Few Americans pay much attention to an administration’s space policy. That might have been fine under George W. Bush leadership. But it is not under Obama. There are indications he is going to attempt to limit the U.S. military’s use of space, the country’s ability to defend its assets there, and to deter attack against them.
Jason D. Wood has written an excellent article detailing why Obama’s space policy is impractical and dangerous.
Wood writes that it is impractical for 3 major reasons:
First and foremost, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of a space weapon. One proposed definition includes only space-based systems specifically produced to destroy other space objects. But that raises the question of intent, always difficult to prove. This definition also fails to take into account Earth-based systems that could be used to destroy objects in space, like the anti-satellite weapons used by the People’s Republic of China in 2007 and the United States in 2008. Nor does it include terrestrial laser systems capable of jamming satellite communications. An alternate definition — any object in, or passing through, space that has the capability of damaging or destroying another space object — is equally unfeasible. Theoretically, any object in space could be used to intercept or collide with another object, again raising the issue of determining intent.
Second, there is no conceivable way to effectively verify a space weapons ban. Assuming that a workable definition of “space weapon” could be agreed upon, effectively inspecting space payloads would present enormous challenges. Some components could have dual use applications. And unlike Earth-based systems, where inspection delays simply postpone verification, an inspection delay in this case would allow the launch of the disputed payload.
Third, because the U.S. relies heavily on space systems to achieve battlefield dominance, our adversaries have greater incentive to develop the means to negate U.S. space capabilities. Given U.S conventional superiority, a strike on U.S. space assets becomes a quick and relatively cheap way of gaining an asymmetric advantage. An ambiguously defined treaty that cannot be verified or enforced — but that would limit U.S. options to deter and defend against enemy space attack — would not alter this calculus, and would therefore be unlikely to prevent an attack on U.S. space assets or forestall the deployment of space weapons by other nations.
The result of Obama’s effort would be damaging to American security:
The importance of space to the security of the United States cannot be overstated. In the military sphere, space assets serve as a tremendous force multiplier — providing early warning, communications, timing, navigation, and targeting information around the globe. The diplomatic arena also benefits greatly from U.S. space capabilities. Space-based intelligence systems provide the means to verify arms reduction treaties and nonproliferation agreements. These same systems help policymakers assess the damage of manmade or natural disasters, allowing humanitarian aid to be directed more efficiently and effectively. U.S. space assets are also increasingly vital to the commercial sector, providing data that is critical for weather forecasts, agriculture, construction, and geological surveys. More and more, everyday citizens rely on satellite systems for GPS navigation, direct-to-home television, financial transactions, and emergency services. In the future, space will continue to become exponentially more important across the spectrum of defense, diplomacy, commerce, and daily life.
Under a space weapons ban, the United States would not be able to deter an attack on these vital systems. Given the difficulties of determining intent, as well as verifying and attributing noncompliance, the United States cannot guarantee that an aggressor will be swiftly and harshly punished, militarily or diplomatically. Barring the ability to deter an attack, protection is the next reasonable alternative. However, under a treaty banning space weapons, the United States would be hampered in its ability to defend its satellites against enemy attack, leaving its increasingly vital space assets vulnerable.
All of us owe Wood thanks for calling attention to what the Obama administration is doing to hinder American security.
No Comments