An article from Guardian UK reports that in the next few weeks, President Bush will likely push the GO button for space-based weapons (of mass destruction, posing as defense systems), reviving not only the fear that was generated during the Cold War arms race, but also Reagan's vision of space defense. Admittedly, this is a little more up-to-speed than the Star Wars plan, but the idea is still the same. The article mentions Clinton's initiative to keep space from being used militarily, and the Clinton veto of the missile defense system. I especially enjoy the paragraph:
Ms [Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of the Centre for Defence Information] argued the directive would trigger an arms race in space. "Let's think of a world where US has 'death stars' everywhere in space that are going over countries every 10 minutes. Do you think other countries are going to accept that?" she said.
...if only for the vision of multiple Death Stars in orbit around the Earth.
In fantasy-land, this is amusing and thought-provoking; in reality, however, the thought of the US Government (aptly compared to the Empire) putting weapons in space is likely to invoke fear world-wide, not to mention a bolstered international resistance to the possibility of having "dense metal rods" dropped on foreign cities.
While space should belong to no human, it should definitely not be used for military purposes. Much as the air space over a particular country is theoretically "owned" by that country, the space-space over a particular country (provided we a using geosynchronous satellites) should not be occupied by weaponry to be held over the heads (literally) of foreign governments as a continual threat toward non-compliance. This is akin to placing, say, a stationary nuclear weapon in the capital of a country not currently occupied by the US (just how many are there?), and putting the detonator in the hands of the American government, "just in case."
As mentioned in the article, this would probably provoke an arms race. When the threat of another level of "defense" comes to light, it will naturally incur a defensive reaction. If for some reason, my neighbors were waiting outside of my house with knives ready to stab me every time I leave it, I will either never leave the house, or I will defend myself with a gun. Which is why the technological advantage of using space-based weaponry is an evil one. Many countries would be at a disadvantage, due to their lack of experience with space development and travel. Much like what probably happened upon development of nuclear weapons. And so, this limits the number of countries that can compete with the tech advantage, forcing many already-third-world countries further into submission. The idea also seeks to make obsolete the development of nuclear weapons, and at a good time when two more countries are being added to the list as having nuclear weapon capability. Not actually obsolete, but giving the impression that they are obsolete in the technical sense. Trying to stay ahead of the game.
So do we need to take it another step? This does nothing to promote peaceful living among Earth's inhabitants. Our next frontier should instead be used for advancement of human society, not the threat of its destruction. Here's an idea... All of the money that would inevitably go toward development of space-based weaponry could go instead to curing diseases and funding the eventual exploration of that very same frontier. Let's try to keep more of humanity living peacefully, instead of hovering the constant threat of war, thus hampering true development. Where is the common sense?
Nietzsche put it thusly:
The means to real peace -- No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests. And perhaps the great day will come when people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling -- that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -- this must someday become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth. Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud -- and from up high.
--[Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and His Shadow, from Human, All Too Human, maxim 284]
So where are our Jedi? Where, then, our Skywalker?
Recent Comments