Weapons in space are almost globally understood to be dangerous. They could, for instance, damage the International Space Station or another structure if they fell into orbit with them.
However, the United States has refused to sign a binding deal that would prevent them from ever sending weapons into space.
Russia, China, Canada, and several other countries have agreed to proposals for a treaty prohibiting any country from putting weapons in space, but the United States has refused to join.
SFU adjunct professor of International Studies and fellow in International Security Paul Meyer weighed in on the conversation taking a critical view of US policies: “In the Obama Administration’s June 2010 National Space Policy, it has said it would consider any arms control proposals ‘if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies.’
“The US has, however, not proposed any such measures of its own and has criticized those put forward by Russia and China.”
He added, “The US has expressed a preference for political arrangements, such as confidence-building measures (CBMs), but has not been active on behalf of these either. The impression is left that the US does not want to accept any new constraint on its freedom of action in outer space.”
Some people are concerned because while countries rely on space technology for scientific research, communication, and space technology, it is possible that a failure to prevent space weaponry could have serious consequences.
Meyer says that space warfare not only poses a threat to spatial structures, but could also result in a massive amount of debris that would be obtrusive to prime satellite orbits. According to data from the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are approximately 1,300 operational satellites in orbit, including 120 American satellites used for military operations.
He commented, “As [the US is] the leading spacefaring nation, US opposition to a space weapons ban would make it difficult to achieve such a treaty. Understandably, other space powers would not want to accept constraints on their conduct that would not also bind the US.
“There is always the risk that as long as the door to weaponization of space is not firmly closed, some irresponsible actor will introduce weapons into this fragile operating environment to the detriment of all users of space,” Meyer added.
The United States has supported the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, a set of political measures that has run into opposition since being proposed seven years ago. Meyer says that this is mainly from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) arguing that this type of code should be negotiated under UN auspices with a clear mandate.
“With the EU’s Code proposal stalled and continued US opposition to international legal instruments for prohibiting space weapons, the prospects for obtaining new agreed measures of restraint are dim,” Meyer concluded.
Advocates are hopeful that when the UN meets on October 22, the debate over space arms will be considered to be the most prevalent issue of the year.
