Who has the 'right' to space?

[evildrneil]

According to the front page of the Independent, the Bush administration has recently signed a new policy stating that it has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for it's own national interest. Not only that the policy states that the US has the right to deny the use of space to others if it deems that is also necessary. Does anyone have the right to make this sort of statement? Should anyone be allowed to develop and deploy space based weapons on a unilateral basis (they are pretty much a necessity for denying access to space to others)? Even running with the theory that you need someone to police space should it be the US, given it's tendancy to wards gunboat diplomacy?

[El-Mariachi]

According to the front page of the Independent, the Bush administration has recently signed a new policy stating that it has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for it's own national interest. Not only that the policy states that the US has the right to deny the use of space to others if it deems that is also necessary. Does anyone have the right to make this sort of statement? Should anyone be allowed to develop and deploy space based weapons on a unilateral basis (they are pretty much a necessity for denying access to space to others)? Even running with the theory that you need someone to police space should it be the US, given it's tendancy to wards gunboat diplomacy?

 

Well its the law of the jungle, if you're strong enough to stop anyone else then that goes.

 

Both China and India have been pushing forward with their space programs and I guess the military aspects are really driving them.

 

The US passing laws will not change the reality that unless they can stop China/India/Europe then its not worth the paper its written on.

 

Europe had quite abit of opposition to its Galileo program because the US deems it a threat to its GPS system and "national defence".

[Cyclone]

According to the front page of the Independent, the Bush administration has recently signed a new policy stating that it has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for it's own national interest. Not only that the policy states that the US has the right to deny the use of space to others if it deems that is also necessary. Does anyone have the right to make this sort of statement? Should anyone be allowed to develop and deploy space based weapons on a unilateral basis (they are pretty much a necessity for denying access to space to others)? Even running with the theory that you need someone to police space should it be the US, given it's tendancy to wards gunboat diplomacy?

 

I saw this in the news last week, i thougth though that they had said that they would defend their own national interests (ie satellites), not that they have the right to deny others access to it.

[evildrneil]

I saw this in the news last week, i thougth though that they had said that they would defend their own national interests (ie satellites), not that they have the right to deny others access to it.

 

The quote in the Independent is:

 

"and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile"

 

Which would seem to indicate they assert the right to dump weapons in space but if they decide that a weapons system is being deployed by a "hostile nation" (which has included Europe in the past - the US strongly objected to the Galileo system claiming it would interfere with their own defensive interests) then they have the right to deny that capability.

[cgksheff]

Original and full policy can be read here:

 

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

[JoeP]

The thing is, though, the old Soviet Union put a load of Hunter-Killer satellites up in the 1970s / 80s. There's nothing new with this stuff - I get the feel it's the Indie doing it's 'US bashing' again.

 

The Soviet stuff was pretty old tech - stuff a box with high explosives and ball bearings, manouver it to within a short range of the target then press the button. The explosion and shrapnel did the rest.

 

And space based technology can be reasonably easily damaged - an emp weapon, a laser to blind sensors, even soemthing as simple as that box of ball bearings.

 

As for the legalities there have bene debates about treaties for many years - in the 60s one fear was a platform carrying nuclear warheads, and I believe that various treaties cover that sort of thing. When the Cold War was prevalent, it was an 'unwritten rule' that you did not go for the other side's satellites, even as a sabre-rattle, because of the risk that someone might panic and assume that it was the first part of an attack.

 

To establish law, you need presence to enforce; that means that the countries who will be in a position to do this will need teh technology and economic muscle to do the job.

 

In a way, the US are applying an old aspect of their foreign policy to a new frontier - a space version of the old Monroe Doctrine.

[Cyclone]

The quote in the Independent is:

 

"and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile"

 

Which would seem to indicate they assert the right to dump weapons in space but if they decide that a weapons system is being deployed by a "hostile nation" (which has included Europe in the past - the US strongly objected to the Galileo system claiming it would interfere with their own defensive interests) then they have the right to deny that capability.

 

I presume that goes on to say

 

"hostile to our own space interests" or words to that effect.

 

I read it as basically saying that they will defend themselves and their assets in space if necessary, just standard boiler plate.

 

Re: what Joe just mentioned, the chinese have recently tested a ground based laser that blinds satellite sensors, the US admitted it had been used against their spy satellites passing over China.

Now if that's not hostile I don't know what is.

[Rich]

According to the front page of the Independent, the Bush administration has recently signed a new policy stating that it has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for it's own national interest. Not only that the policy states that the US has the right to deny the use of space to others if it deems that is also necessary. Does anyone have the right to make this sort of statement? Should anyone be allowed to develop and deploy space based weapons on a unilateral basis (they are pretty much a necessity for denying access to space to others)? Even running with the theory that you need someone to police space should it be the US, given it's tendancy to wards gunboat diplomacy?

 

Further proof that Bush is a moron

[torin8]

Space is really a new frontier even though we have been starting to explore it for the last 40 odd years. If you look at the history of this planet and compare space to what was the New World of the Americas back in the 18th century (as well as the East indies) then even in this 'modern' world it's first come first served and whoever can defend it best will be the winner.

 

After all space is a dangerous place and 'accidents' happen.

[evildrneil]

Space is dangerous so doesn't it make more sense to turn it into a DMZ and work the exploration co-operatively rather than set out militaristic and (arguably) imperialistic principles which will almost certainly lead to a new arms race?