BRIEFING: "Disharmony in the spheres: Modern American warfare relies on satellites," The Economist, 19 January 2008, p. 25.
Good point to start:
The revolution in military technology is, at heart, a revolution in the use of space. America's supremacy in the air is made possible by its mastery of space.
True, but you don't want to take that too far. Take space out and we still have all better stuff, just not as operationally dominant in the short run. So to attack America in space would be fundamentally a defensive act to forestall our efforts against someone else.
Plenty of stern-looking experts will hype our vulnerability more than that, but it's basically all hype. At the end of any successful Pearl Harbor, we'd still be able to rumble distant from our shores and blow the crap outta any plausible enemies. Time would be longer, but we still have the only force that can project—however sloppily and bad our targeting would be. This Achilles heel stuff often gets hyped beyond all belief.
China's ASAT test last January was clearly a shot across our bow, letting us know they could do what we did plenty in the past: create lots of space debris and prove an ASAT capability. With that one shot, China created 28% of the known space debris right now, probably having the most negative impact there alone. Debris now outnumbers spacecraft about three-to-one. Rest assured that America and the Sovs made most of the rest of that 72 percent.
What does China want?
They want, as they indicated with Russia in a UN Gen Assembly vote not that long ago, a negotiated treaty to prevent space arms. Only one country voted against that resolution. Actually, it was just the Bush Administration, the same crew that abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty all on its own.
Thank God no weapons yet in space from these guys, because in the end, we stand to lose most in this race.
Instead, we should be, as the mag suggest, pursuing international cooperation with other space powers on space surveillance (mostly about those pesky pieces of debris). But each great power tracks on their own (us, Russia, China, Euros), lest any secrets slip out.
Well, at least our armed forces are smart enough to train on the possibility that space would be denied to them. Although, as with most things, there are easier, more ground-based ways to f—k us up in combat comms.
| Permalink |
Comments (5)
Good Economist piece, and good commentary.
So now the American ASAT capability, with little more than a well-equipped destroyer and a Standard missile, is (tentatively) proven. And how many of those do we have cruising around the world? Plenty. China has no advantage here, and once Russia does their little meaningless test just to show some balls, detente will ensue. Conflict, or cooperation? Economics will not let the former last for long before the latter shows its obvious benefits. The fact is, as in Cold War MAD, we're all vulnerable, and no weaponization of space will change that fundamental threat to security.
Posted by Matthew Garcia | February 21, 2008 9:04 AM
Keep in mind that when people talk about the numbers of debris, they are only talking about tracked debris. There are orders of magnitude more untracked debris that can still damage or potentially destroy a spacecraft.
Also, the US event was at a much lower altitude than the Chinese test, hence the debris should reentry within days to weeks.
Still, these technical differences will be lost on most people. The political decision to intercept the satellite is far riskier than the safety issues.
Posted by taka2k7 | February 21, 2008 10:26 AM
I think the deal that is needed should trade the militarization of space for the privatization of space. Give up the weapons in exchange for an internationally recognized Homestead Act for the 21st century that guarantees long-term mineral and private property rights to the first private company (not government) that lands on any given space rock (be that rock an asteroid, the moon or Mars). If they want to claim rights for a planet or moon, they have to land humans. This may not seem like a big issue today, but as private companies start getting more and more serious about moving "off-world" (Virgin supposedly starts flying Spaceship 2 in 2009-2010) who owns what in space could become a hot button issue. And unclear property protections will almost certainly hamper long term investment.
Posted by Brent Grace | February 21, 2008 12:26 PM
Tom:
Why is it a good idea for the USA to dominate the blue waters of the Ocean but not near space? That's where I'm not following.
Posted by Cyberhillbilly | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Didn't anyone notice the US shifted development from big vulnerable military satellites to small, cheaper networked swarms some years ago?
Posted by Louis Heberlein | February 21, 2008 1:48 PM