Space-based lasers Bruce Gagnon talks about their reality, and a host of other things the government is wasting your money on — including Aegis destroyers BY JESS KILBY

Q: Are there any specific government projects that the American public should be worried about right now?

A: The developments on these space-based lasers are very, very important. The Pentagon has said that these technologies are very difficult to create, but I’m one that does not believe they will not succeed. Some people say "Ah, this stuff will never work," whether it’s so-called missile defense — the idea of having a bullet hit a bullet in space — or space-based lasers. There’s a new project called the air-born laser — a converted Boeing 747 with a laser beam on its nose. Its job would be to fly over a particular country and if they tried to launch anything to hit it immediately, as soon as it was launched in what is called its "boost phase."

Another program that is very important that is now undergoing testing is the sea-based launch program, and these are outfitted on the Aegis destroyers made at Bath Iron Works. It’s now had four tests. Its most recent test in June was a failure — they tested it off the coast of Hawaii.

What they are doing on the Aegis is they’re outfitting them with missile interceptor systems . . . and the Aegis destroyers would be forward deployed surrounding a particular country, so that if they tried to launch anything you’re right up close to the shore, you hit it immediately, firing from the Aegis and knocking it out.

There is a whole collection, then, of these different systems: space-based systems, sea-based systems, air-based systems, and they’re saying that probably not all of them are going to work, but the more we develop and the more we test, some of them will work.

I think that collectively what we see then is an enormous, enormous fiscal investment in creating this new arms race for space, knowing that some of them indeed will work.

In addition to the [United States Space Command’s Long Range] Plan for 2020 that says that the US will control and dominate space . . . there is another planning document put out by Congress. Congress asked for a congressional staffer to write the definitive study on this whole thing, and his report to the Congress was called "Military Space Forces, the Next Fifty Years." And in here he lays out the plans for orbiting battle stations, space-based lasers powered with nuclear reactors, all these kinds of things. He also talks about the need for military bases on the moon, and he says with armed bases on the moon we would be able to hijack rival shipments upon return.

Now he’s thinking long term; he’s thinking of the day when you can go out and mine the sky, come back with gold from the asteroids — and if anyone else tried to do it, with our armed space stations and our bases on the moon . . . I’ll read you the entire quote: "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments upon return."

Now this book — it was turned into a book, published by Congress — the book is signed by the likes of John Glenn, who at that time was a senator; Bill Nelson, who used to be the congressman from Cape Canaveral, went up on the shuttle, now one of the two US senators from Florida; and a host of other leading politicians that work on space issues. So this is really a very chilling document because it really does show this long-term vision, not only of the Pentagon — some people say "It’s just the Pentagon, they’re crazy" — but here we have key politicians in the United States Congress, in the House and the Senate, saying "Yes, this is an incredible document, we need to follow this as our vision for the future."

Q: That’s frightening.

A: Yeah, it is. It’s piracy.

Q: Other countries are developing space-race weapons as well — how do we defend ourselves against the same type of domination at their hands, without creating these systems ourselves?

A: Well right now there is no one who can compete with us either technologically or economically. First of all, nobody can play this economic game; nobody has the money and we barely do. Like I said, we’re going to have to raid Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, [and] education in order to do this, and it is very clear that that is what is going to happen.

China, for example, today, has 20 nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States. We have 7500. They don’t have the money to compete in this game. They are trying to develop space capabilities, they are beginning to create some space satellites that give them the ability to launch rockets, but they are in the elementary-school stages compared to us.

The former Soviet Union, Russia, was in the game . . . but with the break-up of the Soviet Union and now the bankruptcy of Russia, the life expectancy of males in Russia is 48 years now. So their economy has totally collapsed; they can’t afford to play this game any more.

The only possible competitor to the United States, at this time or in the future, would be the European Union, who today has just the most elementary space program. They are now developing a program called Galileo, that would allow them to have reconnaissance satellites in space. I’ll tell you a story just to illustrate this. You remember the Kosovo war? NATO was our ally in that war — the European countries were with us, and in that war we were bombing, together, Yugoslavia. Well I was reading articles in industry publications like Aviation Week and Space Technology, that the Europeans were furious with the United States because here they were involved in that war with us but we would not share with them any of the satellite reconnaissance information with them. So their planes were flying over dropping bombs but we wouldn’t give them any of the satellite information to show them how things were going. And they were furious and said "Never again will this happen."

So, coming out of that war, the EU has begun to create its own satellite program to view the earth outside of the US GPS system. [But] I’m just reading . . . today, in various industry publications that I subscribe to, that they’re having major fiscal problems in order to pay for just that program, something that we had established a long time ago, and we are now moving on to weapons in space, and nobody is near us.

And what is interesting is that, for the last several years, Canada, Russia, and China have gone to the United Nations General Assembly and introduced a resolution calling for a ban on weapons in space — let’s close the door to the barn before the horse gets out. Today nobody has weapons in space. There are a lot of military satellites in space and lots of technology, but no actual weapons deployed in space. So let’s have a treaty, say nobody can do it, and that way we don’t create a new arms race.

Well, for the last couple of years, this resolution passed the United Nations General Assembly unanimously except for the United States and Israel abstaining. And the US position is "We won’t negotiate a global ban on weapons in space because there isn’t a problem." Well, obviously we don’t want there to be a ban on weapons in space because we have an agenda — a clearly defined agenda.

Q: Isn’t there an existing outer-space treaty of some sort?

A: There is. But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, it bans all weapons of mass destruction in space, [but] the Pentagon says "It’s an outdated treaty and we, with our new technologies, can get around it." For example, the space-based laser powered with nuclear reactors would not be a weapon of mass destruction, it would be a weapon of selective destruction and therefore we would get around the treaty.

Q: What’s going to be the focus of your speech at the USS Momsen protest?

A: I’m really going to focus on the role of the Aegis destroyer in the US military strategy.

First, let me read to you a couple of things from the Pentagon Missile Defense Agency. They say that the fundamental goal of the planned ballistic missile defense system is to defend the forces and territories of the United States and its allies. But when they say "defend our forces and territories of the United States" they’re not just talking about the continental United States. What they’re really acknowledging is that the United States is a military and economic empire in the world. We have our troops and ships deployed around the world.

In fact, Representative Allen — I’ve seen transcripts of statements in which he has said things like Aegis destroyers . . . their job . . . is to protect troops and ships around the world. The real fundamental question is: What are our troops and ships doing around the world? And what they are doing is participating in this global empire. And who does this global empire represent? They say we are protecting our interests around the world — whose interests are they really talking about? And in this case I think it is clear to say what we are really talking about is corporate globalization.

So the Aegis destroyer that is made here in this state, creating X number of jobs, its job is not to protect the American people from attack from anyone — it is not to protect the coast of the United States. Its job is to forward deploy, and in this case they are going to forward deploy it . . . in Taiwan, 90 miles off the coast of mainland China, and surround China. Remember I said China only has 20 nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States, and we have 7500? And if you have been to Wal-Mart recently you’ll notice that we are China’s best customer. China is not going to attack the United States with nuclear missiles, but we’re going to deploy the Aegis to surround China and China has already said that if you deploy the systems with these new interceptors that would essentially negate China’s 20 nuclear missiles, they will be forced to go and build more — to create, essentially, a new arms race.

This is a provocative move on the part of the United States and I believe, for one, that it is intended to try to control China. There was an article in the Washington Post about two years ago entitled "For the Pentagon, Asia moving to the forefront." And the article said that the United States will now begin to manage China. And the way we are going to manage China is by doubling our military presence in the Asian-Pacific region, so that we will be able to dictate terms to China . . . Because we fear that they, left unattended, will become a major economic power of the world, that they will be even bigger than us and we want to make sure we control them . . . This will cause an arms race and I believe that’s what they want. Because if China does go and build more nuclear missiles, then the US government can come back to the American people and say "Look what they’re doing. They’re building more nuclear missiles. We’ve got to have missile defense more than ever to protect us from China. We have to have more Aegis destroyers, more missile defense interceptors, more space-based lasers because of what they’re doing."

And this what I think it’s all about — building the empire, protecting the interests of the corporations.

Q: It also sounds like we’re trying to out-spend China into collapse, like we did to the Russians.

A: Exactly. You know if military spending — and we all acknowledge this as fact — destroyed the Soviet Union because they neglected everything else, in this case it would do the same to China. But what does that mean to America?

Now some people say "Oh, you can’t complain about Bath Iron Works, you can’t complain about the Aegis destroyers because they create jobs in Maine." But there is empirical evidence that says that every million dollars you spend on military production, yes, you create X number of jobs, but, in every single instance, when you take that same million dollars and put it into any other kind of job production, you create more jobs per million dollars than military spending does.

What I am saying is that the money that is pumped into Bath is a loser. We are getting less jobs for that money than if we were to build schools and hospitals and fix roads and do environmental clean-up or hire teachers — whatever, create a world-class health system that everyone could use.

It’s not good for the country, and it’s one of the reasons our economy is taking a dive, because we’re wasting money on capital-intensive programs that do nothing, they put nothing back in to the society. You can’t read or eat or sleep in an Aegis destroyer.

Jess Kilby can be reached at jkilby@phx.com

For more information about the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space visit www.space4peace.org