![]() ![]() "The problem with nuclear weapons is not simply the fragmentation they can cause, but they also leave behind an electromagnetic pulse that can last weeks," Mr Sach said. The only demonstrated fully effective weapons in space are nuclear weapons and kinetic weapons, both of which scatter debris on impact. War in space would look pretty different to the dogfights we see in space blockbuster films.Ĭountries would focus on destroying each other's assets, rather than all-out battles with lasers and explosions.Īnother aspect the movies often ignore is the problem of space debris. "We need to get binding international law treaties on some of these issues complementing the existing fundamental principles. The Manual on International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS), which Mr Freeland contributes to, is a guide to what space experts around the world think the law is. The fundamental principles of the Outer Space Treaty are about peaceful uses for space, however these are decades old and don't go into specifics. Some people - like Professor Freeland - believe it needs updating, to prevent a space war from breaking out. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework for international space law. "The main safeguard is publicising the adverse consequences that would result from warfare in space - and assuring that it's well-known internationally that the nations most dependent on space would be the ones to suffer most," Mr Sach said. He hopes for a realisation that when it comes to space, we are all in this together.īut he said it's not too late to raise awareness about the potential negative impacts of space warfare. It can be likened to the Cold War concept of mutual assured destruction, where neither the US or USSR would launch a nuclear attack since doing so would all but guarantee retaliation on the same scale. "If you have talk about domination and making sure your assets are protected against anyone else, that has dangers of ratcheting up the possibility that others will react in a similar way." "All of that sort of talk has an effect, because other countries will look at that and react to that," Mr Freeland said. Some in the US believe if the country's space assets are vulnerable, then it must have mechanisms in place to protect them. So is Mr Trump onto something when he says the US needs a space force? GPS satellites (which are owned by the US) control many things we take for granted sewerage, traffic and aircraft navigations would collapse if these were compromised in space battle. The US has valuable assets in space, and some argue it needs a space force to protect them. "The more that you are dependent on something, the more vulnerable you are if that thing were to be compromised," Mr Freeland said. "We've got treaty law that makes it clear space is to be utilised for peaceful purposes."Īccording to Professor Freeland, the consequences of space warfare for countries that are reliant on satellite technology would be significant.Įven one day without access to space would be a disaster for the United States, Australia, Russia or China, he said, because they're so dependent on it. ![]() ![]() "We've had humans utilising space for military purposes and for a whole range of other amazing things for 60 years - and we haven't had warfare in space," Mr Freeland said. Steven Freeland, who specialises in space law at Western Sydney University, doesn't think so. When someone as powerful as US President Donald Trump announces the formation of an American space force, it's not hard to see why the military-minded have described war in space as an inevitability.īut is a real-life Star Wars really something we can expect soon? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |