Substituting Hope for a Policy by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (ret.)
Hope this helps address your questions Derek and Bozo.
http://schotline.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/substituting-hope-for-a-policy-by-u-s-rep-duncan-hunter-ret/
Substituting Hope for a Policy by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (ret.)
By Duncan Hunter, U.S. Rep. (ret.) Chairman, Armed Services Committee, 2002-2006
At the height of the Cold War the United States maintained more than 32,000 nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union deployed more than 45,000 such weapons. Ronald Reagan, having rebuilt U.S. military strength during the l980s, initiated, with Mikhail Gorbachev, a reduction regimen which continued through the break-up of the Soviet Empire. Since the Reagan breakthrough, the strategic armories of the U.S. and Russia have fallen to a few more than 2,000 nuclear weapons apiece.
Now, five months before the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (which was signed in l97l) President Obama has agreed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to further cut the deployed nuclear warhead levels to no more than 1,675 for each country.
During the same meeting President Obama was reported to have told Medvedev that his administration was “still completing review of the missile-defense options in Europe.” This statement opened the door for the possibility that the U.S. will stop its program to place missile interceptors and radars in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Halting the American plans for such a deployment has been a key Russian objective.
President Obama’s agreement to reduce nuclear weapon inventories further and his weakening on missile defense represents the substitution of hope for a sound policy.
Weapons reductions have been negotiated in the past for a compelling reason: to bring about change in the behavior of the Soviet Union and thereby the reduction of the danger of nuclear war. Today, however, the effect on other nations which intend to develop, or are developing nuclear weapons must be considered.
North Korea now has a small number of nuclear weapons and continues to develop the missile capability that will, one day, allow them to reach the U.S. with a strategic weapon.
What effect on the less-than -stable North Korean leadership will President Obama’s agreement to reduce America’s nukes have? According to President Obama, this display of “leadership” will marshal international opposition to the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran.
If this is true than we could expect to see, in the next several months, the free world really cranking up the pressure on these two nations. Of course it won’t happen for two reasons.
First, our allies follow their own immediate security and economic interests and long ago relegated to Uncle Sam the tough ones like these two problem countries. Second, none of our allies are “holding back” from pressuring the Iranians and North Koreans to stop their nuke programs. In reality, our allies have little leverage with either country and what little clout they are inclined to use they have already called up.
In fact, if Mr. Obama really wanted to motivate another nation to pressure Iran he could have started with Russian President Medvedev, whose contractors are building the nuclear reactor currently under construction in Iran.
China, meanwhile, uninhibited by the agreement and with newly acquired economic muscle from the transfer of the American industrial base to her shores, moves ahead with the fielding of its new road-mobile ICBM and advanced capability in submarines, satellites, aircraft and electronic warfare.
The recent report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States warns that “China is today of rising importance in the U.S. Strategic landscape.” According to the commission, China has a stockpile of around 400 nuclear weapons. It is a sure bet that Mr. Obama’s agreement to reduce American strategic weapons will have no effect on China’s ongoing program to deploy such weapons. Furthermore, China is clearly the world’s next military superpower.
It is entirely appropriate for President Obama to embark on a “Get to know you” world tour. It is however, a disservice to our security to trade a large portion of our strategic deterrent for hope.
"President Obama’s agreement to reduce nuclear weapon inventories further and his weakening on missile defense represents the substitution of hope for a sound policy." (DOF)
Hope. Sound policy.
What is hope?
What is sound policy?
(Let's debate some more.....)
Reply to this
Hope is coining a reference to Obama's use of the word hope.
Sound policy is referencing Hunter's support of Peace through Strength.
Reply to this
"Sound policy is referencing Hunter's support of Peace through Strength."
Strength doesn't have to be provocative. Putting missiles in Poland is provocative. I well remember how the US responded to the prospect of Soviet missiles in Cuba and would expect Russia to view missiles in Poland as an aggressive act just as we did missiles in Cuba.
Peace through aggression is possible (if at all) only if we clearly dominate and domination is the antithesis of freedom.
Reply to this
I think Poland would find Russia being in charge of missiles in their country more aggressive.
Can you reword this? I didn't understand: "Peace through aggression is possible (if at all) only if we clearly dominate and domination is the antithesis of freedom."
Reply to this
"It is entirely appropriate for President Obama to embark on a “Get to know you” world tour. It is however, a disservice to our security to trade a large portion of our strategic deterrent for hope."
I wouldn't call it hope, I'd call it repair.
Reply to this
Russia would see it as that way.
Reply to this
Well let's assume for the moment that "HOPE" is a dismal failure. Then what? The Russians initiate a first strike!?
'Hope' goes hand in hand with deterrence. When we fielded tens of thousands of warheads, we still hoped that we wouldn't be attacked. Now we're down to the thousands and we're still have that same hope.
I could be wrong though.
(DOF, e-mail me. Let's figure something out.....)
Reply to this
'I think Poland would find Russia being in charge of missiles in their country more aggressive."
If Poland wants missiles in their country, then perhaps they should be Polish missiles under Polish control.
"Can you reword this? I didn't understand: "Peace through aggression is possible (if at all) only if we clearly dominate and domination is the antithesis of freedom."
If peace through aggression is possible at all, then one side has to clearly dominate. To dominate is to control - not a freedom fostering relationship.
The kind of peace through strength Hunter is talking about is straight out of the neocon playbook.
Reply to this
>>>If Poland wants missiles in their country, then perhaps they should be Polish missiles under Polish control.
Well, Poland signed an agreement to base US ballistic missile interceptors
>>>>If peace through aggression is possible at all, then one side has to clearly dominate.
What aggression has the U.S. imposed on Russia?
Reply to this
"What aggression has the U.S. imposed on Russia?"
Georgia.
Why did the US regard Soviet missiles in Cuba as an act of aggression?
Reply to this
Russia is in violation of the Istanbul Accords. That isn't a US aggression. That is defending Georgia.
Cuba had offensive missiles. That is different than a defensive missile shield.
Reply to this
"Russia is in violation of the Istanbul Accords. That isn't a US aggression. That is defending Georgia."
Russian troops were in South Ossetia as part of a peace keeping force, as per the Istanbul accords, when Georgia invaded.
"The entire world, except for Americans, knows that the outbreak of armed conflict between Russian and Georgian forces in South Ossetia was entirely due to the US and its Georgia puppet, Saakashvili. Americans, alone in the world, are unaware that the hostilities were initiated by Saakashvili, because Bush, Cheney and the Israeli-occupied American media have again lied to them.
Everyone else in the world knows that the unstable and corrupt Saakashvili, who proclaims democracy and runs a police state, would not have taken on Russia by attacking South Ossetia unless given the go-ahead by Washington."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html
Reply to this
South Ossetia is Georgian territory. Air strikes and tanks don't sound peaceful. The UN, NATO, Georgia and the US all called for a cease fire. That is still not a U.S. aggression. Nor is that the U.S. acting alone.
Reply to this
"South Ossetia is Georgian territory. Air strikes and tanks don't sound peaceful. The UN, NATO, Georgia and the US all called for a cease fire. That is still not a U.S. aggression. Nor is that the U.S. acting alone."
South Ossetians don't see it that way and have voted twice by a large margin for independence.
The US has publicly urged a negotiated solution within the UN framework to the issue while apparently supporting a military solution not so publicly.
"On 7 August, Georgian and Ossetian forces agreed on a ceasefire[55].
However, in the first hours of 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a massive attack, which started the 2008 South Ossetia war. After a prolonged artillery onslaught, Georgian troops with tanks and air support entered South Ossetian-controlled territory.[56][57][58] On the same day, twelve Russian peacekeepers were killed and nearly 150 injured.[59]"
Russia retaliated and then...
"On 22 August, following a negotiated cease-fire between Georgia and Russia, Russia pulled its forces back to Russia and South Ossetia, leaving military contingents disbursed throughout various areas as observation and security posts. These were withdrawn by 8 October."
Why would Saakashvili say
"Saakashvili said he had spoken to Bush, who had signaled his "full support."
"He understands that it's not really about Georgia but in a certain sense it's also an aggression against America," he said."
Reply to this
That sounds like a question that should be posed to Sakkashvili. This is still not a US aggression.
Reply to this
"Everyone else in the world knows that the unstable and corrupt Saakashvili, who proclaims democracy and runs a police state, would not have taken on Russia by attacking South Ossetia unless given the go-ahead by Washington." (Bozo)
Actually, both sides had been warned not to allow their disputes to escalate into military conflict. Saakashvili guessed wrong as to what he believed would be the U.S. response.
"U.S. officials have defended their response to the Georgia crisis, noting that they had repeatedly warned Moscow and Tbilisi not to escalate their disputes into a military conflict."
http://tinyurl.com/mn6jqy
Reply to this
So when did Iran issue a threat towards Europe? From my perspective, we are trying to sell a threat to justify certain actions when no threat exist.
Why would Iran even contemplate threatening Europe when it is European currency that is used to purchase their oil? (Dollars cannot directly purchase Iranian oil. Euros can.) That would amount to biting the hand that feeds you. It's no wonder why the Russians cried foul when the missile shield was proposed. The missile shield wasn't directed towards Iran; it was directed towards them. Now the question becomes why?
"Why is NATO attempting to render our deterence obsolete?"
If you ask me, that sounds ominous.
Reply to this
Iran has offensive missiles that can reach European Cities based off of North Korean missile designs. They have lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the IAEA has stated so. That is what the SDI/Star Wars program agreement is for.
Reply to this
"Iran has offensive missiles that can reach European Cities based off of North Korean missile designs." (DOF)
That's the line that we are attempting to sell to Russia. Russia isn't buying it though.
Russia (and the rest of the world) figured out exactly who the missile shield was really directed towards when they offered an alternative that would meet the stated needs of a shield against Iran, and we declined their invitation without comment.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has told US President George W Bush that Moscow would drop its objections to a US missile shield in Europe if the radar-based system were installed in Azerbaijan."
"The proposal may put an end to the worrying escalation in the war of words over US plans to position a radar station in the Czech Republic and missile silo in Poland."
"Should the plans go ahead, Mr Putin has claimed that he would have no choice but to retaliate by aiming missiles at European cities for the first time since the end of the Cold War."
"However, he said today that if the United States agree to relocate the system to Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic on the Caspian Sea that borders Iran, Moscow will abandon its objections."
"This will make it unnecessary for us to place our offensive complexes along the border with Europe," Mr Putin said.
http://tinyurl.com/merd8t
Another reason that makes it a hard sell is that Iran has not ever launched direct military hostilities against any of its neighbors. Iran talks a lot of shit, but that's about it. And Russia knows that. And Russia knows that we know that.
If Iranian missiles can reach far enough to strike European cities, then guess what? Thay can also reach that far to strike in all other directions. Aside from Israel, you've heard nary a nation (in all of the other different) directions voice concern over the range of Iranian missiles. Saudi Arabia? Nothing. Pakistan? Not a peep. Turkey? Crickets. Apparently their not sold on the threat either.
But what made the sell in Europe? We paid them to base our stuff there. Poland wasn't going to allow the system to based on their territory unless they got something that they wanted. WTF!?!
"The United States will help Poland modernize its armed forces as part of the deal. The two countries also agreed to deepen cooperation on political-military issues, information-sharing and defense technology research and development."
http://tinyurl.com/6b62sy
Poland is getting paid! (So is Czech Republic.) That's for sure. Oh, here's another little tidbit from the same article:
"It will help both the [NATO] alliance and Poland and the United States respond to the coming threats," Rice said. "Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one. It is in our defense that we do this."
"Moscow says the missile-defense system is aimed at blunting Russia's nuclear deterrent. It has warned the deal could open Poland to attack."
The Russians aren't stupid.
Reply to this
>>>That's the line that we are attempting to sell to Russia. Russia isn't buying it though.
That was in an IAEA report. The IAEA aren't exactly cheerleaders for US policy. We, the US, can protect ourselves. This this shield isn't exactly all about us.
>>>Russia (and the rest of the world) figured out exactly who the missile shield was really directed towards when they offered an alternative that would meet the stated needs of a shield against Iran, and we declined their invitation without comment.
Directed towards Russia, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, China....the shield is pretty multipurpose.
>>>If Iranian missiles can reach far enough to strike European cities, then guess what? Thay can also reach that far to strike in all other directions. Aside from Israel, you've heard nary a nation (in all of the other different) directions voice concern over the range of Iranian missiles.
Iran has offensive missiles. The shield is defensive. There is a difference. Why does Iran have missiles that can reach London if they don't need them? How does a shield threaten anyone? It doesn't. So if there is a lot of noise, there must be a reason.
>>>The Russians aren't stupid.
Absolutely not. They are masters at propaganda.
Reply to this
"Why does Iran have missiles that can reach London if they don't need them?" (DOF)
Because London has missiles that can reach Tehran.
"Iran has offensive missiles." (DOF)
If Iran is attacked, you can best believe that those missiles will be used in an offensive manner. Just like if we are attacked, we will use our (defensive ICBM) missiles in an offensive manner. So the key is don't attack.
"The Russians aren't stupid." (Derek)
"Absolutely not. They are masters at propaganda." (DOF)
That reminds me of a (true) story. In 1943, Roosevelt and Churchill announced that the Allied powers would accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the Axis. The Germans initially thought that they were going to have a proganda field day with that statement. They thought so until someone pointed out to them that there was one person more shrewd at propaganda than Joseph Goebbels - Franklin Roosevelt. With just two words in 1943, Roosevelt announced to the world that Germany (and the Axis powers) was losing the war. Two words. Unconditional surrender. That's propaganda! The Russians may be masters at propaganda, but we wrote the book!
"Directed towards Russia, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, China....the shield is pretty multipurpose." (DOF)
To render our enemies deterrence obsolete. Does the term "Use them or lose them" mean anything to you? It just may to them.
Reply to this
>>>Because London has missiles that can reach Tehran.
Link?
>>>"Use them or lose them" mean anything to you?
It certainly meant something to Iran. Heck, they did test launches with the Sajjil as campaign stunts for Ahmadinejad during this past election.
Reply to this
"Because London has missiles that can reach Tehran." (Derek)
Link? (DOF)
Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile Submarine
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/vanguard.htm
Reply to this
The submarine's missiles are held in a “detargeted” mode. That is not the same at all. I can't tell the difference between a water gun and a bow and arrow and I know that.
Reply to this
"The submarine's missiles are held in a “detargeted” mode. That is not the same at all." (DOF)
Just like Iran's missiles. Once either country is attacked, the missiles will then be placed in a 'targeted' mode. There's no difference whatsoever.
Reply to this
Well, I can't argue the technical difference due to my lack of background. So I will concede that one to you.
Reply to this
"A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be 'convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests'."
U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop A One-Superpower World
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
Let's talk some more.......
Reply to this
I can't find that in the Pentagon or DefenseLink archives.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/archive.aspx?SectionID=
That is something I would do a FOIA on before taking a randomly circulating document at face value. Always go for the source.
Reply to this
"U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop A One-Superpower World"
As an American raised up with American values regarding power and its corrupting nature, I have to ask; where are the checks and balances? Under such a scenario, what keeps us from becoming "the" evil empire?
Reply to this
The Strategy Plan Document is the sort of thing that is not openly adopted as policy. No, you find it in any official archives. But when you observe how foreign policy is being exercised, it becomes very tough to dismiss that such a policy is being employed.
(....more to follow....)
Reply to this
WHOOPS! I meant to say that 'you won't find it in any official archive.'
Reply to this
We can't even agree on some sourced information. Never mind the interpretation of non sourcable, non archived information
Reply to this
"The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security."
Henry Kissinger
http://tinyurl.com/34luu6
This goes hand in hand with the Wolfowitz Strategy Plan document.
You can say all day long "That's not what we're doing." No, that's what we're doing.
Reply to this
Kissinger is one of the highest ranking communist moles in the U.S. government. I can't lend any credibility to cites from him.
Reply to this
Funny thing however - Kissinger is citing Cheney.
"Such an Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected."
Hmmm. Does Dick Cheney lack credibility?
Reply to this
I am getting lost with your points. Whether someone made a statement or not doesn't make the Strategy Plan Document real if it can't be produced. Whether someone made a statement or not doesn't legitimatize Kissinger.
?????
Reply to this
"Whether someone made a statement or not doesn't make the Strategy Plan Document real if it can't be produced." (DOF)
I can't remember the last time I was able to access a classified document on line.
"The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."
Classified. Not something that you would want to announce to the world. Something not subject to public access. However, reporters have been known from time to time to become the recipients of classified information that otherwise didn't exist.
"The document was provided to The New York Times by an official who believes this post-cold-war strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain. It seems likely to provoke further debate in Congress and among America’s allies about Washington’s willingness to tolerate greater aspirations for regional leadership from a united Europe or from a more assertive Japan."
If such a document did exist, it would certainly explain many of the events that have transpired over the course of the past decade.
Reply to this
>>>If such a document did exist, it would certainly explain many of the events that have transpired over the course of the past decade.
True, but that works both ways.
If such a document didn't exist, it would certainly explain many of the perceived events that have transpired over the course of the past decade, i.e., a shadow government.
Former Democratic Senate legend Scoop Jackson once said that foreign policy should leave US shores with “one voice”.
Reply to this
"If such a document didn't exist, it would certainly explain many of the perceived events that have transpired over the course of the past decade, i.e., a shadow government." (DOF)
Well that statement certainly piques my interest.
Can you provide an example of a "perceived" event?
Reply to this
I was only speaking in general about the use of propaganda. My background is in marketing. Small incidents that are verifiable are used to shirt tail credibility to unverifiable information. But Alex Jones would be a good example.
Reply to this
The Future Of Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces
In the Wake of Obama's Moscow Visit
By General Leonid Ivashov
Cultural Foundation
7-25-9
Part 1
"Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over, what do we have at the bottom line?"
"First, the summit produced a framework document defining the number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100) and the number of nuclear warheads in a narrower corridor (1,500-1,675). The limits are set by the US and Russian Presidents for their negotiating teams and can easily be adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus on the issue."
"Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed the future of the US missile defense, but this part of the talks led to no definite agreements. All that was said was that the existing viewpoints would have to be taken into account. Moreover, by default the examination of missile defense was limited to just two and not even the most important of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises."
"There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing the possibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointly analyzing the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoring missile programs across the world. As a clear reference to North Korea and Iran, the two Presidents warned all the countries having missile potentials against missile technology proliferation."
"Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its airspace, leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal."
"The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit. Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of the agreement on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at the same time. Given the current situation in the nuclear arms sphere (the condition of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, the level of development of the US missile defense and precision weapons, the magnitude of the return potential concealed by the START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard 1,700 warheads as the critical minimum. Why? Estimates show that with this number of warheads and the corresponding number of carriers the Russian nuclear forces can retain functionality after an attack by US high-precision weapons, launch on warning before nuclear warheads carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate the US missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) and inflict unacceptable damage on the US. This is the essence of the nuclear deterrence."
End Part 1
Reply to this
Part 2
"The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruise missile potential and the development of the US missile defense capable of intercepting missiles at the boost phase and warheads after their separation from carriers undermine Russia's ability to launch on warning or deliver a retaliatory strike. In other words, the advancement of the US capability to destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioning regions (on the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields, and on docked submarines) as well as to intercept Russian missiles and warheads creates such a situation that even having a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will not be able to deliver them to target locations."
"Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700 munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in more distant future either the US arsenals will have to be slashed or Russia's capabilities to safeguard its strategic nuclear forces will have to be upgraded to preserve the balance. The latter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negative situation in the Russian military-industrial complex and the current conditions and trends in the Russian strategic nuclear forces. What we witness at present is the degradation of Russia's military-industrial complex, the ageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and serious difficulties faced by Russian missile-manufacturing enterprises."
"As the US Administration is fully aware of the state of Russia's strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them, its consent to the proposed parameters of the arms reduction was not hard to extract Speaking precisely, Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposed cuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy is to rely less on nuclear arms and more on advanced conventional weapons, especially cruise missiles and space-based, ground-based, and marine missile defense systems. At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goes unchallenged but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China, and other countries still preclude the global US dictate. As a result, the reduction of nuclear potentials plays into the hands of the US."
End Part 2
Reply to this
Part 3
"There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russia should exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national security is in disrepair. Russia needs a fundamental analysis of the international situation in the context of the current economic crisis and its own global strategy aimed at rebuilding the international security system. It should also make resolute efforts to restore its military-industrial complex. Secondly, the ongoing shifts in the domestic situation in the US must be taken into account. The US is struggling with the current global crisis, and Washington is in the process of rethinking its politics, both domestic and international. Russia should keep its finger on the pulse of the process and be ready to support the US President's steps whenever they are constructive."
"Thirdly, the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle seriously factors into the situation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B. Obama's Moscow visit, and Beijing sided with Moscow at both forums. However, it is clear that China will be concerned over Moscow's de facto consent to the continuation of the US missile defense program and especially over the indications that Russia and the US might start implementing it jointly. It is natural for Beijing to regard the plan as a threat. Russia's opening its airspace to US military transit is also an alarming development from China's standpoint as Beijing probably suspects a correlation between the surge of the Tibet and Uyghur separatism and the presence of the US forces in Afghanistan. Attention should also be paid to the fact that China no less than other countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Such partnership was offered to Beijing unofficially some time ago at a high level and has not been rejected so far."
"China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia, but only as long as Russia does not drop out of the top international politics league where it will remain only in case it manages to maintain nuclear parity with the US and nuclear superiority over China. While the US and China mainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economic might, and their nuclear potentials only further strengthen their statuses, Russia's geopolitical standing is based on the proportions of its nuclear arsenal more than on anything else."
"In any case, it is a positive result that the nuclear disarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. The Russian expert community has the time to analyze the situation and to formulate suggestions for the Russian leadership on the relations between Russia and the US in the military sphere."
End
Reply to this
>>>US-China-Russia triangle
Thanks for posting this Derek. I definitely want to come back and reread it in full after I finish up some deadlines I have for this weekend.
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/10/23/chinas-space-program.aspx
Previous:
Lunar orbiter set to blast off - China
How this happened:
Fred Thompson, Vietnam, China, DNC Monies and Duncan Hunter
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/10/18/columnists/bravenewworld/19171550&sec=Brave%20New%20World
Wah! We are now a space power
ANALYSIS BY AZMI SHAROM
YOU might not know this, but there have been a lot of unhappy rumblings in Malaysian society regarding our space programme.
Actually, that is not accurate. We don’t really have a “space programme”, do we? After all, it’s not like we are pushing the technological frontiers and designing cutting-edge manned spacecraft.
No, to be more precise, we have an astronaut-training programme. Whoa, whoa, that is not true either. We didn’t train anyone; we paid the Russians to train our astronaut.
Oh, blow it all. That is still wrong. He is not an astronaut; he is a cosmonaut. The terms, according to Nasa, mean different things but, according to the Russians (and us), they mean the same thing.
Oh, this is all so confusing. All right, all right, let us start over again.
You might not know this, but there have been a lot of unhappy rumblings in Malaysian society regarding our paying the Russians buckets of money – the amount of which the Malaysian public is not 100% sure about – to train a bloke to be a spaceman (as accurate a definition I can think of, because he is a man and he is in space).
Yes, it is true. This wonderful achievement of the country – to find a handsome, clean-cut, healthy, intelligent fellow and pay someone else to get him into space – is being sneered at in some cynical quarters.
If you happen to be one of those people, I say to you: tsk, tsk, tsk. Where is your sense of patriotism? Where is your child-like optimism?
Going into space is a big deal. Just ask Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth, two space tourists who did not have the luxury of buying Russian jet fighters to contra the costs of their cosmic flights. Coincidentally, one of the nasty things people are calling our Malaysian spaceman is “space tourist”.
For your information, unlike the two gentlemen mentioned above, our spaceman is not a tourist. No, no, no. He is going to do experiments, important experiments.
Apart from important experiments, he is going to be doing so much good in other ways. For example, he has opened the doors of opportunity for ordinary Malaysians. One of these days, I might go to space. To conduct experiments.
Don’t laugh because it is possible, for if the good doctor has proven anything, it is that if the Government is willing to spend a bit of money, anyone can go to space. Kind of like a galactic AirAsia.
Let us not forget all those little schoolchildren who are being inspired as you read this. They are going to know that Malaysia Boleh.
We can do all sorts of things. We are now a space power!
The next time their school computer lab collapses, or their teachers get demoralised due to poor pay, they can tell themselves that it all does not matter because we are a space power!
Last but not least, the spaceman is going to land on earth brimming with new scientific know-how. I am sure he will be able to use this newfound knowledge to help the country.
There is a great deal of high-tech equipment around that keeps malfunctioning. The traffic lights on Jalan Universiti, Kuala Lumpur, used to have a countdown, but it doesn’t work now.
And all that experience with space station to earth video conferencing will come in mighty useful in Dataran Merdeka, where the super high-tech giant TV screen broke down just when eager patriotic Malaysians gathered to watch the Soyuz rocket blast off.
So, all you naysayer types are very wrong and misguided. You should be like me and embrace our spaceman programme. Sit back and think of the glory that is “Malaysia the Space Power” while you unwrap a Raya ketupat.
Wait a minute; that is a great idea for a space experiment. How does unwrapping Raya ketupats fare in zero gravity ??
Dr Azmi Sharom is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.
Reply to this
Russia-China Warn US That Israeli Attack On Iran Means “World War”
Saturday, 18 July 2009 09:26
A chilling report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Medvedev and Chinese President Hu have issued an “urgent warning” to the United States that says if the Americans allow an Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran, “World War will be our response”.
http://tinyurl.com/lu62nj
The table is set. Who would like to serve?
Reply to this
When you click on the link for the article, be sure to check out the live traffic feed on the right side of the page. 'Interesting' is the word that best describes it.
Reply to this
China has been financing our last couple of military excursions. What do you think the chances are that they will finance the next?
Reply to this
China's stimulous package is already pumping dollars into the U.S. So, I believe you are correct.
Reply to this