THE COAST GUARD IN SPACE, SPACE BASED MISSILE DEFENSEJune 1, 2018
For those of you who have been following Dr. Carol Rosin's efforts to get an international treaty to prohibit the weaponization of space, you'll want to stay abreast of these developments. Frankly, I support her efforts, though I remain pessimistic about the chances of their success. My reasons are rather simple, and they are the same reasons that led the USA and the Soviet Union and Great Britain to sign treaties prohibiting space weaponization at the height of the Cold War. Back then, the fear was orbital bombardment by satellite "dreadnoughts" loaded with hydrogen bombs ready to rain down on an opponent with no warning, little response time, and no possibility of defense against them. Indeed, both the USA and USSR had actual designs for such platforms, and many at the time thought (and some still do think) that treaties notwithstanding, both superpowers in fact launched such platforms. The more modern fear, to be blunt, is about weapons equally destructive - phase conjugated X-ray lasers GRAZERS (gamma ray lasers), kinetic "rod of God" bombardment projectiles fired from rail guns, and so on - that could just as easily point down as up, and which could just as easily be turned from "missile defense" to strategic offense. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have the American Midwest, or for that matter, the southern Urals in Russia, toasted by x-rays and gamma rays or chemical plants in China obliterated by "rods of God". You know, people vaporized, buildings melted, gigantic and deep craters, that sort of thing. If that sounds like the stuff of science fiction, it should be recalled that during the Reagan era of "Star Wars" (The Strategic Defense Initiative), that there were stories of Dr. Edward Teller telephoning Mr. Reagan to inform him that their test of an x-ray laser had been successful.
The only problem was, one had to set off an a-bomb to get the x-ray lasing material to emit a beam. Back then, satellite x-ray lasers would thus have been a one shot affair. That is, until Rudolf Mossbauer came along, and demonstrated that such materials could be - here it comes - sonically stimulated to emit x-rays and gamma rays, rendering the whole concept a "multi-shot" affair if a way could be found to weaponize it. (BTW, Rudolf Mossbauer demonstrated these effects in 1958, thus making the Teller-a bomb-one shot story a bit suspicious.) There was a certain "MADness" about this quest for such weapons, for what was in play was the search for strategic weapons capable of the type of destruction of nuclear weapons, but with no consequence to their users. IN other words, and to put it country simple, they were seeking a way to make nuclear wars obsolete, and to make wars "fightable" and "winnable" again. I suspect that to a certain degree that they were successful, and that to a certain extent, bombers and ICBMs with big hydrogen bombs and MIRVED warheads are, if not obsolete, then perhaps obsolescent.
But now there is talk of the commercialization of space, and mining asteroids and other nearby celestial bodies. I have consistently maintained that this will necessitate two things: (1) chemical rockets will simply not be adequate to this purpose, and (2) that any commercialization of space will require its weaponization and militarization in order to protect those assets from "whomever", be it Earthly, or non-Earthly, competitors and potential threats. And the latter will require a "space military" or "force" and some exotic transportation and weaponry.
With that in mind, consider the following two stories, the first shared by Ms. K.W., and the second by Mr. B.G.:
Normally I would spend a great deal of time pointing out certain interesting points for both articles. But today I want to concentrate only on the first, and only on one thing, and then put this into a wider historical context for today's "high octane speculation"TM. That one thing is this:
Instead, America would be better served by consolidating all commercial launch-to-orbit-to-landing oversight and regulatory functions within the “prevention” arm of a new “Space Guard.”A Space Guard, initially conceived of by Cynthia McKinley in 2000 and later expounded on by James Bennett in 2011, should optimally mirror the organizational structure of the Coast Guard, which generally separates its mission functions into broad categories of “prevention” and “response.” Prevention authorities are essentially regulatory authorities and response authorities are best categorized as operational authorities.
Yet, despite this separation, Coast Guard prevention and response officers can, and often do, rely on overlapping and mutually supportive sources of authority to execute their respective missions. As noted in the Coast Guard’s foundational document, Publication 1, the Coast Guard’s broad authority to act and “[t]he interrelated nature of the Coast Guard’s missions and culture of adaptability provides the Service with the ability to rapidly shift from one mission to another as national priorities demand” across the entirety of the maritime domain. It excels at protecting those on the sea, protecting the nation against all threats and hazards delivered by the sea, and protecting the sea itself and it is in part the interdependent nature of these authorities that makes the Coast Guard so effective.
Nearly every authority that the United States needs for effective maritime governance is vested within the Coast Guard and the service’s 11 statutory missions cover the full panoply of possible action within the entire maritime domain. This means that the Coast Guard is the lead U.S. federal agency for nearly every matter that takes place within the navigable waters of the United States or that pertains to U.S. vessels or vessels in which the United States may exert jurisdiction. The agency also has wide ranging authority to coordinate and cooperate with other Federal and state agencies and foreign governments, conducts maritime mobility operations like ice-breaking and aid-to-navigation placement and maintenance, and quintessentially can perform any and all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons and protect and save property on and under the high seas and on and under water over with the United States has jurisdiction.All of these authorities translate in the context of space governance.
Implicit in this recommendation is not merely a consolidation all all federal agencies having space-defined missions under a military service branch umbrella, but also something else, and that is an implicit claim to territorial jurisdiction in space. Indeed, I suspect that behind all the talk in recent years for a "space" force and command structure, from pronouncements made during the Obama Administration to the pronouncements of the current president, that what is really being sought is precisely this kind of consolidation and a clear command structure.
Now, why is all of my talk about consolidated command structures, and the possible obsolescence of nuclear weapons relevant? Indeed, why do I suspect that there are already in existence such covert space forces, and a certain technological exoticness both in propulsion technologies and in weapons technologies, and that they may already have been secretly deployed? Why, in other words, are we seeing the public rollout in the form of these types of discussions? In my second presentation at the 2014 Secret Space Progam conference in San Mateo, California, I pointed out that one of the concerns of the Brookings Report - besides potential contact with extra-terrestrials or their artifacts - was the potential for space-based technologies to (1) engineer the weather and to (2) provide a new form of global communications and hence of financial clearing. (Just for the record, the Brookings Report also mentioned the odd exotic technology or two, things like the "magneto-hydro-dynamic drive" and so on. See my Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations.)
As I pointed out, numerous incidents were recorded of UFO interference against civilian and military aircraft, and later, satellites, in actions that could only have been interpreted by the then-existing national security state as potentially hostile. For Mr. Globaloney, the build-out during the 1960s of the global communications network was crucial to their long-term plans of planetary surveillance, and international financial integration and clearing. Such activity could only have been considered a threat, and they would have responded accordingly. Treaties against the weaponization of space bay be fine for terrestrial nations, but some way would have had to have been found to protect those assets and potential assets. My point wass, space commercialization, and hence the need to militarize space and protect those assets, did not begin in the 21st century with talk of asteroid mining. It was well under way in the 1960s.
And so too, I think, was its militarization. And that means, most likely, was the consolidation of a unified agency and command structure to control it.
Thus, I strongly suspect that what is happening in articles such as the above two, is rather the revelation of something, than its creation.
See you on the flip side...