Space, the Final Frontier
US Finally Claims Outer Space: Tammy Bruce notices that America now regards space, not as some kind of parkland, but as an extension of the earth. The Washington Post reports: “President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone ‘hostile to U.S. interests.’ ‘Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power,’ the policy asserts in its introduction.”
Commentary
This was, if you pardon the overused expression, inevitable. At discussion I had recently, someone argued that the Reality Principle, which is another name for the pressure of necessity, had a logic of its own. People could argue about what they ought to do; but in the end they did what they had to do. The quaint way of saying this was that "man proposes and God disposes". The modern equivalent is probably "get with the program".
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/18/2006 04:25:00 PM
8 Comments:
Bush can dream on, but Presidents can't unilaterally make policies which are binding on future presidents. Even international treaties can be reversed by statute.
Prior to his appointment as SECDEF, Don Rumsfeld headed a study which made a number of recommendations, one of which was to change policies to enable weapons to be put in space.
The head of SDI (the first one, not the present guy, who is an old friend of mine) pointed out back in 1988 that the only reason he was not demonstrating the ability to shoot down aicraft from orbit was that he thought it was politically too hot to do. There was shocked silence in the room full of AF pilots when he said that.
Some argue that weapons should be kept out of space. Unfortunately, when the first V-2 headed for London it was too late for that.
It's about time that this happened. Time to stop kidding ourselves that the oversweet song "Its a small world after all" really represents how things are. Living in such a dreamland, where the UN is an effective and even-handed guarantor of rights and international law and treaties are truly effective regarding space or anywhere else for that matter, makes it much easier for any enemy to develop the ability attack us from space.
While my attitude may be easily mocked as Strangelovian, you can see where the internationalist, multi-lateral vs. U.S. national interests approach has gotten us on a wide range of issues, Iran and North Korea to mention just two.
In case you don't know it the stinking Chineese Communists "painted" one of our satellites with a laser beam the other day. That's probably the immediate reason Bush II has acted just now. Go Bush. Gentlebush!
Let's come up with some great nicknames for Dubya that don't sound so Eastern European.
Questhe,
I think you're right about this being a logical first step in the direction of a Space Force. More importantly it's a first step in the direction of Space colonies as well:
In part because military bases on the Moon are going to be a necessary step in keeping our assets secure (The principle that "high ground wins" doesn't stop at GEO and like it or not it is the Moon that's at the top of the gravity well), and in part because the UN treaties currently in place have been a legal and political obstacle to such colonization no matter what happy talk may have been made on the matter. Let's hope the second step is taken as well. ^_~
Tersita,
You say that, but the fact of the matter is that what one President does is what gives and limits the options of his predecessors. The Monroe Doctrine played a role in the Cuban Missile Crisis 150+ years after its articulation. That's why it's legitimate for Democrats to still talk about Reagan and for Republicans to still talk about Carter. Only a President as weak as Clinton was is incapable of having an influence on American history beyond the time of his administration (As shown by the fact that his own followers deny that his actions could ever have had any possible influence upon current events a mere 6 years after he stopped being President). :P
Snowonpine,
Too true! Stalin once asked "How many brigades does the Pope command?" About the secular vatican know as the UN I would ask, "How many spaceships has the UN ever launched?". ^O^
rwe,
My own suspicion is that the only way to keep weapons out of space would be to keep people out of space. And given the number of things that can go wrong with keeping the human race on just one planet I think that a very bad idea.
sparks fly,
Robert Heinlein said it best, "Whether or not there is intelligent life in Washington, D.C., there is certainly intelligent life in Moscow, Peking and Tokyo." The reason to start our next big push into space is that we can't coast on the fact that we still have a big lead *forever*! ^_^;
Eggplant,
I don't recall rwe quoting the gentleman as saying that he would limit himself to merely a single weapon while shooting down those airplanes. As for question of how much the enemy weapon would be worth,...*I* think that not having a nuclear weapon go off on American soil would be worth a lot more than $10 million. But maybe that's just me. ^_^
Teresita: "Presidents can't unilaterally make policies which are binding on future presidents..."
Hold a seance and tell that to James Monroe.
Eggplant: Once you have solved the problem of how to destroy missiles from space, then dealing with things going much much slower is solved too - at least at 50K ft and above.
As to a "Space Force": having been a member for many years of the nearest thing we have to one, (or used to, anyway) you need to realize a key difference. Space has never been a MISSION. It has always been a PLACE which you utilize to do other missions. Like the Navy occassionaly flys things in order to do its mission at Sea - and the Sea is not only a Place for them but a Mission as well.
Now, does this new policy mean that Space is a Mission? A place to "own" the way we own the air anywhere we care to? We will see.
Unfortunately, the guys who now own the Air right now are genetically incapable of owning Space.
teresita:
"Bush can dream on, but Presidents can't unilaterally make policies which are binding on future presidents."
I have to disagree. A future President might well cut the budget of a future space force; he wouldn't dream of *abolishing* it.
IMHO we tend to think of space as a kind of inconsequential playground, which we choose to gambol in whenever we feel like not spending money on bread for the poor. :'>
But tens of thousands of kinetic-kill projectiles in orbit is anything but inconsequential. Any power that is serious about putting teeth in orbit will open up a new strategic dimension - no turning back at that point.
Now, you may have a point if you mean that a succeeding administration will be in a position to kill the program in the cradle.
But any administration would have to think of the "Pearl Harbor" contingency. "Why wasn't Star Wars up?" cried the surviving populace of Los Angeles...
In fact, the manned space program (which is what we're talking about here, you can't build laser battle stations telerobotically... another interesting implication of this policy) has until recently been the "play-thing" of an alliance of convenience between various NASA administrations, Congress, and Big Aerospace.
This can't last, if we want to actually do something in orbit.
Fortunately, the strain President Bush has put NASA under with his "Vision for Space Exploration" has forced it - under the doughty Mike Griffin - to begin treating the commercial world as a contractor for space *operations* as well as for design.
eggplant, this is why I take the prospect of space munitions very seriously, because NASA has run manned space access as a monopoly. In consequence, we seem to think that $10,000 per kilo to LEO is somehow part of the way of things.
But running contests to spark successful technologies - such as what NASA is finally doing (Source 1) - has a distinguished history of cost-effective, technological success, such as the locomotive. (Source 2)
(The winner of that 1829 locomotive contest, incidentally, was named the "Rocket." Hopeful omen for we who appreciate what space energy and resources could mean for the Earth!)
Source 1:
Lunar Lander Centennial Challenge:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20061017/sc_space/xprizecuptohostnasaslunarlanderchallenge
and,
Six Centennial Challenges:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060208_centennial_challenges.html
Source 2:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAliverpool.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home