Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The Defense Department's budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and defensive weapons, including a missile launched at a small satellite in orbit, testing a small space vehicle that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20 times the speed of sound, and determining whether high-powered ground-based lasers can effectively destroy enemy satellites.

Beam me up, Scotty, because I have a bad feeling about this.

The military says that its aerospace technology, which has advanced exponentially during the last two decades, is worth the nine-figure investment because it will have civilian applications as well, such as refueling or retrieving disabled satellites. But arms-control specialists fear the tests will push the military closer to basing weapons in space than during Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s -- without a public debate of the potential consequences.

The Bush Administration trying to do something without engaging the public for their opinion? Color me shocked!

Of course, the story goes on about the dangers: like how our enemies (and some allies) may actually take us testing space weapons as a threat to their existence and might try to accelerate their own plans for galatic warfare. Also, there's a blurb or two about how this shouldn't be seen as building the Death Star; it's just innocent orbital weapons testing.

Or is it? I mean, what's the real motivation here?

Under President Bush, the White House has emphasized what's known as ''space dominance" -- the notion that the United States must command space to defend the nation, a strategy that gained traction under Reagan. The military already has reconnaissance and communications satellites, but the Pentagon says weapons systems in space can protect commercial satellites as well.

This all sounds familiar somehow. Especially this part:

A Missile Defense Agency project set to begin in 2008, the Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, would launch up to five satellites capable of shooting down missiles, according to budget documents.

''A space layer helps protect the United States and our allies against asymmetric threats designed to exploit coverage and engagement gaps in our terrestrial defenses," the agency says in its budget proposal, referring to the interceptor test. ''We believe that a mix of terrestrial and space-basing offers the most effective global defense against ballistic missiles."

Hmm. Well, there was this (circa 2001):

"The position of the United States government concerning the ABM treaty is very clear. We believe that it is a treaty that prevents us from carrying out research, development, testing and evaluation of defensive technologies that are so important in this era.

"And President Bush has made it a high priority of our government to proceed with defensive technologies," Rice said.

Or this?

Well, there's absolutely no second thought about the importance of missile defense within the context of a restructured nuclear relationship. The world has changed. When the ABM Treaty came into being it was 1972. Poland was a part of the Wassau Pact. Poland is now a part of NATO. It's a very different environment. Russia is no longer our hostile adversary.

So the president is committed to restructuring the nuclear relationship and making defenses against limited threats from rogue states or accident launch a part of that new restructured relationship.

So really, I see two things: the White House wasting money on projects that can be addressed after the "Long War" is over, and that the mantra for foreign policy is, and has always been, "the world has changed."

Add this to things to remember for November.