Russia and China are increasingly pursuing the
ability to attack America’s space-based assets, but is there anything the
Pentagon can do to thwart Beijing and Moscow’s ambitions?
While it is sometimes treated as an
afterthought here on earth, space-based capabilities like GPS, communications
and reconnaissance satellites are the sinews that hold the U.S. military
together, allowing American forces to operate across the globe. That’s a fact,
however, that has not gone unnoticed in Beijing or Moscow.
“Adversaries and potential adversaries are developing, and in some cases
demonstrating, disruptive and destructive counterspace capabilities.
Furthermore, they are exploiting what they perceive as space
vulnerabilities—threatening the vital, national, civil, scientific and economic
benefits to the U.S. and the global community,” Adm. Cecil D. Haney, commander
of U.S. Strategic Command told an audience at
the Center for a New American Security on January 22.
The biggest challenges come from rival
great powers which have the technical and financial wherewithal to challenge
American power in space.
“Russia’s 2010 military doctrine
emphasized space as a crucial component of its defense strategy, and Russia has
publicly stated they are researching and developing counterspace capabilities
to degrade, disrupt and deny other users of space,” Haney said, adding that
“Russia’s leaders also openly assert that Russian armed forces have
anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, conduct ASAT research and employ satellite
jammers.”
“Last year," Haney said, "the Washington
Times reported Russian President Putin as saying that Russia, following
the Chinese military, is building state-of-the-art weapons that would
‘guarantee [for] Russia the fulfillment of space defense tasks for the period
until 2020.’”
While Russia—and the Soviet Union before
it—might have been America’s closest rivals in space, these days the most
dangerous challenge comes from Beijing. “China, like Russia, has advanced
‘directed energy’ capabilities that could be used to track or blind satellites,
and like Russia, has demonstrated the ability to perform complex maneuvers in space,”
Haney said. He added:
“In November, China conducted its sixth test of a hypersonic strike vehicle,
and several news sources reported an ASAT the previous month. Of course, many
of us are still dealing with China’s 2007 ASAT test, which created more than
3,000 pieces of debris, adding significantly to the congested space
environment. Well over 80 percent of this debris, which litters one of the most
utilized areas of space, will affect space flight for many decades to come.”
But what can Washington do to counter
these developments? The answer to that question is less clear.
Haney laid out four main points:
“First,
we must have a deeper, broader understanding of our adversaries, and potential
adversaries. No matter the foe, we must understand their capability and intent,
so that we can deny enemy action, hold critical nodes at risk, and prevent
perceptions, misperceptions and actions from escalating.”
“Second, we must view and fund space as a
critical mission capability vs. an enabler. Our sensors, command and control
systems, and Space Situational Awareness capabilities underpin our ability to
maintain awareness. These resources are vital to the decision-making process
and supporting forces around the globe.”
“Third, we must look at our military
capabilities in a holistic manner, and fully integrate them into our other
elements of national power. We must have a whole of government approach, and
include our allies, partners and commercial entities, where appropriate.”
“Finally, we must increase readiness
across the arena of strategic capabilities: nuclear, space, and cyberspace.”
The United States is pursuing other
technical solutions as well. Haney explained:
“We are working on several new
capabilities, both in low earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit. To enhance our
capability of tracking objects in low earth orbit, our Space Fence program will
work in conjunction with the rest of our space surveillance network to provide
the Joint Space Operations Center or JSpOC, an
integrated picture of the joint operating environment, providing significantly
improved un-cued space surveillance capabilities.”
“To further refine space situational
awareness, we are relocating a C-Band radar to Australia—in order to provide
low earth orbit coverage in the Southern altitudes. A major advance in
geosynchronous space surveillance was the declaration of IOC of the
Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program that is providing improved
situational awareness out to 22,000 miles. . . Future initiatives must build in
resiliency and survivability—whether that’s through disaggregation, smaller,
less complex satellites or real-time command and control.”
The United States has a long way to go in
securing its space-based assets, but Washington is making progress. “While we
still have a significant way to go, I am delighted with how far this innovative
solution has come. I can’t tell you much of what we are doing due to
classification of its operations, but we are experimenting high velocity
learning as we experiment in an environment with seamless participation of the
DoD and intelligence community,” Haney said.
Ultimately, the United States must rely on deterrence
in space, if possible. The key is to make sure that potential adversaries
understand that attacking U.S. space assets will come at a significant cost.
“At the end of the day, we must ensure that we deter conflict from extending to
outer space. As threats evolve, we must continue to look for additional
investments in the space portfolio. We simply cannot risk denied access to a
domain that is so vital to U.S. national security,” Haney said. But if the
worst should happen, “I am proud to tell you that U.S. Strategic Command is a
ready force, capable of delivering comprehensive warfighting solutions for our
commander in chief, should deterrence fail. Should we need to respond, we will
respond proportionally, using all elements of our national power, and that
response will occur at a time, domain, and place of our choosing.”
Essentially, the message from
Washington is that an attack on U.S. space systems does not necessarily mean a
response in kind. Like any other aggressive act, the United States has the
means to respond in many different ways—including conventional military
strikes. Which means an attack on a satellite might be met with a Tomahawk
cruise missile launched at an enemy’s staging area. Dave Majumdar
No comments:
Post a Comment