serving. For that matter all policy is self serving. Policy that isn't self serving is properly called failed policy.

The role of government is to create and implement policies which benefit the nation.

To suggest otherwise is foolish.

[Black Dog]

The point wasn't just to be critical of either country but to demonstrate that no one holds the moral high ground in this argument, and that China has every right to protect itself.

Well, you invoked teh moral aspet by bringing in up the invasion of small countries and the mass murder of innocents. On those scores, the U.S. does indeed hold the moral high ground compared to China.

[blackascoal]

The point wasn't just to be critical of either country but to demonstrate that no one holds the moral high ground in this argument, and that China has every right to protect itself.

Well, you invoked teh moral aspet by bringing in up the invasion of small countries and the mass murder of innocents. On those scores, the U.S. does indeed hold the moral high ground compared to China.

I respect your right to your opinion, but our history is litered with a hell of a lot more than invasion and mass-murder. Irrespective of how you interpret "moral authority" or any authority at all, the US cannot dictate policy to the rest of the world and it has no authority to do so.

How do you suggest we talk about weaponizing space without talking about US policy regarding it?

[blackascoal]

All foreign policy is self serving. For that matter all policy is self serving. Policy that isn't self serving is properly called failed policy.

The role of government is to create and implement policies which benefit the nation.

To suggest otherwise is foolish.

Sure, like invading small countries and overthrowing democratically elected governments.

Brilliant policy.

Would consideration of blowback also be considered "foolish" in your opinion?

[myata]

Well, you invoked teh moral aspet by bringing in up the invasion of small countries and the mass murder of innocents. On those scores, the U.S. does indeed hold the moral high ground compared to China.

Just because you mentioned it second time in this thread, let's attempt to bring up the scores:

Invasion of small countries:

US (after WWII only): Iran (CIA supported coup); Chile (CIA inspired coup); Grenada, Panama, Iraq, ... (those I can name right off the top of my head)

China: ??? unlike the US in the above, China has some kind of historic claims to both Tibet and Taiwan.

Now, for the "mass murders of innocents":

US: nuclear bombing of two cities full of civilians of no military value in Japan; thousands of civilians in Vietnam; if Iraq's campaign were to be defined as illegal, may qualifiy as well.

China: cultural revolution, Tiananmen?

If you mean internal prosecution, US is high on the list by the number of executions, some of which are bound to be "innocent".

Note, it's not to qualify China as being superior on this scale; it's just that the record of the other side isn't anywhere as pure and unblemished as some want to pretend. Also, China isn't generally preceived on the international stage (at least, yet) as willing and trigger happy to interfere in "zones of interest" thousands of miles away.

[Black Dog]

I respect your right to your opinion, but our history is litered with a hell of a lot more than invasion and mass-murder. Irrespective of how you interpret "moral authority" or any authority at all, the US cannot dictate policy to the rest of the world and it has no authority to do so.

Not true. The U.S. has been quite successful at dictating policy to other places, based on the authority its economic and military power gives it. You can dispute whether or not that's legitimate, but that's the way of the world. Certainly China has never shyed away from dictating policy to others based on its might. In this particular case, there's probably little the U.S. can do to China on this, so in that you are corect: they cannot dictate policy to China.

How do you suggest we talk about weaponizing space without talking about US policy regarding it?

The weaponization of space began with Sputnik. But in any case, I would agree that it's hypocritical for the U.S. to denounce other's attempts to do what it itself is doing. But hat wasn't really what you were getting at before when you said:

The Chinese ARE within their rights to protect themselves from the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons .. twice .. and a nation that attacks small nations whenever it feels like it and mass-murders hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Which, to me, indicates China's rights correlate to America's moral position. IMO, you need to decide whether you are talking from a moral or a pragmatic standpoint.

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

Not true. The U.S. has been quite successful at dictating policy to other places, based on the authority its economic and military power gives it. You can dispute whether or not that's legitimate, but that's the way of the world. Certainly China has never shyed away from dictating policy to others based on its might. In this particular case, there's probably little the U.S. can do to China on this, so in that you are corect: they cannot dictate policy to China.

That was true of our past, but are we in that same position today?

One could argue that we've been outsmarted by the Chinese and the biggest threat to America does not come from space but rather in our own backyard and in our Treasury.

My point to you brother is that we don't have any authority to keep the Chinese from doing what we, ourselves, are doing and we have no capability to stop it.

Whether one looks at this from the pragmatic or moral point of view, the conclusions remain the same. There is nothing we can do about it.

We opened Pandora's Box and we have no way to close it.

[myata]

Here's something on the moral standing of US in the world:

"As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. "

From Amnesty International 2005 Death Penalty and Executions report.

[Black Dog]

Here's something on the moral standing of US in the world:

"As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. "

From Amnesty International 2005 Death Penalty and Executions report.

Yeah:

Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,770 people were executed in China during the year, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. A Chinese legal expert was recently quoted as stating the figure for executions is approximately 8,000 based on information from local officials and judges, but official national statistics on the application of the death penalty remained classified as a state secret.

Iran executed at least 94 people, and Saudi Arabia at least 86. There were 60 executions in the USA.

So China's execution rate is 133 times higher than the U.S.A's. Again: feel free to criticize the U.S. for its outmoded retention of the death penalty, but there's simply no way they are as bad as China on that score.

[blackascoal]

Here's something on the moral standing of US in the world:

"As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. "

From Amnesty International 2005 Death Penalty and Executions report.

I'm not sure I would rely on Amnesty International for US support. They denounce a great many US abuses such as torture and mistreatment fo prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Gharib, the incarceration of 9 million us citizens the most of any nation, the death penalty, the Iraq war, on and on.

The issue isn't whether China or the US is more evil than the other. The point is that the US has no authority, moral or otherwise, to stop the Chinese from doing exactly what we are doing.

[myata]

So China's execution rate is 133 times higher than the U.S.A's. Again: feel free to criticize the U.S. for its outmoded retention of the death penalty, but there's simply no way they are as bad as China on that score.

Some basic math for you:

1770 / 60 = 30 (rounded)

Then, China's population is 4 times that of the US: 30 / 4 = 7.5

Quite a difference from your figure. And, then they don't go around this globe preaching their stellar record on human rights and like. Let's give them some leeway for that.

[Black Dog]

Some basic math for you:

1770 / 60 = 30 (rounded)

Then, China's population is 4 times that of the US: 30 / 4 = 7.5

Quite a difference from your figure.

I was basing my figure on the 8,000 numbeer given by the Chinese legal expert, not the lowball "official" number you're using. Either way: I can at least say that U.S. death penalty recipients have, by and large, had their shot at due process, flawed as it may be. I can't say the same about anybody who's taken a bullet in the head from the Chinese government.

And, then they don't go around this globe preaching their stellar record on human rights and like. Let's give them some leeway for that.

I'm having a hard time following this: we should cut the Chinese regime some slack because though they are barbarians of the lowest order, at least they aren't hypocrites?

The issue isn't whether China or the US is more evil than the other.

So why mention "invading small countries and murdering innocent people" at all?

The point is that the US has no authority, moral or otherwise, to stop the Chinese from doing exactly what we are doing.

"What do you mean we, paleface?"

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

So why mention "invading small countries and murdering innocent people" at all?

A: because it's true

B: because we (America) like to pretend that our purity gives us the right to American exceptionalism.

"What do you mean we, paleface?"

Obviously, my brother .. you haven't seen my face. .. Me Tonto.

[myata]

I was basing my figure on the 8,000 numbeer given by the Chinese legal expert, not the lowball "official" number you're using. Either way: I can at least say that U.S. death penalty recipients have, by and large, had their shot at due process, flawed as it may be. I can't say the same about anybody who's taken a bullet in the head from the Chinese government.

Here's the quote in question: "Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,770 people were executed in China during the year, although the true figures were believed to be much higher."

It does go on to cite the other figure, as a data given by expert, without subscribing to it. Wouldn't it be, so to say, more precise, to use the Amnesty International lower figure, as a lower boundary (i.e., "at least 7.5 times higher..." ) as opposed to never mention it at all? Of course you're free to write your own report based on your intimate knowledge of China's situation and have it accepted internationally as valid and proven record.

I'm having a hard time following this: we should cut the Chinese regime some slack because though they are barbarians of the lowest order, at least they aren't hypocrites?

Why hypocritical? Shouldn't someone professing global rights and democracy be held to a higher standard than just everybody else?

In any case, it's beyond the point who's better that who. It's simply not a credible position and will not impress anybody.

[Black Dog]

A: because it's true

Be that as it may, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

B: because we (America) like to pretend that our purity gives us the right to American exceptionalism.

I don't know if anyone, save for the most deluded, would argue that America is pure as the driven snow. But I look at it this way: given that no state is perfect and given that the U.S.'s record on human rights, flawed as it may be, is still exponentially better than China's, I'd say they can still comfortably occupy the moral highground on human rights issues. Less so, of course, on the weponization of space.

myata:

Here's the quote in question: "Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,770 people were executed in China during the year, although the true figures were believed to be much higher."

It does go on to cite the other figure, as a data given by expert, without subscribing to it. Wouldn't it be, so to say, more precise, to use the Amnesty International lower figure, as a lower boundary (i.e., "at least 7.5 times higher..." ) as opposed to never mention it at all? Of course you're free to write your own report based on your intimate knowledge of China's situation and have it accepted internationally as valid and proven record.

What difference does it make, really? 75 times higher or 133 times higher, it's still apples and oranges. Even more so when you consider the respective legals systems.

Why hypocritical? Shouldn't someone professing global rights and democracy be held to a higher standard than just everybody else?

The U.S. often fails to live up to the standards it sets, as do most western democracies. However, given that states like China fall short of even the most basic standards of humanity, giving them a pass or attempting to draw some equivilance with western states is just not on.

Again: compared to its own standards, the U.S has work to do. But compared to China and 90 per cent of the rest of the world, they are fucking saints.

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

Be that as it may, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand

Again, I respect the right to your opinion, but I disagree.

Would the fact that America is the only nation to use nuclear weapons also not be relevant to this conversation? I won't include the fact that we didn't have to use nukes .. either time .. but the question most critical to this argument is whether China has the right to protect itself. I would suggest that the character of the nation it feels it has to protect itself from is indeed relevant to this argument. I don't think that because we are perceived as less evil, no matter what level of less evil, is what's relevant.

Does China have a legitimate reason to fear the west, specifically the US? THAT is what's most relevant my brother.

The british went to war with China to protect the interests of british opium dealers.

Is that relevant to this argument?

But compared to China and 90 per cent of the rest of the world, they are fucking saints.

We (America) just mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people .. for profit.

Saint?

I doubt if 90% of the rest of the world can top that .. for starters

[blackascoal]

US argument over the Chinese test SCREAMS hypocracy.

China isn't the only one rushing to acquire military capabilities in space.

President Bush signed an order in October tacitly asserting the U.S. right to space weapons and opposing the development of treaties or other measures restricting them — a move some analysts speculated may have helped spur the Chinese test.

Bush has also pushed an ambitious program of space-based missile defense and the Pentagon is working on missiles, ground lasers and other technology to shoot down satellites.

However, the Pentagon's budget is severely constrained by Iraq and Afghanistan and a drive to replace outdated planes and ships, making space programs a lower priority and prompting some to warn the U.S. could be losing ground in space.

"We are falling behind, if not losing, on many measures of space superiority," Defense Department contractor Stephen Hill said Monday at a forum in Washington.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen...ssile_Test.html

[Black Dog]

Would the fact that America is the only nation to use nuclear weapons also not be relevant to this conversation?

Yes. It's irrelevant.

the question most critical to this argument is whether China has the right to protect itself.

I would say China does have the right to protect itself. That's the realist view. The moral view is different.

I would suggest that the character of the nation it feels it has to protect itself from is indeed relevant to this argument

Then, by the same token, the character of the defenidng state is also relevant. And China has little in the way of character to defend.

Does China have a legitimate reason to fear the west, specifically the US?

Probably not, for reasons that have been articulated elsewhere. Indeed: we have more to fear from China.

We (America) just mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people .. for profit.

Saint?

I doubt if 90% of the rest of the world can top that .. for starters

Please: the Chinese Communists killed half a million during the Cultural Revolution, and their policies contributed to the deaths of between 20 and 43 million during the "Great Leap forward". Then there's Tianmen square and the subsequent crackdowns, the persecution of the Falun Gong cult, and the everyday terror and repression that is a facet of daily life in China. And that's just their own people.

[myata]

It's 7.5, not 75, really! I hope you aren't this loose with your taxes or you're in big trouble.

Then and again, the "moral" argument (even if you believe that it was "moral" to nuke two cities full of civilians from safe distance), doesn't matter much here. China is doing the same thing as US was doing for years and who's there to stop them?

From todays CBC commentary on the issue (the exact transcript should exist somewhere on the Net): < ... China reaffirmed it's commitment to peaceful space. For ... years Russia and China have been advocating international treaty on prohibition of weapons in the space. These attempts were rejected by Bush's administration. >

Sound like these "grave concerns" by the same administration have a good chance to qualify for the years top international policy hypocrisy contest. Not to mention that they carry as much credibility as water in bottomless bucket.

[Black Dog]

It's 7.5, not 75, really! I hope you aren't this loose with your taxes or you're in big trouble.

Whatever. If you had your choice which nation would you rather be accussed of a crime in? yeah, I thought so.

From todays CBC commentary on the issue (the exact transcript should exist somewhere on the Net): < ... China reaffirmed it's commitment to peaceful space. For ... years Russia and China have been advocating international treaty on prohibition of weapons in the space. These attempts were rejected by Bush's administration. >

Sound like these "grave concerns" by the same administration have a good chance to qualify for the years top international policy hypocrisy contest. Not to mention that they carry as much credibility as water in bottomless bucket.

I think there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. After all, if China is so committed to the peaceful use of space, why are they exploring ways to blow shit up?

As M. Dancer indicated upthread, applying moral principles to foreign policy decisions is usually a mug's game.

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

Please: the Chinese Communists killed half a million during the Cultural Revolution, and their policies contributed to the deaths of between 20 and 43 million during the "Great Leap forward". Then there's Tianmen square and the subsequent crackdowns, the persecution of the Falun Gong cult, and the everyday terror and repression that is a facet of daily life in China. And that's just their own people.

I didn't say China couldn't top our record, but that "90% of the rest of the world" could not. As I've said all along, there is no moral high ground here, especially if you include our historical record as you did that of China.

Slavery (not implying that the US is the only one who did it) and the millions of bodies beneath the waters of the middle passage, the genocide of America's indigenous people, and our use of nuclear weapons alone disqualifies us (America) as "saints" by any measure.

But if the moral argument is not relevant to you, then let's move from it.

I don't agree that we have more to fear from China than they have to fear from us and the hypocrisy demonstrated in this very argument is proof of that. The Bush Administrtation refuses to sign any agreements that prohibit weapons in space .. then pursues them. That raises the ante for the Chinese, the Russians, and everybody else.

After all, if China is so committed to the peaceful use of space, why are they exploring ways to blow shit up?

Because we are pursuing space weapons. If your adversary was building weapons in space, wouldn't it prudent for you to develop a means of blowing them up? Even if any attack didn't come from space, if the US attacks China we will be heavily dependant on satellites to fight them .. which makes the ability to blow them up a prudent and intelligent defensive strategy.

applying moral principles to foreign policy decisions is usually a mug's game

Everytime we trumpet "democracy" are we not applying moral principles to our foreign policy? Isn't that what we did in Vietnam and what we claim to be doing in Iraq?

I have children and some of them have children and I do not want to see any escalation of weapons in space. My comments have nothing to do with being "anti-american" and everything to do with being anti-end-of-human-existence.

[Black Dog]

Everytime we trumpet "democracy" are we not applying moral principles to our foreign policy? Isn't that what we did in Vietnam and what we claim to be doing in Iraq?

Well, you should kno wenough to know that "trumpeting" democracy and being committed to democracy are different things. "Democracy" has always been the shiny veneer applied to a very amoral foreign policy. Nonetheless, even an ardent anti-American like yours truly can acknowledge that the U.S. has done more for freedom and democracy than China or the aforementioned 90 per centers.

I have children and some of them have children and I do not want to see any escalation of weapons in space. My comments have nothing to do with being "anti-american" and everything to do with being anti-end-of-human-existence.

Space weapons don't worry me. They're prohibitively expensive and impractical. If anything space weapons is more about the U.S.'s commitment to a healthy defense industry than anything else. I oppose it on those grounds, not because I'm afraid of Star Wars.

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

Well, you should kno wenough to know that "trumpeting" democracy and being committed to democracy are different things. "Democracy" has always been the shiny veneer applied to a very amoral foreign policy.

I couldn't agree with you more .. which kinda' makes my point. We apply the shiny veneer to our foreign policy decisions, many of which couldn't pass, nor could the American people accept without it.

Nonetheless, even an ardent anti-American like yours truly can acknowledge that the U.S. has done more for freedom and democracy than China or the aforementioned 90 per centers.

Just to let you know my brother, I have no emotional attachment to "anti-american", "unpatriotic", or any other Matrix-driven buzzwords. That's for people who do not understand the difference from being a citizen or being a subject of the Crown. That's for Americans who do not understand and have probably never read the Declaration of Independence. I'm a Jeffersonian American and I understand that in today's mind-warp political climate, Thomas Jefferson would be called "anti-american". Puts me in good company. Thanks

AND, although you reject it, you are again using a moral equivlent for your argument. Doing more or less or any level of evil is not, in my opinion, relevant to this argument .. only that all sides are capable of the same evil.

Space weapons don't worry me. They're prohibitively expensive and impractical. If anything space weapons is more about the U.S.'s commitment to a healthy defense industry than anything else. I oppose it on those grounds, not because I'm afraid of Star Wars.

I agree with much of what you've said here .. and it isn't space weapons that worry me either as much as the military/industrial complex and their need for blood. America is in the business of war .. and that does not bode well for our future.

I agree with General Smedley Butler .. War is a Racket

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Black Dog]

AND, although you reject it, you are again using a moral equivlent for your argument. Doing more or less or any level of evil is not, in my opinion, relevant to this argument .. only that all sides are capable of the same evil.

Thge moral argument is irrelevant to this particular topic, but it keeps popping up. I don't belive there's a moral equivilance betwene the U.S. and China. Period. As to the rest: I think America, by virtue of its system of government and it's philosophical foundations is less capable of evil than China.

[blackascoal]

AND, although you reject it, you are again using a moral equivlent for your argument. Doing more or less or any level of evil is not, in my opinion, relevant to this argument .. only that all sides are capable of the same evil.

Thge moral argument is irrelevant to this particular topic, but it keeps popping up. I don't belive there's a moral equivilance betwene the U.S. and China. Period. As to the rest: I think America, by virtue of its system of government and it's philosophical foundations is less capable of evil than China.

I understand you believe that but "less" is not the point.

Is the US capable of evil? .. Absolutely.

Does China not only have the right, but duty to defend itself against an adversary capable of evil, no matter how one quantifies that evil? .. Absolutely.

That's my point.