Scientists Issue Dire Warning on Space Weaponization to Bush Admin!
-----------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/
SCIENTISTS MAKE JOINT RESPONSE: IN A STINGING REBUKE TO THE BUSH's ADMIN
PLANS TO WEAPONIZE AND REIGN SUPREMACY IN SPACE, THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS ISSUE A DIRE WARNING ON SPACE WEAPONIZATION TO THE
BLOODYTHIRSTY WAR CRIMINALS IN THE BUSH ADMIN! / "Rods from God" IS ONE
SUCH LOONEY IDEA FROM THE BUSH WARMONGER NEOCONS! – By Nick
Wadhams, Associated Press Writer, 7:26 p.m. PDT, May 19, 2005 / Front
Page Splash set for Friday, May 20, 2005, Los Angeles Times
UNITED NATIONS — A scientists' group on Thursday WARNED the United
States AGAINST WEAPONIZING SPACE, saying the move would be prohibitively
expensive and could SET OFF NEW ARMS RACE.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group that opposes weapons
in space, said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that
would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any
justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.
"The United States has a huge lead in the space field -- it can afford
to try out the multilateral approach," said Jonathan Dean, a former U.S.
ambassador and an adviser on global security issues.
The Union's demand comes as the administration of President Bush is
reviewing the U.S. space policy doctrine. Some scientists worry that the
review will set out a more aggressive policy that could LEAD TO THE
GREATER MILITARIZATION OF SPACE.
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that
the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he
said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the
U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must
be protected.
"There are changes that have occurred over the last eight or nine years,
and there are countries that have taken an interest in space, McClellan
said. "And they have looked at things that could -- or technologies that
could -- threaten our space systems. And so you obviously need to take
that into account when you're updating the policy."
The Bush administration has also included some money in the budget for
space-based weapons programs to defend satellites, strike ground targets
and defend against missile attacks, said Laura Grego, a scientist with
the union.
Any complete weapons system in space would be very expensive, running
into the many billions of dollars. Developing a shield to defend against
a single missile attack would require deploying 1,000 space-based
interceptors and cost anywhere between $20 billion and $100 billion,
said David Wright, a union scientists and co-author of a recent report
on the feasibility of space weapons.
And such a system would require a huge expansion of U.S. launching
capability. The United States currently launches between 10-12 large
rockets a year, while with space interceptors, it would need to launch
many times more that each year.
Wright argued that space-based ground attack systems were not yet
practical either. One, dubbed "Rods from God" -- which would fire rods
of tungsten from space -- would cost 50-100 times as much as a similar
attack from the ground.
"The fact that it's still being considered I think suggests that there's
some sort of emotional attachment to it for putting weapons in space
rather than a hard-nosed analysis," Wright said.
Any such move would also likely draw swift international condemnation.
In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new
international treaty to ban weapons in outer space.
But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms
control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which
prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.
----------------------------------------
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at:
www.latimes.com/archives
© Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author of this article and do not wish to have this article printed on the Nancy Red Star website, please write to us at nancy@nancyredstar.com, and we will remove the article.
|