Bush policy would start arms race in space

EI Non-Resident Fellow Sean Kay co-authors op-ed warning of the dangerous consequences of space weaponization by the United States

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, 25 MAY 2005

Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Sean Kay and Theresa Hitchens

In the coming weeks, President George W. Bush is expected to approve a radical departure from long-standing American policy toward space. Traditionally guided by self-restraint, states have avoided the weaponization of space. However, the forthcoming Bush space doctrine establishes a new American plan for space: warfighting.

The American military has used space for decades: For example, satellites facilitate intelligence, warn of missile launches, ensure compliance with arms treaties, monitor the global environment and facilitate command and control for precision weaponry that can reduce casualties in conflict. However, the Bush administration is completing a new Presidential Decision Directive that would move the United States quickly into the uncharted territory of deploying offensive anti-satellite weapons and space-based weapons for attacking targets on Earth. This decision appears pending in the near complete absence of a public review of the issue and apparent disregard of associated dangers.

America's would-be space warriors have concluded, according to the U.S. Space Command, that: "Just as land dominance, sea control and air superiority have become critical elements of current military strategy, space superiority is emerging as an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare." Pentagon and Air Force documents have put forward a vision of "space control" to ensure superiority. This vision includes attacking satellites being used, or that might be used, by an adversary.

Additionally, orbiting "death stars" to attack ground targets are being considered. Pete Teets, the former acting secretary of the U.S. Air Force has said: "We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space - nonetheless, we are thinking about those possibilities."

If, as expected, the new Bush space policy opens the door for the implementation of space warfare, other states including China, Russia and India might develop similar capabilities - sparking a new, costly, and unnecessary, arms race.
The heavy reliance of modern society and military power on space makes satellites potential targets for adversaries wanting to hurt the United States. But the answer to protecting U.S. satellites is not space weapons. The deployment of U.S. space weapons is likely to make space assets - including commercial communications and broadcast satellites - even more vulnerable, since no other country is pursuing, let alone deploying space attack weapons.

However, it is hard to imagine other nations sitting idly by while the United States develops the tools to attack them "in, from and through space" as postulated by the U.S. Air Force. The United States already has near complete dominance in space capacity. The U.S. controls 95 percent of global military spending on space and dominates two-thirds of the commercial space industry. The U.S. budget for military-related space activity was $18 billion in 2003 and is expected to rise to $25 billion by 2010. American space-technology industries combined in 2000 to generate $125 billion in profits, and total American investment in space technology is expected to be $600 billion by 2010. There is no rush to dramatically alter U.S. space policy because the status quo overwhelmingly favors the United States. And yet this is precisely what the Bush team is doing.

The decision on space use appears to be driven by the desire to begin testing space-based missile defenses. But the U.S. Air Force has much more than that in mind. For example, there is ongoing research and development on a hypersonic glider with a global strike capability, which would carry munitions or sensors. With a velocity of mach 1-15, this space vehicle would be able to maneuver and avoid flying directly over sensitive locations while having the ability to strike anywhere on the planet within 90 minutes. This program has moved forward with no serious public discussion of the ethical or geostrategic implications of such a capacity - how it might be used, whether it could be deployed against domestic targets in the United States, or what will happen if other countries are prompted to deploy similar technology.

Before the Bush administration unwisely takes the United States down a path toward the weaponization of space, the U.S. Congress should begin a serious investigation into the implications of such a dramatic change in policy. Space has been traditionally treated as a global commons, ideally best left to scientists and commercial industry, and its military use guided by restraint. America's dramatic dominance of space gives us a luxury of time during which President Bush could negotiate an international treaty that locks in the status quo, thus securing our advantage while hedging against other states moving forward on their own military programs for space.

How we respond to these challenges will set much of the tone of world security for the 21st century. Certainly that deserves more thoughtful consideration than the quick stroke of the presidential pen in the absence of major public scrutiny.

Kay, associate professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University, is a non-resident fellow in foreign and defense policy at the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, D.C. Hitchens is vice president of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.