Get Red Pepper's email newsletter. Enter your email address to receive our latest articles, updates and news.

×

Who rules space, rules earth

Dave Webb explains the rationale of star wars.

February 1, 2004
3 min read

The US’s missile defence programme should not be seen as an attempt merely to protect US citizens from an aggressive enemy or terrorist action, but as a means of transferring the theatre of war into space. Nor is it just a policy of George W Bush’s Republicans. The origin of the term “star wars” is usually associated with Ronald Reagan, but the concept dates back to the cold war “space race” and has been supported and funded by all US administrations since then.

American belief in the value of space control was solidified by the wars in the Gulf in 1991 and last year, Kosovo in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001. These conflicts demonstrated that the use of space technology for reconnaissance, surveillance, communications and battle management gives an overwhelming military advantage. Who rules space, also rules the Earth.

The US Space Command’s 1996 documents Vision for 2020[itals] and Long Range Plan[itals] recognised the widening division between the global economic “haves” and “have-nots”, and introduced the doctrine of “full-spectrum dominance” (the military dominance of the land, sea, air, space and information) to protect the “haves”.

To defend “US interests and investments” on a worldwide scale, Space Command claims it must maintain supremacy in, and deny others access to, space. These intentions were also clearly stated in Donald Rumsfeld’s 2001 Space Commission report, which highlighted the need to dominate all aspects of space and to defend it against a possible “space Pearl Harbor”. The tragedy of 11 September 2001 and the increasing emphasis on possible missile threats from “rogue states” and terrorists have given the US right a huge boost in its campaign to develop aggressive space-based systems as a way of exerting full control over world affairs.

There are no weapons stationed in space yet, but the US military justifies the development of a war-fighting capability in space on its increasing reliance on vulnerable satellite systems. The US already has a range of programmes to develop weapons such as space-based lasers and the military space plane (which will replace the aging space shuttle fleet, and could be used to destroy satellites). Although illegal under the international Outer Space Treaty, the stationing of nuclear weapons in space is also being actively considered.

The US move to space-based weapons could mean fewer (American) casualties, quicker response times and less need for foreign bases from which to launch attacks. Also, although “allies” are always welcome to help it legitimise its actions, the US is clearly quite prepared to act unilaterally. In fact, US Air Force secretary James Roche has signalled that the US’s allies would have no veto over projects designed to give it military control of space.

Where the US leads, others will follow. Russia, China and India have already made it clear that they will not let a US war-fighting capability in space go unchallenged. Although the Bush administration has shown a willingness to ignore or withdraw from international agreements, moves must be made towards a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space – before we enter what would almost certainly be the final battlefield.Dave Webb is Professor of Engineering at Leeds Metropolitan University


Meet the frontline activists facing down the global mining industry
Activists are defending land, life and water from the global mining industry. Tatiana Garavito, Sebastian Ordoñez and Hannibal Rhoades investigate.

Transition or succession? Zimbabwe’s future looks uncertain
The fall of Mugabe doesn't necessarily spell freedom for the people of Zimbabwe, writes Farai Maguwu

Don’t let Corbyn’s opponents sneak onto the Labour NEC
Labour’s powerful governing body is being targeted by forces that still want to strangle Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, writes Alex Nunns

Labour Party laws are being used to quash dissent
Richard Kuper writes that Labour's authorities are more concerned with suppressing pro-Palestine activism than with actually tackling antisemitism

Catalan independence is not just ‘nationalism’ – it’s a rebellion against nationalism
Ignasi Bernat and David Whyte argue that Catalonia's independence movement is driven by solidarity – and resistance to far-right Spanish nationalists

Tabloids do not represent the working class
The tabloid press claims to be an authentic voice of the working class - but it's run by and for the elites, writes Matt Thompson

As London City Airport turns 30, let’s imagine a world without it
London City Airport has faced resistance for its entire lifetime, writes Ali Tamlit – and some day soon we will win

The first world war sowed the seeds of the Russian revolution
An excerpt from 'October', China Mieville's book revisiting the story of the Russian Revolution

Academies run ‘on the basis of fear’
Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT) was described in a damning report as an organisation run 'on the basis of fear'. Jon Trickett MP examines an education system in crisis.

‘There is no turning back to a time when there wasn’t migration to Britain’
David Renton reviews the Migration Museum's latest exhibition