Back in the late 1960s during the intense pressure of the Cold War and two years before anyone from Earth had set foot on another celestial body, more than 100 countries came together to sign an international treaty known as The Outer Space Treaty 1967 (UN 1966). The treaty essentially stated that no one nation could claim space - it has to stay neutral, anyone entering space was doing so as a representative of mankind (or humankind) and clearly noted that space could not be militarised.
The Treaty has a number of key principles including (UNOOSA 2018):
Despite the work that the United States Air Force undertakes with their space command centre they very much still follow the rules; they use satellites for Earth Observation (EO) to monitor military actions on the Earth, prevent the use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) - which are not banned to travel through space to reach a destination - and track movements using GPS and developing communication systems. The operations covered by the U.S. Air Force are useful for the military on Earth and therefore do not go against the notions covered within The Outer Space Treaty 1967, reference to which can even be found on the U.S. government website. A comprehensive arms control for the use of weapons in space is available from the Arms Control Association (Kimball and Rusek 2017) and the U.S. Air Force's space command appears to stick to the rules laid out in The Outer Space Treaty 1967 when glancing at their work.
With this in mind the idea of the current U.S. administration's 'Space Force' sound as though it should not exist - and that is because by the current announcements and proposals it shouldn't. It flies in the face of the Treaty and encroaches on what some would regard as useful military intelligence gathering that is successfully being completed by an existing branch of the U.S. armed forces. Although the idea for the 'Space Force' has been mentioned previously by members of the Trump administration it was formally announced by Vice President Mike Pence on 9th August 2018. The key idea behind the 'Space Force' as a military entity that would engage in military exercises would be directly in conflict with the key notion of keeping space a peaceful and neutral zone and therefore the whole planet should endeavour to keep it as free from military exercises, weapons and conflict as they can.
Unlike the dominance of the USSR and United States in the 1960s space has become more open and accessible to the wider community. Nations work together well conducting experiments and most notably building and allowing astronauts to cohabit in space on the International Space Station (ISS) - one of humankind's greatest scientific endeavours. Space should never be dominated by one nation and the U.S. has not lost its dominance in the space sector as VP Mike Pence seems to suggest. In fact the tone of the announcement of the 'Space Force' was particularly concerning as no one has a right to own outer space and it is damaging to the rest of the planet to suggest so.
This news also comes at a time when American scientists and officials within U.S. government departments, including the U.S. space agency NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), are being told they cannot use the phrases 'climate change' and 'global warming' in their emails (Milman 2017; 2018) and they are having their funding cut in areas such as outreach and EO (Grush 2017). However, this hasn't stopped the Trump 2020 campaign team, who have laid out a competition to choose a logo for the planned sixth branch of the U.S. military, from blatantly copying NASA's logo in one of the designs (Fig, 1).
One can only assume that this would be a colossal waste of time, energy and money - especially as both NASA and the U.S. Air Force are already funded and working on some of the projects that would be encompassed by the new 'Space Force' such as military protection of Earth and satellite technology - especially when the U.S. already spends $610 billion on defence, more than the seven other biggest spenders on military resources combined (Fig. 2).
Perhaps the money could be put to better use elsewhere such as in the pockets of NASA and its many scientists or research council funding to help tackle climate change, solve questions puzzling physicists and developing further understanding of the functions of Earth systems. Maybe the funds could be used to support programmes for the proposed manned missions to Mars - on the behalf of humankind, not on behalf of the military - create spacecraft to visit other worlds to discover the mysteries hidden within, or develop new EO satellites to monitor Earth in all her glory.
There are many exciting human endeavours that have already been made in space, but the 'Space Force' appears to not be one of them which is disappointing when you start to think of all the other exciting adventures that the U.S. government, and humans generally, could be undertaking as a planet. However, at the moment the 'Space Force' is sounding very much like a terrible idea that the Empire has proposed from the final film in a Star Wars trilogy... and those plans never seem to end well. Only time will tell whether this plan goes ahead by the proposed 2020 deadline.
References
Grush, L. (2017). Trump's biggest budget cuts to NASA: ranked. The Verge. Available at
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14947444/trump-budget-plan-cuts-nasa-asteroid-mission-europa [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Kimball, D. and Rusek, B. (2017). The Outer Space Treaty at a Glance. Arms Control Association. Available at https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Milman, O. (2017). US federal department is censoring use of the term 'climate change', emails reveal. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Milman, O. (2018). Nasa full of 'fear and anxiety' since Trumpo took office, ex-employee says. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/30/nasa-climate-change-sensitive-subject-since-trump-former-employee [Accessed 10.08.2018].
UN. (1966). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Resolution 2222 (XXI). Available for download here. [Accessed 10.08.2018].
UNOOSA. (2018). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. United Nations. Available at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html [Accessed 10.08.2018].
The Treaty has a number of key principles including (UNOOSA 2018):
- 'the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
- outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
- outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
- States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
- the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
- astronauts shall be regarded as envoys of mankind;
- States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;
- States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
- States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.'
Despite the work that the United States Air Force undertakes with their space command centre they very much still follow the rules; they use satellites for Earth Observation (EO) to monitor military actions on the Earth, prevent the use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) - which are not banned to travel through space to reach a destination - and track movements using GPS and developing communication systems. The operations covered by the U.S. Air Force are useful for the military on Earth and therefore do not go against the notions covered within The Outer Space Treaty 1967, reference to which can even be found on the U.S. government website. A comprehensive arms control for the use of weapons in space is available from the Arms Control Association (Kimball and Rusek 2017) and the U.S. Air Force's space command appears to stick to the rules laid out in The Outer Space Treaty 1967 when glancing at their work.
With this in mind the idea of the current U.S. administration's 'Space Force' sound as though it should not exist - and that is because by the current announcements and proposals it shouldn't. It flies in the face of the Treaty and encroaches on what some would regard as useful military intelligence gathering that is successfully being completed by an existing branch of the U.S. armed forces. Although the idea for the 'Space Force' has been mentioned previously by members of the Trump administration it was formally announced by Vice President Mike Pence on 9th August 2018. The key idea behind the 'Space Force' as a military entity that would engage in military exercises would be directly in conflict with the key notion of keeping space a peaceful and neutral zone and therefore the whole planet should endeavour to keep it as free from military exercises, weapons and conflict as they can.
Unlike the dominance of the USSR and United States in the 1960s space has become more open and accessible to the wider community. Nations work together well conducting experiments and most notably building and allowing astronauts to cohabit in space on the International Space Station (ISS) - one of humankind's greatest scientific endeavours. Space should never be dominated by one nation and the U.S. has not lost its dominance in the space sector as VP Mike Pence seems to suggest. In fact the tone of the announcement of the 'Space Force' was particularly concerning as no one has a right to own outer space and it is damaging to the rest of the planet to suggest so.
This news also comes at a time when American scientists and officials within U.S. government departments, including the U.S. space agency NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), are being told they cannot use the phrases 'climate change' and 'global warming' in their emails (Milman 2017; 2018) and they are having their funding cut in areas such as outreach and EO (Grush 2017). However, this hasn't stopped the Trump 2020 campaign team, who have laid out a competition to choose a logo for the planned sixth branch of the U.S. military, from blatantly copying NASA's logo in one of the designs (Fig, 1).
 |
| Comparison of the 'Space Force' logo and the current NASA logo. The 'Space Force' logo was taken from a screenshot of the voting slip provided to Trump supporters and uploaded to Time magazine - the original article the image was taken from can be viewed here. NASA logo image credit: NASA (from site on the history of the insignia). |
One can only assume that this would be a colossal waste of time, energy and money - especially as both NASA and the U.S. Air Force are already funded and working on some of the projects that would be encompassed by the new 'Space Force' such as military protection of Earth and satellite technology - especially when the U.S. already spends $610 billion on defence, more than the seven other biggest spenders on military resources combined (Fig. 2).
 |
| Figure 2: Credit to the 'Peter G. Peterson Foundation' - available to access here. |
Perhaps the money could be put to better use elsewhere such as in the pockets of NASA and its many scientists or research council funding to help tackle climate change, solve questions puzzling physicists and developing further understanding of the functions of Earth systems. Maybe the funds could be used to support programmes for the proposed manned missions to Mars - on the behalf of humankind, not on behalf of the military - create spacecraft to visit other worlds to discover the mysteries hidden within, or develop new EO satellites to monitor Earth in all her glory.
There are many exciting human endeavours that have already been made in space, but the 'Space Force' appears to not be one of them which is disappointing when you start to think of all the other exciting adventures that the U.S. government, and humans generally, could be undertaking as a planet. However, at the moment the 'Space Force' is sounding very much like a terrible idea that the Empire has proposed from the final film in a Star Wars trilogy... and those plans never seem to end well. Only time will tell whether this plan goes ahead by the proposed 2020 deadline.
References
Grush, L. (2017). Trump's biggest budget cuts to NASA: ranked. The Verge. Available at
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14947444/trump-budget-plan-cuts-nasa-asteroid-mission-europa [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Kimball, D. and Rusek, B. (2017). The Outer Space Treaty at a Glance. Arms Control Association. Available at https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Milman, O. (2017). US federal department is censoring use of the term 'climate change', emails reveal. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Milman, O. (2018). Nasa full of 'fear and anxiety' since Trumpo took office, ex-employee says. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/30/nasa-climate-change-sensitive-subject-since-trump-former-employee [Accessed 10.08.2018].
UN. (1966). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Resolution 2222 (XXI). Available for download here. [Accessed 10.08.2018].
UNOOSA. (2018). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. United Nations. Available at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html [Accessed 10.08.2018].
Comments
Post a Comment