|
|
Originally posted by Belbin
"With its current military and economic might, the US does have a strategically dominant position in the globe. But that doesn't make it invulnerable. Nor does it mean it will keep it."
Yes I understand that but at the moment for them to move on any other country it costs a lot of money and they have to deal with the possible bad publicity of deaths on their on side (not to mention the possibility of losing). If however the enemy could be dealt with by the press of a button, the next time a satelite was overhead, with out that much expenditure (even bombs and jet fuel cost money) and whomever offends you ceases to exist. The technology shown on this program didn't seem that far fetched.
The thing is this sort of stuff is nt the same as high tech helicopter gunships, or tanks, or stealth bombers. It's the brutal, enforcement end of information/intekigence warfare. The psychological impact of using space based weapons on terrorists, alone would be devastating.
Originally posted by Belbin
"One world under the US? Well yeah, in that the US is relatively unconstrained by other nations in its actions. But politics and money matter far more than simple military might."
I take your point however what I'm talking about is this space based warfare would be easy, in relative terms. I don't see America becoming an evil overlord but rather the military option would become a lot more attarctive and serious global dissenters (or suspected dissenters) would dissapear very quickly.
Maybe this is a good thing, I don't know. "Oh there's bin Laden." Zap. No more bin Laden, no need to bomb Afghanistan. Maybe they would eventually be able to get the pin point accuracy they're always lieing about at the moment.
The thing is the militarilisation of our space seems to be going on and unlike national territory it's based purely on who has the most money to kick around and it seems that there is nothing people can do about it. |
|
|