Bush Reveals New Space Policy

Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."

Comments

Nuclear Propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

There's one part of the policy I found particularly interesting:

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests.

Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"? :D

Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty (the one that effectively killed the Orion) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.

Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens environmental protest.)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, yeah, Bush throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions "can only be a good thing in the modern day world".

On a day when everyone's freaking out because Bush let the N Koreans go nuclear, you think more nukes, in space, "can only be a good thing"?

Run by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon? The Rumsfeld who's lobbying to throw away the "antiquated" US government structure that makes the president less than an emperor.

Can you say "Global Thermonuclear War"? Can you say anything other than "oooh, nuclear space drive", or look away from your monitor at the real world?

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[LWATCDR]

"Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties"
No not really.
The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word".
It is almost to the point that they are the boy that cried wolf.
I fear that if a project has any real danger involved that they will be ignored as they have been for all the launches where they where just being silly.
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[florescent_beige]

I belive the part of the document that may draw attention is this:

Provide space capabilities to support continuous, global strategic and tactical warning as well as multi-layered and integrated missile defenses;

That will be seen by some as laying the groundwork for, or at least being consistent with, the weaponization of space in support of National Missile Defense. The "multi-layered" term means "not just ground-based interceptors."

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, and believe he should be impeached (not for the Iraq war, but for violations of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution), but in this case, zxnos is right.

With NK, Bush did everything that his opponents claim he should have done in Iraq. He didn't invade, he tried to let sanctions work, he worked with other countries. In particular the US has no direct influence over NK, they're a client of China. Bush tried to get China to deal with it.

What would you guys have had him do? Invade?

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Tony]

I don't even know where to begin. First, Bush is not putting nuclear weapons up in space. As the previous poster stated, and you conveniently ignored, putting nukes in space serves no purpose. We have a few thousand ICBMs that can do the job just fine, not to mention a few dozen subs if you need it done even quicker. You can't even produce a reason for "Bush" (like Bush is the only person making decisions... I bet you think Bush wrote this policy paper personally, don't you?) wanting nuclear weapons up in space. I suppose you do try and justify it with the sentences, "All dangerous." and "Insane."

I won't argue your other points (many of which are good, solid reasoning), but this is untrue. Putting nukes in space does server a strategic purpose.

A nuke launched from the ground takes a while to reach its target, giving a country like China, which has its own nuclear missiles, time to retaliate. We have submarines in place to launch missiles, but they have to get into position first, which can often take several days; and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.

An orbiting launch platform could target any spot on earth very rapidly. Most of the early thrust would occur in near-vacuum, making for great early acceleration. A submarine would be able to strike quickly once it is in position; orbiting nukes could strike even faster, without the need to get in position.

Further, a sub could be taken out by conventional warfare. Taking out a space-based nuke would be very difficult without exposing yourself to nuclear strike.

Basically, it all comes down to the magic three words: First Strike Initiative.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[drinkypoo]

The whole 'coal power has killed more than nuclear power' is bullshit. If the plant operators installed the proper scrubbers on the stacks then there would be no air emissions.

But, uh, they don't. So there are. So your comment is pure bullshit. Did you know that cancer rates doubled during the industrial revolution? Literally doubled. There's no other major influences on cancer rates at that time, but today we know that soot is carcinogenic.

But the Bush administration has prevented any EPA rules that tighten power plant emission regulation. So who's really to blame here?

Still the power companies. The ability to do a thing is not sufficient justification to do a thing. The ability to fuck over the world in pursuit of profit doesn't make it okay, it doesn't make it someone else's fault, and the fact that you would suggest that it does makes you an extremely mmature person in the area of social responsibility. I suppose you think that if someone drops their wallet, and you see them do it, it's okay to take all their money because they dropped it instead of letting them know they dropped their wallet?

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[cowscows]

He tried to get China to deal with it because he was too incompetent to do it himself. NK wanted direct talks with the US. They didn't want to go through China. NK is worried about the US undermining their government, they're not concerned about China.

The Bush administration's big idea on NK was to cut off any sort of aid and diplomacy, and try and get everyone else to do the same. The misguided hope is that that would cause the government to collapse. The problem is that during the Clinton administration, the US as well as China and especially South Korea had been involved in detailed, complex, and relatively cordial negotiations.

The way diplomacy generally works is that the leaders make big proclamations and empty threats and whatnot, and then other people work hard behind the scenes to establish a compromise where things get settled peacefully, and neither side ends up looking like they lost. After Clinton left office, North Korea kept playing that game, because that's how politics work. Bush, however, was disinterested in playing that game (for a number of reasons). And so while the rhetoric was increasing as it always was, there was no effort put forth by the US to actually solve any of the issues. Both sides painted themselves into a corner, and this time no escape plan was hammered out.

The only difference is that NK's corner had a little ledge they could climb out on, it just involved actually testing a nuke. The US is still stuck in its corner, and even if there was a way out, it's doubtful that Bush would take it, it's just not the way his mind works. His administration views any sort of compromise as defeat, no matter who the opponent, or how high the stakes.

Re:Is this possible?

[AKAImBatman]

What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It's an agreement between the major super-powers that no Earthly country will own celestial bodies, and that these places exist for the exploration of all mankind.

I expect that this treaty would be modified once space colonies become common (a country, corporation, or individual would obviously "own" the property on which its Space Habitats reside, as it "owns" those habitats), but that's a matter that will be worked out when that bridge is crossed.

FWIW, historical property laws do offer some guidance. The original property laws provided complete ownership for everything below a property, and all the sky above a property. These laws have been modified as new technologies like airplanes and spacecraft made the skies above open space, and subways, power, and gas made the areas below into necessary points of infrastructure.

Re:Is this possible?

[Jartan]

Where do people get the idea that something like international laws actually exist? If a country decides to do something they'll just rewrite their own laws to allow it. If someone decides to ignore the UN or what not then it's not "illegal".

The only real question is whether or not they can actually back up such a claim in a way that will make other countries go along with it.

In part a reaction to last month's laser incident.

[hey!]

Mostly this sounds like a routine release of non-substantive policy boilerplate, except for this:

The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."

Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?

Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".

What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.

Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.

Government needs a Logic Advisor

[Morgaine]

"ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"
 

... means "ensure only we have freedom of action in space"

... which means "no freedom of action in space".

That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.

Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.

Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor

[Shihar]

Try using the whole quote.

"develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"

This is what the government SHOULD be doing. Defense agencies should always be "developing capabilities, plans, and options" for every single possible threat. That doesn't mean we need to build a space cruiser, but that does mean that having a plan to build one is not a bad idea. Hell, having a plan to invade Canada on hand is a good idea. Expecting and being prepared for the unexpected is what intelligence and defense agencies are there for.

I very much want my government to have a plan to deny space to whomever might need space denied to them. Sure, there are no enemies right now that demand such a wasteful and expensive capability, but it does not take a lot of imagination to envision a future where it might be prudent. Russia is one government change away from getting a hardline nationalist who feels nostalgic about the Cold War. China is one tiny democratic island (Taiwan) away from all out war with the US. North Korea... well fuck... who knows what they are thinking, but having something that can knock down their ICBMs on the drawing board is not a bad idea.

Look, I would agree that this is an overreaction if it said, "Make me some god damn space battle cruisers! Muhahahahaha!" But it doesn't. It directs that the government should plan to conduct military operations in space because it isn't an insane fear that some day in an unforeseen future those plans might be needed.

Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor

[lawpoop]

This needs to be examined in the larger context.

Of course the military has a plan for invading Canada. You are right -- they have a plan for everything, just like every other military in the world. But Bush isn't giving instructions to the military via public speeches. He isn't reassuring the people of the US.

Bush' speech is addressed to the world. When he gets up and gives a speech to the press, his audience is the world's governments. When he explicitly says that the US is going to develop military capability to deny other countries' freedom in space, that is a defacto threat. "Don't get any ideas, or will blow your shit out of the sky".

The world governments are all well aware that the US has a military plan for every eventuality. They don't need to be reminded of it. When Bush comes out and explicitly says it in a speech about what the US is going to do in space, he is making a threat.

Don't be naive. Bush is declaring that the US controls space.

Competition Breeds Innovation

[BeeBeard]

Since WW II, the U.S. has loomed as the most militarily and economically powerful nation in the world. Now China is making a bid to become a hegemony of its own. This is a Good Thing [tm].

Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.

It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.

We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.

naw, it's just PNAC

[YesIAmAScript]

The PNAC statement drawn up before Bush even took office says the US must dominate not only the surface of the Earth, but space and cyberspace too.

He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.

Someone needs a Logic Advisor

[Shadowlore]

"ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries" ... means "ensure only we have freedom of action in space" ... which means "no freedom of action in space".

That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.

Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.

Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?

You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.

Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.

In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:

Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space

Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space

The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.

Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers. ;^)

Neocons rejection of 'no first use' doctrine..

[nadanumber]

Honestly, most of what you said went above my head. I was speaking from my gut and my gut tells me uneqivocably that we are far less secure under a neocon government than a non-neocon one. This has been my feeling since the day I heard that George II was running. My first thought then was 'oh no, in six months we will be in a war'. I guess I was wrong..

(It was actually nine months)

The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)

We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)

Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)

Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.

Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.

The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.

Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.

That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.

The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.

Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..

In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..

If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..

Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..

If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..

It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..

the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..

There will not be a World War IV...