School №76
Lesnoy, Sverdlovskaya oblast
Project: “Space: Forum for Cooperation or Next
Frontier for WMD Proliferation?”
Student: Kseniya Kurenikh, 10th grade
Teacher: Olga Romanova
Benchmark III
Objective 1 –
Review of the movie “Star Wars”.
People are not the only creatures in the Universe. There
are a lot of races among the population in space. Their races don’t make any
deference to their ability to live in peace. Of course, there are ethnic minorities:
they have their languages, cultures, traditions. Even more there is a special
group of creatures who are born to fight. They are warriors. Their sword is a
deadly weapon. Their aim is avoiding an internecine battle. They own abilities
of telepathy. Their power of perception is great. Some phenomena are
unexplained, they possess great strength of mind and fortitude. They are the
main force in intergalactic conflicts.
These conflicts are called “star wars”. Everything is
as in real life: coalitions, plots, battles, pain, assassinations. But the
battlefield isn’t the Earth, it is the whole Universe. Everything, of course,
ends well. Friendship gained the victory and the space population enjoys peace.
But the situation could be quite different. Military usage of space could have
terrible consequences. Life in space could be in danger. Great explosion could
destroy and annihilate stars, planets and all the space.
To avoid such horrible consequences people must
undertake serious measures, organize special activities and actions. I believe
CNS and SIF activities help bring peace to countries and develop understanding
between them. I have been working on my project for half a year and I am sure
that we must work hard to prevent from catastrophe because safety in all the
world is necessary for all the people. I realize the scale of possible disaster
and I am ready to do my best to help escape it. Nonproliferation is the call of
duty.
Objective 2 –
Scenarios for the future.
1. If the nation that
up to now has not been known to be pursuing a space program suddenly announced
that it had successfully orbited a “military vehicle” there might be following
responses:
a) A response given by India.
India is not the only nation with both security
concerns and greater space aspirations. There must be unhindered access to
space for all the countries but military vehicles must have only defensive aims
and purposes. It is obligatory to warn about intentions to launch only vehicles
into space and, of course, the UNO must control the usage of such vehicles.
This nation is developing a missile defense system because its national
interests are threatened. But weaponization of space must be forbidden and
mustn’t be beyond control. If one state, for example, spends on research and
development in the military use of space that can ultimately trigger other
states to move forward with weapons development.
b) A response given by the American administration.
Orbiting of military vehicles is inconsistent with the
spirit of cooperation that countries aspire to in the civil space area. We
express our concern regarding this action. We can not accept this nation as a
peer space – faring power. Its efforts to become a peer competitor of our
country could have negative implications.
International institutions must undertake strict
measures. This nation should be roundly criticized for taking such a dangerous
step toward the abyss of weaponizing space. We also call ASAT test a direct
challenge to US space superiority.
c) A response given by a non-governmental organization that monitors
agreements.
We must support international treaties and agreements
dealing with space. Of course, many countries have the potential of developing
space programs, but these programs must have civilian use. Otherwise there will
be conflicts in space and we fail our international program govern uses of
space (The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (the US – the USSR), The Outer Space
Treaty, The Limited Test Ban
Treaty, The Convention on International Liability for
Damage Caused by Space Objects, The Convention on the Registration of Space
Objects Launched into Outer Space, The Moon Treaty, The Strategic Arms
Limitation Talks (SALT) I Interim Agreement, The Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty, The Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I).
We do not want countries to participate in a space
arms race. Every space-faring country must assure adherence to treaties
regarding space. Space requires security. The nation must take into account
public opinions regarding this space issues. We must have the difficult
discussion about what actions are acceptable in space. Diplomats call for
controls on the weaponization of space for over a decade.
2. A country has just
renounced what has been believed to be a sophisticated space program.
a)
India.
We failed the construction of a cooperative atmosphere
in space. They took a dangerous step and should be shunned. Everyone’s space
assets are at risk. Their behavour is unacceptable.
b)
the United Nations.
This nation must destroy its military vehicles. The
newly incident shows the dangers for peaceful cooperation. The international
community needs to unite efforts and to resist this danger.
c) a non-governmental organization that monitors agreements.
We face a serious threat. We use two important US
satellite systems: the GPS which provides global navigation and the US system
used to provide military reconnaissance. International agreements must be
observed.
The table: “How
different factors will be affected by China’s and India’s space programs”.
|
Factors |
China |
India |
|
Economic
growth |
· development
of nuclear weapons, satellites, space platforms, intercontinental ballistic
missiles; · development
of industry especially military production |
· development
of conversion; · frequent
growth of scientific researches consequence development of economy; · applying
scientific knowledge in practice improving the people’s life |
|
Political
stability |
· fight for authority
between supporters of space
weaponization and nonproliferation in space; · military men
will get governmental power |
· participating
in international treaties and agreements about different space issues; · participation
in nonproliferation studies |
|
Social
stability |
· instability; · foundation of
new political parties and collisions between them; · clear
tendencies to change the government and as a result strengthening of
opposition and at the same time strengthening of the system of people’s
control |
· science
dominates man’s whole existence; · improvement
of life conditions; · democratization
of the society; · supporting
different programs in education, medical care and culture; · development
of charities; · lack of
funds to protect the environment and possible radioactive contamination of
the ecosystems |
|
Accountability |
· refusal to
be controlled by space-faring countries and opposition with them |
· sufficiency
of accountability; · transparency
of space research and tests |
|
Evolving
technologies |
· scientific
and technological progress; · robotizing
in the spheres of civil and military production; · development
of computer technologies; · technologies
of regulation of the population |
· the program
of space medicine; · electronic
equipment; · development
of electronic “neural networks” |
Objective 3 –
Incidents.
Consequences of
space object crashing in a populated area.
Developing of space programs and increasing of number
of space-faring powers create conditions for unforeseen incidents that might
occur both on the Earth and in space. It’s difficult to overestimate the role
of space security and arms control. Every medal has its reverse. And the rapid
scientific progress in technologies has aroused a number of problems that are a
matter of our great concern. First of all these are ecological problems, the
safety of objects with nuclear power, the responsibility of a scientist and at
last the nuclear war threat.
Our Earth is overpopulated and it isn’t an easy thing
to find place distant from settlements of every kind in order to test any
weapon and launch any rocket.
Let’s imagine such a situation:
A small country in Asia bought space technologies,
built several nuclear power stations and decided to launch a nuclear powered
space object. “Space-based weapons are possible for any state with the economic
and technological capability to manufacture and launch ICBMs or rockets capable
of putting satellites into orbit and to control the actions of missiles and/or
space objects on the ground” [1].
Of course, they didn’t mind pre-launch notification and verification.
By the
way we’d like to stress the following fact. We know that a “space-based system
actually includes three parts: a ground segment (including telemetry, tracking
and control (TT&C) facilities, communication earth station and/or data
reception and archival facilities); the space segment itself (artificial
satellites consisting of payloads and platforms), and the radio links (uplinks/
downlinks that carry commands, communication traffic, signals, telemetry and
data). Launch vehicles and their associated infrastructure necessary to place
artificial satellites and their upper stages into orbits for subsequent
operational service are also prerequisites for space-based systems. Each element
is vulnerable to a variety of distinct threats” [2].
“Two points are also worth stressing. First, the
threat to a space-based system is not only to its space segment. Secondly and
consequently, space0based countermeasures cannot help in some cases, and are
not the only possible response in others”[3].
“Only broad way to counter these threats involves
active counter-force, in other words, a direct attack on those enemy forces or
weapons threatening the assets to be protected”[4].
“Space-based assets could be hit with a very
high-power laser designed to degrade, damage or destroy satellites from land-,
sea- or air-based platforms”[5].
Earlier advocates of weapons in space spoke about
assured access to outer space via one’s own launch vehicles. So we gained an
arms race focused on space. Deployment of space weapons generated the sort
fostered tension and risked poor decision making.
Now we are continuing our story about the nuclear
powered space objects of that Asian country. Finally, it suffered from space attack;
it was hit with a very high-power laser belonging to a country with
technological superiority.
There was a flash in the air dazzling with bright
rays. Then the air became green. All the people were afraid, there was panic. Rushing
to their homes some people ran over kinds, killed everybody if there was a
barrier in their way. Others tried to help but it was really impossible in
crowds. So many people died. Nevertheless most of the people calmed down and
regained their self-control. Only several months later they realized the depth
of tragedy. Modern medicine couldn’t find a way to treat terrible diseases
caused by radiation.
All this resulted in the following things:
1 the problem of orbital debris:
“Where use of weapons against targets in orbit result
in the destruction in disarticulation, debris effects are likely, seriously
degrading the survivability of all but the most heavily-protected assets in
orbital paths. This result will likely pose a disproportionate threat to the
overall security of military satellites and civilian assets, including those
with a security-related dual mission” [6].
“Space is the most fragile environment that exists
because it has the least ability to repair itself. Only the Earth’s atmosphere
can remove satellites from orbit. When the sun flares up in its 11-year cycle,
it heats the upper atmosphere spacecraft in low orbits are subjected to
increased drag. But the higher the original orbit, the less air there is to
collide with”[7].
“The
space age is only 45 years old, yet we humans may already have placed so many
artificial objects in the near-Earth environment that random collisions between
them can produce a cascading number of debris fragments that will threaten and
eventually prevent scientific and other uses of LEO. Such a debris belt would
have other unfortunate consequences: for example, fragmentation of this debris
by further collisions could eventually produce enough dust to case a lingering
twilight as it is illuminated by sunlight, a new and particularly unpleasant
sort of light pollution”[8];
2 “a war in space could create a battlefield that will last
forever, encasing our entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that will
thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military
purposes”[9]
.
“In the Star Wars movies and in hundreds of other
popular fiction films, we see things blow up in space and the fragments quickly
dissipate, leaving space clear again. But in reality, space never clears after
an exploring near our planet”[10]
;
3
Radiation and mutation. Many people will die from consequences
of radiation. Mutation will last for 200 years
Its consequences you can see on the following photos.
We must do everything to prevent from such tragedies
and catastrophes. “Policies that can help avert of the commons include the
following:
·
Do not introduce attack weapons into space.
·
Avoid fragmentation of satellites from explosions due
to accidents and anti-satellite weapons tests, the main cause of space debris.
Prohibit explosions of any kind in space.
·
Design boost and deployment systems for satellites
that minimize the production of space debris. Require all satellites in LEO to
carry a mechanism, such as rockets or inflatable devices to increase drag,
which will cause them to reenter within a period of (say) 25 years after their
useful lives are over.
·
Ban nuclear reactors in orbit, since they are an
environmental threat and they are useful only for military purposes”[11].
“Space is becoming increasingly important especially
in the area of national security. Space warfare is a “virtual certainty”[12].
“By the way of summary, there is a strong case for
considering possible uses of space to enhance ballistic missile defense, and
for investigating more effective ways to accomplish space control”[13].
We support the opinion of our former Minister of
Foreign Affairs I. Ivanov said “We invite the world Community to follow such
rules:
·
“Use of space only in conformity with international
law and in the interests of maintaining peace and security;
·
An obligation not to place in the orbit around the
Earth any objects carrying and kinds of weapons, not to install such weapons on
celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner;
·
An obligation not to use or threaten to use force
against space objects;
·
A provision establishing a verification mechanism for
overseen the implementation of the agreement on the basis of
confidence-building measures and transparency in outer space”[14].