Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why Australia should have a military space policy

By Marko Beljac - posted Tuesday, 2 December 2008


Having our own defence oriented space satellites, launched from the infrastructure provided by a civil space policy, geared towards intelligence gathering and communications would lower our strategic dependence upon the United States. The Department of Defence, in its submission to the Senate Committee, noted that access to the US system "has largely met Defence's needs, in particular for intelligence and more recently for satellite communications".

However, the Defence submission also stated that "assured access to allied systems may not necessarily be guaranteed in all circumstances and is subject to host nation priorities". It is quite clear that although access to the US system has largely met the needs of the Defence Department, it nonetheless obscures an Australian dependency in what will increasingly be an important factor in both global and regional strategic affairs.

An indigenous space based intelligence capability directed towards covering the sea-air gap to the north would decrease, but not eliminate, Australia's military dependence upon Washington. Greater situational awareness and communications provided by our own space assets would increase the Australian Defence Force's own network-centric warfare capability.

Advertisement

This would be an example of the militarisation of space, but one that militates against the case for the alliance and the need to engage in joint military operations with Washington globally. If the "peacenik Left" is indeed serious about Australia pursuing a "non-aligned and independent" foreign policy then surely it would not want to leave Australia strategically blind, especially as other regional powers are further developing indigenous satellite and space launch capabilities.

If the states of the Asia-Pacific develop their own space capabilities would it be wise for Australia to remain dependent upon the United States? Would the benefits of greater independence offset the cost of developing an indigenous space policy?

US space weapons hawks like to refer to what they call a "space Pearl Harbour". Australian strategic planners should be mindful of a "space fall of Singapore".

The Committee is right on target in its opposition to the weaponisation of space. Australia would be a loser if it adopts a civil space policy in the context of space weapons proliferation and the most rational outcome, from an objective national interest perspective, would be an indigenous intelligence and communication capability in the presence of a global ban on space based weapons.

In fact, it might well be the case that Canberra will support Washington's drive to weaponise space.

One possible link is with Ballistic Missile Defense. The Labor Party has generally opposed Australian support for, and participation in, US Ballistic Missile Defense since Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative; we might even call this "Labor tradition".

Advertisement

Labor continued to oppose BMD in opposition, but there are signs that the Rudd Government may be backtracking. Rudd led Labor sought to develop a distinction between theatre missile defence and strategic missile defence when in opposition, but now things are more blurry.

The previous government was all but set to acquire a Navy based ballistic missile defence capability, built around the US Aegis class cruiser, the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM-3 interceptor, which it claimed did not have a strategic capability.

The Rudd Government has inherited a Howard government study on the topic, which likely has become a part of the wider Defence White Paper process. The main focus appears to be on Aegis BMD.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy