Last year President Bush signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to US interests."
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, asserts that the US government has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
Earlier last year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop new space weapons.
The Pentagon has been developing weapons for space for years, often under the guise that the weapons systems are purely defensive. A little research reveals that is 180 degrees from the truth. Ballistic missile defense systems or components of the "missile defense shield" are based on science fiction and have consistently failed, leading many experts to seriously question the credibility of the program (PDF link) and ask whether it may simply be a fraudulent cover for an aggressive offensive program to weaponize space.
The motive for militarizing space has been clearly advanced in internal policy documents. Both the US SPACECOM documents Vision for 2020 (1996) and the Long Range Plan (1998) outlined a new military vision to dominate the space dimension and integrate space forces.
The Mission Statement of the Vision document demonstrates:
"US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into Warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
Upon retiring in 1996, General Joseph Ashy of Space Command had this to say:
“It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms”
(Gen. Joseph Ashy, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 5 1996, p 51)
This week has also seen significant steps forward (here: Jet with anti-missile system leaves LAX AP Wednesday, January 17, 2007) for the air-borne laser system currently in development. The military has commissioned Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to develop the system for a 747 jet under the guise of protecting commercial airliners.
The air-borne laser has the capability to fire upwards at a missile in it’s mid course phase or as it re-enters the atmosphere. While the ability to successfully intercept a missile is questionable, the system certainly has the capability to fire at a satellite for longer as it moves slower.
Other space based weapons in development include satellite kill vehicles, space based lasers, and the firing of 100kg tungsten bolts (PDF link) from space.
There Are Several Other Policy Documents That Contain Similar Rhetoric:
PNAC document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
The DoD, Joint Vision 2010, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1996, http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/jv2010.pdf
The DoD Space Technology Guide FY2000 – 2001 at http://www.dod.mil/nii/org/c3is/spacesys/STGMainbody.pdf .
The DoD. Information Superiority: Making the Joint Vision Happen, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000. The DoD, Joint Vision 2020, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joints Chiefs of Staff, 2000, https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/jv2020/jv2020.pdf
John Kerry, Porter Goss, et al., Report of the National Commission for the Review of the National Reconnaissance Office: NRO at the Crossroads, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 2000, http://www.fas.org/irp/nro/commission/nro.pdf.
US Air Force Space Command, Strategic Master Plan FY06 and Beyond, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, 2003,
http://www.cdi.org/news/space-security/afspc-strategic-master-plan-06-beyond.pdf.
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, asserts that the US government has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
Earlier last year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop new space weapons.
The Pentagon has been developing weapons for space for years, often under the guise that the weapons systems are purely defensive. A little research reveals that is 180 degrees from the truth. Ballistic missile defense systems or components of the "missile defense shield" are based on science fiction and have consistently failed, leading many experts to seriously question the credibility of the program (PDF link) and ask whether it may simply be a fraudulent cover for an aggressive offensive program to weaponize space.
The motive for militarizing space has been clearly advanced in internal policy documents. Both the US SPACECOM documents Vision for 2020 (1996) and the Long Range Plan (1998) outlined a new military vision to dominate the space dimension and integrate space forces.
The Mission Statement of the Vision document demonstrates:
"US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into Warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
Upon retiring in 1996, General Joseph Ashy of Space Command had this to say:
“It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms”
(Gen. Joseph Ashy, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 5 1996, p 51)
This week has also seen significant steps forward (here: Jet with anti-missile system leaves LAX AP Wednesday, January 17, 2007) for the air-borne laser system currently in development. The military has commissioned Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to develop the system for a 747 jet under the guise of protecting commercial airliners.
The air-borne laser has the capability to fire upwards at a missile in it’s mid course phase or as it re-enters the atmosphere. While the ability to successfully intercept a missile is questionable, the system certainly has the capability to fire at a satellite for longer as it moves slower.
Other space based weapons in development include satellite kill vehicles, space based lasers, and the firing of 100kg tungsten bolts (PDF link) from space.
There Are Several Other Policy Documents That Contain Similar Rhetoric:
PNAC document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
The DoD, Joint Vision 2010, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1996, http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/jv2010.pdf
The DoD Space Technology Guide FY2000 – 2001 at http://www.dod.mil/nii/org/c3is/spacesys/STGMainbody.pdf .
The DoD. Information Superiority: Making the Joint Vision Happen, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000. The DoD, Joint Vision 2020, Washington, Dept. of Defense, Joints Chiefs of Staff, 2000, https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/jv2020/jv2020.pdf
John Kerry, Porter Goss, et al., Report of the National Commission for the Review of the National Reconnaissance Office: NRO at the Crossroads, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 2000, http://www.fas.org/irp/nro/commission/nro.pdf.
US Air Force Space Command, Strategic Master Plan FY06 and Beyond, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, 2003,
http://www.cdi.org/news/space-security/afspc-strategic-master-plan-06-beyond.pdf.
In January 2001 one giant leap was made for weapons in space. The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by none other than the then “bipartisan” citizen Donald Rumsfeld (again), concluded:
"The Commissioners believe the U.S. Government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests…In order to extend its deterrence concepts and capabilities to space, the US will require development of new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through space."
The idea that any other nation could carry out such a surprise attack on US space assets is ludicrous. It has spent more militarily than all the other nations on the planet put together, boats the ability to fight precision wars with minimal casualties, and has intelligence gathering and reconnaissance capabilities tens of years ahead of the nearest rival. In light of this it seems that the completely different low tech attack of 9/11 was simply too opportunistic to pass up for Rumsfeld et al who rather sickeningly on the very day used the unrelated deaths of almost three thousand innocent people to justify the deployment of space weapons. In an attack on Senator Levin, who had previously bravely dared to question the legality of missile defense, Rumsfeld declared:
"…you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you’ll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending—increase defense spending?"
Six months after the release of the new Rumsfeld report, General Ralph Eberhart, former North American Aerospace Defense Command & US Space Command chief, and head of NORTHCOM for Homeland Security, went before Congress and asserted that
"It is time to push up the ‘space superiority throttle.’ We have left this throttle at a low power setting for too long. We must ensure our continued access to space, to deny space to others when directed…This is a medium crucial to our American military operations and one we’ll have to fight for in the future."
Since this time the Air Force has established a Space Warfare Center , a new Space Operation Directorate , created the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron and the 76th Space Control Squadron to develop and test U.S. space planning and systems. Also, major wargames, such as Schriever I , have been run simulating tension and conflict in space. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that weaponizing and fighting in, from and through space is on the agenda.
The facts make the rhetoric even more frightening. Most of the systems currently being developed have the capability to be used as Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons. Whilst it is highly questionable whether the systems could immediately work to intercept missiles, they could be much more effective against satellites which travel slower and on much more predictable orbits. Furthermore, the upgraded X-Band radars on the ground could track satellites in orbit. The element of surprise would not factor as it would if the US were under missile attack, and countermeasures would not need to be deciphered.
Deployment will enabled ground based interceptors the ability to launch kill vehicles into space which can then operate independently and use optical and infrared sensors to track and destroy satellites. The Aegis sea based upgrades will allow ASAT capabilities against satellites no matter where they are in their orbit.
The longer term components of space weaponry also have ASAT capabilities. The Air-borne laser is intended for a 747 jet and so must have the capability to fire upwards at a missile in it’s mid course phase or as it re-enters the atmosphere, therefore it also has the ability to fire at a satellite for longer as it moves slower. The Space Based Laser, although years away from readiness, is intended for Low Earth Orbit for boost-phase defense. There are though, several instances of officials (presumably eagerly awaiting the SBL) stating how it could be used for purposes other then defense.
Air Force Col. William N. McCasland, system program director for the SBL in 2001, stated that it could be used for the following:
"defense/offensive counter space operations" (i.e., anti-satellite missions); "deny access to space" (for example, knocking out enemy launchers as they blast off); "deny flow of information to/from satellite" (perhaps using low-power beams to disrupt rather than destroy a satellite); "defense/offensive counter-air operations"; and knocking out high-altitude aircraft, cruise missiles, or unmanned aerial vehicles.
Other proposed space-based components are kinetic kill vehicles to be deployed on orbiting satellites. The first inroads towards this are now being made; a test satellite called the "Near Field Infrared Experiment was launched in 2004. The purpose of NFIRE is to conduct tests and retrieve data on exhaust fumes of rockets in space, this information will be used to help future space kill vehicles recognize missiles from their plumes. However, as the Moscow Times has reported:
"…NFIRE is itself weaponized, carrying a projectile-packed "kill vehicle" that can destroy passing missiles -- or the satellites of the United States' military and commercial rivals…This marks the first time in history that any nation has put a weapon in space, despite America's still-official policy against such a practice. And as Pentagon officials made clear in an eye-opening presentation to Congress in February, NFIRE's test is just the first spark of a conflagration that will soon set the heavens ablaze with American weaponry capable of striking -- and destroying -- any spot on earth. As one top Pentagon official -- opposed to this lunatic proliferation, thus remaining anonymous -- said: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."
Two further documents are worthy of mention where space weaponization is concerned. A research report produced for the chief of staff of the Airforce in 1996 is replete with information. According to this study, a space based laser could
"…successfully attack ground or airborne targets by melting or cracking cockpit canopies, burning through control cables, exploding fuel tanks, melting or burning sensor assemblies and antenna arrays, exploding or melting munitions pods, destroying ground communications and power grids, and melting or burning a large variety of strategic targets (e.g. dams, industrial and defense facilities and munitions factories) -- all in a fraction of a second. "
And secondly, a February 2004 report, the US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, (which incidentally features a huge gleaming sword on its cover) documents several research programs from anti-satellite lasers to weapons that "would provide the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space." including the firing of 100kg tungsten bolts from space.
Earlier this year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop new space weapons.
It is patently clear from Government policy documents, research papers, Commission Reports, Army War College documents and news reports that any idea of a limited form of space defense system has far and away been surpassed. The weaponization of space for power projection and unilateral military dominance of the earth by elitist power brokers has serious implications. It is clearly in conflict with the peaceful progression of all mankind, which is commonly associated with space use by those who do not explore the policy documents.
Remember the motto of the US Space Command where others’ possible use of space is concerned “Destroy, Disrupt, Delay, Degrade, Deny.”
The fallout of the longstanding aggressive globalist space policy will be an inevitable build up of arms as China and Russia race to stay with the US. The effect of such arms build ups is a transformation of nuclear weapons from more secure tactical deterrence weapons into more aggressive, more diverse, more dangerous usable weapons. Some may argue that nuclear weapons are dangerous anyway, yet when you factor in the possibility of defenses against them the nature of those weapons changes dramatically.
There are many other branches to the neo-fascist space vision. Two are worthy of brief citation. The ECHELON program; a vast spy network of computers and satellites already in operation, (some at the key Ballistic Missile Defense early warning bases) that will inevitably be used in conjunction with the space-based projections discussed in this study.
Also the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is worthy of study as it too is part of the overall space based warfighter’s vision. HAARP fires the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam, to heat the ionosphere, the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto Earth and penetrate everything-living and dead. HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other US military documents put it more clearly: HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes". In either case it advocates artificially altering the planet’s atmosphere.
Weaponization of space will mean more weapons proliferation, greater risk of accidents, increased likelihood of pre-emptive action and ultimately war in space. in addition it will allow total surveillance of everyone and everything with the added option of taking out any target instantly, no matter how big or small. It also involves permanently changing the climate of the planet. Welcome to the new world order in space.
This partial presentation is an adaption of a dissertation Steve Watson wrote for his MA in International Relations in September 2004.
"The Commissioners believe the U.S. Government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests…In order to extend its deterrence concepts and capabilities to space, the US will require development of new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through space."
The idea that any other nation could carry out such a surprise attack on US space assets is ludicrous. It has spent more militarily than all the other nations on the planet put together, boats the ability to fight precision wars with minimal casualties, and has intelligence gathering and reconnaissance capabilities tens of years ahead of the nearest rival. In light of this it seems that the completely different low tech attack of 9/11 was simply too opportunistic to pass up for Rumsfeld et al who rather sickeningly on the very day used the unrelated deaths of almost three thousand innocent people to justify the deployment of space weapons. In an attack on Senator Levin, who had previously bravely dared to question the legality of missile defense, Rumsfeld declared:
"…you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you’ll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending—increase defense spending?"
Six months after the release of the new Rumsfeld report, General Ralph Eberhart, former North American Aerospace Defense Command & US Space Command chief, and head of NORTHCOM for Homeland Security, went before Congress and asserted that
"It is time to push up the ‘space superiority throttle.’ We have left this throttle at a low power setting for too long. We must ensure our continued access to space, to deny space to others when directed…This is a medium crucial to our American military operations and one we’ll have to fight for in the future."
Since this time the Air Force has established a Space Warfare Center , a new Space Operation Directorate , created the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron and the 76th Space Control Squadron to develop and test U.S. space planning and systems. Also, major wargames, such as Schriever I , have been run simulating tension and conflict in space. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that weaponizing and fighting in, from and through space is on the agenda.
The facts make the rhetoric even more frightening. Most of the systems currently being developed have the capability to be used as Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons. Whilst it is highly questionable whether the systems could immediately work to intercept missiles, they could be much more effective against satellites which travel slower and on much more predictable orbits. Furthermore, the upgraded X-Band radars on the ground could track satellites in orbit. The element of surprise would not factor as it would if the US were under missile attack, and countermeasures would not need to be deciphered.
Deployment will enabled ground based interceptors the ability to launch kill vehicles into space which can then operate independently and use optical and infrared sensors to track and destroy satellites. The Aegis sea based upgrades will allow ASAT capabilities against satellites no matter where they are in their orbit.
The longer term components of space weaponry also have ASAT capabilities. The Air-borne laser is intended for a 747 jet and so must have the capability to fire upwards at a missile in it’s mid course phase or as it re-enters the atmosphere, therefore it also has the ability to fire at a satellite for longer as it moves slower. The Space Based Laser, although years away from readiness, is intended for Low Earth Orbit for boost-phase defense. There are though, several instances of officials (presumably eagerly awaiting the SBL) stating how it could be used for purposes other then defense.
Air Force Col. William N. McCasland, system program director for the SBL in 2001, stated that it could be used for the following:
"defense/offensive counter space operations" (i.e., anti-satellite missions); "deny access to space" (for example, knocking out enemy launchers as they blast off); "deny flow of information to/from satellite" (perhaps using low-power beams to disrupt rather than destroy a satellite); "defense/offensive counter-air operations"; and knocking out high-altitude aircraft, cruise missiles, or unmanned aerial vehicles.
Other proposed space-based components are kinetic kill vehicles to be deployed on orbiting satellites. The first inroads towards this are now being made; a test satellite called the "Near Field Infrared Experiment was launched in 2004. The purpose of NFIRE is to conduct tests and retrieve data on exhaust fumes of rockets in space, this information will be used to help future space kill vehicles recognize missiles from their plumes. However, as the Moscow Times has reported:
"…NFIRE is itself weaponized, carrying a projectile-packed "kill vehicle" that can destroy passing missiles -- or the satellites of the United States' military and commercial rivals…This marks the first time in history that any nation has put a weapon in space, despite America's still-official policy against such a practice. And as Pentagon officials made clear in an eye-opening presentation to Congress in February, NFIRE's test is just the first spark of a conflagration that will soon set the heavens ablaze with American weaponry capable of striking -- and destroying -- any spot on earth. As one top Pentagon official -- opposed to this lunatic proliferation, thus remaining anonymous -- said: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."
Two further documents are worthy of mention where space weaponization is concerned. A research report produced for the chief of staff of the Airforce in 1996 is replete with information. According to this study, a space based laser could
"…successfully attack ground or airborne targets by melting or cracking cockpit canopies, burning through control cables, exploding fuel tanks, melting or burning sensor assemblies and antenna arrays, exploding or melting munitions pods, destroying ground communications and power grids, and melting or burning a large variety of strategic targets (e.g. dams, industrial and defense facilities and munitions factories) -- all in a fraction of a second. "
And secondly, a February 2004 report, the US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, (which incidentally features a huge gleaming sword on its cover) documents several research programs from anti-satellite lasers to weapons that "would provide the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space." including the firing of 100kg tungsten bolts from space.
Earlier this year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop new space weapons.
It is patently clear from Government policy documents, research papers, Commission Reports, Army War College documents and news reports that any idea of a limited form of space defense system has far and away been surpassed. The weaponization of space for power projection and unilateral military dominance of the earth by elitist power brokers has serious implications. It is clearly in conflict with the peaceful progression of all mankind, which is commonly associated with space use by those who do not explore the policy documents.
Remember the motto of the US Space Command where others’ possible use of space is concerned “Destroy, Disrupt, Delay, Degrade, Deny.”
The fallout of the longstanding aggressive globalist space policy will be an inevitable build up of arms as China and Russia race to stay with the US. The effect of such arms build ups is a transformation of nuclear weapons from more secure tactical deterrence weapons into more aggressive, more diverse, more dangerous usable weapons. Some may argue that nuclear weapons are dangerous anyway, yet when you factor in the possibility of defenses against them the nature of those weapons changes dramatically.
There are many other branches to the neo-fascist space vision. Two are worthy of brief citation. The ECHELON program; a vast spy network of computers and satellites already in operation, (some at the key Ballistic Missile Defense early warning bases) that will inevitably be used in conjunction with the space-based projections discussed in this study.
Also the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is worthy of study as it too is part of the overall space based warfighter’s vision. HAARP fires the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam, to heat the ionosphere, the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto Earth and penetrate everything-living and dead. HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other US military documents put it more clearly: HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes". In either case it advocates artificially altering the planet’s atmosphere.
Weaponization of space will mean more weapons proliferation, greater risk of accidents, increased likelihood of pre-emptive action and ultimately war in space. in addition it will allow total surveillance of everyone and everything with the added option of taking out any target instantly, no matter how big or small. It also involves permanently changing the climate of the planet. Welcome to the new world order in space.
This partial presentation is an adaption of a dissertation Steve Watson wrote for his MA in International Relations in September 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment