May 2001

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Arming the Heavens

Ruth Rosen, who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, is author of A World Split Open, a history of the women's movement.

"If the US is to avoid a 'Space Pearl Harbor' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on US space systems." You might think this is the opening of a science fiction novel. But these words appear in a federal government document. Specifically, this is the conclusion reached by the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, which presented its long-awaited recommendations to Congress on Jan. 11. Chaired by Donald H. Rumsfeld--before President Bush appointed him secretary of defense--the commission seeks to protect American military and surveillance satellites from future attacks. To thwart such aggression, the commissioners recommend that the United States develop a space-based "military capability" to defend its space "assets." Just as Rumsfeld delivered this report to Congress, President Bush decided to suspend all further military expenditures and asked the new secretary of defense to conduct a complete review of the armed services, including their strategies and weapons.

Although no one knows what Rumsfeld will ultimately conclude, he has already provided us with a disturbing vision of how he imagines America's military future. America will prepare to fight in space. The US will control space to maintain strategic dominance on Earth.

If adopted, the Rumsfeld report could ignite an arms race that would make the proliferation of nuclear bombs seem almost quaint. In Rumsfeld's view, space is the next arena of warfare. While politicians debate whether the United States should build a defensive national missile defense, the Rumsfeld commission regards a ground-based missile defense as the first step in deploying space-based weaponry, which could become an offensive threat.

His is not an isolated view. In a recent issue of the New Republic, Senior Editor Lawrence Kaplan suggests we drop all pretenses and admit that "missile defense is about preserving America's ability to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it."

US weaponry is obsolete, says Rumsfeld. The next president must "have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats and, if necessary, defend against attacks on US interests." The Rumsfeld report proposes a full-scale effort to prepare for space warfare. It recommends, for example, that the president declare space a national security priority, that a Space Advisory Group report directly to the president, and that the Air Force create "a Space Corps" that will eventually morph into "a military department for space." With these steps, the report concludes, the United States will gain "the capability to use space as an integral part of its ability to manage crises, deter conflict, and if deterrence fails, to prevail in conflict." The resolve to build a space-based military is hardly new. Much of the commission's report is, in fact, a tamer and toned-down version of documents already published by the US Space Command, which the Pentagon established in 1985 to "help institutionalize the use of space." These documents, readily accessible on the Web site of the US Space Command <www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace>, reveal a more ominous vision of space-based warfare. The cover of one document, called "Vision for 2020," depicts a laser weapon shooting a beam down from space, zapping a target below. Beneath this sci-fi image crawl the words: "US Space Command--dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments."

"Vision for 2020" emphasizes how the global economy will widen the gulf between "the haves" and the "have-nots." By deploying space-based weaponry and surveillance, however, the United States will have the ability "to control space" and from space, "to dominate" the Earth below. US military leaders are blunt in describing their plans for space warfare.

"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen," Gen. Joseph Ashy, former commander-in-chief of the US Space Command, told Aviation Week & Space Technology in 1996.

SPACE FORCE APPLICATION "In the future, being able to attack targets from space may be critical to national defense. US Space Command therefore is actively identifying potential roles, missions, and payloads for this probable new field of battle. Space represents a fundamentally new and better way to apply military force--by promptly striking adversary centers of gravity, or minimizing high-cost, high risk conflicts". --www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/applicat.htm

"Space is the ultimate 'high ground,' " reported "Guardians of the High Frontier," a 1997 US Air Force Space Command report. "Tomorrow's Air Force will likely dominate the air and space around the world," declares "Almanac 2000," recently published by the US Space Command. All this, remember, was before George W. Bush became president. Yet candidate Bush never hid his enthusiasm for Star Wars. On the campaign trail, he repeatedly proposed that the United States leapfrog over the next generation of weapons--still meant for fighting the Cold War--and proceed directly to high-tech weapons. By choosing Donald Rumsfeld, Bush appointed a man whom the Washington Post has called the "leading proponent not only of national missile defenses, but also of US efforts to take control of outer space."

Spending billions of tax dollars to deploy space-based weaponry is a serious matter, though most Americans seem unaware of an idea that appears to be gaining currency--including the cash--within government. Last year, for example, a multimillion-dollar contract was signed for a "Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator."    The militarization of space would violate international law. In 1967, the US-initiated Outer Space Treaty banned all nations from deploying weapons in space. Last year, 163 nations voted to reaffirm that UN agreement.

Three nations abstained and refused to support the resolution: The United States, Israel, and Micronesia.

So, is Donald Rumsfeld's "strategic review" a charade? Have the decisions already been made? Some experts and activists think so. An editorial in the Economist recently argued that "the long-promised transformation of the American defense system from a Cold War fighting force to the high-tech 'army of the future' is finally going to take place." The Center for Defense Information has criticized the "concerted effort in the administration" to push ahead with the militarization of space.

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, says, "We have this one chance, this one moment in history, to stop the weaponization of space from happening." If he is right, the American people face an urgent need to become informed about our government's future military plans. Look up at the heavens. Imagine laser or nuclear weapons orbiting in space. Then decide whether space-based warfare will make you feel any safer here on Earth.

This editorial first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, 3/18/01.

ACTION ALERT: Oppose John Bolton for Undersecretary for Arms Control

According to Kevin Martin, Director, Project Abolition, Jesse Helms protogee John Bolton,who has been nominated for the #3 job at the Pentagon, does not belong in the arms control job. The director of the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, Joseph Cirincione, says: "Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation regime." Characteristically, Sen. Helms left no room for ambiguity at a confirmation hearing when he said to Bolton: "John, I want you to take that ABM Treaty and dump it in the same place we dumped our ABM co-signer, the Soviet Union--on the ash heap of history." The 1972 antiballistic missile treaty that Helms and Bolton zealously oppose has served as what Cirincione calls "the cornerstone of strategic stability in the world because it reins in the nuclear forces of the nuclear powers." Not only the ABM Treaty, but also the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Conference on Disarmament, the verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, and any effort to prevent an arms race in outer space are all valuable instruments for arms control. They would all be imperiled were Bolton to be put in charge of arms control at the State Department.  For more information: <www.StopBolton.org>

SAMPLE LETTER (Send to US Senate, Washington, DC 20510)SAMPLE LETTER (Send to US Senate, Washington, DC 20510)

Dear Senator,

President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be the new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and International Security is deeply troubling.

Mr. Bolton has publicly denounced key arms control treaties. He has called for the United States to recognize Taiwan as a state over China's objections, a move which would heighten nuclear tension in that region. He has called for the United States to stop paying dues to the United Nations, a key forum for arms control negotiations. Mr. Bolton has denounced US negotiations with North Korea to halt its missile development program, calling for a "get tough" stance instead. This week North Korea cited Bush Administration signals along those very lines as a reason to restart long-range missile tests.

Mr. Bolton is on the political fringe, taking positions out of line with a number of other Bush appointees and advisors, including Secretary of State Powell. He is not an appropriate nominee for this important position. I urge you to oppose his appointment.

Previous Article    Next Article