China and Russia have proposed an updated UN treaty to ban space-based weapons amidst fears the weaponisation of outer-space could prove disastrous. But why does the US government, which has the world’s largest military, continue to block it? If the weaponisation of space is not stopped, the dangers to humanity will be huge, with cosmic consequences.







The Chinese and Russian governments submitted a joint treaty to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament on June 10 calling for a total ban on outer-space weapons. The treaty is an updated version of an earlier 2008 draft presented by the two countries, and is aimed at preventing an arms race in space. However, the US government refuses to support it.

midst concerns the weaponisation of outer space will prove disastrous – See more at: https://consciousreporter.com/?p=923&preview=true#sthash.DyCwzLDA.dpuf

midst concerns the weaponisation of outer space will prove disastrous – See more at: https://consciousreporter.com/?p=923&preview=true#sthash.DyCwzLDA.dpuf

midst concerns the weaponisation of outer space will prove disastrous – See more at: https://consciousreporter.com/?p=923&preview=true#sthash.DyCwzLDA.dpuf

Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is already in effect, which prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit, this treaty does not ban the placement of conventional weapons in outer space. This has led to the current concerns of an outer-space arms race as nations secretly build up space-capable weapons systems.

The dangers posed by an arms race in space are grave enough, but there are even more reasons to be concerned. There have long been indications of secret plans for a false flag alien attack scenario in the future, which would force countries to unite under a global military force to fight a faux “alien” threat undertaking staged attacks on planet earth using covertly-developed space-based weapons. Tied in with this is a long-running agenda to demonise extraterrestrials by portraying them as hostile entities to be feared in popular films and fiction (despite evidence of their peaceful intentions) which could also serve to condition people for a future hostile “alien” attack. If plans for a false flag alien attack are really in the works, could this be a possible motivation for allowing the development of space-capable weapons to proceed?

The implications of space weapons even go beyond the physical threat they could pose. Humanity is also facing a serious spiritual threat to its ability to know the reality of the cosmos. The potential for a false flag scenario not only makes it possible to frame extraterrestrials for a future attack carried out with space weapons, but this would also serve to create even more fear and hostility towards beings from other planets. Extraterrestrials are said to have reached a level of consciousness beyond ours and could therefore provide spiritual guidance in our troubled times; however, a false flag scenario would only serve to further isolate humanity and block us from receiving outside help.

If we allow the weaponisation of outer space to proceed, we are effectively enabling a small elite group desiring military expansion above all else to wield enormous power over humanity, potentially with the capacity to clandestinely initiate the next world war while cutting us off from receiving interplanetary help. This makes the need for a binding treaty now, before the weaponisation of space accelerates, all the more urgent.

The China-Russia Treaty

The 2008 version of the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space bans placing anything in outer space that could be used as a weapon or turned into a weapon, and prohibits taking hostile actions towards space objects.

According to Chinese Foreign Minister spokeswoman Hua Chunying, the newly-submitted 2014 version:

“takes into account new developments over recent years in terms of outer space security as well as opinions and concerns of all countries in a balanced way, amending and improving the draft treaty jointly proposed by China and Russia in 2008. It reflects the two countries’ efforts to promote negotiation on and formulation of the treaty on arms control in outer space and prevent outer space arms race.”

Despite revisions, the US government is opposed to the newest version of the treaty on the grounds that it “does not meet the necessary criteria” of being “equitable, effectively verifiable,” and it does not “enhance the security of all”. One major issue cited by Frank A. Rose, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, is that there is no effective way to monitor and confirm a country’s compliance with the treaty, even though this latest revision added in provisions for executive oversight.

Another major issue cited by Rose is that the treaty does not ban research and testing of anti-satellite weapons launched from earth into space. The treaty does prohibit using them, but any country could technically build whatever anti-satellite weapons they like under the guise of research and still remain compliant. The US has also stated it is more interested in a non-legally binding code of conduct, emphasising transparency between nations.

Is a Treaty Really Necessary?

The US government has argued for years, that there is no arms race in outer space yet, and therefore no need for arms control. Although the overwhelming majority of UN states agree that the weaponisation of space should be prevented, the United States government is unwilling to agree to measures which could pose a threat to its national security or unnecessarily limit its outer space options, and has for decades blocked agreements which ban space weapons.

Considering that about half of all satellites in orbit are US-owned, and these are not only used for commercial purposes, but also play an integral role in military strategy and operations, the US government has an interest in having the ability to secure space as the ultimate military high ground and maintain a stable environment for commercial interests. But can a stable environment be achieved through the use of space-based weapons by the world’s-largest terrestrial military power which has in previous decades blatantly expressed the intent to dominate and control outer space at all costs?

Space Weapons vs. Space Resources

Another inherent problem lies in defining what constitutes a space weapon. The unique environment of outer space means that even the tiniest bit of debris can inflict major damage on fragile space assets. Couple that with the fact that most space technologies are inherently dual-purpose (can be used for either peaceful or combative purposes) and this means that anything placed into or interacting with outer space is a potential weapon.

For example, lasers beamed from Earth or space can be used to either track a satellite or to dazzle and blind its delicate sensors. Small maneuverable satellites can be used to inspect a larger satellite for problems, or guided to crash into and destroy an enemy satellite. This could have a dramatic affect in our hyper-connected age where communication, navigation, and weather data are completely intertwined with outer space, especially if a systematic attack were launched to plunge multiple satellite assets into darkness concurrently. Then there are the exotic and sinister variety of psychotronic weapons, which if positioned at the correct orbit around Earth, could potentially influence the thoughts, emotions, and sensory perceptions of individuals, groups, or even the whole world.

Defense Means Offense

And what about missile defense systems? Should a ballistic missile, launched defensively from Earth into space to destroy an enemy missile, be considered a space weapon? Again, it all comes down to user intent due to the dual-use nature of the technology, but the fact that missile defense systems could easily be converted to anti-satellite purposes has led to speculation about the true intent of nations developing this technology.

From back in the Reagan Star Wars days to the current US government missile defense programs, vast amounts of money and resources have poured into the development of these “defensive” technologies, although there is debate about whether these missile defense systems even work. The only certainty after decades of research and development, is that the United States government has a formidable weapons arsenal, and this imbalance of power, along with their reluctance to commit to a total ban of space-based weapons, is reason enough for other nations to proliferate. A recent PLA report highlighted the threat the US government poses to China’s space security while the US government remains suspicious that China’s government is secretly testing anti-satellite weapons. Using this rationale, the never-ending cycle of suspicion and fear against potential enemies who might have weapons, might take those weapons into space, or might be developing new technologies for which new weapons systems are needed, feeds the booming military industrial complex, which is only too happy to produce and sell these systems indefinitely.

A (Normal) Accident Waiting to Happen

The current space weapons situation becomes exponentially more grave in light of the theory of normal accident, which states that the more tightly complex a system becomes, the more likely unforeseen interactions between parts will occur, leading to accidents which are inevitable and therefore “normal”. A classic example of this is the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Although the latest breed of directed energy weapons or ballistic missiles have been tested to a certain extent by the science that created them, these high-tech systems are rapidly becoming more automated with greater destructive capability. The truth is that humanity is teetering on a dire precipice, clutching a dazzling array of massively destructive push-button technologies, ready to launch them into orbit. Do we really understand the consequences of filling the space above our heads with instant-strike weapons pointing back down at us? Is this an example of human foolishness or arrogance, recklessly ignoring the potential for accidental nuclear war?

Building on the China-Russia Treaty

Another treaty is offered by the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space (ISCOS), which expands on the China-Russia treaty. Drafted by a highly credentialed team of former aerospace, government, and military officials, its aim is to take the best of all previous attempted agreements and create one encompassing document to permanently ban space-based weapons. While it does not ban weapons systems based on Earth, the advantage is that it can be downloaded by anyone with initiative and taken directly to world leaders for signing, and thus potentially bypass the usual lengthy UN processes. Only nine countries’ signatures are needed for this treaty to become world law.

Interestingly, the authors of this treaty, several of whom were Disclosure Project witnesses, acknowledge that high-level contact with extraterrestrials (referred to as Cosmic Cultures) has already taken place. They report that extraterrestrials pose no threat, and have interacted with humanity for a long time. Instead, Cosmic Cultures are regarded as a source of help to humanity for developing new technologies and evolving consciousness. One of the coauthors of the treaty, Dr. Carol Rosin, has spoken openly about an ET contact experience she had, where she was explicitly told that one of the requirements for humanity to have widespread face-to-face contact with extraterrestrials was a total ban of all space-based weapons (such weapons do not only threaten our own world, but are seen as threatening to other worlds, too). The ISCOS treaty attests not only of our need to ban space weapons, but to redirect the enormous financial and mental resources currently working towards destructive purposes into the growth of peaceful space-based technologies waiting to be developed.

Humanity’s Future Hangs in the Balance

There is a certain mindset which views the weaponisation of outer space as inevitable, a sort of “next step” in human conquest to ensure full spectrum dominance over one’s enemies. There is also the argument that the United States government and those of other nations need to “enforce” peace, secure trade and commerce, and defend themselves through the use of space-based weapons.

Clearly the weaponisation of space will enrich the megacorporations producing the goods, and further empower the military-industrial complex, but at what physical and spiritual cost to all of us living on planet Earth? Are we willing to pay the ultimate price for sending super destructive capabilities out of the confines of our planet, and sitting back quietly as this vital planetary issue is decided for us by a tiny minority?