Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

The Dirty Dozen
The Aerospace Industry

The research and report on space weapons was developed in coordination with the Secure World Foundation.

Introduction

In early 2007, Reaching Critical Will examined the aerospace industry's contributions to missile defense and the weaponization of space. We found that along with twelve of the original thirteen Dirty Dozen corporations, there are dozens of other companies involved in the development of space weapon and missile defense technology and support systems. Twenty-three of those corporations are represented in this report, in the Dirty Dozen Annex.

While as far as anyone knows there are currently no weapons deployed in space, the US policy on outer space is concerning. In the US National Military Strategy, the Joint Chiefs of Staff urge for “full spectrum dominance”, which is the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.” In addition, the 2006US National Space Policy explains that the US will “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intending to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests.”

Furthermore, US space policy firmly opposes “the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space,” and insists that “proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for US national interests.” During the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security held each year in October, the US has faithfully rejected resolutions proposing the negotiation of a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space (PAROS), arguing there is no such arms race, and it would therefore be a waste of time to negotiate a PAROS treaty.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense requested more than a billion dollars from the US budget for fiscal year 2008 to spend on programs that could provide anti-satellite and space-based weapons capabilities. Aerospace defense contractors are taking advantage of the Bush administration’s push for increased spending on space domination. While the technology itself is highly controversial, it presents major business opportunities to companies that know how to overcome moral, logistical, and financial roadblocks.

War has always been highly profitable, and dominance of outer space leads to further profits in conventional warfare. As the Air Force Space Command stated in its 2003 Strategic Master Plan, “the ability to gain space superiority (the ability to exploit space while selectively disallowing it to adversaries) is critically important and maintaining space superiority is an essential prerequisite in modern warfare.” Superiority in conventional warfare relies on military assets in space, especially satellites, which are used for intelligence, remote sensing, navigation, and monitoring, among other things. Since the US currently asserts its political will through force, protection of its own space assets and disturbance of others’ is key to guaranteeing US dominance.

One measure the US has taken to protect its space assets is the development of a ballistic missile defense shield. While missile defense is presented as a defense of American and allied territories against a limited missile attack, it is in reality one more step towards full spectrum dominance. As the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review says, “[d]efense of the US homeland and protection of forward bases increase the ability of the United States to . . . use its power projection forces.” Missile defense allows the US to develop offensive technologies under the pretence of defense. For example, Kinetic Energy Inteceptors are missiles which are launched into space to take out enemy missiles by smashing into them. They also have potential applications as offensive anti-satellite weapons, because the same maneovering abilities and set of controls is necessary to destroy satellites. The Missile Defense Agency has “begun laying the ground work for experimenting with space-based interceptors” – in 2007, it requested $45 million for space-based interceptor work in 2008, and a total of $567 million through 2001.

This increased funding is up for grabs. Major defense contractors are actively developing their aerospace capabilities, and smaller aerospace corporations are competing to prove their technical innovation in making satellites smaller and launch vehicles less expensive. William Hartung of the Arms Trade Resource Center points out that the US’ major defense contractors are not passively benefiting from increased spending – as Northrop Grumman’s apt slogan, “defining the future”, indicates, they are manipulating government interests in order to ensure spending is increased:

"Should they choose to, companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, SAIC and General Dynamics that are involved in space weapons-related projects have plenty of clout to bring to bear. These five companies alone made $13.1 million in campaign contributions from 2001 through the 2006 election cycles. This represents 40% of the $33.2 million in contributions made by the entire defense industry during this time period. Their percentage of lobbying expenditures is even higher. The same five companies spent $30.2 million on lobbying in the year 2000 (the most recent year for which full data is available), more than half of the $60 million lobbying expenditures made by the entire defense industry in that year."

There are many reasons to be concerned about the development of missile defense and space weapon technology, including the increased conventional military dominance by the United States, the vast waste of resources that accompanies any arms build-up, whether it's a race or an asymmetrical surge, and the physical results of fighting in outer space - especially space debris, which will destroy civil and commercial space infrastructure such as satellites. The corporations studied in the Dirty Dozen and the Dirty Dozen Annex are all contributing to the steady drive toward a future in which these concerns are our dirty reality.