Pirates vs. Private Military Firms

The Lawless Fighting the Lawless

By Shaun Randol, 1/2/2009

Pirates are a hot news item these days. Increased ship seizures around the Horn of Africa have renewed interest not just in piracy, but also on how to combat the criminal behavior as well. And now, seeing profits to be had in policing pirate-laden waters, private military firms (PMF) have stepped into the fray. In the Gulf of Aden’s anarchic waters, one of the world’s busiest shipping channels, pirates and PMFs are poised to make millions of dollars plying their respective trades. The lining of their pockets, however, is not the only thing these disparate factions share; international law regarding the treatment of these groups is equally murky. In the choppy waters around Somalia, mixing pirates and PMFs, with sprinklings of NATO, European, Russian, Chinese, Indian (and soon, maybe Japanese) warships as well as possibly some rogue, militant, Islamic terrorist groups, makes for a dangerous, potentially violent, concoction.

As of this writing, there are at least fifteen ships and nearly 250 hostages being held by Somali pirates, including the Sirius Star, a bulk vessel loaded with 300,000 tons of crude oil, and a Ukrainian ship containing 33 military tanks. “Pirates based in Somalia have made the waters off east Africa some of the most dangerous in the world,” reports GlobalSecurity.org (11/24/08). “There were 15 attacks on ships in or near Somali waters from January to July 2007-two of these on World Food Programme (WFP) contracted vessels… compared to 10 such attacks in 2006.” Tellingly, more than thirty vessels were hijacked in 2008; in the weeks preceding the turn of the year, at least ten vessels were seized. Somali pirates engaged in more than one hundred attacks in 2008, more than twice as many as the previous year.

2009 is shaping up to be no different. On January 1, French authorities intercepted to pirate vessels as they were about to seize a Panamanian vessel. Eight Somalis were arrested. Elsewhere in the Gulf of Aden, however, pirates captured the Blue Star, a cargo vessel with 28 Egyptian crew members aboard. The same day, a Malaysian military helicopter thwarted a pirate attack against an Indian tanker.

Acts of piracy on the high seas often occur in ambiguous, international territory. State military warships (from, for example, NATO, the U.S., or Europe) combating piracy do so in uncharted waters, so to speak. (The ink is still wet on a UN Security Council resolution authorizing countries to pursue pirates on land and sea using “all necessary measures”). Private military firms eager to contribute their services provide an attractive alternative for states and shipping companies looking to clear the waters of such pesky riffraff without the risk of sparking international incidents. This does not mean, however, that utilizing PMFs represents a straightforward option.

When it comes to combating piracy, international law lacks both teeth and clarity. The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines piracy as “all illegal acts of violence or detention … committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship.” (Accordingly, if the objective is political-not economic-in nature, the act may be terrorism rather than piracy). Piracy, according to UNCLOS, within territorial waters is a crime against the state and subject to national laws. But what if, as is the case with Somalia, there is a weak local government or no state to speak of? UNCLOS states:

“On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate-ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.”

France took advantage of this clause as far back as April 2008; Special Forces captured six pirates who had seized a French passenger vessel, and then sent the captured pirates to Paris for due process.

Unlike France, however, states like Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and others are (so far) hesitant about using military force against pirates. NATO’s Standing Naval Maritime Group just finished its mission escorting WFP ships (none of its four vessels engaged in decisive, anti-pirate action). A European task force of ten ships-codenamed Atalanta-moved into the region this month, but it is unclear to what extent they will engage or pursue Somali pirates. Meanwhile, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) has also called for a UN blockade of the dangerous waters. With no such barrier forthcoming, a lack of security in the region as a whole, and with no apparent cessation in acts of piracy, there are economic and diplomatic openings private military firms seek to exploit.

Sensing that pirated waters will remain “uncontrolled,” private shipping companies will increasingly seek alternative means to securing their financial interests. Indeed, such ventures promise to be highly profitable business opportunities for PMFs, some of which are already participating in anti-pirate activity around Somalia. Drum Resources Limited, a British PMF, for example, offers protection services of four guards stationed on a commercial ship at a price of $8100 per day. Secopex, a French PMF, will provide security escorts at a cost of $12,000 per day. For about $30,000, British-based Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions provides vessels with three private guards and a small arsenal of non-lethal weapons (e.g. long range acoustic device, water cannons). By late November, 2008, this PMF had teams on seven ships. “Inquiries are going through the roof,” said principal Nick Davis. With average ransom amounts hovering around $1 million, hiring PMFs becomes a financial no-brainer to shipping entities. Yet while Davis’ company has seen some action, he also acknowledges Anti-Piracy’s exploits “purely displace the threat” to other ships.

Citing “major terrorist implications” of the piracy problem, Blackwater Worldwide-the infamous PMF continuing to make headlines in Iraq-is also offering its corporate services in the waters off Somalia. The firm’s small ship, the McArthur, can hold two helicopters and 35 personnel and would provide a security escort for ships sailing through pirate-waters. Unlike Anti-Piracy, however, Blackwater will deploy lethal force against potential pirates if necessary. In an interview with “Defense News,” Blackwater’s owner Erik Prince addressed the gray areas in maritime rules of engagements by underscoring “…a pretty clear use of force continuum, from warning shots [to] laser dazzlers. But frankly, if guys are in a small boat, in a twenty-foot fishing boat in the middle of the Gulf of Aden, holding an RPG, he’s not out there fishing. So clearly, you know what their intent is.” In short, “the sharpshooters on board the two helicopters on Blackwater’s ship, the McArthur, will do their jobs” (October 26, 2008). At the time of the interview Prince reported Blackwater was in negotiation with thirteen different shipping lines to provide security against pirates. Other PMFs like Hollow Point, Defense Services, ArmorGroup, Secopex, and Asia Risk Solutions, to name a few, are also looking to gain a foothold in this potentially lucrative-and ambiguous-line of work.

An increase in reliance on private military firms to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden will have far-reaching implications. In Iraq alone, where there are more PMF contractors active than coalition forces, PMFs have caused much consternation. Yet, while Iraq’s war is largely contained (geographically speaking) piracy is quite literally a global phenomenon. “The concentration of piracy incidents continues to be located in areas with little or not maritime law enforcement, political and economic stability, and a high volume of commercial activity,” notes GlobalSecurity.org. “Incidents of piracy tend to occur in four regional areas: Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, and Central America. Furthermore, most incidents of maritime crime occur in coastal waters with nearly 80 percent of all reported piracy incidents occurring in territorial waters.” This last bit of reality in the pirate trade makes it difficult for foreign militaries to intervene without sparking an international incident. Hence, the use of “politically neutral” private entities like Blackwater to protect commercial vessels becomes an increasingly attractive, security alternative. A dangerous, security precedent is being exacerbated off the coast of Somalia.

If piracy is haphazardly regulated in international law, then PMFs operate in an even grayer area. There is no substantial, international treaty regarding the use of private military firms. A Protocol added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977 (APGC77) comes closest to defining parameters for PMF involvement in the international arena, though it specifically deals with “mercenaries,” a moniker many PMFs find objectionable and outright reject. APGC77 loosely defines mercenaries as foreign nationals motivated by private gain hired to fight in armed conflict and “is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict.” By many accounts, today’s PMFs would fall into this broad definition, especially if they operate in Somalia’s territorial waters (or if, for example, the Iraqi government hires outside PMFs for security tasks). Still, the U.S., where most PMFs originate, is not a party to this Geneva Protocol, leaving firms like Blackwater to operate in legally murky zones. The 1989 UN Resolution 44/34, International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, does nothing to clarify the situation.

The success of Somali pirates will likely encourage copycat actions around the world, which will, in turn, increase the need and/or reliance on private military firms to tackle the problem. (Insurance premiums for shipping companies are already on the rise). If PMFs are hired to clear the waters around Africa (or elsewhere) of pirates, many new questions surrounding these two groups will arise. What plays in the waters off the African coast, for one, may not go over well with countries like, say, China, who has a vital interest in the Straits of Malacca-another pirate-patrolled shipping channel.

Moreover, accountability becomes a serious issue: if a PMF kills an innocent fisherman or destroys private or state property, for example, who should be punished? The state who hired the firm? The private shipping company that placed the guards on their boats? The private military firm employing the trigger-happy guards? International law is decidedly unclear in this matter, creating a dangerous juridical vacuum.

Right now, the use of PMFs in fighting pirates is a case of the lawless fighting the lawless. It is anarchy on the high seas. Profits to be gained from piracy-and from fighting it-are magnets for an increase in both adventures. What we are witnessing off the African coast is another instance of private enterprise increasingly filling the voids of traditional state functions. If states or international bodies like the UN do not step into this fray to control the situation, beginning with bolstered international treaties on the uses of PMFs, the lawlessness in the waters off Somalia portend more trouble than just inconvenience for international trade.

Shaun Randol is an Associate Fellow at the World Policy Institute. He regularly contributes to the World Policy Journal blog, is a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus, and regularly publishes in academic journals. Mr. Randol is also a research assistant at the India China Institute and an independent research consultant.

Forum at UH to discuss UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

KAMAKAKUOKALANI CENTER FOR HAWAIIAN STUDIES PROUDLY PRESENTS:

MILILANI TRASK AND OTHER INDIGENOUS EDUCATORS
IN A PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
[PASSED BY 143 NATIONS ON 9/13/07]

WHAT DOES THIS INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT DO FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS?
FOR PACIFIC ISLANDERS?
FOR OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE WORLD?
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
TIME: 6:30-9:30 PM
PLACE: HALAU O HAUMEA,
KAMAKAKUOKALANI CENTER FOR HAWAIIAN STUDIES
2645 DOLE STREET [$3 PARKING IN ZONE 7A PARKING STRUCTURE]

PANELISTS INCLUDE:

MILILANI TRASK: HISTORY OF UN DECLARATION OF RIGHTS & UPDATE ON PRESENT LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
JULIAN AGUON: DEMILITARIZATION IN GUAM
KYLE KAJIHIRO: DEMILITARIZATION IN HAWAI’I
JOSHUA COOPER: HUMAN RIGHTS
KEALI’I GORA: SELF DETERMINATION FOR HAWAIIANS
LILIKALA KAME’ELEIHIWA: EDUCATION, LANGUAGE & CULTURE

FOR MORE INFO CONTACT JULIAN AGUON julianaguon@gmail.com

CO-SPONSORED BY KAMAKAKUOKALANI CENTER FOR HAWAIIAN STUDIES, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, INDIGENOUS WORLD ASSOCIATION, NA KOA IKAIKA, KUALI’I COUNCIL, HAWAI’INUIAKEA SCHOOL OF HAWAIIAN KNOWLEDGE

Hawaiian Star Wars

Hawaiian Star Wars

John Lasker / Mar 7, 2007

In January, a Chinese missile snarled and flashed its fangs 500-miles above the earth’s surface. China, in a show of its space war-fighting capabilities, had obliterated one its own weather satellites with a ground-based missile interceptor. Later that month, while still in the fall-out of China’s provocative action, the United State’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) shot down a dummy ballistic missile as it skirted the edge of space, 70-miles above the Pacific and not far from Kaua’i.

The dummy missile had been launched from a mobile platform floating off the coast of Kaua’i. Traveling at more than 10,000 feet per second as it closed in on the dummy, the interceptor missile had been fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Barking Sands on Kaua’i’s western shore.

For the MDA and many of its private contractors from the aerospace industry, it was reason to stand up and cheer. This was the first time the Pacific Range had showcased the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system since Missile Defense had moved it from a New Mexico desert in October. THAAD is, in military parlance, a mobile ballistic missile interceptor.

But while the invading MDA unit and their peers at PMRF celebrated, it was more bleak news for island peace activists and those worried about the militarization of Hawai’i.

There is no doubt that missile defense tests or ‘Star Wars’ tests are on the upswing in the Pacific and Hawai’i. Some peace activists and arms control experts believe this is a sign that beginnings of a new arms race, a chess match of space-combat prowess between China and the United States, is brewing in the Pacific.

This potential arms race has far greater implications than which nation can build the more powerful laser or the first to launch a ‘killer satellite’ constellation. It is a race that signals to the international community that a future war between China and the U.S. may be inevitable. A war between an emerging superpower and the current champion that could be sparked by the skyrocketing demand for energy resources. A war fought on traditional battlescapes such as land, water and air, and not-so-traditional-cyberspace and outer space. It is a conflict where the frontlines could easily engulf the Islands.

‘If you think about it,’ says a Naval officer from the Islands who spoke on the condition of anonymity, ‘the threats we’re facing are going to be coming from space.’

In the mean time, some are speculating on what China was trying to accomplish by turning a satellite no bigger than a refrigerator into a 1,000 little floating pieces.

‘The [anti-satellite] test could have been a strategic move by the Chinese to bully the United States into actually discussing (a space weapons) treaty,’ states space-weapons expert Theresa Hitchens. The current White House is telling the world there’s no need for a treaty, says Hitchens, who directs the left-leaning Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank.

‘There certainly are many in U.S. policy and military circles who believe that China is the new threat, and that the United States must ready itself for an eventual military conflict in the Pacific,’ she says.

Son of Star Wars

Maine resident Bruce Gagnon is the coordinator for Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. He has traveled the world warning peace activists and university crowds about the MDA, which he calls the ‘son of Star Wars.’

Since President Ronald Reagan called for a space shield in the early 1980s, the Pentagon and its space hawks have spent more than $100 billion on research. More than 20 years later, former-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to revive missile defense. And though he’s gone, he and others managed to double funding for missile defense and make it the premier research quest of the Pentagon.

All U.S. missile defensive capabilities, however, have an offensive application as well, says Gagnon. That is why he calls Star Wars a ruse, a Trojan horse.

‘It has always been my contention that the Missile Defense Agency is in fact creating an offensive program that includes anti-satellite weapons and other first-strike space weapons programs,’ he says.

Gagnon, a veteran of the Air Force, has kept a close eye on the Pacific. He has traveled to Japan to rally peace activists there as that nation spends more and more on U.S. missile defense. Citing Pentagon documents and major newspaper reports, the Global Network coordinator says the Pentagon is slowly doubling its military presence in the Asian-Pacific region. Pentagon officials say over 50 percent of their ‘forward looking’ war games took place in Asia during the last decade.

Like other observers, Gagnon agrees a Sino-American war could erupt over the global competition for oil. But he also believes this: The U.S. may try to manage China’s development before it even comes to this. ‘China, if left alone, will become a major economic competitor with the U.S.,’ he says. ‘The U.S. wants to control the keys to China’s development.’

To do so, the U.S. will arm the Pacific with a high-tech arsenal, such as space weapons, which can, among other things, knock out satellites and thus blind a modern war force. ‘China imports much of its oil through the Taiwan Strait and thus if the U.S. can militarily dominate that region, then the Pentagon would have the ability to choke off China’s ability to import oil,’ he says. ‘The U.S. could then theoretically hold them hostage to various political demands.’

Some of Gagnon’s peers in the arms-control field have labeled him a chicken little and his theories too far out there. But after what the national office of the ACLU uncovered, he’s being criticized less and less these days. Two years ago, the ACLU discovered that ‘agents’ from NASA and the Air Force were secretly monitoring him and his family.

Full Spectrum Dominance

Just hours after China blew up its own weather satellite, calls were made on Capital Hill to ramp up the U.S. space warfighting arsenal.

Peace activists and arms-control experts could only shake their heads.

They know the Pentagon has quietly been making the case for ‘full-spectrum dominance’ for the last 10 years. Besides rising missile defense budgets, numerous defense papers have called for the U.S. to militarize the ultimate high ground, even the moon.

Why the Pentagon desires to weaponize space while also shifting much of their global warfighting focus and missile-defense research from Europe to Asia-Pacific is the subject of a contentious debate. China does have a small cache of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S. The world’s fastest growing economy has also made overtures to regain its lost province-Taiwan.

But China isn’t the only Asian nation keeping the Pentagon on edge. North Korea has threatened to strike Hawai’i with ballistic missiles and in the late 1990s fired a ballistic missile over Japan. Last year the regime detonated a nuclear weapon underneath a mountain and test-fired several ballistic missiles-on July 4 no less.

‘Our stance is the increasing missile defense tests are a destabilizing factor. The tests are provoking an arms race in the region between nuclear powers’

-Kyle Kajihiro
local peace activist,
DMZ Hawai’i

Kyle Kajihiro is one of Hawai’i’s most notable peace activists. He directs the Honolulu-based DMZ Hawai’i and believes there may be a simpler reason as to why missile defense research is on the rise around the Islands.

As if mirroring the resurgence of Star Wars, the increasing militarization of Hawai’i has coincided with two significant events, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 and the election of President Bush in 2001. What’s too easy, Kajihiro adds, is targeting the current wave of Republican leadership in Washington for allowing defense funding to pour into the islands. You also have to blame the gatekeeper who has the keys to the federal safe that houses the Pentagon’s money, the peace activist says.

‘Sen. Daniel Inouye wants the money to pour in. They (Inouye and allies) want defense contractors to set up shop here,’ Kajihiro says. ‘The Congressional earmarks are not necessary. That’s my gut feeling. The North Korean threat has been completely exaggerated.’

There’s no debate that Sen. Inouye is a war hero and his contribution during World War II a story of legendary proportions. Sixty years later, however, Inouye’s influence and power as one of Washington’s veteran senators has allowed Hawai’i to become a ‘destabilizing’ factor in the Pacific, Kajihiro says.

Fifteen years ago the Navy’s Pacific Missile facility at Barking Sands was on the Pentagon’s list for downsizing and possible closure. In 1999, Kajihiro claims that Inouye sought to rejuvenate the facility by co-sponsoring the National Missile Defense Act.

The Clinton administration, which significantly cut missile defense funding during the 1990s, criticized the bill. But it passed anyway and Inouye secured nearly $50 million to upgrade the missile range. ‘It was the beginning of the flood gates opening for a lot of these missile defense projects around Hawai’i,’ says Kajihiro.

Sen. Inouye is the third most senior senator. He also chairs the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee and has declared many times his position has helped Hawai’i economically. Indeed, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan think tank, 60 to 65 percent of all military-related earmarks during the last several years went to the states of senators who sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

As Christmas neared in 2001, a time Congress worked furiously in the wake of 9/11 to beef up 2002’s defense budget, Sen. Inouye’s committee quietly doubled Hawai’i’s defense budget for that year. The Islands would receive a total of $850 million, which doesn’t include payroll or day-to-day expenses.

Of the $400-million plus in new 2002 appropriations, $75 million was allocated for cleaning up unexploded ordinance at Kaho’olawe. But $150 million went to missile defense research. Other funds were added to ambiguous projects that peace activists claim could someday contribute to space weapons.

For instance, $6 million was given to the Silicon Thick Film Mirror Coating program, an ongoing research project on Kaua’i. Peace activists say the coating will someday be applied to space-based mirrors that will relay ground-based or space-based lasers around the globe.

Twenty million also went to the Air Force’s Maui Space Surveillance System, located on the summit of Haleakala Mountain. There, the U.S. military operates its largest telescope-the Advanced Electro-Optical System. One of its responsibilities is to monitor asteroids that may strike earth.

‘I’m not buying any of it,’ says Kajihiro, who believes he telescope will be used for missile defense and space combat. The military says the telescope can also track satellites; it also admits that laser-beam research continues at the site.

During this decade, Hawai’i has annually ranked in the top five for states receiving defense funding. According to Kajihiro, the militarization of Hawai’i ‘is really driven by the appropriations.’ He adds, ‘Sen. Inouye says it’s about defending Hawai’i. Our stance is the increasing missile defense tests are a destabilizing factor. The tests are provoking an arms race in the region between nuclear powers.’

The millions of dollars that are being spent on missile defense research around Hawai’i do not entirely go to military personnel. Take for example the THAAD system, which was moved from New Mexico to Kaua’i. THAAD is managed by the MDA, but its primary contractor and researcher is aerospace giant Lockheed Martin.

Between the years 2001 and 2006, five of Inouye’s 20 top campaign finance contributors were defense contractors, says Kajihiro, citing information received from [Opensecrets.org]. Inouye’s biggest contributor from defense contractors was Lockheed Martin.

‘Sen. Inouye has said he’s anti-war, but at the same time he’s pro-military build-up, pro-military pork. It’s kind of weird. It’s hypocritical,’ says Kajihiro.

Sen. Inouye’s office failed to return phone calls for this story.

Terminal Fury

When asked about the Joint Space Control Operations-Negation program and their field tests during classified ‘Terminal Fury’ exercises, Major David Griesmer, a public information officer for U.S. Pacific Command, said, ‘I don’t know anything about it.’

Griesmer’s statement is revealing when trying to gauge the entire picture of missile defense research ongoing around the Islands. Millions of unclassified military funding is being pumped into the Islands to test missile defense. But what about classified or secret missile defense research?

Terminal Fury is a ‘command post exercise,’ says Griesmer, ‘involving multiple bases, a naval component, air component and army component.’

‘Some involved don’t even come to Hawai’i,’ he adds.

Yet for the last three Terminal Fury’s, reports the civilian-owned CS4ISR Journal, the Joint Space Control Operations-Negation (JSCON) conducted field tests. The tests would be the first known anti-satellite tests conducted by the U.S. military since 1985 when a F-15 destroyed a satellite with a missile. ‘[The JSCON] program will help the Pentagon figure out which satellite-killers to buy,’ states the C4ISR Journal.

The journal would not say what satellite killer technology was used, but suggested it was probably the Counter Communications System or CounterCom. The $75 million ground-based device is classified, but it was declared operational by the Pentagon several years back. While not an actual killer, the device allegedly can make a satellite go dead.

Here’s a partial list of missile defense and space weapons research ongoing around the Islands and in the Pacific.

Sea-based X-Band Radar

At the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is testing THAAD, a ground-based missile-to-space interceptor system. But at sea and at Pearl Harbor, the MDA is testing the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Named after the shield of Zeus, the Aegis technology fires an interceptor missile that simply slams into a ballistic missile and destroys it. The technology has been applied to only a handful of ships, including Pearl Harbor’s USS Lake Erie, but many other ships from the Pacific fleet are slated to acquire it. Since the late 1990s, the Erie has shot down nearly a dozen dummy missiles, some of which were 200 miles above the earth’s surface.

The floating Sea-based X-Band Radar platform is perhaps the strangest looking craft to have ever sailed the Pacific. Built on a modified oil-drilling platform, the X-Band’s gigantic white dome could easily be mistaken for some alien craft. The distance from the water to the top of the radar dome is roughly 250 feet. The MDA has said the radar has enough detection and target resolution power that it can distinguish a warhead from a decoy or a piece of space debris. The X-band arrived in Pearl Harbor early in 2006, took part in several ballistic missile tests and then headed to its current home in Alaska. The X-band cost between $900 million and $1 billion to build.

Maui Space Surveillance System

Since calling for Star Wars, the U.S. military envisioned high-powered lasers or directed-energy weapons shooting down ballistic missiles in the earth’s atmosphere or in space. But since then, the Pentagon is leaning more toward a missile-to-missile strategy not only because the technology is more feasible but because it is also cheaper. Nevertheless, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars on combat energy beam weapons. Again, just days after the Chinese satellite incident, the U.S. Air Force launched its ‘ABL’ or Air Borne Laser aircraft from Vanderberg Air Force Base north of Los Angeles. For the first time the aircraft test fired in flight. The aircraft is a Boeing 747-sized airplane that has been gutted and turned into a flying laser canon. On the Islands, the Air Force is researching space-related lasers at Maui Space Surveillance System (MSSS) on Haleakala mountain. Two laser beam director/trackers are in use at MSSS but experts say they are not powerful enough to be deemed weapons. These same experts say nearly all astronomical sites across the U.S. don’t project lasers into space.

While they have no connection to Hawai’i as of yet, the most controversial missile defense tests on the horizon are the Space-based test bed maneuvers, activists claim. Space-based test beds are killer satellites that are loaded with missiles or high-powered lasers. When such a satellite constellation may launch is unknown; the U.S. military has targeted the middle of next decade. What is certain is the money the MDA wants for the space-based test bed: The agency as submitted to Congress a request or $675 million to develop this experimental constellation for the years 2008 through 2011, according to Space News.