Preventing an Outer Space Arms Race?

James Carroll addressed an important topic recently in his op-ed piece, "Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space" (Boston Globe, 12 May 2008). Unfortunately, he presents a skewed picture of the current situation and gets the argument wrong in two key ways.

First, Carroll paints the United States as the space warfare bogeyman. He suggests that China's test of an anti-satellite weapon in January 2007 was merely a response to U.S. provocation while decrying the United States' more recent shootdown of a wayward satellite. Carroll, however, fails to mention that United States provided advance public notice of the shootdown, conducted it in low-earth orbit to prevent debris from interfering with other satellites, and, whether people choose to believe it or not, at least put forth a plausible justification for its action based on safety considerations, while China did none of these things.

Furthermore, Carroll fails to distinguish between the roles that countries like the United States and China would play in any "space war." China, as the weaker power, would likely try to prevent the military use of space in any future conflict, disabling U.S. satellite capability in any way possible. The United States, as the stronger power, would try to preserve the use of space for communication, navigation, and surveillance. Therefore, it is very likely that China would be the one to initiate "space war" during any hypothetical conflict between the two.

The second key weakness of Carroll's piece is that he depicts the United States as the primary obstacle blocking a treaty that could prevent a space arms race. He notes that the United States is "refusing to discuss a treaty aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space" yet fails to mention that such a treaty would be virtually unverifiable. While treaties such as those prohibiting chemical and biological weapons are certainly useful, few believe that they have succeeded in eliminating the development of these kinds of weapons; in fact the Soviet Union began a major expansion of its biological weapons program in the early 1970s, soon after it signed the Biological Weapons Convention.

Carroll claims that "humans who did not think to ban weapons from the air a century ago know better when it comes to outer space." Here, too, Carroll is wrong. Humans did think to ban weapons from the air a century ago; not only that, but at various times they also thought to ban weapons under the sea, weapons that poison, and weapons that fire bullets. Let's not be naive; every kind of technology adaptable to the conduct of warfare has been used by man for that purpose despite sometimes Herculean efforts to the contrary.

Don't get me wrong; it would be great to eliminate the possibility of conflict in space. Furthermore, even imperfect treaties have value. However, the strength of Carroll's advocacy of a space warfare treaty should be tempered by the fact that no treaty will eliminate such competition entirely.

This is an important topic and deserves a comprehensive consideration of the issues involved rather than simply bashing the current U.S. position.