The Topeka Capital-Journal

By Jack Shanahan

The Bush administration has come out with a new policy on putting weapons in outer space. What a relief, you might say to yourself if you've studied this arcane topic, because the old policy didn't make sense. That policy, which was developed during the Cold War, allowed the United States to use space as just another battlefield, as the Earth's air, land, and seas are today.

The goal of our military is to be able to launch attacks-as well as defend American interests-on any part of the globe. And the old U.S. space policy treated outer space the same way. We reserved the right to place high-tech weapons in outer space and use them to attack other nations-or defend our country from attacks.

Under our old policy, we rejected the idea of putting diplomacy and international cooperation first. We rejected the goal of working with other nations to prevent space from filling with weapons, as our oceans and skies already are.

So what did we assert in America's New Space Policy, released recently by the president? Exactly the same approach. Our new space policy is virtually identical to our old one.

Urged on by the U.S. Air Force, which has been sidelined in the occupation of Iraq and the worldwide war on terrorists, the Bush administration's New Space Policy reaffirms the Pentagon's option "to respond to interferences and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." Translation: America is in charge of outer space, and we will place weapons there if we feel the unilateral need, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Sound familiar? Our new space policy reflects the Bush administration's earth-bound reliance on "pre-emptive," unilateral military action that led to our current disaster in Iraq. It's our Iraq policy applied to the heavens. Our country is saying to the world, "We don't want to work together on making space a military-free zone. Forget it." This is a rejection of the diplomatic approach favored by most of our allies, and it lays the groundwork for an arms race in space.

In Omaha, the U.S. Strategic Command isn't wasting any time implementing President George W. Bush's new space policy. It's already launching the "Space Control Plan," which calls for new sensors in orbit and eventually offensive weapons as part of the ballistic missile defense program, also known as Star Wars.

The troubled Star Wars system is intended to shoot down enemy missiles by intercepting them with missiles launched from ground-based silos. But despite $100 billion already spent on missile defense and $10 billion allocated for this year (five times what we spend on renewable energy), Star Wars is widely seen as a failure.

Missile defense experts believe America wants to place infrared sensors and weapons in outer space as part of this pricy program. Even then, however, most experts agree Star Wars won't work as a defensive shield, but-please pay attention to this-it could be an effective tool to attack other nations.

That's the crux of the matter. Instead of banning weapons in space through international diplomacy, America wants to reserve the right to use space for offensive, not defensive, purposes, and the Bush administration's new space policy paves the way for this.

And guess what? China, Russia and other nations will not sit on their hands and allow the United States to achieve, "maximum freedom of action" in space. They'd feel threatened, and, more likely than not, they would develop their own space weapons.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like another arms race to me, and with all the problems we still have here on Earth, it's a race we simply can't afford.

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret) formerly commanded the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the Military Advisory Committee of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.