Final-frontier politics
Posted: Monday, October 23, 2006 4:54 PM by Alan Boyle
For most political junkies, the recently announced national space policy is hardly a blip compared with the congressional page scandal and the war in Iraq. But at least one political heavyweight, former Vice President Al Gore, sees the White House’s new perspective on space as a case of Iraq all over again. Gore lambasted the policy during an off-the-record luncheon address in New Mexico - and like most off-the-record talks to a large group, this one has spilled onto the blogosphere, complete with a video clip.
The snippet from the Wirefly X Prize Cup Executive Summit - which took place in Las Cruces, N.M., last Thursday - features Gore's reaction to the idea that the United States should have maximum "freedom of action" in space.
The idea isn't new: For years, the Pentagon has worried about a future "Pearl Harbor" in space, in light of the fact that satellite reconnaissance and communications have become essential for the modern military. Just in the past couple of weeks, such concerns were heightened by reports that the Chinese had tried to use high-powered lasers to blind U.S. satellites.
In response, the United States has resisted international initiatives to place limitations on military space activities, and that has raised worries abroad - justified or not - that the Pentagon might be planning to deploy advanced space weapons, touching off an orbital arms race. There have also been reports that the U.S. military is looking into ways to disable or even shut down the vital Global Positioning System in a crisis.
In Gore's view, a policy of space unilateralism would repeat the mistakes made in Iraq. Here's his explanation, as reported in the Popular Science Blog:
"Very few people have analyzed the insides of this new space policy. I urge all of you who are interested in space to analyze it very carefully. It has the potential, down the road, to create the [same] kind of fuzzy thinking and chaos in our efforts to exploit the space resource as the fuzzy thinking and chaos the Iraq policy has created in Iraq. It is a very serious mistake, in my opinion.
“We in the United States of America may claim that we alone can determine who goes into space and who doesn’t, what it’s used for and what it’s not used for, and we may claim it effectively as our own dominion to the exclusion, when we wish to exclude others, of all others. That’s hubristic.”
Gore's comments on the space policy represent just one section of his X Prize Cup talk - which also touched upon what he has called the "climate crisis" and the importance of using the "space resource."
I was a fly on the wall during the summit, and his comments sure sounded like on-the-record observations to me. But when I asked him to confirm that the speech was on the record (which is the usual courtesy at an off-the-record event), he basically said no. Later, when I asked him again whether there was any on-the-record statement he'd be willing to make about the space policy, he told me, "Not at this time."
Maybe the X Prize Cup talk was just a test drive for a future public pronouncement. Be that as it may, Gore's views on the space issue are now out in the open - and they're already starting to draw fire ("just one more reason why Democrats can't be trusted with national security'). The White House policy pronouncement has also come in for some flak (for its "jingoistic and downright belligerent tone").
How the Bush administration views the final military frontier may seem like no big deal to most Americans. But commentators in other countries have been more vocal about their concerns, saying the new space policy meshes with their other worries about unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy.
For a sampling, check out a Canadian view from The Globe and Mail, a British view from The Times of London and a Chinese view from People's Daily. If you can read Russian (or use Babelfish), you can get Radio Mayak's perspective on America as the world's "space cop."
Is the new space policy a case of unilateral déjà vu all over again? A sensible step toward defending the high frontier? Or no big deal? Almost half the readers who have registered their opinion in our unscientific Live Vote support putting weapons in space. But as a reader has pointed out below, almost half are against it. What do you think - and why do you feel the way you do? Feel free to leave your comments below.
Update for 1:20 p.m. PT Oct. 24: Charles Miller, chief executive officer of Constellation Services International, noted the Popular Science report as well as a reference to Gore's remarks by Space.com's Leonard David at LiveScience:
"Unfortunately, neither one of them published the part that I was most interested in ... which is Gore's statement that space right now is in the exact same position that the Internet was in the 1970s ... and that space needs to be commercialized in order to achieve its full potential ... just like the Internet only achieved its full potential by being commercialized.
"This is a critically important statement by Gore on the commercial space industry that needs to get out ... particularly to the Dems who are likely to take over the House and possibly the Senate."
Although I'm not off the hook as far as the off-the-record rule is concerned, it's intriguing to think of space as a resource to be exploited as well as a destination to be explored - and, by the way, a potential military frontier as well.
