Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Real-Life Star Wars: The Militarization of Space

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted November 15, 2007.


Space hasn't yet been weaponized but it is already highly militarized, thanks to a money-hungry arms industry and a commission started by Rumsfeld.
20071115story
20071115story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last January 11, a missile launched from China's Xichang Space Center destroyed a satellite 537 miles above the Earth's surface. Although the target was a weather satellite belonging to China itself (shot down ostensibly because it was obsolete), the act clearly rattled the U.S. space establishment.

Said one observer, The new space policy says we can defend the heavens with technology. But we can't, and the Chinese just proved it."

Precisely six years earlier, on Jan. 11, 2001, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization issued a report to Congress. The group, which had been headed by President-elect George W. Bush's Defense Secretary-to-be Donald Rumsfeld, asserted that it's only a matter of time until there's all-out war in the heavens:

We know from history that every medium -- air, land and sea -- has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual certainty, the U.S. must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space -- and ensure continuing superiority.

The current thinking of military and industry officials was revealed last month at the annual Strategic Space and Defense Conference in Omaha, Nebraska. At that meeting, held in the backyard of the US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).

And that strategy includes not just war mongering against countries like China and Pakistan by "space warriors," but it poses a threat to the safety and liberties of all Americans.

The Militarization of Space

Military space officials will have to develop new doctrine and concepts for offensive and defensive space operations, power projection in, from, and through space, and other military uses of space. -- Rumsfield's Commission Report

The opening talk at the Strategic Space conference was given by USSTRATCOM acting commander Lt. Gen. Robert Kehler, who repeated that old cliche about the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." Implicitly responding to China's January self-attack, he added, "Well you know what? We get paid to deal with interesting times."

But how USSTRATCOM plans to deal with them isn't clear. In 2002, the Air Force undersecretary for military space acquisitions told The New York Times that "We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space," but that "we are exploring those possibilities."

This fall marks the 40th anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty, an agreement among 98 nations (including the U.S.) that, banned nuclear arms from space but left out mention of other weapons. Nevertheless, no nation has ever launched an attack into or from space, and the costly US missile-defense program that began life two decades ago as President Reagan's "Star Wars" dream continues to founder.

Spending on missile defense has doubled since 2000, and the program is expanding into Poland and the Czech Republic. But Bruce Gagnon of Brunswick, Maine, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, believes the US Missile Defense Agency, with its current official budget of more than $9 billion, is just "a Trojan Horse."

He says, "Missile defense brings in the money but the real story is offensive, preemptive attack technologies for global strike. That's where the real action is." Gagnon agrees that current U.S. space policy remains entirely consistent with the aggressive stance taken in the Rumsfeld report, "although they have slacked off just a bit on their rhetoric."

In September, The New York Times relayed a similar message from a former Pentagon official, who said that space weapons are "still definitely part of the program, but they don't emphasize it because the arms-control people come out of the woodwork."

From the World Policy Institute and other sources, we know about some of the weapons under planning or development in the murkier parts of the military-industrial budget:

  • Micro-satellites that could stalk and destroy satellites of other nations
  • The Evolutionary Air and Space Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) project, a series of orbiting mirrors to direct beams from ground- or air-based lasers at targets in space
  • The ground-based Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite Weapon, which could shoot down satellites with missiles, along with the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, a missile-defense system that could double as an anti-satellite weapon
  • The Washington Post revealed this week that the Congress has appropriated $100 million for a space-weapon system called "Falcon," described as "a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles ... in less than two hours." House and Senate conferees wrote, "Enhancing these capabilities is critical, particularly following the Chinese anti-satellite-weapons demonstration last January."
  • Hypervelocity Rod Bundles, or "Rods from God," 20-foot-long, one-foot-diameter tungsten poles (existing only on paper at this point) that would be hurled from low-Earth orbit at 25,000 miles per hour to pulverize "hardened" targets in enemy territory.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: space, weapons, militarization

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I would rather have weapons in space....
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 15, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
than war in Iraq.

Money better spent IMO.

Mainly because we can counter true threats to America.

Like those from Red China.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hitler started it. Posted by: Artkansas
Dangerous and short-sighted in the extreme
Posted by: northerner on Nov 15, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for weapons systems that will not actually work, but run the extremely real risk of rendering the low Earth orbit environment unusable for all commercial, scientific and military satellites for hundreds of years.

Yeah, that makes sense. Unfortunately the whole world may wind up suffering from this lovely mix of US arrogance and paranoia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lost in Space
Posted by: rocketman on Nov 15, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
”Rep.John Murtha famously turned against the Iraq war in 2005, but he continues working hard to bring missile-defense pork projects to his state.”” Well, that’s the beauty of Murtha and many democrats (and republicans as well) , at the end of the day, it’s all about their interests and pork!

China did a lot to bring to the forefront their intention of develop the technology that can destroy satellites. Nothing can be more inflammatory to other nations than knowing their eyes can be blinded - you can’t hit what you can’t see!

Combine this with the enormous increase in China’s military spending/capabilities, growing economy, increased requirements for oil etc.etc.. and projecting the future isn’t too hard!

Those that control resources and outer space will win (what ever that means). If we don’t develop the technology and systems that enable us to protect our satellites or start working together with other nations more responsibly we are doomed to be lost in space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lost in Space Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Lost in Space Posted by: rocketman
nonesy
Posted by: z on Nov 15, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alas and alack, we have but another way to destroy ourselves. There is no limit to man's ingenuity for destroying, so why expect anything but the complete and utter destruction of all that we are and would be....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can Peak Oil stop this madness in space?
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 15, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean right now these weapons systems requires millions of barrels of petroleum just to manufacture them let alone use and maintain them. Am I missing something here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Falcon from yesterday's Telegraph
Posted by: pinget on Nov 15, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From The Telegraph yesterday, "The most ambitious project in a new $459 billion (£221.5 billion) defence spending Bill is the Falcon, a reusable "hypersonic vehicle" that could fly at six times the speed of sound and deliver 12,000lb of bombs anywhere in the world within minutes.

The bombs' destructive power would be multiplied by the Earth's gravitational pull as they travelled at up to 25 times the speed of sound towards their target.

The cost of the vehicle has not been revealed, but a spokesman for the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) said a first test flight was scheduled for next year."

That scares me. 60 years ago only the US had nuclear weapons; now 19 countries do. 60 years from now, when 19 nations have the Falcon, what will that be like?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imagine if the money were put to better uses
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Nov 15, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of how much could be accomplished if they put this money into the space program or renewable energy.

One can only dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Defense Pretense
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 15, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Defense Pretense

A series of talks on the subject, worth listening to if you want more specifics on this very important subject... literally threatening human survival.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not?
Posted by: profmarcus on Nov 15, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you think space hasn't been weaponized, think again... in exactly the same way that every single digital and electronic transaction conducted over any and all public networks is being sniffed and scanned by powerful, government-controlled software vacuuming it up, there are powerful space-based weapons pointed toward land targets and even more powerful land-based weapons pointed to space targets in existence right now... among other places, testing takes place in the kirtland/sandia base complex in albuquerque, and the weapons themselves are based throughout the continental u.s., alaska and hawaii, in addition to several global sites, including diego garcia in the indian ocean... wake up and smell the coffee...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No surprise
Posted by: Lector on Nov 15, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that we would expand our wars into outer space. There will not only be no sanctuary left in space, there will not be a centimeter of safe harbor left for any human being on the planet under the scrutiny of hair-triggered high-tech weapons and surveillance equipment. Nevertheless, we are probably in the final transition of human civilization on the planet and the ones who control space will control the destiny of our depleted little world.

Pointless

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Transparency is Essential
Posted by: Bill Hawkins on Nov 15, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The developments in space should be reported on more extensively so the American people can monitor their government in this important field.

Iraq is an example of what happens when we assume our leaders know what they are doing.

Stan Cox has performed a public service with this outstanding article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Transparency is Essential Posted by: VZEQICVA
Missing Nukes
Posted by: rockpicker on Nov 15, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Project Camelot is reprinting a full synopsis and analysis of the Minot/Barksdale nuke incident of late Aug.

We might want to press Congress and the Pentagon for full disclosure on this one , before embarking on even less manageable ventures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Queen of Heaven...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Nov 15, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it says in the book of Revelation that the Red Dragon will pursue the Queen of Heaven and the Child..

This is a reference to Hebrew astrology and the Queen of Heaven is the Moon and Child the Earth and the Red Dragon Red China..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a taxpaying citizen I demand cooler-looking space weapons!
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Nov 15, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got the coolest-looking jets, tanks and ships that the world has ever seen. When are the taxpayers going to get an equally badass-looking satellite? Where is our orbital doomsday device with sleek lines and something glowing and purple inside?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The militarization of resources
Posted by: Missing Piece on Nov 15, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us not argue that this has never happened, but did it ever amount to anything more than a futile gesture of desperation? Wars take resources, and, when resources are already scarce, fighting wars over resources becomes a lethal exercise in futility. Those with more resources would be expected to win. I am not arguing that wars over resources will not occur. I am suggesting that they will be futile, and that victory in these conflicts will be barely distinguishable from defeat. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2007/ OrlovLessonsPartOne.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Putting weapons in space is an impeachable offense
Posted by: Wexler on Nov 15, 2007 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Article VI of the Constitution, treaties the US signs become part of "the supreme law of the land".

Bush has already violated this part of the Constitution numerous times, and likely will continue to do so because most people either don't know about this or don't give a crap about it.

Treaty Buster

One question I would like all the presidential contenders to answer is this:

"What will you do to restore the Executive Branch to its Constitutionally-defined role?" A couple of the candidates have touched on this issue. The only GOPER who's talking about it so far is Ron Paul, which probably explains why he's wildly popular with any Republicans who still have cognitive powers.

-Wexler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EVERYTHING FOR WAR, NOTHING FOR THE PEOPLE
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 15, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we see the priorities of the USA and her politicians. Total military dominance, control of strategic natural resources, domination over the poor and weaker countries. Everything to protect the corporate, well-moneyed ruling elite, nothing for the people. Meanwhile, the people, 45 million of them have no health insurance. Many go sick. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Americans are homeless, thousands even go hungry. But America can dominate the skies, can even dominate space. But, what a land, a land that cannot and refuses to care for her own people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uses of Space
Posted by: Monitor523 on Nov 15, 2007 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to point out that warfare in space is not some remote thing - even missiles designed to attack satellites can be seen as defensive weapons against satellites designed to attack the ground. And space is not far away at all - probably much closer to you than the nearest big city (outside the one you're in, if any). Space begins about 50 miles away. Even 300 miles for a Low Earth Orbit is not a long way for a supersonic missile.

This is the unfortunate flip-side to the old counter that money spent *on* space is not spent *in* space - it's part of the Earth-based economy (and goes largely to companies like Northrop, Boeing, etc.). But there is a big difference in what it's used to produce - spinoffs of the space program can be found in almost every object produced by modern manufacturing. So there's a lot of incentive to keep doing "something" in space. Unfortunately, today, "something" tends to mean preparing for or fighting wars.

Just as on Earth, the most persuasive argument that we shouldn't be making our R&D investments through militarization is to suggest some other way to do it. In particular, it's not enough just to advocate against weaponization of space - that gets no traction unless you can suggest something better to do there. There are plenty of possibilities - the potential wealth in space vastly outstrips our limited resources on this planet. From solar power to mineral resources in asteroids to (pollution-free!) zero-gravity manufacturing, the long-term prospects abound. In the short-term, it's harder to make a case - it would take many years to reconfigure our programs. But a positive, hopeful vision is the best answer to a fearful, hostile one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ml
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Nov 15, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we follow the money trail on this stuff?? Who, specifically, is getting enormously rich on this race to space domination. I thought, at first, as I read this - leadership paranoia! But, even paranoids know where their billions come from.

Can we 'name names', identifies companies and their executives and board members. And then remind them that for $$$ they are about to destroy the world. (But, they probably, like Strangelove, have their bunkers and bunnies.)

How did we get so mad?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no colonies, please
Posted by: mwildfire on Nov 15, 2007 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was already aware of this situation, so it wasn't the article that impressed me so much as the comments. Half of them say something along the lines of "We have to do this before China does, space war is inevitable so we must win." One said that such war is inevitable so we should be getting human colonies going elswhere so some of us will survive.
Well, I beg to differ. If we're this goddam stupid--if even Alternet posters are ready to advocate an escalation of already incomprehensibly vicious warfare, for no better reason than an assumption that "they"--seen here as the Chinese--are surely gunning for us--then we should not continue to contaminate the solar system but wipe ourselves out and put an end to the threat. Unfortunately, this approach has quite a bit of collateral damage, in destroying Earth's ecosystems. Only the one critter is dangerously insane--if we must commit species suicide, why can't we do it with germs, so we take nobody with us except perhaps primates? Of course, the US and other governments are working on that too...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The military-industrial-intelligence complex is desperate for enemies
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Nov 15, 2007 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something that will justify the multi-trillion-dollar gravy train of free money from the government printing presses.

China as a military threat? For people who can only think of destruction and murder, it makes sense. But if China really wants to clip the wings of the US eagle, it need merely throw it's dollar holdings on the open currency market, trading it out for euros.

That will finally put a stop to this constant US aggression against planet earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spy Telescope on Mountain in Mexico - check it out...
Posted by: twocreeks on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DOD funding via U of Maryland gets the powers that be a huge radio telescope on a remote mountain top in Mexico. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/16251.html Read the fine print here - bet this monitors cel and email traffic for most of south of the border. Friends in Mazatlan are concerned. Also this website on this huge, overlooked project http://www.lmtgtm.org/
Interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As the Sisters of Mercy sang...
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Nov 15, 2007 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
come a time, dominion.

while i agree pork projects in the name of dollars is pathetic--as this admin is without a doubt--ther eis NO doubt a chinese military is steadily being built up and will rival, if not surpass our own.

at that point, for you nay sayers, were i china, i'd cash in the debt and then push that beefed up military in the face of the US.

don't believe it? china has a blue water navy compliments of buying russian that can take out our aircraft carriers--and we have yet to prove a design for the defence. i know the far wings scoff at this--the neo-cons in their hubris believe/feel our naval fleet invulnerable to everything save their "gawd" and the progressive who believe/feel china would never do such a thing.

mark my words--learn linux/unix, have travel kits ready to go, and have a remote location with abundant water and food resources staked out if you're under 20. might want to reconsider that abhorrence to firearms and how great your vegan lifestyle is that our country can afford you, but to each their own.

oh, and learn how to generate power with a windmill or watermill--you're gonna need it to keep the revolution alive.

--yes, i'm serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you expect anything else?
Posted by: ArtemInox on Nov 15, 2007 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont see what the surprise, outrage or indignation I'm supposed to feel is. Is space exempt from human nature? Or rather, the nature of the state in all its forms?

http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this trip really necessary?
Posted by: doubter on Nov 16, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chinese are making a ton of money from America's short-sighted, self destructive greed. They will milk the American cow for all it is worth. The Chinese have seen the USSR bankrupt itself in an arms race. They are watching the USA bankrupt itself with insane levels of military spending. They might conclude that military power, beyond that necessary for self defence, is a burden upon a state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is this trip really necessary? Posted by: weatherking
Defending anything in a nuclear world
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 17, 2007 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US had 30,000 A-bombs last time I looked. Hopefully they've mothballed a few since then for lack of funds. China has a bunch of the bombs too.

How does a war in space make us more secure? ALso, how does it make China more secure? All of these oddball weapons do nothing to answer this question. If you can shoot down your opponent's defenseless weather satellite but you leave all of you opponent's nukes in place, where's the victory?

"Rods from God" works but... It costs a million artillery shells to do what one conventional shell would do. It is the ultimate military-industrial weapon. Costs a fortune, looks cool to the average 8 year old, and hit or miss.

So there you have it. Cool stuff that has no actual war fighting use due to nuclear standoff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]