Space Wars

Wired Magazine’s April issue has Peace Is War which covers in detail the degree to which the U.S. military stranglehold exists.The author, Bruce Sterling, attributes much of the power to not just an immense arsenal, but also to multifarious space-based military capabilities. In fact, he’s christened the Persian Gulf War as Space War I and the Yugoslavian carpet-bombing as the Second Space War. Space War III is in its final stages right now and was exacted upon Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has long held the ambition of dominating and using outer space. If you search for Space Command, you’ll find dozens of links to documents which usually bear his signature. In 1998, he described a three-pronged plan for world-domination through space. The first step: “Dump that corny old ABM Treaty of 1972”. Done. The second step: “Control space, no matter how much that ambition annoys other governments.” This has been in progress for years, but now, post 9-11:

“While previous administrations have found their grand plans stymied by congressional foot-dragging and Beltway sabotage, this time the decks are clear for action. “We never implemented Rumsfeld II, because of bureaucratic and political barriers,” confides a high-ranking officer in an outfit widely known for its orbiting National Surveillance Assets. “Those are, like, gone now.”

With this force at the ready, the rest of world can fall in line quietly, making verbal noises, or making some physical noises. It doesn’t really matter which: the end result will be the same.

“The alternative to destroying Washington is clear: world peace, Washington-style. No Machiavellian power player (and few ordinary citizens) would ever believe in such a thing, so peace will be sold as war: New Improved War. … Just Space War IV, V, VI, until everyone gets it, the last stiff-necked mountain tribe, the last hermit kingdom.”

Subjugation is the only solution. What happens when the whole world gets along? Will the weapons be put away, never to be used again? Or are they to be used to more overtly extract favorable trade agreements or perhaps allow U.S. corporations to operate more freely than host countries would like? The possibilities are endless.

The article also has three crisis scenarios, taking place over the next 20 years. The article is pretty numbing, not because of the possible attacks it reveals, but because of the level of control by the U.S. it reveals. No country should have this level of control. That’s a dictatorship that’s doomed to failure. The path to an Orwellian world is almost assured.

Sterling tries to exit on a positive note at the end of the article:

“On the other hand, Washington’s war wonks don’t seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let’s face it, the world might do much worse.”

Perhaps it is possible to envision worse global leaders. And, of course, the thought of America ruling the world seems especially palatable to Americans. But I imagine that there are a lot of Somalis, Panamanians, Chileans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians, Aghans, Iraqis, Iranis, Palestinians, Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Haitians, Cubans, Laotians, Koreans, etc. who will probably not agree.