Ink on a Page
The Outer Space Treaty is outdated - and nobody important really believes in it anyway.
On Wednesday, during an press conference for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in answer to a question from an AFP journalist, a spokeswoman made her government’s objection to the proposed “Golden Dome” ballistic missile defence system plain.
Golden Dome is, based on statements from the White House, a space-based boost phase interception system. By attacking missiles while they are launching, it negates the utility of countermeasures to traditional missiles shields, such as multiple reentry vehicles and decoys. The main downside is that such a system requires an extremely large number of satellites in order to guarantee that one will be overhead at the moment the enemy missile launches. Starlink represents a breakthrough in the cost of building and launching such massive constellations, and so for the first time the approach is technologically credible.
It is only credible for the United States for the moment though, and the representative of the Chinese government objected to its development thus:
“Golden Dome” intends to create an unconstrained, global, multi-layer and multi-domain missile defense system. It plans to expand the U.S. arsenal of means for combat operations in outer space, including R&D and deployment of orbital interception systems. That gives the project a strong offensive nature and violates the principle of peaceful use in the Outer Space Treaty. The project will heighten the risk of turning the space into a war zone and creating a space arms race, and shake the international security and arms control system. This is yet another “America First” initiative that puts the U.S.’s absolute security above all else. It violates the principle of “undiminished security for all” and will hurt global strategic balance and stability. China is gravely concerned.
First, Ms. Mao is claiming a vague violation of principle being made - but the actual text of the Outer Space Treaty does not ban systems such as Golden Dome. Article IV of the treaty states that “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.” which clearly does not apply to satellite interceptors.
Later in Article IV it states “The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden” - which if you very generously extend to also apply to Earth orbit, could potentially ban Golden Dome - but it would also ban the anti-satellite weapons tests that China has conducted.
Secondly, the truth is that China dose not want the US to build a missile shield because it would be to their strategic disadvantage, and because at the moment they cannot build a comparable system. In a few years, once they have reusable rockets and have reached the current level of US satellite constellation capability, they will no doubt without hesitation attempt to build their own shield, because that is to their strategic advantage.
Ending the Moon Race
The Outer Space Treaty was signed in 1967, during the race to the Moon between the US and the Soviet Union. It has to be understood in the context of that time.
Primarily, it was an arms control treaty. The Starfish Prime nuclear test conducted in space in 1962 by the Americans had caused considerable damage to the small number of satellites in orbit at the time, and was understood to be an experiment that should not be repeated as space was getting busier. There had already been a UN resolution banning weapons of mass destruction in space in 1963, and the OST formally committed both superpowers to abiding by it.
Article II of the treaty famously bans national claims, which precluded any possibility of an imperial “scramble for the Moon” which might otherwise have occurred. Both this and the reduced chance of an arms race in space are, I believe, key factors in the winding down of the space race.
The Cold War was a competition between two powers over who had the best way of running a society. Leadership in both blocs was forced to both make concessions to their own people that they otherwise would not, and to demonstrate their advancements to the wider world, in order to keep up - and by the late 1960s both were finding it hard to keep up. The Soviets knew their lunar program was not on track, and were unwilling to make the huge investments necessary to get it working. The US was bogged down in Vietnam and facing increasingly strident calls for government to focus on wealth redistribution. Cooling off the Moon race suited both elites, and a promise not to claim it took the pressure off. America could have their moment of triumph, and then ditch the expensive Saturn/Apollo production line. The Soviets could relax knowing it wouldn’t have much geopolitical impact in the long run. For the rest of the world, for whom superpower competition was beneficial due to the need to get people on side, this was tantamount to geopolitical match fixing - as was the Detente era that came shortly afterwards for similar reasons. Absent a need to be competitive, human expansion into the solar system then stalled for half a century.
International Law
There is a whole cottage industry of people drawing up imaginary legal regimes for space based on the Outer Space Treaty, as if it were some kind of constitutional document for a solar-system wide state. This is basically legalistic bikeshedding from people whose skills aren’t applicable to the topic of interest.
In reality, the only international law that exists is that which is imposed by the hegemon (or hegemons), who can break it at will. The strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must.
Occasionally the hegemon will claim that they are also subject to some higher principle of international law, but this is nothing more than a polite fiction to make members of their coalition feel better. This is of particular relevance to me as a Brit - today my government made what to most is a baffling decision to give away the Chagos Islands to the tiny, unarmed nation of Mauritius - and to then pay them rent for the military base we have there. The justification given was framed entirely in terms of international law, so obviously not all leaders agree with my interpretation - but from my perspective, those who do not are naive.
No major signatory to the Outer Space Treaty considers its most restrictive aspects, on matters such as territorial claims and military activities, as things they are committed not to do. They consider them as things they can try and stop their rivals doing through diplomatic pressure. When China in 2007 launched an anti-satellite weapon test, the US condemned it both as an aggressive act, and also a space debris risk - only to launch their own ASAT test the following year, under the scientifically flimsy pretext of needing to destroy the hydrazine on board a defunct satellite before it contaminated the ground during an uncontrolled reentry. Likewise it is unlikely China considers its future actions on missile defence constrained by its current objections.
Space Realism
We are living in an increasingly dangerous phase of history. Once again the superpowers circle each other like wolves, sizing up the opponent, ready to attack if they sense weakness. But as with the first Cold War, the balance of terror can be maintained and we do not need to come to blows.
Despite complaints from China, a ballistic missile shield is not fatally destabilising because it cannot be guaranteed to work perfectly, and there are weapons such as nuclear tipped cruise missiles and torpedos that can circumvent it. The chances of the United States attempted a first strike on the assumption they can resist any counter attack is vanishingly small, and no doubt China knows this too. Likewise, China cannot be certain that the shield can be penetrated - and they cannot make strategic moves on the basis that their deterrent will definitely work.
It must be understood what the consequences of nuclear war at any scale would be though; even the use of one device against one city would be unimaginable. This August will mark the 80th anniversary of the only use of nuclear weapons in anger, and few still alive remember it. The devices involved were an order of magnitude smaller than modern strategic weapons, the population targeted were already accustomed to mass casualty events from conventional bombing and firebombing, and the limited media technology of the time meant that the scope of the horror was not fully conveyed to the world. An attack today would have many more casualties, and be relayed to our phones from multiple angles in high definition. It’s hard to know how we would handle such a thing. It would change all of us forever.
The development of technology to stop these weapons is a good thing. If the worst happens, and through brinkmanship or error the missiles fly, it could potentially turn a civilisation ending catastrophe into merely the worst loss of human life since the Second World War. We would emerge horribly scarred but the species would continue.
And if such a system does make nations like China less confident in their deterrence, this is good for us as it increase the possibility of containing any aggression they may be planning. I am not a neutral observer in this contest and ultimately want the free world to prevail. The world should not be held hostage to any power that can develop the 1940s technologies of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. There may be dangerous and frightening times ahead, but I maintain hope that we can navigate them without catastrophe - and emerge stronger and better for having met the challenge.
This is the end of the article. This one is free for all readers, but some of my work is for paid subscribers only. Upgrading gets you full access to articles like these:
The history and current state of the art of partial gravity research, important for building human colonies on Mars or the Moon.
How the threat of ASAT weapons and satellite constellation technology could lead to a militarisation of space.
…and many more, including my regular monthly Mass Value Report where I apply a unique analytical lens I developed in this paper to the launch and space industries.
To subscribe costs about the same as a cup of coffee every month. Would you buy me a coffee to hear a complete set of my insights each month?