IN THE week that the movie Pearl Harbor is released on both sides of
the Atlantic, it鈥檚 worth remembering what that terrible morning meant for world
history. The Japanese air raid on Hawaii thrust a reluctant and isolationist
United States into the Second World War. By the time the war had ended, the US
was the world鈥檚 dominant military and economic force, able to project its power
into any region of the world.
Over half a century later, the US is stronger than ever. Its armed forces
maintain the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously. And, with the
collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands alone as a superpower. For countries
with different political systems, this overwhelming military and economic
superiority is a source of frustration, as the recent spy plane incident in
China illustrates. But military strength has served US interests well and will
not be abandoned any time soon.
So perhaps it鈥檚 no surprise that the quest for overwhelming military
superiority is playing itself out again, this time in space. It is already well
known that President Bush intends to revive Ronald Reagan鈥檚 Star Wars. But as we reveal
(see 鈥淭he heavens at war鈥�),
national missile defence is only one small part of the wider
militarisation of space. US strategists are claiming that satellites鈥攂oth
military and commercial鈥攁re vulnerable to attack from enemy states, and
need to be protected. Last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a press
conference outlining plans to safeguard US assets in space. When reporters asked
if that meant putting weapons in space, Rumsfeld was evasive. But the
implication is clear: it won鈥檛 be long before the US can launch satellites that
are bristling with weaponry designed to deter an attack.
Advertisement
It鈥檚 easy to dismiss the notion of a space attack as a phoney threat cooked
up by a military machine still desperate to find a role in the post-cold-war
world. But there鈥檚 more to it than that. Space has become a vital cog in the US
military machine, so any threat, perceived or real, will be countered. It might
be difficult to dream up really plausible scenarios in which any of America鈥檚
potential foes might want to start a fight in space, but space weaponry is now
on the American political agenda and that could be enough to make it happen.
You don鈥檛 have to be a pacifist to view such action as a tragedy and a
disgrace. Even worse, the US isn鈥檛 even talking to China and
Russia鈥攕upposedly its biggest enemies鈥攁bout fighting in space. The
US may prefer to negotiate from a position of strength, but arguably it鈥檚
already as strong as it will ever be. Instead of extending its overwhelming
military and economic might into space, it should be pushing for peaceful
negotiations. Why not extend current arms control treaties banning nuclear
weapons in space to cover all weapons? Why not avert the threat of future turf
wars by pushing for a treaty enshrining the fair and equitable use of space?
Deterrence has its place in international politics. But in the end, diplomacy
matters more.