Page 2 of 3 THE NEXT WAR,
AND THE NEXT, Part 2 The
militarization of outer space By Jack A Smith
pleases
militarily in outer space, including preventing
other countries from obtaining a similar strategic
advantage.
Here is an example: "The United
States is committed to the exploration and use of
outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes,
and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent
with this principle, 'peaceful purposes' allow US
defense and intelligence-related activities in
pursuit of national interests." (Translation:
Since we respect your
peaceful purposes, you must respect ours, so butt
out.)
Here's another: "The United States
will oppose the development of new legal regimes
or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or
limit US access to or use of space. Proposed
arms-control agreements or restrictions must not
impair the rights of the United States to conduct
research, development, testing, and operations or
other activities in space for US national
interests." (Translation: The US intends to
militarize space, and as the principal member of
the Security Council and world hegemon, we will
not allow a new treaty to abrogate our rights.)
Another: Under the title "National
Security Space Guidelines", the document declared
that the Defense Department would:
"Develop and deploy space capabilities that
sustain US advantage and support defense and
intelligence transformation."
Provide "reliable, affordable, and timely
space access for national-security purposes".
"Provide space capabilities to support
continuous, global strategic and tactical warning
as well as multi-layered and integrated missile
defenses."
"Develop capabilities, plans, and options to
ensure freedom of action in space, and, if
directed, deny such freedom of action to
adversaries."
(Translation: We're ready to
roll, so move out of the way.)
Theresa
Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense
Information, said that while the new policy
"doesn't go as far as some space hawks wanted it
to in openly endorsing the strategy of fighting
'in, from and through' space, neither has it
served to put a blanket - even a thin one - on
those ambitions. And in taking a decidedly 'us
against them' tone, it is likely to further cement
the view from abroad that the United States has
taken on the role of a 'Lone Space Cowboy'."
It took four years and three dozen
revisions until a final version of the National
Space Policy was approved - a reflection of how
complex it must be to transform a military plan to
control the world into a space travelogue. The
report was actually delayed for 15 months after
press reports revealed that Bush was leaning
toward a USAF request for a presidential directive
permitting the deployment of weapons in space. The
uproar evidently persuaded the Bushites to tone
down the policy - a problem solved by not
mentioning it.
Moscow and Beijing have
been calling for years for an international ban on
any kind of weaponization of outer space,
including militarized reconnaissance and
communications satellites, and conventional
weapons as well as WMD. In 2002, China and Russia,
co-sponsored by Vietnam, Syria, Indonesia, Belarus
and Zimbabwe, presented a proposal to the United
Nations for a treaty to demilitarize space
completely, tentatively called the "Prevention of
the Deployment of Weapons in Outer Space [and] the
Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space
Objects". The US not only rejected the possibility
of such a treaty, it refused even to discuss the
matter.
Meanwhile, a number of other
resolutions have also been introduced concerned
with preventing an arms race in space and gained
impressive majorities.
In 2000, for
example, a resolution on the Prevention of an
Outer Space Arms Race was passed with a vote of
163-0 with three abstentions, Micronesia, Israel
and the United States. In 2003, the UN vote to
prevent an arms race in space was 174-4, with the
Marshall Islands joining the "Big Three", which
all voted in opposition this time. Last year, the
UN General Assembly vote on preventing an arms
race in space was passed 166-1. Israel abstained.
The US voted No.
Publicly, Washington
maintains that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and
other legal measures render a new treaty
redundant, but that's only because the treaty
allows the US to militarize space via the back
door of satellites with battlefield connections
and weapons other than WMD. Most of the rest of
the world opposes any militarization of space, and
Washington and Israel evidently cannot even always
rely on the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.
The Bush administration has repeatedly
expressed contempt for the Russia-China treaty
proposal and similar efforts from other countries.
Former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
perhaps the most vociferous of the
neo-conservative initiators of the Iraq war,
declared in October 2002, "Space offers attractive
options not only for missile defense, but for a
broad range of interrelated civil and military
missions." Former US ambassador to the UN John
Bolton, another war hawk, commented in Geneva in
September 2004, "We are not prepared to negotiate
on the so-called arms race in outer space. We just
don't see that as a worthwhile enterprise."
The White House is reluctant openly to
acknowledge its intention to militarize space, but
the USAF in particular has been quite frank. In
1996, the then head of the Space Command, General
Joseph W Ashy, was quoted as saying: "We're going
to fight from space, and we're going to fight into
space. That's why the US has development programs
in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We
will engage terrestrial targets some day - ships,
airplanes, land targets - from space."
In
2004, Under Secretary of the Air Force Peter B
Teets, discussing America's intentions in space,
declared bluntly, "We are paving the road of
21st-century warfare." In May 2005, the New York
Times quoted General Lance Lord, another head of
the Space Command, as revealing, "Space
superiority is not our birthright, but it is our
destiny. Space superiority is our day-to-day
mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the
future." He did not explain how space superiority
is obtained, but there is only one way - dominant
military force.
The USAF acknowledges that
the militarization of space is a prime objective.
Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1 on "Counterspace
Operations", published in August 2004 (and
available online), states: "US Air Force
counter-space operations are the ways and means by
which the air force achieves and maintains space
superiority. Space superiority provides freedom to
attack as well as freedom from attack."
General John P Jumper, air force chief of
staff in 2004, wrote in the foreword to Document
2-2.1: "Counter-space operations are
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
