Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Bush: Space is for Soldiers

After four years and some 35 drafts, the Bush White House has finally released its long-awaited rewrite of the U.S. National Space Policy. Obviously, the administration was keen to get the word out – they quietly posted a 10-page unclassified summary on the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s website at 5 pm on Oct. 6 – the Friday before the Columbus Day long weekend.

fc-03.jpgHmm. Maybe not.

When asked about the document, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow replied: "What, this old thing? Just something we inherited from our Uncle Bill." Well, not literally, of course. But in a further indication that the administration intends to downplay the significance of the document, insiders have been characterizing the new NSP as "nothing new," just a variation on the themes set by the Clinton administration in the last NSP.

A cursory reading might support that conclusion – much of the language from the previous policy is lifted intact. But giving such an important document just a cursory reading would be a mistake. Slap down the new NSP, signed by President Bush on Aug. 31, and the old one, signed by President Clinton in 1996, side by side, and reach deep down for those old grad-school "textual analysis" skills, and it’s quickly apparent that we are dealing with two very different beasts. Though that won’t come as a surprise to those who have been playing the space game over the past decade or so.

While the Clinton version focuses on civil and commercial space, the Bush NSP gives primacy to national security and military space. Example: of Clinton’s five goals for U.S. space programs, two mention national security; of Bush’s six goals, four are related to national security and defense.

While the Clinton policy aimed to highlight international cooperation and collective security in space, the Bush NSP takes a go–it-alone stance, using strong language that asserts U.S. unilateral rights in space while possibly also being intended to "negate" the rights of other space-faring nations. In ominous tones, the document threatens in one section to "dissuade or deter others from either impeding [U.S.] rights or developing capabilities intended to do so" – raising the specter of preemptive action against other nations’ dual-use space technology.

Indeed, even as the Bush policy emphasizes the importance of space security, it goes out of its way to make clear that this security may not, under any circumstances, come from (shudder) international law: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduce research, development, testing and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests" [emphasis added].

While the new NSP doesn't go as far as some space hawks wanted it to in openly endorsing the strategy of fighting "in, from and through" space, neither has it served to put a blanket – even a thin one – on those ambitions. And in taking a decidedly "us against them" tone, it is likely to further cement the view from abroad that the United States has taken on the role of a "Lone Space Cowboy." And as much as people love John Wayne movies overseas, that will not be a good thing.

-- Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine

Comments

good article.

Posted by: ankara nakliyat at May 28, 2008 04:03 AM


Come on, the U.S. seeks world power. Space is the place where domination can be dissolved. Therefore, the U.S. extorts complete irresponibility to U.N. or other national interests. Star wars is nice to the U.S.A., but bad for the people who live there...

Posted by: michael at August 6, 2007 01:04 AM


i dont think this is the best idea for the people of earth i mean we arent always just going to be just america and the part that bothered me the most about this hole thing is this "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space"
the united state will oppose the devleopment of new leagal regimes, who is to say what is someone trying to prohibit use of space if some goes to some where else and start there own thing does that mean that they have the right to stop us

Posted by: Logan_7 at November 26, 2006 03:48 PM


This is a beautiful and awesome thing. God bless George W. Bush. Think of these as guidelines to tell other nations what will earn them the enmity of the US. This is for thier own good. It's much better this way then having things too fuzzy. Now there will be less miscalculations. I want my children protected by complete US space dominance.

Posted by: pjgoober at October 25, 2006 09:00 PM


As always US of A imposing their own rules to the world instead cooperating, they´r trying to waste earth and after they´ll blow space ... wich is neverending ....
Space doesn´t belong to anyone specificaly but to all nations, USA is taking over the resource with thew same excuse of security, when the real danger comes realy from inside USA.
Arrogant measures like these only make USA to be even more alone.
I don´t buy USA, nobody is buying their policies and lies but we´r all sufering the terrible efects and in the near future we´ll be all gone because of USA belicist policies.
They should start thinking realy on global warming that is devastating our planet before trying to blow other "spaces".

Posted by: Djzleite at October 19, 2006 11:50 AM



Hmm. Let's just spot-check the article's facts, shall we?

>...of Clinton's five goals for U.S. space
>programs, two mention national security; of
>Bush's six goals, four are related to national
>security and defense.

>While the Clinton policy aimed to highlight
>international cooperation and collective
>security in space, the Bush NSP takes a go–it-
>alone stance....

[Ellipsis mine]

Looking through the document, I see seven policy goals, not six. And the seventh is entirely about international cooperation. Exactly two are about national security, though another two mention it in passing, along with civil space, as possible beneficiaries of research and a robust commercial space sector.

Perhaps Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine should lay off the old grad-school "textual analysis" skills, at least until they have mastered the grade-school ones.
This might impede their mission of pre-election hyperventilating, though.



Posted by: Puhleeze at October 19, 2006 02:38 AM


It is evident from the tone of the article where Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine fall on the political spectrum. Ms Hitchens has authored a paper titled “Future Security In Space: Charting a Cooperative Course,” which, I infer from the title, amounts to 'Everybody play nice.'

As Robot Economist says, "Everyone sees technology, defense and politics differently". I challenge Ms Hitchens's and Ms Levine's bald assertion that it 'will not be a good thing' 'that the United States has taken on the role of a "Lone Space Cowboy."' First, what evidence is there that the US has taken such a role? The US has not 'militarized' space. The NSP merely says that the US will not be bound by any treaty regarding space use that compromises national security. This is not an aggressive statement. It is merely a statement of fact. (For the uneducated who may disagree, go read some history and ask a law professor about the primacy of national security over treaties.)

If Ms Hitchens and Ms Levine have not noticed, the world has changed dramatically since 1996. The Clinton NSP was obsolete by 10 a.m. EDT, 11 September 2001. The Bush NSP is nothing more than a statement of reality.

As for Noah (the other one), just grow up.

Posted by: antares at October 18, 2006 04:05 PM


You know, I've done a point-by-point comparison myself, and it doesn't look all that scary. At least, it doesn't look all that new -- it's basically a reworded version of the 1996 document, with some things changed to reflect Bush's policy decisions (ABM system, VSE, etc.). It's got more of a unilateral "smell" to it than did the Clinton policy, but that's hardly a surprise given the current White House.

Anyway, I wrapped it all up in a podcast if you'd like to give it a (20 minute) listen:

http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/GC044.html

Lorne

Posted by: Lorne Ipsum at October 15, 2006 12:01 AM


We don't need anything to "justify" the militarization of space. The other Noah, your Marxist roots are shining through.

Posted by: Brian at October 12, 2006 11:13 AM


good, We are heavily invested in space, and we need to make sure to be able to protect those assets.

Posted by: Murc at October 11, 2006 09:24 PM


A Chinese laser does not justify the militarization of space. Neither does terrorism, ICBMs, or protection of commercials interests, although this last is closest to the truth.

Militarization itself is a commercial interest, and the unrestrained capitalist ideal is to create marekts out of every possible nook and cranny. There is no more profitable (or expensive) way to do that than in orbit via taxpayer subsidy.

This is simply a gold rush, completely without ethics, responsibility or humanity.

For more on war profiteering: http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at October 11, 2006 09:00 PM


I don't think it is such a crime to read an article lampooning the current administration's approach to defense issues. The policies they set impact the entire defense community and it is fair to say call out when that impact is negative. Its not like they are arguing for the administration's ouster or promoting one party over the other.

Everyone sees technology, defense and politics differently and that inherently colors our assessment. The Bush administration's approach to policy promulgation is overly ham-handed and secretative. That characterization plays out pretty clearly in Theresa and Haninah's post.

I only hope the level of discourse on this site remains as reasonable as it has been so far.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at October 11, 2006 04:34 PM


Wow, that article was filled with a lot of dripping sarcasm ... but not much actual information, evidence, or reasoning. We get, you guys don't like Bush.

Also, look at the source. These are CDI people. CDI is a left-wing anti-defense group. They've never met a defense system or expenditure that wouldn't be better spent building schools or roads or hospitals (or given away as grants to left wing think tanks.)

Hey DefenseTech, when I go to tech sites I expect the people to be pro-tech. Similarly, I expect a site named DefenseTech to be both pro-defense and pro-tech.

Setting aside whether groups like CDI are correct on the merits, I think you misjudge your potential audience. I could be wrong, but I doubt most people interested in defense technology want their "defensetech" news sprinkled with anti-Bush screeds like this. I know where DailyKos is if I want that sort of thing.

Posted by: mike at October 11, 2006 11:31 AM


I think everyone is reading too much into this. Of course Bush is going to assert US primacy in space. He's a little more blunt than previous Presidents about it, but most of this is not that different than the things Clinton would have done.

I'd actually love a go-it-alone approach to space. Understand that, as of now and the foreseeable future, international restrictions on the use of space would in actuality only limit the one country wealthy enough to make extensive use of space: us. And it's not like international space projects have been a big success: the international space station is "international" almost in name only. US funding, US technological know-how, and US resources built 99% of the thing. The biggest thing any other country did was Russia toting parts up in their rockets when the shuttles went down.

Posted by: Brian at October 11, 2006 09:27 AM


I don't think its a huge deal that Bush is opposing the establishment of new treaties governing the use of space. My impression of Clinton-era policy was that it tacitly opposed anything that went beyond the limits of the 1975 Space law treaty as well.

What I find unbelievable is that the Bush administration would actually classify broad policy guidance. I thought the point of writing such document was to clearly communicate our intentions to the rest of the world?

I hate to be the libertarian raining on Joshua's parade, but I think he makes a false assumption regarding the use of space. Sure, the military lead the way on space technology for about four decades back in the 20th century, but those days are over.

The military no longer monopolizes the R&D community in the sky or back here on Earth. I would submit to you that the annual amount of commerce generated by civilian space technology probably dwarfs the DOD's space budget.

I would also suggest that Skyler look back at the comments appended to the Chinese lasers story. We shouldn't get mired in an obsession with force protection and divert critical attention away from technological innovation. Few countries have robust enough economies to support even a modest space sector, so the U.S. would be smart to exploit this gap to maintain the largest technological headstart possible.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at October 11, 2006 09:19 AM


Are you seriously that ignorant? Chinese lasers news story ring a bell? I'm not saying that is the main threat, but it's an example of just one. The idea of maintaining military control over space is not an insane one. It is one that recognizes future threats from sources other than bin laden. Terrorism is NOT our only threat. Especially 10-30 years from now. Telling yourself otherwise is disillusionment. We need to maintain space superiority. As for, "Lets all just face it. He isn't nearly as worried about fighting terrorism as he says he is. Or else maybe we would have Usama Bin Laden by now." Is this comment really serious? Apparently you don't understand the complexity of the issue - especially if he's in Pakistan. Not to mention that yes, "maybe" we would have him by now. Well, "maybe" I might have become Superman by now. That's an thoughtless and uninformed, impulsive comment.

Posted by: Skyler at October 11, 2006 02:25 AM


I have what is perhaps a naive question.

The current policy is the unclassified portion of what one would guess is a larger document; The previous version doesn't seem to have been classified at all.

Is this a correct assumtion?

Posted by: Ben at October 11, 2006 02:18 AM


I like putting a military emphasis on our space program, as the military has been second to none the prime entrepreneur in space tech...

but this unilateral 'go it alone' approach worries me. It speaks of global dominance, and while I'm favorable of no strings attached American approach to space, why go to the lengths to outright snub our neighbors?

Posted by: Joshua at October 11, 2006 02:16 AM


Lets all just face it. He isn't nearly as worried about fighting terrorism as he says he is. Or else maybe we would have Usama Bin Laden by now.

Posted by: Brokentoysoldier at October 11, 2006 01:31 AM


lol what's next
"The terroists want to attack us through the upper atmosphere... and I believe they can do it!"
I can't wait till this man is out of office and I hope to god that some 300x more sane takes his job.

Posted by: War.Economist at October 11, 2006 01:16 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.