Skip Nav
Romantic Comedies
8 New Romances on Netflix in February
Women
4 BFFs Wore Their Wedding Dresses For This Adorable Photo Shoot
Books
23 Books You Should Read This Winter

Should Weapons in Space Be Banned?

Marking another sharp break from President Bush, Barack Obama's administration has launched a pledge to seek a worldwide ban on space weapons. Without a ban, technology could be used to interfere with an adversary's commercial or military satellites.

Unlike the Obama administration, Bush implemented a National Space Policy that rejected arm-control deals that might limit the US's ability to shut off space to anyone hostile to American interests. Bush wanted to secure America's space leadership and use space to further national security and US foreign policy objectives. The plan added to international suspicion that the US wanted to militarize space.

While many people would welcome a ban on weapons in space, there's one industry that's not on cloud nine — weapon makers. Lockheed Martin, along with other defense contractors, are watching the issue carefully.

Around The Web
Michelle Obama Wearing a Plum Dress
Becoming an Adult During Obama's Presidency
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee With Barack Obama
Presidents' Pets

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
janneth janneth 7 years
I suppose it will only be countries like Finland and Taiwan that have people smart enough in math and science to figure out how to build space weapons...see the news story on citizen...
janneth janneth 7 years
Weapons in space. What a nightmare.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I agree that there needs to be a treaty, but I don't think we need start the negotiation off by saying we won't do this. What kind of position are we in at that point to be able to negotiate?
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 7 years
For now yeah there should be a treaty banning weapons in space. However obviously at some point long after I'm ashes to asses and dust to dust and my great great great grandchildren are reacking havock upon your decendents neighborhoods. Technology & science will I'm sure have allowed us to venture in and out of space with ease and when that time comes if we haven't already learned the leasons of wars passed, well first of all I think it would be safe to label us hopeless and secondly there'll be plenty of use for space weapons.
em1282 em1282 7 years
Militarize space? Awesome. Storm troopers, here we come!
genesisrocks genesisrocks 7 years
I don't want weapons in space either. If we put them up there what are other countries going to think? Then they're going to put them up there too and it's just going to be a whole big mess.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
same goes for you... :oy:
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
same goes for you... :oy:
stephley stephley 7 years
Hain: don't read them! :o
stephley stephley 7 years
Hain: don't read them! :o
clarabelle98 clarabelle98 7 years
Jazz, thanks. I know it's OT, but I was commenting that there isn't any story on this site about it. That's all. Thanks for putting a link in to a story though!
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
"you enjoy useless verbal pissing matches (note how many times you bring up whether pro-life etc is accurate terminology in abortion threads). I find them tiresome. " wow, just wow. I find useless references to terrorism on every thread tiresome as well :P
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
I'm honestly glad for any measure that may help prevent humans from colonizing space for military purposes, although I see how this would be quite hard to enforce on other nations.
Jazz-Z Jazz-Z 7 years
"And what I want to know is why we aren't discussing the 30,000 troops that he just sent to Afghanistan." (Off topic of this thread, but) Obama has said it would probably get worse before it gets better. "The United States is to deploy up to 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan by next summer, doubling its military presence in the country. The figure – a third more than had been anticipated..... reflects concern over the course of the war in Afghanistan, which has been hit by numerous setbacks as security across the country has deteriorated in the face of Taliban advances. In recent weeks Taliban attacks have severely disrupted the main supply line for US and Nato troops into the country from Pakistan, a route that carries up to 75% of supplies to foreign forces." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/us-afghanistan-troops-surge
Jazz-Z Jazz-Z 7 years
"And what I want to know is why we aren't discussing the 30,000 troops that he just sent to Afghanistan."(Off topic of this thread, but)Obama has said it would probably get worse before it gets better."The United States is to deploy up to 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan by next summer, doubling its military presence in the country. The figure – a third more than had been anticipated..... reflects concern over the course of the war in Afghanistan, which has been hit by numerous setbacks as security across the country has deteriorated in the face of Taliban advances.In recent weeks Taliban attacks have severely disrupted the main supply line for US and Nato troops into the country from Pakistan, a route that carries up to 75% of supplies to foreign forces."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/us-afghanistan-troops-surge
clarabelle98 clarabelle98 7 years
Any way you look at it, there will be a lot of people that are unhappy with whatever decision Obama makes in regards to this. I DO think it's reckless and more than a bit naive for the US to ban them when other countries still have the ability to have and use them.That said, I don't presume to know what Obama is thinking. In recent days I've come to the conclusion that as President, he probably has a lot clearer insight to any of this than I do.And what I want to know is why we aren't discussing the 30,000 troops that he just sent to Afghanistan. Why isn't there the uproar with that as there was during the surge in Iraq? Why isn't the media reporting it with the same fervor? I believe we all know that answer.
clarabelle98 clarabelle98 7 years
Any way you look at it, there will be a lot of people that are unhappy with whatever decision Obama makes in regards to this. I DO think it's reckless and more than a bit naive for the US to ban them when other countries still have the ability to have and use them. That said, I don't presume to know what Obama is thinking. In recent days I've come to the conclusion that as President, he probably has a lot clearer insight to any of this than I do. And what I want to know is why we aren't discussing the 30,000 troops that he just sent to Afghanistan. Why isn't there the uproar with that as there was during the surge in Iraq? Why isn't the media reporting it with the same fervor? I believe we all know that answer.
chatondeneige chatondeneige 7 years
For a second I apparently forgot I wasn't on twitter with that @name stuff! ;) My bad!
Michelann Michelann 7 years
It's 'debatable' and therefore not worth a response? I guess I must be confused about what we're doing here...
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
What I've generously offered you, steph, is an explanation of where rights come from. You, apparently, think that all countries have the same rights, but you can't seem to offer any reason for that opinion. Your dismissal is very telling. ;)
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
What I've generously offered you, steph, is an explanation of where rights come from. You, apparently, think that all countries have the same rights, but you can't seem to offer any reason for that opinion.Your dismissal is very telling. ;)
stephley stephley 7 years
It isn't worth a response because it's a hodgepodge of half accurate or debatable information. NOT knowledge.
stephley stephley 7 years
It isn't worth a response because it's a hodgepodge of half accurate or debatable information. NOT knowledge.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Org, don't hold your breath.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Org, don't hold your breath.
Latest Love
X