The latest U.S. National Space Policy (NSP) poses a serious threat to the national security of other countries. This new policy, released in October 2006, sets out the Bush administration's vision for defending America's security in space. It reinforces a unilateral U.S. approach to space security, which is compounded by the U.S. opposition to any international treaties that limit its access to or use of space. Aggregately, Bush's space policy pursues hegemony in space and poses a significant security risk to other countries that cannot be left unaddressed.

Emerging threat

The NSP presents a number of challenges to the global security environment. First, it grants the United States exclusive rights to space: the right to use any and all necessary means to ensure American security while at the same time denying adversaries access to space for "hostile purposes." This sets up an inequitable environment of "haves" and "have-nots" in space, raising suspicion among nations. For instance, the NSP declares that U.S. space systems should be guaranteed safe passage over all countries without exception (such as "interference" by other countries, even when done for the purpose of safeguarding their sovereignty and space integrity).

With its significant space assets and military space capabilities, the United States derives an obvious and unfair strategic advantage in space from this situation. Second, it refutes international restrictions and undercuts potential international agreements that seek to constrain America's use of space. This effectively undermines any potential initiatives put forth by the international community to control space weaponization---initiatives many countries support. This U.S. position leads the global community to suspect U.S. unilateralist intentions in space.

Last, while the policy may not state it explicitly, a critical examination of its contents suggests its intention to "dissuade and deter" other countries from possessing space capabilities that can challenge the United States in any way, a parameter that would effectively not allow other countries to possess even a minimum means of national defense in space. The resultant security environment in space is one with one set of rules for the United States and another set of rules for other nations. In such a context, only U.S. security concerns are taken into account, which reinforces the zero-sum dynamic to which space is already prone and threatens to reassure others of a military space race.

The United States denies that its position, as represented by the NSP, will inevitably lead to conflict in space. First, officials in the defense establishment argue that the United States is not opposed to others exploiting space commercially. Rather, it only opposes the utilization of space in a way that puts at risk U.S. dominance in space and its military capabilities. In this context, it is argued that if other countries have purely civilian and commercial interests in space, they should have no problem with U.S. policy in space. Put another way, implicit in much of American thinking regarding other countries' intentions in space is a view that if these countries have no plan to militarize space or no intention to develop space weapons, U.S. ambitions in space should not be considered inimical to these countries' interests.

This position operates on several faulty premises. The first is that the United States is the only country that has national interests at stake in space, implying that any other country does not have deep national security interests in space or that any other country's space assets do not need to be protected.