Abstract
The export of space “technology” has always been constrained by the fear that it may compromise American national security or the economic competitiveness of US firms.1 As we saw in chapter 3, National Security Advisory Memorandum NSAM294 (on ballistic missile/rocket technology) and NSAM338 (on comsats) issued by the Johnson administration in the 1960s were intended to impede undesirable knowledge flows. Fears of technology transfer, and the need to control it, hovered over the debate on European participation in the post-Apollo program, and on the sharing of rocket technology with Japan and India, described elsewhere in this book (chapters 4–6, 10, 12).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a clear statement of the following, see Margaret G. Finarelli and Joseph K. Alexander (Rapporteurs), Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Summary of a Workshop (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008), 4–5, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12093.html.
Alvin S. Bass, Dissemination of Technical Information Abroad, June 18, 1970, 7–8, attached to Letter Richard McCurdy, NASA, to Peter G. Petersen, assistant to the president for International Economic Affairs, WHCF [White House Central Files], Subject Files, Folder FG164, NASA 1/1/71- (2 of 2), Nixon Presidential Materials Project.
Joseph Cirincione, “Cox Report and the Threat from China,” presentation to the CATO Institute, June 7, 1999, available at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm.
The account t hat follows is based on House Report 105–851 (the Cox Report), especially Chapters 5–8. See also Lewis R. Franklin, “A Critique of the Cox Report Allegations of PRC Acquisition of Sensitive U.S. Missile and Space Technology,” in Michael M. May (ed., with Alastair Iain Johnston, W. K. H. Panofsky, Marco Di Capua, and Lewis R. Franklin), The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment (Stanford University: Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), December 1999), 81–99, at section 3.2.1–3, available at http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/10331/cox.pdf. See also
Joan Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: US Satellite Export Controls Since 1990,” Space Policy 16 (2000), 195–204.
Jeff Gerth, “2 Companies Pay Penalties for Improving China Rockets,” New York Times, March 6, 2003, available at http://nytimes/com/2003/03/06/world/2-companies-pay-penalties-for-improving-china-rockets.html.
Nicholas Rostow, “The ‘Panofsky’ Critique and the Cox Committee Report: 50 Factual Errors in the Four Essays,” available at www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/ros-tow.pdf, A reply by Johnston to the critique of his chapter is also at this URL.
Anon., Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999),
Copyright information
© 2013 John Krige, Angelina Long Callahan, and Ashok Maharaj
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krige, J., Callahan, A.L., Maharaj, A. (2013). The Impact of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In: NASA in the World. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_14
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-34092-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-34093-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)