Page 3 of 3 THE NEXT WAR,
AND THE NEXT, Part 2 The
militarization of outer space By Jack A Smith
critical to
success in modern warfare. The rapid maturation of
space capabilities and the evolution of
contingency operations have greatly enhanced the
effectiveness of air and space power. Combatant
commanders leverage space capabilities such as
communication; position, navigation, and timing;
missile warning; environmental sensing; and
reconnaissance to maintain a combat advantage over
our adversaries. Space superiority ensures the
freedom to operate in the
space medium while denying the same to an
adversary. The development of offensive
counter-space capabilities provides combatant
commanders with new tools for counter-space
operations."
So what has the Pentagon
accomplished so far? Here are some hints from
Giuseppe Anzera, an Italian professor, in Star Wars: Empires strike
back (August 18, 2005), an article
circulated by the Power and Interest News Report:
On the technological level, the
Pentagon's planning is in the advanced stage:
some projects - aimed at space weaponization -
have already been in place for some time. Among
the (partially known) Pentagon's new plans, the
two most interesting projects are the "Global
Strike" program and the "Rods from God" program.
Global Strike involves the employment of
military space planes capable of carrying about
500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of high-precision
weapons (with a circular error probability less
than 3 meters) with the primary use of striking
enemy military bases and command and control
facilities in any point of the world.
The main strength of military space
planes is the ability to reach any spot on the
globe within 45 minutes. This is a short period
of time that could provide US forces with a
formidable quick-reaction capability, as opposed
to the enemy's subsequent inability to organize
any effective defense. Such a weapon's primary
target would be the enemy's strategic forces and
- according to US Air Force sources widely
quoted in the news - the Pentagon is inclined to
give priority to this project. One of the main
reasons, these sources say, is that the Pentagon
itself - after spending more than US$100 billion
- has finally admitted its failure to create an
infallible Earth-based, anti-missile system to
protect American soil from ballistic strikes.
The so-called Rods from God project,
according to Anzera, "consists of orbiting
platforms stocked with metal tungsten rods about
6.1 meters long (20 feet) and 30 centimeters (1
foot) in diameter that could be satellite-guided
to targets anywhere on the Earth within minutes,
for the rods would move at more than 11,000 km/h
(6,835mph). This weapon exploits kinetic energy to
cause an explosion the same magnitude of that of
an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, but with no
radioactive fallout. The system would function due
to two satellites, one of which would work as a
communications platform, while the other would
contain an arsenal of tungsten rods."
The
Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency is developing
space-based missile interceptors (SBIs) at a cost
of up to $600 million over several years, complete
with a test bed for experimentation. This would
appear to be a weapon in space, but Bush
administration spokesman Tony Snow managed not to
crack a smile when he answered a press-conference
question on October 18 by declaring that "defense
from space is different than the weaponization of
space".
Other projects on the Pentagon's
space drawing boards or in development include the
X-51 hypersonic cruise missile that can travel at
5,800km/h; space-mirror satellites redirecting
laser beams from Earth against any orbit or
surface target, and satellites that send out radio
waves with a high range in power and breadth;
high-energy lasers of various kinds; a robotic
spacecraft capable of determining whether a
particular satellite is a "danger" to the US, in
which case it will be able to sabotage the
offending instrument; rockets with blunt heads
that function as kinetic-energy interceptors; a
weaponized glider known as the Common Aero Vehicle
that can be rocketed into space and travel at
hypersonic speeds to target objects on Earth; an
experimental spacecraft system; and much more.
On February 15, the Associated Press
reported that Russia is fed up with US proposals
for an ABM system not only in space but
particularly Washington's plan to deploy
anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech
Republic, practically in President Vladimir
Putin's face. The news agency quoted General Yuri
Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian General
Staff, as indicating Moscow might withdraw from
the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
if the US sets up missile defense in Eastern
Europe. The IRNFT eliminated medium-range missiles
that had been based in Europe.
Fearing
that the momentum toward space war preparations
will dissipate when Bush and the neo-conservatives
leave office, the right-wing warmaking faction has
accelerated its campaign for the weaponization of
space. A legion of conservative hawks from various
think-tanks banded together last year as the
"Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the
Space Relationship and the 21st Century", and
published a document of more than 200 pages
calling for an extensive military space program.
Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists (January/February 2007), Theresa
Hitchens said the document was "written in
language so incendiary it should be banned from
carry-on luggage, [and] lashes out against
opponents of the weaponization of space, branding
them as a cabal of 'arms-control extremists,
pacifists, realpolitik practitioners, [and]
anti-Americans' bent on 'unilateral disarmament'
of the US".
In conclusion, we return to
the theme introduced at the beginning of this
two-part article - US militarism.
As
Chalmers Johnson wrote in The Sorrows of
Empire, "The United States has been inching
toward imperialism and militarism for many years.
Disguising the direction they were taking,
American leaders cloaked their foreign policy in
euphemisms such as 'lone superpower',
'indispensable nation', 'reluctant sheriff',
'humanitarian intervention', and 'globalization'."
However, with the advent of the Bush
administration in 2001, these pretenses gave way
to assertions of the Second Coming of the Roman
Empire. Bush didn't transform the United States
into a militarist society. Militarism developed
long before he took office, at least by the
beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940s, when
America's political leaders initiated a virtual
state of perpetual war preparations and warfare
that continues to this day, long after the US has
become a near-impregnable fortress, long after the
demise of any possible enemies of substance.
Nor did Bush transform the United States
into an imperialist country. Imperialism motivated
Washington's unjust seizure of Mexican lands in
1848. Imperialism motivated the 1898 war against
Spain to extend US hegemony to Cuba, Puerto Rico
and the Philippines, and it has continued ever
since, growing stronger in the post-Soviet period
of unipolar geopolitical domination supported by
unparalleled military power.
Bush is
arguably the most dangerous president in US
history - he has launched unjust wars, threatened
many countries, and broken treaties. But he could
not have done so without the political weapons of
militarism and imperialism, weapons that have been
handed down from president to president for some
60 years.
At issue in this exploration of
the US government's warmaking preparations and
intentions is not simply what progressive-thinking
people are going to do about Iraq today or
Venezuela, Iran and China tomorrow. The real
question is what will they do about the
catastrophic combination of militarism and
imperialism that makes continual war preparations
and warfare an indelible characteristic of the
American state. It is not simply a matter of
getting rid of George W Bush because of Iraq or
getting rid of Lyndon Johnson because of Vietnam.
If we do not get rid of militarism and imperialism
we are simply paving the way for the next war, and
the next, and the next.
Jack A
Smith is former editor of the (US) Guardian
Newsweekly and editor of the Hudson Valley (New
York) Activist Newsletter.
(Copyright
2007 Jack A Smith.)
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
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
