Will We Need a Space Force

IN NOVEMBER 1998, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire wrote, If the Air Force cannot or will not embrace space power ... , we in Congress will have to establish an entirely new service. (1) Because of Smith's and others' efforts, Congress tasked President Bill Clinton's administration to assess and report on the management and organization of U.S. national security efforts related to space. In its 11 January 2001 report, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization concluded that the disadvantages of creating a separate Space Force outweighed the advantages and that establishing a Space Corps under the aegis of the Air Force was not the best course of action. (2) Space is that vast expanse beyond the atmosphere where the laws of astrodynamics role the motion of objects. (3) In its doctrine, the Air Force defines space power as the capability to exploit space forces to support and achieve national security objectives. (4) Examples of space power include a satellite detecting a ballistic missile launch or equipment that transmits military communications. Air power, on the other hand, has a more military definition. The Air Force defines air power as the application of airborne systems to project military power. (5) I consider space power here to be the application of space systems to project military power, and the terms space weapons and space-based weapons are synonymous. One assertion that advocates make for a separate Space Force is that space operations are fundamentally different from air operations, just as air operations are fundamentally different from land and sea operations. Therefore, the application of force in space would be significantly different from its application in the air. Waging war in space would require a separate military entity to organize, train, and equip its forces, just as waging war in the air requires a separate air force. Both air and space systems provide elevation above the surface of the earth. Both lack natural barriers and allow three-dimensional motion within their expanses. (6) They are also similar in that military forces can gain advantages by controlling and exploiting these domains. Important differences exist, however. Different physical laws govern air and space. The laws of aerodynamics govern the medium of air, and the laws of astrodynamics govern space. While both media allow forces to pass through them, physical laws alter how they do so. Air forces must take off and return to bases on the earth's surface; space forces would be able to maintain theft flight paths almost indefinitely without expending energy. (7) Another difference between air and space is access to and from them. (8) While flight through the air is routine and affordable, space flight is expensive and technically challenging, although this might change in the future. The effects of national sovereignty provide a third difference between air and space. Airspace above a state is that state's sovereign domain. Space, however, is not under any state's sovereignty. Space is more like international waters. Vehicles travelling in space thus operate in an environment that allows overflight of any point on the globe without political and legal regulation. (9) Differences in air and space environments require different air and space forces. Because of air forces' range and speed, airmen have a theaterwide perspective. (10) In combat, the air operations center (AOC) controls and organizes air forces at the theater-level. In contrast, space forces provide a global capability, and the effective employment of forces in space requires a global perspective. (11) Air forces are highly maneuverable. They can choose the time and place of attack, the route of attack, and the direction from which to attack. By contrast, space forces must expend energy to maneuver, cannot make large changes in their predictable flight paths, and carry limited fuel for maneuvering. …