Bush Seeks to Block Enemies From Space

[freethefly 6]

I was not aware that the US had exclusive rights to space and anyother country that seeks to use space was trespassing. Well, at least this will assure that Bin Laden can't deploy his star war weapons system

Oct 18, 9:21 AM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

Bush also said the United States would oppose the development of treaties or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space.

The provisions were contained in the first revision of U.S. space policy in nearly 10 years. Bush's order, signed more than a month ago, was not publicly announced although unclassified details of his decision were posted on the Web site of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy says. "In order to increase knowledge, discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the national security, the United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities."

The policy says that space systems should have rights of passage without interference, and that the United States would view any deliberate interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights.

"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests," the policy said.

"Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

The White House said the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space.

"This policy emphasizes that the United States is committed to peaceful uses of space by all nations and that space systems enjoy the right of free passage," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

He said the United States maintains the right of self-defense and the protection of its interests and assets in space.

"Protection of space assets does not imply some sort of forceful action," he said. "There is a broad range of ways to protect our space capabilities" such as system hardening, encryption, maneuvering and other methods.

"The new policy is consistent with previous national space policies in this regard," he said.

Jones said the challenges and threats facing the United States have changed in the decade since the space policy was last updated.

"Technology advances have increased the importance of and use of space," he said. "Now,, we depend on space capabilities for things like: ATMs, personal navigation, package tracking, radio services, and cell phone use."

The new policy was first reported by The Washington Post.

---

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Lefty 0]

Sounds fine to me. Oh, and bin Laden isn't a country.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[freethefly 6]

Most people would realize that the referance to Bin Laden is in relation to the title and the word "enemies". Also, that it was used jokingly

Should the US have complete control over space? What right does the US have telling another country that they cannot deploy spy satelites or any other type of device when the US does it themselves?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Channman 2]

> What right does the US have telling another country that they cannot deploy spy satelites or any other type of device when the US does it themselves?

The answer to me is so obvious, we i.e. the US do not want eyes looking down upon us. We also have the ability to remove said spy satelites from their Orbit if one was being used in a manner that would be deemed as a hostile act. With that said Russia has been using satelites for sometime to gather intel as well as the UK to name a few.

China is playing a rather interesting game with the US by attempting to blind our satelites with lasers when our satelites pass over and in doing so the US comes up with new ways to counter.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Should the US have complete control over space? What right does the US have telling another country that they cannot deploy spy satelites or any other type of device when the US does it themselves?

Um, other countries already have those devices in orbit already. The policy being talked about has to do with blocking potential enemies from denying us the use of space and denying enemies from establishing weapons platforms in space.

The US and USSR had reached an accord of sorts during the Cold War, the details I can't remember, but they agreed that they would not establish offensive weapons systems in space.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

The US & USSR ratified the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm), which includes “complete disarmament … to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction.” It has principally been interpreted as dealing with space-based nuclear weapons, although the accord has been cited/used with respect to other systems.

The accord has nearly 100 ratifications plus a couple dozen signatories.

VR,
Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[freethefly 6]

This article is on missile interceptor systems deployed in space. It seems to me that the U.S. seems that it is fine for the U.S. to have such systems in place but is actively seeking to block other countries from deploying such systems. Is it fair that the U.S. should be able to do so?
Technologicaly, the U.S. as an unfair advantage in warfare although, all the advances in technology does very little good when it is man against man.
I do admit, I would rather see a missile destroyed before it makes its way to the U.S.. What the question is, should the U.S. have exclusive rights to space in terms of protection systems? Should countries such as N. Korea or China be blocked from deploying the same types of MDS's that the U.S. is seeking to deploy?

Arms Control Today March 2003
U.S. Aims to Deploy Space-Based Missile Interceptors in Five Years
Wade Boese
The United States is exploring concepts for basing missile interceptors in space with the objective of beginning deployment of three to five armed satellites for testing purposes as early as 2008, according to recent Pentagon briefings and statements.

An official for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which oversees missile defense research and development, stressed in a February 6 interview that the effort to create a so-called space-based test bed, comprising at least three satellites, is in the preliminary stages. The official said no design for the satellites yet exists and that MDA will seek to draw up specifications for possible systems this year. The agency plans to award contracts to private companies as early as next winter to start work on design proposals.

The guiding idea is to field satellites armed with multiple hit-to-kill interceptors capable of destroying a ballistic missile through a high-speed collision shortly after its launch. Ideally, the interceptor would hit the missile in its boost phase, when the rocket engines are still firing and the warhead has not yet separated from the missile.

The proposal is reminiscent of former President George H. W. Bush’s “Brilliant Pebbles” concept, which the Clinton administration shelved after assuming office in January 1993. The elder Bush’s plan, however, was much more ambitious than current thinking, envisioning up to 1,000 interceptors based in orbit.

Past U.S. efforts to develop space-based missile defenses have failed, largely due to a combination of technological infeasibility, other funding priorities, and strong congressional opposition. With Republicans, who are generally more supportive of missile defense efforts than Democrats, in control of Congress, the Pentagon’s plans are more likely to win legislative approval unscathed.

While the MDA official emphasized that any interceptors initially deployed in space would be strictly for testing, other countries leery about U.S. missile defense plans, such as China, might draw different conclusions, particularly since the Bush administration announced in December 2002 that missile defense systems previously described as being for testing purposes would serve as the initial elements of a multilayered missile defense system.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld highlighted the dual nature of U.S. missile defense programs at a February 13 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, stating, “I would characterize what we have proposed as simultaneously a test bed as well as a minimal deployment. It is both things.” Rumsfeld was referring to the ground-based missile defense system to be set up in Alaska and California next year, but presumably a space-based test bed would also have some operational capability.

China is spearheading efforts at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Disarmament, which operates by consensus, to negotiate an agreement on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. (See ACT, March 2003.) One of the driving concerns behind China’s proposal is the potential deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in space.

The United States is opposing the Chinese proposal, arguing that there is no arms race in outer space and that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bans the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space, is sufficient.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young