Arms Race in Space? By Mike Moore - Independent - Price of Liberty
07/25/08
Arms Race in Space?
By Mike Moore


Mission Statement
update 1/01/07
 
Editorial Policy
 
Submissions
 
Letters to the Editor
 
Commentary
on the News
 
Return to Home Page

February 18, 2008

The University of Maryland has issued the results of a new national poll indicating that the American people overwhelmingly oppose putting weapons in space, so long as no other country deploys such weapons.

Where did that come from?

Actually, the United States has been talking about space weapons for decades. Consider this bureaucratese from the U.S. Air Force Space Command’s Strategic Master Plan FY06 and Beyond: “Non-nuclear prompt global strike from and through space can transform the war fighter’s role in the future. Most notably, a non-nuclear strike capability, possibly in the form of a Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) launched by a ballistic missile, air launch system, or a SOV [Space Operations Vehicle], could provide the President and the Secretary of Defense with a range of space power options. These options are for deterrence and flexible response when time is absolutely critical, risks associated with other options are too high, or when no other courses of action are available.”

Translation: Space weapons could give the United States the upper hand in some future national security emergency.

Such arguments have been repeated in dozens of public documents and think-tank reports in recent years. We’re not talking about missile defense, which has been debated for more than three decades. We’re talking about ground-, sea-, air- and even space-based weapons that could destroy the satellites of other nations. We’re talking about space-based weapons that, in theory, could pulverize earthly targets. And we’re talking about “space power options” that—in Pentagon-ese—could give the United States “full spectrum dominance” in space.

To be sure, space dominance has not been adopted as U.S. policy. But we are quietly edging toward it. And make no mistake: Such a policy would be regarded by other nations as an unacceptable violation of global norms—and a threat to their sovereignty.

“He who controls space controls the Earth” is an assertion that began popping up after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I in 1957. The assertion is widely believed.

What would America do if we thought another country were about to place weapons in space? What would we do if China starts building advanced anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons that could bring the international economy to a halt by crippling global communications and navigation systems? What would we do if Russia announced plans to build tiny unmanned space bombers capable of striking earthly targets? What would we do if the country in question actually had the technical and financial resources to pull it off?

We would condemn such plans and call on the international community to impose draconian economic and political sanctions until the policy was reversed. One can almost hear a president telling the nation, “This violation of international law and custom, this threat to peace and freedom, this tyranny of the heavens, shall not stand.”

If efforts to stop the deployment of such weapons failed, the world would have a new space race. And military dominance of space, rather than peaceful space exploration, would be the goal.

Several nations, including China, have the potential to conduct limited military operations in space. But only the United States has the financial ability and technical wizardry to develop a comprehensive space-dominance system. We could—but we shouldn’t.

If the United States pursues such a policy, it would do so with the best of intentions. America would say that it would never deny access to space to another country, except under the most extreme circumstances. But what nation could afford to rely solely on the good judgment and benign intentions of another—in this case, the global “hyper power”?

Most of the nations with national security or commercial interests in space—whether those interests involve research, navigation, communication, exploration or observation—are on record as favoring a new treaty that would prevent an arms race in space. The United States opposes it.

Rather than explore our military options, the United States should denounce the “weaponization” of space and lead the treaty effort. A good question for the remaining presidential candidates: Will you fight for such a treaty, or risk a new arms race?

San Francisco Chronicle

Your comments welcome!

Mike Moore is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, former editor of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and author of the book, Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance.

John Semmens is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a research project manager in the Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center, and contributing author to the Independent Institute book, Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship and the Future of Roads, edited by Gabriel Roth.

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).

Dr. James L. Payne is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of Lytton Research and Analysis and author of numerous books, including A History of Force: Exploring the Worldwide Movement Against Habits of Coercion, Bloodshed, and Mayhem,and he has taught political science at Yale University, Wesleyan University, Johns Hopkins University, and Texas A & M University.

Ernest C. Pasour is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Resource Economics at North Carolina State University, and author of Plowshares & Pork Barrels: The Political Economy of Agriculture (with Randy Rucker) and Agriculture and the State from the Independent Institute.

Randal R. Rucker is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University, and co-author (with E.C. Pasour, Jr.) of Plowshares & Pork Barrels: The Political Economy of Agriculture.

Charles V. Peña is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project.

Full Biography and Recent Publications

William Ratliff is Adjunct Fellow at the Independent Institute, Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and a frequent writer on Chinese and Cuban foreign policies.

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Full Biography and Recent Publications

Jonathan J. Bean is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor of History at Southern Illinois University, and editor of the forthcoming book, Race and Liberty: The Classical Liberal Tradition of Civil Rights.

Anthony Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute. He earned his bachelor's degree in American history from the University of California at Berkeley and gave the undergraduate history commencement speech in 2003. In addition to his work with the Independent Institute, he regularly writes for numerous news and commentary web sites, including LewRockwell.com, Future of Freedom Foundation, and the Rational Review.
Full Biography and Recent Publications

Dominick T. Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (Connecticut) and a research fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. He is author of Antitrust & Monopoly (Independent Institute, 1998).

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is director of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. He is widely published and has lectured on world economic and political issues including at the Mont Pelerin Society, Naumann Foundation (Germany), FAES Foundation (Spain), Brazilian Institute of Business Studies, Fundación Libertad (Argentina), CEDICE Foundation (Venezuela), Florida International University, and the Ecuadorian Chamber of Commerce. He is the author of the Independent Institute books The Che Guevara Myth and Liberty for Latin America. Full biography and recent publications.

Gabriel Roth is a transport and privatization consultant and a research fellow at the Independent Institute, where he is editing a book on private-sector roles in the provision of roads, Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads.


Pierre Lemieux is an economist and co-director of the Economics and Liberty Research Group at the Université du Québec en Outaouais and a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.


Alexander Tabarrok is research director at The Independent Institute, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, editor of the Independent Institute books, Entrepreneurial Economics, The Voluntary City (with D. Beito and P. Gordon), and Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime.

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute, author of Against Leviathan and Crisis and Leviathan, and editor of the scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. Click here for a bio on Dr. Higgs, the noted economist and historian.

William Marina is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus of History at Florida Atlantic University.

David T. Beito is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate Professor of History at the University of Alabama, and co-editor of the book, The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society.

William Marina and David T. Beito belong to "Liberty and Power," a group blog at the History News Network.

For further articles and studies, see the Center on Peace & Liberty and OnPower.org.



Nicolas Heidorn is a public policy intern at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

For further information, see the Independent Institute’s book on wasteful farm programs, Agriculture and the State: Market Processes and Bureaucracy, by Ernest C. Pasour, Jr.



New from Ivan Eland!
THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed
Most Americans don’t think of their government as an empire, but in fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the twentieth century. In The Empire Has No Clothes, Ivan Eland, a leading expert on U.S. defense policy and national security, examines American military interventions around the world from the Spanish-American War to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Buy It Today.


Complete
Archive

Ratcheting Up Sanctions on Iran Is the Wrong Approach

Kudos for Nancy Pelosi’s Visit to Syria

U.S.–Made Mess in Somalia

The Populist Republic

Chertoff Uses Totalitarian Comparisons To Defend War on Terror

Missile Defense Obsession Lessens U.S. Security

Time for Iraqi Self-Determination

The Challenge of the “Sects”

Rosita’s Crime

Pakistan Is Going Down the Road of the Shah’s Iran

The U.S. Military Presence in South Korea Is Not a Model for Iraq

A Responsibility to Help Iraqi Refugees

Accept Reality: Iran and North Korea Will Not Be Denied Nuclear Weapons

The Return of Fidel Castro and Post-Fidel Cuba

More Intervention Equals More Proliferation

Would a Full-Blown Iraqi Civil War Really Be that Bad for the United States?

Corny Politics

If You Miss the First Time, Try Firing Another 300,000 Rounds

Turkey’s Crescent

The President Is Trying to Scare Us Again

Government Blunders Create More Demand for Its Services

Back to Basics

The Carnage in Iraq—Past, Present, and Future

Mine Your Own Business

Another 9/11—in a Long Series

Getting Them Before They Get Us

Paraguay’s Illusion

Schizophrenic U.S. Farm Policy

Fujimori’s Shadow

The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction

The Glass Is Half Full

U.S. Role in Bringing Pakistan to the Abyss

Crackpot Realism Is Riding High

Blame the People Who Elected Them?

Does Nation Building Work?

Fox vs. Chavez

Four Types of Government Operatives: Bullies, Muggers, Sneak Thieves, and Con Men

The People’s Gold

Libertarian Foreign Policy in the Hobbesian Crosshairs: A Reply to Bret Stephens

Courts Confront Climate Change

Gas about Public Transit

Chile—Birth Pangs of Citizenship