Unraveling the NPT
On Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defenses, And Space Weaponization
Regina Hagen
Six decades ago, one country envisioned acquiring decisive military advantage over the rest of the world by building and monopolizing nuclear weapons. But it didn’t take long before other countries followed the US example. The presumed strength turned into the nightmare of nuclear arms races, overkill, and the prospect of mutual annihilation. To date, trillions of dollars have been spent by nuclear weapon states on optimizing warheads, delivery systems, and the infrastructure required for their use. Today, we are repeating this dangerous example and extending it into space.
Only by keeping the full spectrum of weapon systems in mind can disarmament be achieved. Part of this picture is the need to restrict the military use of space. The growing dependence of hightech military forces on satellites results in a vicious circle of threat (or perceived threat), protection, defense, offense, and counter-offense. Weaponization of space by some states would encourage other, less technologically advanced countries, to counter asymmetrically – and nuclear weapons would certainly be one of the options, for example, to destroy ground stations and thus disable the command and control infrastructure for space weapons. Even if nuclear weapons were ruled out, other means to offset the space advantage would be found.
It is not a coincidence, therefore, that Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligates the member states to “a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” This was confirmed at the 2000 NPT Review in Step #11 of the 13 practical steps: “Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.”
MD – Bound for Proliferation
Rather than fulfill their disarmament obligations under the NPT, some countries have directed their energy into building missile defenses. Russia still maintains a small protective shield around Moscow, which had been allowed under the nowdefunct Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The US, however, has higher ambitions: global systems deployed on land and on sea, in air and in space. President Bush said a few years ago that “Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation.”[1] The opposite is probably true. A recent report shows that construction of the Russian missile defense system in the 1960s provoked the US not only to considerably increase the numbers of its nuclear systems but spurred it to increase the quality of its arsenal by developing multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, the so-called MIRVs.[2] MIRVs were poised to be eliminated under START-II, but now we observe their speedy revival.
In response to US missile defense programs, China is said to be developing new missiles for MIRVs. China will also increase the number of its missiles and may eventually place its nuclear weapons on constant alert.
Russia tested a hypersonic weapon just a few weeks ago. The prototype was proven to maneuver quickly in altitude and in direction while in orbit, thereby making “any missile defense useless”, as a senior Russian general commented after the test. Furthermore, the US encouraged Russia to maintain the high alert status of its nuclear arsenal to counter Russian missile defense fears, thus increasing the risk of an inadvertent or unauthorized nuclear strike.
We can also anticipate a missile defense arms race. Australia and Japan have already decided to participate in US missile defense programs. Canada and the UK are negotiating their involvement. The US is conducting a survey of where in Europe it could deploy interceptors for its groundbased system. NATO is doing a feasibility study for its own system – extending the scope beyond the tactical range. Israel cooperates with the US on its Arrow system. India wants to buy the Israeli system. Russia keeps the Moscow system running and offers SS-300s for sale.
Here at international fora, governments speak only of horizontal proliferation, while the US itself is actively engaged in serious vertical proliferation of missile defense schemes. The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board defied a defense appropriation ban to examine the use of nuclear weapons in missile defense. The Pentagon also has efforts under way to develop miniature kill vehicles, up to a dozen of which could be carried by one interceptor. That means MIRVing missile defense!
Space – Field for Future Arms Races?
We all are aware of the close link between missile defense and space weaponization, and it has been made even clearer by the latest US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan. One example out of many might suffice to make the case:
A Ground Based Laser is envisioned for the future. This system “would propagate laser beams through the atmosphere to Low-Earth Orbit satellites to provide robust defensive and offensive space control capability.” As if this weren’t enough, an additional component[3] “will significantly extend the range of both the Airborne Laser and Ground-Based Laser by using airborne, terrestrial, or space-based lasers in conjunction with space-based relay mirrors to project different laser powers and frequencies to achieve a broad range of effects from illumination to destruction.”[4]
Further systems described in the Air Force document are:
Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missiles “to intercept satellites in low earth orbit” (thus creating space debris that would then threaten all space assets);
the Counter Satellite Communications System “to deny and disrupt an adversary’s space-based communications and early warning” plus a Counter Surveillance and Reconnaissance System “to deny, disrupt, and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems” (both depriving the adversary of its ability to know what is going on and consequently increasing the risk of a full-scale (nuclear) strike);
a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle able to “reach time-critical targets up to 9,000 nautical miles away within two hours with payloads up to 12,000 pounds;”
Hypervelocity Rod Bundles – the so-called “Rods from God” – to “provide the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space;” and many more.
Obviously, under the current Bush administration, the previous restrictions on using space offensively have been thrown overboard at an incredible pace. In the words of Air Force Space Command: “The major question in fielding offensive counterspace systems is the political will to do so.”[5]
A recent study found that the use – or the possibility of the use – of space weapons could trigger a nuclear response from the other side.[6] Moreover, if warfare were extended to outer space, commercial satellite investments would be greatly endangered. Accordingly, the looming weaponization of space must not be simply dismissed as a crazy fantasy of the military “boys with their toys.”
If the US continues to work on antisatellite weapons and eventually deploys them, Russia and China – who have both declared a moratorium on ASAT testing – may do the same. India will not sit by. In such a scenario, I dare say that even the European Union would move to weaponize space. US attempts to prevent such proliferation would give further rise to security tensions.
Recently, a syllogism echoed through some military and political circles that those who control low-earth orbit control near-earth space; that those who control near-earth space dominate Earth; and that those who dominate Earth determine the destiny of mankind.[7] It might well be true that those who control space determine the destiny of humankind – but most likely in a very negative way.
Rather than enter into a new arms race in space and destabilize the security environment even more, disarmament and a ban on missile defenses and space weapons are the proper solution. Therefore, the current initiatives to negotiate a space weapons ban are of utmost importance. On June 2002, China and Russia introduced a Joint Working Paper with Possible Elements of a Space Weapons Treaty to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament (CD). The paper was sponsored by several other countries and led to intensive discussion. As a result, in 2003 China and Russia felt encouraged to follow up by introducing a Compilation of Comments and Suggestions to the Working Paper. This initiative deserves your strongest support. We also applaud the Canadian efforts to develop a “new comprehensive approach seeking to integrate space security issues with the international community’s need for security and equitable access to space for peaceful purposes,” which has recently been presented at a seminar in Geneva.[8]
Over the years, NGOs have also contributed constructively to the debate, suggesting, for example, “a comprehensive approach to deal with missiles and [ ] a ‘framework’ agreement to restrict the development, testing, and deployment of all ballistic missiles and missile defenses” two years ago.[9] And a scientific Proposed Treaty on the Limitation of the Military Use of Outer Space even dates back to NGO efforts of 1984.[10]
Our proposals
Last year, we offered specific proposals to help prevent an arms race with missiles, missile defenses, and space weapons.[11] Rather than repeat those recommendations in detail here, let me just list them in short:
Stop testing missiles and missile defense systems.
Initiate negotiations for an international treaty banning tests of ballistic missiles and of missile defense systems.
Initiate negotiations for a global treaty banning ballistic missiles and missile defense systems.
Prohibit any research, development, testing, building, and deployment of weapons for use in space.
The time is ripe for disarmament in all its aspects, including the prevention of further steps toward missile defenses and space weaponization.
This presentation was prepared for the NGO Presentation session of the 2004 Non-Proliferation Treaty Prepatory Committee Meeting. The text was read to the diplomats by Charlotte Wohlfahrt, a student from the International Law Campaign.
|
|
