Globalization and Outer Space Control

Gary Lapreziosa, a writer who lives in Lansdale, PA, is a member Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s Working Group on Conscience, War Tax Concerns, and Militarism.

Of all the issues pressing upon people who are working for the building of a more just and peaceful world, or even the survival of the one we’ve got now, the push by large US aerospace corporations and their allies in the US government to build what they call "missile defense" should be of the utmost concern. Those who have dug beneath the surface of this issue (below corporate media reporting and most of the Congressional debate about it) understand that what is really behind it, besides the continuing financial viability of the aforementioned corporations, is a drive by the US to create weapons and platforms by which it can militarily dominate outer space, and thereby the entire world.

This is not a matter of conjecture. It is readily apparent from Pentagon documents that are publicly available, and the trade literature of the aerospace and weapons industries.

One of the most well-known of these documents among anti-Star Wars activists is the US Space Command’s Vision for 2020, which spells out the rationale and broad goals for space-based weapons systems. It is quite a remarkable piece, with its unabashed application of the United States’ "Manifest Destiny," as it was called in a prior time, to military control of the entire globe.

For all of its jaw-dropping hubris, however, the part that has always stood out in my mind is a little paragraph tucked into the fourth page, under the heading "Future Trends":

"Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Accelerating rates of technological development will be increasingly driven by the commercial sector—not the military. Increased weapons lethality and precision will lead to new operational doctrine."

Right there, in a relatively obscure document, is a little kernel of truth. It lies beneath all of the cheerleading by opinion leaders in this country about the supposed benefits of "globalization." The author states rather matter-of-factly an equation that must surely be commonly known among the global economic and military planners: "globalization" equals greater economic inequality.

This disparity is certainly not news to anti-globalization activists. But here it is not only named, but used as a justification for increasing military dominance by a single nation; the document suggests that the disparity is something that requires defending. The growing gap between the rich and the poor, worldwide, must be safeguarded via military control of outer space.

I came across that connection more than a year ago. It was surprising to me then. But it turns out to be not as much a secret as I once thought. In The Economist, for example, it is not uncommon to find "joining the WTO" and "expected increase in economic inequality" occurring together, in reference to so-called "developing" countries such as India and China.

So it’s really no secret, nor should it be. For what are our would-be space warriors really defending? Our safety? Our freedom? Of course not. They are defending a global economic system in which the US is, and seeks to remain, the controlling authority. That system is the arena of competition for large transnational manufacturing and service corporations, and international investors and lenders.

It is important for anti-Star Wars activists, and the peace movement in general, to keep in mind just how much is at stake in the battle over "missile defense" and weapons of global control in general. Missile defense and the weaponization of space on the one hand, and corporate "globalization" on the other, are complementary means to achieving the same end—perpetual world dominance.

International Day of Protest to Stop the Militarization of Space, Oct. 13, 2001

For information on events in your area, contact the Global Network or visit www.space4peace.org.

Window of Opportunity to Stop NMD. The Senate Armed Services Committee will address NMD issue starting Sept. 5, when they begin consideration of the Defense Authorization Bill for 2002. Call four Republican Senators identified as possible allies: Lincoln Chafee, RI, 202/224-2921; Arlen Specter, PA, 202/224-4254; Olympia Snowe, ME. 202/224-534; Susan Collins, ME 202/224-252. "I strongly urge you to proceed cautiously with Missile Defense efforts. Please oppose funding for any actions that would violate, or lead the US to precipitously withdraw from, the ABM treaty." Do the same for the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Congressional switchboard: 202/224-3121. Contact Women’s Action for New Directions, 464 Cherokee Avenue, SE, Suite 201, Atlanta, GA 30312 <www.wand.org>

Star Wars Forum, 10/10, 6:30 pm, Boston University, Room TBA. Joseph Gerson, AFSC, and George Lewis, MIT. Sponsored by AFSC, Boston Mobilization, CCPAX, Mass Peace Action, into 617/354-2169; masspa@gis.net (The same coalition will be holding a vigil, Oct. 3, Park Street Station, Boston. Call the above number for details.)

Festival, Teach-In, and Protest at Raytheon; 10/12, 7-8:30 am; Raytheon Company, Lowell Street, Andover MA; followed by leafletting in Lawrence & Andover; sponsored by Raytheon Peacemakers; join us for our final planning meeting 9/20, 7 pm, at St. Francis & Therese Catholic Worker, 52 Mason St., Worcester MA 01610; Raytheon Peacemakers 508/753-3588

New from AFSC: Disarmament Resource Series, 12-page booklets; $1; first two issues are "Missile Defense in Perspective: US Counterforce Nuclear Doctrine" by Jerry Elmer, and "The Politics & Geopolitics of ‘Missile Defenses’" by Joseph Gerson; published by the Peace & Economic Security Program of the American Friends Service Committee; available on-line at www.afsc.org/pes.htm; AFSC, 2161 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge MA 02140; 617/661-6130

From "Missile Defense in Perspective: US Counterforce Nuclear Doctrine" by Jerry Elmer:
In the arcane language of nuclear doctrine, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was referred to as a "counter-value" doctrine because each side targeted its nuclear weapons against that which was most valuable in the enemy country: cities and civilian population centers. In "counterforce" nuclear doctrine, by contrast, we target not civilian centers but rather the military and nuclear forces of the other side.

Counterforce doctrine can be viewed as a doctrine which ignores, or forgets, the lessons of MAD: that nuclear wars can never be won and that, for that reason, nuclear wars must be prevented from occurring in the first place. Counterforce doctrine may be said to have two complementary components: (1) development of highly accurate offensive weapons which a nation hopes may be used to destroy an enemy’s nuclear forces on the ground before they can be launched; and (2) some means of national defense to prevent or limit damage from an enemy’s incoming missiles. As is readily apparent, counterforce doctrine is, in a very real sense, a throwback to the discredited nuclear doctrine of the 1950s which emphasized damage limitation.

National Missile Defense—and what is wrong with National Missile Defense—can only be understood within the wider context of counterforce doctrine, of which it is a part.

Previous Article      Next Article