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."

Nuclear Propulsion

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 [wikipedia.org] (the one that effectively killed the Orion [wikipedia.org]) 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 [wikipedia.org] environmental protest.)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

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 [washingtonpost.com] 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?

Take me to your Litre

Space-based MIRVs.

It's like Missle Command. With a self-denying alcoholic on the rampage.

Neocons rejection of 'no first use' doctrine..

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..

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

Yes, a starship that will greet us as liberators, throwing flowers.

"No one could have anticipated that the nuclear spaceship would kill hundreds of thousands of people" - Bush's 2009 "Emergency Reinauguration Speech"

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

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."

In space no one can hear...

Your second amendment rights :P

-Rick

Re:

Crap like this makes me hate politics. Arguing against anti or pro Bush zombie is almost a waste of time. The polarization of the nation is nauseating. Nothing is more sickening then the nation getting duped into believing that there are exactly two sid

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

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

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:

Well, for a start he could have NOT tied up a large chunk of our military in a country with NO NUCLEAR THREAT AT ALL. Or he could have offered them other economic incentives to back off on the nuclear power, instead of threating them. For as rich of a coun

Re:

"us going into Iraq proves that we are serious about fixing problems" ROFLMAO...I think you mispelled "causing" as "fixing"

So tell me what problems have we fixed???
1)Iraq now a stable democratic country - Mission Accomplished!
2)Iraq's utilities all re

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

I believe you may mean "Non sequitur" - unless "Non sequiter" means - "I don't understand this myself, so it must be wrong!"

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

Because that worked so well when the Clinton Administration did it. Again, in Iraq, Bush was urged to let sanctions work. Here he did exactly that, and guess what, he's attacked for it.

Actually it did work really well when the Clinton administration did it. North Korea didn't resume their nuclear program until 2002 - when GWB was well in the white housse. Read more here [talkingpointsmemo.com].

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

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:

Better prepared to do what? Invade?

Again, there are a couple of hundred countries in the world...what have they contributed to a peaceful solution?

Where is the massive influx of European or Canadian aid? Did they even try?

Why is it the role of the US to cl

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

Can you say wild overreaction? Can you say schizophrenia? Can you say lift the tin foil full face helmet so you can breathe?

Yeah, I could say all of those things, but the fact remains that we have dropped 120,000+ soliders and $300+ billion into a foreign country to interdict nuclear weapons that did not and do no exist, and stop an alliance with Al-Qaeda that also did not exist. Also, this is the same administration that advocates for the creation and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. So at this point, there is very little room left for 'overreaction'. Things really are that insane in the White House, and will probably only get worse once the Republicans lose control of Congress in November.

Re:

A lot of the Reagan/Bush Star Wars plans called for powering space lasers with nukes. It might still be stupid, but it will cost a lot of money paid to military contractor corporations. And spread fear of the US across the globe, including among sensible A

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

"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.

he's ignoring them

I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.

We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels unde

Re:

"If the plant operators installed the proper scrubbers on the stacks
then there would be no air emissions."
As far as I know there isn't a single zero emmissions coal fired plant on the face of the Earth.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

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

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

Sure I can, but I'm not sure the President can manage it.

Brush up those reading comprehension skills

What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?

Further proof...

...that Bush is, in fact, a space cadet.

(Oh come on you knew it was coming)

I do find it quite amazing

Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.

Isn't that like one tenth of what we blow on a war ... weekly?

Mod this to oblivion, regardless of what positive action he takes, I still don't like him.

Re:I do find it quite amazing

Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.

You might be surprised, but a lot of space advocates would agree with this. The ISS, for all it's design and hardware, is a useless space station that can only be serviced properly by the Space Shuttle. Had compromises not been made earlier, the station would be worth holding on to. But as it is right now, the station sits in an orbit that's incredibly hard to reach, cannot be used as a lunar launching point, and isn't even all that spectacular for scientific endeavours.

A much more useful future would be to take that $200M per mission, and spend it on lots and lots of inexpensive, inflatible space stations [bigelowaerospace.com]. These stations could provide all the facilities of the ISS, but at a lower cost of launch and operation. If a particular station outlives its usefulness, a new one could be launched rather than trying to maintain aging hardware.

The ability to spread our resources across multiple stations would also mean that we could put Space Stations where-ever they're useful. Need one to support moon missions? Done. Need a different orbit to support Mars missions? Done. Need a temporary construction yard for a spaceship? Done.

Those options simply don't exist with the current station. So believe it or not, there may be some method to Bush's seeming madness about space.

Re:

there may be some method to Bush's seeming madness

Come on, try to be be realistic.

Re:

Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.

Anyone truely interested in the exploration of space should be desperate to see NASA shut down. I don't like him either but it's hardly a useful

Re:

You have to keep in mind that a president is not just a civilian leader; he's a military one too. It is a military commander-in-chief's duty to do certain things, and funding ISS is not one of them. Securing the ability to do other things and deny them t

Space Race 2.0

So they need to "ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries" days after the US admits that china "beamed a ground-based laser at U.S. spy satellites over its territory." (from: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-05-satel lite-laser_x.htm?POE=TECISVA [usatoday.com].)

So it seems the Space Arms Race is begining afresh. We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.

Government needs a Logic Advisor

"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

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

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.

Someone needs a Logic Advisor

"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. ;^)

Competition Breeds Innovation

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.

jesus.

Wow, we can't discuss the article and what good could come of it, we ahve to immediatly start politician bashing. Hey lets just stop submiting articles to /. instead why don't we just put a article on the front page that says "George W. Bush. DISCUSS!"

We would get rid of all these useless interesting topics about technology and we could all just bitch with reckless abandon about our favorite politician.

I mean FUCKING HELL. If any other president had said this most of you asshats would be having fucking orgasam on the spot.

Re:jesus.

It is because of the way he said it, for one thing.

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

He was doing pretty well up to that point, assuming that you ignore the fact that he's spent all of our money performing escalatio on the Iraqi insurgency.

What I read was "I want to jumpstart the manned space program, even though we don't have any money to do so, because it's such a feelgood topic to bring up right before the election. Also, I'd like to make sure we spend a good bit of money on space weaponry, because we just might have to saddle up to dispense some justice should someone we don't like start muscling in on this whole 'outer space' thing we've got going."

Its disingenuous to propose a large increase in manned space (high $$$, high popularity, low science) when the budget deficit is so large. It also runs counter to most of the non-military goals of space exploration to talk about engaging in warfare in orbit. Those of us who have memories longer than a year or two remember his goal to get to Mars, but have yet to see the $2T line item in the budget for such an undertaking. Hey George, Show Me The Money.

You're right

You are so right. The reason we pick on Bush is because we don't like the way he talks. Some of us don't even like the way he looks. It's not his policies at all, which have been perfect, and reasonable, and have provided for the safety, prosperity, and co

Trust Bush

I'm glad Bush proved he can be trusted with our space program. He perfected the Space Shuttle (by grounding it for years, now headed for termination). He put an American on Mars, just like his father promised when in political trouble a decade and a half ago. He's making sure other countries don't take American nuclear expansion as a signal to proliferate their own nukes, like in N Korea, Iran, India.

Yes, by all means trust this sober, reasonable man of science with an expensive program to put nukes in space. After he rebuilt New Orleans around the Space Shuttle fueltank factory, everyone there will gladly tell us that he can do anything he sets his mind to.

Re:

Interesting..you seem to have read the President's Vision for Space Exploration but somehow only grabbed onto the "kill shuttle" part and missed the whole "build vehicles to explore the solar system part"... or was that inconvenient to your anti-Bush rant?

I have a plan

Here's my plan. Let's leave the planet in two groups, split by who can get along with each other. One of us will go and form the 12 Colonies and be prosperous. The other will disappear into legend and create the 13th Colony. Sound good to everyone? I think I'll go with the 12 Colonies group.

And by the way, I've got this great idea for a cybernetic AI construct to make our lives in the Colonies easier.....

SecDef -- great

"The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to..."

Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.

Chinese Laser US Satellites - now this

What a surprise. A recent leak [defensenews.com] about US satellites being blinded by Chinese lasers and now a more military flavor to the US space program.

naw, it's just PNAC

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.

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

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.

Arms race in space

Well ... I guess it's official now: we have an arms race in space with the US in the lead.

Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html [guardian.co.uk] and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html [space.com]) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.

Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.

I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?

And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.

I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.

Re:Is this possible?

What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org]. 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?

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.

Re:A fundamental rule of warfare.....

Actually, the "high ground" in space isn't defined by distance from Earth. Moon is a better base than Mars (simply because Mars is too far away from the action, plus it has higher gravity), but if you really want to control the solar system, you aim for the Lagrange Points [wikipedia.org].