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

Every nation, the United States included, has its own unique national-security interests in space. As the world's most space-dependent nation, the United States must prepare itself to respond to threats to its national interests should negotiations fail. These threats might involve attacking--directly or indirectly--space systems, denying commercial space capabilities, threatening forces/citizens with space weapons, or using international space capabilities in some fashion. Political and economic means could effectively control certain of these threats while others might require military intervention, possibly consisting of non-lethal action (e.g., jamming), lethal action confined to terrestrial targets, or, ultimately, lethal action against targets in space. Most likely, the United States would respond to a purely commercial conflict through non-lethal means, using lethal space weapons only when foreign space systems threatened American lives or property. Each of these threats is significantly different, and the nation must consider each one as it develops a strategy for the twenty-first century.

Recommendations

As a critical element of the future, space will play an essential role in allowing for economic growth and enhancing national security. In order to take full advantage of this future, however, the United States must integrate all of its elements of national power into an effective national strategy. The following recommendations are designed to help develop such a strategy and respond to these challenges.

Reconstitute the National Space Council

The Space Commission's top recommendations concerning organization and management recognize the critical leadership role of the president in "developing a long term strategy for sustaining the nation's role as the leading space-faring nation." It also suggested the creation of two organizational constructs to advise the president on space matters--a Presidential Space Advisory Group to provide independent advice and a Senior Interagency Group within the National Security Council--as well as the establishment of a closer relationship between the secretary of defense and the director for central intelligence. (22) Although the secretary and director have certainly developed a much closer relationship regarding national-security space, the two recommended groups have not been implemented.

The original National Space Council (disbanded in 1992) effectively integrated different elements of the executive branch and helped develop coherent strategies. Since the vice president chaired the council, it had the authority it needed to make tough decisions. We should charter a similar body with the power and authority to make critical policy recommendations to the president. It should include senior representatives from all the affected segments of the government, including DOD, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Security Council. The space council should first define the nation's overarching space policy and include a clear vision for the next century. This vision must call for more than a simple commitment to "the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes." (23)