Weaponizing Space

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beanieh

Guest
From the web "news" http://www.space.com/news/ap_050520_space_weapons.html<br /><br />How can you give any “scientific” credence to the scientifically irresponsible “Union of Concerned Scientists”. An organization which advises its members, “Your main purpose is to advocate, not to educate.”<br /><br />The UCS is a left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-defense, anti-nuclear, anti-chemical, and anti-business. An internet search associates them with groups like Greenpeace (noted for enviro-terrorism), Natural Resources Defense Council, Mothers for Natural Law (that’s sounds like a scientific group!), and Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.)<br /><br />The UCS was formed in 1969 to protest America’s involvement in the Vietnam war and it only takes $25 to become a member. There are no requirements for a scientific degree, scientific training, or even a scientific background. In fact, only 10% of the members are scientists.<br /><br />Yet you label them “A scientists’ group” when they should be labeled a “whacko-environmentalist, anti-war group.” Giving them credence on your website is an insult to anyone with any degree whatsoever.<br /><br />I think I will start a group and call my group “Concerned Association of Scientists and Engineers”, I will sell memberships at McDonald’s and on cereal box tops. Then I will publish some statement opposed to some evil of the government to the liberal press (like ABC or Newsweek) and another statement to the conservative presses about the evils of communism or socialism. I can see it now, “A major Scientific and Engineering organization has published concerns about the lack of Health Care in American society.” and “A major Scientific and Engineering organization has published concerns about the effects of socialism on the welfare of society.”<br /><br />I understand that
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
I suspect the UCS isn’t crazy about manned missions in space of any kind. I don’t think giving legitimacy to this group is in Imaginova Corp. best interest. How about Space.com does some journalism on the subject? Maybe write an article that presents both sides of the debate, instead of just posting an AP article.<br /><br />And when writing this article it might be helpful to use a real scientific source. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is one such group. They also have a very interesting paper has a very good policy paper on Ensuring America's Space Security.<br />
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
<p>The article reports on people who gave opinions on the space weapons issue. The emphasis appears to be more on the politics than on the science. Citing the Union of Concerned Scientists is perfectly legitimate in this case, as they are expressing one side of the debate.<br /><br />Had a group of neoconservative scientists issued a public counter-demand, calling for an acceleration of the development and deployment of space-based weapons systems, that would have been newsworthy and included in the article, as well. As that did not happen, the author instead offers Scott McClellan's denial that any weaponizing of space is under consideration, along with his caveat that American satellites must be protected. The author is also careful to note, 'Some scientists worry that the review will set out a more aggressive policy that could lead to the greater militarization of space.' That should make it clear to most readers that the Union of Concerned Scientists, which the author also clearly identifies as 'a watchdog group that opposes weapons in space,' does not speak for all scientists.<br /><br />The article provides a fair report on the latest round in the weapons-in-space discussion, offering the views presented on both sides. Space.com could kowtow to those who become irate when the activities of groups advocating arms control are reported upon, and either refuse to report the story at all or openly take the hawkish side of the argument by labeling such groups as being 'whacko-environmentalist, anti-war.' But, until Space.com chooses to become an outlet for political propaganda, it is doubtless doing the right thing by reporting on space-related political events as they occur while avoiding a display of bias favoring one side or the other.<br /><br />Sidebar:<br /><br />By the way, Space.com generously provides a place for visitors of the site to give vent to their political frustrations. If you choose to post your views over on the</p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.