[000:00:00;00] liz liz . download the official on t.m.p. cation chobani phone oh i pod touch from the i choose apps to. launch on sea life on the go. video. on ts mind fuel costs and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question on the

com. space use of the phone to our national security there is no substitute and there is no alternative to military space. bombs on target time bell minimums. unloveable easier able to deliver through space ship. better to err on the frame down to film her. and we must. be. one.

of the best in the peaceful uses of the outer space. of this incredible investment from the united states and from the european union in canada other countries like this all this stuff is completely in jeopardy if we start putting we haven't seen outer space. today violence has once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. for a chatroom. thirty

eight as. time goes. by. at present it is not known if weapons capable of striking targets on earth are already deployed in space however orbiting insult systems are being researched. the us military is developing what the air force in particular has called global strike that is basically currently we have nuclear missiles that could strike anywhere on earth within thirty minutes. what the military is talking about is a similar conventional capability that could be used to knock out say a chinese anti-satellite weapons launcher in a matter of minutes. a number of concepts are being studied

with this notion of prompt strike. in two thousand and eight fifty million dollars was allocated to project a supersonic plane capable of reaching any point on the globe in only a few minutes and drop up to six times the bombs. orbiting space satellite that would actually have missiles on it that could be fired from space and reach a target in literally five to ten minutes as opposed to the current thirty minutes . military doctrine also for seize deploying batteries of missiles that orbit the planet striking at over seven thousand miles an hour these projectiles with capable of wiping out simultaneously to one hundred targets on the ground with a destructive power of a nuclear device. identify a target through overhead imagery process communications between military decision

makers and then precisely enough to destroy the target with one shot. would it really be that big a step for projectile of software also known from space there's no practical difference and i'd venture to say that the person on the receiving end wouldn't see the distinction either. with all our technology we know bloody well that we cannot be assured absolutely one hundred percent that our bombs so-called think bombs smart bombs are hitting the targets we know from afghanistan and iraq alone in the last few years but that's a fallacy you are it's in civilian people you are not so you think they are right

he bases what you are doing his log how much worse with the probability of hitting the wrong target or hitting ourselves from outer space would be we have no way of calculating that it's not possible. at least one weapon could go right and land in iowa or new york city or god knows where you know. that's a reality and if if we don't accept that we just wish in the dark and we're going to be victims of our own technology. is. moving the arms race into space will be the largest industrial projects in the history of the planet earth they can't take any chances they have to have an enemy they have to make the people afraid someone's going to attack us with nuclear

weapons we've got to have missile defense in order to protect us from attack iraq. one of the rogue states iran north korea and now they throw china into that equation. for the last three years the pentagon has been trying to make china the new bogeyman and china unwittingly played into the united states hands with its anti-satellite test. according to some experts this anti-satellite test didn't come as a surprise to american officials. at the time i was at a conference in colorado springs and the military officers in the room actually left to watch the test in real time so they were observing the actual chinese any satellite as we know about every space launch we know about every project launch we have reconnaissance and surveillance satellites that

can detect all these we detected the chinese test for example in fact we detected to two previous chinese tests that failed so we know about this it's extremely difficult to hide this space tests they're one of the most observable weapons tests you can possibly imagine. everything indicates that china's anti-satellite test was intended to make the world aware of the united states intention to dominate space by doing so china also show the united states that the orbiting weapon can be shot down. we wouldn't really want to see in the future and surrounded by all to lay

weapons which will make many times even more vulnerable than the situation today. at the united nations china with many other nations has since the 1980's been trying to expand the one hundred sixty seven outer space treaty. presently the treaty prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space but doesn't prohibit conventional weapons. each year this desire a member initiative is rejected by the united states. it is hundred sixty two one hundred seventy one united states is the only nation actually fought against this war isolated on this issue.

what we've got is pushed our allies into consideration of more strategic independence from the united states in space and some people would argue perhaps in europe that that's a good thing maybe it's better that europe has your dziedzic independence and space because they can serve as a counterweight but the u.s. view point it would seem to me that you would want your allies integrated into your system. of russia doll of the european military equip itself with a wider array of military space systems in support of telecommunications navigation and information for ground troops us through this progress or that there are only as i got. it we don't have them which certainly weakens the european armed forces and in nato makes them very dependent on the americans.

is going to what does one need when one is in gauged in a military. operation in europe or more precisely in from britain because let me tell you europe does not yet exist in a military sense. and the only europeans still rely on the american g.p.s. . during periods of diplomatic access to the american g.p.s. can be denied by its own. like russia and china europe is developing its own global navigation satellite alternative known as the galileo system. you create enemies you terrify your friends and you really didn't mean to do that was not what you know if you're a strategic thinker you just certainly do not want to be terrifying your allies that's hot it could wait to go and you don't want to be provoking your enemies into

taking actions to kalar you. so i think we've stepped way over the rhetorical line here. in the united states anyway and we have to figure out how to back away from that because we're actually creating negative consequences and bring other people to do things that will challenge us and face. for a number of decades the united states has been pursuing a military doctrine of space control. however even without a treaty in place in space the u.s. congress alone could apply the brakes to such developments it would be nice to think that space weaponization is prevented not because there's a huge outcry against it although that would be an interesting prospect to because no one including our own nation has the money to spend on this anymore in an era when the united states still maintains

a five hundred billion dollar military budget every year i don't think we can count on. that happened it's really him saying oh we are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to develop space control means that a treaty would take care of would make unnecessary if we had a will to negotiate such a treaty if we took them plead. we could go on it wasn't easy it would be a very difficult thing to do but it could be done. we're. going to treat an all anti-satellite my can retain their ground based lasers conventional missiles and most orbiting systems can be used to destroy satellites. to truly guarantee that kill vehicles will only target missiles not satellites or earthbound objects. and. components of

a new treaty argue such promises run tenable and too late. weaponization of space has happened a long time ago. this idea that it's a pristine environment that if only we stop where we are right now all will be well it is simply nonsense for certain experts a wider range of international understandings will be needed to guarantee the peaceful uses of space we do indeed need a united nations treaty this is not enough this is only step one step two says ok space has been militarized there are military networks in space many of them like g.p.s. are useful but we should work on international treaties to make those military space networks used for multilateral purposes do i think that's going to happen i'm very doubtful but i have to keep hoping and believing that there is

a prospect for that. those fearing the weaponization of space could find hope in barack obama's election got tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending cut investments in a proven missile defense systems will not weaponized space. as soon as he took office the white house announced that it would be seeking a worldwide ban on reckons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. however it proved difficult to change decades of entrenched military policy and programs to weaponize space. history suggests that

nations do not voluntarily disarm they disarm because they're defeated or they make small adjustments in the way they buy and build and deploy their weapons but no superpower says you know it would be better if we were weaker i don't recall that ever happening. obama went on to allocate billions of dollars for a full range of space control systems me including a program called offensive counter space. in the pentagon define this new program as offensive measures to disrupt. degrade or destroy any adverse or is face capabilities.

by. the air force account in a colorado springs for the doctrine of space control and its possible consequences are studied. it's hard to tame space period already without attacking so afraid that if we want space we're going to have to attack and resistance which i don't know if you know much about all mechanics but if you created debris up in space that would just be in the way for you as well and it kind of start chain reaction and pretty soon you just have a cloud of debris surrounding earth. about six hundred thousand fragments flying through space at ten times the velocity of a rifle bullet. all these objects are traveling at fourteen thousand miles an hour so even an object the size of a pea traveling at that speed has more force than

a. cannonball. right now the problem with space junk is so high that nasa is worried that if there is never a now there are watch of anything into space it has every launch creates a little bit of debris. in fifty years' time. certainly or of it will be so polluted that nobody can operate there because the stuff that's already out there will start breaking up and creating more and more clutter. and satellites destruction unleashes a storm cloud of debris that fouls out of space and threatens everything in orbit. the point really is the creation of debris in this manner a good idea or a bad idea and clearly it is a very bad idea because there is no way to go up and clean that up.

the more times you go into space and you begin to practice destroying other satellites you create so much space junk that you literally create the very likely possibility that at some point in time you will not be able to get a rocket off the planet earth because it'll be like a minefield around the planet and you won't be able to escape the minefield with that rocket because it would be destroyed by all the space junk there so we've got to begin to look at space as an environment. we have several hundred billion dollars of investment in the peaceful uses of voters space i'm talking about weather satellites positioning satellites. the scientific satellites the entire world communication

network is all satellite oriented. all this incredible investment from the united states and from the european union and canada other countries like this all this is completely a jeopardy if we start putting weapons in outer space how would our world change if we lost the use. satellites they want six fifteen am communication satellites hovering over the americas all mute over a swath of the globe with g.p.s. coverage collapses atomic clocks on g.p.s. satellites can transmit university standard time synchronization of nasa infrastructures fail. three hundred fifty million cell phones are disabled. hundreds of millions of internet connections vanish around the world card payments and bank accounts freeze millions of dollars are sucked from the industries and businesses triggering a financial crash news services are crippled city streets relying on g.p.s.

for traffic management are in chaos electrical grids are destructive winds moans of cottons are blinded by blankets. coastguards are deaf the ship's distress calls. for dozens of aircrafts are missing air traffic controllers are fighting panic worldwide flights are grounded or called back by denied there's been a cascade of traffic crane both in the aircraft accidents. so far the world is awarded such a catastrophe. but a space war would kill satellites and blast tons of wreckage into orbit. the system we rely on would shatter and be impossible to restore. every nation would suffer the consequences of armed conflict in space still some maintain that being the first place weapons in space remains the best of all. the time it takes twenty five

and this is especially as part of the conference on world affairs we're discussing the militarization of space there is a point in time and maybe rapidly closing organized is a good dog and i supposed as such or where there would be no arms race frankly i don't think it's doable i think the march of technology will mean that even if we get a lead on other nations in attempting to do that sooner or later. we will again be challenged it's kind of like what happened after world war two we had the atomic bomb nobody else ever tomic bomb before we had a bigger explosive and with our comic weaponry. will be able to dominate the earth that didn't last very long the soviets are an atomic bomb the chinese are going to chop. likewise a space to think that we can move up there with reverend wright and be allowed to be the king air the throne of space is a tragic miscalculation. everybody thinks that place is

a dangerous idea that to prompt other countries to also develop space weapons specifically. india has been discussing whether or not it needs to build its own weapons you can be sure india does it will be thinking about it in a heartbeat as well israel has also been discussing this issue so what you see now is a potential for a domino that some nations would yield to american domination others wouldn't attempt to counter the united states and can pass the control of space by a single some profound. nations stable and unstable to be dragged into a new arms race. the european union has been up until now opposed to the weaponization of space. but for how much longer citizen if the u.s. continues to develop not only military satellites but also space based weapons we'll have to think about it and find new ways to defend ourselves from them

merican threat and the arms race that even with trigger people when they get. russia has declared that if the united states goes on pursuing its doctrine they will have no choice but to destroy all ordered threats. if americans deploy. based based antibodies to misfile defenses then could you imagine interceptor based on space stations military stations would longer fly city toward the gulf or three d. story or will try and not that food because he did it as a quite unexpected well i seen quite a rush. seriously

ruin a good history of star wars is no longer a fantasy it is a reality of course such a policy is a catalyst of an arms race you wouldn't. demean you dumb a nation of the factor of force is nourishing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction my solution. it is this little sense in rush's opinion of the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community he could provoke nothing less than the beginning of a new nuclear iran. besides the negative environmental impacts in outer space the policy of space domination could also have a destabilizing effect on earth. who recognize ation of space could be the trigger that unleashes nuclear war. sarnia anxiety and juice box putting my pins in space

or launching weapons from space downs were. according by accident by human fallibility by design by terrorists a launching out to nine thousand hydrogen bombs inducing a short ice age in the death of my screeches on the planet. we're on the edge of the nuclear precipice about in our nation. the military use of space seems inevitable the ruggedly valving technology and the like of a strong treaty these the door open to the most delicate instincts in space. every year the air force academy adds its most brilliant graduates to the ranks of the masters of spades the chances for preserving outer space for peaceful ends

remains the challenge of the world at large usually we're trying to bring back weapons systems after they've been deployed nuclear missiles we're trying to bring them back here's an opportunity one of the first times in history actually it we have a chance to be proactive we have a chance to stop a new arms race before it actually happens that's why this moment is so crucial. to debate a response weaponization is the most critical debate for the next century and we are on the verge. of making decisions and nations around the world about which

path to choose. it was the same up charge elevating the lower and lower but i felt a little less than yet another legal intervention by the u.n. now in the ivory coast a formal leader is unseated at the expense of hundreds of civilians. he. says. you.