Satellite shoot down nothing more than anti-satellite test

News release from Bruce Gagnon, of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

"The Bush administration is magnifying the risk to justify the testing of new dangerous and provocative offensive space warfare technologies,” says Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network, which is based in Maine.

“At the time when we need to be constraining space debris-creating ASAT testing, this test will throw open the door to a new arms race in space.”

The Strategic Command’s (StratCom) high-tech Global Operations Center, buried beneath Offutt AFB in Omaha, Nebraska, will play the lead role in coordinating the ASAT test. StratCom now heads all military space operations since merging with the U.S. Space Command in 2002.

"The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the U.S. has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," a Russian Defense Ministry statement has concluded.

For many years Russia and China have gone to the United Nations General Assembly with a resolution calling for a treaty to ban all weapons in space. The U.S. and Israel have annually voted against the treaty while every other nation in the world supports such a new legal ban on space weapons. The U.S. aerospace industry says that Star Wars will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet Earth.

Global Network board member Stacey Fritz, Coordinator of No Nukes North in Alaska where so-called missile defense interceptors have been deployed says, “A culmination of events this month reveals the true direction of space weapons technology. China and Russia have formally proposed a new ban on space weapons on the heels of polls showing widespread public support for such a treaty in both the U.S. and Russia. Not only does the U.S. refuse to consider the ban, but also after denying for years that these systems have offensive capabilities, the rogue Bush administration proposes to demonstrate missile defense's anti-satellite technology. The doors of the Trojan horse are spilling open and the new arms race is on."

Three U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers, outfitted with missile interceptors, will fire at the satellite as it falls back to Earth from positions just off Hawaii. These same Aegis ships are now being home ported by the Navy throughout the Asian-Pacific region giving the U.S. the ability to encircle China’s coast. These Aegis ships could give the U.S. the ability to intercept China’s twenty nuclear missiles that today are capable of reaching the west coast of the continental U.S. The Pentagon has been war-gaming a U.S. first-strike attack on China, set in 2016, for the past several years. In that attack the Aegis ships would negate China’s nuclear retaliatory force by intercepting their missiles in the boost phase.

The Global Network is made up of more than 140-affiliated peace groups around the world working to halt the nuclearization and weaponization of space.

For more information see www.space4peace.org

The news brings us the story of "space pioneers" launching privately funded craft into the heavens. A special prize is offered to the first private aerospace corporation who can successfully take a pilot and a "space tourist" into orbit.

Is this "privatization" of space a good thing? Is there any reason to be concerned about the trend? Are there any serious questions that should be raised at this historic moment?

Three major issues come immediately to mind concerning space privatization. Space as an environment, space law, and profit in space.

We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m.p.h. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close. Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be destroyed by debris.

As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space. The time as certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late.

When the United Nations concluded the 1979 Moon Treaty the U.S. refused, and still does, to sign it. One key reason is that the treaty outlaws military bases on it but also outlaws any nation, corporation, or individual from making land "claims" on the planetary body. The 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty takes similar position in regard to all of the planetary bodies. The U.N., realizing we needed to preempt potential conflict over "ownership" of the planetary bodies, made claim that the heavens were the province of all humankind.

As the privateers move into space, in addition to building space hotels and the like, they also want to claim ownership of the planets because they hope to mine the sky. Gold has been discovered on asteroids, helium-3 on the moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars. It was recently reported that the Haliburton Corporation is now working with NASA to develop new drilling capabilities to mine Mars.

One organization that seeks to rewrite space law is called United Societies in Space (USIS). They state, "USIS provides legal and policy support for those who intend to go to space. USIS encourages private property rights and investment. Space is the Free Market Frontier." Check their web site at http://www.space-law.org/

The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space. Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier."

Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free." In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment."

So let's just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars. Who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police?

In the Congressional study published in 1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years we get some inkling of the answer. The forward of the book was signed by many politicians like former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). The author reported to Congress on the importance of military bases on the moon and suggested that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the "gravity well," between the Earth and the moon. The author reported to Congress that "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return."

Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone" where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth.

After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the "new world," Queen Isabella began the 100 year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new "interests and investments" around the world. This helped create the global war system.

Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more. Privatization really means that profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
http://www.space4peace.org/
globalnet@mindspring.com

Commentary from Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space     [1-15-04]

Two leading experts on the space program are warning that the expected space policy announcement by George W. Bush to establish permanent bases on the moon and an aggressive program to take humans to Mars will be an expensive and dangerous undertaking.

Dr. Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Graduate Center, CUNY) and Bruce Gagnon (Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space) both have years of experience monitoring and writing about the space program and working to stop the use of nuclear power in space.

An integral part of the Bush announcement is expected to be the nuclear rocket -- what is now known as "Project Prometheus," named after the God of Fire. The nuclear rocket would cut in half the amount of time it would take to get to Mars, and would have military applications as well.

According to Dr. Kaku, "Perhaps one of the greatest risks facing this ambitious program is the use of dangerous, unproven technologies which could backfire, eroding public confidence in the space program. One such dangerous technology is the nuclear rocket, which is now seriously being reconsidered after being rightly rejected for the past several decades. The nuclear booster rocket has gone through many stages of development in the past, and all of them have been cancelled with good cause."

Said Bruce Gagnon, "There is legitimate reason to question the plan for the establishment of bases on the moon. The military has long eyed the moon as a potential base of operations as warfare is moved into the heavens. The moon is also the site of rare helium-3 which many view as the replacement for fossil fuels as supplies dwindle on Earth. Now is the time for a thoughtful and thorough debate about the expected Bush space proposals."

In a New York Times op-ed piece called A New Pathway to the Stars, space writer Timothy Ferris wrote on December 21, 2003 that "Another possible energy source of the future -- nuclear fusion reactors burning clean, safe helium 3 -- has its own lunar connection. Helium 3, rare on Earth, is abundant on the moon. When fusion reactors start coming on line, lunar entrepreneurs may stand to make the kind of money their predecessors raked in during the gold rush and the oil boom."

NOTE:  The article is the the New York Times archive, so you will have to pay to access it.

The U.S. never signed the 1979 Moon Treaty that was created at the United Nations to prevent a rush of land claims and military bases on the planetary body. In fact, in a 1959 U.S. Army study entitled The Establishment of a Lunar Outpost the once secret plan stated that "The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential U.S. interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space…to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required."

The moon base theme reemerged in a 1989 study written for the U.S. Congress by John Collins. The study, published in book form, was called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years and the forward to the book was signed by political leaders at the time including Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) .

Congressional staffer Collins reported that the U.S. would need to have military bases on the moon in order to control the pathway between the Earth and moon. Collins went on to conclude that with U.S. bases on the moon, "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return." Obviously the author was envisioning the day when aerospace corporations would be hard at work "mining the sky" for profit.

Said Bruce Gagnon, "Just as the Spanish Armada and British Navy were created to protect the "interests and investments" in the new world, space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit. The United Nations created the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty as ways to circumvent the warlike tendencies of humankind as we step out into the cosmos. These treaties hoped to ensure that conflict over ''national appropriation'' of the planetary bodies could be avoided."

The Bush administration appears to be heading in the opposite direction. The Bush space plan will be enormously expensive, dangerous, and will create unnecessary conflict as they expand nuclear power and weapons into space -- all disguised as the noble effort to hunt for the "origins of life."

The Global Network, founded in 1992 to stop the nuclearization and weaponization of space, has over 170 affiliate groups all over the world. The website of the organization is http://www.space4peace.org

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
Website:  http://www.space4peace.org
E-mail:  globalnet@mindspring.com