Garwin discourages the use of space weapons

[seemslikeadream]

Published Thursday, November 18, 2004

BY MAX GLADSTONE
Contributing Reporter

While references to Star Wars might cause some to recall cinema, the phrase reminds Richard Garwin of the Reagan administration and complex space-based missile defense programs.

As part of the Yale Engineering Dean's Distinguished Lecture Series, Garwin, a former member of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States and a recipient of the National Medal of Science, spoke Wednesday afternoon in Davies Auditorium. Garwin said he did not believe space weapons should be part of the United States' security strategy and the nation should lead the world in an effort to ban such weapons.

Garwin, who contributed to the design of the hydrogen bomb, has been involved in military science since he served on the President's Science Advisory Board from 1962-65 and 1969-72. He said the question of missile defense has been approached poorly since the days of President Nixon, the first to attempt the establishment of a missile defense system. Garwin said the issue has always been more political than strategic, and political concerns have led the government to make scientifically inadvisable promises.

"Missile defense continues to be difficult and continues to be problematic because of the countermeasures involved," Garwin said. "If you're trying to defend the country, you don't want to spend money developing a system to deal with the countermeasures that will be in place before your system is fully developed."

Despite its appeal in principle, space-based missile defense involves a host of problems, Garwin said. He said even the simplest defense -- using an orbital laser to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles -- is exceedingly difficult to engineer.

more
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=27444


Space Treaty, Not Weapons, Needed, Expert Says
By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 8 November 2004
7:00 a.m. ET

NEW YORK – The development and deployment of space-based weapons by the U.S. military will not only encourage other nations to do the same, but leave vital non-weapon spacecraft vulnerable to attack, according to one weapons expert.

Physicist Richard Garwin, a nuclear weapons expert who has studied the U.S. military’s plans for space-based systems, said that while protecting space assets is key, devoted weapons platforms could be easily destroyed by enemies with cheaper, mine-like microsatellites.

Instead, Garwin proposed the development of a formal treaty among nations banning space weapons and anti-satellite spacecraft to draw lines across what type of weaponry – if any – is internationally acceptable in space.

“I think that we need to have these formal agreements in order that we understand what is legitimate, and that other countries understand what is not legitimate,” Garwin told researchers, professors and students in a packed auditorium at Polytechnic University in Brooklyn. “They could therefore be punished not by tit-for-tat against their satellites, but against their military capabilities on the ground.”

The U.S. Air Force has outlined a series of potential space weapons initiatives in its Transformation Flight Plan, a 176-report released publicly earlier this year. Included in the report are discussions over space-based lasers, hypervelocity rod bundles that can rain down on targets from space, as well as new air and spaceworthy vehicles.

more
http://www.space.com/news/garwin_spaceweapons_041108.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. I thought US signed treaties in 60s against militarization of space? . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Found reference: was a nuclear weaponization of space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

[seemslikeadream]

4. Thanks Bernardo de La Paz

We'll file that one with the The Santiago Declaration and the Inter-American Charter on Democracy.

Senator Chris Dodd's statement on Haiti

I will point out as well, if I can--and I know that international agreements are not always thought of as being terribly important in some people's minds. But in 1991, President Bush, the 41st President, along with other nations in this hemisphere, had signed the Santiago Declaration of 1991. That declaration, authored by the Organization of American States, said that any nation, democratically elected in this hemisphere, that seeks the help of others when they are threatened with an overthrow should be able to get that support.

Ten years later, the Inter-American Charter on Democracy was signed into law, a far more comprehensive proposal, again authored by the Organization of American States, the U.S. supporting. The present President Bush and our administration supported that. That charter on democracy stated that when asked for help by a democratically elected government being threatened with overthrow, we should respond.

President Aristide, a democratically elected President made that request and, of course, not only did we not provide assistance, in fact we sat back and watched as he left the country, offering assistance for him to depart.

I cite those international agreements because we think of our Nation as being a nation of laws, not of men. These agreements either meant something or they didn't. The Santiago Declaration and the Inter-American Charter on Democracy, apparently both documents mean little or nothing when it comes to supporting democratically elected governments in this hemisphere--not ones that you necessarily like or agree with or find everything they do is in your interest, but we do adhere to the notion that democratically elected governments are what we support in this hemisphere.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:17:./temp/~r... ::

[htuttle]

3. He misunderstands the purpose of the missile defense program

It's not meant to actually knock missiles out of the sky. If that were the case, they would have actually tested the system first.

No, the purpose of the missile defense program is to enrich a few defense contractors, and in that regard, it looks to be wildly successful for years and years to come.