Russia and China are preparing for UN consideration a draft resolution prohibiting the placement of weapons in outer space. Diplomats formulate the title of the document as "measures for transparency (lack of secrecy) and confidence in space activities." This is its essence. In accordance with the Russian proverb "trust but verify" - space trust should be based on checks of space programs of countries such as, for example, the United States. It is this world power that needs to be placed under international control in order to prevent the deployment of weapons into space.
This is not a new initiative, but systematic joint work. Russia and China for the first time together raised the issue of space demilitarization back in 2002 at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In August 2004, more detailed documents were submitted by the Russian and Chinese delegations. And now we continue to push for the prohibition of weapons in outer space.
What kind of weapon are we talking about? And why are we so purposefully trying to ban it?
End of nuclear deterrence
To begin with, I have to talk about the evolution of American strategic offensive weapons (START). The United States is gradually making changes to its nuclear strategy. There is a systematic reduction in such carriers of nuclear weapons as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs). There is a strengthening of the air part of the nuclear triad (strategic air-launched cruise missiles and atomic charges for free-fall bombs). However, this kind of media is only evolving by reducing other delivery vehicles. The United States is ready to further reduce the total number of nuclear warheads. In June, Barack Obama publicly called on Russia and the United States to reduce their nuclear potential by another third compared to the level set by the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty, which was signed in 2010.
The question arises, why are the Americans ready to reduce their nuclear weapons? The answer is simple enough. Washington is actively seeking new means to gain global military superiority.
Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, nuclear weapons provided peace to their owners. It was only thanks to nuclear deterrence that the confrontation between the superpowers did not develop into a military conflict. In the new century, the situation of nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers gave way to the situation of the so-called multipolar world. Nuclear weapons make it dangerous to use force against their owner. India, China, Pakistan and those countries that are only striving to obtain nuclear weapons (Iran, Japan, North Korea, Israel, and even Brazil and Saudi Arabia) can use it to protect themselves from military intervention.
So what, if it goes on like this, then it will be impossible to fight with anyone at all? But the United States and NATO are already accustomed to insisting on their leadership with the help of force, having the most powerful conventional military potential in the world. And if in the foreseeable future it is not possible to ensure the nuclear nonproliferation regime, then the block of Western countries will lose its military superiority. And along with it, and world leadership. What to do?
In 2010, the Pentagon published NRP-2010 (US Nuclear Policy Review). The document proposes to develop strategic offensive weapons, alternative to nuclear ones. It notes the impossibility of using nuclear weapons or threatening to use them against countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Indeed, if you “zhahnat” on some next “bloody regime” with nuclear weapons, it will look ugly. It's another matter if it becomes possible to use something comparable in power, but more "environmentally friendly", without radioactive contamination.
In addition, the document says that the United States must maintain global military superiority, and none of the possessors of nuclear weapons should be immune from "US counter-force actions." And the United States must be able to inflict a crushing blow on any state, including a nuclear one, with nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.
Thus, it is proposed to achieve global military superiority not only with the help of new, non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons. And the role of nuclear weapons and traditional means of their delivery should gradually decrease in the national security strategy.
Taking care of the environment the American way
What can complement and strengthen nuclear weapons? What in a non-nuclear version would look like a more humane and environmentally friendly weapon with a high destructive ability? What, in the end, will avoid a nuclear response, bypassing early warning systems, but allowing the first to deliver a disarming strike?
The US Air Force is working with NASA to create fundamentally new long-range strike systems. In the future, the American air force will become aerospace, since strategic strike aerospace systems are being developed for them.
A fairly detailed review of work in this direction was made by Andrew Lieberman in a not very new (2003), but very relevant newsletter even today. It is called Missiles of Empire: America's 21st Century Global Legions (pdf). It is noteworthy that this work was done for the organization "Legal Foundations of Western States" (WSLF). This non-profit organization seemingly has a completely humanistic and even "ecologically correct" goal - the elimination of nuclear weapons. But as an American organization and ideologically patriotic, it is naturally not pacifist. On the contrary, the WSLF is concerned with national security and maintaining the role of the United States as a country providing "global stability." He simply considers nuclear weapons to be an unsuitable instrument for this - environmentally harmful. And as we noted above, it is also purely defensive - that is, it does not provide military superiority due to the practical impossibility of using it without consequences for itself. And the WSLF is lobbying to replace it with more advanced and less radioactive weapons. It is easy to see that the Nobel laureate Barack Husseinovich Obama, when talking about a "nuclear-free world", implies the ideas promoted by the WSLF.
New weapons of global domination
So, let's try in general terms to deal with the new American weapon.
It will be a multistage aerospace system that is flexible in terms of tasks and composition of components. Its main task will be the delivery of promising weapons from the continental United States to any point on the earth's surface. Moreover, the means of destruction can be both nuclear and non-nuclear (Technology & Alternatives Working Group "Concepts to Alternatives" document, p. 4). For them, charges designed for free-fall nuclear bombs (B61-7, B61-4 and B61-3) are quite suitable. It would seem that a free-falling atomic bomb is a clear anachronism. However, the United States, while reducing other carriers of nuclear weapons, stubbornly retains this type of weapon.
Differing from traditional strategic offensive weapons (ICBMs or cruise missiles), the new weapon will be that, in fact, it will be space. Means of destruction will either be in low-earth orbit for a long time, or be promptly brought into it to strike within two hours after receiving the order.
In general terms, the new system will have three stages. The first stage, the Space Operations Vehicle (SOV), will be a reusable hypersonic aircraft (HVA) capable of taking off from conventional runways at least 3000 m in length. into the upper atmosphere of the second, also reusable, stage - the Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV). And the SMV, in turn, is the carrier of a maneuvering atmospheric vehicle that carries weapons to the earth's surface - the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV).
The system will be really flexible both in terms of tasks and in terms of funds. For example, a launch vehicle (SOV) may appear in the very distant future. But the second stage - the maneuvering spacecraft (SMV) - is already quite flying. And it is launched into orbit with the usual Atlas-5 launch vehicle. This is the automatic shuttle Boeing X-37, which can be considered a prototype of production vehicles. He has already completed three long flights (the second lasted 468 days), the purpose of which was not disclosed. Nothing is known about its payload, which, in principle, can be anything, up to a nuclear weapon. Likewise, the third stage - the maneuvering atmospheric apparatus CAV - can be launched into the upper atmosphere by various means. Its prototype Falcon HTV-2 made two not very successful test flights (in 2010 and 2011). And it was accelerated by the Minotaur IV booster.
Thus, American strategic offensive weapons are slowly but systematically moving into space. If the programs for the creation of various systems linked by a single concept within the framework of the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) strategy are implemented, the United States will gain a huge advantage in strategic offensive weapons. In fact, the described system will make it possible to bypass the current missile attack warning system (EWS), which is the basis of nuclear deterrence and the impossibility of delivering a nuclear strike with impunity. The early warning system monitors the launches of ballistic missiles, bringing the means of retaliation into combat readiness. And if nuclear weapons are already over your heads?
Postpone the race
This is why it is so important to stop the Americans and put their space programs under international control. A country that is trying to gain an advantage in strategic weapons is not doing so out of scientific interest. With this advantage, you can dictate your will to the whole world. And therefore, of course, no one will let the Americans get ahead.
In October 2004, at the 59th session of the UN General Assembly, Russia announced that it would not be the first to deploy weapons in space - although we have some potential in the field of space weapons, and could give some answer to American programs today. Another thing is that this will mean a race for space arms. Do we need it?
If it is possible to stop the Americans through diplomatic means, then such a race can be dispensed with. In the end, even the United States can be made a "rogue country" if the coalition united to put pressure on the Americans is wide enough. So far, Russia and China have time for diplomatic pressure.
But if this is not enough, the arms race will have to be resumed.
