Until mention was made of it on Instapundit today, I was not even aware of the Kucinich bill, the Space Preservation Act of 2002. The Act itself is the ordinary sort of high-minded-but-naive "war prevention" measures that crops up from time to time -- it's really nothing special. That's not to say it isn't a bad idea (it is), but simply that it isn't anything out of the ordinary, considering the source and the proponents of the bill.

On the other hand, the Draft World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons is something from the Twilight Zone. It spells out all sorts of "fanciful" weapons technology (a less charitable writer might describe it as "kooky"), and insists that all this and more must be banned, including anything now unknown but to be invented in the future.

It was clearly written by people with noble (if hopelessly naive) intentions and no scientific knowledge whatsoever (or else by people who are immensely and subtly clever). Taken to the logical conclusion, the blanket ban on all forms of weaponry in space, including kinetic projectiles, would in effect ban all activity in space. In theory, any object in space can be a kinetic energy weapon, whether or not it is designed for that purpose. Thus, for the treaty to be 100% effective, all space activity would have to cease, and all artificial satellites carefully and safely deorbited. Anything less than this would permit even those seemingly-harmless scientific and commercial spacecraft to be used as "Trojan horse" kinetic kill vehicles. Did they not realize this? Or was that a subtle part of the game?

Interestingly, the proposal would create a UN "space force" for implementing the agreement and assuring compliance.

Each State Party to this Treaty agrees to the establishment, funding, equipping and deployment of a United Nations outer space peacekeeping agency, whose mission is to monitor outer space and enforce the permanent ban of space-based weapons under this Treaty.

While a supporter might argue that this article doesn't require the "peacekeeping agency" to be stationed in outer space, to me, that is clearly the intent here. Now, think about this article for a moment. Which countries have the ability at present (or in the near term, even) to launch humans into space? The United States, Russia, and (almost/soon) China. And which countries could potentially develop and field space-based weapons in the near term? The United States, Russia, and maybe China. Well, now, we can't trust the foxes to guard the henhouse, now can we? Nope, the UN will have to build up a peacekeeping agency from among various members without conflicts of interest in this area, which (if reason and ethics mean anything at the UN) means non-space-capable nations. A spacefaring peacekeeping agency built from scratch, imposing disarmament from on high. Who do you suppose will be paying for this agency? Ah, yes, of course. Not only will we be called upon to give this new peacekeeping agency our space-related technologies, but also to pay through the nose for them to use it.

And regardless of whether its people ever go to space, how long would it be before this agency is called upon to ban all uses of nuclear material in space (RTG's, heaters, advanced power reactors) because it "could" ("somehow") be used as a weapon or actually be a weapon masquerading as something else? There is already something of a protest movement against nuclear material in space (witness the near-hysteria over Cassini's launch and later Earth fly-by), so such a scenario is by no means unlikely.

But really, who can take such an initiative seriously, when it proposes to eliminate (among other things) classes of weapons which only exist on the lunatic fringe? Or when it proposes to regulate the secret space weaponry activity of shadowy organizations and covert entities? Psychotronics? Chemtrails? Sound from space? Please. Weaving in conspiracy theory tropes is not likely to win one converts among the space community -- but it could very well play on the fears of those who lack the knowledge and experience to debunk such claims. Space advocates would do well to recognize that many people do not have this knowledge, and so this sort of irrationalism poses a very real threat to the cause of space exploration, should it spread among the general populace as paranoid fantasies often do.

Those who support such things are, for now, just the usual suspects. But how long will it be before this sort of laughable initiative against weapons in space morphs into calls for a more generalized ban on all human activity in space? After all, there are plenty of green extremists who regard humanity on this planet as a disease -- imagine how they would regard the expansion of humanity to other parts of the solar system?

I have the suspicion that an anti-space movement is coming, either along the lines of or as an extension of the anti-capitalism, anti-technology, anti-human political movements we've seen growing over the past decade or so. Rather than let itself be surprised and mowed down when the inevitable occurs, the space advocacy community should prepare its arguments now, and keep a closer eye on the opposition.

Posted by T.L. James on September 18, 2002 08:06 PM