Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics

CLASHES OVER THE MILITARY use of space, usually result of proposals to fund politically controversial weapons programs, have agitated and unsettled country at various times throughout space age. But though world has changed, intellectual and doctrinal foundations underlying debate have not. Since 1967, Outer Space Treaty has banned deployment of nuclear weapons in space. But what about other weapons? Although United States has no plans to do so, it could deploy antisatellite (ASAT) or space-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors using conventional explosives or high velocity impact. Currently, Pentagon has technology development programs for Kinetic Energy ASAT and Space-Based Laser. In long term, satellites or space planes could be designed to exploit high-energy laser, electromagnetic pulse, or high-power microwave technologies to degrade targets in space or on earth. President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative explored feasibility of many such weapons systems. To some, these new-era tools of war hold out special military promise; to others, they represent security and foreign relations nightmare. Political excitement over use of space also ripples through foreign policy arena. Prompted by U.S. discussions and war games featuring space control and BMD weapons, in February 2000 Chinese delegation to United Nations Conference on Disarmament circulated paper identifying a present and pressing necessity to prevent an arms race in outer space. A treaty forestalling weaponization of space, argued delegation, would have the greatest bearing on global peace and Moscow agrees with Beijing on this subject. Russian officials regard 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which prohibits nation-wide defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles, as bulwark against ideas for basing BMD interceptors and other conventional weapons in orbit. Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to host an international conference in 2001 to explore ways to prevent militarization of outer space and enhance current regime of international space law. Historically, America's vision has been that space should be free for transit and exploitation by all governments and private entities, provided such activities pose no harm to U.S. interests or security. Questions surrounding, first, enforcement of this vision and, second, possible use of space to strengthen America's military prowess naturally will arise as country struggles to resolve more radical uncertainty: For purposes of national defense, should space be treated like land, sea, and air? Or is there something different and sacrosanct about this forbidding environment? Despite marked physical differences among earthly and orbital environments, in my view there really are no meaningful characteristics that allow us to consider them differently from point of view of policy and strategy. The ability to leverage outer space will continue to grow in importance for modern military forces and may make possible even more effective forms of combat. Yet there are those who reach opposite conclusion concerning potential impact of space weapons on national security and international peace. They have argued their case in learned journals, popular press, and before congressional committees -- in many cases, repeating arguments first made decades ago. It is past time for thorough review of case for halting progress of weapons at edge of earth's atmosphere. Stability then and now THE CASE FOR TREATING space as sanctuary is grounded in two central concerns. The first is that introduction of space weapons would radically destabilize security relationships. The second is that arming heavens would undermine U.S. foreign policy by unnecessarily torturing relationships with allies (and potential warfighting partners) -- and would cause anti-American coalitions to form and wage political and economic warfare against U. …