Saturday, February 23, 2013

The Strategic Defense Initiative “Star Wars”

The Strategic Defense Initiative was initiated on March 23, 1983 under President Reagan with the purpose to accomplish defense against ballistic missiles. The testing and utilizing of various types of weapons for this purpose led many domestic and international critics to claim that the SDI initiative was a serious violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, a treaty that committed the two world powers of the time to not develop a missile defense system. Especially the utilization of nuclear weapons for this purpose was a breach of most international space and defense treaties, including the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. One of the main reasons for the SDI initiative was the fact that the utilization of space for military conflicts became a serious threat. Russian directed-energy weapons deployed in space were the primarily source of worry at that time. [1]

Among the reasons behind the Strategic Defense Initiative were the critiques against the high level of defense spending underwent by the Reagan administration. Having such a developed defense program functional would have meant that nuclear threats could be completely eliminated, making the SDI beneficial to everyone, and hence becoming a peace initiative. Besides this, a strong Strategic Defense Initiative meant the Soviet Union could not be the one to initiate a strike anymore, which in turn could put an end to the Cold War. [2]

The Strategic Defense Initiative stirred up some emotionality mainly because it was strongly contravening important international treaties. Because of its farfetched ideas such as the utilization of lasers, the program was nicknamed “Star Wars”. The “science-fiction” technology was meant to be a whole new and better method of intercepting the enemy weapons while still in space in order to minimize their impact and effect. Thirty billion dollars were invested in SDI, but sophisticated technology such as laser was never used, and in the end the program focused more on kinetic energy weapons rather than space-based sophisticated weapons. [3]

SDI was worrisome for the Soviet Union mainly because the Soviets felt the development of such a program by the U.S. meant no future bilateral negotiations in regard of weaponization. The former Soviet Union feared that the United States would deploy a large scale defense systems and this would force the Soviet Union to initiate an attack, a fact that actually contributed to the U.S. insecurity rather than assuring a strong national security. President Mikhail Gorbachev asked that the United States renounced the Strategic Defense Initiative, and President’s Reagan refusal to stop the development of this program was the main issue of the time that prevented the two powers to agree on any means and methods of weapons control. [4]

Star Wars ended up being abandoned, one of the reasons for the abandonment being that the development of such a defense program would generate worries in the international community, as well as tensions between the United States and the former Soviet Union, a tension that could involuntarily lead to a possible conflict. [5]
________________________________________
Notes:

[1] Preston, Bob, Johnson, Dana J., Edwards, Sean J.A., Miller, Michael, Shipbaugh Calvin. Space Weapons Earth Wars. RAND Project Air Force. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2011/RAND_MR1209.pdf (accessed January 29, 2013), 14.
[2] U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Milestones 1981-1989: Strategic Defense Initiative, 1983. http://history.state.gov/milestones/1981-1989/SDI (accessed January 29, 2013), para. 3.
[3] Crowley, Kevin. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): Star Wars. Cold War Museum. http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp (accessed January 29, 2013), para. 1.
[4] U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Milestones 1981-1989: Strategic Defense Initiative, 1983. http://history.state.gov/milestones/1981-1989/SDI (accessed January 29, 2013), para. 5.
[5] Crowley, Kevin. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): Star Wars. Cold War Museum. http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp (accessed January 29, 2013), 

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

The Sanctuary of Space

Sanctuary is defined by the idea of keeping space and space faring weapons-free for the benefit of the entire humanity. [1] In order to protect the sanctuary of space, ever since the beginnings of the space age, nations involved in space activities and not only were drawn towards legalizing space activities to make sure no nation of the world would utilize space capabilities for military purposes. This was the initial scope of the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the Moon Treaty. Maintaining the sanctuary of space has been so far quite successful, despite the competition of the Space Race and the tensions of the Cold War.

The subject of the sanctuary of space is somehow debatable. Some nations claim that the Outer Space Treaty refers not only to weaponization, but also to any sort of military use of space itself, as well as space hardware. While keeping weapons away from space has been achieved so far, the use of space for the military has been widespread worldwide. Reconnaissance, communication and global positioning satellites are all used for military purposes and ultimately for achieving national security. However there have been suggestions that using space hardware for national security can only benefit the entire humanity, because it is a means of maintaining world peace. [2]

Placing weapons in space would affect the concept of sanctuary in a negative manner, or in other words, space would not be a sanctuary anymore. It is recommended to maintain space in a status somehow similar to the international waters where special laws apply for all nations of the world. Therefore, placing any type of weapon with any sort of aggressiveness in mind would destroy the status of the sanctuary. However there are exceptions that the international community must agree with. For example, using nuclear weapons for deflecting a hazardous near-Earth object should be something pre-agreed. Waiting until such a situation arises to decide may be a problem. It is somehow widely agreed in the space community that blowing up an asteroid in the “Armageddon” style would not be a good idea, but there are other ideas circulating around that suggest using nuclear weapons to just change the course of such a hazardous object while still at a considerable distance from Earth would be a reliable method of deflection. Such uses of weapons in space would help maintain the sanctuary.

Maintaining the sanctuary of space is beneficial for the entire humanity, but especially to the space faring nations. [3] The sanctuary assures the safety of space hardware of any kind, from satellites to the International Space Station itself. It is important to note however that one of the reasons the sanctuary of space has been maintained is that space faring is hard and not at every nation’s hand. The more space activities and possibilities will be developed, the more the sanctuary will be at risk. We are presently witnessing the first tentative of Iran to become a space faring nation. Who is to tell that such a nation would respect the international treaties and express care for the sanctuary of space?

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Space Policy and Law

[...]
In reality, maintaining the position of leader in the field while peacefully utilizing space renders the United States a strong military power as well. It is important to keep in mind the exercise of power exhibited by the U.S. as opposed to the former Soviet Union during the cold war. At that time, one of the most valuable assets a state could have was to become a pioneer of space exploration. The first state to explore and use the space for national security would have been the most powerful in the world. In the words of James Lipp of RAND Corporation,
… since mastery of the elements is a reliable index of material progress, the nation which first makes significant achievements in space travel will be acknowledged as the world leader in both military and scientific techniques. [4]
Therefore, spaceflight was and still is a form of soft power, a method to influence other nations by an impressive display of space capabilities. What other means to keep the world leader positions but to continue the peaceful space exploration for the benefit of all humanity!

Notes:
[1] The White House. National Space Policy of the United States of America. June 28, 2010. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/177677/Readings%20_I001_/2010_06_28_US_National_Space_Policy.pdf (accessed January 21, 2013), 3.
[2] United Nations. United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. New York, 2002.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf (accessed January 21, 2013), vi.
[3] ACQ Web. ABM Treaty: Remarks by the President on NMD. December 13, 2001. www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/abm/remarks.htm (accessed January 21, 2013), para. 6.
[4] Gillespie, Paul and Grant Weller, Eds. 2008. Harnessing the Heavens: National Defense Through Space. U.S. Air Force Academy: Launnius, Roger D. National Security, Space, and the Course of Recent U.S. History, 8.

Outer Space Treaty



Notes:
[1] United Nations. United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. New York, 2002.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf (accessed January 15, 2013), 4.
[2] Ibid, 4.
[3] The Universe: Stopping Armageddon, produced by Alexander G. Morano. 2009; The History Channel. DVD.
[4] West, Jessica. The Space Review: Back to the future: The Outer Space Treaty turns 40. The Space Review, October 15, 2007. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/982/1 (accessed January 15, 2013), para. 10.