Follow Up on the ASAT Talk [9]: "
Greetings from Dubai. Were I ever involved in a clandestine proliferation network I’d have meetings here too.
The Carnegie Endowment has a nice summary of Gregory and my talk — which is pretty amazing since I ramble and neither of us saw it or provided a draft of the paper:
Lewis then turned to the two dominant narratives of China’s ASAT test that have been popularized in the US. The first is that the ASAT test was part of an effort to optimize Chinese defense capabilities vis-à-vis the U.S. by ‘hitting the US where it hurts,’ he said. But Lewis and Kulacki said that the people they’ve talked to have not discussed the test in those terms. Kulacki noted that the so-called ‘soft ribs’ arguments rely on many of the same low-quality sources, published by graduate students in fringe journals. Others have speculated that the ASAT test was intended to force the U.S. into negotiations over the military use of space. Both of these explanations rely on the premise that China had accurately predicted the response of the US to the tests. The unpreparedness of Chinese officials in the aftermath of the ASAT test is not inconsistent with the statements of technocrats, who framed the development of the ASAT as part of a general drive to improve China’s military capabilities in space, not as an effort to provoke the U.S.
Also, Elaine Grossman wrote up the talk for Global Security Newswire.
Gregory and I are still finishing the paper, but you get the flavor of what we said. A few minor points of emphasis here or there are different — we didn’t put the Bush Administration at the center of the narrative at all, for example — but its close enough to start the discussion.
"(Via ArmsControlWonk.)
Follow Up on the ASAT Talk [9]This will impact the space weaponization debate: "
Remember all the debate in the weeks and months following the release of the new national space policy that the US was opening the door to the weaponization of space—and perhaps imperiling the security of its own space assets—by appearing to go down the road of space weaponization? Now comes work from Aviation Week that China tested, apparently successfully, an anti-satellite weapon earlier this month. The ASAT, fired from a Chinese spaceport, hit and apparently destroyed an aging Chinese polar-orbiting weather satellite on January 11. (ArmsControlWonk also had some discussion about the ASAT test shortly before the Aviation Week article was published Wednesday evening.)
It will be interesting to see how people on both sides of the space weaponization debate spin this. Is it a sign that the Chinese were not sincere in their opposition to space weaponization, and that therefore the US need to step up its defensive and offensive counterspace efforts, or does it reflect a failure of US policy (including claims that there is no 'arms race in space')? Or both?
"
(Via Space Politics.)
This will impact the space weaponization debateWho benefits from the Chinese ASAT test: "
There's been plenty of discussion of the potential negative effects of the Chinese ASAT test earlier this month, from the debris created by the test imperiling other satellites to the increased threat now faced by US low Earth orbit satellites. But who will benefit? An Aerospace Daily article earlier this week suggests that both missile defense and operationally responsive space (ORS) efforts could win additional support based on the reaction to the test. Jeff Keuter of the Marshall Institute says that space-based missile defenses, which he argues could also be effective against ASATs, could get a, um, 'boost' (his words, not mine) from the test. Defensive counterspace—hardening or otherwise protecting satellites from attack—could also win coverts in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.
ORS, with its promised ability to quickly launch new or gapfiller spacecraft in the event of a crisis (like an ASAT attack on existing satellites), could also win new support. That may be critical since there had been rumors in previous months that funding for ORS in FY08 and beyond was jeopardy. Rand Simberg makes a similar argument in a TCS Daily essay, although I would quibble that the issue is not Operationally Responsive Spacelift, as he identifies it, but Operationally Responsive Space. Low-cost rapid launch is a key part of the puzzle, but it is not the only one, and maybe not even the most important one, given issues ranging from satellite buses and payloads to integrating those systems into existing systems to provide the maximum benefit to the warfighter.
"
(Via Space Politics.)
Who benefits from the Chinese ASAT testSpace lawyers in Hyderabad: "
नमस्ते. Greetings from SLP to all gathered this week in Hyderabad, India for the 58th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2007).
The five-day summit, organized by the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics and of course the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) (and did I leave anyone out?) -- all graciously hosted by the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Astronautical Society of India -- brings together delegates and seriously interested folks from all around the home planet to brainstorm about space interests -- business, technology, tourism, exploration and lots more. Which is just the sort of thing that will attract space lawyers galore.
Yes, I see a number of interesting space policy and law sessions in the extensive IAC line-up, just one example of which is this space tourism law panel which I previewed in an earlier post. Wish I were there.
For now, some initial news out of Hyderabad, where the summit is underway under tight security in the wake of last month's terror bombings in the city: Mike Griffin gave a speech outlining NASA's goals, saying in the centenary of the space age (that's 2057, if my math is correct,) 'we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars.' And India's Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan said his country is planning to conduct 60 space missions over the next five years.
As I've talked about, one of the main space law events, held in conjunction with IISL's annual space law colloquium at IAC, consists of the semi-finals and world finals of the 16th Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition. Future space lawyers who have been researching, pacing the floor and sharpening their oral arguments all year will duke it out in real space-time in the 'Case Concerning International Liability' (Emeralda v Mazonia); the semi-final will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 25th in a 'closed session' at the convention center in Hyderabad. The finals will be held on Thursday Sept. 27th at NALSAR University of Law, and, as I've noted, will be judged by three members of the International Court of Justice. The case may be moot but it is major league.
And yes, for invitees only, the annual dinner of IISL will follow the finals.
I look forward to hearing from everyone who has promised me news and updates from India. ;) Meanwhile, have fun, all; and good luck, moot court competitors! "
(Via Space Law Probe.)
Space lawyers in HyderabadSpace lawyers in Hyderabad: "नमस्ते. Greetings from SLP to all gathered this week in Hyderabad, India for the 58th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2007).
The five-day summit, organized by the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics and of course the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) (and did I leave anyone out?) -- all graciously hosted by the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Astronautical Society of India -- brings together delegates and seriously interested folks from all around the home planet to brainstorm about space interests -- business, technology, tourism, exploration and lots more. Which is just the sort of thing that will attract space lawyers galore.
Yes, I see a number of interesting space policy and law sessions in the extensive IAC line-up, just one example of which is this space tourism law panel which I previewed in an earlier post. Wish I were there.
For now, some initial news out of Hyderabad, where the summit is underway under tight security in the wake of last month's terror bombings in the city: Mike Griffin gave a speech outlining NASA's goals, saying in the centenary of the space age (that's 2057, if my math is correct,) 'we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars.' And India's Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan said his country is planning to conduct 60 space missions over the next five years.
As I've talked about, one of the main space law events, held in conjunction with IISL's annual space law colloquium at IAC, consists of the semi-finals and world finals of the 16th Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition. Future space lawyers who have been researching, pacing the floor and sharpening their oral arguments all year will duke it out in real space-time in the 'Case Concerning International Liability' (Emeralda v Mazonia); the semi-final will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 25th in a 'closed session' at the convention center in Hyderabad. The finals will be held on Thursday Sept. 27th at NALSAR University of Law, and, as I've noted, will be judged by three members of the International Court of Justice. The case may be moot but it is major league.
And yes, for invitees only, the annual dinner of IISL will follow the finals.
I look forward to hearing from everyone who has promised me news and updates from India. ;) Meanwhile, have fun, all; and good luck, moot court competitors! "
(Via Space Law Probe.)
Space lawyers in HyderabadLawrence Martin on space-based warfare: "The Globe's Lawrence Martin has a decent piece on the policy context of the recent Chinese anti-satellite missile test.
While offering the Chinese no defence for their provocative action, Martin points out that the current US administration's allergy to multilateralism is also partly to blame for the current dangerous state of affairs:
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney showed no interest in a space treaty. Their national space policy is essentially hegemony in the heavens. They oppose the development of new legal regimes or other measures that restrict their designs. A UN resolution to prevent an arms race in space was supported by 151 countries with zero opposed. The U.S. abstained. It wants strategic control.As indeed, the current US administration does.
That said, I can't let Martin's description of Canada's position pass without comment:
In the last election, the Paul Martin government campaigned vigorously against the weaponization of space, pledging to lead a worldwide effort opposing it. To date, the Harper government, while less vocal, is opposed to NMD [National Missile Defence].True on both counts, but it's worth pointing out that both Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a Canadian policy of ever-increasing militarization of space, even while denouncing weaponization as beyond the pale.
In truth, the 'big red line' between militarization and weaponization Liberal Bill Graham used to talk about when he thought BMD might be a problem is no longer so big and bright as some might like: Canadian satellites are advertised for their ability to gather intelligence on potential military targets, just as the Canadian Forces move to acquire satellite-guided JDAM bombs and Excalibur howitzer rounds.
So just how committed are we Canadians--as we condemn the Chinese--to the purely 'peaceful' use of outer space?
Not as committed as we should be, in my view.
Peace, my friends.
Technorati Tags: ASAT; anti-satellite; Canada; China; Excalibur; JDAM; United States."
(Via No BMD, eh?.)
Lawrence Martin on space-based warfarePolish democrats challenge BMD: "Here's the latest news from Poland:
WARSAW, Poland: A member of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski's government called Saturday for Poles to be allowed to decide whether their country should host part of a planned U.S. missile defense system.It would be a good thing, needless to say, if the Polish people were given a real opportunity to express their views on their government's BMD plans."
'I am determined that a referendum is needed to determine whether this is to be the nation's will,' Andrzej Lepper, a deputy prime minister and agriculture minister, told a news conference.
Although it is unlikely a referendum on the decision will be held, Lepper's suggestion reflects Polish unease at having such sites in the country.
Polish leaders have said they are willing to talk with Washington about the issue, but that any decision would have to be made by parliament.
(Via No BMD, eh?.)
Polish democrats challenge BMDAN OPEN LETTER TO PM PAUL MARTIN: "
Right-Hon. Paul Martin , Prime Minister of Canada
November 20, 2004
Dear Mr. Martin:
Canada is at a crossroads – and under heavy pressure from the United
States – with respect to the U.S.’s ‘missile defence’ program. This
program should be seen clearly – and assertively and publicly
acknowledged by Canada – for what it is, nothing less than a
pre-emptive action by the United States to dictate how space is to be
used and controlled to benefit and advance American interests.
As the Iraq war and its aftermath have borne out, pre-emptive action
by one player in the arena of international affairs is not only
immoral, it has wholly unpredictable and tragic consequences.
As noted recently by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in a 1997 U.S. Space Command planning document entitled 'Vision for 2020',
the military outlined its plan to control and dominate space. 'Control
of space,' the blueprint noted, 'is the ability to assure access to
space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to
deny others the use of space.' The back cover of the document features
a picture of the planet surrounded by space satellites and space-based
laser weapons with the words 'Space...the war fighters' edge.'
2020 is not some indefinite point in the future. It is just over 15 years from now. Is this the vision that Canada wants?
Further, as the CCPA notes, in August 2, 2004 the U.S. Air Force quietly published a new doctrine called Counterspace Operations.
In the Foreword to the document, General John Jumper, Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, stated: 'The development of offensive counterspace
capabilities provides combatant commanders with new tools for
counterspace operations. These operations may be utilized throughout
the spectrum of conflict and may achieve a variety of effects from
temporary denial to complete destruction of the adversary's space
capability.'
This document shows that the U.S. remains undeterred in its mission,
despite the blindingly unethical foundation for its position.
Canada must show leadership in providing a deterrent. Canada must
not only categorically refuse to be involved in any way in the
weaponization of space, it should provide the same kind of vision it
did in leading the initiative to ban landmines.
A 1,300-page report released
November 18th, 2004 by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
notes that since the international treaty prohibiting antipersonnel
landmines took effect five years ago, use of the weapon around the
world has fallen dramatically, global funding for mine action programs
has increased more than 80 percent, more than 1,100 square kilometres
of land have been cleared, and the number of new mine victims each year
has decreased markedly.
‘The international norm established by the Mine Ban Treaty is
rapidly taking firm hold around the world, especially in the heavily
mine-contaminated countries where it matters the most,’ said ICBL
Ambassador Jody Williams, who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize with
the ICBL.
Note use of the term ‘international norm established.’ As success of
the movement worldwide to ban production, purchase, use, trade and
stockpiling of antipersonnel devices is demonstrating, a new way of
thinking based on peace has taken root, and is flourishing.
A new international norm with respect to space as a global commons
to be protected and used for the benefit of all the earth’s peoples
must similarly be established, and Canada must be unwavering in moving
such a positive, inclusive agenda forward.
Canada must enlist the support of other countries to place
weaponization of space squarely on the U.N. agenda. One way to do this
is to request that the U.N. General Assembly have a Space Preservation Treaty
permanently banning all space-based weapons and warfare in space ready
for signature by all U.N. Member Nations by United Nations Day, 2005
(October 24, 2005).
If the United Nations General Assembly fails to approve a Space
Preservation Treaty by October 24, 2005, then Canada should petition
the General Assembly to convene a Space Preservation Treaty Conference
to ban all space-based weapons and warfare in space, as with the 1997
Ottawa Land Mines Treaty Conference. Such a conference could be held in
Victoria-Vancouver, B.C. in June 2006, as part of the World Peace Forum 2006.
In the meantime, and beginning now, as Canada distances itself from
the American military agenda, our government must also move proactively
on trade and economic initiatives directed toward lessening Canada’s
dependence on the U.S. Canada’s companies, peoples and way of life must
not be beholden to the United States in any way. We must always remain
the true North, strong and free.
Sincerely,
Avery Ascher, Manitoba, Canada
cc. Hon. Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Manitoba Campaign to Ban Landmines
Institute for Cooperation in Space
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Click here to Sign Our U.N. Petition to ban Space-based weapons and warfare in space.
"
AN OPEN LETTER TO PM PAUL MARTIN
Why A Space Preservation Treaty-Signing is Vital: "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Space Preservation Treaty Signing-Signing
is the most reliable,timely, and effective method available that will
bring world leaders together to permanently ban all space-based weapons
in an enforceable verifiable manner that will lead to a 'cap' on the
war industry while it evolves into becoming a space industry.
An International Treaty Signing for the Space
Preservation Treaty can be convened at any time by any willing U.N.
Member State(s) under the authority of Article 102 of the United
Nations Charter.
Time is of the essence to get the Space Preservation Treaty signed into law.
The signing of the Space Preservation Treaty will help to put needed pressure on the U.S. congress and administration.
Key to preserving peace in space so we can achieve peace on earth:
When the first five (5) countries sign on to the Space Preservation
Treaty, an international outer space peacekeeping agency will be
established
and equipped to monitor outer space and enforce (conflict resolution
style) this ban. This equipment, of course, can also be used to finally
verify arms agreements including the reduction and
inevitably elimination of nuclear weapons and other dangerous and polluting technologies on our planet.
Solution: A 'Fast Track' signing of the Space Preservation Treaty
must funded in order to be set the Treaty signing process into
immediate motion. An international Treaty Signing Conference on the
Space Preservation Treaty must be convened as soon as possible to
facilitate the UN Member Nation leaders coming together for the signing
and to bring into force an immediate and permanent ban on all
space-based weapons. We must stop the arms race at the only moment in
time, in all of history, when it can be stopped, before it begins in
space (that is, before space-based weapons are deployed and/or before a
momentum of funding and vested interests makes the weaponization of
space impossible to stop).
Since 1948, over 40,000 multi-lateral agreements or Treaties have
been signed, ratified and deposited with the U.N. Secretary General by
Member States under Article 102 of the U.N. Charter. Under Article 102
of the United Nations Charter, 'every treaty and every international
agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the
present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be
registered with the Secretariat and published by it.'
An informal group of NGOs assists the convening Member States by
mobilizing public opinion, preparing briefing documents for the Member
States, and preparing educational materials in support of the Treaty
Conference, as was done in 1997 at the Ottawa, Canada, Land Mines
Treaty Conference.
Because there is intention of the current U.S. administration to
deploy a world-wide U.S. missile defense system, inexorably linked to
deploying space-based weapons under the guise of calling the deployment
'merely tests' of this system, the Space Preservation Treaty Signing
Conference must be produced quickly. Canada is identified as the best
location, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich as well as former MP Svend
Robinson (New Democratic Party) in the Canadian House of Commons have
called on Canadian leaders to convene this Space Preservation Treaty
Signing Conference.
The current U.S. administration plan is to 'seize the high ground'
to 'dominate and control space,' and many say that he who controls and
dominates space also controls and dominates all on earth. The momentum
of funding, vested interests and technology being put into place could
make it impossible to stop the weaponization of space if a ban is not
turned into law in time. Space-based weapons could be deployed under
the guise of calling them 'merely research' or 'merely tests,' or they
could be deployed without even the conducting of tests.
Many experts say this is an emergency situation, as there is only
one chance to ban space-based weapons. Many agree that time is of the
essence to get the Space Preservation Treaty signed into law quickly.
Experts also say that the signing of the Space Preservation Treaty will
put necessary pressure
The Space Preservation Treaty Conference Signing Ceremony will include a global media broadcast and Internet webcast.
CLICK HERE
for more information about the World Space Preservation Treaty Signing
Conference, and to read a copy of the Space Preservation Treaty for
yourself:
http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/space_preservation_treaty/
Please volunteer to help this endeavor. We need to build a world
movement to send packages of educational information to all world
leaders, to media, to the people about the Space Preservation Treaty
and to help organize the Space Preservation Treaty Conference.
...............................................
ICIS needs your help
There are many ways you can get involved to help preserve Peace in Space.
Volunteers and funders are needed to:
help produce the World Space Preservation Treaty Conference
help educate about the Space Preservation Treaty and Act
Introduce the Space Preservation Resolution in your City
help with day to day operations at ICIS
help reach out to women, NGOs, peace groups, organizations, activists, and communities.
help coordinate volunteers
If you have time, skills, contacts, or financial resources, please
fill out our comments form or contact us at:
For any comments, volunteers or questions, please contact us at
info@peaceinspace.com
Volunteers, organizers, experts, visionaries, and contributors are needed to:
1) Produce a Space Preservation Treaty Conference Process to
facilitate the gathering of world leaders to sign the Space
Preservation Treaty.
3) Produce a world and national movement to educate decision makers
and people about the urgency, feasibility, and benefits of banning
space-based weapons and continuing world cooperation in space.
4) Organize meetings in the military industrial lab university
intelligence NASA and other international organizations government(s)
complex and with decision makers, NGO's, and individuals to identify
what IS in space and what CAN BE in space of a non-weapons nature and
how that can provide solutions to human and environmental problems,
stimulate the economy (jobs and training programs) with a new
marketplace based on the R&D of clean and safe technology, products
and services that can enhance worldwide communication and information
sharing to bring the world together in a new cooperative world security
system.
CONTACT/CONTACTO
Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) – South America
PO Box 288
Loja, ECUADOR
Email: rosin@west.net
http://www.peaceinspace.com
http://www.madretierra1.com
Tel: 011 593 7 2 580687
Email Dr. Carol Rosin - rosin@west.net
Email Eleanor LeCain - EMLECAIN@aol.com
Email Norrie Huddle - nhuddle@frontiernet.net
Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) – North America
3339 West 41 Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6N3E5 CANADA
Tel: 604-733-8134
Fax: 604-733-8135
Email: info@peaceinspace.com
Campaign: http://www.peaceinspace.org
Exopolitics: http://www.exopolitics.com
ICIS: http://www.peaceinspace.com
STARDREAMS: http://www.peaceinspace.net
Email Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd - alw@peaceinspace.net
COURTESY OF:
L. Farhouni <freedom.respect@gmail.com>
Werkgroep Eurobom
PENN Netherlands
Obrechtstraat 43
3572 EC Utrecht
Netherlands
phone: +31 30 2714376 or +31 30 2722594
mobile phone: + 31 06 13223359
fax : +31 30 2714759
email: k.koster@inter.nl.net
http://www.antenna.nl/~amok/eurobom/
SIGN A U.N. PETITION for the Space Preservation Treaty Conference:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/832338563
"
Why A Space Preservation Treaty-Signing is Vital
Claims that the US is intent on weaponizing space often ignore the very real efforts the Soviet Union made in space weapons during the Cold War. (credit: Defense Department)
Weaponization of space: who’s to blame?
by James Oberg
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Like children drawing glee in poking a stick into an anthill to see the turmoil they can cause, or teenagers throwing rocks at a chained junkyard dog just to hear him snarl, some elements of the Western news media seem to evince diabolical delight in seeing just how they can inflame good old fashioned Russian paranoia about “enemy threats”, especially from the United States. Regardless of the rationale, such exercises leave measurable scars on the international diplomatic scene.
In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war.
Accuracy and consistency has never been a hallmark of this kind of space journalism. It’s been a year now since a White House space policy paper announced the US intention to “deny use” of foreign space assets to interfere in US freedom of action in space, but from the very beginning, major Western media (and the outraged Russian officials who echoed them) have shrieked about an American declaration to “deny access to space” for anybody the US doesn’t like. (Nevermind that the policy makes it clear to anyone who actually reads it that the US has no problem with any other country doing the same things in space the US reserves for itself also to do.) All the news that fits this editorial conclusion is deemed “fit to print”, and it is, but news that does not fit, usually doesn’t get printed.
The latest inflammatory round in this cosmic debate of “It’s America’s fault again” is now taking place, coincident with the well-justified celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Space Age by the USSR’s Sputnik.
In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such “plans” to do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and tests—the kinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldn’t even be known to exist.
“We don’t want to fight in space,” Popovkin told his audience, “but on the other hand, we’ll not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. The consequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious.” And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: “If any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same,” he added, to the approving echo of press coverage around the world.
The blame for these trends is widely assigned to the United States (it’s always easier to confront an external threat if you can convince yourself you are in control, since if you believe you instigated the threat by bad behavior, this means you thus can dispel the threat by changing your own behavior). A perfect example of this theme can be found in the special pre-Sputnik-anniversary “Science Times” section of the New York Times, dated September 25. “From the Start, the Space Race Was an Arms Race”, accuses the headline over a long story by veteran space and science correspondent William Broad.
“Sputnik forced the Eisenhower administration to consider a scary new world of space arms,” the story opened. “It did so in two ways: talking peace and preparing for war.” That Eisenhower deliberately assigned America’s satellite project to a research rocket rather than a weapons rocket, and that after Sputnik he established a civilian-controlled space exploration administration (something the Soviets never did), and that saw space as an opportunity for a tension-reducing “Open Skies” strategy that ultimately prevailed and kept the peace for decades—these themes don’t fit the headline, and don’t appear in the text.
“That duality held firm for much of the ensuing half century,” Broad continued. “Washington publicly encouraged peaceful uses of space even while spending billions to explore futuristic weaponry like death rays fired from rocket ships.”
What Broad does not mention, here in the opening or anywhere else in the story, is that if there was any leader in the weaponization of space—not merely its use in support of military activities on Earth, but for space-to-space combat—it was the Soviet Union. What “Moscow spent” is not tallied or reported, just what “Washington spent,” in a perfectly contrived asymmetry of half-truth.
New York Times actually was researching a story on a Soviet orbital beam weapon project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system approached.
Not mentioned here, or anywhere else, ever, in the Times (as far as I’ve been able to determine), was the heavy-caliber cannon installed on a Soviet manned space station to destroy American spacecraft, manned or otherwise. Not discussed here are the orbital thermonuclear weapons designed, tested, and deployed by the USSR in the 1960s, whose operation was expressly forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967—a scrap of paper that provided no protection to their use in a sneak attack on the United States. Not mentioned here, or so far as I can tell ever in the history of the New York Times, are the handguns that the Russians are allowed to pack at the International Space Station (NASA’s website doesn’t mention them either), or the much more serious space-to-space attack vehicles (on standby in earth-based launch tubes) whose very existence Moscow denied for decades.
And despite the Times’ long campaign against the Reagan concept of “Strategic Defense” (“Star Wars” is the Hollywood-derived gimmicky misnomer for the project, which Broad follows again in his article by using the movie War of the Worlds as a current example of space weaponry), there is no mention here of the Soviet project in the mid-1980’s, contemporary with US studies of such a system, for an orbital beam weapon at anti-satellite and anti-missile functions. Broad’s omission of mention of this project—and the apparent absence of any other mention of it on the pages of the Times, anywhere, anyime—is particularly curious.
This is because I have learned that the New York Times actually was researching a story on this project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system (May 15, 1987) approached. I understand that significant work was done gathering newly-released Moscow materials, and with Russian scientists who had worked on the project.
But then—so goes the account I have obtained—the story was “spiked”, killed by the newspaper’s editorial board. Retired Soviet prime minister Mikhail Gorbachev, who had approved the orbital weapon project even as he publicly denounced Reagan’s interest in a similar system, wouldn’t cooperate—probably in consideration of his high reputation in the West, he didn’t seem to want the story to get any publicity. The Times acquiesced to this intention, and the story never appeared—and ten years later, a space anniversary special edition can now be written as if that aggressive Soviet space weapon never existed since the Times had never written about it.
Instead, Broad’s article (which for all we know sparked General Popovkin’s latest rants in Moscow) criticizes a project called the “Space Test Bed” as “a first step toward orbital antimissile arms”, even though he admits in the next sentence that it isn’t even funded for 2008-2009.
To call one of his sources, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), merely “a private group in Cambridge, Mass.”, is equally disingenuous: they have become known as a lobby group opposed to US weapons systems with a track record of ignoring Soviet and Russian space weapons even better than that of the New York Times. To them, the “Space Test Bed” would be “ineffective against speeding missiles, but probably good at shattering satellites”, a “real value”, according to an unnamed source there, that “is certain to be recognized, and perhaps responded to, by other nations” in a space arms race. Popovkin’s blank check to build his own space-to-space weapons, then, is being endorsed by the UCS, and they seem eager to bring this rationale (and their readiness to make excuses on his behalf) to his attention, on the cooperative pages of the Times.
To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space” isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible.
Overlooked by both experts and journalists is the inconvenient truth that proposed space-based anti-missile systems will be designed with guidance sensors that depend on hot rocket exhausts and large missile skins, the sort of thing you’d see during an actual launch. Satellites orbiting passively high above Earth are not nearly as big as missiles, and are nowhere near as hot. They usually aren’t firing rocket engines at all. Anti-missile systems of the type under consideration probably could not even detect such targets, much less hit them —but don’t let Popovkin and his comrades learn about that.
Beyond the finger-pointing of who really did what first in space is the more important issue of cause and effect: whose causes justify whose effects? The Soviet space weapons track record shows that none of those systems was ever exploited by the US to justify building a similar one: the US usually chose its arsenal based on assessed requirements, not in a game of “mine is bigger than yours”. And any attempt by the US to field a mirror-image system would no doubt have been severely criticized by those same lobby groups (and newspapers) who today approvingly report on the new Russian claims that any US space weapon (or even any report in the New York Times of a new US space weapon) is full justification for their building one too.
To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space”, then, isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible. Shame on the space-war fear mongers: they are part of the problem, not part of the solution, which is accuracy.
James Oberg (www.jamesoberg.com) is a 22-year veteran of NASA mission control. He is now a writer and consultant in Houston.
Weaponization of space: who’s to blame?
by James Oberg
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Like children drawing glee in poking a stick into an anthill to see the turmoil they can cause, or teenagers throwing rocks at a chained junkyard dog just to hear him snarl, some elements of the Western news media seem to evince diabolical delight in seeing just how they can inflame good old fashioned Russian paranoia about “enemy threats”, especially from the United States. Regardless of the rationale, such exercises leave measurable scars on the international diplomatic scene.
In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war.
Accuracy and consistency has never been a hallmark of this kind of space journalism. It’s been a year now since a White House space policy paper announced the US intention to “deny use” of foreign space assets to interfere in US freedom of action in space, but from the very beginning, major Western media (and the outraged Russian officials who echoed them) have shrieked about an American declaration to “deny access to space” for anybody the US doesn’t like. (Nevermind that the policy makes it clear to anyone who actually reads it that the US has no problem with any other country doing the same things in space the US reserves for itself also to do.) All the news that fits this editorial conclusion is deemed “fit to print”, and it is, but news that does not fit, usually doesn’t get printed.
The latest inflammatory round in this cosmic debate of “It’s America’s fault again” is now taking place, coincident with the well-justified celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Space Age by the USSR’s Sputnik.
In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such “plans” to do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and tests—the kinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldn’t even be known to exist.
“We don’t want to fight in space,” Popovkin told his audience, “but on the other hand, we’ll not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. The consequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious.” And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: “If any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same,” he added, to the approving echo of press coverage around the world.
The blame for these trends is widely assigned to the United States (it’s always easier to confront an external threat if you can convince yourself you are in control, since if you believe you instigated the threat by bad behavior, this means you thus can dispel the threat by changing your own behavior). A perfect example of this theme can be found in the special pre-Sputnik-anniversary “Science Times” section of the New York Times, dated September 25. “From the Start, the Space Race Was an Arms Race”, accuses the headline over a long story by veteran space and science correspondent William Broad.
“Sputnik forced the Eisenhower administration to consider a scary new world of space arms,” the story opened. “It did so in two ways: talking peace and preparing for war.” That Eisenhower deliberately assigned America’s satellite project to a research rocket rather than a weapons rocket, and that after Sputnik he established a civilian-controlled space exploration administration (something the Soviets never did), and that saw space as an opportunity for a tension-reducing “Open Skies” strategy that ultimately prevailed and kept the peace for decades—these themes don’t fit the headline, and don’t appear in the text.
“That duality held firm for much of the ensuing half century,” Broad continued. “Washington publicly encouraged peaceful uses of space even while spending billions to explore futuristic weaponry like death rays fired from rocket ships.”
What Broad does not mention, here in the opening or anywhere else in the story, is that if there was any leader in the weaponization of space—not merely its use in support of military activities on Earth, but for space-to-space combat—it was the Soviet Union. What “Moscow spent” is not tallied or reported, just what “Washington spent,” in a perfectly contrived asymmetry of half-truth.
New York Times actually was researching a story on a Soviet orbital beam weapon project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system approached.
Not mentioned here, or anywhere else, ever, in the Times (as far as I’ve been able to determine), was the heavy-caliber cannon installed on a Soviet manned space station to destroy American spacecraft, manned or otherwise. Not discussed here are the orbital thermonuclear weapons designed, tested, and deployed by the USSR in the 1960s, whose operation was expressly forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967—a scrap of paper that provided no protection to their use in a sneak attack on the United States. Not mentioned here, or so far as I can tell ever in the history of the New York Times, are the handguns that the Russians are allowed to pack at the International Space Station (NASA’s website doesn’t mention them either), or the much more serious space-to-space attack vehicles (on standby in earth-based launch tubes) whose very existence Moscow denied for decades.
And despite the Times’ long campaign against the Reagan concept of “Strategic Defense” (“Star Wars” is the Hollywood-derived gimmicky misnomer for the project, which Broad follows again in his article by using the movie War of the Worlds as a current example of space weaponry), there is no mention here of the Soviet project in the mid-1980’s, contemporary with US studies of such a system, for an orbital beam weapon at anti-satellite and anti-missile functions. Broad’s omission of mention of this project—and the apparent absence of any other mention of it on the pages of the Times, anywhere, anyime—is particularly curious.
This is because I have learned that the New York Times actually was researching a story on this project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system (May 15, 1987) approached. I understand that significant work was done gathering newly-released Moscow materials, and with Russian scientists who had worked on the project.
But then—so goes the account I have obtained—the story was “spiked”, killed by the newspaper’s editorial board. Retired Soviet prime minister Mikhail Gorbachev, who had approved the orbital weapon project even as he publicly denounced Reagan’s interest in a similar system, wouldn’t cooperate—probably in consideration of his high reputation in the West, he didn’t seem to want the story to get any publicity. The Times acquiesced to this intention, and the story never appeared—and ten years later, a space anniversary special edition can now be written as if that aggressive Soviet space weapon never existed since the Times had never written about it.
Instead, Broad’s article (which for all we know sparked General Popovkin’s latest rants in Moscow) criticizes a project called the “Space Test Bed” as “a first step toward orbital antimissile arms”, even though he admits in the next sentence that it isn’t even funded for 2008-2009.
To call one of his sources, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), merely “a private group in Cambridge, Mass.”, is equally disingenuous: they have become known as a lobby group opposed to US weapons systems with a track record of ignoring Soviet and Russian space weapons even better than that of the New York Times. To them, the “Space Test Bed” would be “ineffective against speeding missiles, but probably good at shattering satellites”, a “real value”, according to an unnamed source there, that “is certain to be recognized, and perhaps responded to, by other nations” in a space arms race. Popovkin’s blank check to build his own space-to-space weapons, then, is being endorsed by the UCS, and they seem eager to bring this rationale (and their readiness to make excuses on his behalf) to his attention, on the cooperative pages of the Times.
To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space” isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible.
Overlooked by both experts and journalists is the inconvenient truth that proposed space-based anti-missile systems will be designed with guidance sensors that depend on hot rocket exhausts and large missile skins, the sort of thing you’d see during an actual launch. Satellites orbiting passively high above Earth are not nearly as big as missiles, and are nowhere near as hot. They usually aren’t firing rocket engines at all. Anti-missile systems of the type under consideration probably could not even detect such targets, much less hit them —but don’t let Popovkin and his comrades learn about that.
Beyond the finger-pointing of who really did what first in space is the more important issue of cause and effect: whose causes justify whose effects? The Soviet space weapons track record shows that none of those systems was ever exploited by the US to justify building a similar one: the US usually chose its arsenal based on assessed requirements, not in a game of “mine is bigger than yours”. And any attempt by the US to field a mirror-image system would no doubt have been severely criticized by those same lobby groups (and newspapers) who today approvingly report on the new Russian claims that any US space weapon (or even any report in the New York Times of a new US space weapon) is full justification for their building one too.
To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space”, then, isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible. Shame on the space-war fear mongers: they are part of the problem, not part of the solution, which is accuracy.
James Oberg (www.jamesoberg.com) is a 22-year veteran of NASA mission control. He is now a writer and consultant in Houston.
China missile test is justified
by Dhananjay Khadilkar
Friday, February 16, 2007 21:56 IST
MUMBAI: The anti-satellite missile test was China's way of bringing the US to the negotiating table for stopping the proliferation of space weapons. This was stated by Alfred Webre, co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and the Space Preservation Act that was introduced in the US Congress.
Talking to DNA about the Chinese test, Webre said that for the past 6 years China and Russia had played a positive role to curb the proliferation of space weapons.
However, the Bush administration had unilaterally terminated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by Nixon and Brezhnev in 2002 with a clear intention of developing highly sophisticated space weapons to dominate the world. It was in response to the US belligerence that China conducted the anti-satellite missile test.
According to Webre, the US government is engaged in the development of a platform in space which will be used to launch laser, depleted Uranium weapons called 'Rods of god', with an aim to dominate earth as well as space.
"The new space weapons are so sophisticated that an object of the size of the football can be targeted," Webre said.
The US wants to claim ownership of outer space which is a violation of the 1968 UN treaty on outer space.
Webre though feels that despite there being some justification there are a lot of negatives associated with the Chinese test. "The US would use this test as an excuse to further accelerate the development of missile defence system."
"Also, the destruction of a satellite has resulted in the increase of junk in space which poses a great threat to the satellites and space vehicles," he added.
Considering the current geopolitical scenario in which China is pitted against the US, the anti-satellite test won't be enough to force the US to back off from its agenda.
"Anything that China does is perceived as anti-US and vice-versa. A third country therefore can play a crucial role in bringing both the sides to the table and sign the Space Preservation Treaty," Webre said.
According to Webre, that country could be India. "India is a space superpower as well as an advocate of non-proliferation. India can easily attract a number of countries to sign the Space Preservation Treaty which bans the use of space weapons and promotes space economy."
Original article: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1080422
URL of this article: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspaceorg/2007/02/china_missile_t.html
Friday, February 16, 2007 21:56 IST
MUMBAI: The anti-satellite missile test was China's way of bringing the US to the negotiating table for stopping the proliferation of space weapons. This was stated by Alfred Webre, co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and the Space Preservation Act that was introduced in the US Congress.
Talking to DNA about the Chinese test, Webre said that for the past 6 years China and Russia had played a positive role to curb the proliferation of space weapons.
However, the Bush administration had unilaterally terminated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by Nixon and Brezhnev in 2002 with a clear intention of developing highly sophisticated space weapons to dominate the world. It was in response to the US belligerence that China conducted the anti-satellite missile test.
According to Webre, the US government is engaged in the development of a platform in space which will be used to launch laser, depleted Uranium weapons called 'Rods of god', with an aim to dominate earth as well as space.
"The new space weapons are so sophisticated that an object of the size of the football can be targeted," Webre said.
The US wants to claim ownership of outer space which is a violation of the 1968 UN treaty on outer space.
Webre though feels that despite there being some justification there are a lot of negatives associated with the Chinese test. "The US would use this test as an excuse to further accelerate the development of missile defence system."
"Also, the destruction of a satellite has resulted in the increase of junk in space which poses a great threat to the satellites and space vehicles," he added.
Considering the current geopolitical scenario in which China is pitted against the US, the anti-satellite test won't be enough to force the US to back off from its agenda.
"Anything that China does is perceived as anti-US and vice-versa. A third country therefore can play a crucial role in bringing both the sides to the table and sign the Space Preservation Treaty," Webre said.
According to Webre, that country could be India. "India is a space superpower as well as an advocate of non-proliferation. India can easily attract a number of countries to sign the Space Preservation Treaty which bans the use of space weapons and promotes space economy."
Original article: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1080422
URL of this article: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspaceorg/2007/02/china_missile_t.html
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)