The Harvard Political Review

The Harvard Political Review - Cover
Issue: 6/1/01

Spaced Out
By Jonathan L. Lee

THE YEAR IS 2017. Tensions have escalated between the world’s two great powers, the United States and China. An incident involving Taiwan sends the two nations into heated conflict. But this battle plays out like none we’ve ever seen, replete with satellite attacks, reusable space planes, and ground-based anti-satellite lasers.

Sound farfetched? No one who can remember as far back as Hainan Island doubts the possibility of a standoff between China and the U.S., but many national security experts have come to believe that the site of future military conflicts will be a few thousand miles on the moon-side of the atmosphere. This very scenario with the United States and China was simulated in January in the first major war game to focus on space as the primary theater of operations, held over five days at the Air Force’s Space Warfare Center near Colorado Springs, Colo. No longer the stuff of science fiction, the protection of space has become a focal point in the debate about the future of national security.

Space’s Number One Fan

So far, the biggest rumblings about space as a national security issue have come from Republican Sen. Robert Smith of New Hampshire and the commission he authorized, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization. The “Space Commission,” as it is commonly called, comprised 13 world-class experts on space and the military and released its report to Congress and the Department of Defense on Jan. 11.

Normally these reports don’t generate much response, but it just so happens that the chairman of this commission was none other than Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush administration’s new secretary of defense. Rumsfeld is one of the biggest backers of military investment in space, and his appointment has made the reassessment of America’s space capacities one of the Pentagon’s top priorities.

The Space Commission report expresses certainty that space will be the site of future military activity and voices concern about the United States’ vulnerability. “We know from history that every medium—air, land, and sea—has seen conflict,” its authors write. “Reality indicates that space will be no different.” They warn of a potential “space Pearl Harbor,” in which an unexpected attack on U.S. satellites could wipe out communications and surveillance systems and cripple both the U.S. military and economy.

With the proliferation of information technologies, the United States has become increasingly dependent on its satellite network—more so, in fact, than any other nation. Of the roughly 750 active satellites in orbit, the United States controls about 300, and of all the military satellites, the U.S. controls 80 percent. A nation that developed anti-satellite technology could wreak havoc on the United States’ communications infrastructure. Furthermore, as commercial companies have come to control an increasing percentage of satellites in orbit, not only hostile nations but non-state actors could gain access to compromising surveillance information.

Among the commission’s recommendations are the creation of a Space Advisory Group, which would report directly to the president, as well as a position of undersecretary of defense for space, intelligence, and information. They also recommend some reorganization in the way space is managed among the different branches of the military. As it currently stands, responsibility for space resides primarily with the Air Force, from whose ranks the commander in chief of the United States Space Command (SPACECOM) is selected. SPACECOM, a joint command, coordinates the individual services’ own Space Commands, which are responsible for handling their own particular space needs.

The commission report stops short of recommending the creation of a new branch of the armed services dedicated to space, a so-called “Space Force,” but does not rule that possibility out as a future option. Instead, it recommends the Air Force put more emphasis on space, possibly creating a “Space Corps” within the Air Force which would focus on space functions and cultivate its own “space culture.”

Roadblocks to a Space Buildup

The commission’s report establishes some ambitious goals, and Secretary Rumsfeld’s stature lends significant weight to possible space developments, but like any major project, a military space buildup takes money.

And that’s where the politics start. According to Cmdr. Anthony Kurta of the U.S. Navy, currently a fellow with the National Security Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, one of two things has to happen for the space program to get the funding it needs. The first option would be an increase in the “top line”—an outright increase in the amount of money that Congress allocates to the Defense Department. But to fund a space program without cutting from other departments would require expenditure of a magnitude not seen since the Reagan years. Despite some bipartisan agreement on the need for increased military spending, it is unlikely that a Reagan-level funding increase would garner significant support.

The other option, then, involves cutting funding from somewhere else within the military, a tactic at the heart of the Bush team’s campaign promise to “skip a generation” of military technology. While few in the military have come out in opposition to space investment in principle, once funding starts to slip away from each branch’s pet projects, departmental infighting is sure to escalate.

There is more than just budgetary opposition: some object in principle to the militarization of space, while others have argued that such militarization could provoke a space arms race and would violate important treaties. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits placing nuclear weapons in orbit (and the building of military bases on the moon), while the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty bans the use of space-based lasers to attack missiles (as well as other forms of national missile defense). When considering these issues, we must distinguish between protection of so-called “space assets”—like satellites—and the actual placement of weapons in space. As John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based defense think tank, told the Washington Post, putting weapons in space would be “a singularly misguided track when we are the only nation with satellites worth shooting at.”

The Space Commission report does not specifically advocate the “weaponization” of space, only the protection of U.S. satellites and the limitation of enemies’ access to surveillance information. The report does, however, urge “power projection in, from, and through space” and claims that there are no international laws expressly prohibiting placement or use of weapons in space. Indeed, some space hawks are already thinking ahead to space-focused weapons, including anti-satellite weapons, ground and space-based lasers, missile interceptors, space-based radar, space launchers, and attack satellites.

With the release of the Space Commission report and the appointment of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, it seems likely space will get significantly more attention at the Pentagon. But despite the war game in Colorado and the strong words from the hawks, it seems that efforts will focus on protecting U.S. satellites from attack. We shouldn’t expect a real-life Star Wars anytime soon. As Ashton Carter, Kennedy School professor and former assistant secretary of defense, told the HPR, “People have been talking about weaponizing space for more than 20 years, but few weapons concepts have proven attractive enough to be fielded. They’ve been too expensive and not very useful. There’s been a lot of talk but not much happens.”