This morning the New York Times came out in favor of a treaty banning all weapons in space. “The United States, as the nation most dependent on satellites, should be working to ban all anti-satellite weapons,” the paper said. “That is the best way to protect America’s security and its credibility.”
The Russians and Chinese introduced a draft space treaty this Tuesday at a disarmament conference in Geneva, and the Times thought they did not go far enough toward the cause of bringing peace to the heavens. I generally am in favor of multilateral treaties to get rid of weapons, but I want to tell you that Moscow, Beijing, and New York’s paper of record are all wrong on this one.
Prohibiting space weapons sounds like a good idea, but promises to do so are utterly meaningless because they are virtually impossible to verify. There is one overriding reality: any object in space can be used as a space weapon if you can maneuver it to arrange a collision. The Russians and Chinese know this and are only trying to make us look bad because they know we will never accept their proposed deal. Moreover, they have no intention of implementing their idea either because they will never allow international inspectors to examine every satellite they launch and sit at every control panel they have. Unfortunately, it’s easier to conceal a space weapon than a nuclear warhead.
So this is all you have to know about a space treaty: If you want to ban all weapons in space, you will have to do away with every maneuverable object in space. And if you like the Times’s idea that a treaty should cover ground- and sea-based weapons too, then you will have to do away with every rocket, missile, and powerful laser. Unless you are willing to do all this, you are not serious about completely disarming the high ground of space.
The Chinese and Russians, of course, are not. The Times, unfortunately, is.
Like Rangel, the man has ‘splained. Time to move on to the next corruption scandal.
Another non-issue. This guy is totally replaceable.
How much do Republican senators heed Commentary, National Review and the Weekly Standard? Not so much. They’re going to confirm Geithner. Call them adults.
NYT:
These are not the times to think in small political terms,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who just returned from Afghanistan and Pakistan with Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., and briefly met with reporters on Wednesday alongside Mr. Obama. “I think he is the right guy.”
Mr. Graham thereby validated what the president-elect had just said: That Mr. Geithner, by bipartisan agreement, is “uniquely qualified.”
I am a conservative Republican…and a revenue agent of the IRS. I do not want a two-bit tax cheat supervising my agency.
I’ve always been suspicious that AP was getting their news from late-night television comics. That’s how they scoop the competition. Now about that stuff they copy off of rest room walls . . .
No one can trust him for a lot of reasons. First, his tax problem. Highly unlikely it was an honest mistake. 2nd, he was a main author of TARP, which has yet to be effective. 3: He lied about the AIG bonuses. He knew, bonuses flew; and now the story changes because of outrage. We don’t have honest people. They must have another agenda, otherwise they’d be totally honest. Also, even if he did know about the bonuses, then they did not do due diligence, or in other words, they do not know what they are doing!
It is well documented to a point there is not a question they are not telling the truth. Here is why O and G are spewing misinformation!
http://tinyurl.com/cuer6d