News: New space-arms control initiative draws concern

As alien activity is anticipated, the US and world governments are speedily implementing controversial initiatives to counter space threats.

www(dot)washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/new-space-arms-control-initiative-draws-concern/

New space-arms control initiative draws concern
Critics say military activities will be compromised

The Obama administration is launching a new space arms-control initiative that critics say will lead to restrictions on U.S. military activities in space, a key U.S. strategic war-fighting advantage.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to announce the initiative as early as Tuesday. The plan will be built on work contained in a European Union draft code of conduct for space that the Pentagon and State Department have criticized as too restrictive.

“The United States has decided to enter into formal consultations and negotiations with the European Union and other spacefaring nations to develop an International Code of Conduct,” said an administration official familiar with the announcement.

The U.S. government has rejected space-arms talks promoted by Russia and China at the United Nations as a covert attempt to limit U.S. military space operations, but the administration official called the EU draft code an improvement.

“We believe the European Union’s draft Code of Conduct is a solid foundation for future negotiations on reaching a consensus international code,” the administration official said, noting that signing a code is not imminent and that negotiations are expected to continue throughout this year and possibly into next year.

Change of plans

The comments contradict those of Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, who told reporters last week that the U.S. had rejected a draft EU code of conduct as “too restrictive.”

A Dec. 9, 2009, State Department cable on the draft EU code said the United States “continues to have significant concerns about the widespread use of language connoting binding obligations, such as ‘shall’ and ‘will,’ in the proposed non-binding Code of Conduct.”

“The use of such language in a non-binding document is contrary to established practice; for example, The Hague Code of Conduct, which is not binding under international law, does not use such binding language,” the cable said.

According to a recent assessment of the EU draft by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, U.S. adherence to the code’s provisions would hurt the U.S. military’s space operations in several areas. The unclassified portion of the report did not provide further details.

The initiative will seek to outline international norms for non-threatening behavior in space; to increase transparency among nations that use space; and to reduce the hazards of debris, such as more than 10,000 pieces of space junk left by China’s 2007 anti-satellite missile test that are orbiting Earth.

A 2008 draft of the EU space code calls for the signing states to “refrain from any intentional action which will or might bring about, directly or indirectly, the damage or destruction of outer space objects, unless such action is conducted to reduce the creation of outer space debris and/or justified by imperative safety considerations.”

Reaction

John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador who held Ms. Tauscher’s post during the George W. Bush administration, said the initiative is symptomatic of the Obama administration’s ideological commitment to arms talks.

“This is mindless,” Mr. Bolton said in an email. “The last thing the United States needs is a space code of conduct. The ideology of arms control has already failed in the Russian ‘reset’ policy, and it is sure to fail here as well.”

Retired Air ForceLt. Gen. Thomas McInerney also expressed concerns about the arms-control plan.

“U.S. military activities in space are a key strategic advantage for the United States,” Gen. McInerney said. “Any agreements that limit or constrain military space activities must be approached with extreme caution.”

Two U.S. national security officials said the new talks are part of the administration’s arms-control-oriented national security policies, which place a priority on international agreements instead of developing military capabilities.

Whether Strategic Command is concerned about the arms initiative was not certain.

A State Department official confirmed that the administration will pursue an international code of conduct for space. An announcement is expected soon, the official said.

Congress has not been briefed on the space-arms initiative.

Hard questions

Several House and Senate members are expected to ask the administration hard questions about the initiative in the coming weeks. Critics in Congress are likely to view the initiative as a way to circumvent the Senate’s treaty-making powers by concluding executive agreements that do not require ratification by the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton’s announcement will say that the Obama administration is committed to avoiding an international space code of conduct that would constrain U.S. defense capabilities, one official said, adding that the administration plans only to implement an international code that would not be legally binding or impose limits on U.S. or allied missile defenses.

However, critics say such preconditions would not long survive protracted negotiations or affect how the deal would be implemented.

For example, one official opposed to the space code said a foreign government recently called the U.S. military’s use of the Space Based Infrared Satellites a space-weapons program because U.S. missile defenses use the satellites for both warning and tracking.

Ms. Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for international arms control, told defense reporters last week that the U.S. had rejected the draft EU code of conduct for space.

“It’s been clear from the very beginning that we’re not going along with the code of conduct,” Ms. Tauscher said at breakfast with reporters.

“We made it very definitive that we were not going to go ahead with the European code of conduct; what we haven’t announced is what we’re going to do, but we will be doing that soon.”

Ms. Tauscher has had a mixed record in arms-control negotiations. She was the key figure in drafting an agreement with Russia on missile defenses last year that the White House rejected because it would have imposed legally binding limits on U.S. defenses.

The agreement had been drafted for signing by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Group of Eight summit in May, but White House attorneys rejected the draft because of a provision that would have included legally binding restrictions on the targeting of missile defense interceptors.

Satellite risks

The U.S. military relies heavily on space satellites for reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence in a region that is becoming increasingly contested as China and other nations develop space weaponry or the systems that will facilitate their use, such as small, maneuvering satellites.

China’s military last year conducted an operation that involved moving a satellite within a short distance of another satellite. Analysts said such an exercise would be useful in conducting a space attack.

China last year rebuffed Pentagon officials’ requests to hold talks on space, along with strategic-nuclear issues, missile defense and cyberwarfare.

Russia and the U.S. have had technical talks on space security issues since 2010 with the goal of developing transparency and confidence-building measures on military activities.

The talks were held after a 2009 collision between U.S. and Russian satellites in orbit that U.S. officials said highlights the growing hazards in space.

Several satellites and a space shuttle have been forced to alter course because of concerns about orbiting debris, which moves so fast that even small bits can do serious damage. Just last week, the International Space Station moved about 1,000 feet to dodge a softball-size piece of debris from a U.S. communications satellite, its 13th such maneuver since 1998.

• Bill Gertz is a national security columnist for The Washington Times and senior editor at The Washington Free Beacon (www(dot)freebeacon.com).

this may be a large statement--but i think there are enough people aware of the situation to make an uproar if aliens came that any attack would have been falsified-- plus if aliens want to reveal themselves theyll have that shit on lockdown no human technology will stop them--so the only thing we can hope for is that everything we know about them being peaceful is true

The point here is that people in general are not aware of what is going on. The government appears to have been trying to prepare against the alien intervention. But like you said, they don't stand a change-- and that's a good thing.

Have you heard the sounds coming from the sky's all around the world in the past couple days?? Get ready. www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=GZ2ZcmMxehk&feature=player_embedded#!

according to Ian's news source, the sounds are because of this:

There is a subset of the Caribbean Plate called the Panama Plate, though this subset moves as one with the Caribbean Plate. Nevertheless, there is a fault line running through Costa Rica, and during the incessant pressure of the slow moving S American roll, fault lines can pull apart and bang back together again, like clapping. As the recent cold spells in India reveal, the N Pole of Earth is pushed violently away when the Sun is over New Zealand and the magnetic N Pole of Earth (currently over Siberia) comes up over the horizon. This equates to midnight in Costa Rica, which is when the drums were heard. Residents there should get used to these midnight drums, which will be with them for some time.


What is Ian's news source? www.zetatalk.com

Again, speaking for Ian, "I know all the shit she says sounds crazy, especially about Planet X, but there are some things on there that there is no way some 60 year ol crazy lady in bumblefuck USA knows." Not his exact words, but its the point.

It's the only reason I still check the site as well even though I am banned from the discussions. I don't think everything on there is true, but some stuff there no one can know except maybe for experts in the field of discussion could know.

My inner guidance tells me that this source of the Zeta information is legitimate, but their intention and goals are not aligned with my own. It appears that following the Zeta mentality will lead to new potentials in a 3D environment, but will not benefit anyone interested in transcending to a higher consciousness.

As I've said before, everyone has a path and will go where they need to go.

Looking closer at the Zetatalk page, I approve of their message very much. They put all the options out there in a very fair and open way.

The decision for individuals to choose between Service-to-Self or Service-to-Others is definitely a major theme in what's going on right now.

I know...youll find lots of stuff that makes sense and resonates well with all this other shit.... but then out of no where you'll get statements like Obama is #1... not that drastic...but just really out there comments... which could just be Nancy throwing in her view points... but its freakn hard to say a site that looks like absolute shit is run by a (seemingly) dumb and not very friendly lady who the zetas chose to communicate with... theres just some things that don't fully add up to me...but i can't deny the other things just because i see some things differently...

and i am 100% not sold on Planet X---the science of it just doesn't make sense at all

I would read the information with a grain of salt though-- seeing as how most of it was written 15 years ago. Expectations among shamanic tribesman and other sources around the world have been describing the circumstances of today as "unfolding." And while the future for these seers can be predicted to a great deal of accuracy, there is still some element of uncertainty as to the specifics of the final outcome.

Yeah, I agree. There appears to be a mixed bag of information that doesn't sit with me.

I also don't trust the Greys. And I see they are the featured symbol of the website.

Trust is a touchy word--- nor can you summarize an entire species as untrustworthy. We simply don't know enough about them. You can say I don't trust Nazi's, but saying you don't trust humans is really something that can't be justified.

I think it goes without saying that everything done with this needs to be done with extreme caution..not for your own safety but for the safety of others.

For example..if aliens came down and said Scott hop on board my spaceship....im guessing you would probably do it... as would i think most of us in this group.... however.. if they say Scott and Anne hop on the ship, you now have to proceed with caution as it is not just your life at risk anymore.

This is fully scalable with every situation. If the aliens say climb inside the egyptian pyramids and push the red blinking button and you'll save humanity..you may want to look into it further before you hit the blow up earth button.

Good point. Absolutes are unfair and unnecessary.