The international community has acted jointly, through the United Nations, to ensure that outer space would

be developed peacefully. But there is much more to be done. We must not allow this century, so plagued with war and suffering, to pass on its legacy to the next, when the technology at our disposal will be even more awesome. We cannot view the expanse of space as another battleground for our Earthly affairs. -United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan1 Introduction Weapons proliferation in outer space is not a thing of the future or something of science fiction. It is real and it is happening right now. The advancement of weapons technology continues to grow exponentially as does mankinds exploration of space. Controlling weapons technology in outer space gives military regimes an advantage in modern warfare that wasnt even possible fifty years ago. These new advances allow for better command and control of ground troops and offer new possibilities for space to ground weapons. There is also a possibility of the development of new weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could be launched from outer space. Weapons of mass destruction have been defined as being nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological, but new developments in weapons technology makes defining WMDs more difficult. The current definition does not include new weapons that could cause destruction at the same level as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. There is a need to understand new weapons development so that the non-proliferation regime can better control and monitor weapons systems that could be used for causing mass ruin. New weapons systems being developed may be even more difficult to monitor and control then older style WMDs because of the multiple purposes of their nature. In this paper I will explain the contributing factors and problems of proliferating space with WMDs, and will suggest recommendations on how to slow down and contain this process. I will also describe new weapons technologies and will define the word WMD so that new technologies can properly be included in the term. The purpose of this paper is to explain what technologies exist and what contributed to their development so that we can better understand how to contain the proliferation of space weapons. Space Weapons It is difficult to know what types of space weapons are being developed because of the high confidentiality of their nature; however it is easy to see that military conquests of space have complicated non-proliferation policies immensely. New weapons systems orbiting space have the potential of causing mass destruction at much larger degrees then previously known WMDs. Lasers, satellite based nuclear launch sights, and InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) pose new risks to the non-proliferation regime that have only become of concern to the international community in recent times. Not only are unmanned guided weapons capable of orbiting the planet and re-entering the
1

Address delivered to the opening meeting of the Third United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE III), Vienna, July 19, 1999, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/unisp-3/

atmosphere as multiple warheads destined for various locations, but there are also manned aircraft that can deliver such warheads by the means of exiting the earths atmosphere and re-entering in order to deliver the warheads to pinpoint locations. Such an aircraft has the potential to move at high speeds and altitudes and would be so technologically advanced that it would only need to take-off and land in but one country in order to carry out a mission anywhere on the globe. It is important to recognize the delivery systems of WMDs in order to help prevent the proliferation of space weapons. It is also important to understand the differences between space-to-ground weapons and ground-to-space-to-ground weapons for the same reason. Space-to-ground weapons are weapons that can be launched from out of the earths atmosphere while continuing to orbit the planet for long periods of time. Groundto-space-to-ground weapons are weapons that are launched from the ground, exit the earths atmosphere, and then re-enter toward a ground target.2 The major difference is the amount of time the weapon spends outside of the earths atmosphere. ICBMs are examples of ground-to-space-to-ground weapons, while satellite based nuclear launch sites are an example of a space-to-ground weapon. ICBMs are of interest because of their capability to deliver self-guided multiple warheads from high altitudes and the possibility of extended orbiting times of the rockets and warheads. Advancements may include self-guided rockets with various warheads including space mines, lasers, and lethal doses of electromagnetic vibrations. Rockets that launch manned space shuttles could eventually be used to send unmanned shuttles fitted with various armaments. Weapons development and technology will continue to grow as long as there is money, a need for self preservation, and intelligent minds. Creative thinkers have already suggested ideas such as using human guided meteors to destroy a target on earth, as well as satellite based lasers capable of leveling an entire city. Some of these weapons are still in the drawing plans and considered unfeasible for use in todays battlegrounds, but the potential use of these weapons is more then possible in the years ahead. Satellites are feasible weapons of today. Although they may not have lasers or nuclear warheads attached to them, they can be used for psychological warfare operations by the means of transferring specific information to a desired location. Propaganda fed through these satellites can be used to influence the mass public. Programs such as HAARP in Alaska could be used to manipulate the airwaves from space for military purposes. Whether mass destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb is possible through such programs or not does not make the need to understand their use in outer space any less significant. As long as man has a need for warfare he will use whatever means available to promote violence. The recent destruction of a weather satellite by the Chinese military raised some concerns in the non-proliferation regime because of its significance in the future of antisatellite (ASAT) weapons. The ASAT test has also sparked debate in Washington about the future relations between China and the United States.3 Besides ground-to-space launched ASAT weapons there have been ideas of developing ASAT satellites that would act as a roving protector of another satellite to ensure its safety. The possibilities of future WMDs involves a complex web of technologies that are intertwined to the weapons we
2 3

Laurence Nardon, The Worlds Space Systems, Making Space for Security? (2003). Bates Gill and Martin Kleiber, Chinas Space Odyssey, What the Antisatellite Test Reveals About Decision-Making in Beijing, Foreign Affairs (May/June 2007).

have available today. The non-proliferation regime needs to understand these technologies and future weapons in order to prevent space weaponization. They also need to expand the definition of WMDs so that new technologies can be included in the term. For the purpose of this paper I will use my own definition of the term WMD which is: Any single weapon that can cause mass casualties to an entire city size area that can be launched, released, distributed, or detonated with the use of 10 or less people. A city size area can be defined as any location with an area of 200 square miles or more. Specifying the term WMD and knowing the technologies that are available to build one is vital in understanding how to limit the potentiality of their threat. Some of the weapons described, such as an ASAT satellite, are not WMDs, but could easily be changed in order to facilitate one. Limiting advancements and changing the direction of space weapons development can help the nonproliferation regime in the fight to take back space. Problem The problem the nonproliferation regime has to deal with is two faced. Besides the trickery and deceit involved in verification and monitoring techniques the IAEA and other organizations have to deal with cultural influences on proliferation and actual proliferation itself. The problem of weapons proliferation in outer space is one that originated though cultural influences which need to be countered in order for nonproliferation efforts to succeed. Since the beginning of time mankind has learned to defend themselves with the use of different weapons. Humans have evolved from using rocks and sticks to using arrows and bombs in order to protect themselves, their family, and their nation. Industrial development has increased the amount and variety of weapons available on earth today and the need to protect national borders and private property has increased the need for such weapons. The nation-state has existed because of the ability to protect borders and provide security for the people living within who often times volunteer to provide these services. Without the help of weapons and new technologies nation-states would have a more difficult time defining their status in world politics because of the emphasis placed on defense and security in the international community. Weapons manufacturers make huge profits in the current world market which is dominated by countries with large militaries and advanced technologies. It is easy to see that nation-states have a great interest in creating new weapons and technologies to better protect and benefit the citizens of these countries. World War II and the Cold War greatly increased the need to protect nation-states from external attacks, which was a direct cause of weapons proliferation. Currently the United States has more satellites and space debris orbiting the earth then any other country in the world. Other countries seek to reach the level of space technology that the United States has and are determined to build new weapons and multipurpose space devices in order to compete in the world market. The desire for such needs is what has to be addressed for the non-proliferation regime to succeed in demilitarizing space. Disarmament and enforcement procedures of anti-space weapons policies are to be addressed secondly.

Todays weapons manufacturers include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others, but tomorrow there could be more, all with different names. Individuals like Kalashnikov, Viktor Bout, and Kassaghi are reminders of some of the people who encourage weapons proliferation, but it is the demand for such weapons that keep these people in business. The people who work in the area of weapons sales are driven to increase the demand because of their interest in making money which helps to feed their children. Perhaps its an inherent biological function that drives man to create weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of survival, or maybe some societal framework for cultural functions was created by man in order to encourage war and weapons development. The environmental influences on man that encourage weapons production cannot be ignored because of the cultural aspect that is brought to light. Although man cannot control the environment completely, he can control the culture and atmosphere of the environment he lives in, which is important for those interested in creating a new way of thinking for national security interests. By changing a culture and a certain mindset stuck on war and defense the non-proliferation regime can change the face of humanity. Because man is so bent on protection and survival he is driven to create more weapons and technologies that can be used for causing mass destruction. It is in the interest of the non-proliferation regime to change this way of thinking and to prevent the future weaponization of earth and outer space. The regime is also tasked with disarming the current proliferators and implementing new strategies that will allow for peaceful technologies to develop without threatening the existence of man. The question of why weapons proliferation should be stopped may be easier then the question of who should be responsible for such a task, but the question of how this task should be completed is of even more importance. The suggestions I have for resolving the issue of outer space weapons proliferation are two-tiered. The first tier deals with changing the culture of governments and nation-states so that they feel less of a need to develop new weapons technologies, and the second is to reverse the process of weapons development through disarmament and legal procedures. Changing the Culture Changing the culture of societies who have flourished and thrived from warfare and weapons making is not an easy task. Those who have suffered from war will also be a difficult audience to persuade into giving up their guns. Society is filled with pro weapons messages that can be seen just about anywhere you look. The United States free media have chosen to exploit the weapons industry by promoting the use of weapons at all age levels. Advertisements promote toys such as G.I. Joes, and Army recruiting videos are played every day on the television, while whole magazine sections are dedicated to guns. America is not alone in this culture of violence where video games allow children to drive animated tanks around to blow up simulated buildings and people. Through the internet people from all around the globe can share information about weapons and weapons technology. The show Future Weapons promotes new weapons including high altitude unmanned aerial vehicles that can be fitted with various guns and rockets, and the shows website can be accessed on the internet throughout the world. To change the mentality of the public one has to be aware of the existing factors that further

hinder the process of nonproliferation in order to deliver solutions that will successfully eliminate the problem of pro-weapons cultures. The process of changing the culture in the United States may vary from the process it takes in another country, but the United States is the place I am most familiar with so my suggestions will be based on this knowledge. Various media programs and advertisements have persuaded people to take hasty decisions en mass such as when Orson G. Wells War of the Worlds was read over the airwaves in 1938. The radio program led people to panic in the belief that the space invaders in the play were real. In this case the media influenced the decision making skills of entire communities in a short period of time. Mass panic and abrupt changes in behavior can be controlled and created by the media who have the ability to target large audiences. Because the mass public can be, and has been, persuaded so easily it is in my belief that the ability to change a culture of weapons junkies could also happen overnight. Although the mass public may never change their culture so much as to give up armies and personal guns, there is a possibility to change cultural structures that would allow for the elimination of space weapons and WMDs. The target audience is not only the mass public who have been swept into this militant type culture, but also the scientists and weapons makers who feed it. The tool to use on this audience is the same one used by the weapons and technologies industries; the media. The financing for such an operation would cost at least twice as much as the price being paid to fuel the medias current pro-weapons programs, and the sustainability of the plan would have to outlive any program hindering the non-proliferation regime. Because the military industrial complex employs thousands of people in the United States who rely on weapons building for survival it will be impossible to stop weapons manufacturing altogether, but through cultural restructuring and the implementation of new laws it is possible to stop, or at least slow down, the manufacturing and production of WMDs and new space weapons technologies. The first step the IAEA should take is to increase their funding through investment projects in order to hire more employees who specialize in advertising, sales, marketing, and media technology. These employees would brainstorm different ideas for combating proviolent/pro-weapons media programs. One idea would be to increase the amount of news stories about advancements being made in the world of nonproliferation. In the United States many newspapers live by the rule if it bleeds it reads which only increases the amount of violence displayed in the culture. By buying newspapers and other media outlets the nonproliferation regime will have the ability to advertise their message to the mass public. It is important to target scientists and weapons makers with these advertisements in order to change their way of thinking. If individuals are constantly bombarded with messages of war and violence then they will think about these subjects often which will affect their behavior. Changing the mentality and way of thinking in the scientific community may take time and large amounts of energy, but through advertising, product placement, and new marketing techniques the non-proliferation regime can get inside the minds of those responsible for supplying weapons technology and information. Once the minds of these individuals are changed by controlled environmental factors new trends in weapons development can begin. For those interested in keeping earths outer atmosphere free of weapons specific cultural changes toward weapons development could prove to be beneficial. The media is one tool that can

be used to make these changes, but other instruments are also available for changing the cultures that influence space weapons proliferation. Culture is shaped and formed by the media as well as the religion, language, and history of a specific group of people. In the United States the history of the people is predetermined and cannot be changed, but the religion and language can. Religion is rooted in historical texts and teachings that have been passed on for centuries. These teachings influence the thoughts of present day decision makers who have vested their time and energy into living a certain way that is in accordance to religious thought. The non-proliferation regime can influence this way of thinking by highlighting the positive attributes of different religious groups in the United States, and by doing so the regime will be able to encourage the mass public in a way that is not only beneficial, but also life changing, for the entire planet. To change the culture of the American public it is necessary to invest in religious thought because it is just this which has influenced the behavior of so many people in the country. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religious groups intermingle upon the streets of America as a unified people under the leadership of one government. I am not suggesting that the non-proliferation regime change the belief systems of these religions, but I am suggesting that the regime has the ability to influence religious leaders, through donations and networking, to place more emphasis on the teachings that promote peace and nonviolence. It was a shock to me when the nation rallied behind the president so strongly after 9/11 because I thought the idea of revenge, or an eye for an eye, was not an inherent part of the culture. Because the culture of the United States is influenced so strongly by Christianity I expected more of a turn the other cheek response to the attacks. It also surprises me that Americans who are so strongly against cloning and stem cell research do not speak out against weapons proliferation of outer space as vehemently as they do about peaceful scientific development. The argument against cloning and other such sciences is that it is against the belief of the church to play god, which is blasphemous. Proliferating space with weapons that can kill millions of people seems far more blasphemous in regards to playing the role of god. It is these points that are so important to relay to the religious community in order to help change the cultural values of the country, which can only be done through guided communication and specific types of language. Changing the language used by government officials, the military, and scientists is necessary in order to restructure the American culture. Current terminology used to describe space programs and weapons development does not accurately describe the intended use of these programs. Ronald Reagans campaign to initiate the Star Wars program is a good example of how language can be used in such a way to promote and justify weapons proliferation in outer space. Politicians and public officials can redefine the terminology used by weapons proliferators in such a way that reveals the true intent of such programs. The easiest way to change the current language being used is through the placement of messages on the internet, television, radio, and newspapers. By intense campaigning and networking through word of mouth, cell phones, and emails the nonproliferation regime can change the language used by proliferators who work an environment where the language reinforces the need to continue launching weapons in to outer space. Accurate translations and interpretation of the language used by proliferators is also necessary for the non-proliferation regime to garner support from the mass public.

One way of changing the type of language being used that promotes violence is through educational programs that are intended to do just the opposite. Globalization has spread western institutions to different parts of the world where the language of the employees working in these institutions is publicized and watched closely. Schools, banks, government offices, and military institutions are all important outlets for communities to get their information from. By using terminology and language that is critical of new weapons development these institutions can guide the culture of the international community in such a way that will help to keep space free of WMDs. The United Nations can produce documents and legal frameworks that promote the peaceful development of outer space by using specific language that avoids the justification of space weapons proliferation. Disarming the Proliferators Chinas testing of the ASAT weapon that was recently launched to destroy a weather satellite can be seen as a response to the United States withdraw from the AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in June of 2002.4 Some of the technology suggested for use in the protection of the United States against a missile attack include the use of satellites to jam and disrupt electronics. These satellites can also be used to launch a weapon in order to intercept a missile directed at the United States. Arming satellites with weapons can be seen as a threat to other countries who feel as though these satellites are more then just a defense against an attack, but also an offensive weapon. The 1972 ABM Treaty is important in restricting the development and testing of ASAT and other space weapons. The Soviet Union announced an ASAT test moratorium in 1983 but no international treaty exists to outline enforcement procedures of the moratorium. Neither the United States nor China has been punished by the international community for violating the international norms of keeping space demilitarized. The countries on the UN Security Council need to cooperate in order to prevent future testing and development of space weapons rather then continuing to compete in the arms race that threatens mankind. Security Council Resolution 1540 strengthens the obligations of states to enforce nonproliferation norms, however this resolution cannot be expected to work when the members drafting such documents do not abide by it rules. The world community will refuse to follow international laws if the law makers hands are dirty with blood and grime. It has been suggested that resolution 1540 be further developed by requiring states to file reports documenting their implementation of nonproliferation laws. Other measures for strengthening international law include requiring private and state banks to have standards for loaning to weapons manufacturers that would prevent overspending on WMD and space weapons projects. Such standards could be enforced by requiring documentation of the implementation of these standards to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund who could refuse these banks from competing in the international market for violating the standards.5
4

Regina Hagen and Jurgen Scheffran, Is a Space Weapons Ban Feasible? Thought on Technology and Verification of Arms Control in Space, Making Space For Security (2003). 5 George Perkovich, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, Jon B. Wolfsthal, Jessica T. Mathews, Tough Diplomacy: A Revived Security Council, Universal Compliance, A Strategy for Nuclear Security (June 2004).

The United States is the sole leader in military and civilian use of outer space. The United States budget for space programs was estimated at $27 million in 2001, but with the continued military spending for the war in Iraq it can be assumed that the budget has increased in recent years.6 After the fall of the Soviet empire the United States became the world superpower, mostly because of its military capabilities. Although the country is scrutinized for its continued advancements in weapons technology and military policies it is also viewed as a country capable of leading the world into a more peaceful era through international police actions. Nationalism has strengthened competition between countries who seek to monopolize on the military use of outer space and unilateral actions by countries such as China and the United States who have weakened the international communitys ability to enforce global standards and norms. These countries are not ready to hand over their militaries to the United Nations for international peacekeeping operations and continued development of space weapons can be expected in the future. The United States will continue to use its military in order to prevent countries from acquiring WMDs and may be the best force capable of doing so, however they must first clean their own house before expecting other countries to get on board with their nonproliferation policies. It is up to the United Nations to organize and control the international community so that they can better cooperate with the non-proliferation regime. There is a long way to go before the United States transfers its superpower status to the United Nations, but through continued efforts by the international community to enforce nonproliferation norms the United States can follow suit and continue to police the world through military action. By ridding itself of WMDs and space weapons the United States will garner more support from the international community who will be more willing to accept the United States as a world leader. Further trust will also allow for more cooperation in the United Nations where nonproliferation standards must be regulated and controlled. Conclusion The reason I have chosen to explore the problems concerning the proliferation of space with WMDs is because I feel as though there is a need to understand the future of warfare on earth which relies more and more on the use of space technologies. The possibility of an accident involving a WMD in outer space threatens the existence of the entire planet and the arguments for continuing the development of space weapons go largely uncontested in the United States. Weapons developers and military strategists will state that controlling space is beneficial for those involved in combat operations on the ground. Better command and control of the troops, anti-missile defense systems, and better offensive weapons are all arguments for continued space weapons proliferation. Another argument is that military control of space will help to provide global security and safety. The argument against proliferating space with weapons is that it will only create more conflict and instability by provoking competition between nations who are interested in joining the international arms race. Environmentalists will also argue that the weaponization of space is detrimental to the planets ecology and that an accident could not only kill off mankind, but could also disrupt the course of events throughout the entire universe.
6

Laurence Nardon, The Worlds Space Systems, Making Space for Security? (2003

The nonproliferation regime currently lacks the authority it needs to prevent the future development of WMDs in outer space and must redefine the role it has in world politics. The regime itself must also be defined in order to understand who the players on both sides of the proliferation equation are. A standard definition of what a WMD is should also be introduced to the international community so that the regime can better control and monitor weapons systems in and outside of Earths atmosphere. By reevaluating and influencing cultural norms and expectations the nonproliferation regime can help to prevent the desire to obtain WMDs. Cultural restructuring programs directed at the mass public and specific audiences can change the way of thinking about weapons development and the militarization of outer space. Such programs need to be headed by the IAEA and other international organizations that can also influence international laws and standards concerning WMDs. This two-tiered process can be effective through proper funding, sufficient staffing, and great amounts of energy. By taking back space the nonproliferation regime will serve mankind, the planet, and the entire universe in such away that will prolong their existence in a more peaceful and nonviolent era.

Bibliography
Nardon, Laurence, The Worlds Space Systems, Making Space for Security? An Arms Forum (2003). Hagen, Regina and Scheffran, Jurgen, Is a Space Weapons Ban Feasible? Thought on Technology and Verification of Arms Control in Space, Making Space For Security An Arms Forum (2003). Gill, Bates and Kleiber, Martin, Chinas Space Odyssey, What the Antisatellite Test Reveals About Decision-Making in Beijing, Foreign Affairs (May/June 2007). George Perkovich, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, Jon B. Wolfsthal, Jessica T. Mathews, Tough Diplomacy: A Revived Security Council, Universal Compliance, A Strategy for Nuclear Security (June 2004).

10