A sea of peace or a theater of war? Dealing with the inevitable conflict in space - Features

Air & Space Power Journal, Fall, 2002 by John E. Hyten

Editorial Abstract

How will the military use space? This question has been studied for over 40 years, most recently by the 2000 Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization. Colonel Hyten assesses current US space policy and makes recommendations aimed at keeping inevitable space conflicts from exploding into full-fledged space warfare, while still protecting the nation interests in this most important medium.

**********

IN MANY WAYS, the future of the United States is tied to the development of space. Given the many issues facing this development and the potential for conflict, one would expect widespread and vigorous debate on the subject. Such is not the case, however. Even though debate has begun within limited political and military circles, no one has addressed space in any real depth on a national level.

During the 1970s and 1980s, in the midst of an active Soviet space threat, the debate was loud and vigorous, involving not only leading military officers, presidents, and congressmen, but also many members of the scientific and academic communities. Significantly, the national media gave close attention to this discussion. Today, however, the debate lacks any such national attention and committed involvement, as evidenced by the lack of response to a major speech delivered at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in November 1998 by Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), then the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In this address, he proposed in very strong terms the need for space weapons and perhaps even a separate space force to develop and operate these weapons. (1)

Media response to these bold and radical proposals was almost nonexistent. For many weeks, the only media coverage to be found was in primarily defense-related periodicals such as Inside the Air Force. (2) The first mainstream American newspaper that even mentioned this speech was the Washington Times in an editorial by James Hackett on 11 January 1999 (nearly two months after the speech). (3) Senator Smith, however, continued to press his ideas in the Senate, and Congress passed legislation, included in the Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2000, which established a special Space Commission to evaluate many of these proposals. (4) Still, the general public has largely ignored the issue.

The Space Commission

Formally called the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, the Space Commission began its work in the summer of 2000 and issued its report on 11 January 2001. Donald Rumsfeld chaired the commission until President George W. Bush nominated him to serve as secretary of defense as the commission was finalizing its report, which recommended numerous actions by the executive branch of government and specifically by the Department of Defense (DOD). Due to congressional interest, the report likely would have spurred some changes in any administration, but due in great part to the position and leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld, DOD has pursued many of the commission's findings. Changes did not occur immediately, and many of the recommendations and initiatives have still not taken effect; nonetheless, significant change is under way.

All of national-security space has undergone reorganization within DOD. The most significant change has been the naming of a single military service--the Air Force--as DOD's executive agent for space. Peter B. Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force, now has direct responsibility for all national-security space, including the National Reconnaissance Office. For the first time, one person has the authority to lead and direct all US national-security space activities. The executive agent is also responsible for establishing a virtual major-force program for space that will clearly identify, for the first time, the true magnitude of the resources expended on national-security space efforts.

One of the most important aspects of the Space Commission's report, however, is the clear and logical way it describes how essential space has become to all aspects of our existence. It explains the importance of the civil, commercial, defense, and intelligence space sectors in detail--as well as US vulnerabilities. In some of its more vivid language, the report points out that with the growing commercial and national-security use of space, US assets in space and on the ground offer many potentially vulnerable targets. (5) In discussing the future, the commission concludes that "history is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, 'improbable' event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people--a 'Space Pearl Harbor'--will be the only event to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act. We are on notice, but we have not noticed." (6)