Definitions Militarization of Outer Space: Space has been militarized
since the earliest communication satellites were launched.
Today, militaries all over the world rely on satellites for
command and control, communication, monitoring, early warning,
and navigation with the Global Positioning System. Therefore,
“peaceful uses” of outer space include military
uses, even those which are not at all peaceful—such
as using satellites to direct bombing raids or to orchestrate
a “prompt global strike” capability, which is
“the ability to control any situation or defeat any
adversary across the range of military operations.”
Weaponization of Outer Space: Space weaponization
is generally understood to refer to the placement in orbit
of space-based devices that have a destructive capacity.
Many experts argue that ground-based systems designed or
used to attack space-based assets also constitute space
weapons, though are not technically part of the “weaponization
of outer space” since they are not placed in orbit.
Some also argue that weapons that travel through space in
order to reach their targets, such as hypersonic technology
vehicles, also contribute to the weaponization of space.
Many elements of the US ballistic “missile defense”
system currently being developed or planned could constitute
space weapons as well, as many possess “dual-use”
characteristics, allowing them to destroy space assets as
well as ballistic missiles.
Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS):
The overwhelming majority of UN member states are concerned
that the weaponization of outer space will lead to an arms
race and insist that a multilateral treaty is the only way
to prevent such an arms race, emphasizing that this treaty
would not limit space access, but would prevent such limitations.
In 2006, Russia argued that if all states observe a prohibition
on space weaponization, there will be no arms race. Russia
and China also support establishing an obligation of no
use or threat of use of force against space objects and
have submitted a draft treaty to the UN on preventing the
placement of weapons in outer space. (See the fact sheet
on Outer Space and the United Nations.)
Effects on arms control and nuclear
disarmament
The weaponization of space will destroy strategic balance
and stability, undermine international and national security,
and disrupt existing arms control instruments, in particular
those related to nuclear weapons and missiles. These effects
will inevitably lead to a new arms race. Space weaponization
would seriously disrupt the arms control and disarmament
process. The United States' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty in 2001 and the development of US ground-
and sea- based “missile defenses” have already
increased tensions with Russia and have led to increased
missile proliferation.
The deployment of these technologies or the development
of space-based technologies will likely cause Russia, as
well as the United States (in response to Russia), to make
smaller and smaller reductions of their nuclear arsenals
and to reject the development of new treaties to regulate
nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. China would
likely build more warheads to maintain its nuclear deterrent,
which could in turn encourage India and then Pakistan to
follow suit.
Recent events
In January 2007, China
an anti-satellite weapon against one of its own ageing weather
satellites. The United States, while condemning the test,
forged ahead with several space
and missile defence projects with dual-use capabilities.
In addition, in February 2008, the United States shot
down own of it's own failed satellites that was carrying
a half-ton of hydrazine rocket fuel (a toxic chemical). The
US military shot it down with a Standard Missile-3, whose
primary vocation is interceptor for the US Navy’s missile
defense system.
At the 2010 UN General Assembly, the international community agreeed to launch a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to explore transparency- and confidence-building measures that could be undertaken to enhance space security. This GGE will commence in 2012.
Current trends in US policy
While as far as anyone knows there are currently no weapons deployed in space, the US policy on outer space is concerning. Under the Bush administration, the 2006 US National Space Policy explained 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.”
At that point, the United States rejected treaties “limiting its actions” in outer spaceand its space policy firmly opposed “the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space,” and insisted 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.”
In July 2010, the Obama administration released the new US National Space Policy. It states that the US shall pursue bilateral and multilateral transparency and confidence-building measures to encourage responsible action in, and the peaceful uses of, space. The new policy also notes that the US will consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are “equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the US and its allies.” The language in this new policy suggests that this is a significant departure from its predecessor. However, the actual implications of this change are still unknown. While claiming that it is open to considering space-related arms control concepts and proposals, the US argues that such proposals must meet the “‘rigorous criteria’ of equitability, effective verifiability, and enhance the national security interests of the US and its allies.” The Russian-Chinese joint draft treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT) would not meet these criteria according to the US, as it is “fundamentally flawed” and would not provide any grounds for commencing negotiations.
The United States Department of Defense continues to invest in programs that could provide anti-satellite and space-based weapons capabilities. 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.
Space debris
Besides creating an new arms race, the weaponization of space
means proliferation of space debris. Such debris, resulting
from 50 years of space activity, already poses a considerable
hazard to spacecraft. This crowding problem could worsen as
a large number of space weapons could be deployed in Low Earth
Orbit (LEO). The launching and testing of weapons would also
increase . Moreover, deploying space-based weapons in the
increasingly crowded realm of LEO would leave less room for
civilian systems. Those problems would also occur during periods
of peace. If a number of satellites were to be destroyed during
the course of a war, some scientists warn, they would create
so much debris that it would prevent future satellites from
being stationed in space and generally limit space access.
