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: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:39PM
So, the choices are, annihilation, or become chattel of one world spanning government? Heads we lose, tails the devil wins, right? If I have to choose, I'll take the annihilation. Far easier for the survivors (if any) to rebuild a post-apocolyptic world, than for our great grand children to throw off the yoke of a global government.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:50PM
And this is why there never will be a "one world" that some statists so desire.
One mans heaven, is another mans hell. Nothing illustrates it better than the two above posters. One posters dream of a utopic future is another's dystopian nightmare, where most of humanity being wiped can be seen as the better option.
We, are a species, can barely agree on anything, be it morals, culture, language, mentality, personality, anything. Best we can do is form tribes of like minded people, but even those have a finite size before they break down.
Sometimes tribes can co-operate for mutual benefit, they will grit their teeth and tolerate the others for some gain. Most other times they will fight over something. The human race hasn't changed since we first came into being, and I doubt we will change in future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29 2016, @05:18AM
There are many ways to accomplish a goal, a one world government wouldn't be too terribly different from the US now with state/fed. Human societies are kinda like physics and engineering. There are many decent ideas, but you have to get the implementation right. The nuances would make or break the system. Have countries maintain a lot of individuality and it wouldn't be a big deal. We could put a lot of resources into research and development instead of death and destruction. The world navies could be primarily support craft to help areas hit by disasters, etc.
The world could be a lot better, but we have a huge amount of momentum behind certain ideas/methods/beliefs that prevent us from just fixing everything.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:56PM
When I was first reaching voting age I always felt like I was born in the wrong time. Very into individualism and against communism, probably a rejection of going to a school on the west coast that taught that Stalin and Mao were misunderstood. Felt I would have done better in the 50s where it was okay to hate the communists. Guess I wasn't born in the wrong time afterall. Always been at war with East Asia, better dead than red.
That said, I feel safer going into the next Cold War with Trump than Hillary or any of the other neocons. Romney from '08 hated Russia, all of the rest just wanted to be Ronnie. This time around the other neocons acted Russia the enemy. Trump doesn't seem to really care about Putin, and Putin doesn't really seem to care about Trump.
Chyna is disconcerning, but Russia and India already signed defencive pacts to work on a 5th gen fighter together to protect against Chinese "aggression" . Vietnam has been preparing to be invated. Taiwan is just as bullied as ever. South Korea and Japan have been growing less distant from eachother and more distant from China. China is being boxed in, this is not good. I take solice in the fact that Kissinger (a man known that Mao called his professor) has been working with Trump and acts like things are going according to plan. But I unlike most think that Kissinger isn't evil, so I am probably wrong. I haven't seen frost Nixon in a while so I don't recall the number of years of peace Nixon got Mao to agree to.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam