The Future of Missile Defense
by Karl Grossman
The Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon have stirred conversation on U.S. plans to move into space militarily. While initial response was that missile defense -- known as Star Wars -- might be set aside as ineffective against such attacks, it now appears the country may accelerate and expand the program.
Immediately after the attack, there were some who thought that "Star Wars is a goner," as Kevin McAuley wrote in the Sept. 12 issue of O’Dwyer’s PR Daily. The long-time editor at the public-relations trade journal wrote:
"No Star Wars system would have been effective against the grisly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon....The country does not need Star Wars to fight terrorism."
Writing in The Wall Street Journal Sept. 13, columnist Albert R. Hunt said:
"One immediate casualty for the Administration may be its hopes for a huge missile-defense investment. This week lends credence to arguments that terrorist attacks -- biological or chemical warfare or even cyber attacks on economic institutions -- are greater threats than bandit nations launching missiles at the United States."
But others quickly reached a different conclusion. Adam Clymer in the Sept. 15 issue of The New York Times wrote:
"The suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon appear to have strengthened, not weakened, the prospects for Congressional support of President Bush’s missile-defense plan."
Mr. Clymer quoted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as saying the United States has enough resources to do both.
The article also reported a statement by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who said:
"The United States still faces risks of many natures. This was a terrorist risk that was carried out in a different form of delivery, within our borders. But that does not mean there are not other threats out there that also need to be addressed."
By Sept. 17, O’Dwyer’s PR Daily was reporting President George W. Bush’s $8.3 billion request for missile defense in 2002 had gotten new life in the aftermath of the attacks.
The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, an organization that has challenged the Star Wars program, held to its position. Network Coordinator Bruce Gagnon said members of Congress were "caving on Star Wars."
Space military program
If the attacks do quicken and widen the U.S. space military program, it will happen on a base that has been firmly set.
The space military program of the Bush Administration is outlined in the report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization, known as the "Space Commission." The report, issued Jan. 11, says:
"In the coming period, the United States will conduct operations to, from, in and through space in support of its national interests both on earth and in space."
The 13-member Space Commission urges a transition of the U.S. Space Command, established by the Pentagon in 1985 to coordinate U.S. space military operations, to a "Space Corps" like the Marine Corps, which would possibly become a "Space Department" equal to the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force.
The Space Commission report follows a series of U.S. military reports that call for the United States to control space and the earth from space. This includes "Vision for 2020," a military plan for the year 2020, which opens by saying U.S. Space Command would mean the United States "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment, integrating space forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
Vision for 2020, compares the U.S. effort to control space and earth to how nations have protected and enhanced commercial interests in the past:
"Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments -- both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. During the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements and railroads. The emergence of space power follows both of these models."
The U.S. Space Command’s "Long Range Plan," says:
"Now is the time to begin developing space capabilities, innovative concepts of operations for war fighting, and organizations that can meet the challenges of the 2lst century....Widespread communications will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life -- contributing to unrest in developing countries....The gap between have and have-not nations will widen, creating regional unrest.
"The United States will remain the only nation able to project power globally....Achieving space superiority during conflicts will be critical to the U.S. success on the battlefield."
International law
More than reports and rhetoric are involved. In December 2000, the Clinton Administration gave the go-ahead for development of the Space-Based Laser, now under way at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space Flight Center in Mississippi. The cost of the project is projected by the U.S. military at $20 billion to $30 billion. A promotional poster for this laser shows it firing its ray in space while a U.S. flag waves above it.
Another space-based laser project, the Alpha high-energy laser, has conducted more than 20 test firings.
Star Wars opponents say what the United States is doing violates the intent of international law -- the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. U.S. space military activities prompted the U.N. General Assembly in November 2000 to approve a resolution on "Prevention of An Arms Race In Outer Space." The resolution reaffirms the Outer Space Treaty, especially its provision that space be reserved for peaceful purposes. Some 163 nations voted in favor. The United States abstained as did Israel and Micronesia.
Canada has been a leader in seeking to preserve and strengthen the treaty by prohibiting all weapons in space. In a U.N. presentation last October, Marc Vidricaire, counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Canada, said:
"Outer space has not yet witnessed the introduction of space-based weapons. This could change if the international community does not first prevent this destabilizing development through the timely negotiation of measures banning the introduction of weapons into outer space."
Mr. Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space has said:
"If the United States is allowed to move the arms race into space, there will be no return. We have this one chance, this one moment in history, to stop the weaponization of space from happening.
"We need a vigorous debate in the churches and town squares about what kind of seed we will now carry with us into the heavens. This bad seed of war, greed and environmental degradation has been planted deeply into the soil of the earth and now the U.S. Space Command intends to carry it into space."
Looking ahead
Bill Sulzman, director of Citizens for Peace in Space and a former Roman Catholic priest, in a speech at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, said:
"Many astronauts from many different countries have returned from space travels to sing the praises of cooperation in keeping space free from human conflict. They point out the stunning beauty of the planet with its blue atmosphere, and they always refer to the lack of boundaries which separate us who live here below. Nationalism and militarism are the farthest things from their minds.
"We need to build on that spirit as we try to work together in the future to keep space as the common heritage of all humankind and reserve it for peaceful purposes."
Will the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the U.S. response to the attacks destroy that dream? Will the attacks result in implementation of U.S. plans to turn space into an arena of war?
Sept. 11 brought overwhelming changes. For example, a main argument against missile defense has been that no nation would launch a missile at the United States because it would have a traceable signature or autograph. Knowing where the missile came from, the United States would decimate that nation in a counter-attack. It would be suicide for a nation to lob a missile at the United States. Today, it is clear suicide is not a deterrent for some people.
For others, Sept. 11 has strengthened their resolve to protest U.S. development of missile defense. For example, the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, is continuing plans for an Oct. 13 International Day of Protest Against the Militarization of Space with events across the United States and in a number of other nations.
Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, N.Y. He is the host of home videos available from EnviroVideo at 1-800-ECO-TV46 or through www.envirovideo.com .