What should U.S. military do in space?

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3

Maintain the status quo
For those that think space weaponization is impossible, Dolman said such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly". The fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is indisputable, he said, and nowhere challenged by a credible authority.

"Space weaponization can work," Dolman said. "It will be very expensive. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes first — and establishes itself at the top of the Earth’s gravity well, garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war — will find the benefits worth the costs."

What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit. Dolman said he takes issues with that notion.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

"This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another state were to weaponize space, well then, the U.S. would have to react. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different situation," Dolman responded.

"The U.S. is the world’s most powerful state. The international system looks to it for order. If the U.S. were to weaponize space, it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or extend its position, in effect, the status quo," Dolman suggested. It is likely that most states — recognizing the vast expense and effort needed to hone their space skills to where America is today — would opt not to bother competing, he said.

Force enhancement
There has been a clear shift in military space prowess over the last couple of decades, pointed out Nancy Gallagher, Associate Director for Research at the Center for International and Security Affairs at the University of Maryland, in College Park.

"I don’t see military uses of space as a dichotomy," Gallagher said, "for example, that it’s either used for purely peaceful purposes, or it has already been ‘militarized’ or even ‘weaponized’ ... and thus anything goes."

Gallagher noted that both the United States and the former Soviet Union made military use of space from the outset, but primarily in support functions that were generally agreed to be stabilizing. "What has been happening over the past twenty-plus years is basically a shift from using space to help stabilize deterrence to using it for war-fighting purposes, she said.

Today, that means primarily "force enhancement", Gallagher said, like the use of space-based communications, spysat imagery, as well as guidance systems to make U.S. conventional forces on land, sea, and air more lethal.

But there are also increasing ambitions for space control and space force application capabilities, Gallagher said. Those include anti-satellite weapons, space-based missile defense, and weapons based in space that can hit targets on Earth.

Political heat
"I will be interested to see how forward-leaning the new presidential directive will be," Gallagher said, in terms of space control. Which steps have already been authorized and those than remain "options" needing future presidential decision remain to be seen, she said.

The new Bush space directive may be interesting primarily as a signal of how much political heat the White House is willing to take by being explicit about its plans in order to try to institutionalize them, Gallagher said

"I would like to see more debate on the Hill and among opinion leaders and the general public about what types of space-based military capabilities the United States really should be pursuing, given the actual nature of the threats and alternative means to address them," Gallagher concluded.

Little to be gained ... much to be lost
"Space is indeed militarized, and has been since the 1960s," observed Craig Eisendrath, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. "Placing weapons in outer space — weaponization — is different, and has not yet happened. Substantial research is being conducted but deployment has not occurred," he said.

At stake, Eisendrath said, is not only the immense expense that would be incurred by an arms race in outer space. "There is also the serious threat that should space be weaponized, and battles fought, it would become quickly inoperable for the important commercial purposes it serves, particularly in communications. For this reason, there is an urgent need for more control."

While Eisendrath is not optimistic that the Bush administration will desist from weaponization of space, he remains hopeful.

"There is little to be gained and much to be lost, particularly given the serious state of our economy with mounting deficits and increasing instability. This could be an area where the administration prudently withdraws," Eisendrath said.

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print