91av

IN THE week that the movie Pearl Harbor is released on both sides of
the Atlantic, it’s worth remembering what that terrible morning meant for world
history. The Japanese air raid on Hawaii thrust a reluctant and isolationist
United States into the Second World War. By the time the war had ended, the US
was the world’s dominant military and economic force, able to project its power
into any region of the world.

Over half a century later, the US is stronger than ever. Its armed forces
maintain the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously. And, with the
collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands alone as a superpower. For countries
with different political systems, this overwhelming military and economic
superiority is a source of frustration, as the recent spy plane incident in
China illustrates. But military strength has served US interests well and will
not be abandoned any time soon.

So perhaps it’s no surprise that the quest for overwhelming military
superiority is playing itself out again, this time in space. It is already well
known that President Bush intends to revive Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars. But as we reveal
(see “The heavens at war”),
national missile defence is only one small part of the wider
militarisation of space. US strategists are claiming that satellites—both
military and commercial—are vulnerable to attack from enemy states, and
need to be protected. Last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a press
conference outlining plans to safeguard US assets in space. When reporters asked
if that meant putting weapons in space, Rumsfeld was evasive. But the
implication is clear: it won’t be long before the US can launch satellites that
are bristling with weaponry designed to deter an attack.

It’s easy to dismiss the notion of a space attack as a phoney threat cooked
up by a military machine still desperate to find a role in the post-cold-war
world. But there’s more to it than that. Space has become a vital cog in the US
military machine, so any threat, perceived or real, will be countered. It might
be difficult to dream up really plausible scenarios in which any of America’s
potential foes might want to start a fight in space, but space weaponry is now
on the American political agenda and that could be enough to make it happen.

You don’t have to be a pacifist to view such action as a tragedy and a
disgrace. Even worse, the US isn’t even talking to China and
Russia—supposedly its biggest enemies—about fighting in space. The
US may prefer to negotiate from a position of strength, but arguably it’s
already as strong as it will ever be. Instead of extending its overwhelming
military and economic might into space, it should be pushing for peaceful
negotiations. Why not extend current arms control treaties banning nuclear
weapons in space to cover all weapons? Why not avert the threat of future turf
wars by pushing for a treaty enshrining the fair and equitable use of space?

Deterrence has its place in international politics. But in the end, diplomacy
matters more.