Obama's space weapons ban screw up

Reuters:

President Barack Obama's pledge to seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy while posing the tricky issue of defining whether a satellite can be a weapon.

Moments after Obama's inauguration last week, the White House website was updated to include policy statements on a range of issues, including a pledge to restore U.S. leadership on space issues and seek a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites.

It also promised to look at threats to U.S. satellites, contingency plans to keep information flowing from them, and what steps are needed to protect spacecraft against attack.

The issue is being closely watched by Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, the biggest U.S. defense contractors, and other companies involved in military and civilian space contracts.

Watchdog groups and even some defense officials welcomed the statement, which echoed Obama's campaign promises, but said it would take time to hammer out a comprehensive new strategy.

Enacting a global ban on space weapons could prove even harder.

...

It would also be unenforceable. It is a silly idea right up there with the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s. Most of the spaced based weapons the US would put in orbit are defensive in nature and if our enemies were to put offensive space based weapons in orbit those defensive measures would be all the more important.

Obama's attempt at unilateral disarmament of the US in this area is a huge screw up that will put us at greater risk.

Weapons ban treaties are of marginal value to begin with. The 1930's ban on building new battle ships resulted in the emergence of the air craft carrier. One of my favorite examples of the failure of a weapons ban was the Japanese limitation of the use of Samurai swords to Sumarias. The results was the development of all those exotic weapons you see in the martial arts films.