We've been watching the development of space stories, beginning with the theme of asteroid mining as an example of space collateralization, and more recently, the revelation of technologies intended for the militarization of space. In the hypothesis I've been proposing, the process of collateralizing space began shortly after WW2, and coincident with the founding of the national securitty state in 1947, and the hidden system of finance based on recovered Axis loot established and made top secret by President Truman. With collateralization and commercialization inevitably comes the militarization of space, as technologies must be developed to defend the expanding human frontier from "whomever." As I've also pointed out, the technologies to mine asteroids are conveniently also the same ones that could conceivable blast them apart, as with the story of the Japanese "space cannon" that I blogged about a few days ago.

Now that effort is being raised to the international level, notwithstanding conflicts of geopolitical interests on Earth:

United Nations to Lead Efforts to Defend Earth from Asteroids

Asteroid Threat, Earth, and the United Nations

Russia and the USA Eye a Teamup to Massive Nuke to Save the Planet from an Asteroid

So let's indulge in our trademark high octane speculation here: why the need for international cooperation? There are, of course, the obvious reasons: an effective system of planetary defense will inevitably require a massive near-space tracking and cataloging effort, and the ability to destroy threatening objects, and this is best done as a cooperative effort among the world's space powers(the USA, Russia, China, the European powers, India, Brazil). But I submit there is a less obvious reason, but one that is just as important in the calculus of "cosmo-politics".

Suppose, just suppose, that there are "others" out there, and, as all indicators suggest, "they" have been closely watching Earth since WW2, and have displayed an inordinate curiosity and concern over our growing technological capability, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons. As I have argued in my most recent book, Covert Wars and the Clash of Civilizations, humanity entered a "Tower of Babel Moment" of history at the end of WW2, when there was a clear though subtle threat implied by UFOs. Then, during the space race, President Kennedy and Soviet premier Nikita Krushchev came very close to "teaming up" for a Moon mission. This, according to some, was a scenario deliberately sabotaged by the JFK assassination. That is to say, the prevention of such a joint effort was one possible underlying motivation for the murder of the President (and, lest we forget, of the ouster of Krushchev from power not long after that). This is a scenario that I am inclined to agree with in some respects. Then, as the late Lt. Col. Philip Corso advanced in his now famous The Day After Roswell, the USA managed to "stalemate" the pesky UFOs during the 1980-1990 era. Again, notwithstanding massive problems with Corso's work pointed out by other researchers and by me, I am inclined to assign to this assertion some degree or kernel of truth.

All of these considerations are the necessary background that indicate that something in the strategic "cosmo-political calculus" has now changed. The cooperation unthinkable in the 1960s is now perceived as a quiet but urgent long term strategic necessity. There are aspects of the Chelyabinsk meteor that others have suggested were indicative of an event that was not entirely natural in character, and again, I am inclined to entertain the hypothesis. On that basis then, someone was sending someone else some messages. And with the possibility that the meteor's destruction may also have been not entirely natural, then yet another message was being sent by someone to someone else.

Putting all of this into perspective then, one ends up with the high octane speculation: as humanity is poised to expand its presence considerably in near Earth space via commercial activities, and as such expansion inevitably implies a militarization of space to protect those activities from "whomever", the need for an international effort is not only geopolitical, and financial in nature (to spread the burden and make such effort more "cost effective"), there is also a cosmo-political reason: to present to "whomever" the picture of a united planetary political will, purpose, and instrumentality, notwithstanding local national interests. And at the minimum, such a "potential threat" also constitutes a convenient vehicle by which to leverage the transition to a global federation, for the purpose of planetary defense. After all, this was also the logic behind the adoption of the current US Federal constitution, and it was also the meme promoted by the elite of the moment to achieve it, since, at the time, the major global powers of the day - France and England - had no intentions of invading the small republic. But the potential was there, and became a reality in the War of 1812.

The calculus of terrestrial politics is poised to change dramatically, if this whole scenario be true.

And as most of the readers here know by know, the asteroid defense plan was the penultimate stage in the Von Braun-Rosin allegations of the arguments that would be advanced for space militarization. First Communism, then terrorists, then nations of concern, then asteroids, and finally, "the others," extraterrestrials.

As a reader here put it in a comment on a previous blog, we're now at about "half past asteroid" on the Von Braun clock.

See you on the flip side.