After four years and some 35 drafts, the Bush White House has finally released its long-awaited rewrite of the U.S. National Space Policy. Obviously, the administration was keen to get the word out they quietly posted a 10-page unclassified summary on the Office of Science and Technology Policys website at 5 pm on Oct. 6 the Friday before the Columbus Day long weekend.
Hmm. Maybe not.
When asked about the document, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow replied: “What, this old thing? Just something we inherited from our Uncle Bill.” Well, not literally, of course. But in a further indication that the administration intends to downplay the significance of the document, insiders have been characterizing the new NSP as “nothing new,” just a variation on the themes set by the Clinton administration in the last NSP.
A cursory reading might support that conclusion much of the language from the previous policy is lifted intact. But giving such an important document just a cursory reading would be a mistake. Slap down the new NSP, signed by President Bush on Aug. 31, and the old one, signed by President Clinton in 1996, side by side, and reach deep down for those old grad-school “textual analysis” skills, and its quickly apparent that we are dealing with two very different beasts. Though that wont come as a surprise to those who have been playing the space game over the past decade or so.
While the Clinton version focuses on civil and commercial space, the Bush NSP gives primacy to national security and military space. Example: of Clintons five goals for U.S. space programs, two mention national security; of Bushs six goals, four are related to national security and defense.
While the Clinton policy aimed to highlight international cooperation and collective security in space, the Bush NSP takes a goit-alone stance, using strong language that asserts U.S. unilateral rights in space while possibly also being intended to “negate” the rights of other space-faring nations. In ominous tones, the document threatens in one section to “dissuade or deter others from either impeding [U.S.] rights or developing capabilities intended to do so” raising the specter of preemptive action against other nations dual-use space technology.
Indeed, even as the Bush policy emphasizes the importance of space security, it goes out of its way to make clear that this security may not, under any circumstances, come from (shudder) international law: “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 conduce research, development, testing and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests” [emphasis added].
While the new NSP doesn’t go as far as some space hawks wanted it to in openly endorsing the strategy of fighting “in, from and through” space, neither has it served to put a blanket even a thin one on those ambitions. And in taking a decidedly “us against them” tone, it is likely to further cement the view from abroad that the United States has taken on the role of a “Lone Space Cowboy.” And as much as people love John Wayne movies overseas, that will not be a good thing.
– Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine
Bush: Space is for Soldiers
Previous post: Congo Drone Crash Kills
Next post: Patrolling the Shatt
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
lol what’s next
“The terroists want to attack us through the upper atmosphere… and I believe they can do it!”
I can’t wait till this man is out of office and I hope to god that some 300x more sane takes his job.
Lets all just face it. He isn’t nearly as worried about fighting terrorism as he says he is. Or else maybe we would have Usama Bin Laden by now.
I like putting a military emphasis on our space program, as the military has been second to none the prime entrepreneur in space tech…
but this unilateral ‘go it alone’ approach worries me. It speaks of global dominance, and while I’m favorable of no strings attached American approach to space, why go to the lengths to outright snub our neighbors?
Are you seriously that ignorant? Chinese lasers news story ring a bell? I’m not saying that is the main threat, but it’s an example of just one. The idea of maintaining military control over space is not an insane one. It is one that recognizes future threats from sources other than bin laden. Terrorism is NOT our only threat. Especially 10-30 years from now. Telling yourself otherwise is disillusionment. We need to maintain space superiority. As for, “Lets all just face it. He isn’t nearly as worried about fighting terrorism as he says he is. Or else maybe we would have Usama Bin Laden by now.” Is this comment really serious? Apparently you don’t understand the complexity of the issue – especially if he’s in Pakistan. Not to mention that yes, “maybe” we would have him by now. Well, “maybe” I might have become Superman by now. That’s an thoughtless and uninformed, impulsive comment.
I think everyone is reading too much into this. Of course Bush is going to assert US primacy in space. He’s a little more blunt than previous Presidents about it, but most of this is not that different than the things Clinton would have done.
I’d actually love a go-it-alone approach to space. Understand that, as of now and the foreseeable future, international restrictions on the use of space would in actuality only limit the one country wealthy enough to make extensive use of space: us. And it’s not like international space projects have been a big success: the international space station is “international” almost in name only. US funding, US technological know-how, and US resources built 99% of the thing. The biggest thing any other country did was Russia toting parts up in their rockets when the shuttles went down.
I don’t think it is such a crime to read an article lampooning the current administration’s approach to defense issues. The policies they set impact the entire defense community and it is fair to say call out when that impact is negative. Its not like they are arguing for the administration’s ouster or promoting one party over the other.
Everyone sees technology, defense and politics differently and that inherently colors our assessment. The Bush administration’s approach to policy promulgation is overly ham-handed and secretative. That characterization plays out pretty clearly in Theresa and Haninah’s post.
I only hope the level of discourse on this site remains as reasonable as it has been so far.
A Chinese laser does not justify the militarization of space. Neither does terrorism, ICBMs, or protection of commercials interests, although this last is closest to the truth.
Militarization itself is a commercial interest, and the unrestrained capitalist ideal is to create marekts out of every possible nook and cranny. There is no more profitable (or expensive) way to do that than in orbit via taxpayer subsidy.
This is simply a gold rush, completely without ethics, responsibility or humanity.
For more on war profiteering: http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf
good, We are heavily invested in space, and we need to make sure to be able to protect those assets.
It is evident from the tone of the article where Theresa Hitchens and Haninah Levine fall on the political spectrum. Ms Hitchens has authored a paper titled
Hmm. Let’s just spot-check the article’s facts, shall we?
>…of Clinton’s five goals for U.S. space
>programs, two mention national security; of
>Bush’s six goals, four are related to national
>security and defense.
>While the Clinton policy aimed to highlight
>international cooperation and collective
>security in space, the Bush NSP takes a go
As always US of A imposing their own rules to the world instead cooperating, they
This is a beautiful and awesome thing. God bless George W. Bush. Think of these as guidelines to tell other nations what will earn them the enmity of the US. This is for thier own good. It’s much better this way then having things too fuzzy. Now there will be less miscalculations. I want my children protected by complete US space dominance.
i dont think this is the best idea for the people of earth i mean we arent always just going to be just america and the part that bothered me the most about this hole thing is this “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”
the united state will oppose the devleopment of new leagal regimes, who is to say what is someone trying to prohibit use of space if some goes to some where else and start there own thing does that mean that they have the right to stop us
Come on, the U.S. seeks world power. Space is the place where domination can be dissolved. Therefore, the U.S. extorts complete irresponibility to U.N. or other national interests. Star wars is nice to the U.S.A., but bad for the people who live there…