|
To print this page, press CTRL+P or the print icon in your browser. Then close this window to return to site. |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Sensing False Security U.S. Senator Jon Kyl delivered a speech at the Heritage Foundation on January 26, 2007, where he addressed the recent destruction of a weather satellite using a missile-launched anti-satellite weapon by China, and the implications it has on U.S. national security. The following are some excerpts from his speech: Security in space is a vital national interest. The loss of access to space would threaten the stability of our nation. Consider: Satellites enable our ATMs and our financial markets. They help our first responders and form the backbone of our next generation air traffic control system. They allow us greater intelligence on foreign developments and to influence them through satellite radio and television transmissions. More important, satellites underpin American military superiority. Our troops rely on satellites for reconnaissance, communications, navigation and other functions. Almost every new military platform in development today is more satellite-dependent than the system it’s replacing. None of our military operations – conventional, strategic or missile defense – can function without space components. Unfortunately, the threat to our space security is real and growing. China is not the only country with anti-satellite technology. Any nation with media range missile capability could develop anti-satellite capability. Nor is the U.S. the only nation to use satellites for military and intelligence. Indeed, space is already militarized and only will become more so in the future. In fact, it’s been militarized – one could even say weaponized – since the first V-2 rocket flew through space on its way to targets in the United Kingdom in World War II. So those who say the answer to the Chinese is a treaty banning militarization of space are naïve. We cannot un-invent satellites and missiles. We live in a world where space is already militarized and it’s impossible to prevent weapons from space. Arms control is not the path to security or stability. Attempts to rebottle the technical genie through treaties have a dismal history. The 1899 Hague Convention, for example, tried to keep the air free from weapons by banning the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons. Well, that effort failed because the strategic advantages of operating in the air overwhelmed the moral arguments against doing so. Moreover, once signed the treaty could lull us into a false sense of security. Like so many other similar treaties, you don’t need it for the countries that would comply, and it would be of no use for those that would cheat. Perhaps most importantly, a ban on anti-satellite weapons would be totally unverifiable. There has been quite a bit of work done on this, but the recent Chinese test illustrates the point. Are we going to propose a ban on medium-range ballistic missiles like the one that carried China's interceptor? Will we require comprehensive inspection of every payload prior to launch? These are clearly non-starters. Even intrusive, comprehensive pre-launch inspections of satellite payloads would fail to address concerns over ground-based lasers, signal jammers and other anti-satellite capabilities that never have to be launched at all. [The] Chinese ASAT test was a wake-up call. We cannot depend on uncontested access to space in the future. While it’s comforting to think that the threat could be neutralized through negotiation and arms control. In fact, going down the arm controls route is only likely to further weaken our security. The proper response is to examine space policy and doctrine and programs, and ensure that we can defend the American people and our access to space. Ronald Reagan once said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong.” We know what we need to do. The question is: do we have the will and the focus. China clearly does and it has shown us that we can be complacent no longer. Now is the time for us to act. ### |