which I think luckily was not built. The idea of having this weapon orbiting above people's heads to fire these rods down, I think would be terrifying. It's the idea of putting a laser in space. That too would be terrifying for a lot of people, and rightly so. So do we need to cross this Rubicon of space weapons? And how do we define a space weapon? Is it just those that are ground to space that are by kinetic impact, or is it using cyber technology to interfere with the communications? Or again, taking out the ground station so that you can't receive the information. Because we cannot or we have not been able to define a space weapon, there is this large community that says, well, then it's beyond the realm of arms control. If you can't define what it is, you can't subject it to arms control. And that further pumps up the spiral of inevitability, of full spectrum, of high ground, of all of that that feeds into the weapon scenarios. So I want to get to that sort of rules of the road (38/57)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: