The space campaign space-power theory applied to counterspace operations

Air & Space Power Journal, Summer, 2004 by Brent D. Ziarnick

Hardware

Actual space systems such as satellites and launch boosters comprise the hardware element, whose utility to a nation's space power is obvious. Attacking this element poses unique opportunities as well as challenges and risks. Significant technological hurdles limit anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, and perceived political limitations make such endeavors unpopular. Furthermore, the physical destruction of satellites might cause orbiting debris that could possibly render that orbit or space itself unsuitable for operations. However, alternatives to physical destruction include attacking subsystems (blinding the satellite) or forcibly moving the system outside of acceptable parameters. Attacking space boosters does not share the risks associated with targeting satellites, and any national missile-defense capability fielded to engage ballistic missiles in the boost phase could also destroy a space booster. Hitting space-lift systems during boost can result in the complete destruction or neutralization of the payload; moreover, debris would either fail to reach orbit, burning up harmlessly in the atmosphere, or rain down on the adversary.

Economy and Populace

Their function as sources of funds and manpower for a nation's space effort makes the economy and populace essential elements of space power. Although subject to attack, they should not be considered direct targets of space power because of ethical concerns, aside from the fact that their utility is not concentrated in a certain area. A space warrior, however, should keep in mind their possible impact on a nation's space power in long-term conflicts.

Exclusivity of Capabilities/Knowledge

Oberg describes the capabilities/knowledge element--the spread of technical space knowledge in the host nation--as "the most volatile aspect of power in general." (6) If the nation has only a small cadre of space professionals, such as engineers and scientists, they become an important target with very high utility. However, if space expertise is so widespread that enemy space systems do not rely on a small, easily targeted group of individuals, this element lessens in importance. Eliminating or incapacitating exclusivity targets warrants careful consideration in military planning since it could become a decisive factor in destroying an enemy's ability to project space power.

These elements comprise the target list of a campaign to destroy enemy space power. Destruction or degradation of any of them could be devastating to an adversary. Identification of these targets and examination of their strengths and weaknesses allow us to develop methods for their negation.

Time Span of Space Conflict

The length of the conflict becomes a factor in a nation's plans for defeating an enemy's space power. By nature, space power is difficult to deploy and, under current military realities, relatively fixed. Satellite constellations that one normally needs to produce a significant military capability take years or even decades for major spacefaring nations to construct. Even single satellite systems may prove difficult for minor spacefaring nations or private companies to deploy. In low-intensity, short-duration campaigns, destroying a system without attacking the space-power infrastructure may effectively eliminate all of a nation's space capabilities for the remainder of hostilities. However, longer engagements may allow the enemy to rebuild destroyed elements, requiring the military commander to reengage in counterspace operations. The enemy's ability to regenerate space systems serves as the primary factor in categorizing the relative time span of a space conflict. This model considers three such durations: short, medium, and long.