space entirely. As hypothetical text #4 illustrates, any reference to the arms race in the petition could exacerbate this schism among the petition's most likely supporters. Furthermore, the inclusion of overtly anti-military sentiment runs the risk of engendering governmental opposition. Might not the Kremlin regard text #4 as “anti-Soviet”? Insert “U.S.A.” and “Congress” into the appropriate slots and ask whether certain factions in the United States might not brand it “anti-American”? The great temptation, in framing the text, would be to skirt controversy by avoiding linkage with emotional, external issues like fission power, acid rain, and nuclear war. But are these issues truly “external”? If not proffered as a constructive alternative to the arms race and/or a substitute for ecologically-damaging energy sources, how can SPS be advocated? The project may someday be hailed as the “TVA of the 21st Century,” but until a prototype is built and there is sufficient evidence to justify going forward with the technology purely as an investment, more esoteric arguments must be advanced — or at least implied. THE SOVIET UNION Governments take petitions very seriously. In 1905, a priest led a nonviolent group of workers to petition Nicholas II, and the Czar's troops fired mercilessly into the crowd. “Bloody Sunday,” as it came to be known, marked the beginning of the end of the monarchy. In modern Russia, Article 49 of the 1977 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. purports to guarantee all citizens the right to “. . . submit proposals to state bodies.” Nothing in the Soviet Bill of Rights, however, “guarantees” the right to make those proposals collec tively. Would the Communists, aware of the implications of text #4, regard the naked act of petitioning as “anti-Soviet”? If pro-space activists were to post a thousand copies of text #5 to scientists, intellectuals, and dissident leaders in the U.S.S.R., would the K.G.B. allow it to pass through the mails? Would the western news media, alerted to the putative “right” guaranteed under Article 49, follow the Soviet response with amusement? (5) We, the undersigned citizens of_______________, in the interest of world peace, do hereby petition our government to make the development of prototype civilian space industries an international priority. In deciding whether to participate in a multinational SPS program, the Soviets would be wise to consider the consequences of not doing so. If the democratic nations join together to build a full-scale prototype, the Kremlin leadership will not be able to ignore the military implications of gigawatts of electrical power suspended over their heads. Nor can they disregard the possibility that SPS may become the “oil weapon” of the next century. The lure of massive foreign aid, in the form of low-cost electrical power, could trigger a dramatic, pro-western realignment of the Third World nations. And the moribund Soviet economy would be severely strained by a trillion-dollar SPS race against the combined resources of the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. Strategically, the SPS “spigot” may prove to be far more important than the Strait of Hormuz, and unlike the Middle Eastern oil supplies, the sunlight is not going to run out. From a western perspective, it would make sense to invite the Soviets to participate on a contractual basis — earning hard currency by lifting SPS payloads into
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==