U.S. Is Not Developing Space Weapons

Pentagon Official: U.S. Is Not Developing Space Weapons

By Peter B. de Selding, Space News Staff Writer

posted: 20 February 2009 7:53 am ET

STRASBOURG, France - The United States is not developing space weapons and could not afford to do so even if it wanted to, an official with the Pentagon's National Security Space Office said Thursday.

Pete Hays, a senior policy analyst at the space office who is also associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said U.S. policy on space weaponry has remained pretty much the same over the last 30 years despite the occasionally heated debate on the subject during the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

"There has not been one minute spent on this issue as far as I know," Hays said of U.S. Defense Department policy on using weapons in space. "There are no space weaponization programs. It's an issue that academics like to flog now and then, but in terms of funded programs, there aren't any. I can tell you that categorically."

Hays made his remarks during a space security conference organized by the International Space University here. He said that even if the United States decided to embark on a space-based weapon system, it could not pay for it given its current military program commitments.

Hays said the U.S. policy of refusing to sign a treaty banning space-based weapons has not changed since the 1970s. Despite occasional efforts, no administration, Democrat or Republican, has been able to craft an acceptable treaty.

Hays said he cannot explain why a policy statement from the new administration of President Barack Obama appears to highlight a priority of seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that would interfere with satellites. "This will be an extremely difficult policy to adopt" for the same reasons that other administrations have fallen short, Hays said. "It is not for lack of trying that the United States and others have been unable" to produce a treaty.

Russia and China continue to try to win support for such a treaty at the United Nations Disarmament Conference.

In a separate presentation to the conference, John Sheldon of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., said defining space weapons will never be possible to the extent demanded by a treaty.

"Four guys in black pajamas who attack a satellite control station: That too is a space weapon, and you cannot stop it," Sheldon said.

Was this guy around back in the 80's when the effort was well underway to develop space based weapons during the Reagan "Star Wars" initiative?

We already have them. This reporter should re-check his sources.

All of the development and deployment happens under the black op agenda. Thus there is no record of it.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-2-2009 by RFBurns]

What?!
Come on -
I'm just a simple minded pleb -
and I know more than this guy.

Why then, does the Pentagon have a Buck Rogers-sounding Space Command?

This is what's known as "the big lie." IIRC, it was Goering who said in effect, don't bother for half-truths, go for a whopper; the public will swallow it better.

It also comes with extra cheese.

reply to post by Mak Manto


When something is catagorically denied like this, I know for a fact that the opposite is really the truth.

One of the reasons why I'm not paranoid as some people on here.

Bush, during his presidency, was a huge supporter of space weapons. The Outer Space Treaty bans any weapons in space or on the moon. Obama is a big opponent against weapons in space.

This is a good move.

Hilarious how the guy said the u.s. hasn't developed any space weapons "as far as he knows" LOL!!! Shows that he just doesn't know squat does he.

Does this sound to you anything like the classic Government phrase, "plausible deniability"?
This poor guy has obviously been fed the official line, and knows no different.
There have been more than enough Shuttle 'Military' missions to have put up any number of space weapons, and we are just stuck here waiting for the deployment.