Space as a battle field
Dear all,
we can see few countries are trying to use space as a battle field. And its technically advatage for those countries so we can think that other countries also will invest their money and talent to space as of battle field.
That danger is waiting for us and if happen then whole wolrd will face a dead problem.So we should form the strong plate from and make SAGC voice against it?
How SGAC thinking to start such propaganda , any plan?
Nitto Ronjon Bomron
National Point of contact, Bangladesh
Hi Nitto!
I agree, this is a very important point. As much as I shouldn't try and compare popular science fiction, i.e. Star Trek or Star Wars, with reality, they serve to emphasise the real possiblilty of space warfare. Ok, I am not suggesting that we will be battling with alien species, but as space technology and travel improves, we have to consider introducing proper laws and legaslature, laying out strict rules to outlaw any hostile weapons in space.
Also, in terms of terratories, who is to say one country can't 'stake a claim' on an area of space or even a planet that they have discovered first? Much like old wars on earth?
I am not aware of what current space policies are, or how far reaching they go considering the speed we are progressing in space technologies?
This is my first post, so I hope it's ok!
Angela Whiteside, UK
Does SGAC have a formal stance on the weaponization of space?
This is a great area of interest for me and I have been involved in researching and writing on the topic. Many countries already have space based military assets, and it will be a continuing trend. Arguably it's too late to do anything as who's to say if a satellite is just tracking the weather or has a nuclear warhead on board, you wouldn't know until it's too late.
Alan,
Dr. Will Marshal, one of our Co-chairpersons, can answer this better, but SGAC is against putting weapons in space. This becomes a little gray however when one looks at something like GPS which is used by many people in their cars, but also by militaries to guide missiles or bombs.
In the past, we have presented to the UN COPUOS about weaponization of space and we are currently updating that part of the website.
Cheers
Call me an instigator... but why is SGAC against it? Is it an overall "world peace" or "purity of space" motivations? Are there specifics such as inhumane or risks to non-combatants?
I find the idea of biological warfare which is hard to control and will lead to mass collateral damage something horrific, but a laser based in space that can neatly destroy a military target an asset to Just War Theory. Not that I'm an advocate for a death ray... just pointing this out.
Ironically UN nation state members are in greater support for the Outer Space Treaty than they are for the CWC or BWC. I would argue this is purely economics, and timing. It's easy for a country without a space program to want to make space weapons illegal but they are not willing to support making biological weapons illegal due to their ease to make and use.
Well, in my opinion, just because biological weapons aren't outlawed doesn't mean that space weapons should be. Just contact your local politicians to get them to pass legislation outlawing biological weapons. I'm sure you can find many, many of your fellow citizens who would back you up on such an endeavor.
Why support building something just for the destruction of humanity? Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but SGAC supports space exploration and development to BENEFIT humanity. Not destroy it.
It is important to differentiate between the "militarization" and the "weaponization" of outer space. Space is already militarized i.e. satellites are used for military purposes. For example spy satellites, GPS or even weather satellites broadcast information that can be of use to parties in a military conflict. This situation is unavoidable as any tool can be used in a military conflict, from a spoon to a satellite.
The important question is the question of weaponization, i.e. putting weapons in space, directed towards Earth or other space objects. There is actually no proof that there are/aren't any such weapons stationned in orbit, but tests have been conducted by several countries.
The question of weaponization of outer space is not being dealt by the UN Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space but by the UN Conference on Disarmament. It has set high in its agenda the "prevention of an arms race in outer space".
"The prevention of an arms race in space continues to present an urgent challenge as such a race would seriously affect the preservation of outer space for peaceful purposes." said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in 2007.
This call has been reiterated today by the UN Secretary-General while opening the 2008 session of the Conference on Disarmament.
http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/EF11D60FD6A9014DC12573D9003E85C0?OpenDocument
As Cedric points out, no one can prevent the militarization of space as space assets are already utilized by armed forces world wide, and anything can be "militarized." While the issue may be falling under the UN Conference on Disarmament, it is still pertinent to the UN COPUOS and thus this group.
As I've said before... the questions is "Why is SGAC against weapons in space?"
SGAC's mission is to "represent students and young space professionals" and to "advise to policy makers based on the interests of students and young professionals" (Quoted from the About SGAC page).
It would seem that before SGAC takes this stance, we should be sure that people the group represents agree with it, no? The purpose of the group is to advise the UN COPUOS not be a Public Relations mechanism for the Committee.
I'm only advocating for a more formal discussion of the topic to see what people think to be sure we are representing the students and young space professionals rather than just agreeing with the current trend within the UN.
hello Alan,
The purpose of SGAC is to advise UN COPOUS based on the interest of students and young space professionals. Honestly what is the interest of the students and young professionals regarding space weaponization? do we support or we are against it?
Imagine some years from now that a weapon is placed in outer space directed towards the earth and it is in control of one or two countries. These will create tension between nations. space research will totally shift its face to space weaponization research. Every coutry will spend money on building better weapons and putting it in space. As such projects are expensive,large amount of money goes to weaponization research and since Such researches usually need to be secure, only the citizens of those capable countries will participate. Cooperation in space science among nations vanishes. And who knows it might even be forbidden to direct our telescopes to the direction in which the weapon is placed. But SGAC doesn't want this. students and young professionals don't want this to happen. we have a vision.The Vision of the Space Generation is to Employ the creativity and vigour of youth in advancing humanity through peaceful uses of outer space
(quoted from vision of SGAC)
i think no one can stop space weaponization. the race for superiority has been for centuries and the countries want to secure their borders. today we have fighter jets for our borders. if we send pilot ina war we might lose him but now due to new technology we dont even need a pilot to fly aircraft. and one more thing.
moreover still there is a search for aliens going on in the world. we are not sure whether they exist or not. but there is also one possibility that they exist and might be superior to us and might attack us. in order to protect our self we must have weapons because i believe self protection is my birth right.
and just analyse only those countries are superior who are advanced in space technology.
No one wants an arms race in space... But does preaching "please don't put weapons in space" help anything?
I rather see weapons in space than Biological warfare... it has the potential to be much more discriminating!
But more importantly I am concerned with what happens when someone puts a weapon in space regardless of any treaties (think North Korea and Nuclear Weapons). If no one has space weapons except for those who break rules, then what?!?
"But does preaching "please don't put weapons in space" help anything?"
Yes. There can be disciplinary actions against countries who break said rules.
"I rather see weapons in space than Biological warfare... it has the potential to be much more discriminating!"
So, because we can't put an end to biological weapons, we should put weapons in space?
"But more importantly I am concerned with what happens when someone puts a weapon in space regardless of any treaties (think North Korea and Nuclear Weapons). If no one has space weapons except for those who break rules, then what?!?"
So, because of a few potential rule-breakers (who could be dealt with quite well with appropriate disciplinary measures), we should allow everyone to put weapons in space?
What disciplinary measures?
Lets say.... China... breaks the rules and puts a weapon into space.
What can you possibly do as a disciplinary measure? Energy Embargo? Thats what the U.S. did to Japan (oil embargo) that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor and ultimately led to the use of atomic weapons.
I haven't seen a track record of that working. The UN did nothing to stop North Korea nuclear weapon development.
Meanwhile the only country focusing on technology to destroy space assets is China. Russia and the U.S. did for a while, but both received a lot of international slack for it and thus have not been focused on it recently.
Not to mention, we might not even know it's there until it's used.
Its more likely to go along the lines of the United States putting a weapon into space more than anyone else in all honesty, if you look at our policies over the last couple of decades, its pretty plainly spoken/written. Kennedy wanted to put up a military space station in his administration. In reference to Alan, Who would stop us from doing so? League of Non-Alighned Nations? now, the space-based Interceptors, the ones your talking about by the thousands? the US Military can be impractical at times, but not so much. I would still put more credit into the ThEPLO and TROPHY systems that are already in developement (Smart Mid-Range Intercept Missles and Ground-Based Smart Lasers respectivley; the Discovery Channel's show "Firepower" did a show on both i think)
I also agree thats its not an "IF" just a "when" for space weapons. inevitable. US Space Command refers to themselves as "taking the ultimate high ground" though positioning Direct Fire Weaponary is against thier own mission statement.
we also went into sorta why US and other countries have weapons or WoMDs what have you. its like Tao, you have them as deterrents, not to actually use them. if you look at several of our last Presidents, even Congressmen,for instance: Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan, and Both of the Bushs they've favored "Speak Softly, Carry a Big Stick" which reminds me of a Looney Toons with Bugs Bunny and Yosamite Sam. in the cartoon they were competing for Mayor i think it was or some such and Bugs uses the Teddy Roosevelt Phrase "I speak softly, but carry a Big stick!" in which Yosamite Sam replys "Well, I Speak Loudly, and carry a bigger stick! and ill use it too!" its Bugs Bunny over the head with it. maybe its foreshadowing?
now the Dems were not so abrupt about it. but can be just as brash. Kennedy wanted the Military Space Weapons Platform, Carter sent the disastouis Spec Ops mission into Iran and tryed to assassinate Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar(seriously!) and Clinton shot down planes over baghdad.. quite a few times, not to mention shelling Afghanistan for about 4 hours from sea.
point being this: the reason countries invest in big projects like WoMD is for a Deterrent of potential threat, peace maker, or as a bargaining chip in mediation of disputes. the developement of Space Weaponary is already been going for quite some time by several actors and its too late to really stop it. Personally, i think space weapons will be taken in the same stride as any other WoMD today should direct fire space weaponary be deployed.
The Difference between Madness and Genius are the Degrees of Success
For the record, I am against weaponisation of space as a matter of principle, so don't get irrated at me for my following arguments - I don't agree with what I am about to say, but it is a point of view that has to be considered if anyone is going to be able to debate intelligently against it.
Why weaponisation of space can be a good thing (arguments people may use):
1) Spin offs
Remember that the jet engine, radar, computing as we know it and nuclear power are all spinoffs of weapons development research, and I'm only taking examples from WWII here. Consider how much of modern life is based on these technologies.
Going to cold-war weapons development, the spinoffs are sat nav, earth observation, extremely accurate weather predictions (well, for a day or two forwards anyway ;-), digital photography, and not least the internet itself.
Remember the space age itself only came into being being of the cold war and superpowers vying for technological supremecy.
One spinoff from the development of space-platform laser weapons could be clean, efficient power from space-based solar arrays beamed down to terrestrial power terminals. that one is just off the top of my head, but the point is peaceful and really useful things come out of weapons development and not just weapons.
The argument is not that without weapons development these things would never have occured, and that we would still be living in 1930s world, the argument is that weapons development would make space development increase to a rate orders of magnitude greater than peacetime development.
2) Extra funding
I'd like to think I would turn down military money in the shape of a research grant, but in all honesty, would I?
The fact is, a space weapons race would mean research budgets would soar, and I reckon that there are some people out there who wouldn't care where the money for their research comes from.
3) Deterrent
Same argument as for nuclear arms. Sp8cdt2000 has already expanded on this argument well.
That's my devil's advocate bit over with.
Hopefully we can come up with some decent counter points.
Receive the lastest announcements, discuss space-related topics with other members.
Joined: 2007-09-07