In just a century, mankind has advanced from the Wright brothers' flight to landing a probe on Saturn's moon, Titan. Just as commercial aircraft development has been accelerated by military exploitation, so space technology has been funded by defence needs. The Soviet Union launch of Sputnik 1, in 1957, spurred the United States to enormous efforts to show that it was technologically superior. In 1962, President Kennedy pledged to have a man on the Moon before the end of the decade; and on 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong spoke to the world from the Sea of Tranquility. Since then public awareness of progress in space technology has been fitful. Astronauts have grown old waiting to explore new worlds, and less glamorous systems have filled the crowded orbits around the Earth.
Space is a growing issue in international politics. Civil and military projects jostle for launch bookings, bandwidth and orbital slots. The idealists argue for international sharing and cite the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which declared that: "the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind." The treaty banned nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction from being placed in orbit or beyond. It did not however prevent the military use of space. Satellites provide intelligence using sensors across the electromagnetic spectrum. Weapons find their targets with GPS data. It is now routine for a pilot sitting in a bunker in Florida to fire a missile from a drone flying over Iraq. Orbiting systems make this possible.
The commercial world has also become dependent on access to space based systems. Television, finance, navigation, communication and earth monitoring need satellites in place. Space is big and growing business, and military projects open opportunities to cross-subsidise. In the midst of all of this, we have a US Administration that no longer assumes advantage in international treaties, and one that is spending US $440 billion a year on defence. President Bush, in a reprise of the JFK speech, announced last year new priorities for NASA. These included a return to the moon to establish a permanent base, and beyond that to put an astronaut on Mars. Few expect that the necessary dollars will follow this vision, but many fear that a darker future is possible.
Donald Rumsfeld, just before becoming the US Secretary of Defence in 2001, produced a report which warned of a possible 'Space Pearl Harbour'. The report called for the US to develop the means to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space. Since then, there have been two further related drivers towards the greater militarisation of space. One has been the return to major investment in missile defence. Despite the technical and financial problems, enthusiasts explore space-based offensive systems as the answers to their missile interception problems. The restraints of the 1972 ABM Treaty were removed as the US withdrew in 2001. More recently, a second strand of US military thinking has emerged. Some see basing weapons in space as a way of targeting a range of terrestrial targets without the need for expensive force deployments.
The rest of the world is beginning to wake up to the implications of US dominance both of and from space. When the EU agreed to fund its own civil global navigation system, Galileo, it broke the US monopoly. The European Space Agency (ESA) has worked for over quarter of a century towards the promotion of civilian use with an emphasis on international collaboration. When that collaboration extends to China, the US reacts adversely. If the US should field systems which can interfere with or destroy commercial competitors' satellites, an arms race in space will become inevitable. Everyone, including the US, will be the loser.
While Britain is not among the big league national players in space, we depend on both civil and military systems for communication, navigation, data exchange, intelligence, weather forecasts, entertainment and research. We have benefited from shared costs with other nations. However, in any dispute between the US and the rest of the space community, we will be in some difficulty. We depend on US space based intelligence systems; we provide important nodes in the US missile defence system; and we have signed up to deeper integration in US network enabled capability for our military. If space becomes the new Wild West, then we may find we become equally dependent on the US for protection of our commercial satellites. This will be another source of friction with the EU. Perhaps these opening shots in the space war are as much about business as security.
Tim Garden is the Lib Dem Defence spokesman in the Lords, and a visiting Professor at the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College London.