SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the may-you-live-in-interesting-times dept.
The LA Times (archive.fo) reports that the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes changes that could lead to the deployment of weapons in space:
President Obama has signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding U.S. nuclear defense policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems. The National Defense Authorization Act, a year-end policy bill encompassing virtually every aspect of the U.S. military, contained two provisions with potentially momentous consequences.
One struck the word "limited" from language describing the mission of the country's homeland missile defense system. The system is designed to thwart a small-scale attack by a non-superpower such as North Korea or Iran. A related provision calls for the Pentagon to start "research, development, test and evaluation" of space-based systems for missile defense. Together, the provisions signal that the U.S. will seek to use advanced technology to defeat both small-scale and large-scale nuclear attacks. That could unsettle the decades-old balance of power among the major nuclear states.
[...] Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." Known as "Star Wars," the initiative cost taxpayers $30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.
Other NDAA changes include a 2.1% pay raise for enlisted service members and officers, a boost of 16,000 more service members (to 476,000), restructuring of Tricare, and the final nail in the coffin for the Obama Administration's promise to close detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The bill also elevates the United States Cyber Command to the combatant command level, instead of a sub-unit of the Strategic Command, and addresses the recent National Guard bonus fiasco by requiring the Pentagon to prove that an individual soldier "did not accept their enlistment bonus in good faith", while allowing those who did make repayments to get a refund.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:18PM
Whenever I finally decide I'm okay with O he goes and does something like this or the droning Americans thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:22PM
D'oh! This [soylentnews.org] is why it's a good idea to read the comments first (especially when there are only 5 of them :P) --
But when a law is passed, it's not the fucking executive branch that should draw your ire(unless there was a tie in the senate and the vice president voted for it, I guess). I'm sure we could get into the bullshit about what's veto-worthy or not, where it comes to funding the entire US military for years at a time(hell, I'd probably agree with what you're about to say), but make sure to remember that congress are the ones who write, modify, and pass these steaming turds.
This is a common trap I myself have complained about people falling into, as well. *hangs head*
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:40PM
I guess you put tangomargarine in HIS place!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:04PM
Try hanging the neck next time... some people [wikipedia.org] found it a better way of preventing future mistakes.
(grin)