War in Space The Future of Warfare.
Time Magazine, 12 December, 1983 (Andersen, Hannifin, Redman)
Through his landmark speech of 23 March 1983, President Ronald Reagan inaugurated the work on a space-based defense system that could render Soviet Unions nuclear weapons powerless against the United States. It was named the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Reagan promised security through building super weapons and positioning them in outer space. Reagan envisioned an invisible defense shield that would cover the entire nation against any kind of missile attack from across the ocean. The SDI would primarily involve space-based as well as ground-based laser weapons (both of which would fall under the category of space weapons) that would neutralize any missiles directed toward America. The SDI satellites would be able to track an enemy missile from liftoff, thereby providing a layered defense capable of intercepting the missiles in flight at boost and postboost stages as well as along various points along their midcourse. At each stage enemy weapons that slipped through the previous stage would be targeted. A comprehensive defense cover in the sky was envisaged to protect the American soil even if the USSR launched its entire nuclear arsenal against the US at one go.
The Road to SDI
Over three decades of dedicated research and developments led the way to the emergence of SDI in the early 80s. Ballistic missiles were originally developed by the Nazi Germany during the final years of the Second World War. Hitler used several V-2 ballistic missiles against London and other places in England during the later months of 1944, with moderate success. London was completely helpless against these powerful weapons launched directly from Europe. In the post-war world, the existence of such ballistic missiles necessitated the development of anti-ballistic missile weaponry.
Many military scientists who worked for the Nazi Germany or who escaped from its clutches found sanctuary in the United States and began working for American government projects. Werner Von Braun, who headed the team that would eventually land man on the moon, is the most well-known of these scientists. The Hungarian scientist Edward Teller too was among the exodus of scientists from the Nazi Europe to America. He would later become famous as the father of the H-bomb. Teller would also go on to play a significant role in the initiation of SDI.
The notion of a comprehensive laser defense strategy first sprang up among the scientists of the Manhattan Project which produced the first atomic bomb in 1945. It was taken up in earnest by Teller who laid the conceptual foundations of the technology that would underpin SDI. He was instrumental in establishing Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, CA, in 1951-52. Teller had information that the USSR was capable of building a shield against nuclear missiles and was concerned that the US does not lag behind. Subsequently US intelligence findings corroborated Tellers assertions about the USSRs sophisticated anti- ballistic missile capabilities and in response the US initiated its own ABM (anti-ballistic missile) system. The US government began to spend heavily in developing ground-to-air intercepting missiles. An ABM called NIKE-ZEUS was developed. During President Kennedys tenure, the research into nuclear anti-missile systems resulted in Operation Starfish In July 1962, the US blasted off a nuclear bomb from a Pacific Ocean atoll and detonated it in space. This event gave a boost to the secret work on SDI.
By the mid 60s scientists at Livermore saw interesting breakthroughs in laser engineering. Such successful research results helped Livermore to receive ample funds from the White House. General George J. Keegan was then the head of US Air Force Intelligence and he formed a CIA group in association with Teller.
In 1967, Teller invited the then governor of California, Ronald Reagan to Livermore. The exposure he received to the latest defensive technologies during his visit probably left a deep imprint on Reagans mind. In these technologies he would have seen a way out of the deadly stalemate that prevailed between the superpowers, which was indicated by the term MAD (mutual assured destruction).
In the late 1960s, the US was working on an ABM system known as the Sentinel, whose objective was to thwart any intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from China. In the early 70s Sentinel was transformed into the Safeguard system, which was deployed in 1973 to protect nuclear missile silos at Grand Forks, North Dakota, but was deactivated a few months thereafter. The deployment of the Safeguard system alarmed the Soviet military, although they had their own Galosh ABM system. This situation resulted in the initiation of talks between the two superpowers concerning ABM systems. Negotiations were held with a view to place restrictions on the development and deployment of ABM systems, which led to the 1972 ABM treaty. But since President Nixon had insisted that an ABM treaty was not possible unless the Soviets agreed to place certain limitations on their offensive capabilities, the Interim Agreement of Offensive Missiles was also signed.
Despite such negotiations, the Pentagon continued to be keen on ballistic weapons research and development. Teller had the backing from the Pentagon, but his work needed more political commitment. He gathered a group of people from defense and intelligence communities to lobby for more military focus on BMD (ballistic missile defense) program. Teller also used evidence gathered by Air Force Intelligence to convince President Jimmy Carter of the magnitude of the impending threat from the Soviet Union. However, he could not get his way with Carter.
In the following years, Teller was associated with two think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Hertz Foundation, which were also involved in raising funds for laser beam research. Certain businessmen friends of Ronald Reagan were members of these groups and through them Teller found access to President Reagan. Teller convinced Reagan of the feasibility of a nation-wide Astrodome defense against nuclear missiles. The SDI, half-mockingly nicknamed Star Wars, became policy 23 March, 1983, though amidst a great deal of controversy and opposition. Tellers long-held dream became the new American reality.
Twenty Years later, in a 2003 commemoration event, George Shultz, secretary of State under President Reagan would acknowledge the critical role played by Edward Teller in the development of SDI. According to Schultz, though the idea of SDI was greeted tepidly by the science community, Teller lent strength to President Reagans proposal (Johnston, 2003). It has to be noted though that Tellers vision was much more grandiose and explosive involving reliance on space-based nuclear weapons platforms and charged particle beam weapons which would generate beams by funneling detonated hydrogen bombs than that proposed by Reagan. Teller also believed in hydrogen-bomb driven X-ray lasers and thought it was possible to build such weapons which could deter up to 10,000 nuclear warheads plus dummies at a time. Although it is possible that President Reagan bought Tellers imaginative war games scenario in its entirety, he had to considerably tone it down to make it seem less like a pipedream, and more acceptable to the Congress and the public.
Unfeasibility and Other Concerns
Although Reagans SDI plan was not as grand and spectacular as Teller would have wanted it to be, the broad concept of SDI had to overcome much resistance from before its inception. One or two years before Reagans speech, when the possibility of SDI began to be seriously considered among the members of the Hertz Foundation, it turned into an issue which had both proponents and opponents. While one group led by General Daniel Graham favored deployment of a space shield over the US depending the extant technology, another group headed by the former deputy secretary of defense, Karl Bendetsen, believed that the technology was not yet ready and therefore emphasized the need for much more preliminary research. Both Karl Bendetsen and General Daniel Graham, along with Edward Teller, soon found their way into an inner circle of presidential advisors known as the Kitchen Cabinet. The voice of opposition, Bendetsen, was present in this group itself, but Graham was the head of High Frontier organization which promoted space-based missile defense, and he spared no efforts in pushing BMD.
While it was easier to convince Reagan of the prevailing crisis, which resulted from the increasing vulnerability of US ICBMs to Soviet aggression, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Council had a number of reservations on this matter. However, the chief of naval operations, Admiral James D Watkins, on the Joint Chiefs of Staff became an ardent supporter of SDI, and he played a considerable role in allaying any misgivings Reagan may have had about SDI. But the JCS in general did not believe in a total ballistic missile defense solution and did not propose funding for it. When Reagan promoted SDI publicly, he did not do it after due confirmation from the JCS. It has been generally perceived that Reagans own enthusiasm played a more important role than anything else in bringing SDI into life. SDI is usually considered as Reagans idea, driven by him single-mindedly despite many objections and much opposition, and despite a glaring lack of consensus in the military circles on the feasibility of such an ambitious and costly program. BMD technology has had a long history behind it but President Reagan not only embraced it zealously but held on to it tenaciously after announcing it to the nation. As such the SDI began to be perceived as Reagans pet project and came to be pummeled from many quarters for its overly exotic and quixotic nature.
Senator Ted Kennedy, who thought Reagans ideas were reckless fantasies, was prominent among the political opposition. Congress was reluctant to fund the SDI program and cut back on several of the demands of Reagans administration. SDI did not come cheaply, some estimates tagged the SDI program with a price of 300 to 500 billion over a 30-year deployment period. These monetary aspects contributed significantly to the unpopularity of SDI.
A team of scientists who formally assessed Reagans proposed program found many problems, some apparently insurmountable, with it. Although SDI was not intrinsically unachievable, these scientists believed that practical concerns made it unfeasible in the foreseeable future. Ironically, Hans Bethe, the scientist who led the Union of Concerned Scientists that opposed SDI, was a close colleague of Edward Teller and had earlier worked with him in developing both the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. To Bethe, feasibility was not the only issue but also the vulnerability, since he insisted that the SDI would be as difficult to build as it would be easy to destroy. Further, Bethe stressed, it could be easily rendered useless if the enemy used hordes of dummies and decoys to overwhelm the system.
Bethe and his team also expressed grave forebodings that whether the Star Wars program succeeded or not in its entirety the intention of making space the new theater of war could lead to the development of highly effective anti-satellite weapons. In fact, the first true space weapon to be tested by the American military after the advent of SDI was an anti-satellite missile. In our times when the whole electronic telecommunications infrastructure on earth has grown highly dependent on satellite networks, these earth-orbiting bodies are indeed more likely to become very easy prey for aggressive strikes. Some of the opponents of the SDI also rightly envisaged the seriousness of the threat of space debris resulting from disintegration of satellites. Deudney (1983) of the Worldwatch Institute felt that the Archduke Francis Ferdinand (whose assassination triggered the World War I) of the Third World War could be a reconnaissance satellite accidentally hit by piece of space junk.
Despite the considerable scientific and political opposition mounted against it, SDI research took off and by 1986 was on a high pitch. The debate on SDI raged in 1987. While there was no dearth of critics, the SDI program also garnered many supporters who hailed it as a visionary strategy. It was acclaimed for holding the potential to blaze a new trail in US strategic thinking, and spurring a creative new phase of weapons development. The Pentagon indeed demonstrated several promising results, although a full-scale implementation was still a distant goal. The US invited Great Britain, West Germany, Italy and Israel to collaborate in the SDI RD work. Although President Gorbachev of the USSR sought to slow down the work on SDI in exchange for sizeable cutbacks in Soviet nuclear arsenals at 1987 summit at Iceland, President Reagan did not show much interest in the offer.
SDI was seen as violating or being close to violating several US-Soviet agreements of the past, including the Outer Space Treaty of 1968 and the ABM Treaty of 1972 the latter specifically required each of the superpowers not to develop or deploy ABM systems that were ground-based, air-based or space-based. Reagan sought to gain an upper hand over the Soviet Union through the SDI program, but many analysts feared that SDI would only accelerate the arms race and severely destabilize the delicate balance of power that existed during the Cold War dtente period before Reagan. However, Reagan and his supporters argued that an escalation of arms race would tax the weakening Soviet economy beyond the breaking point and could bring about the USSRs economic collapse, while the US was in a position to bear the huge budget deficits the SDI program would generate.
The new arms race between the superpowers did not really have a chance to begin since the Soviet Union came apart all by itself over the next couple of years. Around this time Reagans presidency too came to an end. The thrust for SDI program relented significantly, although funds to the tune of 4 to 5 billion dollars went into developing space weaponry every year since then.
In the end, the critics proved right but Reagan and other SDI-supporters did not prove wrong altogether. Despite the steady flow of huge sums of money that went into the Star Wars program for some considerable time during the Reagan administration, a system effective against the full force of a first strike could never develop, the SDI could never materialize in the way it was originally conceived. It simply did not have adequate time and money that such a gigantic, long-term project required. Regardless, many interesting and useful military innovations emanated out of the research carried out under the umbrella of SDI.
In the decades after Reagan, the program itself was modified and renamed several times to better adapt to the real world. In 1993 the Clinton administration scaled down the SDI considerably and restricted it to ground-based non-nuclear program, while George W Bush again brought focus on it and made it into a strategic priority. In the 2000s, research on space-based weaponry began to thrive once again, not only in the US but at a global level, with Europe, Russia and China actively engaged in the pursuit of military advantage offered by space.
However, owing to the literally outlandish nature of the space wars scenario, feasibility issues continue to dog even the much more realistic present-day descendants and spin-offs of the original Star Wars program. Even in our day as it was back then there are those who believe and proclaim that fantastic results can be achieved if sufficient money and resources are channeled into the developing of space wars technologies, while there are many who remain unconvinced not only of the technical feasibility of these highly advanced futuristic weapon systems, but of the whole rationale behind SDI.
Space Weaponry
SDI forever changed our notion of outer space
SDI was always premised on a vision of space as a technologised theatre of war. In the hands of a techno-enthusiast like Edward Teller, SDI was configured as a space-based technological extravaganza with few limits. In SDI space became a dynamic arena through which our technologies would move, in which our weapons would be placed, and across which our wars were to be waged. (Mellor 2007)
Space wars is all about very advanced and sophisticated weapon systems. Although Teller favored particle beams as being the most potent space weapon, laser technology has been the key to militarization of space. A laser source essentially produces intense and concentrated light energy that can travel over very long distances. The study of lasers was pioneered in the 1960s and 70s at Lawrence Livermore and other places. Based on the prediction of a new process called stimulated emission by Albert Einstein in 1917, A. Schawlow and C. H. Townes built a device in 1958. Laser devices developed rapidly over the next two decades, providing the backbone for the SDI research of the 1980s and the later years. SDI focused on three kinds of laser systems for both ground-based and space-based weapons. All these three systems use chemicals as lasing mediums hydrogen fluoride (HF), deuterium fluoride (DF) and chemical oxygen iodine (COIL) (Possel, 1998). The excitation of atoms during the chemical reactions powers the energy of the laser.
In a hydrogen fluoride laser system atomic fluorine reacts with molecular hydrogen and the reaction produces excited hydrogen fluorine molecules that can emit laser beams of wavelength around 2.7 and 2.9 microns. Hydrogen fluoride laser is the most likely candidate to be used for a space-based laser program. This system can be used only above earths atmosphere since an HF laser emitted from ground would be absorbed by the atmosphere. SDIO (Strategic Defense Initiative Office) successfully demonstrated that the megawatt power source needed to induce the HF reaction is workable in the space environment. HF laser system can produce beams of power and quality that match the specifications made in SDIO plan in 1984. SDIO has later turned into BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) and continued its research on this system.
Deuterium fluoride laser operates in the same pattern as a hydrogen fluoride laser, with the hydrogen isotope, deuterium, interacting with fluorine atoms. But since deuterium has more atomic mass than hydrogen, the laser beams produced in this reaction are of a longer wavelength, ranging between 3.5 to 4 microns. The longer wavelength creates both an advantage and a disadvantage, the DF laser can be transmitted better through the earths atmosphere, but larger optical surfaces are required to shape and focus the beam. Mirrors and lenses are integral part of any laser system and are essential in intensifying and focusing the laser beams. The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL), built by TRW Inc., is a prime example of deuterium fluoride laser. In 1996, used in conjunction with the SEALITE Beam Director, a MIRACL system successfully shot down a rocket at the White Sands Missile Range.
The chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) works in a different manner than HF and DF lasers. First a lasing action is produced by the chemical reaction of chlorine and hydrogen peroxide, but the energy of the excited oxygen atoms in this reaction is then passed on to iodine atoms. The excited iodine atoms are responsible for generating a beam at a wavelength of 1.3 microns. This is shorter than that of HF and DF lasers and is advantageous in that it requires much smaller optics than the other lasers. Further, its unique properties allow it to pass through the earths atmosphere with lesser loss than the HF laser. This laser is used in the Airborne Laser aircraft of the US Air Force, which is simply a modified Boeing 747 with a COIL placed in its rear. The unique advantages COIL offers have made it the most promising candidate in the RD work on space-based lasers.
Over the years, many experiments have also been conducted in SDI program to perfect the mirroring equipment used in these laser weapons. Some of these are HPTE (High Precision Tracking Experiment), RME (Relay Mirror Experiment), and LACE (Low-Power Atmospheric Compensation Experiment) which was used to evaluate adaptive optics.
Besides the laser weapons, the SDIO has also given serious consideration to Tellers particle beam weapons. Particle beams are much more destructive than laser beams. In 1989, a neutral particle beam (NPB) accelerator was tested aboard a rocket, which demonstrated that particle beams would operate as expected in space. The problem however lies in powering these particle beam accelerators. Teller advocated the use the detonation of H-bombs to power these weapons, but this was not acceptable to Reagan. So far, however, a suitable alternative power source has not been found. Although even a conventional power station is capable of powering a particle beam weapon, researchers are on the lookout for much more compact power sources that can be easily deployed in space.
Teller also believed in the efficacy of X-ray lasers which would again be powered by H-bombs. The critical advantage of X-ray lasers over chemical or optical lasers is that a nuclear detonation could be used to power numerous laser emitters simultaneously whereas optical lasers are capable of shooting only one missile at a time. Despite this advantage, X-ray laser systems did not feature prominently in SDI research as the nuclear power source posed a fundamental problem. Interestingly though, just days after Reagans Star Wars speech, a test was conducted to assess the feasibility of X-ray lasers. Known as the Cabra event, this underground experiment did not yield satisfactory results. Reagan did not share Tellers enthusiasm for the X-ray lasers but perhaps owing to their spectacular nature, X-ray lasers which can shoot to annihilate their targets in massive explosions caught the public imagination and they were often associated with SDI, albeit wrongly. The X-ray laser program however continued on the sidelines and though a feasible X-ray laser weapon has not been produced, this research proved beneficial in generating many innovations in non-military fields such as medicine and material science.
Both laser beam weapons and particle beam weapons fall under the category of directed-energy weapons and these have been the primary focus of SDI, but the program has also invested in the more conventional mass-to-target weapons such as the Hypervelocity Rail Gun. SDI conducted CHECMATE (Compact High Energy Capacitor Module Advanced Technology Experiment) in order to improve the performance of these guns which fire projectiles onto their targets. These guns are high-tech versions of conventional mortars and can deliver rapid fire as well as multiple firings of up to hundreds of simultaneous shots. SDI also worked on Brilliant Pebbles, a small satellite that can deliver a slew of hyper-kinetic mini-missiles. Brilliant Pebbles is considered one of the major successes of SDI program of the 80s.
All these shooting weapons have to work in coordination with high-precision sensors. SDI carried out numerous sensor experiments that involved visible light as well as ultraviolet, infrared and radio frequencies. At the height of the SDI program in the 1980s sensor capabilities were investigated extensively through systems such as BSTS (Boost Surveillance and Tracking System), SSTS (Space Surveillance and Tracking System), Brilliant Eyes which was used with Brilliant Pebbles, and Delta 183 which used the satellite Delta Star to perform experiments.
The US government also invested in developing planes that can fly directly to space such as X-33 and the highly classified Blackstar spaceplane. These have not succeeded yet so far as public knowledge goes but may have achieved the orbit unknown the media and the public. In a recent interview, one of the authors of the 2007 fiction Space Wars, William B. Scott (2009), affirmed that
some may dispute it, but the Black Star system exists and has flown. Whether it can achieve orbit and wasis used exactly as weve depicted in Space Wars is strictly an educated guess
SDI emerged in the Cold War era with the objective of dealing with the Soviet nuclear threat. Today we live in a very different world where a full-fledged nuclear war is not a very likely scenario, although a terrorist nuclear strike is within the realm of possibility as well as a nuclear assault from North Korea or some other rogue regime. Today we live in the age of the Internet and other sophisticated electronic technologies that are heavily reliant on telecommunication satellites. And although weapons with effective nuclear deterrent capabilities are still being developed, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are already a reality.
Direct Ascent ASATs can launch medium-range ballistic missiles that can directly reach the lower earth orbit (LEO). However, communication satellites usually cruise in the much farther geostationary earth orbit (GEO). Even small air-launched missiles or kill vehicles can hit LEO satellites, but hitting an object in GEO requires much more powerful launch vehicles. Further, making these missiles accurately reach their mark thousands away miles away in space is still a technological challenge. A Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) hit-to-kill interceptor was successfully used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in 2008 to destroy a derelict US spy satellite in LEO.
LEO satellites can also be damaged or destroyed by ground-based laser beams. It is also possible to direct laser beams from ground stations onto high-altitude aircraft or even to transfer mirrors placed on a satellite which would the redirect the beams toward their targets. Another method of attacking satellites is through co-orbital ASATs. These are microsatellites that could be launched into the same orbital path as the target satellite. Here they can tail the target and inflict damage upon it in several ways through emitting high-powered microwaves, or jamming the radio frequencies, showering tiny bullets, or smashing themselves into their targets. At the speeds with which orbital bodies move around in space, even a relatively minor impact can inflict major damage.
The Present Global Scenario
Today we are witnessing a potential arms race between over a dozen countries as regards space weapons. Along with the US and Russia, China and some European countries too are increasingly turning to space to address their national security needs. Though NASA has been generally spared from miring itself in military projects, ESA (European Space Agency) is at present poised to make contributions to European defense. This is another sign that a vehement space arms competition is rearing its ugly head.
Medium-range ASATs that can affect LEO satellites are possessed by about a dozen nations and more powerful launch vehicles needed to hit GEO satellites are possessed by eight countries. At the very time of writing this, a news item appeared which announced Indias foray into the ASAT club
India, it appears, is now on the verge of entering the rare domain of space wars. Indian scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are working on a weapon system to eliminate enemy satellites operating in low-earth orbits. The move to create this satellite killer appears to have been prompted by a similar anti-satellite test conducted by China in January 2007.
Chinas employing an ASAT against one of its own satellite in 2007 created waves. It was perceived as a major wakeup call for all space-faring nations, though the US had not been exactly sleeping on this. But it is true that the Chinese experiment and the media coverage it received finally shattered any illusions anyone may have had about space being a sanctuary.
Months before the Chinese test, in September 2006, it was found out that China had been secretly testing its ASATs which could blind or dazzle US satellites. Jeff Kueter, President of George Marshal Institute, considered it a wakeup call and tone of his article (2006) titled The War in Space has Already Begun is very foreboding. Coming in the wake of such shocking revelations, the open Chinese ASAT test of 2007 raised grave concerns for the US, as well as Chinas neighbor and long-time rival India and other countries.
Since the 1991 Gulf War, the US military satellites have played a crucial role in real time in all the various armed conflicts America got involved in. Because satellites and other space assets are seen as keys to American military might, giving it a definitive high-ground advantage, American space assets could be particularly attractive and easy targets for potential aggressors. Since the 1990s the US has entered into the domain of what can be called as high-tech warfare, and it is only natural that the various services rendered by military satellites from intelligence and reconnaissance to communications, positioning and navigation have become integral to the American style of sophisticated warfare. Going beyond the indispensable support role, American space assets have also assumed an active role in that they are integrated with weapon systems while destroying the targets. But all this increased technological capabilities in and through space means increased vulnerability which has to be reduced by implementing proper defensive steps.
If the Chinese ASAT would ever target an American asset, it would definitely become a new Pearl Harbor. The Third World War would most probably be fought with space weapons, or at least satellites and space weapons would feature prominently in the global battlefield should another world war ever occur. In order to be prepared to face any eventuality of unprovoked aggression, the US has to take every care not to neglect aspects of warfare that are associated with outer space. Being the worlds top superpower currently, it is imperative that the US military establishment secure its dominance in arena of space of too. At the same time Russia and China are acting as heavy counterweights to the US, eagerly allocating more and more resources to exploit the military utility of space.
This situation has prevailed for the better part of this decade, although it intensified only in the last couple of years. All this time, the US has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to use space for military purposes in order to stay ahead of the race. The DODs space policy clearly states that
Space is a medium like the land, sea and air within which military activities shall be conducted to achieve U.S. national security objectives.
Ensuring the freedom of Space and protecting U.S. national security interests in the medium are priorities for Space and Space-related activities.
For many years now, the US Air Force (USAF) has a space directorate which is in charge of two space squadrons, the 76th Space Control Squadron and the 527th Space Aggression Squadron. The space force component of the US military falls under the overall control of United States Space Command.
In 2002, the US Administration released a national security policy paper which stressed on the need for innovation within the armed forces and experimentation with novel concepts in warfare. To maintain technology supremacy, the paper states, it is necessary to dominate the space dimension of military operations. This effort encompasses the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.
In 2002, the US also withdrew from the ABM treaty, thereby eliminating any legal obstacles impeding US research on space-based devices that are critical to its National Missile Defense program.
In 2006, President Bush authorized a new national space policy that attributes key priority to space in US military operations. This now unclassified policy document affirms The United States considers space capabilities including the ground and space segments and supporting links vital to its national interests. (OSTP, 2006) One worrying aspect of the declarations made in this policy is that the US government explicitly opposes the emergence of any legal regimes which may impair the rights of the US to conduct activities in space for U.S. national interests. But if the US is so blatantly antagonistic to any possible agreements to place control and restrictions on arms buildup, it is clear that Russia, China and other nations will follow suit, and the space frontier could become the new Wild West.
The space-technology rivalry among the space powers is very much escalating. In 2000, China unveiled a bold and ambitious 10-year space program which is, among other things, geared to foster the improvement of military space systems. As the world moves into the second decade of the twenty first century, rapid technological developments are making advanced space weapons accessible to several countries. The effectiveness of such weapons is being rapidly enhanced.
A 1995 USAF report entitled New World Vistas Air and Space Power for the 21st Century famously predicted that in the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. The word fielding in this context means countries getting these advanced weapons into their possession, either through purchase or indigenous development. We have seen this happening for so many years now. Karl Grossman who publicized the above-quoted statement in his 1999 UN address made a passionate comment on it saying, The arming of the heavens is what we faceunless we stop it now. Ten years on, we can see that this arming of heavens has gone unimpeded, causing dismay to many people concerned about the future of civilization and humanity.
While Chinas rapid rise as space power is a cause for concern to many, an even bigger phenomenon is the straining of ties between Moscow and Washington in the recent years. Only days after the Chinese ASAT test of January 2007, the Czech Government offered a military site to harbor the Pentagons missile shield system. Perceiving this as a threat, Russia vowed to bolster its intercontinental missile arsenal. In February 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a vehement attack on US foreign policies at an international security conference. He bitterly denounced the overweening role the US is playing on the world stage. He went so far as to say that the US has overstepped its borders in all spheres, bringing war, ruin and destruction to the world.
In May 2007, Russia successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile the RS-24 which it claimed can penetrate American missile defenses, those already in place as well as those of the future. One can see in these developments a recrudescence of the Cold War rhetoric and a Cold War-style arms race. Furthermore, Sino-Russian cooperation has been on rise in the recent years and it is not difficult to notice a trend toward polarization of the world, resembling that of the Cold War period.
Outer space has been steadily growing in prominence from a general military and strategic perspective in the past 20 years of the post-Cold War world. We are already witnessing the signs of a new arms race which can severely disrupt global stability and undermine prospects for international security in the coming decades. The perplexing challenge of our times is that while undeniably there is a need to put in place adequate defensive mechanisms at a national level, at the wider global level the US has the responsibility to see that peace prevails and commerce thrives so as to ensure a better world for the future generations.
Efforts toward Peace
The age of space warfare is about to dawn on mankind but there is a deplorable absence of international norms that can restrict the deployment of weapons in outer space. However, as long as the US remains averse to the formulation of any international agreements concerning the restriction of space weapons, much headway cannot be made in filling the serious legal deficit that exists in this sphere. Certainly no one wants a wild proliferation of space arms, but if no country is stepping forward to make sacrifices in this direction the world order is bound to be stuck in an impasse. Only the US can and should take the lead in the attempt to curb proliferation of space weapons, by showing willingness to make certain sacrifices of its own.
A heartening aspect to this rather worrisome state of affairs is that the space powers, including the US and China, have time and again expressed a commitment to peaceful use of outer space for the benefit of all humanity. There is an obvious dichotomy between the commitments to peaceful and military uses of space, but hope for mankind ultimately rests on the former superseding the latter. In theory it is possible to place binding limits on the extent of the implementation of space technologies without unduly jeopardizing the economic and strategic interests of the individual states involved. But this can be achieved only in a situation of international cooperation and dialogue. It is of vital importance to the future survival of human race to develop a fair and practicable space law regime which can stay ahead of space warfare technologies.
An international consensus has to be forged with regard to the use of space weapons, under the aegis of the UN. But since the concerned nations do not seem to make any moves on their own toward assuring peace, the only way to get them do it would be to bring pressure upon them through a rising tide of public opinion. The dangers of arms race in outer space should be widely promulgated through public forums and media. However, unfortunately, since much of the work on space weapons happens secretively there is very little public awareness regarding the deadly menace posed by space warfare and its imminent reality. This situation can be ameliorated though if a good number of scientists and concerned authorities come out on their own initiative to educate the public about some of the dangers looming on the horizon as far as space warfare is concerned.
It is in everyones interests to see that communications and other services rendered by satellites are not disrupted thereby causing not just inconveniences but chaos in the society. A majority of telecommunication satellites as well as a number of other meteorological, broadcasting, and remote sensing satellites move in GEO, whereas current ASAT capabilities are by and large limited to targeting LEO objects. However, future research can easily render the GEO bodies as vulnerable as LEO bodies are today. While satellite hits could be tempting to any nation or group that is in possession of ASATs, we must be aware that even an isolated attack on a single satellite could soon flare up into the Third World War. The stakes are indeed very high.
Even if a skirmish in the outer space were to be contained by means of diplomacy and negotiation, it would have already done a huge damage. In fact, the Chinese ASAT test itself has ended up in creating some considerable mess up there. Space debris is becoming a pestilential problem in the orbital space of the planet, and the ASAT tests would only add to the junk already floating around earth, gravely jeopardizing all satellites, the International Space Station and other scientific space expeditions. It is true that the space around earth is a very vast place, but at the same time even a tiny metal sliver can become a powerful bullet just by virtue of its extraordinary velocity and can rip things apart on impact with an orbiting functional body. And if such a collision were to happen at a sensitive spot, the entire orbiting body can be rendered dysfunctional. We must also remember that unlike on earth, it is very difficult or simply impossible to repair any damage done to an orbiting body.
Even one war in space will create a battlefield that will last forever, encasing the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that will thereafter make space near the earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes.
The future of humanity is greatly dependent upon the knowledge we gain and the possibilities we create through space exploration. However, the increasing presence of nasty space debris is going to make LEO unusable. America has so far pioneered human space exploration, it would be very ironical if our nation has to become responsible for seriously hampering scientific space endeavors in the future.
The United States is facing a set of tough choices on the one hand there is a need to step up space wars research and development in order to stay considerably ahead of the competition from potential enemies, on the other hand being the worlds dominant super power it is its responsibility to ensure that the future generations do not inherit a war-ravaged or post-apocalyptic world. This situation is somewhat similar to the one that prevailed during the Cold War times too, but today we live in a vastly more complex and dynamic world, and unless the powers of the world make wise choices we may not see fortune favoring us in the way it did during the long Cold War decades. The world emerged out of the Cold War relatively unscathed, but it would be the height of folly to again leave the issue of survival of human race to pure chance. The need of the hour is a rigorous and effective space law. The reality and scope of a war in space makes harmony and understanding among the nations all the more needed. If we dillydally now on efforts to ensure global peace, we may one day soon find the planet earth knocked out of its orbit or simply reduced to space debris.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment