Should the U.S. Put Weapons in Space?

February 29, 2008

The Pentagon’s use of a Navy missile interceptor to shoot down a failed U.S. spy satellite may or may not have protected people on the ground from possible exposure to toxic hydrazine rocket propellant — which ostensibly was the mission’s purpose, though inquiring reporters have their doubts. The incident certainly added fuel to the ongoing controversy about the possible militarization of space. After all, there’s been wide speculation that the satellite downing really was a warning shot over the bow to China, which last year demonstrated its own anti-satellite capabilities by using one of its own orbiting spacecraft for target practice. Indeed, when U.S. News and World Report quoted an unnamed Pentagon official who gushed that the shootdown “was like something out of Star Wars,” it was unclear whether he was making an admiring reference to George Lucas’ F/X wizardry or paying homage to the Strategic Defense Initiative. (To refresh your memory, SDI was the military’s 1980s-vintage dream of building a $120 billion system of orbiting laser guns, particle beam accelerators and swarms of “brilliant pebbles,” i.e., mini-interceptors, that would shield the U.S. from Soviet and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles.)

Sky-high costs, technical obstacles and growing skepticism from Congress about the need for an anti-missile defense in the wake of the Soviet Union’s demise caused the space-based portion of SDI to be ratcheted down in the early 1990s, in favor of less ambitious research efforts focused mostly upon ground-based interceptors. Here’s the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's fact sheet on the Bush administration’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, a multibillion-dollar anti-missile system now under development.

Both SDI and its ground-based successors share a weakness akin to that of the Maginot Line, the fixed fortifications that the French built along the German border prior to World War II in a futile attempt to prevent an invasion. Just as Hitler’s forces rendered the Maginot Line useless by outflanking it, a U.S. anti-missile strategy that protects the ground isn’t going to do much good if the enemy chooses to start a war by attacking targets that are in space — specifically, the array of 100 satellites upon which the U.S. military increasingly depends for navigation, communications, surveillance, weapons guidance, weather prediction, surveying and certain electronic warfare functions. This 2004 Air Force document  notes that

"The U.S. military is dependent on the use of space capabilities in all types of warfare to maintain a combat advantage over our adversaries. With rare exception, today's space infrastructure is largely unprotected. Space capabilities, as a center of gravity, could be prime targets for hostile exploitation and attack."

As Everett Dolman, a professor at the Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005,

"If space were suddenly to go away tomorrow, the United States would have to go into a defensive crouch immediately,'' he warned, in large part because worldwide communications would be totally disrupted. "We'd face a Vietnam- style buildup if we wanted to remain a force in the world.''

How do we protect our satellites from a crippling attack by ground-based missiles or other weapons? Possible solutions include equipping satellites with stealth technology to make them more difficult for attackers to spot or deploying fleets of soda-can-sized miniature space probes that would serve as a warning system and give satellites an opportunity to engage in evasive maneuvers. (Here’s a recent BBC News story with more details.) But  such passive defenses may not be enough to keep our satellites safe. Another possibility is deploying space-based interceptors — essentially, guard satellites that would fire kinetic energy space weapons at anti-satellite missiles to destroy them before they could strike.

Putting defensive weapons in space probably wouldn’t violate the 1967 international treaty that bans the deployment of offensive weaponry such as space-based nuclear warheads. However, it might further destabilize the fragile orbital détente between the U.S. and other space-faring powers, since it theoretically would enable the U.S. to launch a devastating first strike against another nation’s military satellites without fear of retaliation. There’s also the question of whether space-based interception might actually backfire, by creating vast quantities of space debris that would endanger our satellites.

So what do you think? Should the U.S. try to deploy weaponry in space? Or should we keep our missiles on the ground? Express your opinion below.

Comments

[Peacenik]

I think this is a terrible idea. First off, we don't need to do it to be safe. If our satellites are vulnerable in low earth orbit, we could move them to higher orbits where they would be an less inviting target for antisatellite missiles. We also could simply put more satellites up there, so that we would have backup in case some of them are destroyed.

Second, putting defensive weapons in space is just the start. What the Pentagon really wants to do, deep down, is develop a capacity for launching attacks on Earth targets from space. Here's an article from the right-wing Weekly Standard on the so-called "Rods from God," which could be dropped from a space platform. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/700oklkt.asp

We ought to be trying to bring nations together in a common effort to explore space, rather than turning it into another battlefield. We've got too many of those already.

[Patriot]

If we don't arm ourselves in space, other nations will be the ones to do it. The Chinese already have shown that they have the ability to shoot down satellites from the ground.

[Mr. Potato Head]

The U.S. has been able to shoot down satellites for a lot longer than China has. We first did it back in the 1980s. I don't think they'd ever try to shoot one of ours down, because they know that we'd wipe theirs out in retaliation.

[Johnny Rockets]

This argument is moot, because the Air Force is already planning to develop the capability to wage war in space by 2015.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher_ground_040222.html

Among a roster of projected Air Force space projects:

Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile: Small air-launched missile capable of intercepting satellites in low Earth orbit and seen as a past 2015 development.

Counter Satellite Communications System: Provides the capability by 2010 to deny and disrupt an adversary's space-based communications and early warning.

Counter Surveillance and Reconnaissance System: A near-term program to deny, disrupt and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

Evolutionary Air and Space Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) Airship Relay Mirrors: Significantly extends the range of both the Airborne Laser and Ground-Based Laser by using airborne, terrestrial or space-based lasers in conjunction with space-based relay mirrors to project different laser powers and frequencies to achieve a broad range of effects from illumination to destruction.

Ground-Based Laser: Propagates laser beams through the atmosphere to Low-Earth Orbit satellites to provide robust, post-2015 defensive and offensive space control capability.
Hypervelocity Rod Bundles: Provides the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space.
Orbital Deep Space Imager: A mid-term predictive, near-real time common operating picture of space to enable space control operations.

Orbital Transfer Vehicle: Significantly adds flexibility and protection of U.S. space hardware in post-2015 while enabling on-orbit servicing of those assets.

Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System: A family of systems that will provide near-term capability to automatically identify when a space system is under attack.

Space-Based Radio Frequency Energy Weapon: A far-term constellation of satellites containing high-power radio-frequency transmitters that possess the capability to disrupt/destroy/disable a wide variety of electronics and national-level command and control systems. It would typically be used as a non-kinetic anti-satellite weapon.

Space-Based Space Surveillance System: A near-term constellation of optical sensing satellites to track and identify space forces in deep space to enable offensive and defensive counterspace operations.

[Patrick Kiger]

I've contacted the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is opposed to the militarization of space, and the Heritage Foundation, which I think would support it, in an effort to get them to offer their thoughts.

In the meantime, here's an excerpt from a 2003 report, "China and the Battlefield in Space," that I found on the Heritage website http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm346.cfm

The newest battlefield for China will be in space. From a defensive standpoint China is seeking to block the United States from developing its own anti-satellite weapons and space-based ballistic missile defense systems. Beijing and Moscow, through diplomatic channels, have introduced a draft United Nations Treaty that would ban conventional and non-nuclear weapons in space.[i] Meanwhile, from an offensive standpoint, China is developing its own weapons. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is experimenting with directed energy weapons that can kill satellites and in theoretical research is considering particle beam weapons that can engage missiles in flight. [ii] The Chinese military is also considering the use of “piggy-back satellites” and “micro-satellites” that can be used as kinetic energy weapons to destroy enemy satellites or spacecraft, or can attach themselves to enemy satellites to jam them.[iii]

The Chinese security establishment has a sophisticated understanding of the way that the United States envisions the use of space in the future.[iv] The United States, in the view of the scientific and defense establishment of China is likely to incorporate hand-held wireless technology for all military communications into its future command and control systems along with space-based laser intercept weapons and a new generation of Global Positioning System satellites. Beijing’s strategy to confront the United States in this area is clear: work on public opinion in the United States to make moral arguments against weapons in space, develop international coalitions to limit the way that the United States can use space, and develop China’s own weapons systems and tactics to destroy American satellites and space-based weapons.[v]

[henry]

This all is insane. we;re destroying the planet with global warming!!!! instead of spending trillions on a space arms race,we ought to be working with the Chinese to try to slow greennhouse gas emissions before it;s TOO LATE!!!!!!!!

[Ian]

Putting offensive weapons in space sounds like a great idea to me. If we have hyperkinetic weapons that we can drop from space platforms (the so-called "Rods from God") and the ability to disrupt enemy communications with satellite-killing devices, that would make it difficult and/or foolhardy to dare to attack the U.S. The Roman Empire fell because it became too weak to defeat the Barbarians. We cannt take the same chance.

[Pugster]

The proposed Russian-Chinese treaty that supposedly would ban space weapons is a sham. Here's why...

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/don-t-panic-about-space-t54578.html

[Mothra]

All we are saying is give peace a chance.
--John Lennon

[Clear and Present Danger]

We have to arm ourselves in space now. The Chinese are going to do it...that treaty theyre proposing is just a smokescreen to give them time to develop space weapons. If we wait, we are giving up a critical strategic advantage that we now have over them. WE CANT AFFORD TO FALL BEHIND IN THE SPACE ARMS RACE!

[Get A Grip]

Space weapons would be a colossal waste of money, and totally unnecessary. All we have to do is put up a lot of drone satellites, so they can't tell which ones to destroy. What we really should fear is China's ability to stage attacks on U.S. computer systems via the Internet. They've already managed to break into computers at defense industry labs and access non-classified data.

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

Where do the Presidential candidates stand on this issue?

[Bob Allen]

I'm a peace advocate who has been following the issue of space militarization pretty closely. I agree that the proposed Russian-Chinese treaty doesn't do enough to prohibit all types of offensive capabilities. But rather than taking that as a sign that we should start a space arms race, we should negotiate a stronger, enforceable ban on both space-based weaponry and ground-based space weapons. Some sort of inspection-verification process should be included in the treaty.

Here's a way forward advocated by Michael Krepon, director of the Space Security Project at the Henry L. Stimson Center (http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?ID=568):

"The draft space treaty proposed by Russia and China deserves extended discussion in the Conference of Disarmament. Its serious flaws need to be considered, along with proposed remedies. Proponents of a treaty banning space weapons have been stymied in the past because so many devices designed for other purposes could be used as space weapons, such as lasers, jammers, and missile defense interceptors. It would be impossible to capture all of these devices in a treaty banning space weapons, and a treaty limited to “dedicated” space weapons or those “specially produced or converted” would be woefully insufficient, especially if there are no means to investigate whether such weapons have been produced or secretly deployed.

If the intent behind the Russian and Chinese draft treaty is, as they say, in “keeping outer space from turning into an arena for military confrontation, in assuring security in outer space and safe functioning of space objects,” there is a much more direct and more comprehensive way to proceed: Major space-faring nations could agree to a Code of Conduct that pledges “no harmful interference against space objects.” This pledge would not be confined to weapons based in space, as is the case of the draft treaty proposed by Moscow and Beijing. It would extend to any means of harmful interference, including those based on land and sea.

The challenge of defining harmful interference is much narrower and simpler than defining what constitutes a space weapon. The problem of scope would be settled in favor of comprehensiveness. The challenge of monitoring harmful interference would remain – with or without a treaty or a Code of Conduct. This is harder than it sounds, because sometimes a satellite will suffer operating problems for no apparent reason. But purposeful, harmful, and repeated interference of satellites will be known by operators in major space-faring nations. These nations have the means to fight fire with fire. Because multiple means of satellite interference will continue to exist, they serve as a deterrent against opening this Pandora’s Box.

A Code of Conduct can be negotiated among space-faring nations. It can take months rather than years. It can take the form of an executive agreement or a political agreement among like-minded states that would reserve the sovereign right to determine and respond to instances of noncompliance. It can avoid all of the hang-ups that have stymied a treaty banning space weapons for so many decades. It could also prevent ASAT tests, like the one carried out by China and the one proposed by the Pentagon. "

[Maddy the Boxer]

I am very much against expanding militarily into space. I think we should be working to promote international cooperation and peaceful joint space exploration efforts instead.

[McCain-Graham 08]

Treaty or no treaty, we have to do whatever is necessary to protect our country. If that means putting defensive or offensive weapons in space, so be it. Our enemies respect only strength and force. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

[Eğitim]

I am very admirer this blog..Nice to share this things