tv [untitled] April 17, 2011 3:30am-4:00am EDT
you know you've heard. chasing your dream are true. this is or if you are from moscow and here's a look at the week's top stories and natural blasts rocked the capital of bel risk killing thirteen and injuring hundreds five people believed to be behind the bombing are under arrest. the editor of a website that supports one of the world's most wanted terrorists has been trial in finland but it's over claims of smuggling people from the north caucasus into the
country even though many want him to face charges of spreading extremism and. the hype around russia's presidential election of two thousand and twelve is gathering pace with still no clarity about the candidates prime minister putin this week said it's too premature to talk about the race stressing there's no rivalry between him and president medvedev. and europe's and gauging how to handle the wave of immigrants coming from the violence for in the arab world italy's decision to offer tens of thousands of temporary residence permits is causing a stir in the e.u. as its visa free travel might see the exodus seep into neighboring countries. the next we'll look out of my trigger and new star wars space race and what the consequences could be. thirty eight as it comes go to go tell.
you. at present it is not known if weapons capable of striking targets on earth are already deployed in space however orbiting insult systems are being researched. the u.s. military is developing what the air force in particular has called prompt global strike that is basically currently we have nuclear missiles that could strike anywhere on earth within thirty minutes. what the military is talking about is a similar conventional capability that could be used to knock out say a chinese anti-satellite weapons launcher in a matter of minutes. a number of concepts are being studied with this notion of prompt lobel strike. in two thousand and eight fifty million dollars was allocated to project
a supersonic plane capable of reaching any point on the globe in only a few minutes and drop up to six times of bombs. one is orbiting space satellite that would actually have missiles on it that could be fired from space and reach a target in literally five to ten minutes as opposed to the current thirty minutes . military doctrine also for seize deploying gotta reserve missiles that or the planet striking at over seven thousand miles an hour these projectiles would be capable of one thing i would simultaneously two hundred targets on the ground with the destructive power of a nuclear device satellites can identify a target through overhead imagery process communications about the target between military decision makers and then guided bomb precisely enough to destroy the target with one shot. would it really be that big a step a for projectile of software also known from space there's no practical
difference and i don't have to say that the person on the receiving end wouldn't see the distinction either. with all our technology we know bloody well that we cannot be assured absolutely one hundred percent that our bombs so-called think bombs smart bombs are hitting the targets we know from afghanistan and iraq alone in the last few years that if that's a fallacy you ought to think so million people you are not seizing the right he bases what you are doing is one how much worse with the probability of hitting the wrong target or hitting ourselves from outer space would be we have no way of
calculating that it's not possible. at least one weapon could go right and land in iowa or new york city or god knows where you know that that's a reality and if if we don't accept that we're just whistling in the dark and we're going to be victims of our own technology. that moving the arms race into space will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet earth they can't take any chances they have to have an enemy they have to make the people afraid someone's going to tak us with nuclear weapons we've got to have missile defense in order to protect us from attack iraq. one of the rogue states iran north korea and now they throw china into that
equation. for the last three years the pentagon has been trying to make china the new bogeyman and china unwittingly played into the united states hands with its anti-satellite test. according to some experts this anti-satellite test didn't come as a surprise to american officials. at the time i was at a conference in colorado springs and the military officers in the room actually left to watch the test in real time. so they were observing the actual chinese and the satellite tests we know about every space launch we know about every product launch we have reconnaissance and surveillance satellites second detect all these we detected the chinese test for example in fact we detected to two previous chinese tests that failed so we know about this it's
extremely difficult to hide this space tests they're one of the most observable weapons tests you can possibly imagine. everything indicates that china's anti-satellite test was intended to make the world aware of the united states intention to dominate space by doing so china also show the united states that the orbiting weapon can be shot down. we wouldn't really want to see in the future and surrounded by ultimately weapons which will make many kinds even more vulnerable than the situation today.
at the united nations china with many other nations has since the 1980's been trying to expand the one hundred sixty seven outer space treaty. presently the treaty prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space but doesn't prohibit conventional weapons. each year this design meant initiative is rejected by the united states. it is one hundred sixty two one hundred seventy one united states is the only nation actually voted against this were isolated on this issue. while we try. pushed our allies into consideration of more strategic independence from the united states in space and some people would
argue perhaps in europe that that's a good thing maybe it's better that europe has strategic independence and space because they can serve as a counterweight but from a a u.s. viewpoint it would seem to me that you would want your allies integrated into your system. of russia all of the european military equip itself with a wider array of military space systems in support of telecommunications navigation and information for ground troops. there are only as i thought. we don't have them which certainly weakens the european armed forces and in nato makes them very dependent on the americans. because going to what does one need when one isn't gauged in a military. operation in europe or more precisely in front. because let me tell
you europe does not yet exist in a military sense. that all europeans still rely on the american g.p.s. . during periods of diplomatic. russia and china. you create enemies. your friends and you really didn't mean to do that was not what you know if you're a strategic thinker you certainly do not want to be terrifying your allies that's. and you don't want to be provoking your enemies into taking actions to counter you . so i think we've stepped way over the rhetorical line here. in the united states anyway and we have to figure out how to back away from that. creating negative
consequences and more spurring other people to do things that will challenge us and face. for a number of decades the united states has been pursuing a military doctrine of space control. however even without a treaty in place any weapons in space the us congress alone could apply the brakes to such developments it would be nice to think that space weaponization is prevented not because there's a huge outcry against it although that would be an interesting for us back to earth because no one including our own nation has the money to spend on this anymore but in an era when the united states still maintains a five hundred billion dollar military budget every year i don't think we can count on that half that it's really and saying oh we are willing to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars over the years to develop strace control means that a treaty would take care of would make unnecessary if we had the world to negotiate such a treaty if we took a read. we could get one it wasn't easy it would be a very difficult thing to do but it could be done. we're. going to treat and all anti-satellite met in real ground based lasers conventional miss iles and most orbiting systems can be used to destroy satellites one at a treaty guaranteed a kill vehicles with only target missiles not satellites or earth down objects. and . opponents of a new treaty argue such promises are untenable and too late. weaponization of space as happened a long time ago on the side. is that it's
a pristine environment if only we stop where we are right now all will be well it is simply nonsense for certain experts a wider range of international understandings will be needed to guarantee the peaceful uses of space we do indeed need a united nations treaty this is not enough this is only step one step two says ok space has been militarized there are military networks in space and many of them like g.p.s. are useful but we should work on international treaties to make those military space networks used for multilateral purposes do i think that's going to happen and very doubtful but i have to keep hoping and believing that there is a prospect for that. those fearing the weaponization of space could find hope in barack obama's election
hold out tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending cut investments in a proven missile defense systems will not work but i space. as soon as he took office the white house announced that he would be seeking a worldwide ban on reckons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. however it proved difficult to change decades of entrenched military policy and programs to weaponize space. history suggests that nations do not voluntarily disarm they disarm because they're defeated or they make small adjustments in the way they i and bill and deploy
their weapons. but no superpower says you know it would be better if we were weaker i don't recall that ever happening. obama went on to allocate billions of dollars for a full range of space control systems including a program called offensive counter space. the pentagon define this new program as offensive measures to disrupt. the grid or destroy any adverse or is face capabilities. ok. for the air force academy in colorado springs where the doctrine of
space control and its possible consequences are studied. is hard to tame space period already without attacking so i'm afraid that if we want space appear your we're going to have to attack and resistance which i don't know if you know much about all mechanics but if you created debris up in space that was just in the way for you as well and it kind of started chain reaction and pretty soon you just have a cloud of debris surrounding earth. about six hundred thousand fragments flying through space at ten times the velocity of a rifle bullet. all these objects are traveling at fourteen thousand miles an hour so even an object the size of a pea traveling at that speed has more force than a. cannonball. right now the problem with space junk is so high that nasa is worried that if there is never
a now there are launch of anything into space it has every launch creates a little bit of debris. in fifty years time. certain orbits will be so polluted that nobody can operate there because the stuff that's already out there will start breaking up and creating more and more content. as satellites destruction unleashes a storm cloud of debris that founds outer space and threatens everything in orbit. the point really is the creation of debris in this manner a good idea or bad idea and clearly it is a very bad idea because there is no way to go up and clean that up. the more times you go into space and you begin to practice destroying other satellites you create so much space junk that you literally create the very likely
possibility that at some point in time you will not be able to get a rocket off the planet earth because it'll be like a minefield around the planet and you won't be able to escape the minefield with that rocket because it would be destroyed by all the space junk there so we've got to begin to look at space as an environment. we have several hundred billion dollars of investment in the peaceful uses of outer space i'm talking about weather satellites positioning satellites. a scientific sound. the entire growth communication network is all satellite oriented. all this incredible investment from the united states and from the european union and canada other countries like
this all of this is completely a jeopardy if we start putting weapons in outer space how would our world change if we lost the use. satellites they want six fifteen am communications satellites hovering over the america's fall mute over a swath of the globe with g.p.s. coverage collapses atomic clocks on g.p.s. satellites can transmit universities and time synchronization of nasa infrastructures fail. three hundred fifty million cell phones are disabled. hundreds of millions of internet connections vanish around the world card payments and bank accounts freeze millions of dollars are sucked from the industries and businesses triggering a financial crash new services are crippled city streets relying on g.p.s. for traffic management are in chaos electrical grids are disrupted wide zones of cottons are blinded by blackouts. coastguards are deaf the ship's distress calls.
dozens or their crafts are missing air traffic controllers are fighting panicked worldwide flights are grounded or called back by denied there's been a cascade of traffic crane told in the aircraft accidents. so far the world is awarded such a catastrophe. but a space war would kill satellites and blast tons of wreckage and or bit. the system we rely on would shatter and the impossible to restore. every nation would suffer the consequences of armed conflict in space still some maintain that being the first to place weapons in space remains the best of iraq facing it time six twenty five and this is a special us part of the conference on world affairs we're discussing the militarization of space there is a point in time that maybe rapidly closing our devices could dominate space to such
or there would be no arms race frankly i think it's doable and i think the march of technology will mean that even if we get a lead on other nations in attempting to do that sooner or later. we will again be challenged it's kind of like what happened after world war two we got the atomic bomb nobody else ever tomic bomb because we had a bigger explosive and with our comic weaponry. we would be able to dominate the earth that didn't last very long the soviets are an atomic bomb the chinese around us are. likewise a space to think that we can go up there with weaponry and be allowed to be the king on the air the throne of space is a tragic miscalculation. everybody thinks that weaponize in space is a dangerous idea that will prompt other countries to also develop space weapons the most pressing. india has been discussing whether or not it needs to build its own.
and you can be sure india does it just and will be thinking about it in a heartbeat as well israel has also been discussing this issue so what you see now is the potential for a domino that some nations would yield to american domination others wouldn't attempt to counter the united states and contest the control of space by a single superpower all nations stable and unstable would be dragged into a new arms race. the european union has been up until now opposed to the weaponization of space. but for how much longer soon is a minute if the u.s. continues to develop not only military satellites but also space based weapons we'll have to think about it and find ways to defend ourselves from them merican threat and the arms race that trigger quillan the quick.
russia has declared that if the united states goes on pursuing its doctrine they will have no choice but to destroy our britain threats. if americans deploy. phase based antibodies the trial defense just then could you imagine the interceptor based on space stations military stations would longer fly to detroit. or three vittorio all throw. their food because he did it as are quite unacceptable as i see course russian. seriously ruin and that is used star wars is no longer a fantasy it is a reality of the good of course such a policy is a catalyst of an arms race. the million dollar nation of the factor of force is
nourishing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction my solution doesn't. believe it is that it will since in russia's opinion more of the militarization of outer space craft unpredictable consequences for the international community you could provoke nothing less than the beginning of a new nuclear iran. besides the negative environmental impacts in outer space the policy of space nomination could also have a destabilizing effect on earth. the weaponized nation of space could be the trigger that unleashes nuclear war. sarnia anxiety induced by putting weapons in space or launching weapons from space downs worth. cording accident by human fallibility by design by terrorists a launching of our true nine thousand hydrogen bombs interesting short
ice age in the death of my screeches on the planet. brownie age of the nuclear precipice about. the military use of space seems inevitable the rabidly valving technology and the lack of a strong treaty these the door open to the most bellicose instincts and space. every year the air force academy adds its most brilliant graduates to the ranks of the masters of spades the chances for preserving outer space for peaceful ends remains the challenge of the world at large usually we're trying to bring back weapons systems after they've been deployed nuclear missiles we're trying to bring
them back here's an opportunity one of the first times in history actually that we have a chance to be proactive we have a chance to stop a new arms race before it actually happens that's why this moment is so crucial. that a beta response weapon ization is the most critical debate for the next century and we are on the verge. of making decisions and nations around the world about which path to choose.