text: confrontation among Powers that we are currently striving to overcome. Faced with this paradox, it is fair to ask: what justification is there for the development of an arms race in outer space? We have been told in this forum that arms control and disarmament are not ends in themselves but merely means to achieve a more important objective, that of enhancing security - international security, that is; and that in that context military activities in space have a stabilizing function and are vital components of deterrence and strategic stability. My delegation can only accept this reasoning if it involves identifying military activities in space with verification functions from outer space. But we believe that this reasoning breaks down totally when we introduce an element that destabilizes the strategic balance, such as one Power's control of arms technology which could make the capability of the other Power inoperative or limit it significantly. Indeed, I do not think it is fanciful to say that some politically radical circles in the Powers might come to believe that with effective technology which could deal with an attack by the other Power by neutralizing it from outer space and at the same time jam its satellite observation systems, there could be a winner in a nuclear war. And it is precisely views of this type, promoted by the escalation of the arms race in space, which, far from encouraging deterrence and strategic stability, generate a climate of insecurity that affects mankind as a whole. We agree unreservedly with one of the conclusions set out in an important legal study submitted by a Latin American delegation last year, that any activity carried out in space which affects the security of a subjacent State is unlawful in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1 of the 1967 outer space 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the potential risks and consequences of an arms race in outer space, specifically focusing on the destabilizing effects it could have on international security and the potential for a nuclear war. The language used suggests a concern for the well-being of humanity as a whole, implying a broader global perspective.