[Excerpted from my book ‘Research Methods in Remote Sensing’]
Remote sensing has a very long history dating back to the end of the 19th century when cameras were first made airborne using balloons and kites. The advent of aircraft further enhanced the opportunities to take photographs from the air. Then satellite mounted sensors had been developed to operate it from the space. Whatever the developments we see in the field of remote sensing were primarily for the military (for the power and politics). It was completely driven by power and politics. Remote sensing had been nourished within the core of power and politics. Initially it was not available to the civilian researchers. Most of the significant developments in remote sensing came just for World War-I and II.
Although, many civilian remote sensing satellites have been launched since 1972 (starting from Landsat-I), still spy satellites, nano satellites, and high resolution sensors are being launched by the governments for power and politics. Very high resolution images are still restricted to the civilians in many countries including United States. For example, GeoEye-1 captures imagery at a spatial resolution of 0.41 m; however, it is downsampled to 0.5 m for the civilians because the US government does not allow higher than 0.5 m resolution to the civilians. Arial photography is still performed only by the governments in many countries and photographs are restricted; for example, India. In India (and many other countries), an individual researcher is not entitled to purchase even a low resolution satellite image. She/he needs to be associated with some institution and some sort of declaration is mandatory by the head of institution to obtain the imagery. That means, as an individual, one cannot perform the research with their own fund.
This type of restrictions is everywhere and was always there. On December 3, 1986, the United Nations had faced the difficulty to pass “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space”. The United States’ position had been that collection and distribution of civilian remote sensing imagery should be unrestricted. The Soviet Union’s position was to ensure that acquisition and distribution of imagery should only be allowed with consent of the state that is overflown. It was the case for the outer space; if it comes within the air? Aerial remote sensing, till date, cannot be performed beyond the political boundary. Matthew (1983) is an essentially referred text in this context. Whether these political restrictions are good or bad is not the issue of this discussion. The issue is, rather, these political restrictions have created a knowledge gap in civilian remote sensing research and applications.
Why are these restrictions imposed? India restricts its residents (individuals) to the access of very high resolution images; whereas Pakistani (or any other) military can purchase one such image covering India from a commercial vendor (from other country) without having any problem. Does it make any sense? Does it suggest rethinking on the data policy? Whatever the answer may be, politics does not want to make everything free, especially the remote sensing data of having high value and importance. It can be seen as an internal conflict. A good example of this internal conflict is the politics of remote sensing capabilities. No country wants to be left behind, but on the other hand, why should countries expend scarce resources acquiring the launch vehicles, satellites, and infrastructure needed to support a remote sensing program when much of the end product (images, etc.) can be purchased at a modest cost from commercial vendors. Remote sensing technology provides countries with the ability to evaluate others’ capabilities to a degree that is totally unprecedented in the history of relations between countries. The countries that employ this technology can assess others’ military and—to some degree—economic capabilities (refer Ammons 2010). It also has the effect of lessening the deception possible by a closed society in concealing its capabilities. This technology, in another way, could be said to have the potential to stabilize the international system.
Now, the question is whether this technology actually makes a country more secure or if it increases the perception, both internally and externally, that it is more secure. Perhaps it is a little of both. Countries will always seek more information about their adversaries and any technology that will increase the quantity and quality of that information is valuable because of its real or perceived contribution to the country’s security. Most countries that own remote sensing technology profess to employ this technology for peaceful purposes. It is difficult to argue that activities such as resource management and disaster management are anything other than positive pursuits. However, it would be a simplified thinking to assume that a country concerned about its security (all countries are concerned about security) would not employ every available means to protect itself (Ammons 2010). This is particularly true if these means are defensive rather than offensive and can be accomplished with some measure of privacy. However, we must assume all countries that own remote sensing technology gather imagery intelligence of other countries’ military capabilities. This information are collected mainly for three reasons—firstly, to monitor whether a country is violating any international agreement (defensive in nature); secondly, to prepare its own military capabilities to that standard (or higher) of other countries (defensive in nature); and thirdly, to use this information during a war or to attack a country (offensive in nature). The war among countries, perhaps, will not be stopped ever. Therefore, offensive use of remote sensing will also be continued for ever.
References
Ammons, A.A. (2010). Competition Among States: Case Studies in the Political Role of Remote Sensing Capabilities. PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington. URL:http://aladinrc.wrlc.org//handle/1961/9175.
Matthew, M. (1983). The Technical, Legal and Political Implications of Remote Sensing Satellites. Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive), Paper 54. http://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/54.
Remote sensing has a very long history dating back to the end of the 19th century when cameras were first made airborne using balloons and kites. The advent of aircraft further enhanced the opportunities to take photographs from the air. Then satellite mounted sensors had been developed to operate it from the space. Whatever the developments we see in the field of remote sensing were primarily for the military (for the power and politics). It was completely driven by power and politics. Remote sensing had been nourished within the core of power and politics. Initially it was not available to the civilian researchers. Most of the significant developments in remote sensing came just for World War-I and II.
Although, many civilian remote sensing satellites have been launched since 1972 (starting from Landsat-I), still spy satellites, nano satellites, and high resolution sensors are being launched by the governments for power and politics. Very high resolution images are still restricted to the civilians in many countries including United States. For example, GeoEye-1 captures imagery at a spatial resolution of 0.41 m; however, it is downsampled to 0.5 m for the civilians because the US government does not allow higher than 0.5 m resolution to the civilians. Arial photography is still performed only by the governments in many countries and photographs are restricted; for example, India. In India (and many other countries), an individual researcher is not entitled to purchase even a low resolution satellite image. She/he needs to be associated with some institution and some sort of declaration is mandatory by the head of institution to obtain the imagery. That means, as an individual, one cannot perform the research with their own fund.
This type of restrictions is everywhere and was always there. On December 3, 1986, the United Nations had faced the difficulty to pass “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space”. The United States’ position had been that collection and distribution of civilian remote sensing imagery should be unrestricted. The Soviet Union’s position was to ensure that acquisition and distribution of imagery should only be allowed with consent of the state that is overflown. It was the case for the outer space; if it comes within the air? Aerial remote sensing, till date, cannot be performed beyond the political boundary. Matthew (1983) is an essentially referred text in this context. Whether these political restrictions are good or bad is not the issue of this discussion. The issue is, rather, these political restrictions have created a knowledge gap in civilian remote sensing research and applications.
Why are these restrictions imposed? India restricts its residents (individuals) to the access of very high resolution images; whereas Pakistani (or any other) military can purchase one such image covering India from a commercial vendor (from other country) without having any problem. Does it make any sense? Does it suggest rethinking on the data policy? Whatever the answer may be, politics does not want to make everything free, especially the remote sensing data of having high value and importance. It can be seen as an internal conflict. A good example of this internal conflict is the politics of remote sensing capabilities. No country wants to be left behind, but on the other hand, why should countries expend scarce resources acquiring the launch vehicles, satellites, and infrastructure needed to support a remote sensing program when much of the end product (images, etc.) can be purchased at a modest cost from commercial vendors. Remote sensing technology provides countries with the ability to evaluate others’ capabilities to a degree that is totally unprecedented in the history of relations between countries. The countries that employ this technology can assess others’ military and—to some degree—economic capabilities (refer Ammons 2010). It also has the effect of lessening the deception possible by a closed society in concealing its capabilities. This technology, in another way, could be said to have the potential to stabilize the international system.
Now, the question is whether this technology actually makes a country more secure or if it increases the perception, both internally and externally, that it is more secure. Perhaps it is a little of both. Countries will always seek more information about their adversaries and any technology that will increase the quantity and quality of that information is valuable because of its real or perceived contribution to the country’s security. Most countries that own remote sensing technology profess to employ this technology for peaceful purposes. It is difficult to argue that activities such as resource management and disaster management are anything other than positive pursuits. However, it would be a simplified thinking to assume that a country concerned about its security (all countries are concerned about security) would not employ every available means to protect itself (Ammons 2010). This is particularly true if these means are defensive rather than offensive and can be accomplished with some measure of privacy. However, we must assume all countries that own remote sensing technology gather imagery intelligence of other countries’ military capabilities. This information are collected mainly for three reasons—firstly, to monitor whether a country is violating any international agreement (defensive in nature); secondly, to prepare its own military capabilities to that standard (or higher) of other countries (defensive in nature); and thirdly, to use this information during a war or to attack a country (offensive in nature). The war among countries, perhaps, will not be stopped ever. Therefore, offensive use of remote sensing will also be continued for ever.
References
Ammons, A.A. (2010). Competition Among States: Case Studies in the Political Role of Remote Sensing Capabilities. PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington. URL:http://aladinrc.wrlc.org//handle/1961/9175.
Matthew, M. (1983). The Technical, Legal and Political Implications of Remote Sensing Satellites. Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive), Paper 54. http://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/54.
No comments:
Post a Comment