[aldo_14]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn10262-us-takes-unilateral-stance-in-new-space-policy.html

The US has issued a new national space policy that reflects a more aggressive and unilateral stance than the previous version issued a decade ago by former president Bill Clinton.

"There is definitely a difference in approach and mentality," says Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington DC, US.

The earlier statement said US operations should be "consistent with treaty obligations". But the new one, issued on Friday, flat-out rejects new agreements that would limit the US testing or use of military equipment in space.

The new version also uses stronger language to assert that the US can defend its spacecraft, echoing an air force push for "space superiority" made in 2004. The new policy states the US has the right "to protect its space capabilities, respond to interference, and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests".

And it seems to open the door to a new anti-satellite arms race. One idea already in development is a robotic spacecraft that could approach a satellite to check it out, then sabotage it if it seems a danger to US interests.

Another concern is plans by the US Missile Defense Agency to orbit a small fleet of rockets with heavy heads to act as kinetic-energy interceptors. Although nominally intended for missile defence, Hitchens told New Scientist they would also be effective anti-satellite weapons. So far, however, she sees no signs of "a bucketload of money going to war fighting in space".

Other puzzles remain. The document includes a long section on which government agencies will administer space nuclear power systems, which will be used if they "safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities". The question is whether the systems are part of president George W Bush's plans for crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, or potential power plants for some new kind of military satellite.

The policy; http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf

[vyper]

Oh, great, Grandson of Star Wars. Seriously, if the UK doesn't get off its arse soon we'll be better off becoming the 51st district of China.

[Mefustae]

Well, I for one hope any foray into militarising LEO destroys their ****ing economy. That'll learn 'em to try and assert ownership over a truly international zone. Honestly, I wonder how long before they attempt to put a surface bombardment weapon up there, and end up creating a diplomatic crisis not seen since Cuba.

[Colonol Dekker]

Methinks a nother Biometal war is being masked by the NSDF, But its a step in the right direction, namely up
Globally competetive domestic space sector appeals to me V V V much, robitic exploration = Xenon or Cylons so thats a big no-no. Otherwise = V good. Cheers for bringing this to our attention Aldo.



See the're not all ass-masters, At least we got it in writing should they try to take us out with a mega-maid style robot bearing Bushes face.

[Wanderer]

Do they actually believe that Russia, China and perhaps even (depending on US foreign policy stuff) EU will let that go unopposed.. Thats practically carte blanche for every nation or rather their space agencies to begin arming the space... Nice work...   

[Colonol Dekker]

As much as i love Great Britain more than anything else (non-racially) I reckon if they've the means and motivation to claim a bit of outer space, Let em and kudos. God knows if i had an infrastructure i'd have set off by now.

[Taristin]

What is wrong with this administration, that they think international treaties dont apply to them? o.'.O

[aldo_14]

What is wrong with this administration, that they think international treaties dont apply to them? o.'.O

Rhetorical question?

[Shade]

Budget deficit was finally showing signs of shriking, so figures they had to come up with something to avert the impending threat of no red on the bottom line. This should bring it back to the .5 trillion mark again no problem.

[Herra Tohtori]

What is wrong with this administration, that they think international treaties dont apply to them? o.'.O

Rhetorical question?

Technically, that's not really a question mark at the end of that. It's a similar punctuation symbol known as "a cavuto"...

[Tyrian]

I read about this a while ago.  What disturbs me most about this is that this is exactly how the first Cold War started.  US gets bomb, scares Soviets, Soviets get bomb, each side builds up bigger and bigger arsenals.  At least the upside of nukes is that there is a chance to intercept the missiles before they hit, no matter how small that chance may be. 

With satellites, it will be the same chain of events as the first war.  Only this time, the US might deem an enemy satellite a threat, destroy it with an A-Sat launch/space mine, only to provike the other guy into a ground bombardment of the US.  Except they probably won't use missiles.  They will probably use tungsten rods dropped from sapce.  These projectiles use kinetic energy to destroy their target.  Unfortunately, it means that those "Rods of God" will travel so fast they cannot be intercepted.  So the only way to avoid a strike on US soil is a preemptive strike, which could result in the above scenario.  As you can see, it's a vicious cycle. 

The only good point, if it can be called that, is the damage will be highly localized.  The only thing that would be destroyed is what was hit.

If space is weaponized, we might be looking at the Second Cold War.

[Grug]

Arrogant bastages.
Terrorists in space?

[aldo_14]

Arrogant bastages.
Terrorists in space?

Well, you'd never look for them there, so logically they must be hiding in space.

[Kosh]

Do they actually believe that Russia, China and perhaps even (depending on US foreign policy stuff) EU will let that go unopposed.. Thats practically carte blanche for every nation or rather their space agencies to begin arming the space... Nice work...  

I think China's recent attempt at blinding a US spy sat gives a pretty clear indication of their attitude.

[Flaser]

Do they actually believe that Russia, China and perhaps even (depending on US foreign policy stuff) EU will let that go unopposed.. Thats practically carte blanche for every nation or rather their space agencies to begin arming the space... Nice work...   

I think China's recent attempt at blinding a US spy sat gives a pretty clear indication of their attitude.

Since when was turning space into US hegemony sinonymous with international territory?
China as far as I'm concerned was playing fair, they were tired of Big Brother™ looking over their shoulder.

Remember it was a defense measure, and didn't even have true offensive capability (like putting a sat out of comission).
You scared that you can't peek into Chineese affairs anymore?
Well they too are scared, that they can't peek into yours while you could....guess what? If you actually cared about peace, the sensible thing to do would be to sign a bilateral agreement about spysats monitoring BOTH your countries. (Remember you were the first ones to develop anti-satellite weaponry.)
That would keep everyone honest, which in turn would alllevate a whole range of madness.

However that seems unlikely....for one thing the US would have to admit, that the world is not their plaything and they can't control the situation on their own.
Second, it would be a sensible thing; but it wouldn't match the gun-ho attitude the Republicans often sport - and what their voters adore with a distrubing vehemency.

[Kosh]

However that seems unlikely....for one thing the US would have to admit, that the world is not their plaything and they can't control the situation on their own

Until their economy comes crashing down on top of them, they won't do it.

[aldo_14]

On this topic
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/us_space_policy/

he US has claimed "dibs" on the Universe with its new space policy. The document, signed by President Bush, was released on a Friday, just before a long weekend in the States. This, in itself has caused a bit of a stir, but not more so than the tone and content of the document.

In it, the US government allocates itself rights to access and use space without anyone else getting in its way. It also sets security at the heart of the space agenda, frequently citing its right to use space as part of its national defence.

Significantly, however, it does not commit to restrict, or even to join talks about restricting the development of space-based weapons. This is despite a UN vote last year in which 160 nations voted in favour of such talks.

The first bullet point outlining the principles of the programme sets the tone for the rest of the document:

"The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent with this principle, 'peaceful purposes' allow US defence and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests."

In other words: "Everyone has to use space peacefully, except us. We can do what we like, cos we were here first(*). And anyway, if you try to stop us, it won't stay peaceful for long, which would spoil the first part of our principle."

The document then warms to its military theme. The first fundamental goal of the programme is not given as being to explore the solar system or better understand the Universe, but:

"[To] strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further US national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives."

In keeping with this goal, the policy also confirms the Bush administration's abandonment of robotic space exploration of the solar system, in favour of manned exploration of the moon, and Mars. This approach is much more glamorous and exciting for Joe Public, true, but critics argue quite convincingly that it is much more expensive and scientifically less valuable.

International cooperation is not overlooked, but again the emphasis is on security. The US, the document says, might be happy to cooperate internationally on "providing space surveillance information consistent with security requirements and US national security and foreign policy interests".

Oh and "space exploration" too. Phew. ®

*Yes, we know.

[Kosh]

How much is this little adventure going to cost? Where are they going to get funding for something like this?

[Mefustae]

Loans to be paid back after they're thoroughly voted out of office. Seirously, i'm staying with my theory that all of this is just to create a ****ed-up economic situation for the Democrats when the current administration is inevitably voted out of office*. It'll be the Dems who look bad in the public eye when they raise taxes to stave off economic collapse, paving the way for the Reps to get back into office the very next election riding the 'lower taxes' bandwagon all the way to the White House. Why risk rigging elections when you can just manipulate the idiotic masses?

*...and if they're not come next elections, God help us all.