Left Flank

Matthew Yglesias and Chris Bowers have excellent reasons why America should not have a manned space program.

Matt's rationale against a manned space program: "Unmanned missions are, at the moment, the ones really pushing the frontiers of our knowledge and that's going to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. That's where we ought to be focusing our energies."

Chris' rationales against a manned space program: "Space exploration is not an issue with clear partisan divisions. Some conservatives view it as a wasteful government expenditure that is better handled through private enterprise, while some progressives view it through a utilitarian lens in that it does not provide much direct benefit to humanity."

I have another reason: without international cooperation on terrestrial weapons programs, space exploration will create an exponentially more dangerous space and terrestrial environment for military and civilian participants and the average layperson.

Confusingly, pundits, politicians, and experts cannot even use clear terminology. The Russians and Chinese propose a space treaty? No, it's an anti-missile, or an anti-satellite treaty. The satellites and missiles are landing and falling on earth! Please stop calling it "outer space"! We have no idea what "outer space" is, so stop trying to appropriate the word, like you know something other than how to use clubs and knives!

Speaking of which, it seems the Bush administration has not progressed past the point of cowboy instincts.

This logic — «hey, why not?» — is always suspect. It reverses the burden of proof, placing the emphasis on those who oppose the intercept.

Yet, this is an «extraordinary» measure (General Cartwright's phrase) against a «small» risk (his phrase again). Justifying requires demonstrating not just that one risk is greater than another, but that one has high confidence that estimates of the risks are accurate and complete.

Holding aside my general worry that this Administration is not to be trusted with sharp objects, there are specific reasons to be skeptical of both the accuracy and the completeness of this Administration's calculations. I strongly suspect that they are systematically discounting two types of hard-to-quantify risks — the possibility of error within the estimates and the political costs to conducting an anti-satellite intercept.

Since I'm not a wonk, let me stick to political costs.

This move by Russia mirrors a similar move by the United States in 2006 when it presented to the Conference on Disarmament a draft treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Conference now has two draft treaties on the table (and is unable to begin work on either). The current plan to break the deadlock in the CD involves four elements: Negotiations on a treaty on fissile material for nuclear weapons and substantive discussions on three other issues - preventing an arms race in outer space, nuclear disarmament, and assurances to non-nuclear weapons States that they will not be attacked or threatened by nuclear weapons.

The introduction by Russia and China of a draft treaty to keep weapons out of space does not alter one iota the current plan to break the deadlock in the CD. Foreign Minister Lavrov made it quite clear when presenting the draft text that it had, as he put it, a "research mandate" and that it would "not add any complications to achieving a compromise on the programme of work of the Conference." In his message to the Conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi expressed the hope that the CD would "start substantive discussion and reach consensus on [the draft treaty] as soon as possible." Russia and China are not, as has been erroneously reported, calling for immediate negotiations on this draft treaty. Rather, they are proposing that it serve as a focal point for substantive discussions, with a view to negotiations sometime in the future. This is entirely consistent with the current plan to break the deadlock in the CD.

This is why the strong negative reactions to the Sino-Russian proposal reported coming out of Washington are somewhat puzzling. After long opposition to holding even discussions on outer space in the Conference on Disarmament, the United States last year changed its position by deciding that it would "not stand in the way of consensus" to break the deadlock in the CD. This essentially means that the U.S. would allow substantive discussions on outer space to take place as long as negotiations on a treaty on fissile material could get underway. All the Sino-Russian proposal does, really, is to provide a focus for the substantive discussions on outer space. The Washington Times reported that U.S. State Department Officials thought that "Moscow and Beijing are trying to upstage Washington with their draft." In fact, the U.S. draft treaty on fissile material and the Sino-Russian draft treaty on outer space are not in opposition to one another.

But, to be fair, Beijing is very confidant in its anti-democratic pose, although its better instinct is to tread softly. Russia is just a big oaf that bullies with oil and nukes. There's a space in which PRC and US can negotiate earnestly, if both follow their better instincts, dropping the cowboy and the anti-democratic poses. And, for both, there are nasty consequences that could result from stoking populist currents in their respective populations.

China's political leadership is held hostage by both a Chinese society spinning out of its control and by a nationalistic and reactionary populace angry at old grievances and increasingly intoxicated with China's rising power. As much as China's political and military leaders would like to be reasonable and work cooperatively with the U.S. and China's neighbors, these Chinese leaders fear an emotional uprising from their own countrymen should they appear too willing to compromise with China's old enemies. During the next crisis over Taiwan, or Japan, or with the U.S. Navy, China's leaders may find themselves forced to choose between reckless escalation or an overthrow at the hands of a nationalist rebellion.

That's why this short essay from Bill Owens, a retired four-star admiral and ex-vice chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and was chief executive of Nortel and Teledesic, is so compelling.

Foremost, Owens uses the term, "commons", which gets to the salient economic characteristic of that vacuum beyond Earth's populist-fuelled outer atmosphere. Owens applies it to "the economy, open seas and skies, space and the internet", but let's be Owens-like, please!

Mind you, I disagree with him.

First, a no-first-use agreement on cyber attack. An agreement not to be the first to employ a cyber attack against the other country would not eliminate the capability to do it. But it would add inhibitions, set an example and secure cyberspace as the foundation of the new information age.

Second, collaborative anti-piracy operations on the seas, which are of growing importance to freedom of navigation affecting all nations. The US and China both oppose piracy but we do not co-ordinate enough. We could turn ad hoc co-ordination into real solutions, from database and information exchanges to combined exercises, patrols and counter-piracy operations.

Third, a collaborative, space-based information system to achieve global military transparency. We have a space-based surveillance system capable of tracking significant military and perhaps terrorist operations anywhere on the earth's surface. If China and the US came together to collect and provide this information globally, the world could benefit. Such collaboration would not only establish a new US-China relationship; it would also accelerate modernisation of the industrial-age militaries that make mass destruction feasible and likely.

Military co-operation could also allow both countries to reduce defence budgets and commit funds to long-term global initiatives in education, health and environmental preservation. If both militaries become locked in competition, these opportunities disappear.

Fourth, commitment to having no weapons in space and the early reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. China's recent space exploration is impressively important, in part because it could spark a new arms race in space. By committing to keep space weapons-free, China and the US can work to ensure peaceful and stable exploration.

A significant reduction of nuclear weapons (to fewer than 1,000) could preclude another arms race. It would also help reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organisations. A co-ordinated stand could trigger a real shift towards the renunciation of nuclear weapons, not only by Russia and the established nuclear powers, but also by unstable nations where the combination of terrorism and nuclear potency is most dangerous.

Fifth, a collaborative reduction of pollution from coal power generation. If there is a single issue in which US-China collaboration could make a world-changing difference, it is here. China and the US burn more than half the coal used today, producing most of the carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide that create global warming. Together, China and the US have the scientific and engineering base to address this environmental threat. Doing so would also alter the competitive role of oil production in international security. If the US and China were to establish a $100bn clean coal research fund, it could lead to a drop of 30 per cent in oil prices.

Obviously, the essay has the lung-cleansing scent that comes from a room full of people who can count for a living, but it indicates the path to take.

Now #4 makes me wince. I have this fantasy where NASA runs the cavalry, today's Navy and Air Force combined, which rescues space freighters and dizzy scientists on quixotic missions from, umm, unspecified dangers. The cavalry needs tactical weapons. But, strategic weapons turning satellites into debris which impedes launches and transport to and from Earth are verboten.

So, yes, I agree with Matt conditionally. If the current situation is all earthlings can devise, then unmanned missions are optimal. But, if we want to make space work for us and, as Chris prosaically argues, fulfill our humanity, then the US and China (and Russia) have to follow their better instincts. Between regressing to a 19th Century slugfest between mandarins, cossacks, and cowboys, and taming the commons, the last frontier, there's no metaphorical challenge.