Speculation about China's recent anti-satellite test is running rampant, but most agree that the January 11 test is serving as political ammunition for those who support even more funding for the Pentagon's $100 billion dollar Star Wars program.
The fact that China's test was done in response to the Bush Administration's aggressive New National Space Policy and its rejection of proposals to demilitarize space, hasn't, for a minute, caused U.S. hawks to reassess the role they play in further instigating the global arms race.
The New National Space Policy, a doctrine of pre-emptive star wars, was released in August 2006. It mandates America's right "to respond to interferences and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." In formulating this doctrine, the US has rejected the diplomatic approach favored by most of our allies and further ignited the race for space-based weaponry and anti-ballistic missile defense systems.
China’s space reconnaissance and communications capabilities are extremely limited. Security experts say that China's anti-satellite program is a way of leveling a massive disparity in military capabilities. In contrast, the US is at the forefront of the space wars, controlling 55% of the world's satellites.
China’s recent test provides an opportunity to reassess long-standing US policies. Given that America has had this technology for 20 years, and China has recently acquired the technological capabilities, it’s a good time to negotiate a set of guidelines for "spacepolitik" that recognizes how all nations will benefit from a treaty that brings the space wars to an end.
With its growing dependence on satellite communications and surveillance, the US has the most to lose from an escalation of anti-satellite technologies.
The US already has spent $100 billion on a Star Wars system of dubious value. This year, we’re continuing to throw good money after bad with an additional $10 billion on Star Wars. (For comparison purposes, this is five times the amount the government spends on renewable energy).
The best way for the Bush Administration to provide enduring security to America is, paradoxically, to step back from the conflicts that are escalating on multiple fronts around the world and reconsider how it can lead the way toward global peace and prosperity.
In working with other nations to establish basic guidelines for demilitarizing space, a good starting point is China. But the Bush Administration has rejected a policy of peaceful international cooperation in space for one of confrontation. At a June 2006 conference on China-U.S. Strategic Relations in Washington, D.C, sponsored by the World Security Institute and the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, space security was a major issue. The Chinese delegation expressed growing apprehension over U.S. developments in space weaponization. The conference report concluded that there is little hope for substantive collaboration in civilian programs.
It is not in America’s bilateral interests to leave it at that.
The Ming Dynasty fell during a military buildup against their Manchu enemy stirring north of the Great Wall. The Manchu eventually brought the Ming down, but not before the basic levels of production, society, and governance were laid to waste by corruption, insolvency, plague and profligacy and, ultimately, an insurgency from within, spurred on by government neglect.
By continuing to blow billions of dollars on their quest for space superiority, the Bush Administration is neglecting issues of vital importance to the American people.
In a recently released survey by the University of Chicago, 74% of respondents said they favored more spending on education and 66% want more government funding for health care. Nearly 40% said that we’re spending too much on defense.
How many Americans would want billions more of their tax dollars frittered away in the final frontier?
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret) formally commanded the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the Military Advisory Committee of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.
###
