The Weaponization of Outer Space

               The debate that has been going on since the 1950s about putting weapons into space is the most critical issue today. Are we as a society doomed to make the same mistakes we have made in the past or will our aspirations of peace and solidarity persevere? I think it is critical to examine the history of this debate. So I will do that briefly. The weaponization of space is largely unknown to the public but we must understand that it is very real, and it has grave implications.

                In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex in his famous speech, but he also warned us of the aspirations of putting weapons into space.  Even then, in 1963 as he left office, there were serious attempts and discussion about weaponizing space. Eisenhower believed (for reasons that will be presented throughout this blog) that space without weapons was in the US’s best interest. He believed “first and foremost, space was about spying.” His administration believed that space could prove useful for spying on the Russians but felt strongly that weapons should not be put into space. Almost immediately, the Air Force began to look for ways to extend its program of spying to advance its own prerogatives of weaponization.

                In late 1968, Major General Oris B. Johnson, commander of the 9^th Aerospace Defense Division wrote an article called Space: Today’s Front Line of Defense. In the article, Johnson argues that the development of weapons in outer space is inevitable and that “both physically and conceptually, the extension of military systems” into outer space is “natural and evolutionary.” Johnson goes on to argue that “the demonstrated space accomplishments of the USSR together with their avowed intention on ruling the world, leaves no room for complacency.” He states that “the necessity for effective space weapons is both obvious and urgent.” Within the article he explains that there are four functions of space weaponry: detection, identification, interception, and destruction.

                In the 1980s, the argument pressed on. The era of Cold War “evil empire” rhetoric and mass media nuclear fear continued to rage on.  In a report to Congress entitled “The Effects of Nuclear War”, Major Steven E. Cady wrote an article, Beam Weapons in Space: A Reality We Must Confront. Much like Johnson before him, Cady believed and saw that the weaponization of space was inevitable and the US needed to make its presence on the scene. To instigate the fearful, Cady writes that “in terms of weapons capabilities [the Soviets] are ahead and are likely to continue in the lead for the next several years.”  Cady advocated for “satellites firing laser or particle beams across thousands of miles to destroy enemy satellites, or ground-based enemy missiles immediately after their launch, or selected enemy targets on earth.” Major Cady believed that “America has no choice but to begin an urgent” space weapons program “surpassing anything since the Manhattan Project.”

                But of course there were dissenters. John F. Kennedy gave a speech and warned that whether or not the space program becomes “a terrifying theater of war” depends on the choices made by humans. Dr. Robert Bowman, a PhD, former Air Force officer, and President of a respected space and security issues think tank, believed that these weapons systems would only instigate the Russians. He also believed that if space weapons were “either infeasible, unaffordable, or detrimental to our security, then we should attempt to negotiate a comprehensive and verifiable ban on all space weapons.” So why the pursuit, when we know from history that it will not help our security and we definitely cannot afford it.

                The United States’ passion for control and domination over the world, as the “superior race”, could lead to a new arena for war.  After WW2, the US prevailed as the sole super power in the world and determined that it was our opportunity to shape the world in an image that is beneficial to our interest. This political ideology does not have boundaries, it extends to space as well. In 2006, China, for reasons I will address later, successfully took down one of their own satellites with a missile. The US leadership and intelligence agencies worry about these capabilities because satellites control so much of our lives. From everyday tasks to military controls, satellites are a part of a lot of aspects of our lives.

                The US owns 49.9 percent of the satellites orbiting the earth, compared to Russia, who has the second most at 9 percent. During “Shock and Awe”, 71 percent of the missiles and bombs dropped in Iraq were controlled by satellites. If US satellites were to be attacked, the country would be extremely crippled. And especially, without satellites the US could not function militarily and our network of global dominance would be compromised. The US, as “World Police”, has some very vital economic interests that must be protected. The direction of these programs is in the hands of people that have a very strong desire to see those economic interests protected.

                The Air Force Academy teaches its students that in order to control the battlefield it is a huge advantage to be the first to control the “high ground”.  We have seen examples of this from the Civil War, when air balloons were used to locate the enemy. We also saw this tactic in WW1, when the first reconnaissance planes were used to locate enemy targets.  Today, the US government funds the building of anti-satellite weapons or anti-ballistic missiles. The XSS-11, a satellite launched by the US government in January of 2003 has the ability to disrupt any other satellite in the earth’s orbit. We also saw this strategy used in WW2.

Wernher Von Braun with President Kennedy

                The V2 Rocket was the first weapon in space. It was created in and by Nazi Germany and was fired at London in 1944. It was designed by Nazi scientist Wernher Von Braun. Von Braun and a team of engineers were brought secretly into the US, by the government to help the US develop ballistic missiles. The controversy was known as “Project Paper Clip.” Von Braun later became the director of NASA and he advocated that in order to control the world, one must use space-based weapons. Each scientist of Project Paper Clip was awarded US citizenship and helped the US to launch its first satellite into space.

                In the 1960s, there was uncertainty about who, if anyone, owned space and whether it was going to be used for peaceful means or as a battlefield. I laid out the arguments for and against above so now we will examine what happened. The Pentagon was intent that the US had the right to put weapons in space and would not allow for a treaty to be signed prohibiting it. In 1967, the US finally conceded and signed a treaty that prohibits putting nuclear weapons into space but any other weapons were not prohibited. 

                In 1977, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown called on Congress to fund strategic nuclear capabilities because with them “our forces become meaningful instruments of military and political power,” which must be available everywhere in the third world because, “largely for economic reasons,” there is “increased turbulence from within as well as intervention from the Soviet Union.”  So with the “Red Scare” the weaponization of space really began. In the early 1980s, the weaponization really began but it was done covertly. That was kind of Reagan’s “thing”, to do stuff in secret.  During the same time, almost a million people in New York were in the streets protesting nuclear proliferation. Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, a leading architect of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) said that “people don’t have a clue, they are protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons while we are putting weapons into space.” What became known as “Reagan’s Star Wars” intended for all major US weapons systems to be moved to space. After the silence was broken, Reagan told the US that weaponizing space was intended to prevent the world from nuclear war, “with systems able to take down nuclear weapons in the air.” But of course this was not entirely the case.

                After the Cold War was over, the US military maintained its position on space weapons. All they did was change the name of the program to make it sound like it was being done for national defense. Clinton called the it “National missile defense” and Bush 2 called them “missile defense systems.” Both of them urged their production. George W. Bush announced to the world that the US was going to pull out of the UN Anti-Ballistic Treaty and the Pentagon, led by Rumsfeld, made space weapons a top priority. In 2003, the US government set aside $8.3 billion for the development of the “missile defense systems” in space. This is despite the fact that the “threat” has pretty much been eliminated since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iran and North Korea, the two major threats, according to the US, don’t even have long-range missiles. But this does not and has not mattered.

                President Bill Clinton probably made the most progress in weaponizing space. Clinton’s Space Command called for “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.” The Clinton Administration argued that the US must develop “space-based strike weapons enabling the application of precision force, from, to, and through space.” The government and Space Command believed that these weapons would be necessary because “globalization of the world economy” will lead to “a widening economic divide” and “deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation,” provoking unrest and violence among the “have-nots.” According to Clinton, the space weapons program fell within the Clinton doctrine that the US can resort to “unilateral use of military power” in order to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”

                What was long proposed as a “defense system” is starting to look like another fraud pulled by the US government. The main purpose of these space missile programs is the ability to target other satellites. And our space-based missile defense systems have that capability today. They can destroy any satellite in orbit. The US government is not only trying to control space, but to dominate it and not allow other countries access to it. Strong American control of space will ensure its dominance over the world. Space has become the new frontier used to protect and advance US commercial interests.

                Making weapons has become the new industry in America since we don’t really make cars anymore or steel.  We now make weapons. While most industries are hurting because of the depression we are in, the weapons industry is booming. This is largely because it is largely subsidized by tax-payer dollars. Huge weapons corporations like Sparta, SI International, AeroSpace Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are receiving hundreds of billions from the US government to make weapons. Out of every tax dollar in the US today, 50 cents is going to the Department of Defense, which is handing out these contracts to build weapons.  The Pentagon has said that moving the arms race to space will be the most lucrative endeavor in history. Young people are also being indoctrinated in military technology, careers that are also largely subsidized by the tax-payer.

                Bush planners extended Clinton’s doctrine of control of space for military purposes to “ownership” of space, which also means instant engagement anywhere in the world. Top military commanders informed Congress in 2005 that the Pentagon was developing new space weapons that would allow the US to launch an attack “very quickly, with very short time lines on the planning and delivery, any place on the face of the earth.” These new programs allow the US “to crush someone anywhere in the world on thirty minutes’ notice with no need for a nearby air base.” Technology we saw employed by current President Barack Obama.

                Since the end of the Cold War, the proweaponizers have needed a new threat to justify to weaponization of space. Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Baum, a B-52 pilot and systems analyst who also has a PhD, wrote Defiling the Altar: The Weaponization of Space. This work of fiction was presented to Congress in April of 1994. The article laid out a scenario where the Chinese launched a series of attacks from space, crippling the US. These fictional attacks were labeled as the new Pearl Harbor. After destroying US infrastructure and attacking US-UN peacekeeping troops, the Chinese gained control of the world. In essence, the article suggested to Congress that the way to overcome US vulnerabilities that the Chinese would be able to exploit was to institute a three-part weapons program and space-to-ground kinetic energy weapons, active and passive on-orbit protection. The presentation argued that people that advocated peaceful means for space had “their heads in the sand.”

                China has become the new threat created by propaganda. During the GOP primaries this year we have heard multiple candidates talk about the threat posed by China which is completely fabricated. US Congressional reports have cited ordinary websites that suggest an attack on the US, as evidence that China intends to attack the US. And China’s anti-satellite test in 2006 fell right into place. China was merely showing the US that it did not have the authority to dominate space and if the US continued its action in space, other countries would follow. Chinese officials said that “they don’t want the earth to be surrounded by weapons,” and warned the world of the US’s aspirations for space dominance.

                In addition, China has led efforts in the United Nations to preserve space for peaceful purposes, in conflict with the US.  The US space weapons programs allow the US to hit any target on the planet within minutes. A satellite system called “Rods from Gods” is a system of satellites that would release metal rods onto precise points on the earth. The destruction caused by these rods would be equal to that of a nuclear explosion. The rest of the world, and especially China knows US intentions. The UN has made an attempt to revise the original treaty of 1967 to prohibit more than just nuclear weapons but has been blocked by the US. One example was in 1994, the revision was vetoed by the US with a final vote of 170 to 1. Every single year since 1982 there has been an attempt to expand the original treaty, and every single year, the US veto’s it.

                Plus the US simply cannot afford the space program. There are major economic problems in the US now. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to dominate space, where a treaty just prohibiting weapons would have the same affect and would cost nearly nothing. But a threat is clearly not the motive.

                Current President Barack Obama said during his campaign in 2008 that he would not weaponize space and that he would seek to ban weapons intended to interfere with satellites and the such. Then why did the US veto the revision of the treaty again, and why in his first year in office did he approve over $2 billion for the space-weapons program. The State Department told US diplomats in Beijing that the Obama administration shared President Bush’s fears over China’s plans. “US objections to China’s direct-ascent anti-satellite testing are still valid and reflect the policy of the United States,” said Hillary Clinton. Much more rhetoric and no action from this administration.

                There are other consequences to trying to establish space superiority. First, is that even though you say you aren’t the aggressor, you are. The US is the instigator in this case. Also what the US does not consider is the debris that accumulates every time we launch something into space. Right now there is a lot of debris from weapons, satellites etc orbiting the earth, traveling at 14,000 mph. Certain orbits are already not possible because of this man-made debris. There is no way to clean it up. If we continue launching and blowing up satellites, putting weapons into space, it will threaten the peaceful satellites that are so critical to our society. Over $700 billion has been spent for peaceful means alone in space, such as weather systems and GPS, but all of this is in jeopardy if we keep putting more debris in space.

                But the biggest threat is that of a space Cold War. The European Union, Canada, China, and Russia warned that “just as the unleashing of nuclear weapons had unforeseen consequences, so, too, will the weaponization of space.” In response to Bush’s development of weapons programs in space, Russia responded by sharply increasing its own capacities. China is likely to expand its offensive capacities if the US does not stop.

                In 2004, the United States accounted for 95 percent of total global military space expenditures, but others are sure to get in on the action. India and Israel are both discussing anti-satellite weapons. Pakistan is sure to follow India. The chances of human survival are greatly decreased by these new threats. When we are told our whole lives that America is an exceptional country, that we know what is best, it is easy to believe it. But if we review the history of the US, we will find that behind the “defensive” rhetoric, the US has bad intentions. For largely economic reasons, the US intends to dominate, to rule, to conquer and to be the aggressor. The implications of that with the new technology the US is developing could be grave. 

Documentaries, Discussions

- Pax Americana and The Weaponization of Space

- Masters of Space

- The Militarization of Science and Space

Thanks for reading. Remember to become a member. See you next time.