|
Have
Another One On Me
May
14, 2001
by Chris Grant
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, has gone around the
bend one more time. First, he declares that the missile "defense"
construct does not necessarily have to be 100-percent accurate.
Now our esteemed Secretary says that he wants to outfit space
with weaponry. Who let Donnie-boy out of the home early?
There are two possibilities, however farfetched they may
sound, that this guy has no mind for. How does he get the
weaponry up there in the first place? NASA, correct? So what
happens in case of disaster during delivery? I'm not talking
about delivery of the weapons from space, I mean on the way
up. Does anyone remember the Challenger disaster? Or what
if one of these "rogue nations" that the Bush administration
is worried about decided to sabotage the shuttle?
He doesn't think before he speaks. That's going around a
lot. I suppose I could be accused of that, too. You'll see
later on what I'm talking about.
Returning to Rumsfeld, he says that there are enemies out
there that will take out our satellites if they get the chance.
By out there, I'm supposing that he's talking about in space
and not in his fantasies. He doesn't mention who these enemies
are. But you can pretty well guess whom he's talking about.
Russia, China, Japan, France, and the British (do they even
have a space program?).
But you know Rumsfeld is really aiming at the reds or the
former reds when he says that there are enemies in space that
would eliminate our assets at the drop of a hat. In response
to these "dangers", Rumsfeld says that we need to make attack
satellites, that is to say, satellites that can launch a strike
against another satellite and knock it out of orbit instead
of the other way around.
Does no one see the paranoia at this point?
Rumsfeld continues by saying that we need to make platforms
with lasers on them so that we can shoot down missiles, on
Earth, that are coming our way or in the direction of one
of our allies. This is just one of the pieces of Star Wars
that I informed you about in one of my previous articles,
The empire strikes back. Of course, Rumsfeld doesn't care
if this one's 100-percent accurate, either. So the same questions
I asked then hold here, too. What happens if we miss the target,
the missile, speeding its way across the ocean, pick one,
heading for one, pick one, of our coasts? And what happens
if Rumsfeld's doomsday machine misses with its laser and strikes
another city, a city that had nothing to do with the speeding
missile?
I'm accepting the farce, the hook-line-sinker speech that
Star Wars can be built (even if scientists say that it's a
near impossibility) for the sake of argument. I'm with the
scientists in believing that there's no way that it could
be completed. I just like to play devil's advocate every now
and again.
Rumsfeld said that we're going to continue to pursue peaceful
missions with other countries, i.e. Russia, but that they
(the missions) are "incompatible" with the United States'
plan to develop systems to "protect" our assets. Have you,
like me, just given up on understanding what he's talking
about?
We're going to have peaceful missions with nations like Russia
but they have no bearing on the development, our development,
of weapons systems to keep our military industrial complex's
interests in space safe. But we're afraid other nations with
space-faring capability are going to destroy these assets.
But we're going to continue flying peaceful missions with
these nations.
We're going to outfit space with weapons to satisfy the paranoia
of businesses and Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration.
So my question is, if this is the next "logical" step, what's
the one after this? Having our astronauts carry concealed
weapons, you know, just in case?
Have another one on me, Rummy.
View
All Articles
|
