This article first appeared on Minutemanmedia.org on Nov. 29, 2006.

In October, the White House finally released its new U.S. National Space Policy (NSP). This came after years of dithering and bureaucratic infighting as to what it would include and how far it would stretch the boundaries from the previous policy, last updated during the Clinton administration in 1996. The new NSP at first glance doesn’t indicate many obvious differences. However, a closer reading reveals that this, like everything else coming out of the Bush White House, contains a unilateralist and militaristic bent that could prove quite dangerous.

This policy heavily promotes “unhindered” access to space for the United States, while the previous one pushed for access to space for all countries. The new NSP also contains a distrust of international institutions that falls in line with much of the administration’s prior actions. See: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, abrogation of; Kyoto Treaty, dismissal of; International Criminal Court, continued opposition to.

This NSP decries international institutions as possible venues for collective space security. Reading between the lines, it is another nail in the coffin of the proposed treaty for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) that would prevent weaponization. PAROS has been withering away at the Conference of Disarmament in Geneva for years. The United States has refused to allow the organization even to discuss space weapons, rather disingenuously arguing that because there presently aren’t any, there is no need to develop a treaty against them. 

However, this unilateralist preeminence gives short shrift to the security of the United States’ own space assets. It’s not just the U.S. economy that depends on satellite networks, although it certainly does. The U.S. military has seen such a large growth in its communications requirements that most of them are carried over commercial satellite networks. The Pentagon relies on space assets for observing ground movements, aerial mapping, and weapons targeting. 

Additionally, the United States is so reliant upon its satellites that we would have the most to lose if space were to be weaponized. We are now at a juncture where a choice needs to be made about how the United States will protect these assets. We can create an atmosphere that is conducive toward cooperating with other space-faring nations that would allow us reliable access to space. Or we can create an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hostility that would increase the likelihood of disputes escalating into wars. 

As one of the biggest users of space, the United States has an opportunity to shape the debate in a way that would be to our advantage. If we choose to ignore other countries, the international community will shape the debate for us, and it very well may do so in a manner that is not in America’s best interests. 

The new NSP also places more emphasis on military actions to deny our enemies the use of space than did the Clinton-era model. This comes on the heels of a plethora of Air Force doctrinal papers that espouse fighting war “in, from, and through” space. While at present there aren’t any official space weapons programs, there are systems that could be space weapons in disguise. And next year, the debate begins for real in February, when the Pentagon shows Congress what programs it wants funding for during the 2008 fiscal year. The Missile Defense Agency currently plans to include in its budget request space-based interceptors as part of the overall missile defense architecture. 

The time to discuss the pros and cons of space weapons is now, before such systems get started, and before they spread funding across various congressional districts, generating institutional momentum that makes them difficult if not impossible to kill. The Bush administration clearly is hoping to sidestep this debate. Even the release of the new NSP demonstrates this: It came out at 5 p.m. on a Friday night prior to last three-day weekend before the mid-term elections, when all of Washington had long since cleared out. It is said that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. America’s space security is too serious an issue to be allowed to be determined in such a devious way. 

# # #