The new National Space Policy does not reflect a shift by the Bush Administration or the U.S. military towards the weaponization of space.
Keywords: U.S. National Space Policy.
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a supporting argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a related argument.
Some will certainly argue that the U.S. brought this state of affairs on itself, that our space policy signaled aggressive intentions in space, and our nascent missile defense capabilities forced others to react in a hostile manner. The United States did issue a new national space policy last October that reiterated a 50-year commitment to preserve peaceful uses of space, safeguard freedom of action for all nations, reserved the right to protect and defend U.S. space systems, and expressed antipathy toward additional international agreements. While there may be “tonal” differences between the new policy and past presidential statements, the content is virtually the same and certainly could not have been the spark that catalyzed Chinese development of sophisticated ASAT capabilities. Those had to have been in development for much, much longer. Kueter, Jeff. "Crossing the Rubicon in Space Again: Iacta Alea est." . January 23, 2007. [ page 2 ]
Interestingly, US space policy has been relatively consistent since the days of the Eisenhower administration during which time the decision was made to pursue the peaceful uses of outer space. This thinking greatly shapes how people use space today and how people view space use for tomorrow. The current outer space legal regime recognizes that “the exploration and use of outer space … shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” Moreover, it declares that “outer space … is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.” It also abides by the rules and decision-making procedures calling for registration of space objects and restrictions on weapons of mass destruction in space. Although the release of the new space policy resulted in some criticism of the US, there is no question in my mind that this country is committed to the existing space legal regime. All actions taken in space by this nation are consistent with US law, regulations, treaties and other agreements to which it is party, as well as applicable international law and US foreign policy. Worley II, Robert M. "The New National Space Policy and Air Force Space Command's Role in International Cooperation." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2 (March 2007): 7-9. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 7 ]
International space cooperation plays a prominent role in the latest National Space Policy. As one of the top three guiding principles, the policy states, “The United States will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space to extend the benefits of space, enhance space exploration, and to protect and promote freedom around the world.” Additionally, one of the policy’s seven stated fundamental goals is to, “Encourage international cooperation with foreign nations and/ or consortia on space activities that are of mutual benefit and that further the peaceful exploration and use of space, as well as to advance national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives.” Finally, there is a separate section dealing exclusively with international space cooperation which encourages cooperation with foreign nations on mutually beneficial activities. Areas in which the policy specifically addresses cooperation include space exploration, providing space surveillance information, as well as developing and operating Earthobservation systems. Worley II, Robert M. "The New National Space Policy and Air Force Space Command's Role in International Cooperation." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2 (March 2007): 7-9. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 8 ]