Their comments highlight a departure from a

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: not be able to respond to important domestic needs." The panel participants included Dr. Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, Dr. Gordon Adams, Professor of International Relations at the School of International Service of American University, Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-TX), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN). Dr. Korb cited a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies which estimates that over $100 billion could be saved by cutting waste and eliminating obsolete weapons systems. The report recommends canceling unproven and potentially destabilizing programs such as offensive space weapons (formerly known as the Strategic Defense Initiative or the "Star Wars" program.) Dr. Adams criticized the Bush administration's policy of keeping the costs for the Iraq War out of the overall US budget while forcing Congress to pass a supplemental spending bill to pay for the war year after year. He said that the process is especially wasteful because "it does not go through the same type of budget scrub in the Pentagon as the regular budget does, and does not go through the regular process in the Congress of the United States." Congressman Frank pointed out that in the end American taxpayers are going to get sticker shock. "It's like going to a restaurant, getting a bill, and then getting a supplemental bill for the food." Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 191 Mercury Politics Weapons – Funding – Unpopular - Democrats Democrats hate space weapons Myers, New York Times, 8 (Steven Lee, 3-9-8, published in The New York Times, “Look out below. The arms race in space may be on”, page 3, LexisNexis, Accessed June 20th 2011, LGK] The White House, on the other hand, opposes a treaty proscribing space weaponry; Mr. Bush's press secretary, Dana M. Perino, says it would be unenforceable, noting that even a benign object put in orbit could become a weapon if it rammed another satellite. A new American president could reverse that attitude, but he or she would have to go up against the generals and admirals, contractors, lawmakers and others who strongly support the goal of keeping American superiority in space. The reason they cite is that the United States depends more than any other country on space for its national security. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that an M1-A1 tank couldn't drive around the block in Iraq without them. And so, research continues on how to protect American satellites and deny the wartime use of satellites to potential enemies -- including work on lasers and whiz-bang stuff like cylinders of hardened material that could be hurled from space to targets on the ground. ''Rods from God,'' those are called. For now, such weapons remain untested and, by all accounts, impractical because the cost of putting a weapon in orbit is huge. ''It is much easier to hold a target at risk from the land or sea than from space,'' said Elliot G. Pulham, who heads the Space Foundation, a nonprofit group in Colorado Springs. Democrats in Congress, in particular, have op...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/14/2013 for the course POL 090 taught by Professor Framer during the Spring '13 term at Shimer.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online