Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction

8. Outer Space

8 Outer Space D ecember 1, 2003, marked the forty-fourth anniversary of the signing of the first arms control agreement of the modern era, the Antarctic Treaty, which preserved the continent as a nonmilitarized, nuclear-weapon-free area. The debate that preceded the negotiation of that treaty is remarkably similar to contemporary discussion on the future of outer space. In the early to mid-1950s, there were approximately a dozen countries vying for scientific, economic, and military interests in Antarctica—an uninhabited, borderless, and lawless land. In time, and after much debate, twelve states (with others joining afterward) decided that the greater interests of all of the affected parties would best be served if the continent could be preserved for peaceful uses, and that those interests could best be protected through a legal arrangement rather than through the use or deployment of military forces. Thus, the Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959. The international community is now faced with protecting 9 9 the opportunities and assets associated with the use of outer space. Here again we have a borderless realm rich in commercial, scienti fic, and military potential, and questions about how best to preserve those critical assets. Will military deployments and the weaponization of space be required? Is (as some have suggested) the weaponization of space an inevitable evolution of current and historical realities? Or is it possible, or even desirable, to instead craft a legal arrangement preserving space as a peaceful realm? Perhaps a third way will present itself. For example, could there be some combination of approaches whereby both legal restraints and militarization are part of the equation? These are but a few of the questions facing those working to protect access to space. A great deal rides on the answers to these questions. Scienti- fically, the stakes are quite high—everything from the International Space Station to the Hubble Space Telescope and the exploration of Mars would potentially be affected by instability and unpredictability in outer space. The commercial implications are even greater. For example, in Foreign Affairs magazine several years ago, Michael Krepon estimated that space-technology industries generated $125 billion in profits in 2000; by 2010, the cumulative U.S. investment in space is expected to reach as high as $600 billion—roughly the equivalent of the total current U.S. investment in Europe (“Lost in Space,” May-June, 2001, p. 5). Even with a less favorable economic climate, as in 2003, the commercial stakes are high. Clearly, it is now more important than ever to protect space assets. It is also evident that outer space is becoming a more dangerous place. Several countries—including Russia, the United States, and perhaps China—have had programs to develop sophisticated antisatellite weapons, and several others are thought to be seeking such technologies. If anti-satellite weapons continue to proliferate, they have the potential to dramatically undermine fundamental U.S. interests, including national security and international com1 0 0 / o u t e r s p a c e merce. Krepon cites, for example, that a May 1998 failure by a single Galaxy IV satellite caused 80 percent of the pagers in America to go dead, affecting some 27 million users. A realization of the increasing vulnerability of the United States to attacks against space assets has caused some to encourage Washington to begin deploying defensive weapon systems. Although this appears to make sense, a thoughtful analysis of the history of military development reveals flaws with this notion. Most importantly, modern history categorically demonstrates that effective defensive weapon systems will inevitably be countered by effective offensive systems, sparking an ever-upward-spiraling arms race that ultimately leaves all sides less secure. For supporting evidence, one need look no further than the second half of the twentieth century and the nuclear arms race that dominated it. Until the United States and the Soviet Union signed the abm Treaty in 1972, effectively preventing each side from deploying defensive systems, the nuclear weapon competition between the two superpowers was constantly threatening to escalate out of control. For the same reason, the international community of space-faring nations should recognize the need for restraint and seek to develop some legal regime to preserve outer space as a non-weaponized realm. It is important that this happen as soon as possible; most nations already consider the possibility of weapons being deployed in space as highly threatening to their security. The Canadian government has unequivocally stated that it...