By Maggie Hannick
Space militarization represents one of the sad trends of our times. Technological advances have created everything from space satellites to space weapons, but the final frontier should not be cluttered with military hardware. International space law already exists in the form of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, as it states that space should be a part of what an economist would call the commons – it should benefit humanity. However, the treaty does not provide specificity on military force in space. For example, under the treaty, China used a prototype anti-satellite missile to get rid of an old weather satellite, an action that could affect the future of space.
Militarizing space would complicate the arms race worldwide and potentially cause unforeseen consequences. For many years, several nation-states have approved the idea of a treaty to prevent this space militarization and globally arming outer space seemed impossible. It even may go against the Outer Space Treaty. There is no overt reasons for space militarization and many clear reasons to argue against it. Peace is a valued goal for countries and space is a part of that peace.
The budding space arms race would involve the entire world. Powerful countries like United States and China would play a key role in this race and the race would adversely affect the relations between the two states. Space law should be a form of regulation to protect space and ensure space exploration is done properly and adequately.
This issue has made its way to the United Nations. In a recent UN General Assembly, Resolution 69/32 addressed the space arms race in the form of arms control in space. Others are working to pass resolutions and allow the use of weapons and armed combat in space. This has already become a divisive issue with probable problematic results.
The question as to whether space should be militarized or not has raised many other questions such as what would happen to space travel, exploration, and satellites. In the example of China’s use of space weapons, around 800 debris was added to the usual amount in the orbit of the Earth, polluting space and the Earth. There are many recent efforts to protect the environment from further harm, especially man-made problems, which space militarization would negatively impact the Earth, environment, and atmosphere.
Proponents of militarization claim fewer civilians will be affected by its hazards because of increased accuracy of strikes from space weapons. In reality, it would more likely create more weapons, more casualties, and ultimately more conflict and war. The world needs to be fixing its problems of too many powerful arsenals on earth and not even approaching the militarization of space. Armed conflict has been a serious issue in the world, historically and currently, and does not have a place in space. In the world’s efforts to decrease weapon use and wars, the focus should not be on space but on methods, regulations, and laws to control the world’s arsenals, space or conventional.
(Information found in the Medium article “Space law revisited : The militarization of outer space” from International Committee of the Red Cross.)
Maggie Hannick is an intern with the Peace Economy Project.
