Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 17. Juni 2005 / Time Line June 17, 2005
Version 3.006/17/2005
Weapons In Space: Dawn of a New Era
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
http://www.space.com/news/050617_space_warfare.html
For more than a decade, the military utilization of space has
become all the more important in warfighting. Since the Gulf War of
1991, using space assets has enabled air, land, and sea forces and
operations to be far more effective.
Space power has changed the face of warfare. So much so,
particularly for the United States, skirmishes of the 21st century
cannot be fought and won without space capabilities. That reliance
has led to a key action item for U.S. space warriors: How best to
maintain and grow the nation’s space superiority and deny
adversaries the ability to use space assets.
That fact has prompted arguments as to the "weaponization" of space
– from satellites killing satellites, exploding space mines,
even using technology to make an enemy’s spacecraft go deaf,
dumb, or blind.
Leftover legacy
The White House is now delving into U.S. military space policy and
what it sees as the need to reshape current national space policy,
a leftover legacy document from the Clinton Administration.
Clinton’s unclassified National Space Policy was issued in
September 1996. Among its proclamations: "Consistent with treaty
obligations, the United States will develop, operate and maintain
space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space
and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries. These
capabilities may also be enhanced by diplomatic, legal or military
measures to preclude an adversary's hostile use of space systems
and services."
In a June 10 press briefing, White House spokesman, Scott
McClellan, explained that the national space policy has been
"undergoing an interagency review" because it hasn’t been
updated in several years.
McClellan said that "we’ve seen a lot of dramatic changes,
internationally and domestically, that affect our space policy. And
that’s why it needs to be updated."
"But we believe in the peaceful exploration of space," McClellan
continued. "And there are treaties in place, and we continue to
abide by those treaties. But there are issues that relate to our
space program that could affect those space programs that we need
to make sure are addressed."
As for the interagency review process of national space policy
itself, McClellan added: "It’s not looking at weaponizing
space, as some reports had previously suggested. But the peaceful
exploration of space also includes the ability of nations to be
able to protect their space systems."
Full spectrum dominance
What the White House will spin up and out as new military space
policy, nobody knows for sure. But already there’s heated
debate.
At a meeting sponsored by the Nuclear Policy Research Institute on
May 16 and 17 and held in Washington, D.C., various policy experts
argued over the merits of "Full Spectrum Dominance".
Theresa Hitchens, Vice President of the Center for Defense
Information in Washington, D.C. is skeptical about what’s in
the offing from White House space policy wonks. Contrasted with the
Clinton space policy, she feels it’s a question of
emphasis.
The Bush policy will embrace a need to bolster U.S. military space,
Hitchens predicted. It will provide a stronger incentive for
military space operations to "ensure freedom of action in space"
and for "space protection," she explained.
"The new policy will be more military-oriented, rather than the
heavily civil-oriented predecessor," Hitchens suggested.
What’s ahead is a shift of terminology, she added, a "playing
with the words."
As example, the term "freedom of action in space" is now a code
phrase for "freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack,"
Hitchens emphasized, drawing the distinction from recently issued
U.S. Air Force Counterspace Operations Doctrine.
Tap on the shoulder to toast
Hitchens points to current U.S. Air Force documents that state the
need for anti-satellite capabilities. These "knock ‘em dead"
ideas range from hit-to-kill devices, electromagnetic pulses to
lasers. "Anything from a tap on the shoulder to toast", she said,
is not ruled out, including physical destruction of a target
satellite. All are part of the counterspace portion of space
control.
Just how explicit will the new Bush space policy be on these
matters?
None of this detail is likely to be visible within the publicly
released document, Hitchens said. "What I am suggesting is that the
strategy of fighting ‘in, from and through’ space is
already codified in official military documents. Those documents
could not have been published without at least the tacit approval
of the Pentagon civilian leadership and the White House."
For Hitchens, what’s coming is simply putting "the political
chapeau on this strategy." It will support the space warfighting
strategy, although probably in a rather subtle and understated way,
she said.
"The reason for the coyness is also obvious. The White House knows
that the idea of space weaponization is publicly controversial.
Therefore, they will seek to defuse this controversy by emphasizing
the ‘defensive’ needs and approach," Hitchens
advised.
Time to weaponize space
"The time to weaponize and administer space for the good of global
commerce is now, when the United States could do so without fear of
an arms race there."
This is the view of Everett Dolman, Associate Professor of
Comparative Military Studies in the School of Advanced Air and
Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
No peer competitors are capable of challenging the United States,
Dolman explained, as was the case in the Cold War, and so no "race"
is possible. The longer the United States waits, however, the more
opportunities for a peer competitor to show up on the scene.
Dolman argues that, in ten or twenty years, America might be
confronting an active space power that could weaponize space. And
they might do so in a manner that prevents the United States from
competing in the space arena.
"The short answer is, if you want an arms race in space, do nothing
now," Dolman said.
Maintain the status quo
For those that think space weaponization is impossible, Dolman said
such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly". The
fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is
indisputable, he said, and nowhere challenged by a credible
authority.
"Space weaponization can work," Dolman said. "It will be very
expensive. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes
first—and establishes itself at the top of the Earth’s
gravity well, garnering all the many advantages that the high
ground has always provided in war—will find the benefits
worth the costs."
What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action
would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit.
Dolman said he takes issues with that notion.
"This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another
state were to weaponize space, well then, the U.S. would have to
react. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different
situation," Dolman responded.
"The U.S. is the world’s most powerful state. The
international system looks to it for order. If the U.S. were to
weaponize space, it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or
extend its position, in effect, the status quo," Dolman suggested.
It is likely that most states—recognizing the vast expense
and effort needed to hone their space skills to where America is
today—would opt not to bother competing, he said.
Force enhancement
There has been a clear shift in military space prowess over the
last couple of decades, pointed out Nancy Gallagher, Associate
Director for Research at the Center for International and Security
Affairs at the University of Maryland, in College Park.
"I don’t see military uses of space as a dichotomy,"
Gallagher said, "for example, that it’s either used for
purely peaceful purposes, or it has already been
‘militarized’ or even
‘weaponized’…and thus anything goes."
Gallagher noted that both the United States and the former Soviet
Union made military use of space from the outset, but primarily in
support functions that were generally agreed to be stabilizing.
"What has been happening over the past twenty-plus years is
basically a shift from using space to help stabilize deterrence to
using it for war-fighting purposes, she said.
Today, that means primarily "force enhancement", Gallagher said,
like the use of space-based communications, spysat imagery, as well
as guidance systems to make U.S. conventional forces on land, sea,
and air more lethal.
But there are also increasing ambitions for space control and space
force application capabilities, Gallagher said. Those include
anti-satellite weapons, space-based missile defense, and weapons
based in space that can hit targets on Earth.
Political heat
"I will be interested to see how forward-leaning the new
presidential directive will be," Gallagher said, in terms of space
control. Which steps have already been authorized and those than
remain "options" needing future presidential decision remain to be
seen, she said.
The new Bush space directive may be interesting primarily as a
signal of how much political heat the White House is willing to
take by being explicit about its plans in order to try to
institutionalize them, Gallagher said.
"I would like to see more debate on the Hill and among opinion
leaders and the general public about what types of space-based
military capabilities the United States really should be pursuing,
given the actual nature of the threats and alternative means to
address them," Gallagher concluded.
Little to be gained…much to be lost
"Space is indeed militarized, and has been since the 1960s,"
observed Craig Eisendrath, Senior Fellow at the Center for
International Policy in Washington, D.C. "Placing weapons in outer
space -- weaponization -- is different, and has not yet happened.
Substantial research is being conducted but deployment has not
occurred," he said.
At stake, Eisendrath said, is not only the immense expense that
would be incurred by an arms race in outer space. "There is also
the serious threat that should space be weaponized, and battles
fought, it would become quickly inoperable for the important
commercial purposes it serves, particularly in communications. For
this reason, there is an urgent need for more control."
While Eisendrath is not optimistic that the Bush administration
will desist from weaponization of space, he remains hopeful.
"There is little to be gained and much to be lost, particularly
given the serious state of our economy with mounting deficits and
increasing instability. This could be an area where the
administration prudently withdraws," Eisendrath said.
This is the first in a series of articles dealing with the
militarization and weaponization of space.
06/17/2005
CONTRACTS from the United States Department of Defense
Lockheed Martin System and Sensors, Syracuse, N.Y., is being
awarded a $6,216,421 cost-plus incentive-fee and firm fixed price
contract modification. This contract modification will install the
second of two pacific Alaska Range Complex Long Range Radar System;
providing a transportable radar which includes one TPS-77 Radar,
microwave equipment, peculiar support equipment. The TPS-77 radar
is composed of a three dimensial L-Band primary surveillance radar
and monopulse secondary surveillance radar. The system provides air
surveillance information to be used in the conduct of air
sovereignty operations. The location of performance is Taylor
Mountain, Alaska Nugget Construction Inc. Total funds have been
obligated. This work will be complete by September 2006.
Negotiations were completed May 2004. The Headquarters Electronic
Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., is the contracting
activity (F19628-03-C-0049, P00019).
06/17/2005
General Cites Influencers as Part of Recruiting
Challenge
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA
American Forces Press Service
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md., June 17, 2005 - The greatest challenge
facing recruiters is the people who influence young men and women
of the "Millennium Generation" not to serve, the commander of the
Army Recruiting Command said here today.
"Influencers are clearly having an impact right now on our ability
to successfully recruit -- unquestionably so," said Maj. Gen.
Michael D. Rochelle, who was here to take part in a
change-of-command ceremony for the 1st Recruiting Brigade.
At a news conference following the ceremony, the general pointed
out that recruiting is getter harder because parents don't want
recruiters, "who simply want to tell the Army story, who we are and
what it is we do for this great nation," to sit down and talk with
their children.
"The one characteristic that is very honorable and respectable
about 'millennials' is that they listen and they generally heed the
advice of their advisers," Rochelle said.
"Whether we're talking parents, coaches, teachers, guidance
counselors, it matters not. They take all of that on board, then
they filter it and process it," the general explained.
Rochelle's comments come as the Army, for the fourth consecutive
month, failed to reach its recruiting goal. He said recruiters
today have to contact as many as 100 people before getting one
person to sit down to listen to the Army's story, and "that number
is rising."
Despite the challenges, the general said, the recruiting command
will give "everything it has" to meet the goal of 80,000 new
recruits in fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30. "We're still focused
very much on 100 percent success," he said.
Rochelle expressed hope that recruiting numbers will get better
soon, especially during the upcoming summer, when high school
graduates will be faced with the question of what to do next.
"Typically, we get a lift in the summer months," he said. "The
question will be how much of a lift. I'm hoping for a very good
lift."
The general said the Army hopes to bring in new recruits by
increasing signing bonuses to up to $40,000, a move that will
require congressional authorization. Programs also are in place to
give soldiers tours of military installations to give them a feel
for Army life, and another program partners with business to
guarantee new recruits priority interviews right when they complete
training or military service.
He said about 100 companies have signed on with the Army in the
"Partnership for Youth Success," including the Dell Corp.,
Southwest Airlines and Sears Logistics.
"What these companies realize is that these young soldiers, after
completion of military service, bring a quality that's frankly
irreplaceable," Rochelle said.
The general said his order to "stand down" recruiters in March was
a result of reports in the media that recruiters were using
forceful and unfair tactics to enlist new soldiers. He said the
move was intended to "refocus recruiters on Army values."
 |
 |