Neil
deGrasse Tyson is de astrofisicus die vaak te zien is in programma’s
over het buitenaardse en is een goede verteller, kan niet anders
zeggen. Helaas heeft deze wetenschapper een heel vuil randje, zo is
hij voorstander van Trump’s militarisering van ‘de aardse ruimte’ en mocht
het de VS lukken hier de dominante factor te worden, kunnen we pas
echt onze borst natmaken.

Als
de VS inderdaad de aardse ruimte kan domineren, domineert het ook het
leven op aarde, iets waar deze grootste terreurentiteit op aarde nu al ‘goed’ in
is………

Lees
het volgende artikel van T.J. Coles, overgenomen van CounterPunch en
je haar zal rechtovereind gaan staan :

SEPTEMBER
14, 2018

Neil
deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the
Military-Industrial-Complex

byT.J.
COLES

Photo
Source Tricia McKinney | CC
BY 2.0

The
idea for this article came from one of those annoying “Recommended
for you” thumbnails on YouTube. The title was: “Neil deGrasse
Tyson: Trump’s Space Force (USSF) Is Not a Crazy Idea.” Having written
about and researched space weapons for over a decade, I was intrigued
as to why a seemingly intelligent man (Tyson) would want to help
promote an agenda that will literally imperil us all, namely the
weaponization of space: the end-game of which is global domination in
the interests of economic neoliberalism. So I clicked. Tyson was
talking to host Stephen Colbert about the wonders of space
militarization (by the US, of course, not its enemies).

It
turns out that Tyson is promoting a new, co-authored book, Accessory
to War: the Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the
Military (W.W.
Norton, released, tastelessly, on 11 September), which is all about
the history of science militarization. The book is a disgraceful
attempt to use history as an excuse to justify the continuation and
expansion of taxpayer-funded R&D into hi-technology via military
budgets. By now, the hi-tech sector dominates the top US
corporations: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. Much of
the innovations used by these companies were initiated in the
military.

Tyson
is doing the rounds on national media, including Colbert and CBS
This Morning, to
promote the book and more broadly continued public expenditure on the
Pentagon. After a little digging, I found that America’s favourite
astrophysicist is a glorified salesman for the
military-industrial-complex.

TYSON’S
MILITARY-SCIENCE BACKGROUND

Having
graduated from the Bronx High School of Science, Tyson went on to
earn a PhD in astrophysics from Columbia University in 1991. From
1996, Tyson has been Frederick P. Rose director of the Hayden
Planetarium at
the American Museum of Natural History.

Pretty
soon, the George W. Bush administration was calling on Tyson’s
talents for all things space-related. Under President Bill Clinton,
the Space Command (later Air Force Space Command [USAFSC]) announced plans to
dominate the entire world by force, “Full
Spectrum Dominance” as
the successors continue to call it. In 2001, under Bush, the Rumsfeld
Space Commission, sought
ways to expand the  weaponization of space to reinforce US-led
corporate globalization and the architecture — satellites, GPS, the
internet, etc. — that supports it. In the same year, Tyson became a
formal employee of the Bush administration. One of his biographical
webpages states:

“In
2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a 12-member
commission that studied the Future of the US Aerospace Industry. The
final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for
Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would
promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and
national security.”

The
Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United
StatesAerospace Industry,  on
which Tyson worked, makes for an interesting read. It starts from an
elite-nationalistic viewpoint, namely that of maintaining US
supremacy in innovation before, discussing in Appendix G:
“Astronautical research and development, including resources,
personnel, equipment, and facilities; Outer space exploration and
control.” “Control,” no less. Controlling space is a core part
of “Full Spectrum Dominance.” Tyson’s biography
also states that
in 2004, he:

“was
once again appointed by President Bush to serve on a 9-member
commission on the Implementation of the United States Space
Exploration Policy, dubbed the ‘Moon, Mars, and Beyond’
commission. This group navigated a path by which the new space vision
can become a successful part of the American agenda.”

The
follow-up Tyson-co-authored report, A
Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover,
also makes interesting reading. It states:

“Of
particular importance to the space exploration vision is a strong
partnership between NASA and the Department of Defense, where
research, technical assistance, and operational assets are often
shared. The Commission believes that the role of the existing
Partnership Council – wherein NASA, the Air Force, and National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) coordinate mutual work and interests – should
also focus actively on supporting the new vision.”

The
report says the US should “DARPA-ize” (my phrase) NASA. DARPA is
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which uses taxpayer
money to innovate the hi-technology which now dominates the top-ten
list of US corporations. DARPA famously brought us the internet, for
instance. The report says:

“we
suggest that the Administration and Congress create within NASA an
organization drawing upon lessons learned from the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is a highly successful
organization that is chartered to fund high-risk/high return basic
research in support of national defense priorities.”

R&D
SALESMAN

The
high-risk is paid for by the taxpayer who then buy back the given
product on the consumer market. For example: touch-screen technology
now used by Apple, for instance, came out of technology developed
for the Air Force.

Disturbingly,
the report recommends that NASA integrate a contract system like the
US Missile “Defense” program, which is so  essential to the
overall goal of “Full Spectrum Dominance” (on his recent CBS
piece, Tyson doesn’t challenge the erroneous assumption  that
the system is for “defense”), The report says:
“In the case of U.S. Missile Defense, for example, the integrator
is responsible for the overall system of systems architecture, and
for integrating the space, air, land, and sea elements of the
architecture.”

The
goal of a successful propaganda system is to sell science designed
and applied for military use (itself serving the dual-functions of
ensuring US global corporate supremacy and innovation in the hi-tech
economy) to the public as “cool” and fun. Enter Tyson. Since
working for the federal government on these schemes, he has hosted the
PBS-NOVA series, Origins; worked on The Pluto Files documentary;
appeared on ScienceNOW; and has hosted StarTalk (funded in part by
the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation [NSF]), which features
comedians who attract laypeople to science.

Tyson
joined the US military’s 15-member Defense Innovation Board (DIB),
launched in 2016. The board advises the Defense Secretary on numerous
issues. DIB continues the all-American tradition of ripping off
taxpayers by using their money to invest in hi-tech innovation under
the cover of a “defense” budget. DIB says:

“Some
of the foremost topics the DIB is exploring include artificial
intelligence, machine learning, workforce capacity, organizational
structure, hiring and retention strategies, acquisition reform,
electronic and drone warfare, software capabilities, and IT
infrastructure.”

FLEECING
THE PUBLIC

So,
with this background, it’s not surprising that Tyson would appear
on national television and talk up the Defense Department. But it’s
crucial for any successful propaganda campaign that his record with
the federal government be suppressed, minimized or justified. Hence,
the failure (refusal?) of host Stephen Colbert to mention any of this
to the casual viewer. The show gives the impression that Tyson is
just a fun and intelligent man with no vested interests. In fact,
Tyson lies and tells both Colbert and CBS: “I have no dog in this
fight” in relation to Trump’s (read: the Pentagon’s) creation
of a “Space Force.”

As
noted, Tyson has been a government advisor and at the time of
appearing on the shows was a member of a DoD board. In addition, we
all have a “dog in the fight” of space weaponization because
fragile and complex space systems could result in catastrophic
failures, including miscommunications which can escalate into
near-terminal catastrophe, as has happened many times in the past in
relation to nuclear weapons (see, for instance, Daniel Ellsberg’s
chilling book, The
Doomsday Machine).
Adding a space dimension to fraught and dangerous geopolitical
situations only adds to the risk.

Last
month, US Defense Secretary and war criminal, James “it’s
fun to shoot some people” Mattis,
told reporters that the Pentagon was advocating for a separate US
Space Command in response to the Defense Policy Bill’s plan to
integrate space systems under the Strategic Command (which also
oversees nuclear strategy). Mattis was initially against this,
says Space
News, but
has changed his mind in light of Trump’s (read: the Pentagon’s)
insistence on having a “Space Force”.

With
the new “Space Force” (as yet a nickname) potentially going
ahead, the friendly faces of US imperialism are rolled out to justify
expanding the militarization of space. Luckily, Tyson has a new book
on the same topic to promote. In addition, Trump’s undeserved
reputation as a moron (see my book President
Trump, Inc.)
required the media presence of a respected professional (i.e., Tyson)
to promote the “Space Force.”

AN
AMORAL BOOK

In Accessory
to War,
the authors write:

“A
vibrant economy … depends on at least one of the following: the
profit motive,  war on the ground, or war in space … Must war
and profit be what drive both civilization on Earth and the
investigation of other worlds? History … makes it hard to answer no
… Star charts, calendars, chronometers, telescopes, maps,
compasses, rockets, satellites, drones–these war not inspirational
civilian endeavors. Dominance was their goal; increase of knowledge
was incidental.

… The
first few years after 9/11 were a fine time to be mercenary, a
military engineering firm, or a giant aerospace company.”

Recall
that Tyson worked to promote the aeroindustry. Tyson acknowledges
that “the space research my colleagues and I conduct plugs firmly
and fundamentally into the nation’s military might.” At a
conference involving military brass, Tyson was directly exposed via
live-feed to the realities of blowing women and children apart with
hi-tech weapons in Iraq in 2003 from high-ground platforms. He
writes, self-pityingly:

“Blinking
back tears and fighting to keep my composure, I thought about leaving
the conference. I began to choreograph my resignation from the board
of the Space Foundation. But at the same time I felt I couldn’t
just walk out of the sanctum of war…

[W]ithout
the power sought by its participants … and without the tandem
investments in  technology fostered by that quest for power,
there would be no astronomy, no astrophysics, no astronauts, no
exploration of the solar system, and barely any comprehension of the
cosmos.”

That’s
alright then. Tyson told CBS This Morning that he found a
psychological trick to avoid feeling responsible, namely to blame
everyone else: “I had to re-direct the causes and effects of this
violence, and say, ‘No. It’s us, the electorate’ ” — they
voted Bush in late-2000 (yeah, right). “If you have access to
weaponry that can achieve a geopolitical goal that is noble then, I’m
not there to stand in judgement of it,” he also told CBS.

MEANWHILE,
IN THE REAL WORLD…

Tyson
is careful to avoid mentioning that both China and Russia have
repeatedly advocated for signing a peace treaty with the US, both
for space and cyber
warfare—
not because Russia and China are “good guys,” but because as much
weaker military powers it is in their interests to constrain US
military actions and not provoke the superpower by engaging in the
same, unless the US does it first. In fact, on the Colbert show,
Tyson even mentions the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and ridicules it
as an equivalent of singing “Cumbayá.”

Meanwhile,
groups are actively thinking up ways to transform military spending
into peaceful R&D for a green- and other hi-tech economy.

A report by
the German-based institute IFSH notes that military R&D is not an
inevitability. Following the end of the Cold War, military R&D
declined. But, “[e]ven in the US, civilian spending is now
substantially larger than military spending.” Why, then, place
emphasis on  military R&D, as Tyson does? In most countries,
says the author, “There has been a major shift towards military use
of technologies driven by civilian r&d, particularly in
electronics.”

In
terms of practical alternatives, Campaign Against the Arms
Trade notes that
skills shortages in the UK (the same applies to the US) means that
renewable energy sectors would be glad to employ people previously
skilled in the arms industry. Doing so lacks political will only. In
addition, the Campaign Against Climate Change reckons that
the UK could become a carbon neutral economy, employing one million
people, for £19bn a year, which is about half the current military
budget. This would also involve the kind of technological innovations
currently privileged by the military sector.

The
US transformed itself into a war economy during WWII and has remained
that ever since. But, with enough public pressure, it can be
transformed into a peace- and renewables economy. Don’t let
intellectuals fool you into thinking there are no alternatives to war
— and in this case, potentially terminal war.

More
articles by:T.J.
COLES

Dr.
T. J. Coles is
director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author
of several books, including Voices
for Peace (with
Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming Fire
and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks
Nuclear War in Asia (both
Clairview Books).

======================================

Zie ook:

‘Star Wars 2.0: Trump wil een ‘raketafweersysteem’ in de ruimte‘

‘Trump zag onlangs alle afleveringen van Star Wars en wil de VS nu ook militair overwicht geven in de ruimte…….‘

‘CDA wil Nederlands ‘space force’ in de ruimte……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘