New York Times Editorial - A macho space policy has perils for America

New York Times Editorial - A macho space policy has perils for America
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: October 22, 2006



The Bush administration has adopted a jingoistic and downright belligerent tone toward space operations. In a new "national space policy" posted without fanfare on an obscure government Web site, and in recent speeches, it has signaled its determination to be pre-eminent in space - as it is in air power and sea power - while opposing any treaties that might curtail any American action there.

This chest-thumping is being portrayed as a modest extension of the Clinton administration's space policy issued a decade ago. And so far there is no mention of putting American weapons in space. But the more aggressive tone of the Bush policy may undercut international cooperation on civilian space projects - a goal to which the new policy subscribes - or set off an eventual arms race in space.

The new policy reflects the worst tendencies of the Bush administration - a unilateral drive for supremacy and a rejection of treaties. And it comes just as the White House is desperately seeking help to rein in the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. That effort depends heavily on cooperation from China and Russia, two countries with their own active space programs.

The administration regards the policy as a necessary update to reflect how important space is becoming for the American economy and defense. But outside experts who have parsed the language are struck by how forceful and nationalistic it sounds.

Whereas the 1996 policy opened with assurances that the United States would pursue greater levels of partnership and cooperation in space, the new policy states: "In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

The only solace is that the new policy does not endorse placing weapons in space or fighting in, through or from space, as the Air Force has been urging. But neither does it rule out these activities.

In keeping with the more muscular stance, the administration is also opposing any negotiations on a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space - arguing that it may impede America's ability to defend its satellites from ground-based weapons. That seems shortsighted. An international treaty to keep space free of weapons might well provide greater security than a unilateral declaration that America will do whatever it has to do to preserve its own space assets.

Michael Griffin, the NASA administrator, insisted he did not intend to sound jingoistic when he addressed a conference in Spain this month - but he sure came across that way. He wondered aloud what language future settlers of the Moon and Mars would speak. "Will my language be passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies?" he asked. "Or will another, bolder or more persistent culture surpass our efforts and put their own stamp on the predominant lunar society of the far future?"

We fear the old notion that space might provide the perfect arena for international cooperation may be yielding to a new era of competition - one not seen since the Cold War race to the moon.