Should we conquer Antarctica next?
I'm going to get terribly wonkish here, even more than I usually am. I don't know why this issue infuriates more than the recently enacted law concerning treatment of detainees. That is more imminent and concrete than what I'm going to rant on, the weaponization of outer space.
The Outer Space Treaty, of which the Untied States is still a signatory, says that nations will not deploy nuclear weapons in space. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was considered to be key conerstone in nuclear arms control, prevented the deployment of space-based anti-missile weapons systems, though the United States withdrew in 2002, based on claims that the ABM treaty restricted its ability to defend against terrorists and rogue states. The ABM treaty was predicated on deterrence. If one side uses nuclear weapons, it will get annhiliated by the other side's nuclear weapons. Anti-ballistic missile technology means that one side can use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. However, it also gives an incentive to the other side to use its nuclear weapons before such anti-ballistic missile technology has matured. So the ABM Treaty kept the balance. The Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed "Star Wars", which would have placed weapons in space, was of course a violation of the ABM Treaty. In what could be an irony, some of the anti-ballistic missile weapons in SDI would involve detonating nuclear devices. One example was the bomb-pumped laser. Nuclear bombs would be placed in space. They could be detonated and the resulting radiation could be channeled into a X-ray laser to shoot down other nuclear bombs.
So that was the good old days, in which space was weapons-free. So are the good old days over? President Bush has announced a new National Space Policy, which states, “Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power." In other words, Alfred Thayer Mahan returns with a creation of space power.
Admiral Mahan created the notion of seapower. He believed that dominance of the sea was essential to winning wars and establishing the superiority of a nation. Mahan influenced among others, Theodore Roosevelt and Kaiser Wilhelm. It led directly to the Battle of Manilla Bay and Battle of Santiago in the Spanish-American War, where the American Navy smashed the Spanish Navy and sealed off the Philipines and Cuba from any support Spain could send. The Japanese also followed suit when they decisively crushed the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima Straits in the Russo-Japanese War. His works influenced the British and Germans to enter into a naval arms race which was one of the causes of World War I. The search for the decisive Mahanian battle led to Jutland. It also created the shortcomings of the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, since their ship construction was planned with the single decisive engagement in mind. Victory at sea means victory in war. Dominance at sea creates a dominant nation. So, conceiving of space in terms of air power and sea power gives me pause.
And just in case you want to interpret it any other way, the Policy also states:
Bottom line is that the United States controls space and will defend its control of space. It will not take no for an answer from anyone else, including the United Nations or other treaties. It will prevent other nations from asserting control of space. The United States is establishing hegemony over space. Though the White House says this is not intended to mean that weapons will be placed in space, the White House refuses to sign on to any treaty restricting weapons in space, claiming there is no need, because there is no space arms race. Yet.
One might argue that the United States is one of the few nations with space-launching capability. So why not let them do what they want? It's not as if Zimbabwe is launching rockets into space anytime soon; the Europeans are semi-friendly, and Russian is not a threat anymore. It's not that simple. To draw another analogy to the sea, space has become vital conduits of communication, just as there are sea lines of communications that everyone agrees should be protected. There's GPS, other navigation systems, cellular communication, radio, telephone, television, etc. Satellites are even more crucial for developing nations where the landlines haven't been laid. Space isn't just the United States' playground.
I know that the United States has looked into technology into disabling satellites before. There of course was the ASAT program in the 1980s, in which a F-15 carried a non-nuclear modified SRAM. Earlier American anti-satellite programs actually involved nuclear-tipped missiles. One particularly clever program involved the Lunar Module from the Apollo space program. The Lunar Module was selected as the most maneuveurable spacecraft. It would disable satellites by spraypainting them. Obviously, this disables any solar cells. However, it also cripples a satellite's ability to maintain its temperature. Space is an extreme environment, with extreme heat and cold, so satellites have to be carefully designed and manufactured to dissipiate heat. That is one of the reasons that the space shuttle always has its cargo bay doors opened while in space; they dissipate heat. Spraypaint would hinder that ability on many satellites. Like I said, clever.
Well, this is only a statement of policy, not actual law. I shouldn't be bothered by it.
The Outer Space Treaty, of which the Untied States is still a signatory, says that nations will not deploy nuclear weapons in space. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was considered to be key conerstone in nuclear arms control, prevented the deployment of space-based anti-missile weapons systems, though the United States withdrew in 2002, based on claims that the ABM treaty restricted its ability to defend against terrorists and rogue states. The ABM treaty was predicated on deterrence. If one side uses nuclear weapons, it will get annhiliated by the other side's nuclear weapons. Anti-ballistic missile technology means that one side can use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. However, it also gives an incentive to the other side to use its nuclear weapons before such anti-ballistic missile technology has matured. So the ABM Treaty kept the balance. The Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed "Star Wars", which would have placed weapons in space, was of course a violation of the ABM Treaty. In what could be an irony, some of the anti-ballistic missile weapons in SDI would involve detonating nuclear devices. One example was the bomb-pumped laser. Nuclear bombs would be placed in space. They could be detonated and the resulting radiation could be channeled into a X-ray laser to shoot down other nuclear bombs.
So that was the good old days, in which space was weapons-free. So are the good old days over? President Bush has announced a new National Space Policy, which states, “Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power." In other words, Alfred Thayer Mahan returns with a creation of space power.
Admiral Mahan created the notion of seapower. He believed that dominance of the sea was essential to winning wars and establishing the superiority of a nation. Mahan influenced among others, Theodore Roosevelt and Kaiser Wilhelm. It led directly to the Battle of Manilla Bay and Battle of Santiago in the Spanish-American War, where the American Navy smashed the Spanish Navy and sealed off the Philipines and Cuba from any support Spain could send. The Japanese also followed suit when they decisively crushed the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima Straits in the Russo-Japanese War. His works influenced the British and Germans to enter into a naval arms race which was one of the causes of World War I. The search for the decisive Mahanian battle led to Jutland. It also created the shortcomings of the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, since their ship construction was planned with the single decisive engagement in mind. Victory at sea means victory in war. Dominance at sea creates a dominant nation. So, conceiving of space in terms of air power and sea power gives me pause.
And just in case you want to interpret it any other way, the Policy also states:
Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.
Bottom line is that the United States controls space and will defend its control of space. It will not take no for an answer from anyone else, including the United Nations or other treaties. It will prevent other nations from asserting control of space. The United States is establishing hegemony over space. Though the White House says this is not intended to mean that weapons will be placed in space, the White House refuses to sign on to any treaty restricting weapons in space, claiming there is no need, because there is no space arms race. Yet.
One might argue that the United States is one of the few nations with space-launching capability. So why not let them do what they want? It's not as if Zimbabwe is launching rockets into space anytime soon; the Europeans are semi-friendly, and Russian is not a threat anymore. It's not that simple. To draw another analogy to the sea, space has become vital conduits of communication, just as there are sea lines of communications that everyone agrees should be protected. There's GPS, other navigation systems, cellular communication, radio, telephone, television, etc. Satellites are even more crucial for developing nations where the landlines haven't been laid. Space isn't just the United States' playground.
I know that the United States has looked into technology into disabling satellites before. There of course was the ASAT program in the 1980s, in which a F-15 carried a non-nuclear modified SRAM. Earlier American anti-satellite programs actually involved nuclear-tipped missiles. One particularly clever program involved the Lunar Module from the Apollo space program. The Lunar Module was selected as the most maneuveurable spacecraft. It would disable satellites by spraypainting them. Obviously, this disables any solar cells. However, it also cripples a satellite's ability to maintain its temperature. Space is an extreme environment, with extreme heat and cold, so satellites have to be carefully designed and manufactured to dissipiate heat. That is one of the reasons that the space shuttle always has its cargo bay doors opened while in space; they dissipate heat. Spraypaint would hinder that ability on many satellites. Like I said, clever.
Well, this is only a statement of policy, not actual law. I shouldn't be bothered by it.
posted by Pettifogger | 11:49 AM
1 Comments:
Unfortunately, other countries will more then worried about it.
thanks bush, this just gave China & our other enemies the reason to put up weapons up in space, overtly or covertly, without international discrimination. I'm not naiive to think weaponisation of space is not evitable, but there is a thing of capitalisation on our advantage in space technology, and hampering our competitors with diplomatic clout, which is called in military terms a diversion. Just because we know that other countries will not follow the rules, we don't need to give them a fecking reason. We talking about satellites here, the minute those baddies star shooting, i'm sure we will have some space defence up there, and when they do attack us we will have the advantage of having the international community behind us.
thanks GWB you just said yes to spending another gazillion dollars for another costly war in the future, (and sadly not that far, because of this)
Well, at leased it's going to be the first star wars, which is something to be proud of as an American, considering we made the first decent epic space-based war film.
Post a Comment
<< Home