A Need for a Space Weapons Ban - Research Paper Example

Should space weapons be banned? There has not been any accepted definition of a space weapon. However, researchers such as Brown in their articles define space weapons as “…any terrestrial apparatus existing outer space built for the purpose of destruction, damage or to interrupt the regular operation of objects in outer space on the Earth or in the Earth’s atmosphere” 1. Apart from this, these weapons can also serve the “purpose to destroy a populace or constituents of the biosphere that are vital to human survival or impose damage on them”3. This paper will focus on pros and cons of space weapons through which it will arrive to a conclusion on whether space weapons should be banned or not. Some of the major advantages that can be associated with space weapons include the fact that space weapons can destroy targets that may be unreachable by other weapons. Space-based weapons can also react to an emergency in minutes to several hours4. In addition, space-based weapons are less susceptible to assault. Because they orbit around the earth, space based weapons can also be used to protect space assets such as satellites. “Space weapons can be advantageous to a country since it shows technical supremacy”2. The disadvantages of space weapons include aspects such as; an adversary can weaken a space weapon, compromising the weapon's capability effectively stop an attack. Moreover, the locations of space-based weapons are easy to predict1. Incidentally, a weapon ruined on orbit can leave a continual cloud of rubble, posing danger to other satellites. Finally, “many weapons are necessary to guarantee that one of the weapons is located correctly”3. Space weapons can serve as a defensive way to protect humanity from extraterrestrial attacks 3. Space weapons may serve as a main tool for information governance, and consequently may be an important aspect to combat zone control in modern war. Space weapons facilitate an advantage in time and distance over an opponent, necessary for a country to attain and safeguard the inventiveness 2. This enables countries to deter a progressing potential enemy more efficiently, with minimal collateral damage and probably in the initial stages of attack, as compared to the weapons in current use. In addition, “ if the willingness for operation of space weapons is minimal in other countries, the first country to start operation will have a short-term advantage of supremacy over the other countries”4. Assets in space play a vital role in “day-to-day communications, information gathering and distribution, and in navigation”2 . These aspects are vital to the economy, security and are in demand among populations world since they are used in everyday life. Adversaries having an ill motive of slowing down or taking over a country could target assets such as satellites. Destruction of these assets can gravely affect a country as it means that no communication, data gathering, or navigation services will be accessible to inhabitants of that particular country 4. Therefore, the capability to avert a hostile attack, either from the earth or from space, is necessary. The attainment of this would only be through using space weapons since they offer a long-range attack solution and a relatively quick response time2. Space based weapons can also enable a country to carry out an attack on a battle-ground located very far away. This is because “space weapons have the capability to cover great distances that ordinary aircrafts and weapons may find hard to cover”3. This poses another advantage in that because space weapons are unmanned, they help in stopping any unnecessary loss of life as compared to manned fighter planes for instance whereby if the plane is hit, it may cause the death of the pilot. Because possession of space weapons shows a high level of technical supremacy, this acts as a deterrent of hostile action from countries that may want to attack that particular state2. Space weapons are also less susceptible to attacks. This is because they are located far much out of the range of other weapons and if a space weapon is in the range of another weapon, there is much time to avert the attack because of the distance between the space weapon and the adversary’s weapon 3. This serves a great advantage to a state since there is minimal loss in its arsenal saving the country costs that would otherwise be used in the replacement of destroyed weapons. Also, space weapons may benefit military operations since these weapons act as a basis for continual research and developmental projects1. Contrary to the above-discussed advantages, space weapons also pose a number of disadvantages. They include cons such as; “space weapons intended to strike Earth targets require be in low earth orbit (LEO) for a faster response time and better efficiency”2. Weapons that are low in the earth’s orbit are easy to observe and are more vulnerable to attacks from the ground. As Preston puts it, “... many armed forces officials concede that, currently, low earth orbit-based weapons are in the risks of being orbital potential targets”4 . This clearly shows that space weapons being used to strike objects on the ground are less efficient due to their vulnerability. This in addition serves another disadvantage in that when these weapons are destroyed, the debris that results acts as pollutants of the environment1. Space weapons are also “very costly to manufacture and operate, with minimal strategic advantage. In addition to this, they give a false feel of dominance that substantiates imprudent actions”4. The definite performance of space may be exaggerated and not gainful. Most importantly, due to orbital physics, space weapons need a whole orbit that may take up to 90 minutes before they can strike. This may lack enough response time to produce the desired effect2. Additionally, their expense is increased due to the fact that the fact that even as the United States goes on to search for space resolutions for missile defense, the very high cost and low availability of space-based weapons that incorporate laser technology has caused the country to postpone pursuing space-based lasers for the near future4. Research shows that many stakeholders consider that the option for or against the operation of space weapons is essentially associated with whether people will possess weapons in their enduring future3. Humankind has a common interest in a maintaining peace in the future of space. Setting up space weapons may intimidate that future instead of enabling it1. New tactically significant weapons rapidly become rooted into national security policies. These kinds of weapons are so intensely entrenched in the foremost political standard that they are virtually impossible to take away from the strategic ground and definitely impracticable to eliminate from the international arsenal3. A good example of such is nuclear weapons, and in this perspective, it is highly unlikely that space weapons will be any different. Once space weapon operational, it may be unworkable to get rid of them despite the fact that they prove inappropriate and dangerous to the human population1. Humanity seems to be on the margin of development into space and this development will set standards for our future exploration and growth. Despite these prospective developments, the issue of space weapons needs to be dealt with as soon as possible3. It is also evident that the “major threat to a prevailing nation’s security revolves around the production of weapons, and it has played a large part in developing one of the biggest threats to the countries such as the US. Proliferation of weapons has been the possible use of nuclear weapons on the US soil”4. By equivalence, the initial state to deploy space weapons may find itself soon faced with these similar weapons as they propagate. This is mainly factual of space weapons, which are significantly easier to manufacture than nuclear weapons2. As the existing universal superpower, the US has an alternative to probably use space weapons to its advantage, but due to its proliferation concerns it may ban the production of space-weapons by other countries4. In conclusion, it is evident that space weapons serve us with more harm than good. Some dispute that is vital to understand that space has an exclusive distinctiveness further than a conventional avenue to show classical dominance of power politics. Space is different. Space is humankind’s common resource and shared heritage. From researches carried out one is able to see that if no action is taken, we might as well be sitting on a time bomb. Space-based weapons will only bring to humanity devastation and long-term suffering. The arms race toward attaining space weapons may even result into another world war. The issue of whether weapons should be set out in space is consequently an issue ahead of the welfare of any country or generation. Endnotes 1. Brown, Kendall K.. Space power integration perspectives from space weapons officers. Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air University Press, 2006. Print. 2. Bourbonniere, Michel, and Ricky J. Lee. Legality of the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit: balancing space law and the law of armed conflict. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. Print. 3. Preston, Bob. Space weapons earth wars. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2002. Print. \ 4. Wolny, Philip. Weapons satellites. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2003. Print. Works Cited Brown, Kendall K.. Space power integration perspectives from space weapons officers. Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air University Press, 2006. Print. Bourbonniere, Michel, and Ricky J. Lee. Legality of the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit: balancing space law and the law of armed conflict. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. Print. Preston, Bob. Space weapons earth wars. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2002. Print. Wolny, Philip. Weapons satellites. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2003. Print. Read More