So what can be done to ease tensions?

Russia, China, and many other space powers favour adopting a new treaty prohibiting all weapons from space (the 1967 Outer Space Treaty only bans the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space and celestial bodies). However, the Obama administration still opposes the draft treaty presented by Russia and China to the UN Conference on Disarmament in February 2008. The main US objections to the proposed treaty are that it lacks a means of verification and doesn’t ban Earth-based, anti-satellite weapons, such as the one China tested in January 2007 (the treaty allows, for example, for the deployment of ground-, sea-, and air-based ASAT systems as an inherent right of self-defence embodied in UN Charter Article 51). According to US officials, the Indian government is also developing a terrestrial anti-satellite system, while other Asian powers are likely to follow suit.

Supporters of the treaty argue that its weaknesses could be overcome by adding a legally binding verification protocol. The Obama administration has for its part declared its willingness, in principle, to consider alternative space arms control treaties provided they meet three criteria: Are they verifiable? Are they equitable? Do they enhance the national security interests of the United States and its allies?

However, the Obama administration claims that so far it hasn’t seen a treaty that meets all three of these criteria.
 
Unfortunately, one knock-on effect of the disagreement over the treaty has been that it has impeded the Obama administration’s efforts to launch substantive discussions on transparency and confidence-building measures. During the October 2010 session of the UN General Assembly First Committee, for example, the US delegation tried to work with Russia and China to co-sponsor a resolution establishing a group of government experts to evaluate TCBM options. However, they were unable to agree after Beijing and Moscow insisted on including language endorsing their space weapons treaty.

Fortunately, however, a de facto Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) relationship exists in space—any use of space weapons risks damaging the satellites of many countries and disrupting the use of space by all. Outer space has become increasingly vital for global military operations, intelligence collection, and worldwide commerce and communications, meaning that while counter-space operations are certainly becoming easier, any country that fired the first shot in space would end up risking its own interests—and would receive some serious international blowback.

View as Single Page

ARTICLE TAGS

    , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

10 LEAVE A COMMENT
    1. gary pohlemann

      good

      Reply
    2. Jeff

      USA, China, Russia, and their belligerent satellites, I think it is a nonsense weaponization of space for creating a battlefield above our heads. I believe governments should join efforts to colonize space saving human race from extinction instead of doing things that menace our existence. http://tinyurl.com/nuclear-fusion-starship

      Reply
      • The_Observer

        Colonization of space is a boondoggle and so is the preparation for a highly unlikely Hollywood-like earth strike by an asteroid. There are more pressing problems to attend to like not messing up the one earth that humans already occupy and to care for people who are less fortunate.

        Reply
        • Jeff

          I think our Earth is a wonderful world. The problem is the people who live on it, always wanting to destroy natural resources or killing each other. I hope mankind going to space may let our beloved Earth and its biodiversity in peace. It will be a new era of prosperity in the outer space for people who are less fortunate, without messing up the Earth.

          Reply
    3. The_Observer

      The Americans are hypocrites. There have been several occasions when the Chinese and the Russians wanted all space faring nations to commit not to weaponize space but the US declined. The US is currently using her space assets to help in monitoring and targeting adversaries in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US uses drones and other remote-controlled weapons and the business of killing has been reduced to an arcade game played by juvenile socio-paths. Because the US says it has to have freedom of space to carry out her objectives the Chinese and Russians turned to developing counter-measures. This is correct as you can never tell when the US may turn agreesive to either one of those countries. For the USA this is merely reaping what she sowed.

      Reply
    4. hk

      Where are Huang…John Chan… other Chinese Government proxies ???

      Reply
      • John Chan

        Only people who are government proxies themselves will have the inclination to suspect others are also as low as they are automatically.

        Chinese defending China are here to expose the lies told about China, clear smear painted on China, and tell the truth to correct distorted facts laid on China.

        Reply
        • John

          John Chan wrote: “Chinese defending China are here to expose the lies told about China, clear smear painted on China, and tell the truth to correct distorted facts laid on China.”

          John, when you find the truth, then let me know.

          You regurgitate populist Chinese ideas that are so far from truth, that even at the speed of light would take a few miliniums just to get close to the truth.

          Also considering that most Governments dont pay people to disagree with others, it makes me wonder that you even consider that normal.

          Reply
          • megakids

            @ John
            “You regurgitate populist Chinese ideas that are so far from truth…”
            When the ideas are “populist”, it doesn’t make it UNTRUE.
            You don’t have to make everything opposite to make it unique and different.

            To John Chan, keep up your good work, and ignore people like “John”.

      • LouDobbs

        hk’s off-topic post has completely derailed the comments section. There are sinophiles and sinophobes, nothing surprising here. The McCarthy-esque accusations of posters being “Communist infiltrators” or “American imperialists” is incredibly stupid, and does nothing to add to the discussion. Have we really gotten to the point that any dissent to the China-fear nonsense automatically makes a user a Communist spy? Do we have to lower ourselves to McCarthyism? And I thought the Cold War war over!

        Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT Please note, no comments that include abusive or inflammatory remarks
aimed at writers or other commenters will be accepted.

LEAVE A COMMENT