Blog For Arizona

Neo-Cons in Space

The Bush Administration seeks changes that may destroy our national security, economic well-being, and the stability of the world order. These changes are going on way over your head – 50 miles above to be precise. The Neo-Cons aim to make outer space the new theater of war. Their blind ambitions threaten to ignite a new and ruinously expensive arms race that could destroy the international norms that have made outer space a vital and growing part of the world’s civilian economy and a lynchpin of America’s long-term security.

Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization undertook a study of our vulnerabilities and military capabilities in space. Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission until a few weeks before their report was issued, when Bush appointed him Secretary of Defense. Given this fact, little about the Commission’s report will surprise you.

The Commission report warned of significant vulnerabilities in both civilian and military space assets that must be addressed. As there have not been any attacks on space borne assets to date, it is difficult to quantify how serious or how likely various threats might be. The Commission supports their recommendations with worse-case assumptions out of any proportion to likely threats. They insisting we prepare to meet a possible ‘Pearl Harbor in space’ where no enemy is known to exist. In their estimation, that preparation entails nothing less than the head-long introduction of weapons into space.

The world’s consensus is that spaced borne weaponry is inconsistent with the "peaceful purposes" for which space is reserved by the Outer Space Treaty. However, the current legal regime does not specifically disallow weaponization of space, except for nuclear weapons and other WMD. Thus, this Administration advances an extreme interpretation that space based weapons systems are consistent with "peaceful uses" so long as they are not used for aggressive military operations. This means that development and deployment of first-strike capable anti-satellite and ground targeting weapons systems in orbit would be lawful as long as they are only used in a defensive capacity – and we all now know how flexible the concept of defense can become.

What kind of weapons might we see deployed in space? Anti-satellite weapons to destroy or disable an enemy’s space assets, and systems to protect our own satellites. Space-based weapons platforms carrying lasers, particle beams, kinetic weapons, and other systems to disrupt or destroy targets on the ground or in the atmosphere. Contrary to common conception it does not include "Star Wars", the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Only sensors and command and control systems of NMD would be in orbit as the system is currently concieved.

The Commission report is unequivocal in its judgment that deployment of weapons in space is purely a winning proposition, enhancing the security of our space-based assets and extending the reach and speed of our military options. Military planners see a golden moment in history and they want to seize it. No other nation can deploy military space systems that could match ours, and being first to the high ground of space allows us to dictate the terms of access. We are presented an opportunity to unilaterally shift the fulcrum of the world’s strategic military balance in our favor. The Commission makes it plain that they believe weaponization of space will assure U.S. military predominance and preparedness for the forseeable future.

The question we must ask, is whether we should allow it. Will the militarization of space enhance or degrade our long-term security? One obvious reason not to place weapons in space is that despite any temporary strategic advantage we might gain, proliferation and an arms race are inevitable, though not necessarily immediate. Consider the obvious military advantages conveyed by the GPS system as an example. Even though it is not a weapons system, the military advantages conveyed by ownership of the system are so great that even our European allies felt compelled to reproduce the system under their control in the form of the new Gallileo system. Europe and Japan may be the only other powers currently capable of deploying equivalent space weapons systems, but our alliances with them will not deter them from competing with us in space; their long-term strategic security will demand it.

Other nations, such as Russia, China, possibly India, or even Canada would soon follow, and there is little we could do to stop them without seriously provoking these major powers. In the long run, we will have achieved nothing but to increase insecurity in the world, and in our alliances. Just as it seems likely that a world free of nuclear weapons is now forever out of reach, the hope of space as a realm of peaceful cooperation among all mankind may recede beyond retrieval. Knowing that some strategic advantages are so alluring that it is beyond our wisdom to willingly surrender them, we must manifest sufficient wisdom to never seek such advantages in the first place.

The ensuing arms race would also be ruinously expensive. Already our military expenditures consume 50% of all discretionary federal spending. In a time of record deficits, a monstrous national debt, and structural trade imbalances with most of the world that threatens the very soundness of our currency, it is madness to invite an arms race we cannot sustain financially. We would also be robbing other nations of needed development capital and ourselves of foreign investment as other nations are compelled by national interest to follow us into space with military systems, slowing an already sluggish global economy still further.

The world’s strategic posture is precarious even without orbiting weapons. A nuclear holocaust of unimaginable scope is still only minutes away at all times; an accidental lauch, or terrorist with a nuclear bomb could still destroy us. Space borne weapons systems are inherently vulnerable, leading to a ‘use it or lose it’ mentality. Wargames involving space assets indicate they are a destabilizing factor. They frequently escalate conflicts that would have been manageable in their absence – often resulting in nuclear exchanges. The fog of war only becomes denser in outer space, leaving us more vulnerable to destabilizing attacks by non-state actors intent on precipitating military conflicts. Weapons in space are an invitation to terrorism, not a solution.

As other nations’ militaries inevitably follow us into space the basic understandings about free access to space are certain to be compromised, if not destroyed. The core rules of free and open navigation of outer space are indispensable to its productive and peaceful use. It is seldom considered any more, but the overflight regime, which allows even an enemies spacecraft to overfly another nation’s territory, is not a given. It was the result of wise policy and deft diplomacy by the Eisenhower Administration at the height of the Cold War. The ability to overfly a nation in an unrestricted manner, even to the point of spying upon that nation from space, is the bedrock of the commercial, scientific, and military uses of outer space. The overflight regime has also made enormous contributions to world peace. The ability to remotely verify treaty obligations without intrusive inspections is a vital tool of diplomacy. Once spacecraft with ground targeting weapons systems capable of nearly instantaneous and devastating attack are in orbit, the overflight norms will be severely strained.

What other norms that preserve the use of space as the common heritage of mankind might also buckle under the strain? How long before earth’s orbits, the moon, the LeGrange points begin to be carved up, or fought over, surrendering to the de facto territoriality that results from military preparations. Military aviation has steadily enhanced sovereign control of every nation’s airspace for sound and inescapable security reasons, as we saw vividly on 9/11/2001. Military astronautics will likewise force nations to exert greater control over orbital space, limiting or even restricting access for sound national security reasons. Commercial uses of space may become so problematic and expensive that the industy could cease to grow or even fail. Scientific progress could be irreparably hampered.

There is a need, and considerable merit, in hardening our space systems against malicious disruption or attack by preparing appropriate counter-measures and redundancies. Our economy and our national security rely on space assets more every day. We must prepare and protect ourselves and our vital national interests in space. But we mustn’t rush forward to claim the new frontier at the point of a sword, creating instability, waste and insecurity in the process. Several new treaties codifying the exclusion of weapons from space have been proposed and it is in America’s best national security interests to lead the effort to ratify such a treaty. The Bush Administration stands ready to take one giant leap of faith that mankind may not be able to retreat from. Our descendants will not thank us for over-reacting to imagined threats, or for over-reaching to snatch at short-term gains while missing the greater chance to ensure that war never achieves escape velocity.

posted by Michael Bryan @ 12/06/2004 06:40:00 PM