The Cosmic Consequences of Space Weapons: Why they Must be Banned to Preserve our Future

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.

SpaceWeapons_featured2

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

vision_2020_graphics

The US Military’s “Vision for 2020” published in 1997

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.

1280px-Space_Laser_Satellite_Defense_System_Concept

1984 artists depiction of a laser-armed satellite firing on another in President Reagan’s proposed Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) program.

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

Accidental_Nuclear_WarThe 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?

About Dara

Dara Percival has a long-held interest in esoteric spirituality and ETs, and a strong wish for alternative spiritual subjects to remain visible and freely accessible to people all over the world. She writes and creates graphics for The Conscious Reporter, and occasionally posts spiritually-themed graphics on ReachingLight.com.

17 comments

  1. I came across this news flash on the next news network stating that the US must prepare itself for possible space attacks by China and Russia. It looks like the space based weapon agenda is being pushed forward. It’s no surprise to see the US turning the situation around by playing the victim and thereby they must defend themselves against foreign attacks. Instead Russia and China propose a treaty to stop the weaponization of space. I doubt if that option is ever considered before thinking, yeah, lets build weapons to defend ourselves as there is no other way.

  2. For anyone interested in understanding more about the dynamics of the weaponisation of space, the documentary “Pax Americana” does a good job breaking the issue down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRA5bEO0cUg

  3. Large tungsten rods, simply dropped from satellites, are totally devastating by the time they reach ground. Even nuclear-hardened bunkers cannot withstand their force. No explosives or lasers needed. Gravity provides all the energy.

  4. Thanks for shining a light on this issue Dara. If China and Russia want to ban space weapons, it’s a pretty clear indication there is an arms race already, otherwise those countries wouldn’t bother trying. History shows that if one country gets a military technological edge other countries will try to close the gap, and an expensive arms race ensues. An the more these capabilities build up, the more we are all threatened. This is what happened with nuclear weapons, and only an outright ban can stop the same thing happening with space weapons.

    A ban would actually increase national security and redirect funds needed elsewhere for all countries — so the argument it would undermine a country’s national security does not really add up. So it seems there must be an agenda to allow space-capable weapons development to proceed.

    I hope enough countries can get behind the treaty that only nine countries need to sign for ratification.

  5. Just came across a great quote that I feel relates well to this article:

    If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner – Omar N. Bradley

    Seems like a pretty smart guy!

    • Ike also warned against the military-industrial complex. The generals know what is going on, just as the Pentagon has warned about global warming. It is the politicians who are retarded – what is scary is they tell the generals what to do.

  6. I can imagine people who read this article can brush this armed space race off as sci-fi. I myself sometimes feel it is unreal when I talk to people about this, but from the links you provide anyone can see this is slowly and surely happening. Even a little research on the internet and youtube will bring a large amount of information regarding this topic.

    You clearly lay out the fact that several efforts are being made to prevent the weaponisation of space and the US not wanting to commit to it and a selected group seems indeed interested in the development of these systems. If you watch the below video you’ll see direct footage shot on board of NASA’s Space Shuttle mission STS-48. Apparently a beam of light is fired at what looks like a UFO. This footage was shot in the 90’s which makes you wonder what is currently is possible to attack ET crafts.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqMf3towVVI

    It will be very grave to see a selected elite few choose the future for humanity and isolate us from possible and peaceful contact with beings from outer space who can help us.

  7. NO ONE IS TRYING TO PUT NUKES IN SPACE, this has nothing to do with militarizing space, they are just p***** that the US might have better missile defense ability. You can hardly even call anti-missile Satellites weapons the only thing they harm is missiles

  8. Thanks for speaking out about this Dara. Hearing this type of thing makes me really sad. As though we didn’t harm the planet and ourselves enough already, we are now proceeding to expand our messed up way of life into outer space… Considering all the various issues you’ve brought up, it’s a wonder we haven’t annihilated ourselves already! The psychotronic weapons are a complete disaster as well. At what point do we hand over control over our minds for the sake of potential greater security against a non-existent enemy (to be controlled by the true enemies themselves)? What would a humanity like that look like? What comes to mind is brain dead bots, sitting safely, plugged into a computer, and managed at will “for our own good” and “for greater safety” — sounds a bit Matrix-like, or something straight out of Brave New World.

    • Yes, once I started looking into this I was really shocked that we hadn’t already blown ourselves up, considering the precarious situation created by all of these weapons.

      The psychotronic weapons are quite evil, and of course their development has been largely secret and hidden away from public scrutiny, because of the moral/ ethical/ spiritual implications. Taking control of another human being’s mind and influencing their behaviour against their will is just about as sinister as it gets. I think if the general public became aware of their existence and planned use there would be quite a backlash, even if those developing the weapons claimed it was for greater security or some other excuse.

  9. Thanks Dara, this is very serious and I hope to see a stop to this mess.

  10. Thanks Dara for this very grest and important article. It seems to me as well that the US is really wanting another type of cold-war happening where fear of a “possible” attack made controlling the public easy enough.

    Nationalism was also extremely strong and witch-hunt very easily implemented against people who dared to think different than the majority.

    This weaponization of space is very concerning and something must be done to make this treaty into law. Only 9 signatories – it can be done!

  11. richard spencer

    This is would be laughable if it was not true, is there any place within the universe that we can not contaminate, not only have we brought about our destructive behaviour here we want to continue it in space shame
    Like Dave said 9 countries to sign does not sound like to hard a task yet we cannot even achieve that, scary

  12. Thanks for the article Dara. I am suspicious of the reason why the US does not want to ban weapons – they don’t have a particularly good human rights record with the weapons they currently do have, what would they do with weapons in space that could target anything or anyone?

    The psychotronic weapons that you mentioned are pretty concerning too, along with the possibility of an accidental attack. As technology advances I’m sure we’ll see more artificial intelligence too – I wonder whether we are setting ourselves up for a Terminator type scenario.

    Pretty amazing though that it could all be stopped if nine world leaders were willing to sign the ISCOS treaty, that seems very achievable!

  13. Thanks Dara. Interesting stuff.
    I think the psychopaths are killing people using economics first, then war enmasse, then blow up everyone with nuclear or whatever if they are losing. They would rather kill themselves, the planet and everything than lose control and lose the game (as they see it). It’s a bit like a child that can’t stand losing so tosses the game board in a fit.
    I’m quite sure there would already have been many nuclear ‘accidents’ if it were not for the intervention of ETs. If we look at the US purposely igniting the oil fields in Iraq, it is a small step to dropping a bomb and blaming it on someone else.
    Whilst my first sentence may seem harsh criticism, I think it important to remember that often people creating ‘evil’ plans have a belief and ideology that justifies the plan. To them it is not psychopathic or even necessarily bad, they may well believe it ‘good’. For example many intellectuals firmly believe eugenics is simply ‘nature’ and natural. In the same way humans breed cattle, so too should the elites breed the ‘best’ people and kill off the defectives etc. Evidently there comes a point were consciousness in its positive aspect is amiss, completely suffocated by evil belief, logic, intent and action. Rather than use consciousness and human intelligence to raise the level of being of mankind generally, and tap into ways of healing, love and support (eg. Mesmer), evil chooses self-preservation like all abysmal egos. Instead of aiming to prevent and or heal ‘defectives’ evil would rather slaughter them or ignore them so they die off and aren’t an inconvenience. This approach is totally devoid of ‘human-ness’ and simply animal, or worse than animal. Ironically blowing people up with nuclear weapons creates a huge amount of genetic ‘defectives’. So I wonder sometimes what rationale evil employs, if any. Is evil ideology simply transient, changing with the times and culture, but underneath there is simply raw horrendous maleficence. At what point is your type of person or belief also considered ‘defective’ and due for elimination?

    • Your comment reminded me of what happened in Greece recently Shane. When everything started falling apart and the ‘undesirables’ started being rounded up and put into camps. Maybe disasters are an opportunity to crack down on minorities?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Shares
Share This