MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - A successful though difficult year for astronautics is likely to end without major mishaps. Judge for yourself. The American space shuttle program is on again, boosting the international ISS project.
The defense ministers of Russia and the United States met in August in Alaska, the deployment area for interceptor missiles of a new American global missile defense system.
The fact the meeting took place at all, let alone the subject of discussion - strategic missiles in the context of missile defense - is a gratifying event. And suddenly in the midst of a red-leaf autumn we read in the October 18 issue of The Washington Post declassified pages from the Bush-approved document on the newest U.S. space policy. And our hearts sink.
The paper and some news briefs inform us that Washington has put outer space on the same footing as the sea, ground and air environments. It says a potential opponent cannot be allowed to use outer space against the United States. Hence a declaration that America is free to act in space to protect its interests. And it follows the Americans now find it inappropriate to talk of future international agreements that may affect their presence and weight in space.
Having overcome the first shock, we must honestly answer a simple question: did we expect something like that? We did. To start exploration and utilization of space is a challenging task and one that involves heavy outlays. But the paradox is that once the ball starts rolling, it cannot stop. Space-minded countries have long made their economic, political and military processes of development dependent on their space track record.
An ordinary intercontinental telephone call and a steady picture on a display monitor are the result of efficiency in the use of space. As for the defense doctrines of the U.S. and Russia, they are space-oriented through and through. True, the Americans make wider use of orbital vehicles. Hence their greater dependence on higher altitudes and hence their "new" space strategy.
According to the American Joint Vision 2010, formulated at the start of the millennium, and its extended version - Joint Vision 2020 - effective combat operations are impossible and even unacceptable in planned wars of the sixth generation without military space support - reconnaissance, information, command and control, especially when high-precision weapons are to be used.
But what is listed above is an orbital constellation, which must be protected by all means. Does it mean that near-Earth space will soon become a new theater of operations and be weaponized? It does, despite White House assurances to the opposite. The arming process going on all over the planet is a given reality and unlikely to revert in the foreseeable future. Special attention, therefore, must be given to such particulars as arms control and steps to reduce the effects of the weapons component on international cooperation.
As regards arms control, notably control over programs to develop anti-satellite weapons and missile defenses, an emphatic line can be drawn under these efforts. Any proposed limitation on the use of any flying craft can be interpreted as an intention to infringe on American space interests.
And what about international cooperation? I do not share the optimism of Mikhail Margelov, head of the committee on international affairs of the Federation Council, who is certain the U.S. does not want to curtail bilateral cooperation in space. "I am sure this is not in U.S. interests," he said. "Moreover, I believe U.S. space intentions will only stimulate joint space projects." They will stimulate them all right, but will these projects be shared?
And how does one explain the words "to keep out of space those who have hostile intentions towards the U.S."? Only Ian Fleming has his explanations down pat: there is the crafty Spektr that steals Soviet and American spacecraft in turn and the courageous and seductive Bond ("call me James"...).
But in real life I do not think Sean Connery is in a hurry to enter the White House, and even his help would not produce a register of friends and foes in space. The first female space tourist, Anushe Ansari, an American of Iranian origin, wants to take another ride on a Russian spacecraft into space. There seems to be no danger in it, even in the light of the "new policy", but who knows ...
But God forbid such a desire should come from someone who was born and lives under the sunnier skies than in Maine. He is a potential wrecker with a screwdriver in his pocket anxious to sabotage an American satellite. Absurd? Not quite, considering typical excesses of state machinery when it implements national defense projects. At any rate, something like a space passport and visa department may well be imagined.
