Satellite in space destroyed....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
continue please gentlemen. KH vs GePap. Given the continued failure of the Redskins to get into the playoffs, this will have to do.

He should stick to stuff which would leave him a chance.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
KH and Wesley (I mean Kuci) are obviously both trying very hard to win the title of "Personification of why intelligence does not equal wisdom"

I may not yet be wise, but wisdom requires intelligence, so you're precluded from ever attaining it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're going by a wikipedia definition of what constitutes a space weapon in addition to a vague mention of a proposal to ban space weapons in order to demonstrate that somebody has proposed to ban ASATs. That's not enough.

I will give you fifty bucks if you can quote me as saying that anyone else (besides me) has proposed banning anti-satellite missiles. And by that I mean those very words. Your interpretation of what I said is, as I hope you know, your work, not mine, as again, it would be your interpretation.

Some advice. When arguing with someone, know what they said.

Oh. My. ****ing. God.

You think that people are planning to base weapons in space to counter ASATs? What the **** are you smoking?

I can imagine how this would be an option, since it would be easier to strike any target on earth from space, and a state could claim that such weapons were "defensive" in nature, to protect space assets.

An article worthy of reading on what some people do want to do with space:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/863kzilj.asp?pg=1

And stated US space policy currently:

And space supremacy is now the official policy of the United States government. Among the principles set forth in the new document is that the United States "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;" furthermore, "the United States will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights." It goes on to assert that the United States will "preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space . . . and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." In an outright rejection of the sovereignty of the international community in space, the new policy also states that the United States "will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."

Nice speculation. Do you have any direct proof that ground-based ASATs have ever been on the agenda?

What agenda? That fictional agenda you think I mentioned somewhere?

My arguement now is that Anti-satelite system do constitute space weapons, which was a response to DanS's statement. Kuci and you came to defend his statement. NO mention by me was ever made of "banning them", so again, what agenda?

And again, have the decency to know what someone else said if you are going to argue with them.

One would think that an arts major would know what a mixed metaphor was, and how to avoid one.

I am satisfied with what I said. What you interpret is your business, and you seem to be doing a poor job of it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
He should stick to stuff which would leave him a chance.

Why? Consider: he's hopelessly outmatched in any technical discussion. He obviously doesn't know any history or law. What's left to him? Film critic?

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I may not yet be wise, but wisdom requires intelligence, so you're precluded from ever attaining it.

Your megalomania sometimes is funny. Sometimes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why? Consider: he's hopelessly outmatched in any technical discussion. He obviously doesn't know any history or law. What's left to him? Film critic?

Wait, remind us what yur position on Iraq was again... I want to see how you have applied your magnificent knowledge of the Middle East....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Wait, remind us what yur position on Iraq was again... I want to see how you have applied your magnificent knowledge of the Middle East....

[KrazyHorse]

I will give you fifty bucks if you can quote me as saying that anyone else (besides me) has proposed banning anti-satellite missiles.

You did so by implication, you weasel.

[lord of the mark]

"And space supremacy is now the official policy of the United States government. Among the principles set forth in the new document is that the United States "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;" furthermore, "the United States will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights." It goes on to assert that the United States will "preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space . . . and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." In an outright rejection of the sovereignty of the international community in space, the new policy also states that the United States "will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."

hmm. lets try subbing the word sea, for the word space.

"rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from sea;"

Check

"the United States will view purposeful interference with its shipping and nautical systems as an infringement on its rights"

Check.

"preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action at sea . . . and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of sea capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

Given that "adversaries" means someone youre at war with, not simply a peaceful rival, check.

"preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action at sea . . . and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of sea capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.

Check.

Basically in any non-soveriegn sphere, whether sea or space, we will A. Defend our legal rights B. Hold any attack on our assets an act of war C. Deny an 'adversary' IE someone we are at war with, the use of the said sphere. and D. We will oppose changes in the legal regime that will limit the rights we currently hold (we'll be even tougher hombres on space than we were negotiating the law of the sea treaty)

the rest, about supremacy, the non-quote parts is spin.

[lord of the mark]

"The point, and follow me here if you don't mind, is banning weapons that turn space itself into a battle zone. A missile passing by on its way back to earth does not affect Space assets. A missile meant to blow up thing in space, even one based on planet Earth, DOES. Ok, let me stop and let you catch up...."

similar to the way every naval limitation treaty has alway regulated coastal artillery

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


Your megalomania sometimes is funny. Sometimes.

I'd like you to explain how what I said was indicative of megalomania.

I was not defending my intelligence, as you had already granted it.

I expressly did not claim to be wise.

I insulted your intelligence.

As far as I know, insults directed at others are not the same as praise directed at yourself.

But perhaps there's some strange definition of megalomania I'm not aware of...

[DaShi]

It's not enough to succeed; others must fail.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I will give you fifty bucks if you can quote me as saying that anyone else (besides me) has proposed banning anti-satellite missiles.

You did so by implication, you weasel.

"implication"??

You see, that is your problem.

I certainly have argued that I believe the US should go along with a ban on space weapons because it benefits the US. Never have I claimed to speak for anyone but myself. Lacking your current megalomania, I do not assume some sort of infalibility. I guess since you do, you assume that everyone else must speak like you.

I don't. So it would help you greatly (and me since I post here and must deal with your posts) to assume that I mean what I say, and unless my statement is clearly ironic or satirical, there is no "implication" beyond the very words on the post. You see, they were chosen for a reason. If they are unclear, ask for clarification. But don't press your assumptions unto me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

But perhaps there's some strange definition of megalomania I'm not aware of...

I guess me memory allows me to recall your behavior in other threads.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


"implication"??

You see, that is your problem.

I certainly have argued that I believe the US should go along with a ban on space weapons because it benefits the US. Never have I claimed to speak for anyone but myself. Lacking your current megalomania, I do not assume some sort of infalibility. I guess since you do, you assume that everyone else must speak like you.

I don't. So it would help you greatly (and me since I post here and must deal with your posts) to assume that I mean what I say, and unless my statement is clearly ironic or satirical, there is no "implication" beyond the very words on the post. You see, they were chosen for a reason. If they are unclear, ask for clarification. But don't press your assumptions unto me.

quote:

The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space, not the ability to launch weapons into space.


If that were true, why would the US and other states be throwing a hissy fit about the Chinese simply experimenting with another land based missile system??

Because this is all about the control of space."

KH speaks not about what SHOULD be, but about what the actual content of some talks Mobius is discussing are. To which GePap responds "If that were true"

Which to me IMPLIES very strongly that what KH said is NOT true. IE it IMPLIES very strongly that the talks ARE (not should be, but ARE) about the ability to launch weapons into space.