Title: Coast to Coast am Where did the towers go Dr. Judy Wood Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:May 7, 2011 Author:. Post Date:2011-05-07 23:52:29 by wudidiz Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:2904 Comments:55
Rumsfeld's Revolution: Is the Big Shift in Defense Really Happening at Last?
By: Philip Gold Discovery Institute June 30, 2001
As for space . . . what goes up, and what comes down, must await a series of White House and Congressional decisions concerning national policies, current treaties, and technological priorities. These decisions do not mean "militarizing" space, which has been militarized ever since the first ICBM passed through and the first spy satellite went up. These decisions do involve what measures will be taken to protect our military and civilian satellites; what measures will be taken to deny others the use of space in an emergency; and whether non-nuclear weapons capable of striking earthly targets will be sent aloft. Current treaties prohibit testing nuclear weapons and placing weapons of mass destruction in outer space. These should be maintained. But there is no reason why other weapons, especially directed energy weapons as they become available, should not be sent aloft, if national security requires it.
many nations can develop, and several are developing "niche capabilities," relatively crude systems that do the job. Further, since they don't need space the way we do, even a High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) attack - a nuclear burst in space that could degrade or destroy large chunks of everybody's capability - wouldn't affect them vitally. In addition, no serious missile defense system can work without a space-based component to attack enemy missiles and warheads during their boost and midcourse phases. Finally, it may be desirable to place non-nuclear weapons in space for use on targets below, and to develop a "launch on demand" capability for both manned and unmanned vehicles.(26)
Thank you for those links at Posts #51 and #52. I noticed that the pdf file linked at #51 (titled "MILITARY SPACE CONTROL: AN INTUITIVE ANALYSIS") mentions the phrase "Launch-On-Demand" (at Chapter 2, page 7 of the report) and so does the Discovery Institute info posted above at #48, although the meaning in both cases isn't exactly identical. It reminded me of this "launch on warning" phrase regarding a Leftist Presidential policy change posted at CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:
This is Google's cache of http://www.alamo-girl.com/0013.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 27, 2011 16:09:05 GMT.
Newsmax 3/9/99 Christopher Ruddy "…[sic] ominous developments have occurred during a time when President Bill Clinton has systematically moved to disarm the United States. While it has gone largely unreported, President Clinton has overseen the destruction of nearly two-thirds of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile. He has ordered that America no longer have a "launch on warning" policy and has replaced it with one that says America will retaliate only after it has been attacked. This non-sensical Clinton policy means that American cities and American military targets must first be destroyed before America retaliates. He has proposed taking computer circuitry out of land-based missiles, so that they could not be launched in an emergency. Clinton has proposed making it much more difficult for our submarines to launch their weapons, and even has suggested welding closed the missile hatches on our submarines.
Cross referencing 4um thread "Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S.", Post #13 on communiques about Obama's space policy changes that may be in the works to hand Space Jurisdiction over to Europeans.