If our allies don't like ... thy better learn to like it pronto!

May 30, 2003 6:31 AM

Pentagon: space is for Americans only
At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, (NRO director Peter) 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.' Suckers!
posted by magullo (80 comments total)

E M P I R E

Oh, but of course the U.S. doesn't seize any territory. So it's not an empire. Sure.

We don't seize territory. We just borrow it.
posted by troutfishing at 6:34 AM on May 30, 2003

And the rub is, of course, that if you told most typical Americans about this plan they'd say "hells yes, go team!"
posted by Space Coyote at 6:46 AM on May 30, 2003

Fuckin' typical Americans... then again, what would MetaFilter do without them.
posted by Witty at 6:47 AM on May 30, 2003

Coincidentally?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:48 AM on May 30, 2003

Coincidentally?

Yes, China are part of the axis of Space evil. We Europeans had better watch out too.
posted by walrus at 6:52 AM on May 30, 2003

Shit. Wrong link. Got space on the brain. Try this one instead.
posted by walrus at 6:54 AM on May 30, 2003

And the rub is, of course, that if you told most typical Americans about this plan they'd say "hells yes, go team!"

Stereotypes: the second-to-last refuge of the incompetent.
posted by jsonic at 7:01 AM on May 30, 2003

First, I'd like to point out that this is a proposal. Much like the proposal to project a giant image of Allah over Baghdad to scare the Iraqis into submission.

Second, I'd like to point out that the statements were made by a guy named Teets.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:09 AM on May 30, 2003

Go team!
posted by Spacelegoman at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2003

And the rub is, of course, that if you told most typical Americans about this plan they'd say "hells yes, go team!"

Yes, that was spoken like someone who truly has absolutely no idea what "most Americans" are like.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2003

Europe's response.
posted by Bletch at 7:19 AM on May 30, 2003

So, let me take a hypothetical: let us say the US is going to war with another country, for example, Iraq. Now, several US "allies", say, for example, Russia, Germany and France, disapprove of the actions of the US, because they have been secretly selling arms and intelligence information, some of the latter of which was obtained *from* the US, some of which from their own satellites, to Iraq, as an example, in exchange for billions of Euros worth of delicious, healthful, cheap oil for their cars for many years, at below market rates.
So, the US decides to *not* share its military intelligence with these example "allies", for fear that they will turn around and sell it to Iraq, for example.

Or, how about another hypothetical: let us say that if the US was to get into a war with China, using the US-based Global Positioning System to give it a marked advantage; but a, for example, France and Germany dominated Europe decided to sell positioning data to China, for *it* to use, targeting missiles against the US military and civilians, HOW RUDE would it be for the US to blast the European satellites that would allow them to do this?

I mean, any sense of FAIR PLAY would suggest that the "allies" of the US would NEVER double cross the US for short sighted and treacherous reasons, NOW WOULD THEY?
posted by kablam at 7:20 AM on May 30, 2003

kablam, you really have fallen for the US media spin, haven't you?

I just wonder how far the US Administration would have to go before ordinary Americans stopped thinking of themselves as "the good guys". Hell, I wonder just how many Germans thought they were on the side of right in the second world war?
posted by salmacis at 7:31 AM on May 30, 2003

kablam, let's use our inside voice, ok?
posted by signal at 7:31 AM on May 30, 2003

This Slashdot story has a few links on the China-moon gambit.

The obvious advantage to China, as mentioned by many of the posters, is the ability to simply sit back and heave nearly infinite nuclear-bomb-like explosions at any particular target in the United States with large rocks fired from the moon via a mass driver (aka railgun). They'd be sitting on top of the gravity well, and we'd be on the bottom - it's pretty obvious what happens to us in that case: minor versions of Deep Impact that look and feel an awful lot like Hiroshima.

Speaking as an American - good on the Chinese if they go through with this. What America really needs right now is a goddamn lesson in humility.
posted by Ryvar at 7:36 AM on May 30, 2003

"...the Moon belongs to America..."
posted by drstrangelove at 7:40 AM on May 30, 2003

By the way, Ryvar, why do you hate freedom so much? Are you with the terrorists?
posted by drstrangelove at 7:41 AM on May 30, 2003

Sar wars?, sorry star wars?

Kablam - please the mccarthyesque rhetoric seems shrill, let me assure you there is no euro-sino plot against the helpless inhabitants of the land of the brave home of the free. We (europeans) have no desire to forment into the new evil empire
posted by johnnyboy at 7:42 AM on May 30, 2003

Hell, I wonder just how many Germans thought they were on the side of right in the second world war?

Speaking as the grandchild of two emigrated Hitlerjugende (they were forced into it), they kinda figured it out around the time the whole 'hate the Jews' bit became part of the message (read: early on). While a whole hell of a lot of gentile Germans at the time were honestly and truly screwed out of their livelihood by various wealthy German Jews, it was pretty obvious just by observing their Jewish friends that the racist portions of the Nazi platform were full of shit (the economic side, however . . . Hitler didn't make Time's Man of the Year by sitting on his ass).
posted by Ryvar at 7:45 AM on May 30, 2003

Yeah, I see China being able to do something like this in my lifetime, yeah. You know, since they've been so successful at feeding their people and preventing new, horrible diseases from breeding in their rural areas. The Chinese will have to get to the moon first, anyway.

What America really needs right now is a goddamn lesson in humility.

Yeah, since Americans don't get that enough already from every turn including their own fucking President. Please, people, refrain from using "America" and "Americans" when talking about the Bush Administration. Most of us didn't support him in the first election and still don't support him now, so can you just stop dumping on us? Thanks. I mean if you want to point fingers why don't you look at countries that have popularly elected leaders right now, like Britain or Canada or someone?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:51 AM on May 30, 2003

Ryvar, why would you want an authoritarian, expantionist power, with no respect for the human rights of its own citizens, let alone others, and a strong tendency to abridge intellectual freedoms, to be able to target America so? Would you really rather see a burgeoning dictatorial China control access to space?
posted by pjgulliver at 8:08 AM on May 30, 2003

I mean if you want to point fingers why don't you look at countries that have popularly elected leaders right now, like Britain or Canada or someone?

Don't look at Britain. Nobody knew when they voted for Tony Blair that he'd become a monster. We voted for the LABOUR party for fuck's sake. Imagine if the Democrats had won the election and Gore had turned out to be just like Bush, and there was also a Republican Bush as your only alternative. That's what we've got.
posted by Summer at 8:10 AM on May 30, 2003

Yeah, I see China being able to do something like this in my lifetime, yeah. You know, since they've been so successful at feeding their people and preventing new, horrible diseases from breeding in their rural areas. The Chinese will have to get to the moon first, anyway.

When did the US launch someone into space? In the early 1960s, when the American south had poor, rural economy, and bad health among the poor and elderly was rampant (this is pre Medicaid/Medicare). Our main competitor in the space race was the Soviet Union, which really was a third world country (albeit with a first-world military). I'm not hear to denigrate the accomplishments of going into space, only to point out that manned spaceflight is a vintage mid-20th-century technology, like color television and nuclear weapons.

Under normal circumstances during a rant about China's technological capabilities, I'd add a statement like, "this isn't rocket science, people!", but that seems oddly inappropriate, right now.
posted by deanc at 8:11 AM on May 30, 2003

This is a complete tangent, of course, but-
Eeeeeasy there, Pollo, I'm an American as well - it's not even Bush that pisses me off, it's the people keeping him in power. The stereotypes we see every day around here are relatively untrue about Bush and mostly apply to Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft - and the hordes of beer-swilling, American Idol-watching WWF fans & soccer moms keeping them firmly in place.

Those people, those are the ones who need a lesson in humility. Don't pretend they've been in a minority for one second since 9/11 - every prol from New York to LA has been scared so badly they'll vote for whomever will enable them to lash out like children at the scary things across the globe. The Bush administration is just a reflection of the greater American mentality at the moment, and unfortunately America has not only lashed out - but lashed out with impunity. We're very clearly starting to enjoy it and getting more than a little addicted, and that's why we need a swift kick in the ass to get us back into alignment with reality.

deanc: additional note - China being what it is these days, and sick of its underdog status to the US, there's a real "will to power" floating about. They very clearly won't bat an eyelash at a few deaths or starvations to get a moon colony if they really think it will get them a leg up on us.
posted by Ryvar at 8:20 AM on May 30, 2003

I guess Space 1999 was a few decades off (assuming it was nukes that shot it out of orbit). But it would appear the Bush supporters only watched UFO.
posted by infowar at 8:23 AM on May 30, 2003

Sadly, it is rocket science, and most kids master that in preschool these days.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:24 AM on May 30, 2003

Kablam, here's another hypothetical reality: China has practically no nukes, specially when compared to the US. Even with all the GPS data in the world, they simply are grossly underpowered.

Ryvar, so the plan is for the entire Chinese population to emigrate to the moon and bomb Earth with big boulders from there, or do they have the technology to avoid hitting China's territory while provoking asteroid-crash-like cataclisms elsewhere? Additionally, I don't know where did you get all that information on China's reflections on its own position, but it is a completely flawed analysis. I hate to ask, but do you know its lands and its people first-hand? If you do, then I am certainly very interested to hear how you came to those conclusions. Otherwise, choose a different source.

Pollomacho, America's tragedy (that's right, the America that supports Bush against all logic and against the vast majority of the rest of the world) is that, when faced with a lack of natural enemies, it quickly gets to work unearthing new ones. It is not like it lacks a large stable of allies to suddenly make into foes.
posted by magullo at 8:35 AM on May 30, 2003

Umm, Magullo, hypothetically, why should American's care what the rest of the world thinks of GWB? He's president of this country, not Sec. General of the UN.
posted by pjgulliver at 8:39 AM on May 30, 2003

or do they have the technology to avoid hitting China's territory while provoking asteroid-crash-like cataclisms elsewhere?

This is not high tech. It's a simple set of Newtonian calculations, in fact.

However, putting a mass driver weapons platform on the moon is not something even the United States could easily do. It would require a pretty massive investment in heavy-lift vehicles to get the parts in place (the driver facility itself, the power plant to supply it, the equipment to mine for the ammunition). We're not just talking sending an Eagle lander here.
posted by moonbiter at 8:45 AM on May 30, 2003

America's tragedy (that's right, the America that supports Bush against all logic and against the vast majority of the rest of the world) is that, when faced with a lack of natural enemies, it quickly gets to work unearthing new ones. It is not like it lacks a large stable of allies to suddenly make into foes.

I'm sorry, I dozed off during the first part of your statement there, we're you talking about America? Your description could pretty much be for almost any nation. I wasn't sure if you said France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, Turkey, Russia, China or what. As for supporting Bush against all logic, I'm still not sure what country you are talking about, since that doesn't describe the America that I live in.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:02 AM on May 30, 2003

moonbiter: Ostensibly the non-research purpose of any moon colony is probably resource-gathering, yes? Presumably they'd have the materials and equipment available to do it there.

The 'far out' alternative is a Von Neumann machine-based assembly, but America's best at robotics have only JUST demonstrated such technology, and certainly not in the wild. I don't think that would be within China's capabilities within the given timeframe

magullo: I fact-checked my claims with an expert on China and you are indeed correct. I humbly withdraw the 'will to power' claims. One would think the inferior complex, Asian 'honors' system, and devaluation of human life might contribute a serious 'Will to power' but apparently the potential embarrassment they face if failure were to occur forces them into a deep perfectionism on the effort. My bad.
posted by Ryvar at 9:04 AM on May 30, 2003

The freakiest part of the EE Times article:

Maj. Gen. Judd Blaisdell, director of the Air Force Space Operations Office, said recently, "We are so dominant in space that I pity a country that would come up against us."

America's space policy: brought to you by Mr. T.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:13 AM on May 30, 2003

Ostensibly the non-research purpose of any moon colony is probably resource-gathering, yes? Presumably they'd have the materials and equipment available to do it there.

I'm not so sure that I would presume that. A mass driver is something that requires a pretty large industrial base to pull off, with many specialized parts. It's not something that they could just fabricate on-site. It's almost a given that they would have to ship everything required there.

Hell, if it were me I wouldn't even bother with a mass driver. I'd just send up a bunch of small rocket engines. Strap 'em on a rock with a guidance system, and you'll accomplish the same thing.

Still, I think that the difficulty of establishing a moon base is wildly underestimated in the press. Consider that if the entire earth were to fall under nuclear winter, it would still be eaiser to live here than on the moon, and you start to get an inkling of just how difficult it's going to be. I simply don't think China will pull it off, especially in the 2010-2015 timeframe they are talking about.
posted by moonbiter at 9:39 AM on May 30, 2003

As for supporting Bush against all logic, I'm still not sure what country you are talking about, since that doesn't describe the America that I live in.

which part do you live in? I happen to reside in the very buckle of the bible belt, and magullo's statement is a pretty good summation of the local populace.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:47 AM on May 30, 2003

why should American's care what the rest of the world thinks of GWB?

Is "because the rest of the world might be right" a good enough reason to not lightly dismiss criticism?

Pollomacho, you're right. I apologize. Most countries do indeed travel the world bashing in the heads of former allies without so much as a credible excuse to do so. That is as mainstream as the overwhelming support of the American public to its current administration before, during and after the war about those WMD that are nowhere to be found. I fondly remember the overwhelming sympathy that governments like those of UK or Spain arose among their own people when they decided to support Bush in such a lovely adventure. We're living good times, man, awesome times.
posted by magullo at 9:52 AM on May 30, 2003

Would you really rather see a burgeoning dictatorial China control access to space?

a, for example, France and Germany dominated Europe decided to sell positioning data to China, for *it* to use, targeting missiles against the US military and civilians

Seriously, are both of you insane? That's really all I can say right now, my jaw being on the floor.
posted by Hildago at 9:54 AM on May 30, 2003

Stereotypes: the second-to-last refuge of the incompetent.

You mean the typical americans who believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? I stand by my stereotype. (Also notice the use of the word 'most')
posted by Space Coyote at 10:14 AM on May 30, 2003

"Speaking as an American - good on the Chinese if they go through with this. What America really needs right now is a goddamn lesson in humility."

I hope you never live to eat those infantile words, pal
posted by Pressed Rat at 10:45 AM on May 30, 2003

I thought infants couldn't say words.
posted by websavvy at 10:54 AM on May 30, 2003

Pressed Rat, thank god someone else feels the same way about that assinine phrase that I do.
posted by pjgulliver at 11:02 AM on May 30, 2003

Pressed Rat:
Humility comes from learning from mistakes. It doesn't require nukes raining from the heavens to learn to be humble. A spiritual path is one means. So is learning to lead by example and share in good fortune.

As for caring what the rest of the world thinks of GWB:
If we treat our allies like dirt, or ignorant children because the US has all the answers, I suspect you'll see those allies disappear.

If America wants to continue to use "allies" as staging grounds for continual war (and that is what is happening here) you must treat them as partners. The US powers-that-be ATM have an arrogant attitude towards anybody that dares disagree with them no matter how small the difference. With an attitude like that you'll see more pressure from the citizens of said allies to sever relations (initially military but eventually other such as economic) with the US. If you think Okinawans want the US out now, wait a few more years when the entire region wants the US out. Any democratic government (and even non-democratic ones) still need to address the concerns of its people. How do you think the Japanese and South Korean people feel when Bush deals with the N Korean issue by excluding them, yet including the PRC which was Enemy No 1 when Bush was just a candidate? Isn't that humiliating those governments? Doesn't that engender more instability in the long run?

Rather than demanding actions from other countries or "to hell with them" the US should be working with governments to solve common problems. I don't see much work on the part of the US to deal with "the war on terror" when it comes to Tamils, the IRA, or Chechnya.

Perceiving the entire world as a threat to US hegemony is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that many, many Americans don't even consider such issues and follow the jingoism of a few elites makes it worse.

I hope a hard rain comes soon.
posted by infowar at 11:04 AM on May 30, 2003

a, for example, France and Germany dominated Europe decided to sell positioning data to China, for *it* to use, targeting missiles against the US military and civilians

Seriously, are both of you insane? That's really all I can say right now, my jaw being on the floor.

Well, you don't plan against intentions, which can always change, you plan against capabilities, so it's not crazy to have plans and tools to take down Galileo or Spot if needs be.

And it's not *that* crazy a concern. Galileo is, as near as I can tell, not intended to be turned off during a war, so it could easily become a useful tool to an enemy of the US or Russia and, maybe, need to be taken down by either of them. And it's designed to use frequencies very close to those used by GPS, presumably to make it harder to jam Galileo signals without jamming GPS along with it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:08 AM on May 30, 2003

Infowar, you should get your history right.

In regards to the Korean situation, the US has been pubicly calling for a regional multilateral approach to the North Korean issue since the fall. It has been the region's other powers who insisted the US deal with NK alone. Finally the best compromise the US was able to make was a limited multilateral conference with only the PRC and NK. The US in no way "excluded" Japan and SK.
posted by pjgulliver at 11:17 AM on May 30, 2003

Most countries do indeed travel the world bashing in the heads of former allies without so much as a credible excuse to do so.

Glad to see you actually remembered history. Of course the reverse is true as well, the alliances with former adversaries. Why not just take Italy as an example, fighting against the Austrians and Germans during the 1st World War then against their former allies for the 2nd and now a pleasant NATO, EU and UN member, funny how things like that work, seems to be especially bad among the white folks.

That is as mainstream as the overwhelming support of the American public to its current administration before, during and after the war

Once again, someone who has no knowledge of life and opinions of Americans making a statement based on what they think they know about us. Please, please, if you remember ANYTHING remember that Bush LOST the popular vote, just because a guy in rural Georgia can't see anything but rednecks, doesn't mean that the majority of Americans (those not living in the Bible Belt, or rural or Georgian) feel that these are good times. Don't believe everything you read in the Guardian, we're really not that bad, really, you'll probably find just as many bigots and warmongers anywhere you look, yes, even in Holland, god forbid! You may be happy with that, but most of us in the US aren't.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:29 AM on May 30, 2003

. . . with large rocks fired from the moon via a mass driver (aka railgun).

Did anyone ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein? There's a very similar idea in the novel.
posted by velacroix at 11:39 AM on May 30, 2003

you seem to have missed my point, which is: you are not the lorax.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:39 AM on May 30, 2003

No criticism at all of the FPP (which has spawned a good discussion) but it bothers me that people are surprised by this. I hate to sound like a prick, but reading everything written by PNAC during the Clinton administration (when Rummy and Wolf and John Bolton et al were on staff) ought to be required for everyone. In this hefty document they outline the whole US Space Force thingy.

When talking about PNAC, I used to feel vaguely like a trilateral-commission-fearing nut, but how can one ignore it when the real nuts have provided us with a blueprint of all their crazy ideas. Patriot Act (pre-9/11 no less), war with Iraq, war with Iran, space dominance, it's all there in black and white.

Why isn't there one person in the major media who screams about this everytime another PNAC idea gets trotted out?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:09 PM on May 30, 2003

You mean the typical americans who believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

You're original post claimed that 'most' americans believe this. You actually asked more than 150 million American's about their opinion on the subject (total pop. > 300 million)? You wouldn't be making up your 'most' claim in order to suit your worldview, would you?

I stand by my stereotype.

Wow. You actually think stereotypes are a useful thing.

(Also notice the use of the word 'most')

That makes it ok to make blanket statements about people you've never met? Ok.
posted by jsonic at 12:16 PM on May 30, 2003

PJ: It was China that pushed N Korea to the table. I would speculate that Japan simply didn't want to go to the table because of China's participation. That seems to be changing with Japan PM to seek Beijing's help on North Korea. As for S Korea it was made clear from Bush's first meeting with the previous President that the Sunshine Policy was not the course the US would endorse and he was politely/diplomatically brushed off.

So while you are correct, and I mispoke, I would posit that the US, who clearly didn't want to "give into blackmail" in the words of one Bush admin official by speaking directly with N Korea knew beforehand that there would be little chance for a truly regional conference.

It reminds me of when the US said it wouldn't negoiatate/talk with Iraq before attacking its forces under either Bush. It was as if the admin knew the results before even making an effort.

Regardless, my point about treating allies callously remains.

With respect,
infowar
posted by infowar at 12:19 PM on May 30, 2003

infowar--

I agree with your remarks about humility & was with you until the comment about the hard rain - what's that supposed to imply?
posted by Pressed Rat at 12:23 PM on May 30, 2003

You actually asked more than 150 million American's about their opinion on the subject (total pop. > 300 million)

Uh, polls can be used to (within a certain degree of accuracy) determine the opinions of much larger samples of people. And, yes, there were Americans polled about this and, yes, the majority were misinformed.

Your comment just makes you look silly.
posted by websavvy at 1:06 PM on May 30, 2003

A conflict over orbital dominance could lead to 'negation' for everyone.

The worst scenario would be an attempt to disable US orbital defences. "It's easy to attack satellites - basically you put gravel into orbit," says Primack. A multitude of small, untrackable objects would hit existing satellites and spent boosters, destroying them and producing an increasing cascade of debris.

"Once we fill space with debris, it's permanent," Primack warns. NASA says debris below 600 km will fall within several years, but objects in 1000-km orbits will survive for a century or more.
posted by homunculus at 1:07 PM on May 30, 2003

The obvious advantage to China, as mentioned by many of the posters, is the ability to simply sit back and heave nearly infinite nuclear-bomb-like explosions at any particular target in the United States with large rocks fired from the moon via a mass driver (aka railgun).

Surely it would be cheaper to just build big piles of ICBMs or cruise missiles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:13 PM on May 30, 2003

Uh, polls can be used to (within a certain degree of accuracy) determine the opinions of much larger samples of people. And, yes, there were Americans polled about this and, yes, the majority were misinformed.

I'd like to know when the polls were taken, by whom, and what questions were asked. I'd also like to see what the results for the same questions at the same time in other countries. Anyone? Can we see this data?

Yeah, I'd say that on 9/12 there were plenty of people that pointed at Saddam, probably just as many that pointed that way in Canada or Syria. Things aren't like they were in September of 2001, and remember, despite all Americans vote with their pocketbooks and not their trigger fingers, just ask George Sr.

Surely it would be cheaper to just build big piles of ICBMs or cruise missiles.

What? With America's impenetrable missile defense shield?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:30 PM on May 30, 2003

Your comment just makes you look silly.

No, the person who uses a poll (which you have not provided a link for) as an excuse to judge an entire population is the one who is silly.

But please, continue explaining why its ok to stereotype.

[on preview] what pollomacho said.
posted by jsonic at 1:37 PM on May 30, 2003

Pollo, that last sentence was priceless. A good end of afternoon laugh.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:59 PM on May 30, 2003

BIG SAM:
MERGE EXPLORATION, CONSOLIDATE DATA. ARE WE CLEAR ON THIS OUTER SPACE ISSUE GENTLEMAN AND LADIES. GENERAL CHINWAG SAID THE OTHER DAY THAT RESOURCES SHIPPED IN FROM SAY MARS, WE FULFILL ALL OUR ORE AND MINERALS NEEDS IN 40 YEARS. NOT TO MENTION COLONEL HOOVER WHO HAS HIS JUPITER METHANE EXTRACTION VESSELS...WHAT?...HOW BIG? THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY THE SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND. RIGHT. THAT IS ALL.
posted by clavdivs at 2:02 PM on May 30, 2003

jsonic: It is not a "stereotype", it is a statistic. You are unclear on the concept of statistics and basic mathematics. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
posted by jpoulos at 2:05 PM on May 30, 2003

4 out of 5 "choosy" moms choose Jif brand peanut butter, yet somehow Jif brand is not the number one brand in sales. I guess most moms aren't very choosy? Meanwhile, a majority of voters picked Gore over Bush, yet polls show we Americans love to kill brown people when we are all juiced up on patriotism. I'd still like to see that poll data, not that it matters where it counts. Exit polls (a usually "reliable" poll) in the last US election were so far off many were tossed all together, so much for pollster infallibility.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:21 PM on May 30, 2003

[...or rigged elections?]
posted by dash_slot- at 2:27 PM on May 30, 2003

The European Commission said Galileo would typically be used by transport networks, search and rescue operations, and customs and social service officials. [ - from the IHT article linked above.]

WTF?? I - don't - believe - it.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:34 PM on May 30, 2003

Jesus Christ, are we now at the point where we are calling into question the very viability of statistics as a mathematical method? Just because we don't like the results? Come on.

Polls are imperfect, thus an accountable margin of error. The larger the sample, the more unbiased the questions, the more careful the methodology, the more representative the sample is. This is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Now, you can say that the people conducting the poll were biased and thus the results were skewed, but that's a very weighty charge to make without any evidence besides the fact that you just don't like what it says. You can't go around just saying statistics are invalid because they bother you.

Jsonic, if the majority of people polled thought Iraq had something to do with the hijackings, then probably at least a very significant portion of America as a whole does. You don't have to like it, that's just how it is.

Pollomacho, a fake poll used in a commercial doesn't mean shit, and you know it, so why even bring it up unless you're trying to obfuscate something else?
posted by Hildago at 3:21 PM on May 30, 2003

For all of those looking for information on those poll numbers that suddenly seem to be at such a large debate then hopefully this link will help you. About a third of the way down you will find a couple of polls that were done that showed that a majority ( a slim one but a majority none the less) of American's polled believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

why would you want an authoritarian, expantionist power, with no respect for the human rights of its own citizens, let alone others, and a strong tendency to abridge intellectual freedoms.....

pj. I think that was the point of this entire post actually. Before China got dragged into this whole mess.
Oh wait... you were talking about China
posted by Restlessavenger at 3:47 PM on May 30, 2003

magullo: I suggested a hypothetical war between the US and China, not necessarily a full blown nuclear war. I would agree that China is very "sphere-oriented", but I would assert that it also wants domination within "its" sphere.
A very reasonable hypothetical would be that China wants *economic* and cultural domination of southeast Asia, Oceania and western Pacific. Realizing its economy is very export oriented, it needs a deep water merchant marine protected by a deep water navy (which it has been vigorously building now for a decade.) Militarily, it *must* also control Taiwan, or it has no effective control of its entire southern coast. To conquer Taiwan, it must first reduce it militarily, say by using the hundreds of missiles on the mainland coast, currently incrementing by a score or two each month, pointed towards Taiwan; and then it must flotilla an enormous army to Taiwan, without threat from the US Navy.
Within the past few years, a senior Chinese Army Colonel proposed a "by any means necessary" unconventional war strategy directed against the US, for the explicit purpose of a "distraction" during a grab of Taiwan.

Now, *if* such a scenario came to pass, and the US Navy was still capable of force projection in the Pacific *only* because the ports of Bremerton and San Diego still existed, (no other friendly Pacific ports being adequate for major repair, refit and re-armament); *then* Global Positioning System would be exceptionally useful in counter-attacking the Chinese Taiwan invaders, and the mainland itself.

But, if the Europeans, who are developing their own GPS, decided to offer its use to China, *or the Chinese themselves*, who are launching GPS-type satellites, it would make it much harder for the US Navy to get within striking distance without being effectively targeted themselves.

So, for *this* and similar reasons, the US, who for some reason, doesn't trust its "allies" terribly much, reserves the right to protect its and Taiwan's interests, if the "allies" decide to double cross the US in the future. I do not see it as unreasonable to not trust (especially) the French, who seem to do the most damnably shortsighted foreign policy actions imaginable. And, if the Russians want to sell detailed satellite imagery to the Chinese during such a war, well, perish their satellite, too.
posted by kablam at 4:16 PM on May 30, 2003

I don't think the post had anything to do with the fact that it would be useful for the US to have control of space. Of course it would be useful. The problem is the simple fact that we have no rights to space. Space doesn't belong to the US. This would be just like the US saying that we need the Atlantic Ocean for our own security and as such have the right to blow up and vessel that floats through "our ocean"
posted by Restlessavenger at 4:30 PM on May 30, 2003

- wow, I'm *persuaded* ...

Who's been writing down his Risk strategies, then, eh?

Within the past few years, a senior Chinese Army Colonel proposed a "by any means necessary" unconventional war strategy directed against the US, for the explicit purpose of a "distraction" during a grab of Taiwan.strong>

- Now this is quite a novel (to me) theory: could you please supply some links, for a weary surfer?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:37 PM on May 30, 2003

It is not a "stereotype", it is a statistic

Care to back that up. Also notice that the person I was responding to specifically stated: "I stand behind my stereotype".

You are unclear on the concept of statistics and basic mathematics.

Simply because something is a poll does not mean that it a valid statistical representation of an entire nation. It's interesting that you assume it is. Would you give the same credence to a poll that didn't match your world view?

If someone does post the mystery poll, and it is valid, then I will be happy to have learned something. Notice that I never argued that American's didn't believe this. I simply disagree with people making judgements because they think something is true without proving it.
posted by jsonic at 6:10 PM on May 30, 2003

dash_slot: "Unrestricted Warfare", by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (link is to a synopsis.)

However, I could also quote from General Xiong Guangkai, the People's Liberation Army Deputy Chief of General Staff, who made a thinly-veiled threat to the US by saying that "Americans care more for Los Angeles than they do for Taiwan", which is in keeping with the idea that if America is "distracted" (by a major disaster (like a single nuke blowing up in LA)), China could capture Taiwan quickly and easily.

This is not to say that the US is unaware of this strategy and is not trying to counter it. In fact, the US is totally redesigning its surface fleet into an entire new breed of ship. The premier magazine of world naval undertakings is "Proceedings of the US Naval Institute", not (uh-huh) affiliated with the US Navy. Actually, it's a darn good magazine, read by every senior naval officer on the planet. For the past decade, about every third issue was devoted to some new ship in the Chinese Navy. A major build-up.

As far as the Taiwan flotilla mentioned above, a more conventional ship being designed is like a modular PT boat from the WWII area. The "Streetfighter" is kind of the "Humvee" of ships, with a minimum crew, high speed, and capability to carry all sorts of weapons. And effective counter to a flotilla, and easy to pre-position and assemble in theater.
posted by kablam at 6:55 PM on May 30, 2003

War War War. Everywhere Everywhere Everywhere. In space. Under the seas. On the web. In our heads.

Doesn't any warmonger wonder when the cycle has to stop? When will it be? When will you people begin to dedicate yourselves to something grander and far less boring? War sucks. War sucks the energy out of all of us and directs our energies at something that sells human potential short. Shit that sells human potential short is by very definition, boring, no matter how deadly or superficially amusing. And that ironically, is why I suspect we glom onto the idea of "A War" in the first place. It's because we're bored and have nothing else to do.

War is between giant elite opposing monoliths. The "monolith" is made up of individual atoms. The atoms being us little people who go about our lives in LA, Taiwan and Shanghai and try to enjoy them. Hi there!. We either pay the price of being one with the monolith or we act as the singular atoms that we are, and purposely weaken the little bit of the monolith that we're able to influence,as we find our personal atomic worth isn't worth spending on them.

Extraterrestrials are gonna be laughing for millenia at the "United States" quest to "control" space circa Earthdate 2003 when they find out about our joke of a species (as represented by our Earth's utterly selfishly soporific leadership) sometime within the next billion years.
posted by crasspastor at 7:35 PM on May 30, 2003

In other news, a dove penetrates Pentagon security.
posted by Wet Spot at 8:44 PM on May 30, 2003

If someone does post the mystery poll, and it is valid, then I will be happy to have learned something.

In a February CNN-Time poll, 76 percent of those surveyed felt Saddam provides assistance to al Qaeda. Another poll released in February asked, "Was Saddam Hussein personally involved in the September 11 attacks?" Although it is a claim the Bush administration has never made and for which there is no evidence, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely.
posted by jpoulos at 9:48 PM on May 30, 2003

Well, kablam, g2mil had this to say about China's threat to Taiwan: China can't invade Taiwan:

One of the biggest lies heard in the American media is that China may invade Taiwan. China has 1300 million people, so how can Taiwan with only 22 million people possibly defend itself. The simple answer is 100 miles of water, known as the Taiwan straits. A Chinese invasion would require an amphibious force larger than the Anglo-American force which landed at Normandy in 1944. China has only 10% of the naval power needed just to attempt a difficult invasion against Taiwan, which has only three practical landing sites, all heavily fortified. Anyone who performs some quick research will find that no expert believes China is capable of invading Taiwan, nor that it is building the naval force needed. All major powers acquire new warships every year, but every new Chinese warship is treated as proof of growing Chinese power by the American media.

The air forces among these two nations are considered an even match. China has more aircraft, but Taiwan has more sophisticated fighters with pilots who are much better trained. In addition, Taiwan's fighters operating in a defensive role would have the advantages of Taiwanese ground radar, E-2C airborne radar, and surface-to-air missile support. The Chinese Air Force could inflict damage on Taiwan, but would lose most of its Air Force in the process. It could fire some 300 missiles at Taiwan, but they are not precision guided and would have no military effect. In short, a massive Chinese air and missile attack could kill a thousand Taiwanese and cause some damage, but China's airpower would be sacrificed.

Likewise, the larger Chinese Navy could attempt to blockade Taiwan, but would be gradually sunk by sophisticated Taiwanese anti-ship and anti-submarine weaponry...

Space War with China? Not this decade, I think.
posted by y2karl at 9:50 PM on May 30, 2003

Ignatius: I am incredulous of the cool implementation of the radical ideas outlined in PNAC. The level of political sophistication and journallistic spin achieved is amazing, to obtain such broad-based support for ideas either immoral or detrimental to their supporters. Now, how can we use these superpowers for good?!
posted by copmuter at 10:37 PM on May 30, 2003

copmuter:
I just can not understand why some mainstream journalist doesn't ponce on PNAC and ride that shit all the way to the bank. If everything plays out, the right story that framed all of these lies and agendas in the way that finally got across to people would be as hard-hitting as Watergate. Apparently our free press values their freedom to be spineless.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:47 PM on May 30, 2003

...that's why we need a swift kick in the ass to get us back into alignment with reality.

I nominate your ass to be first in line. Speak for yourself Ryvar. Where do you come off saying something as stupid as "America needs to get its ass kicked"... er whatever. Care to provide an example?
posted by Witty at 5:56 AM on May 31, 2003

Humility [TM]
witty thinks its lame!
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:18 AM on May 31, 2003

Everyone needs to get their ass kicked if they're getting out of line. In fact I believe that's our new foreign policy. What's the matter, Witty, hate America or something?
posted by Hildago at 12:10 PM on May 31, 2003

Yes, I hate America... and all the people in it.
posted by Witty at 4:41 AM on June 1, 2003

We (europeans) have no desire to forment into the new evil empire

That's what they all say.
posted by zerofoks at 1:25 PM on June 1, 2003

why should American's care what the rest of the world thinks of GWB?

well well well. the kettle speaks.

"Try to understand the complexity of the situation before you spout off."
posted by specialk420 at 1:39 PM on June 5, 2003