War in outer space

Wars happen. According to the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, a think-tank, 2008 saw nine wars and almost 130 violent conflicts across the world. Peace on Earth is not likely in 2009, nor in the decade following, but what about peace in orbit?

For the past decade political studies professor James Fergusson has intently watched what many others have neglected: how militaries are exploiting outer space.  

The god’s-eye-view of battlefields entices militaries to take up an orbiting perch. And in turn they become targets to ground-based weapons. What scenarios unfold from the resulting posturing has many implications for how future wars are fought, and for the globalised economy that depends on satellites. 

On January 21, as part of the Bringing Research to Life speaker series, Fergusson will give a free public lecture titled War and Outer Space (details below), in which he will discuss the prospects for, and implications of, war in outer space.

International law treats space as it does the high seas, as a global common. Countries can use it for “peaceful” purposes. But peaceful does not mean non-military, and as Fergusson notes, history suggests that military demands of fighting and winning will trump the demands of laws.

Satellites offer militaries, to use the jargon, force enhancement, which allows war to be fought with more precision – guided missiles, guided troops.

“This has implications. If you are able to employ force in a clinical and precise manner, the argument runs that you are more likely to be willing to use force rather than alternative means to deal with the conflict,” Fergusson said.

The US has the most celestial capital, giving them huge advantages in wars, but that also means they have the most to lose if any conflict was acted out in orbit. As Pentagon thinking runs, if the US goes to war with any other country capable of reaching space (there are 10), that country has an immediate incentive to destroy US space assets. Therefore, the US has an immediate incentive to defend those satellites.

“And once you try to defend something, thoughts often turn to offense,” Fergusson said.

Let’s rewind the film to January 11, 2007, when, about 850 kilometers above Earth, a missile launched from deep within China hit one of that country’s ageing weather satellites, effectively demonstrating the country’s space capabilities. The impact resulted in a vast field of debris, and each tiny scrap of metal, now whizzing randomly about orbit at tremendous speeds, is capable of crippling any satellite it hits. So a question percolates: what is a weapon in space?

“The space shuttle is a potential space weapon. The Canadarm is a space weapon,” Fergusson said. “During the cold war, for strategic reasons, we made arbitrary divisions between what was a weapon in space and what wasn’t. A rocket, for example, is not a space weapon. And we still think about these things in cold war terms even though strategies have changed.”

The Canadian government’s policy is that weapons are not to be put into space. But it’s safe to say space is littered with potential destructive agents. 

 “If we don’t start paying attention, this issue will be driven by a military agenda rather than a broader political and strategic context. And that’s important for Canada. We’re not going to get anywhere saying ‘let’s not weaponize because it’s a bad thing.’ It’s going to happen and the question is what can Canada do and what should Canada do?”

To learn more, come to Fergusson’s free lecture on January 21, at 7 p.m.in the Robert B. Schultz Lecture Theatre, St. John’s College. For more information, call 474-9020.

For more information:
Sean Moore
Research Communication Officer
Phone:  204-474-7184
Email:  sean_moore@umanitoba.ca