Beginning to fill in his declaration of last year about turning
space into a war zone and establishing a U.S. Space Force,
President Trump was at the Pentagon last week promoting a plan
titled “Missile Defense Review.”
As The New York Times said in its headline on the
scheme:: “Plans Evoke 1983 ‘Star Wars’ Program.” Bruce Gagnon,
coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear
Power in Space, called it “provocative and destabilizing and
basically insane.”
As Trump stated at the Pentagon on January 17: “We will
recognize that space is a new war-fighting domain with the Space
Force leading the way. My upcoming budget will invest in a
space-based missile defense layer technology. It’s ultimately
going to be a very, very big part of our defense and obviously of
our offense.”
The new United States space military plan comes despite the
Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that designates space as a global
commons to be used for peaceful purposes. The U.S., the United
Kingdom and then Soviet Union worked together in assembling the
treaty. It has been ratified or signed by 123 nations. The release
of the 100-page “Missile Defense Review” follows the Trump
announcement, also at the Pentagon, in June, that he is moving to
establish a U.S. Space Force as a sixth branch of the U.S. armed
forces. He stated then: “It is not enough to merely have an
American presence in space, we must have American dominance in
space.”
The component of the “Missile Defense Review” that closely
resembles the “Star Wars” program of President Reagan involves
what it describes as “space-based interceptors.”
As The Times said: “In the most contentious proposal,
the report embraced Reagan’s Star Wars plan of putting weapons in
space to shoot down enemy missiles during ascent.” The Times
also noted that “the document was careful to describe the
step as largely a research project—for now.”
“The space-basing of interceptors also may provide
significant advantages, particularly for boost-phase defense.
As directed by Congress, DoD will identify the most promising
technologies, and estimated schedule, cost, and personnel
requirements for a possible space based defensive layer that
achieves early operational capability for boost-phase
defense.”
The Reagan Star Wars program also utilized a defense
rationale—it was formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative.
It was based on orbiting battle platforms with nuclear reactors or
“super” plutonium systems on board providing the power for
hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons. Despite its
claim of being defensive, it was criticized for being offensive
and a major element in what the U.S. military in numerous
documents then and since has described as “full spectrum
dominance” of the Earth below that the U.S. is seeking in taking
the “ultimate high ground” of space.
Gagnon, whose Maine-based organization has been a world leader
since its formation in 1992 in challenging the weaponization of
space, said: “The new Trump space proposal is a key element in
Pentagon first-strike attack planning sold to the public as
‘missile defense’. The system is not actually designed to
protect the U.S. from every nuclear missile launched at us—that
would be a mathematical impossibility. This Star Wars system would
only work as the ‘shield’ to be used to pick off Russian or
Chinese retaliatory responses after a U.S. first-strike sword is
thrust.”
He said “we know this because the Space Command,” the division
of the U.S. Air Force which Trump seeks to have succeeded by a
separate Space Force, “has been computer war gaming such a
scenario for years—they call it the ‘Red team’ versus the ‘Blue
team.’”
“The kicker” regarding the U.S. space military plans, said
Gagnon, “is that the costs would be colossal—what the aerospace
industry has long said would be the ‘largest industrial project in
human history.’ The only way the U.S. can pay for it is by cutting
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and by twisting the arms of
NATO members to pony up more money.”
The Outer Space Treaty was spurred, as Craig Eisendrath, who
had been a U.S. State Department officer involved in its creation,
noted in the 2001 TV documentary that I wrote and narrate, “Star
Wars Returns,” by the Soviet Union launching the first space
satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. Eisendrath said “we sought to
de-weaponize space before it got weaponized…to keep war out of
space.”
It provides that nations “undertake not to place in orbit
around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such
weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in space
in any other manner.”
In recent decades, Canada, Russia and China have been
leaders in pushing a treaty that would broaden the Outer Space
Treaty—the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
Treaty. This treaty would not only ban nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction but any weapons in space.
But U.S. administration after administration, Democrat and
Republican, have refused to support the PAROS Treaty, thus
providing a veto of its passage at the United Nations.
The new “Missile Defense Review” is explicit in how the
U.S. “will not accept any limitation or constraint on the
development or deployment of missile defense capabilities.”
The announcement of the new U.S. space plan came a day
after the U.S. confirmed it would initiate under the Trump
administration a withdrawal from another treaty, this one
between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union, limiting nuclear
missiles, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty
of 1987.
Russia is warning that the “Missile
Defense Review” will fuel an arms race in space. An
Associated Press story out of Russia last week reported: “The
Russian Foreign Ministry described the new U.S. strategy as a
proof of ‘Washington’s desire to ensure uncontested military
domination in the world.’”
“It warned that the expansion of the U.S. missile defense
system ‘will inevitably start an arms race in space with the
most negative consequences for international security and
stability.’”
The “’implementation of its plans and approaches will not
strengthen security of the U.S. and its allies,’ the ministry
said in a statement. ‘Attempts to take that path will have the
opposite effect and deal another heavy blow to international
stability.’”
The AP story said: “The Russian Foreign Ministry described
the review as an attempt to reproduce President Ronald
Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ missile defense plans on a new
technological level and urged the Trump administration to
‘come to its senses’ and engage in arms control talks with
Russia.”
Meanwhile,
Defense News last week questioned whether
Congress will fund the “Missile Defense Review” proposals. It
said that “unless Congress approves the major funding
increases that will be required to make it a reality, many of
those programs may fall by the wayside—and questions are
emerging over whether these systems will be funded by the
Democratic House of Representatives that is looking to cut
defense spending.”
Professor Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law
at the University of Illinois College of Law, who has long
written about space military and weaponization issues, ties
the new space plan to where the Reagan Star Wars plan got its
name: “Well Lucas Films and its successors,” stated Boyle,
“have done all they can to keep their Star Wars franchise
alive for the past four decades and milk it for all it’s
worth. And now the Pentagon will be keeping their Star Wars
franchise and milking it for all its worth.”
This is being done, of course, with the zealous promotion
of Darth Trump.