Space Force could boost an orbiting arms race

IKen Hicks

n 1967, several countries, including the United States, signed the Outer Space Treaty, which provided the basic cooperation principles for the human race in space. For example, it prohibited the placement of space-based weapons.

There are good reasons why this treaty should be in place. Without it, there could be an arms race in space, and you can imagine the kind of chaos that would mean. If one nation would want to put a nuclear weapon into orbit, then every other country that has the capability would want an orbiting arsenal, if just to keep even.

Except for the occasional James Bond movie, in which some evil scientist wants to take over the world, it appears that in real life, sanity has prevailed. If the United States had a weapon in orbit, the Chinese or the Russians (or both) probably would know about it and try to destroy it.

Of course, I’m guessing here because I don’t have a security clearance for such matters. But it just makes sense that no nation could keep a nuclear space weapon secret for very long.

So, why am I bringing this up? Some politicians have suggested lately that the United States should expand defensive efforts into space. In my opinion, this is a bad idea.

The U.S. has so much more to lose than to gain by establishing a defensive Space Force. For starters, it would deter the commercial development of space. Companies such as Space-X or Blue Origin, which dream of ferrying customers to space, must see how such policies would hurt business. Imagine that your sightseeing expedition is in danger of being mistakenly targeted by another nation’s armed satellite. Not good for ticket sales.

As astronaut Mark Kelly tweeted recently about a possible Space Force, which would be a sixth arm of the Pentagon: “The Air Force does this already. That is their job. What’s next, we move submarines to the 7th branch and call it underthe-sea force?” The Air Force Space Command was established in 1982 and has been keeping us safe for decades. What’s the sudden need to have a separate branch to do this job?

Some people would say that it’s inevitable that some nation eventually will put weapons into space. Maybe this is true, but then I might also ask whether it’s also inevitable that the human race will blow itself up.

I prefer a different vision of the world, one in which we use space to answer fundamental questions such as, “What are the origins of the solar system?” or “Is it possible to colonize other planets?”

If federal funds are available to start a new branch of defense such as the proposed Space Force, why is it that we don’t have funds for a moon-based space station or the vigorous development of a mission to Mars? I just don’t understand the reasoning of putting taxpayers’ dollars toward an arms race in space, which almost surely would cost more and more each year just to keep up, as opposed to putting those same dollars to work at NASA. Where would you, as a taxpayer, rather put your dollars?

Of course, I realize that not everyone agrees with my point of view. Some people have argued that a Space Force, separate from the Air Force, could enhance the visibility of space programs in general.

Though it’s true that astronomers have benefited from technological advances spurred on by the military, and vice versa, I think this benefit would get lost in the noise of countries vying to become the dominant power in space.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I like to think of space as a peaceful place.