Think Tank Warns Against Space Weapons Systems

Space.com ^ | January 22, 2004 | Tariq Malik

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Satellites orbiting high above Earth are a crucial resource for the U.S. military in terms of communications, reconnaissance and global positioning. But a new report warns that too much of a space military presence, mainly the use of space-based weapons systems, may inevitably cause more problems than they're meant to solve

Should the U.S. military "weaponize" space, the report states, it will most likely be affect global commerce, weaken American ties with other nations and eventually lead to space weapons proliferation as other groups develop countermeasures or their own space weapons systems.

The study, called Space Assurance or Space Domination? The Case Against Weaponizing Space , was released by the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank aimed at enhancing international peace and security.

"When you weaponize space, you invite company," said Michael Krepon, who wrote the report and served as the founding president of the Stimson Center. "When we go first, others will come second. That is an absolute certainty."

Once killer satellites start destroying one another above Earth, they will cause space debris that could harm benign satellites used by civilian agencies and companies around the world, which in turn affects global economy, according to the Stimson report.

If other nations or groups choose not to put their own space weapons in orbit, they could develop ground-based countermeasures like electronic jamming or spoofing devices to confuse U.S. machines. A ballistic missile could disable satellites in low-earth orbit by detonating a nuclear device, subjecting any ground troops relying intelligence from those satellites to possible attack, the study noted.

Finally, the report added, space weapons systems could hurt U.S. diplomatic ties on the ground, with other nations constantly mindful of its space forces in Earth orbit.

Krepon said there is a distinction between the current militarization of space -- which uses satellites to support forces on the ground -- and weaponization, defined in the study as the flight-testing and deployment of any system to specifically as systems used to "fight a war in space or from space, or military capabilities on the ground designed to kill satellites in space."

The U.S. military has had an established foothold in space for decades and its application in wartime was visually apparent during the recent war, and current occupation, in Iraq. Military forces there from the U.S. and other nations, rely heavily on satellites on everything from weather forecasts to signal detection and photointelligence.

Krepon said the United States Air Force (USAF), in particular, is creeping close to the threshold of space weaponization with its XSS satellite program. The XSS program, short for Experimental Satellite System, consists of a series of microsatellites smaller than 100 kilograms.

One such satellite, XSS-10, was successfully launched in 2003. Weighing about 62 pounds (28 kilograms), it demonstrated the ability to be activated soon after launch, maneuver close to its spent rocket and broadcast live video of the booster to officials on the ground. A follow-up mission, XSS-11, was set to conduct a similar mission -- but over a longer period of time -- sometime this year.

"But a maneuverable satellite like that could also be used to disable, stun, dazzle or destroy an object," Krepon told SPACE.com. Even if the U.S. military moves forward with a non-destructive system, one that disables enemy satellites rather than obliterating them, the foreign space forces that follow won't be so polite about the means they use to destroy spacecraft, he added.

The push to develop military systems in space in the current administration was boosted in 2001, when a government-assigned commission reported its findings on the United States' national security capabilities in space. Commissioners, then, reported a great need to protect American space systems, particularly since the government's growing dependence on satellites could make it an attractive target for enemies.

"Many foreign nations and non-state entities are pursuing space-related activities," reported the study, which was headed then by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who is now the Secretary of Defense. "If the U.S. is to avoid a 'Space Pearl Harbor' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems."

If space warfare becomes a reality, it should only be implemented as a last resort, according to the Stimson study.

"We are in a position to deter the first use of space warfare because of our predominant military power," Krepon said, adding that the U.S. is now in a position to cause grievous damage to any other state that engages in space warfare. "The prospect of deterrence can be quite meaningful in space."

[hchutch]

Oh, where do I start?

First, the fact is right now, all we have in space are targets. Why? Because these things are primarily surveillance and communications assets. Not only are they targets, but they are HIGHLY VALUABLE targets. Why? It's because the satellites provide INFORMATION - the most valuable commodity in war.

Second, this is also a shot at an effective missile defense system. The ideal system would have layers capable of targeting ballistic missiles from launch through their final attack on targets. Some of those systems have to be in space to work best.

I could go on, but I need to keep my blood pressure down.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.....our GPS satellites are already targets for our enemies. The Chinese will be sending Sinonauts into orbit, and perhaps militarizing space, whatever we do.

All those military and commercial satellites just circling above.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

First, the fact is right now, all we have in space are targets. Why? Because these things are primarily surveillance and communications assets. Not only are they targets, but they are HIGHLY VALUABLE targets. Why? It's because the satellites provide INFORMATION - the most valuable commodity in war.

Bump!!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A base on the Moon would allow us to use the local resources for rocket fuel. With that capability, we could service and protect our assets in space - and venture further out into the solar system.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bumps!

[JimRed]

Don't announce it, just do it! Kind of like concealed carry. The first inkling that it exists should be when it performs its' function.

[Land of the Free 04]

Should the U.S. military "weaponize" space, the report states, it will most likely be affect global commerce, weaken American ties with other nations and eventually lead to space weapons proliferation as other groups develop countermeasures or their own space weapons systems.

It took a "think tank" to produce this leftie blubbering? Barbara Streisand is as deep a thinker.

[pawdoggie]

Henry L. Stimpson, as I recall, was Secretary of War under FDR and HST.

True, but even more significantly as regards this article, he was the former Secretary of State who shut down our fledling cryptologic (code-breaking) service in the 1920s on the grounds that, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail". Is it ironic or appropriate that the organization bearing Stimson's name is carrying on his legacy of enhancing America's ability to defend itself?

[ThanhPhero]

If we "weaponize" space, other nations will rush to find counter weapons. If we do not weaponize space, then other nations will race to get the jump on us. We should weaponize space. It is much easier to counter others' efforts above the atmosphere if we already control that area. We dont need to be in the position of having to decide what to do when China threatens us with her orbitals and we dont have anything up there yet. If we do not "weaponize" space then others will see it as their opportunity to sandbag the only country standing in their way to global dominance.

[eyespysomething]

The guy I work with says:

The moon would be perfect for nuclear reactors, since the gravity is so low, if anything did happen, the fallout would just fall to the surface, plus people would already be wearing protection suits just to be there. Also, if the radiation went into space, then what? Nothing. If only we could figure how to get the energy here from there. Plus, lift off from the moon would be so incredibly easier because of the no atmosphere thingy going on at the moon.

His $.02

My $.02:
Enterprise (The newest Star trek) they leave from the Jupiter Base to leave our solar system, to boldly go where no man has gone before. We gotta get out there to get out there. Man is an explorer. We've explored the earth, now onward and upward.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

We've seen what China will do when we fly near their airspace. I don't doubt their intentions are space dominance.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

That's .04 more in the kitty.

Bump!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The first inkling that it exists should be when it performs its' function.

Unless you have some bonehead LIBERAL in the WH.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Poohbah]

Henry L. Stimpson, as I recall, was Secretary of War under FDR and HST.

He was a Republican. Served as Secretary of State for Hoover. His most famous quote was his pious statement when he closed down the State Department's cryptanalysis shop: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."

[steve8714]

We could better spend all those billions here on Earth, to find a cure for AIDS and save butterflies.

[jpl]

Now that the old Soviet Union is gone, they're rooting for China to assume world domination, the last great Communist hope.

[He Rides A White Horse]

But a new report warns that too much of a space military presence, mainly the use of space-based weapons systems, may inevitably cause more problems than they're meant to solve

Especially if the enemies of freedom get there first.

[Atlantic Friend]

Bah, the Think Tank's argument is, in itself, counterproductive. They say America must not put weapons in space because other countries would follow. How exactly would America refraining from putting weapons in space compel the other interested countries to show the same restraint?

It didn't work with the submarines, it didn't work with the atom bombs...how on Earth could it work with space-based weapons ?

[hchutch]

Of course, when Japan launched the sneak attack, he had no problem with the notion any longer...

And in fact, nobody thought of acting like a gentleman when a certain admiral's travel plans were intercepted and decoded. Instead, a guy named Tom Lanphier proceeded to avenge Pearl Harbor.