[Peace-discuss] Bush and space weapons

[patton paul]

Published on Monday, March 15, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Reining in Our Weaponry: Is U.S. Air Force Lost in Space?
by Theresa Hitchens


At last, Congress may be waking up to one of the most critical strategic
blunders the administration of President Bush is preparing to make: the
weaponization of outer space. Late last month, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-
Walnut Creek, became one of the first members of Congress to actively
challenge the U.S. Air Force on its new strategic plan to turn space into
the next battlefield, bristling with orbiting weapons designed to attack
satellites, ballistic missiles and even targets on Earth.

Tauscher's pointed questions to Air Force Undersecretary Peter Teets and
Air Force Space Command Chief Gen. Lance Lord at a Feb. 25 hearing of the
House Armed Services Committee confirmed that the service already has
started down this dangerous pathway. Since the inauguration of Bush and
the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, the question
of space weapons has been lingering in the administration's in-box. There
is a high- powered faction within the administration that sees space as
the next "high frontier" to be dominated by the U.S. military, and a
critical future enabler of the pre-emptive strike strategy articulated by
the White House in the wake of Sept. 11.

While the administration has not formally revised the Clinton-era National
Space Policy that has long been viewed as eschewing space weapons, the
Pentagon nonetheless seems to have given the Air Force the green light to
proceed in developing them. Until recently, Air Force leaders have been
coy about their long-term intentions for space warfare, focusing instead
on the carefully crafted "corporate message" that U.S. space assets --
military, intelligence and commercial -- are vulnerable and need to be
protected. Any discussion of offensive space weapons was gingerly
deflected, or downplayed with assurances that the service is primarily
interested in "reversible and temporary" methods of disrupting enemy use
of satellites during future conflicts.

Air Force officials are painfully aware of the political sensitivity of
space weapons, and with good reason. Since the dawn of the space age, the
American body-politic has never been comfortable with the concept. For
example, in a poll earlier this month by space.com, an online news and
information source for space professionals and enthusiasts, 66 percent of
respondents said Pentagon plans for "space defense" would prompt a
dangerous new arms race, whereas only 34 percent believed the plans would
"deter space wars."

But the service's gloves came off with the Feb. 17 release of the new U.S.
Air Force Transformation Flight Plan. The document details a stunning
array of exotic weapons to be pursued over the next decade: from an
air-launched missile designed to knock satellites out of low orbit, to
ground- and space- based lasers for attacking both missiles and
satellites, to "hypervelocity rod bundles" (nicknamed Rods from God)
designed to burst from space into the atmosphere at high speeds and slam
into deeply buried bunkers. Far from being aimed solely at the protection
of U.S. space capabilities, such weapons are instead intended for
offensive, first-strike missions.

Tauscher is right to be concerned about the wisdom of the Air Force plans.
U.S. unilateral weaponization of space is likely to set off a space arms
race that in the long-run will undercut, rather than enhance, U.S.
national security and global stability. Up to now, most nations of the
world -- with the exception of the United States -- have expressed a
desire to ban space weapons under an international treaty. The U.S.
military's obvious interest in space weapons, however, has led some
countries, such as China and India, to consider countering with their own
anti-space programs.

A space arms race would have no true winners. Launching and maintaining
satellites and spacecraft is exorbitantly expensive. Satellites also are
inherently vulnerable; therefore space-based weapons would be high-value,
"use them or lose them" assets -- resulting in itchy trigger fingers
during a crisis. Indeed, past Pentagon war games have found that use of
space weapons often led to rapid escalation of hostilities -- in some
cases straight to all-out nuclear war.

Finally, destroying satellites will create debris, already recognized by
the international space community as a threat to future safe operations in
space. Tauscher has taken a first step toward forcing the "space hawks" in
the Bush administration to explain their misguided goal of space dominion.
Here's hoping others in Congress will follow her lead.

Theresa Hitchens is vice president of the Center for Defense Information,
a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, and the director of the CDI Space
Security Project.

2004 San Francisco Chronicle