Finding a path to spacepower

Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2002 by John M. Logsdon

Although there has been considerable activity among specialists in national security space since the Bush administration took office, there has only been limited debate on space weapons and their effects. Decisions regarding spacepower capabilities are important domestically as well as internationally and should be made only after thoughtful analysis and discussion. (1)

Why the Concern?

The report issued in January 2001 by the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, focused oil how best to assure that the United States got maximum national security value from its investments in space capabilities. It was careful in its discussion of space weapons but recommended that the United States "should vigorously pursue the capabilities ... to ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests." To those opposed to extending armed conflict into space, the report seemed to be a call for movement toward making outer space the next battlefield.

This was a plausible interpretation. In the years preceding the commission's work, there had been a high level of advocacy of the potential of space capabilities and the military power they could provide. Force application capabilities were a central focus of this advocacy. In 1996 U.S. Space Command issued Vision for 2020, which projected that "during the early 21st century, spacepower will ... evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare." (2) Two years later, the command released a long range plan that dramatically portrayed how space-based capabilities, including force application systems, are key to national security objectives and could be used to disable or destroy enemy space systems. The report noted that force application systems based in space could also be available for strategic attack on ground-based targets. In the same year, Senator Robert Smith staked out a position as a congressional advocate of spacepower, stating "America's future security and prosperity depend on our constant supremacy in space." (3) Smith's call for a separate military service dedicated to spacepower led to establishment of the Space Commission. In the private sector, the Center for Security Policy took the lead in pushing for stronger national security space capabilities in the final years of the Clinton administration. To the arms control community and others opposed to moving conflict into space, the report of the Space Commission seemed a logical ex tension of those arguments; it supported developing space weapons and was closely linked to the highest levels of national security policy.

Spacepower advocates pretty much had the stage to themselves at the start of 2001. The opposition to weaponization was primarily on the instinctive level, in the United States, there was no organized criticism or in-depth thinking on the validity or wisdom of spacepower advocates. It was at least reasonable to conclude that the George W. Bush administration would indeed move quickly toward enhancing spacepower, going beyond traditional space support and force enhancement missions to increased emphasis on space control and even force application from space. Given these factors, it is not surprising that those people in the security policy community traditionally skeptical of increasing military capabilities as the best approach to conflict resolution, became concerned that the Nation would pursue space weaponization without challenge. They have now mobilized to present that challenge.

Thinking About Weapons

Recently a number of public policy centers have added space weaponization to nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile defense on their agendas. These groups traditionally focused on diplomatic, legal, and multilateral approaches to international security affairs rather than the development of unilateral military capabilities. Among them are the Council on Foreign Relations, Eisenhower Institute, Federation of American Scientists, Henry L. Stimson Center, Cato Institute, Center for Defense Information, and Monterey Institute of International Studies.

In addition, some members of Congress have become concerned about the implications of weaponizing space. In 2001 and again in 2002, Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced the Space Preservation Act, which called on the President to "implement a ban on space-based weapons ... to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit, and immediately order the termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States."

Other Space Priorities

As efforts to assess space weaponization reach fruition, an informed discussion on future national security space policy will become more likely. Just as a loyal opposition has emerged, spacepower advocates have been silent. Senator Smith was defeated for reelection in 2002, and the last Center for Security Policy statement on spacepower was issued more than two years ago. Few senior officials or military officers have been willing to discuss questions oil space weaponry in public. With only one side participating, there is no debate.