For a glimpse of what could transpire, the failure of a Galaxy IV satellite in May 1998 is instructive. These numbers do not begin to illuminate how much disruption would occur in the event of space warfare. Worldwide space industry revenues now total almost $110 billion a year, $40 billion of which go to U.S. Space warfare would have far-reaching adverse effects for global commerce, especially commercial transactions and telecommunication services that use satellites. troops that depend on satellites to an unprecedented degree for battlefield intelligence, communication, and targeting to win quickly and with a minimum of casualties. The resulting competition would endanger U.S. programs will cost more and be far more sophisticated than the ASAT weapons of potential adversaries, who will opt to kill satellites cheaply and crudely. If the United States leads the way in flight-testing and deploying new anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, other states will surely follow suit because they have too much to lose by allowing the Pentagon sole rights to space warfare. Although everybody loses if the heavens become a shooting gallery, no nation loses more than the United States, which is the primary beneficiary of satellites for military and commercial purposes. If Rumsfeld’s plans to weaponize space are carried to fruition, America’s armed forces, economy, and diplomacy will face far greater burdens, while controls over proliferation would be weakened further. Compiled by Michael Katz-Hyman, Stimson Center Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security We just don’t see that as a worthwhile enterprise.” “We are not prepared to negotiate on the so-called arms race in outer space. “Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom fromĬounterspace Operations, Air Force Doctrine 2-2.1 “Space superiority is our imperative - it requires the same sense of urgency that we place on gaining and maintaining air superiority over enemy air space in times of conflict.” We are paving the road of 21st century warfare now. It will also require us to think about denying the high ground to our adversaries. “Controlling the high ground of space is not limited simply to protection of our own capabilities. “We must be prepared to deprive an adversary of the benefits of space capabilities when American interests and lives are at stake.” The Bush administration has refused negotiations on this subject. military space policy is driven by worst-case assumptions that the weaponization of space is inevitable that conflict follows commerce in space, as on the ground and that the United States must not wait to suffer a “Space Pearl Harbor.” Yet, the countries most capable of developing such weapons, such as Russia and China, have professed strong interest in avoiding the weaponization of space. Simply put, it’s the American way of fighting.” Air Force Space Command, explained, “We must establish and maintain space superiority. The Air Force is now actively implementing Rumsfeld’s wishes. government to vigorously pursue “the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. Shortly before arriving for his second tour at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld chaired a commission calling for the U.S. Of all the risky “transformation” initiatives championed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the one receiving the least media attention is the weaponization of space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |