Jan 30 to Feb 5 at the Ross
By Paul Olson, NFP President
By Professor Bruce E. Johansen
The Most Dangerous Place on the Face of the Earth
Updates on Nebraska's tiny reservation border town.
Impeachment is on the table.
Omaha NFP Newsletter
One Year Later
Use these online tools as resources for holding Obama to his campaign promises:
STATE OF CHANGE
CONGRESS MATTERS
FOCUS THE NATION
350
CHANGE.GOV
Goin' Broke Paying for War
Twilight War Author Warns Omaha About the Folly of U.S. Space Dominance
Looking Backward:
A History of Nebraska Peacemaking before NFP
Keep Space for Peace
Mike Johanns,
Global Warming SkepticThe Wall Street Crisis
2008 Annual Peace Conference: The True Cost of the 'War on Iraq'
U.S. Blocks
PAROS Treaty at UNConcerns Grow over Risk to Omaha’s Water
ARCHIVE
Twilight War Author Warns Omaha
About the Folly of U.S. Space Dominance
Mike Moore
Mike Moore, former editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, brought his plea for the ‘Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space’ to Omaha last month, even as StratCom and the military aerospace industry were contriving to militarize the heavens even further at their annual “Strategic Space and Defense” gala. Between October 6-8, Moore spoke at three college campuses, had an op-ed published in the Omaha World-Herald, and even merited a separate article about his ‘missionary work’ to keep space for peace in the state’s largest newspaper. With our nation about to choose a new commander in chief, Moore’s appeal for U.S. support of the U.N.’s PAROS resolution couldn’t be more timely or important. We are accordingly reprinting his electionthemed op-ed from the October 6, 2008 Omaha World-Herald, which was originally published under the title, “Risk in U.S. pursuit of weapons in space.”
One of the unasked questions of the presidential campaign is: Do you favor developing and deploying space-related weapons?
Whoa! Where did that come from? According to international law, space is supposed to be the “property of all mankind” and must be used for “peaceful purposes.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower led the world 50 years ago to the idea that the heavens should be a conflictfree sanctuary, unlike land, sea and air.
Ancient history. The United States has been working on space-related weapons for many years. Consider this passage from the U.S. Air Force Space Command’s “Strategic Master Plan FY06 and Beyond”: “Nonnuclear prompt global strike from and through space can transform the war fighter’s role in the future. Most notably, a non-nuclear strike capability, possibly in the form of a Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) launched by a ballistic missile, air launch system or a SOV (Space Operations Vehicle), could provide the President and the Secretary of Defense with a range of space power options.
“These options are for deterrence and flexible response when time is absolutely critical, risks associated with other options are too high or when no other courses of action are available.”
Translation: Space weapons could give the United States the upper hand in a future conflict — or, as they say at the Pentagon, “full spectrum dominance.”
The “requirement” for space dominance has popped up in dozens of public documents and think-tank reports since the mid- 1990s. We’re not talking about missile defense, a hot topic for more than three decades. We are talking about ground-, sea-, air- and spacebased weapons that could destroy the satellites of other nations, as well as space-based weapons that could pulverize earthly targets.
Space dominance has not yet been adopted as official U.S. policy, but we are moving toward it. A space-dominance policy would be regarded by other nations as an unacceptable violation of global norms — and a threat to their sovereignty.
“He who controls space, controls the Earth” is a widely believed assertion. During the 51 years of the Space Age, no nation has deployed weapons in space. Today, the United States is the only nation that says it may do so. If push ever comes to shove, it would be the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base that would fire such weapons.
A mind experiment: What would we do if we thought another nation was about to place weapons in space? We would go nuts — and rightly so.
One can almost hear a president telling the nation: “This violation of international law and custom, this threat to peace and freedom, this tyranny of the heavens, shall not stand.” We would build our own spacerelated weapons. Why would we expect any other spacefaring nation to act differently?
The choice is ours. If the United States continues on the spaceweapons path, there will be an outrageously expensive global arms race. Military dominance of space, rather than peaceful space exploration, would be the goal.
The nations of the world need to cooperate to solve or at least mitigate a host of cross-border problems — from global warming to deadly runaway pathogens. How much real cooperation will there be if there’s a race for dominance of space?
If the United States continues to pursue space dominance, it will do so with the best of intentions. We would say we would never deny access to space to another country except during conflict. But what nation could afford to rely solely on the benign intentions of another — in this case, the global “hyperpower”?
Since 1981, spacefaring nations have gone on record, year after year, at the United Nations as favoring a treaty to prevent a space-related arms race. Year after year, the United States uses its veto power in Geneva to prevent such talks.
It has been an equal-opportunity veto spanning the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush.
Rather than risk extending earthly conflict into space, the United States should renounce the “weaponization” of space and lead the world toward a tough and cheatproof treaty. We should continue to honor Eisenhower’s vision — “space for peaceful purposes.”
Mr. or Ms. Candidate: Will you fight for a space treaty — or will you court a new arms race?
