Two alternatives are available from which to formulate this position. One is to advocate unrestricted or total freedom of international and outer space, while the other is to advocate absolute control supported by a means of either international or unilateral enforcement.

freedom above the national air space

A decision to advocate complete freedom of space must be based on the acceptance of the absence of state sovereignty above the sphere of national air space.

Advantages will surely accrue to the pioneers of space through experience, and military advantage could be quickly exploited in the development of advanced weapon systems of space and the development of much-needed reconnaissance vehicles to increase the effectiveness of the weapon carriers. However the ability to maintain a wide margin of lead over all probable opponents indefinitely is problematical. The nature of the threat in relation to the amount of national resources necessary to achieve it brings it within the grasp of smaller states of the world, and the devastation that is possible through the use of space weapons could then bring even the smallest state to the fore as a world threat. If such a condition should prevail, it is not improbable that the entire world might be subjected to intense and continuous tension as international space became saturated with the military vehicles of several powers or numerous alliances. The prospect of such uncontrolled use of devastating power is unacceptable. Obviously, some form of international control is necessary if the nations of the world are to exist in comparative peace.

control by international agreement

In 1948 when Secretary Forrestal made reference to an earth satellite in connection with a report on unification of the services, the world press reacted violently. "Will America possess moons of war?" "Will the Elbe frontier be defended from the moon?" "It is a campaign calculated to terrorize the people." The military potential of such a vehicle was recognized immediately and full appreciation of those capabilities exists today. Yet President' Eisenhower's announcement in 1955 of U.S. plans for construction of a satellite vehicle for scientific research purposes during the International Geophysical Year was enthusiastically received by scientists and editors the world over. The contribution such a vehicle would make to the various branches of science had been recognized for many years.

The principal reason for the change in attitude toward the satellite was undoubtedly the open and frank declaration by the United States of its intent, which has done much to bring together groups of several states that otherwise could not have worked in harmony. Thus it appears highly desirable to press for future control through either the International Civil Aviation Organization or a similar United Nations organization, backed by international agreement on a set of rules pertaining to the filing of "fight plans" on all vehicles expected to operate above national air space. The

Definitions of Space Strata

Three practical definitions for the division of space are proposed for adoption by the Air Force and by any international body concerned with the use and control of space:

national air space the area bounded by the geographic borders of a state extended along radial lines considered to originate at the earth's center to terminate at a height of 50 nautical miles above mean sea level. The figure of 50 miles was arrived at as the useful altitude at which aircraft may operate that depend on reaction of the air for lift and control and which is adequate to permit free operation of air contrivances of advanced design around the earth's surface without serious restriction as to speed and navigation. Also by this limit a portion of atmospheric density above national air space is available in which free-fall vehicles can decelerate and assume a glide path comparable to that of powered aircraft before re-entry into the national air space of a sovereign state. State sovereignty is implicit in the term "national air space." All air space above international waters would remain international as now recognized by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

international space that area of space between 50 and 2000 nautical miles above mean sea level, without regard to national boundaries. Within this layer will fall the great number of vehicular and orbital trajectories. Ballistic missiles aimed halfway around the earth need not exceed an altitude of 2000 miles. This height is sufficient for trajectories incident to the launching of orbital vehicles of a permanent nature. Powered space vehicles could establish orbits or flight paths within international space and depart outward or return to earth as desired. Operations within this space are considered more pertinent to earth than to other planets or to interplanetary space travel.

outer space that area of space beyond 2000 miles, to infinity. This definition is useful militarily as meaning the region where operations are not closely earth-associated but are more related to interplanetary transit.

groundwork of common understanding and mutual interest has been laid and the nature of the new threat is generally understood by all. Therefore a proposal by the United States for international control should prove at tractive to a majority of states.

What would be the position of the controlling agency toward those states not in agreement to a form of international control? Here the decision to forcibly protect the security interests of the majority would have to be made. It is questionable whether such a decision could be reached in the United Nations, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that the threat of the employment of satellites and other space vehicles in military roles soon after the International Geophysical Year may alter the resisting side of world opinion, as it is known today, and produce a different concept of cooperation.

Evaluation Staff, Air War College

1

MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF OUTER SPACE 1

Statement by Loftus Becker, legal adviser 2

The Department of State has a deep and abiding interest in the problems of outer space. What the United States Government should do with respect to this entirely new field of activity, with its as yet unexplored potentialities, poses highly important questions of national policy and of defense policy. It also inevitably poses highly important questions of foreign policy.

In my testimony today I propose, after referring very briefly to certain basic principles, to discuss four major aspects of the problem of outer space. These are as follows:

1. the problem of insuring that outer space is used for peaceful purposes only;

2. possible international cooperation in outer space;

3. international law affecting outer space; and

4. the pending bill.

BASIC PRINCIPLES

The basic pattern of our existing foreign policy with respect to space is no different from that which we have with respect to international relations here on the earth. In conformity with our undertakings under article 1 of the United Nations Charter, it is our purpose to insure that-in space as on the earth-international peace and security are maintained and that international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace are adjusted or settled in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

We are in favor of international cooperation in solving international problems. At the same time we are dedicated to the maintenance of the legitimate national interests of the United States, and we hold firm to our inherent right of individual and collective self-defense against armed attack, which is fully recognized under article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

I believe that my testimony today will demanstrate that the Department's policy with respect to outer space is wholly consistent with the basic principles I have just described.

THE PROBLEM OF INSURING THAT OUTER SPACE IS USED FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES ONLY

The most immediate problem in the field of space foreign policy is how to insure that outer space is used for peaceful purposes only. As

1 Reprinted from U. S. Department of State Bulletin, June 9, 1958, pp. 962–967. 2 Made before the Special Senate Committee on Space and Astronautics on May 14.

your chairman [Senator Lyndon B. Johnson] put it in his opening statement before this committee:

The challenge of the atomic age, at the beginning, was to harness a vast destructive power to prevent its use in war.

The challenge of the space age, at the beginning now, is to open a new frontier to permit its use for peace.

You are doubtless well aware that the United States Government has already taken an initiative in this field. The United States recognized the importance of determining now what steps can be taken to assure that missiles and other outer-space vehicles, already in the development stage, will be utilized solely for peaceful purposes.

This recognition stemmed from the fact that today these military space instruments are in the early stages of development. With the passage of time and their continuous growth and refinement, the problem of effective international control becomes more difficult. This point is best illustrated by a similar historical problem. In 1946 international control of the military use of nuclear energy could have been attained with relative ease. Today, as we well know, control of the atom has become a much more vastly complicated and difficult task.

Fully cognizant of this lesson of history, the United States proposed to the United Nations on January 14, 1957,3 that:

the first step toward the objective of assuring that future developments in outer space would be devoted exclusively to peaceful and scientific purposes would be to bring the testing of such objects under international inspection and participation.

This was the first recognition by any nation of the immediate need to deal with this compelling problem.

Since that time we have repeatedly stressed the need-and our willingness to reach agreement in this vital area. During the 1957 United Nations Disarmament Subcommittee meetings in London, in concert with our allies, we formally proposed beginning measures to control, for peaceful purposes, the sending of objects through outer space. This proposal reflected our earlier expressions of concern over the dangers of surprise attack and the outbreak of accidental war. It represents an extension upward of our aerial and ground inspection proposals. This proposal was designed to allay these same dangers which are inherent in the continued growth and proliferation of missile-delivery systems.

4

Again, in January of this year, President Eisenhower in a letter to former Premier Bulganin expressed our concern and our desire to reach agreement on this matter. I should like to quote from that letter, which reads in part:

I propose that we agree that outer space should be used only for peaceful purposes. We face a decisive moment in history in relation to this matter. Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now using outer space for the testing of missiles designed for military purposes. The time to stop is now.

I recall to you that a decade ago, when the United States had a monopoly of atomic weapons and of atomic experience, we offered to renounce the making of atomic weapons and to make the use of atomic energy an international asset for peaceful purposes only. If only that offer had been accepted by the Soviet Union, there would not now be the danger from nuclear weapons which you describe.

3 Bulletin of Feb. 11, 1957, p. 225.

Ibid., Jan. 27, 1958, p. 122.