Ready to do what? Count bodies again as we did in Viet Nam?
How does an "arms race" end? How can anyone "win" an arms race? Races are staged for a winner and a loser, right? In a space war, how can anyone win? for that matter, in a nuclear exchange of ICBMS between Russia, the US, China, and the other countries who have or will have nukes, how does the planet survive?
ICBMS with nuclear warheads are a good thing to avoid. Arms races, by definition, cannot end well. Yes, we need to defend ourselves, and prepare for the worst, but where does it end?
"Leaving the INF Treaty Won’t Help Trump Counter China"
Pranay Vaddi January 31, 2019
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/01/31/leaving-inf-treaty-won-t-help-trump-counter-china-pub-78262
" . . . analysts have made three arguments in favor of withdrawing from the INF Treaty and deploying GBIRs:
- U.S. GBIRs will better deter China.
- GBIRs are far cheaper than U.S. air and sea platforms.
- Land-based missiles are more survivable than U.S. air- and sea-based assets.
Each of these arguments has some merit. However, their proponents ignore the very real political challenges associated with deploying U.S. GBIRs in the Asia Pacific region. They also ignore specific military challenges, including the potential for a missile race and long-term regional and strategic instability. Further, proponents of U.S. GBIRs have not rationalized the likely budgetary trade-offs required to develop these new missiles given the political fight brewing over defense budgeting in 2019, and whether new GBIRs are more cost effective than utilizing existing or planned military capabilities."
"Leaving the INF and getting Putin's attention"
By Daniel Gallington and Henry Cooper - - Wednesday, February 6, 2019
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/6/how-withdrawal-from-the-intermediate-nuclear-force/
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
"President Trump has announced that, unless the Russians reverse their violations of essential and “material” provisions of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Force arms control treaty (INF) signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, we will withdraw from the treaty in six months.
Vladimir Putin quickly announced Russia is also withdrawing from the treaty as a “symmetric response,” no doubt designed to deflect attention away from Russian major violations of the INF treaty over the last decade and to provoke a siren call from the international arms control community — as did the “nuclear freeze” and related Soviet propaganda in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Mr. Trump should resist this call on its merits — as did Ronald Reagan — and in marked contrast to the Obama administration that at most had only “protested” Russian violations — and even then, usually privately. Obviously, such “protests” were not taken seriously by the Russians."
Good luck in the Arms Race my friend, and taking risks we should never take with SICBMs.
"A Missile-Defense Layer in Space Is Affordable and Makes Sense"
By Henry “Trey” Obering III Former director, Missile Defense Agency Read bio
Rebeccah L. Heinrichs Senior fellow, Hudson Institute Read bio
October 4, 2018
"US Space Force a counterproductive reality"
By David Gosset | China Daily | Updated: 2018-08-20 07:36
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201808/20/WS5b79ff04a310add14f386909.html
"In a speech at the Pentagon on Aug 9 on the future of the US military in outer space, US Vice-President Mike Pence presented the idea of a "Space Force". Besides the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and the Coast Guard, the Space Force would become the sixth branch of the US Armed Forces.
The message sent by the Trump administration has the advantage of clarity: "It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space; we must have American dominance in space.""
What does the world think?
"Given the seriousness of an issue impacting world security, the international community's relatively muted reaction is regrettable. Were such a plan articulated by China, what would have been the global media's reaction? For sure, there would have been an uproar in the name of ethics and international law.
But since the US is in a dominant position, it can explicitly call for the extension of "Pax Americana" into space by any means without encountering opprobrium. Any other country would be condemned for having a similar ambition; this is how soft power taken in the form of legitimacy derives from hard power.
However, a debate on the legality of such a military initiative has to take place. It can be argued, indeed, that a US Space Force would violate the Outer Space Treaty ratified by Washington, which recognizes "the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes". Even though the US has not signed the Space Preservation Treaty of 2006, it is committed to the OST that remains the basis of international space law.
What can be seen as another provocation of the Trump administration should also trigger a debate on the moral obligation to establish an "Anti-Satellite and Space Weapons Ban"."
"Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready‘"
We are now approaching a point where “Star Wars” is not just a movie,’ one government adviser warns.
By BRYAN BENDER and JACQUELINE KLIMAS
04/06/2018 05:11 AM EDT
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-china-463067
Ready for what? More ways to destroy all of mankind?
