Arguably, one of
the most significant global security policy debates
of the 21st century is whether the United States
and more specifically the Bush Administration should
develop and deploy space-based weaponry. The age
of space is upon us. But how convinced is the rest
of America, the West and potential adversaries of
the legitimate need to do so? For almost half a
century, the world’s space powers have abstained
from deploying such weapons as basic unwritten policy.
| To
date, the military has been limited to surveillance,
navigation and communications satellites. In
June 2001, Former Air Force Chief of Staff,
General Michael Ryan was quoted as saying, “Eventually
we’re going to have to have the capability
to take things out in orbit.” [2] |
|
|
Source:
iraqdaily.com |
His argument is based
on the premise that historically, wherever commerce
has gone so does US national interest and, subsequently,
the requirement to protect that interest. This rationale
for the deployment of offensive space weaponry should
elicit much debate, especially as our military is
reduced in size. Policymakers and institutions of
higher learning need to address this issue before
the “Final Frontier” becomes a battlefield.
To neglect the topic and let the militarization
of space happen out of apathy will be to relinquish
any input over a decision, which could potentially
destroy the planet.
The technological
revolution of the late twentieth century has provided
the US military an incredible conventional offensive
force and altered forever the way war can and will
be waged. In March 2002, Paul Teets, Undersecretary
of the Air Force and Director of the National Reconnaissance
Office, as well as the Pentagon’s lead procurement
officer for space programs, stated, “I believe
that weapons will go into space. It’s a question
of time. And we need to be at the forefront of that.”
[3]
 |
Teets
has a significant baseline to work from to effectuate
this concept. The advent of precision- guided
munitions has provided war fighters, for example,
with ordnance accuracies measured as Circular
Errors of Probability (CEPs) on the order of
a few feet. |
Source:www.af.mil |
Newer weapons including
laser guided bombs, Global Positioning System (GPS)
guided munitions, and Tomahawk missiles have given
military forces an immense capability that will
assist in the defeat of any known enemy and, if
used correctly, with minimum collateral damage and
civilian casualties. Yet, this certainly is just
the beginning of the revolution. The trend will
be toward even more precise and lethal weapons systems,
often unmanned or minimally manned, and able to
respond within seconds to attack targets anywhere
on earth. On this basis, space seems to offer significant
advantages in future warfare, and, currently, the
US government is actively pursuing research on spaced
based laser and kinetic weapons.
This paper will
seek to provide some perspective on the necessity
of such pursuits and the possible consequences of
rushing in without thinking. The discussion will
describe the types of offensive space-based weapons
most likely to be developed and deployed in the
early 21st Century as well as the potential impact
on US military force structure, roles and missions,
and doctrine. Clearly, the military has accepted
that conflict in space is now inevitable and is
preparing for it. The stabilizing or destabilizing
impact on the world security environment, from an
academic perspective, will also be addressed.
Historical Developments
|
Arguably, the militarization of space commenced
with the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik
satellite in 1957. In the early stages of the
Cold War, both sides began competing in space
to conquer and use space for the benefit of
military forces. President Dwight Eisenhower's
response to Sputnik was rather muted especially
in relation to the public outcry over the event. |
|
|
Sputnik
1. Science Museum, London/
Science & Society Picture Library |
He personally believed
that the public's concern was unwarranted; failing
thus to act quickly to equal the Soviet Union's
effort, he ensured America's second place position
in space for the near term. [4] More recently,
the Clinton Administration’s philosophy of
a restrained approach has been replaced with the
Bush Administration’s unquestioning acceptance
of exploitation of space for military purposes.
The separation of
military and civilian space programs became codified
in July 1958 with the passage of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act, which formally created the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
US effort was focused toward peaceful scientific
and commercial applications. Later, when President
John F. Kennedy decided to engage in the race to
place a man on the moon, the effort assumed a priority
position and the military quickly recognized they
were losing potential funding.
Military efforts
in space did exist and were supported and characterized
as “peaceful” missions. The advent of
reconnaissance satellites brought one of those peaceful
missions to the forefront following the downing
of a U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union in May
1960. Officially, US space policy evolved from the
advocacy of the non-military use of space to one
of non-aggressive use of space. [5]
In order to legally
continue the programs, the US began to seek confirming
international agreements. The idea was not new and
incorporated Eisenhower's "Open Skies"
initiative. The former Soviet Union rejected the
entire concept to allow free over flights of each
other's country to verify the location and numbers
of nuclear weapons. [6]
Even though the major
powers were not in agreement, they continued to
experiment but not deploy. Gradually both the Soviet
Union and the US expanded military space programs
but still restrained themselves from actively using
technology capable of shooting down satellites from
the ground, sea or air. Nonetheless, trepidation
about Soviet threats to place nuclear weapons in
orbit led Eisenhower to propose a ban on nuclear
weapons in space as early as September 1960. The
Soviets agreed, which led to a bilateral agreement
to ban nuclear weapons testing from outer space.
Specifically, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits
the placing of weapons of mass destruction in outer
space or on celestial bodies; including the moon.
Additionally, the
1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) systems banned either side form interfering
with the other’s spy satellites. Both of these
important documents continue to have considerable
influence on the current debate because both the
1967 Outer Space Treaty and the ABM Treaty served
to reinforce the self-restraint on the deployment
of military space weaponry that Eisenhower advanced.
The end of the first Cold War precipitated a reevaluation
of current policy.
In the 1990’s,
National Security Council (NSC) Directive 5520,
dated 26 May 1995, recommended separating the US
space effort from ongoing military programs to develop
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). This
directive worked to disengage the military from
satellite development programs and diverted monies
to ICBM programs. Six years later in April 2001,
prior to 9/11, the Transformation Study Report,
drafted for the Office of the Secretary of Defense
reasoned that, “ Space capabilities are inherently
global, unaffected by territorial boundaries or
jurisdictional limitations; they provide direct
access to all regions, and with our advanced technologies,
give us a highly asymmetrical advantage over any
potential adversary. [7]
