of course on you to morrow we'll have a special movie preview of atlas shrugged as i would take deliberate oh and what veterans for rethinking afghanistan is the way to get bipartisan support on capitol hill today this is our progress from washington d.c. and. john martin here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

the official location. called talk from the. video on demand. on the call. we'll. bring you the latest in science and technology from around the world. the future of coverage.

i've. been.

in a real thirty eight. they're going to go try to do it. at present it is not known if weapons capable of striking targets on earth are already deployed in space however orbiting insult systems are being researched. the u.s. military is developing what the air force in particular has called prompt global strike that is basically currently we have nuclear missiles that could strike anywhere on earth within thirty minutes. what the military is talking about is a similar conventional capability that could be used to knock out say a chinese anti-satellite weapons launcher in

a matter of minutes. a number of concepts are being studied with this notion of a prompt global strike. in two thousand and eight fifty million dollars was allocated to project a supersonic plane capable of reaching any point on the globe in only a few minutes and right up to six tons of bombs. orbiting space satellites that would actually have missiles on it that could be fired from space and reach a target in literally five to ten minutes as opposed to the current thirty minutes . military doctrine also for seize deploying batteries of missiles that orbit the planet striking at over seven thousand miles an hour these projectiles would be capable of wiping out simultaneously two hundred targets on the ground with the destructive power of a nuclear device satellites can identify

a target through overhead imagery process communications about the target between military decision makers and then guided bomb precisely enough to destroy the target with one shot. would it really be that big a step or for projectile itself were also launched from space there's no practical difference and i don't have to say that the person on the receiving end wouldn't see the distinction either. with all our technology we know bloody well that we cannot be assured absolutely one hundred percent that our bombs so-called think bombs smart bombs are hitting the target we know from afghanistan and iraq alone in the last few years and that's

a fallacy you ought to think civilian people you are not using day right bases what you are doing is wrong how much worse with the probability of hitting the wrong target or hitting ourselves from outer space would be we have no way of calculating that it's not possible. at least one weapon could go right and land in iowa or new york city or god knows where you know that that's a reality and if if we don't accept that we just whistling in the dark and we're going to be victims of our own technology. telling us. that moving the arms race into space will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet earth they can't take any chances they have

to have an enemy they have to make people afraid someone's going to tax us with nuclear weapons we've got to have missile defense in order to protect us from attack iraq. one of the rogue states iran north korea and now they throw china into that equation. for the last three years the pentagon has been trying to make china the new book and china unwittingly played into the united states hands with its anti-satellite test. according to sun experts this anti-satellite test didn't come as a surprise to american officials. at the time i was at a conference in colorado springs and the military officers in the room actually left to watch the test in real time so they were observing the actual chinese and the satellite as we know about every space launch we know

about every product launch we have reconnaissance and surveillance satellites second detect all these we detected the chinese test for example in fact we detected to two previous chinese tests that failed so we know about this it's extremely difficult to hide this space tests they're one of the most observable weapons tests you can possibly imagine. everything indicates that china's anti-satellite test was intended to make the world aware of the united states intention to dominate space by doing so is china also show the united states that the orbiting weapon can be shut down. we wouldn't really want to see in the future and surrounded by all to lay

weapons which will make many kinds even more vulnerable than the situation today. at the united nations china with many other nations has since the 1980's and trying to expand a nine hundred sixty seven outer space treaty. presently the treaty prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space but doesn't prohibit conventional weapons. each year this design into initiative is rejected by the united states. it is hundred sixty two one hundred seventy one united states is the only nation actually voted against this were isolated on this issue.

while we try. pushed our allies into consideration of more strategic independence from the united states in space and some people would argue perhaps in europe that that's a good thing maybe it's better that europe has to change independence and space because they can serve as a counterweight but from a a u.s. view point it would seem to me that you would want your allies integrated into your system. of a dollar for the european military should equip itself with a wider array of military space systems in support of telecommunications navigation and information for ground troops us from distilled us on it there are only use out but. we don't have them which certainly weakens the european armed forces

and a nato makes them very dependent on the american spirit. is going to what does one need when one is in gauged in a military. in europe or more precisely in from britain because let me tell you europe does not yet exist in a military sense. no europeans still rely on the american g.p.s. . during periods of diplomatic tension access to the american g.p.s. can be denied by its own. like russia and china europe is developing its own global navigation satellite alternative known as the galileo system. you create enemies you terrify your friends and you really didn't mean to do that was not what you know if you're a strategic thinker you just certainly do not want to be terrifying your allies

that's not a code way to go and you don't want to be provoking your enemies into taking actions to counter you. so i think we've stepped way over the rhetorical line here . but in the united states anyway and we have to figure out how to to back away from that because we're actually creating negative consequences and more spurring other people to do things that will challenge us and. for a number of decades the united states has been pursuing a military doctrine of space control. however even without a treaty in place in space the u.s. congress alone could apply the brakes to such developments it would be nice to think that space weaponization is preventive not because there's a huge outcry against it although that would be an interesting prospect too because no one including our own nation has the money to spend on this anymore in an era

when the united states still maintains a five hundred billion dollar military budget every year i don't think we can count on. that happens it's early and saying oh we are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to develop space control means that a treaty would take care of would make unnecessary if we had the world to negotiate such a treaty if we took a lead. we could get one it wouldn't be easy it would be a very difficult thing to do but it could be done. we're. going to treaty and all anti-satellite weaponry and ground based lasers conventional missiles and most orbiting systems can be used to destroy satellites. to truly guarantee that kill vehicles would only target

missiles not satellites or burst down objects. and. proponents of a new treaty argue such promises are untenable and too late. weaponization of space has happened a long time ago. this idea that it's a pristine environment that if only we stop where we are right now all will be well it is simply nonsense for certain experts a wider range of international understandings will be needed to guarantee the peaceful uses of space we do indeed need a united nations treaty this is not enough this is only step one step two says ok space has been militarized there are military networks in space many of them like g.p.s. are useful but we should work on international treaties to make those military space networks used for multilateral purposes do i think that's going to happen i'm

very doubtful but i have to keep hoping and believing that there is a prospect for that. those fearing the weaponization of space could find hope in baracoa bombers election got tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending cut investments in a proven missile defense systems will not weaponize face. as soon as he took office the white house announced that it would be seeking a worldwide ban on reckons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. however it proved difficult to change decades of entrenched military policy and programs to weaponize space. history suggests that

nations do not voluntarily disarm they disarm because they're defeated or they make small adjustments in the way they buy and build and deploy their weapons but no superpower says you know it would be better if we were weaker i don't recall that ever happening. obama went on to allocate billions of dollars for a full range of space control systems me including a program called offensive counter space. in the pentagon define this new program as offensive measures to disrupt. degrade or destroy any adverse or is base capabilities.

the air force academy in colorado springs for the doctrine of space control and its possible consequences are studied. it's hard to change space period already without attacking so i'm afraid that if we want space we're going to have to tear and resistance which i don't know if you know much about all mechanics but if you created debris up in space that would just be in the way for you as well and it kind of started chain reaction and pretty soon you just have a cloud of debris surrounding earth. about six hundred thousand fragments flying through space at ten times the velocity of a rifle bullet. all these objects are traveling at fourteen thousand

miles an hour so even an object the size of a pea traveling at that speed has more force than a. cannonball. right now the problem with space junk is so high that nasa is worried that if there is never another watch of anything into space it has every launch creates a little bit of debris. in fifty years time. certain orbits will be so polluted that nobody can operate there because the stuff that's already up there will start breaking up and creating more and more clutter. as satellites destruction unleashes a storm cloud of debris that fouls out in space and threatens everything in orbit. the point really is creation i agree in this manner a good idea or a bad idea and clearly it is a very bad idea because there is no way to go up and clean that up.

the more times you go into space and you begin to practice destroying other satellites you create so much space junk that you literally create the very likely possibility there is some point in time you will not be able to get a rocket off the planet earth because it'll be like a minefield around the planet and you won't be able to escape the minefield with that rocket because it would be destroyed by all the space junk there so we've got to begin to look at space as an environment. we have several hundred billion dollars of investment in the peaceful uses of outer space i'm talking about weather satellites positioning

satellites. a scientific satellite. the entire world communication network is all satellite oriented. all this incredible investment from the united states and from the european union and canada other countries like this all this is completely a jeopardy if we start putting weapons in outer space how would our world change if we lost the use. satellites they want six fifteen am communication satellites hovering over the americas fall mute over a swath of the globe with g.p.s. coverage collapses atomic clocks on g.p.s. satellites can transmit universities and the time i think an isolation of nasa infrastructure is failed. three hundred fifty million cell phones are disabled. hundreds of millions of internet connections vanish around the world card payments and bank accounts freeze billions of dollars or start from the industries and

businesses triggering a financial crash news services are crippled city streets relying on g.p.s. for traffic management are in chaos electrical grids are destructive winds loans of cottons are blinded by blackouts. coastguards are deaf the ships distress calls. dozens of aircrafts are missing air traffic controllers are fighting panic worldwide flights are grounded for call back why didn't one there's been a cascade of traffic train both in the aircraft accidents. so far the world is awarded such a catastrophe. but a space war would kill satellites and blast tons of wreckage into orbit. the system we rely on would shatter and be impossible to restore. every nation would suffer the consequences of armed conflict in space still some maintain that being the

first place weapons in space remains the best of. the time six twenty five and this is especially as part of the conference on world affairs we're discussing the militarization of space there is a poet inside that maybe rapidly closing or united states could dominate or where there would be no arms race frankly i think it's doable i think the march of technology will mean that even if we got a lead on other nations in attempting to do that sooner or later. we will again be challenged it's kind of like what happened there to world war two we had the atomic bomb nobody else i figured oh my god we thought we had a bigger explosive and with our comic weaponry. we would be able to dominate the earth compared to last very long the soviets are an atomic bomb the chinese said on its own. likewise a space to think that we can move up there with weaponry and be allowed to be the king on the air the throne of space is

a tragic mystery corrosion. everybody thinks that. is a dangerous idea that will prompt other countries to also develop space weapons this year. india has been discussing whether or not it needs to build its own weapons you can be sure india does it that is down will be thinking about it in a heartbeat as well israel has also been discussing this issue so what you see now is that the tension for domino. some nations would yield the american domination others would attempt to counter the united states think and pass the control of space by a single superpower all nations most stable and unstable could be dragged into a new arms race. the european union has been up until now opposed to the weaponize ation of space. but for how much longer see it is immunity for the us continues to

develop not only military satellites but also space based weapons will have to think about it and find ways to defend ourselves from them merican threats and the arms race that even with trigger good will be quickly. russia has declared that if the united states goes on pursuing its doctrine they will have no choice but to destroy a longer than threats. give americans deploy. phase based antibodies the new style defenses then could you imagine interceptor based on the space stations military stations would longer fly j.d. thore or three d. thore old school try and not their food because he did it as a quite unacceptable i seen course russians.

seriously ruin it because he has star wars is no longer a fantasy it is a reality of the good of course such a policy is the catalyst of an arms race. the new domination of the factor of force is nursing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction my solution doesn't. believe it exists it will since in russia's opinion more of the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community and you could provoke nothing less than the beginning of a new nuclear era. the size the negative environmental impacts in outer space the policy of space domination could also have a b. stabilizing effect on earth. the weaponization of space could be the trigger that unleashes nuclear war. signy anxiety and just by putting weapons in space or

launching weapons from space downs were. cording juice by accident by human fallibility god designed by terrorists take on a launching out through nine thousand hydrogen bombs inducing short ice age in an adjacent my screeches on the planet. well the age of the nuclear precipice about. the military use of space seems inevitable the rapidly evolving technology and the lack of a strong treaty these the door open to the most bellicose vince thinks in space.

every year the air force academy adds its most brilliant graduates to the ranks of the masters of spades the chances for preserving outer space for peaceful ends remains the challenge of the world at large usually we're trying to bring back weapons systems after they've been deployed nuclear missiles we're trying to bring them back here's an opportunity one of the first times in history actually that we have a chance to be proactive we have a chance to stop a new arms race before it actually happens that's why this moment is so crucial. the debate over space weaponization is the most critical debate for the next century and we are on the verge. of making decisions and may nations around the world about which path to choose.

wealthy british style. markets. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max culture for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to the report on our feet.