Ron Paul on NASA??

[Sematary]

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

What you are doing here is arguing for a "Living Breathing Constitution". It is a flawed argument, with no basis in history. The Constitution specifically states that the federal government shall provide for national defense via a navy and militia. (Land and water). You are right in that there was no concept of flying machines creating another theater of war, but that is exactly why you have the amendment process. We are talking about national defense in the sky, not about specific technology. If during WW1, the first war to see planes used, the States passed an amendment that said something like "In addition to the militia and naval forces, Congress shall have the power to declare war in the sky and to secure an air force for national defense. Such a force is under the command of the Commander in Chief.", would it really matter what technology was being used in order to make men fly? It could be airplanes or helicopters or maybe a hundred years from now, hovercraft. All that matters is WHERE military action is occurring. Just as there should be an amendment for space, when that comes along. And if a parallel dimension is discovered with hostile aliens, then there should be a Constitutional amendment for a Parallel Dimension Force or whatever. The technology isn't the point. It's where the theater of war takes place.

If this wasn't the case, why put militia AND navy in the Constitution? Why not just say "armed forces".

 

[Sematary]

What you are doing here is arguing for a "Living Breathing Constitution". It is a flawed argument, with no basis in history. The Constitution specifically states that the federal government shall provide for national defense via a navy and militia. (Land and water). You are right in that there was no concept of flying machines creating another theater of war, but that is exactly why you have the amendment process. We are talking about national defense in the sky, not about specific technology. If during WW1, the first war to see planes used, the States passed an amendment that said something like "In addition to the militia and naval forces, Congress shall have the power to declare war in the sky and to secure an air force for national defense. Such a force is under the command of the Commander in Chief.", would it really matter what technology was being used in order to make men fly? It could be airplanes or helicopters or maybe a hundred years from now, hovercraft. All that matters is WHERE military action is occurring. Just as there should be an amendment for space, when that comes along. And if a parallel dimension is discovered with hostile aliens, then there should be a Constitutional amendment for a Parallel Dimension Force or whatever. The technology isn't the point. It's where the theater of war takes place.

If this wasn't the case, why put militia AND navy in the Constitution? Why not just say "armed forces".

Maybe because it never occurred to them that there might be other options some day? Just a thought.

 

[Athan]

Also, air based support and now aerospace is essential for land and sea defense. You don't need an ammendment to think in a 3 dimensional battlefield just because you wish to provide for victory. Every person in the US could be armed to the teeth and be undone by strategic air support if we had none such as was the case with Japan in WW2. General Washington used spys, and military uses aerospace spying. The revolutionaries used the submerssible Turtle which was not part of the established theatre of war. This is all common sense and military sense.

You'll handicap our cause if you start using inane reasoning and a lack of common sense. Space travel, deployment, and defense isn't excluded in providing from the common defense. Using taxpayer funds to start endless conflicts up there and government restriction of space exploration, defense, trade and travel is not. You need to think of space and air like an extention of accessible land when it comes to the Constitution. If a private citizen can get to the moon, he should have his rights and have the ability to travel without being attacked by a foreign enemy.

 

[erowe1]

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

Amending the constitution to empower the federal government to engage in space exploration of any kind would be totally unethical. We should be amending to take away powers, not to give them more.

 

[K466]

S@tR: The Free Market Goes to Outer Space- Much Better than NASA

 

[fatjohn]

Wow, alot of talking. Not much links to Paul's opinion on the matter though.

 

[Greg Buchanan]

Ocean exploration and exploitation is the logical next step, and our government has put bans on that. Once deep sea mining has been mastered that technology can be used in space.

 

[Seraphim]

Nasa has always been a space war proxy.

The point is not to "explore space together". It's to conquer and phyically control space.

Nasa is not designed to make society wealthier. It's designed for strategic advantages in the face of WAR.

 

[Lishy]

As someone aspiring to work in the sciences field, I personally believe America should be investing in space. NASA might need policy changes, but I do not see how its concept would conflict with Non-interventionism in theory. Collaborations for space exploration is a step to peace.

 

[Seraphim]

The market place does this, the government, most certainly does not.

Read post #89, for further explanation.

As someone aspiring to work in the sciences field, I personally believe America should be investing in space. NASA might need policy changes, but I do not see how its concept would conflict with Non-interventionism in theory. Collaborations for space exploration is a step to peace.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nasa has always been a space war proxy.

The point is not to "explore space together". It's to conquer and phyically control space.

Nasa is not designed to make society wealthier. It's designed for strategic advantages in the face of WAR.

qft.