I am not really sure how important it is, but my name is Thomas Ranieri. Just thought I'd clear that up for all you non-existent readers.
In fairness to the morons on the other side, I gave them the (completely irrelevant) last word. The reason I am proud of myself is because I managed to make an argument refuting the absurd, which, as anyone who argue frequently understands, is incredibly difficult.
I feel it important to point out that Jarrett is smug and hate-filled, but, more importantly, completely unable to grasp my argument, instead relying on what he thinks I would say, as opposed to trying to understand exactly what and why I am saying it. Not surprising, I know, when you consider that liberals are fantastic at personal invective and projection.
Without further ado:
An Abortion Debate (Or, How Pro-death People are Steadfastly Convinced of the Most Twisted and Absurd Ideas):
Elizabeth M. Whalen: Chris, I can not tell you enough how sorry I am for you if what you claim is true, but no matter how one conceives, that embryo is still a human life, and it is wrong to kill it. i know, i know, it would be traumatic to "carry your raper’s seed" for nine months, and there is nothing you can do about that, but I would assume that being cut to pieces, and being sucked out of your mothers womb is a pretty traumatic thing for the poor baby. Now, which do you think is more unfair, and traumatic- Being killed, or having to GIVE LIFE to another human.
"Conception is forcing life on an embryo. Your move." Wow! Somebody is desperate for a witty argument! That is BS Laura, and I think you know it. And conception is not forcing life on an embryo, it is creating the embryo.
Then Dave goes "Newsflash genius---kids get decisions forced on them everyday, all day for the first two decades of their life---generally." yes, kids do get decisions forced on them every day, but when people make decisions to KILL the kid, and force that decision on them, they are punished, because it is a crime to take another persons life. Period. No Exceptions. You think we should change that?
Laura Hobbes LeGault: Elizabeth - if conception is not forcing life on an embryo but instead creating the embryo, then abortion is not forcing death on the embryo but instead destroying it. What you're playing here is the semantics game.
Thomas Ranieri (me): Laura, Elizabeth may be playing semantics, but you are making a completely irrelevant argument. You see, once the child is conceived, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not it wanted to be conceived. It is, as the French say, a fait accompli. So, you objection may be true, but isn't germane to the issue.
That being said, your argument is completely idiotic. First of all, the species needs to continue to exist. Second of all, there is nothing ethically wrong in any reasonable persons mind with making a child. Third, it isn't as though you can outlaw it. Fourth, it is agreed upon that being is preferable to non-being, so we aren't "forcing" life on anything, we are granting life when we conceive. Believe it or not, personal preference usually very little to do with what is right.
Something else just occurred to me, it's a bit heady, but try and puzzle it out. An embryo, or more precisely an egg, is not an animate or conscious thing before being fertilized. Hence, not only can it not make a decision, but the concept of free will, coercion, and the problems that accompany those things cannot even be applied. For instance, do you ask a rock if it is ok you mine it, or throw it? No, because those concepts and rocks are not compatible. Claro? As the ability to make a decision is contingent on life and consciousness, then life itself is obviously the first, or higher, principle. If you grant this, which you must, because it is inescapable, then you must also grant that the lower principle cannot deny that which gives it existence. Therefore, it is impossible to force life on anything.
Cassandra Marshall: Thomas, I know that you are replying to Laura and I will risk responding rudely if I go too far, however, I really think that the "species" is in no dire straights in terms of continuing to exist. Have you been to Disneyland lately?
Also it really galls me when a male representative of said species likes to discuss the universal notion of how "personal preference" might have little to with what is right for all women in all situations.
Oh, and by whose standards and whose agreement are we deciding that being is better than non-being. I think a non-being in Darfur would be better of than a being if they were in danger of being brutally killed/raped/whatever.
Laura Hobbes LeGault: Thomas, by extension, after abortion, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not the embryo wanted to be destroyed or not. After the fact - be that conception or abortion - what it "wanted" doesn't matter at all.
1) The species has continued to exist quite well over the past 10,000 years or so, and for much of that span, abortion has been practiced.
2) The making of children is not the ethical difficulty - it is the forcible use of another person's body by that embryo that raises the ethical questions.
3) I'm not trying to outlaw conception - though the "abstinence unless you're married" camp is making a valiant attempt at it.
4) Your premise contradicts your conclusion - it is "agreed upon" that being is preferable to non-being but personal preference has nothing to do with it? Then what is it, exactly, that is agreeing that being is preferable to non-being? That sounds like a bunch of people's personal preferences to me.
Tim DeJong: "I think a non-being in Darfur would be better of [sic] than a being if they were in danger of being brutally killed/raped/whatever."I don't even want to get into how poor and self-defeating this attempt at logic is. Just think about it. How, for example, does one rape a non-being?...
Laura Hobbes LeGault: "How, for example, does one rape a non-being?"Necrophilia: Dead girls can't say no.But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're not so dense as to think that was the point Cassandra was attempting to make, which is instead non-being and peace vs. being and rape/torture.
Jarrett DeAngelis: I promise you, God is NOT a Republican. (Author’s Note: My profile picture was modified fascist propaganda that said “God is a Republican.” I think it was from Old American Century. I just love perverting their purpose. –T.R.)
Elizabeth M. Whalen: Oh wow Jarrett that is just fantastic to know. Now i am going to quote a friend of mine and say: "It is my opinion that when one analyzes the world around them, they will find that everything is made of cheese curd. Which is my way of saying: That's nice, where's your proof?" (Author’s note: Believe it or not, that is actually something that I said on another group’s site. - T.R.)
Thomas Ranieri: Since you haven't responded to my second post, I will just assume that you concede the point, namely that you cannot force life on anything. This makes all further discussion irrelevant, but, to humor you, I will do it anyway.
Just because the species has continued to exist doesn't mean that it will continue to exist. There is no evidence to support that claim but momentum, and the demographic evidence that the world is in decline is startling. America has a 2.13% birth rate, which means that the population we have now will be the one that we will have fifty years. The startling part is that America has the best birth rate among all the developed nations of the world. The following nations have birth rates that are below replacement rate, which means that there population is diminishing: Russia 1.1%, Spain 1.1%, China 1.1%, France 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, Germany, 1.2%, United Kingdom 1.8%. (Historical Note: No country whose birth rate has hit 1.1% has ever recovered.)
The country with the highest abortion rate is Russia, with each woman on average having seven abortions in her lifetime. While we aren't in imminent danger of species death, if we continue frittering away our children so we can lead selfish lives, then it will inevitably come. That's the thing with actions: they have consequences.
"2) The making of children is not the ethical difficulty - it is the forcible use of another person's body by that embryo that raises the ethical questions." This is truly the height of idiotic, selfish thinking. With the exception of rape, pregnancy is by its very definition not coercive in any sense of the word. First of all, the nature of sex is that it is both unitive and procreative. This means that any act of sex has the potential of creating life. Therefore, it is implicit in the act itself that you are inviting life by engaging in sex. When you make that invitation, you are responsible for its consequences, because of the gravity importance, and sacredness of the life you invited in.
Furthermore, once a life has taken its place inside your body (which, by the way, is the whole purpose of the female design), you are obliged to protect it because it is life. The distinction between this point and the previous is subtle, but quite present. Just because it is inconvenient does not make it ok to kill it.
"3) I'm not trying to outlaw conception - though the "abstinence unless you're married" camp is making a valiant attempt at it." This is a completely factious argument. The "abstinence until your married" camp is trying to the exact opposite of what propose: to put sex back in its proper sphere. Since, as we have previously established, life is an inherent part of the procreative act, there must be stable and loving families to care for the life they created through their own actions.
To have sex is to make a promise of commitment, both emotionally and physiologically. Since marriage is supposed to be a forever thing, making that commitment with your body only belongs in a sphere where it can be true. To not do this causes irrepairable harm to both the man and the women, and makes sex essentially meaningless. The abstinence camp is also unerringly pro-life. Speaking for myself, I am married, have a child and part of that "camp", I can say that we love kids, and all that implies.
Because of the nature of conception, namely that it isn't a decision you can take back, or, in other words, that once the decision to engage in sexual behavior has been made, and conception occurs, it cannot be changed, pregnancy must always either be coercive or invitational, there is no middle ground. By this I am referring to the idea that a woman can change her mind after the fact, and the original invitation to abide in the womb is taken away, and abortion occurs. It is not the child's fault that his or her mom is capricious, nor can a child be faulted for answering the inevitable call of nature in being conceived, nor in accepting his mother's invitation into the womb. Hence, if you truly believe that pregnancy can be coercive, it therefore must always be coercive, and you should be advocating for the outlaw of pregnancy.
"Thomas, by extension, after abortion, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not the embryo wanted to be destroyed or not. After the fact - be that conception or abortion - what it "wanted" doesn't matter at all." Sorry, I should have dealt with this first, but I got distracted by your overwhelming idiocy. This is a very simple issue to deal with, the difference is clear; on the one hand, you bestow life on something which did not have it, which also did not have a will or consciousness. On the other hand, you are taking it away from another human. We have a word for the second case, it is cold blooded murder.
(Murder: To kill brutally or inhumanly; to put an end to; destroy)
Cassandra, personal preference has nothing to do with what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing, regardless of sex. I claim to know what is right because of my understanding of transcendent and absolute principles. If men were systematically killing their children, and the government allowed it, then I would be on their web site arguing against them. This has nothing to do with your supposed womanhood (and I supposed because I am not sure that any true woman would be a proponent for killing her own children), and everything to do with what is right and wrong.
Do you see mass suicides in Darfur? No? Well then, I would say that those people would rather live. This highlights another issue about abortion, namely that the issue whether or not a person should live isn't, or at least it shouldn't, be up to you at all. Abortion essentially makes you a tyrant over one person who you can kill at your whim. Ultimately the only person who should be able to decide whether they want to live is the person themselves. You have no right to decide that death is better than life for another human being.
Jarrett, you're right. The Republicans are too liberal for God.
Laura Hobbes LeGault: Tom, you're new here, so I'm not going to waste much more time explaining things you can read in the threads. Abortion is not murder, China's birth rate is governmentally enforced, it's quite selfish to assume that quantity of life supersedes quality of life, and once again, abortion is not murder. I'm not going to explain it again; we've been over it at least 10 times in the discussions.
Jarett DeAngelis: Hi, Tom.
Why does China enforce the birth rate it has?
"Speaking for myself, I am married, have a child and part of that "camp", I can say that we love kids, and all that implies."
Congratulations. I am not part of that camp at all, love kids, and look forward to being the best father I can should someone consent to marrying me one day. Whoop-tee-do. Any other flags you want to pointlessly wave?
Thomas Ranieri: China's birth rate is critically below replacement rate. Why that is the case isn't really important.
Quality of life isn't improved by abortion; please avail yourself of the studies showing increased depression, suicidal tendencies, lowered ability to conceive and the like in women who have had abortions. Be that as it may, the question is whether or not abortion is wrong in itself.
You know, denying that abortion is murder does not change the fact that it is. I'll read your posts, but they won't convince me because I am right, and you are wrong. I will happily explain this to you in the future.
As you have completely ignored the Herculean effort that I put into all my previous posts, and have not proffered an objection other than "abortion is not murder", I consider you to have conceded on each of them. I think we can safely put to bed the objection that life is forced on an embryo, and that the child is forced on the mother. All that remains, then, is proving that abortion is murder. It shouldn't be too difficult. Yeah, Jarrett, well done seizing on the only portion of my posts that was anecdotal. It makes it much easier to ignore everything else if you can just harp on one thing, isn't it? I merely mentioned that because it helps refute her completely moronic invective that abstinence before marriage people are trying to outlaw conception.
Jarrett DeAngelis: Why does China enforce a negative replacement rate? The answer is that *we do not need a net increase in the number of humans in the world right now*. We in fact need FEWER. The planet is already being stretched beyond its carrying capacity. The human race is not and will likely never be in danger of extinction. Drop that point and move on.
Oh, look! I found SOMETHING ELSE you said that was anecdotal! "To have sex is to make a promise of commitment, both emotionally and physiologically. Since marriage is supposed to be a forever thing, making that commitment with your body only belongs in a sphere where it can be true. To not do this causes irreparable harm to both the man and the women, and makes sex essentially meaningless."
I have had casual sex several times in the past. It got boring fast. I am not "irreparably harmed." Your categorical, unqualified statement is disproved. What else do you have in your "Herculean effort?"
Monday, March 17, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Obama's Mad World
Obama is for murdering born children. How's that for hope and change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxQiIzS49D8&eurl=http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/03/client-number-nine.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxQiIzS49D8&eurl=http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/03/client-number-nine.html
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
An Analysis of the Relationship Between U.S. Space Power and Geopolitics
Many people crow about how technology is making geography obsolescent. Better tanks, better guns, computers, stealth capabilities, and the myriad other advantages are pointed to as examples of how America is becoming too advanced to worry about petty geopolitical concerns. However, there is no technology that inspires this kind of puerile arrogance like American space capabilities. What the arrogant do not realize is that space has its own geopolitics; utilization and weaponization of space may overcome geopolitical obstacles and conditions on earth, but is subject to geopolitical equivalents in space.
The Decisive Advantages of Space Power
The capacity of space power to overcome earthly obstacles is indeed amazing. Many of the necessities to which geography was an impediment (communication, transportation and range, for instance) are to a significant degree conquered by space power. In no institution do the effects of space power show themselves more prominently, or are more indispensable, than in the U.S. military.
As the potency of space power becomes increasingly clear, the military is making great efforts to integrate space technology with their conventional forces.[1] Military operations have made the move from being simply supported by space assets, to becoming “space-enabled”; that is, space has become so integrated into the military that it is unable to function properly without benefits of space power.[2] Since “Operation Desert Storm”, often called the “first space war”, use of space technology has increased exponentially.[3] In “Operation Iraqi Freedom” the U.S. military used forty-two percent times the amount of bandwidth dedicated to the use of space technology than “Operation Desert Storm”.[4]
Space power is better able to answer the timeless questions of warfighting information requirements, namely: Where am I? Where are my allies? Where is the enemy?[5] (Incidentally, these questions are also questions of geography.) Through satellite technology, warriors have better situational awareness than ever before, and consequently a decisive advantage on the battlefield.
A technology that has gained much recognition because of its use for situational awareness in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is Blue Force Tracking (BFT).[6] This technology tracks friendly units at the brigade level and below, and makes that information available to the units that need it.[7] This capability was utilized most notably in the capture of Saddam Hussein, but its true value was proven by its effectiveness in preventing fratricide at the tactical and individual soldier level.[8]
This is just one of many U.S. space advantages. Satellites and space technology provide more than just improved situational awareness. They give greater precision in locating targets, enabling more effective and efficient use of munitions.[9] They can detect and defend against nuclear missile attacks.[10] Radar sensing from space is sufficient to enable tracking of small, mobile targets on both the ground and the air, and over much larger areas.[11] Most importantly, American forces in the field enjoy a greater resilience from “interference”, adverse weather, and attempted deception through the great diversity of sensing means and abilities.[12]
A nation’s strength is in more than its force of arms, however. It must be economically prosperous and have a stable, peaceful society. The advantage of U.S. space power is more than just military; the immense infrastructure in space is also beneficial to the civil and economic sectors of society.[13] Without the bounty of civilian endeavors to fund a military, and, more specifically, a space program, America would not enjoy the advantages that it does.[14]
The United States of America currently enjoys “supremacy in space, and in the employment of space-based technologies.”[15] However, what this does not say is that having supremacy in space means having supremacy on the Earth:
"Space power is… about planning, coordinating, and delivering overwhelming firepower and dominant maneuver in the conventional battlespace, and about providing critical intelligence and command and control in the irregular battle. Space power keeps our footprint small and light, while allowing us to be agile and flexible, and making our air, land, and sea power more effective and lethal. Lastly, space power… [opens up] more strategic and operational options for our civilian leadership and military commanders; it provides us with a decisive qualitative and quantitative edge over our adversaries.[16]"
Space frees the U.S. from geographical concerns and increases the wealth and strength of the nation. To control space is to dominate the Earth.
The Vulnerabilities of Space Power
Despite the overwhelming advantages that space power provides, it does not bestow omnipotence on the wielder. There are some significant drawbacks and weaknesses to reliance on space power.
Space power and capabilities are incredibly expensive. The current budget at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in excess of seventeen billion dollars[17], and that is only a civilian space program. New technology and capabilities in space will be prohibitively expensive, as the costs will go beyond the significant amount of funds that are already dedicated to space. The American space program, then, is vulnerable to economic assault or simple recession.
Take, for instance, the Reagan-era “Brilliant Pebbles” space program, which called for multiple small missile interceptors to orbit the earth.[18] Unfortunately, studies showed that in a best case scenario it would take one thousand six hundred of the little interceptors to take down a single nuclear missile.[19] This program was recently proposed again, and the estimated cost for orbiting just a thousand of the interceptors was around sixteen billion dollars.[20] It would therefore cost nearly twenty-two billion dollars just to defeat a single missile.
Development of space power comes with a hefty opportunity cost. Resources are limited, and dedicating them to space power means cutting costs in other areas. Conventional forces are hit the hardest: armed forces cannot afford the costs incurred by sustaining large numbers of troops.[21] Fewer bodies mean a lessened capability for ground coverage, patrols, and occupation. It also means that military forces deprived of their connection to space are more vulnerable to geopolitical conditions.
Space assets are vulnerable to the ground forces, even, or perhaps especially, to asymmetrical or irregular military forces, such terrorist or special forces.[22] Utilizing space power requires stations on earth; ground stations are vulnerable to attack from the ground. While destruction or hostile takeover of such stations would not destroy space infrastructure, it would render space assets inaccessible, and therefore useless.
It is possible to hide from satellites by exploiting blind spots in coverage, such as underwater, underground structures, and maskirovka. In fact, a strategic emphasis on stealthy forces, such as submarines, would not defeat American supremacy in space so much as avoid it.[23] The result is much the same. Some terrain is difficult for satellite imagery to penetrate, such as in Afghanistan, and building decoy or underground structures can deceive or defeat attempts at sensing. Utilizing such cheap counters, while not perfect, go a long way in reducing the advantages of space power.
American space power, while supreme now, is not guaranteed to remain so. Space is not the exclusive province of America, and other nations, covetous of the benefits of space, are even now venturing into space.[24] Neither is space power “a substitute for all forms of military capacity nor for the economic, diplomatic, and political power on which not only American security in general but space power specifically depends.”[25] These are the greatest weaknesses of space power, namely that it is dependent on other factors, is not itself a solution to every geopolitical problem, and any nation with the will and means can make a bid to challenge America’s absolute power in space. However, there is one more weakness.
The Geopolitics of Space: The Greatest Strength and Weakness of Space Power
To say that outer space has its own geopolitics seems disingenuous; after all, geopolitics deals with the mutual influences of earth and man on one another, and what results from this interaction. The connection fails at a cursory examination: space is not the earth. The impulse to view it like this must be overcome; for space is no longer an unreachable and unusable void. In many ways, space is the new sky, and, by extension, space power is the new air power.
The development of space power may influence the United State’s alliances and destabilize the international order.[26] There is no telling what reaction developing space weapons and power will provoke from allies and enemies alike. Will allies become alienated by an even more powerful America, or will they be comforted? Will enemies view it as a threat and respond, or will they be pacified? No matter what their reaction, there is one indisputable fact: space affects geopolitics on earth, and therefore is itself part of geopolitics.
Militarizing space could be provocative to other nations. “The deployment of space weapons… would accordingly increase sensitivity to vulnerability and needlessly heighten fears and tension.”[27] This heightened fear, the argument goes, would lead to an inevitable first strike, crippling America’s capabilities right when they were needed the most.[28] Although this concern is rather pessimistic, the lesson it provides is to use prudence and caution while developing space power so that a potentially stabilizing defense policy does not backfire because of geopolitical implications.
Furthermore, space power is not, as its names implies, of a solely military nature. It has influence on a broad spectrum of national interests, both civilian and military. Commander John Klein of the United States Navy writes, “[The] moniker space power is an ill-suited strategic context for considering the diverse national interests and activities in space. For many countries - especially the United States - activities in space affect their diplomatic, information, military, and economic interests.”[29] Space and space power has become intimately involved in the U.S. national interests and must therefore figure a large part in geopolitical considerations.
Just as space influences geopolitics on earth, so too do earthly politics affect the arena of space. Even those nations unable to field a space program can still affect U.S. policy in space through attacks on ground facilities that communicate with satellites and through other tactics designed to negate the advantages of American space power.[30]
Those nations with the wealth, technology and ambition necessary to venture a space program are even more pertinent to the geopolitics of space. Opposing space programs and power can threaten U.S. superiority in space, and thereby affect behavior and policy. The threat of force by other nations in space also brings into relief the purely geographic concerns of space: the locations of assets, virtual chokepoints, fields of vision, distance and obstacles and advantages of the different areas of space.
The recent Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test illustrates the political and geographical concerns of space. On January 11th, 2007 the Chinese launched their first successful anti-satellite missile, destroying one of their own low-orbit weather satellites.[31] Many experts contend that the Chinese weapon is primitive, and only able to engage larger, lower-altitude targets efficiently.[32] Indeed, “the same technology [Chinese ASAT capability] is unlikely to guarantee results at much higher altitudes, the communications and navigational satellites are probably still safe…[as are] the satellites collecting electronic intelligence.”[33] The importance of geography in this case is obvious: the higher the satellites are in space, the more safe they are.
However, developing space power and weapons has an effect on more than just the practical demands of defense. They can have a far-reaching impact on both domestic and international politics. For instance, regard the political consequences of the Chinese ASAT missile test, reported in the Washington Times:
"The Bush administration has suspended plans to develop space ventures with China, including joint exploration of the moon, in reaction to Beijing’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon that left orbiting debris threatening U.S. and foreign satellites…suspension is meant to signal U.S. displeasure with the anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) test, as well as Beijing’s failure to provide an explanation for its space arms program.[34]"
While this response is not cataclysmic, it does indicate a further estrangement between two of the most powerful nations on earth, brought about by conflicting space policies.
Part of the theory of geopolitics is that environmental conditions have a profound effect on the development of a people and their culture.[35] While man has been superficially aware of space ever since he could look up at the stars, it is only recently that society has become space-conscious. That is to say, man has gained an understanding of space as a place that can be conquered and used for his purpose, as opposed to some nebulous place as distant from the real world as an abstract thought. The new consciousness of space influences the formation and character of man in much the same that climate and terrain have for centuries.
Space power can have an intoxicating effect on the human psyche. While pursuing its interests in space, the U.S. must be wary of overblown or ideological thinking. There are already murmurings of using space power as a means to pacify the earth and achieve utopian goals such as ending armed conflict, and ushering in an era of peace and prosperity underneath the benevolent hegemonic power of America.[36] Approaching space power through this frame will undoubtedly lead to conflict, both domestically and abroad, and may result in a number of undesirable consequences, the worst of which would be war. However, this reaction to the new possibilities of space does illustrate just how profound an impact the introduction of a new geographical condition can have on the character of a nation.
Space power unable to affect geopolitics would be nothing more than an impotent curiosity. However, that is the paradox of space power. Without it its influence in geopolitics, it would be next to useless, but its entrance into the geopolitical realm makes it vulnerable to geopolitical considerations. Therefore, its strength is also its greatest weakness.
Conclusions
Space is an open playing field (and it will be until mankind starts constructing space navies), and the geopolitical conflicts and rules that would normally play themselves out on earth, but cannot because of America’s smothering supremacy, will now play themselves out in space. New rules and constraints will form once space becomes more crowded, and a significant part of what makes space power so effective (namely, that the United States is the only one who has it) will be lost. The only solution is to be constantly several steps ahead of competitors, and to maintain an edge in technology, integration, proliferation and, most importantly, the capacity to defend the American infrastructure.
Space power is inherently geopolitical, both in what it affects, and what affects it. When applied to earth, space power overcomes geographic obstacles, and decisively enhances the military, economic, and civil sectors of society. The United States of America owes much of its current influence, strength and prosperity to its space programs. Space power is as vulnerable to conventional geopolitical power as geopolitical power is vulnerable to it. In the end, space power is not revolutionary to the theory of geopolitics; it is merely a new, albeit important, consideration. A powerful new piece has been added to the game, but the rules remain the same.
[1] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 156.
[2] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 86.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 89.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mickey McCarter, “Bigger Role for Blue Force Tracking,” Military Information Technology 8, no. 4 (2004), http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=504#top.
[8] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 89.
[9] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[10] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006):86.
[11] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 143.
[14] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameter 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[15] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[16] John B. Sheldon, “Selling U.S. Space Power Short,” The Space Review (September 4, 2007), http://www.thespacereview.com/article/948/1.
[17] Michael D. Griffin, complier, “N.A.S.A. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html.
[18] Theresa Hitchens, “Return of the Star Warriors,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63, no.1 (2007): 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[22] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 160-161.
[25] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[26] Steven Lambakis, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” Policy Review 105 (2001): 43.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[30] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[31] Bill Gertz, “Officials fear a war in space by China,” The Washington Times, January 29, 2007, Front Page.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[34] Bill Gertz, “US halts cooperation in space with China,” The Washington Times, February 5, 2007, Front Page.
[35] Geopolitics. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geopolitics.
[36] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
The Decisive Advantages of Space Power
The capacity of space power to overcome earthly obstacles is indeed amazing. Many of the necessities to which geography was an impediment (communication, transportation and range, for instance) are to a significant degree conquered by space power. In no institution do the effects of space power show themselves more prominently, or are more indispensable, than in the U.S. military.
As the potency of space power becomes increasingly clear, the military is making great efforts to integrate space technology with their conventional forces.[1] Military operations have made the move from being simply supported by space assets, to becoming “space-enabled”; that is, space has become so integrated into the military that it is unable to function properly without benefits of space power.[2] Since “Operation Desert Storm”, often called the “first space war”, use of space technology has increased exponentially.[3] In “Operation Iraqi Freedom” the U.S. military used forty-two percent times the amount of bandwidth dedicated to the use of space technology than “Operation Desert Storm”.[4]
Space power is better able to answer the timeless questions of warfighting information requirements, namely: Where am I? Where are my allies? Where is the enemy?[5] (Incidentally, these questions are also questions of geography.) Through satellite technology, warriors have better situational awareness than ever before, and consequently a decisive advantage on the battlefield.
A technology that has gained much recognition because of its use for situational awareness in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is Blue Force Tracking (BFT).[6] This technology tracks friendly units at the brigade level and below, and makes that information available to the units that need it.[7] This capability was utilized most notably in the capture of Saddam Hussein, but its true value was proven by its effectiveness in preventing fratricide at the tactical and individual soldier level.[8]
This is just one of many U.S. space advantages. Satellites and space technology provide more than just improved situational awareness. They give greater precision in locating targets, enabling more effective and efficient use of munitions.[9] They can detect and defend against nuclear missile attacks.[10] Radar sensing from space is sufficient to enable tracking of small, mobile targets on both the ground and the air, and over much larger areas.[11] Most importantly, American forces in the field enjoy a greater resilience from “interference”, adverse weather, and attempted deception through the great diversity of sensing means and abilities.[12]
A nation’s strength is in more than its force of arms, however. It must be economically prosperous and have a stable, peaceful society. The advantage of U.S. space power is more than just military; the immense infrastructure in space is also beneficial to the civil and economic sectors of society.[13] Without the bounty of civilian endeavors to fund a military, and, more specifically, a space program, America would not enjoy the advantages that it does.[14]
The United States of America currently enjoys “supremacy in space, and in the employment of space-based technologies.”[15] However, what this does not say is that having supremacy in space means having supremacy on the Earth:
"Space power is… about planning, coordinating, and delivering overwhelming firepower and dominant maneuver in the conventional battlespace, and about providing critical intelligence and command and control in the irregular battle. Space power keeps our footprint small and light, while allowing us to be agile and flexible, and making our air, land, and sea power more effective and lethal. Lastly, space power… [opens up] more strategic and operational options for our civilian leadership and military commanders; it provides us with a decisive qualitative and quantitative edge over our adversaries.[16]"
Space frees the U.S. from geographical concerns and increases the wealth and strength of the nation. To control space is to dominate the Earth.
The Vulnerabilities of Space Power
Despite the overwhelming advantages that space power provides, it does not bestow omnipotence on the wielder. There are some significant drawbacks and weaknesses to reliance on space power.
Space power and capabilities are incredibly expensive. The current budget at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in excess of seventeen billion dollars[17], and that is only a civilian space program. New technology and capabilities in space will be prohibitively expensive, as the costs will go beyond the significant amount of funds that are already dedicated to space. The American space program, then, is vulnerable to economic assault or simple recession.
Take, for instance, the Reagan-era “Brilliant Pebbles” space program, which called for multiple small missile interceptors to orbit the earth.[18] Unfortunately, studies showed that in a best case scenario it would take one thousand six hundred of the little interceptors to take down a single nuclear missile.[19] This program was recently proposed again, and the estimated cost for orbiting just a thousand of the interceptors was around sixteen billion dollars.[20] It would therefore cost nearly twenty-two billion dollars just to defeat a single missile.
Development of space power comes with a hefty opportunity cost. Resources are limited, and dedicating them to space power means cutting costs in other areas. Conventional forces are hit the hardest: armed forces cannot afford the costs incurred by sustaining large numbers of troops.[21] Fewer bodies mean a lessened capability for ground coverage, patrols, and occupation. It also means that military forces deprived of their connection to space are more vulnerable to geopolitical conditions.
Space assets are vulnerable to the ground forces, even, or perhaps especially, to asymmetrical or irregular military forces, such terrorist or special forces.[22] Utilizing space power requires stations on earth; ground stations are vulnerable to attack from the ground. While destruction or hostile takeover of such stations would not destroy space infrastructure, it would render space assets inaccessible, and therefore useless.
It is possible to hide from satellites by exploiting blind spots in coverage, such as underwater, underground structures, and maskirovka. In fact, a strategic emphasis on stealthy forces, such as submarines, would not defeat American supremacy in space so much as avoid it.[23] The result is much the same. Some terrain is difficult for satellite imagery to penetrate, such as in Afghanistan, and building decoy or underground structures can deceive or defeat attempts at sensing. Utilizing such cheap counters, while not perfect, go a long way in reducing the advantages of space power.
American space power, while supreme now, is not guaranteed to remain so. Space is not the exclusive province of America, and other nations, covetous of the benefits of space, are even now venturing into space.[24] Neither is space power “a substitute for all forms of military capacity nor for the economic, diplomatic, and political power on which not only American security in general but space power specifically depends.”[25] These are the greatest weaknesses of space power, namely that it is dependent on other factors, is not itself a solution to every geopolitical problem, and any nation with the will and means can make a bid to challenge America’s absolute power in space. However, there is one more weakness.
The Geopolitics of Space: The Greatest Strength and Weakness of Space Power
To say that outer space has its own geopolitics seems disingenuous; after all, geopolitics deals with the mutual influences of earth and man on one another, and what results from this interaction. The connection fails at a cursory examination: space is not the earth. The impulse to view it like this must be overcome; for space is no longer an unreachable and unusable void. In many ways, space is the new sky, and, by extension, space power is the new air power.
The development of space power may influence the United State’s alliances and destabilize the international order.[26] There is no telling what reaction developing space weapons and power will provoke from allies and enemies alike. Will allies become alienated by an even more powerful America, or will they be comforted? Will enemies view it as a threat and respond, or will they be pacified? No matter what their reaction, there is one indisputable fact: space affects geopolitics on earth, and therefore is itself part of geopolitics.
Militarizing space could be provocative to other nations. “The deployment of space weapons… would accordingly increase sensitivity to vulnerability and needlessly heighten fears and tension.”[27] This heightened fear, the argument goes, would lead to an inevitable first strike, crippling America’s capabilities right when they were needed the most.[28] Although this concern is rather pessimistic, the lesson it provides is to use prudence and caution while developing space power so that a potentially stabilizing defense policy does not backfire because of geopolitical implications.
Furthermore, space power is not, as its names implies, of a solely military nature. It has influence on a broad spectrum of national interests, both civilian and military. Commander John Klein of the United States Navy writes, “[The] moniker space power is an ill-suited strategic context for considering the diverse national interests and activities in space. For many countries - especially the United States - activities in space affect their diplomatic, information, military, and economic interests.”[29] Space and space power has become intimately involved in the U.S. national interests and must therefore figure a large part in geopolitical considerations.
Just as space influences geopolitics on earth, so too do earthly politics affect the arena of space. Even those nations unable to field a space program can still affect U.S. policy in space through attacks on ground facilities that communicate with satellites and through other tactics designed to negate the advantages of American space power.[30]
Those nations with the wealth, technology and ambition necessary to venture a space program are even more pertinent to the geopolitics of space. Opposing space programs and power can threaten U.S. superiority in space, and thereby affect behavior and policy. The threat of force by other nations in space also brings into relief the purely geographic concerns of space: the locations of assets, virtual chokepoints, fields of vision, distance and obstacles and advantages of the different areas of space.
The recent Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test illustrates the political and geographical concerns of space. On January 11th, 2007 the Chinese launched their first successful anti-satellite missile, destroying one of their own low-orbit weather satellites.[31] Many experts contend that the Chinese weapon is primitive, and only able to engage larger, lower-altitude targets efficiently.[32] Indeed, “the same technology [Chinese ASAT capability] is unlikely to guarantee results at much higher altitudes, the communications and navigational satellites are probably still safe…[as are] the satellites collecting electronic intelligence.”[33] The importance of geography in this case is obvious: the higher the satellites are in space, the more safe they are.
However, developing space power and weapons has an effect on more than just the practical demands of defense. They can have a far-reaching impact on both domestic and international politics. For instance, regard the political consequences of the Chinese ASAT missile test, reported in the Washington Times:
"The Bush administration has suspended plans to develop space ventures with China, including joint exploration of the moon, in reaction to Beijing’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon that left orbiting debris threatening U.S. and foreign satellites…suspension is meant to signal U.S. displeasure with the anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) test, as well as Beijing’s failure to provide an explanation for its space arms program.[34]"
While this response is not cataclysmic, it does indicate a further estrangement between two of the most powerful nations on earth, brought about by conflicting space policies.
Part of the theory of geopolitics is that environmental conditions have a profound effect on the development of a people and their culture.[35] While man has been superficially aware of space ever since he could look up at the stars, it is only recently that society has become space-conscious. That is to say, man has gained an understanding of space as a place that can be conquered and used for his purpose, as opposed to some nebulous place as distant from the real world as an abstract thought. The new consciousness of space influences the formation and character of man in much the same that climate and terrain have for centuries.
Space power can have an intoxicating effect on the human psyche. While pursuing its interests in space, the U.S. must be wary of overblown or ideological thinking. There are already murmurings of using space power as a means to pacify the earth and achieve utopian goals such as ending armed conflict, and ushering in an era of peace and prosperity underneath the benevolent hegemonic power of America.[36] Approaching space power through this frame will undoubtedly lead to conflict, both domestically and abroad, and may result in a number of undesirable consequences, the worst of which would be war. However, this reaction to the new possibilities of space does illustrate just how profound an impact the introduction of a new geographical condition can have on the character of a nation.
Space power unable to affect geopolitics would be nothing more than an impotent curiosity. However, that is the paradox of space power. Without it its influence in geopolitics, it would be next to useless, but its entrance into the geopolitical realm makes it vulnerable to geopolitical considerations. Therefore, its strength is also its greatest weakness.
Conclusions
Space is an open playing field (and it will be until mankind starts constructing space navies), and the geopolitical conflicts and rules that would normally play themselves out on earth, but cannot because of America’s smothering supremacy, will now play themselves out in space. New rules and constraints will form once space becomes more crowded, and a significant part of what makes space power so effective (namely, that the United States is the only one who has it) will be lost. The only solution is to be constantly several steps ahead of competitors, and to maintain an edge in technology, integration, proliferation and, most importantly, the capacity to defend the American infrastructure.
Space power is inherently geopolitical, both in what it affects, and what affects it. When applied to earth, space power overcomes geographic obstacles, and decisively enhances the military, economic, and civil sectors of society. The United States of America owes much of its current influence, strength and prosperity to its space programs. Space power is as vulnerable to conventional geopolitical power as geopolitical power is vulnerable to it. In the end, space power is not revolutionary to the theory of geopolitics; it is merely a new, albeit important, consideration. A powerful new piece has been added to the game, but the rules remain the same.
[1] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 156.
[2] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 86.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 89.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mickey McCarter, “Bigger Role for Blue Force Tracking,” Military Information Technology 8, no. 4 (2004), http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=504#top.
[8] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 89.
[9] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[10] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006):86.
[11] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 143.
[14] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameter 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[15] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[16] John B. Sheldon, “Selling U.S. Space Power Short,” The Space Review (September 4, 2007), http://www.thespacereview.com/article/948/1.
[17] Michael D. Griffin, complier, “N.A.S.A. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html.
[18] Theresa Hitchens, “Return of the Star Warriors,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63, no.1 (2007): 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[22] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 160-161.
[25] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[26] Steven Lambakis, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” Policy Review 105 (2001): 43.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[30] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[31] Bill Gertz, “Officials fear a war in space by China,” The Washington Times, January 29, 2007, Front Page.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[34] Bill Gertz, “US halts cooperation in space with China,” The Washington Times, February 5, 2007, Front Page.
[35] Geopolitics. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geopolitics.
[36] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Women, Contraception and Social Change
As I was perusing America Online one morning, I bumped into one of their articles on "health". More specifically, it was on the new breakthroughs in women's contraception. It spoke about five new advances in birth control systems. As disgusting and disturbing as it was to read, it did bring into sharp relief the dreadful consequences that contraception has wrought on our society. I know that writing about this on my blog is not nearly the national forum to call for social change as, say, the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal is, however, I cannot let the unbounded enthusiasm of this article pass without making something of a squawk. I plan on saying more than just- "Contraception is bad, and for these reasons." Instead I want to briefly speak about the nearly catastrophic and revolutionary changes it has brought about in our society, and then, condemn them. (I know I will be called unenlightened and primitive. I look forward to it. )
"What captured the attention of most women was the "pill"- a new method of pregnancy protection that promised to revolutionize a women's sex life. And it did." Besides just illustrating the classic problem with science (that they are more concerned with seeing if they can do something, rather than thinking if they should), this quote captures the blind enthusiasm that people have for contraception. It speaks matter-of-factly about the sexual revolution and assumes it a beneficial thing. However, no-one asks what the sexual revolution did to the family.
I am not going to sit here and write that everyone was happy in 1950, and that we should go back to that. After all, the modern age had to come from somewhere. However, in the days before the sexual revolution, divorce rates were low and so were single and teen pregnancies. Now we have more than half of married couples divorcing and single pregnancy is skyrocketing.
Why?
The answer to a large degree is contraception. It undermines sexual morality by making fornication so easy, accessible and, most importantly, consequence-free (by which I mean pregnancy-free). In days gone by, women were afraid to have pre-marital sex, for fear of becoming pregnant and taking that stigma upon themselves. As a result, it just didn't happen.
Many women claim today that men are pigs, that they do not listen and that they are only interested in one thing. Well, I ask, why shouldn't they be? Sex outside of marriage isn't the best way to get a man to respect a woman, and the more women flaunt that, the more men will view them as objects. And not just individual women, either, a man who has gotten consequence- free sex since a young adult will have trouble seeing any woman as more than just something with which he can sate his lust. These men marry women, just as much as any other man. Is it any wonder that the institution of marriage is failing?
I am not saying that it isn't to a large degree man's fault, or that men have some sort of right to behave like barbarians. However, traditionally men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. If a women says "No!" then it will not happen. The power to say no can change a society. If women start to have nothing to do with immoral men, men will behave morally, and start living up to the standards that women set for them. Contraception gets in the way of that social change.
"What captured the attention of most women was the "pill"- a new method of pregnancy protection that promised to revolutionize a women's sex life. And it did." Besides just illustrating the classic problem with science (that they are more concerned with seeing if they can do something, rather than thinking if they should), this quote captures the blind enthusiasm that people have for contraception. It speaks matter-of-factly about the sexual revolution and assumes it a beneficial thing. However, no-one asks what the sexual revolution did to the family.
I am not going to sit here and write that everyone was happy in 1950, and that we should go back to that. After all, the modern age had to come from somewhere. However, in the days before the sexual revolution, divorce rates were low and so were single and teen pregnancies. Now we have more than half of married couples divorcing and single pregnancy is skyrocketing.
Why?
The answer to a large degree is contraception. It undermines sexual morality by making fornication so easy, accessible and, most importantly, consequence-free (by which I mean pregnancy-free). In days gone by, women were afraid to have pre-marital sex, for fear of becoming pregnant and taking that stigma upon themselves. As a result, it just didn't happen.
Many women claim today that men are pigs, that they do not listen and that they are only interested in one thing. Well, I ask, why shouldn't they be? Sex outside of marriage isn't the best way to get a man to respect a woman, and the more women flaunt that, the more men will view them as objects. And not just individual women, either, a man who has gotten consequence- free sex since a young adult will have trouble seeing any woman as more than just something with which he can sate his lust. These men marry women, just as much as any other man. Is it any wonder that the institution of marriage is failing?
I am not saying that it isn't to a large degree man's fault, or that men have some sort of right to behave like barbarians. However, traditionally men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. If a women says "No!" then it will not happen. The power to say no can change a society. If women start to have nothing to do with immoral men, men will behave morally, and start living up to the standards that women set for them. Contraception gets in the way of that social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
