But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same.
This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
A lot of mainland Chinese people use a new version of exactly this. If Uyghurs are ever mentioned the first thing I hear from mainland people is "Yes but the US and Iraq" and similar statements.
Falling for what? Nobody quoted any Russian source nor position (except you, I suppose).
If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either.
I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones.
The “Space Force” has nothing to do with militarization of space, for starters. Its conception was a rearranging and centralization of command, not an expansion in capability.
> The U.S. Space Force is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities will include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.
And goes on to say:
> USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
> Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
Yes: military use != militarization. Let's consider hypothetical: you quoted this:
>> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Let's invent the "US Logistics Force", a new hypothetical branch of the US Military:
> The U.S. Logistics Force (USLF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USLF responsibilities include developing military logistics professionals, acquiring military logistics systems, maturing the military doctrine for logistics power, and organizing logistics forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Would the existence of such a force be a militarization of transport links? Not necessarily. It could just be akin to a civilian shipping and logistics company where the drivers wear military fatigues and sometimes drive unusual 8-wheeled heavy lift trucks [1] to strange destinations.
The USSF isn't militarizing space because it's not stationing weapons up there, and the kind of stuff it does put up in space, for the most part, are the kinds of things civilian organizations have also put up there (communications, sensor, and navigation satellites).
I've been really digging Vincent Bevins's work recently, but I didn't realize until I looked at the link above again in order to include it here that he had written that as well. See his page for more great stuff:
This is how all geo-political moralization works, by any country. There's always an excuse, there's always an enemy to blame, and there's always someone else you can point a finger at, and justify your behaviour.
> Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it.
That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in?
How does that make any sense?
If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism.
If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India.
If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about?
Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon.
> The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law.
> Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
> It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV).
> However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
Just a side note: The BBC article isn't about anti-satellite weapons generally. It's about a satellite that is itself an anti-satellite weapon. The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit. Blowing up satellites is bad no matter where the weapon sits, but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations.
> The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit... but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations.
Conventional weapons in orbit aren't illegal, and there are no treaty obligations that prohibit them.
The BBC either didn't do the most rudimentary research, or is engaging in misleading propaganda. (It is quite ironic to find that a subthread about Russian propaganda is rooted in a such a fundamental error of fact. We are well and truly in the post-truth era.)
Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)
Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.