Space

It is indeed good that President Obama is at last looking at SPACE, with proposals for stopping the could-be endless (and certainly highly dangerous) pollution being caused by abandoned space craft.

BUT with the National Space Policy of the United States of America [published June 28th 2010] he is not proposing anything that would prevent the MILITARISATION of space.

Indeed, the Policy’s National Security Space Guidelines will promote just that. It is all particularly in connection with the Missile Defence Systems the Obama Administration is promoting

The adoption of Missile Defences is itself a dangerous (and fatuous) development; and alas, the UK is plugged in to the US System, by way of the US bases at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill.

Missile Defences are, rather than part of a defensive strategic posture, part of an offensive one: you – pre-emptively – attack your opponent’s ‘deterrent’ missiles and then hope your missile defences will suffice against his reduced retaliation. (This seems to be Israeli General Gantz’s approach: he sees Israel’s Iron Dome as “enabling” to his offensive forces.) President G.W. Bush declared ‘pre-emption’ lawful for the US.
So MD are proliferatory because your opponent will add to his deterrent missiles – no-one with a deterrent force will wish to see it negatived by others’ MD.
Alternatively MD will disrupt Deterrence, and when your opponent adds to his deterrent missiles, you will have to expand your own MD forces -you always need more interceptors than he has missiles.

This means new arms races as each of the several sides (US, Israel, India, China, Poland, Japan, Taiwan, etc., etc.) seeks to improve its own various systems, and overtake or bypass its opponents’.

MDs are not reliable: there can be, no certainty they can work as claimed – all tests are against ‘own’ targets and even one nuclear warhead getting through is too much. Currently, a confidential report – Admiral Balisle’s report on the US’s ship-borne AEGIS, that has been leaked – details the problem: one retired naval intelligence official describing Admiral Balisle’s report as “utterly damning” (DefenseNews June 28th 2010)

They would anyway be endlessly expensive – technologically and financially a black hole. And of course they have to be launched automatically – there can be no time for civil, or even military, consultation. This means they cannot be proper for NATO, whatever NATO’s Secretary General’s views, let alone for cooperation with Russia. Anyway what is “automatically” identified as an “incoming missile” may be no such thing, and the launching of a missile against it could be seen as an act of war.

Missile Defences require – and are already securing – the Militarization of Space, by the United States, and by others. Can we welcome that?

not published

  • Share/Bookmark

Read more...

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>