Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:28PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:13PM (#446770)

    I'm not a lawyer, or a political science major, but I thought there were numerous treaties the US was a party to which forbade the militarization of space. See wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. Wouldn't this type of action violate this treaties, and thus be illegal (both internationally, and domestically in the US due to the Constitution giving international treaties the force of law)?

    Can somebody who knows more about such things comment?

  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:11PM

    by Unixnut (5779) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:11PM (#446801)

    It is simple,who is going to enforce it against the USA? Officially the most powerful country in the world (militarily).

    Quite frankly the USA violates treaties, international law, the UN, other countries, and anything else it feels like at any time, and has been doing so since WWII (started doing it even more after the USSR collapsed). Fact is, nobody can do anything, unless the rest of the world gangs up on the USA (and by extension NATO, due to article five), giving humanity a one way ticket to total annihilation.

    So either live with the bully, or wipe life off the face of the earth. Most rational beings go for self preservation, so you tolerate the bully as much as you can, and hope you don't end up in his crosshairs.

    The only two countries capable of resisting the US are Russia and China, and they are unlikely to enforce any laws against the US. If the US goes forward with this plan, they will deploy defenses to mitigate them and preserve MAD, and the cycle of escalation continues on with ever more powerful weaponry.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:15PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:15PM (#446804) Journal

    And what if the U.S. withdraws from the relevant treaties, like it can do at any time?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]