Reuters reports that the Obama administration will "seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space." This was one of Obama's dumber campaign pledges (and that's saying a lot), and hopefully will be relegated to a back burner and forgotten amidst more pressing concerns. Here is a type of issue that tells you quite a bit about a person's thinking regarding national security matters. If you actually believe that passing a treaty banning space weapons benefits the U.S., you might as well wear a sign saying, "I'm really naive and can't be trusted with national security."
Most of the countries that might be a threat to the U.S. in space cannot be trusted to abide by any treaty banning weapons. A treaty of this nature will have the following effect: it will restrict the U.S. from developing and deploying effective weapons, and allow potential adversaries to gain advantages, forcing us to play catch-up later on. The very idea that we can or should ban weapons from space is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. Space is already militarized and we should recognize that fact. The U.S. should be working to strengthen its military advantages in space, as well as identifying and developing defenses to lessen its vulnerabilities. Pretending that we can effectively demilitarize space is the worst sort of utopian thinking. Along with being unattainable, the demilitarization of space is undesirable. U.S. technological innovation is one of our greatest strengths. There is no reason we shouldn't take full advantage of the military opportunities offered by space. And we should certainly not trust our security in this critical area to some feel-good treaty.
Government Reform: DOGE + E
1 hour ago
Most of the countries that might be a threat to the U.S. in space cannot be trusted to abide by any treaty banning weapons.
ReplyDeleteOn many issues, the US is actually a lot less trustworthy than Russia and China. For example, Russia has dismantled some of its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, and kept to the terms of ABM; the US insisted on bilateral disarmament, and unilaterally pulled out of ABM.
There are perennial rumors on the left that the US is already weaponizing space. I have no idea how true they are, but the average Russian or Chinese nationalist is going to believe them regardless. Given that, one of the most positive things the US can do is convince the world it's not secretly violating its own treaties.
Just remember that a lot of the Cold War animosity can be traced to the fact that Stalin concluded he couldn't trust the Western allies, not when they promised him a second front in 1941 and opened it in 1944.
"the US insisted on bilateral disarmament, and unilaterally pulled out of ABM."
ReplyDeleteSo what? That's a lot different than secretly violating a treaty. And abrogating ones that are no longer in the U.S. interest is a good thing.
"There are perennial rumors on the left that the US is already weaponizing space."
Let's hope so. But in any event, space is already militarized. Satellites are critical to a number of military systems. Things don't have to have actual weapons attached to them to be major military assets. If there is ever any sort of all-out war, it is a given that one side will try to take down the other's satellite network. They have to be defended. And a treaty is a very weak defense.
"Given that, one of the most positive things the US can do is convince the world it's not secretly violating its own treaties."
How about not signing treaties that aren't in the U.S. interest?
"Just remember that a lot of the Cold War animosity can be traced to the fact that Stalin concluded he couldn't trust the Western allies"
You mean the same Stalin who allied himself with Hitler in the Nazi Soviet pact? Let's not pretend there weren't all sorts of reasons for mistrust on both sides. There was no single reason for Cold War animosity, and in my opinion, most of it stemmed from the nature of the Soviet Union, not from anything the West did or didn't do.