Control of space is at the crux of the debateabout the future of U.S. military space policy.The question is not about militarizing space.Clearly, we have been using and will continue touse space for military purposes. But, whereas weare currently using space assets to support ter-restrial (ground, sea, and air) military operations,what Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), the SpaceCommission (which was chaired by currentSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld), andothers have proposed is that the United Statesmove toward weaponizing space for space con-trol.

Advocates of a more aggressive U.S. militarypolicy for space argue that the United States ismore reliant on the use of space than is any othernation, that space systems are vulnerable toattack, and that U.S. space systems are thus anattractive candidate for a space Pearl Harbor.But as important and potentially vulnerable ascurrent U.S. space-based assets may be, deploy-ing actual weapons (whether defensive or offen-sive) will likely be perceived by the rest of theworld as more threatening than the status quo.Any move by the United States to introduceweapons into space will surely lead to the devel-

opment and deployment of anti-satelliteweapons by potentially hostile nations. As thedominant user of space for military and civilianfunctions, the United States would have themost to lose from such an arms race.

Although there are legitimate (and unique)military requirements for space assets, virtuallyall are dual use. Military requirements shouldnot necessarily dictate those other uses. In fact,commercial efforts in space often lead those ofthe government and the Department of Defenseand usually have lower costs, due to marketinfluences and competition.

National security must be one component oftotal U.S. space policy, but it must certainly notbe the primary component. In the postColdWar environmentwith no immediate threatfrom a rival great power and none on the hori-zonthe United States must not establish over-stated and costly military requirements forspace-based resources. The military must makegreater use of commercial space assets. Also, theUnited States should strive to foster an environ-ment that allows commercial space activity togrow and flourish rather than use it to create anew area for costly military competition.

Should the United StatesWeaponize Space?

Military and Commercial Implicationsby Charles V. Pea and Edward L. Hudgins

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Charles V. Pea is senior defense policy analyst and Edward L. Hudgins is former director of regulatory studies atthe Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

No. 427 March 18, 2002

Introduction

Before becoming secretary of defense,Donald Rumsfeld chaired two blue ribboncommissions at the request of Congress. Thefirstcalled the Rumsfeld Commissionissued the Report of the Commission toAssess the Ballistic Missile Threat to theUnited States. The report received muchattention because it raised the specter of aballistic missile threat to the United States byso-called rogue states and concluded thatthe threat was more imminent than had beenpredicted by an earlier National IntelligenceEstimate. The secondbut probably lesserknowncommission chaired by Rumsfeldwas the Commission to Assess United StatesNational Security Space Management andOrganization, more commonly referred to asthe Space Commission. The report of thissecond Rumsfeld commission (released inJanuary 2001) has received less attention, butits conclusions are similarly foreboding:

The United States is more dependentthan any other nation on the use ofspace.1

Space systems can be vulnerable to arange of attacks.2

Nations hostile to the United Statespossess or can acquire the means to dis-rupt or destroy U.S. space systems.3

The United States is an attractive can-didate for a space Pearl Harbor4

As a result, the Space Commission recom-mended that U.S. national security spaceinterests be recognized as a top national secu-rity priority5 and that the U.S. must developthe means both to deter and to defend againsthostile acts in and from space.6 Even thoughthe Space Commission report has received lessmedia attention than the first RumsfeldCommission report, its conclusions and rec-ommendations could have a greater andbroader impact now that Rumsfeld is secre-tary of defense.7

Space is the new military high ground, as

highlighted in a January 2001 war gamethefirst one that focused on space as the primarytheater of operations. That war game, conduct-ed at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado, pos-tulated a conflict taking place in 2017 betweenBlue and Red forces (resembling the UnitedStates and China, respectively). Both sides pos-sessed space weapons as well as ground-basedlasers. The Blue side had a national missiledefense and the Red side had anti-satelliteweapons.8 For the first time, a war game actual-ly fought a war with weapons in space ratherthan just using space systems to supportground, sea, and air operationsseemingly tak-ing its cues from the Space Commission reportand the incoming Bush administrations inter-est in the military uses of space.

Given that space is likely to be a newnational security priority during the Bushadministration, it is worth examiningdefense space policy in both its military andits commercial implications. This study willaddress the following issues:

What are the military and civilian/commercial uses of space?

What are the threats (both near- andlong-term) to space assets?

How can the United States bestrespond to those threats?

How do the military uses of spaceaffect (either adversely or positively)civilian/commercial uses?

It is important to point out that the issue isnot whether the United States should militarizespace. The militarization of space has alreadyoccurred and will continue. The more immedi-ate issue is whether we should weaponize space,at least in the near- or mid-term, and moreimportant, whether military uses and require-ments in space should be the driving forcebehind our national space policy.

Military Uses of Space

More than a decade ago, John M. Collinsat the Congressional Research Service wrote:

2

The militarizationof space has

already occurred.The more imme-

diate issue iswhether we

should weaponizespace.

Space, the ultimate high ground,overarches planet Earth, its occu-pants, and all activities thereon.Effective use of that medium for mil-itary purposes therefore may beneeded to safeguard national inter-ests in survival, security, peace,power, stability, and freedom ofaction.

Every technologically advancedland, sea, and air service alreadydepends on space satellites. . . .Reliance continues to increase,because systems in space offer strate-gic and tactical advantages that areotherwise unavailable. . . .

Military interests in space almostsurely will intensify and spread dur-ing the next decade.9

In order to understand the debate overweaponization of space, one must know themilitary uses of space, which include integratedtactical warning and attack assessment(ITW&AA), weather and environmental moni-toring, satellite communications (satcom), sur-veillance and reconnaissance, navigation andpositioning, space control, ballistic missiledefense (BMD), and force application (i.e.,using weapons that travel through or are basedin space). For more detail, see the Appendix.

ITW&AAITW&AA is a unique military requirement

that cannot be met using nonmilitaryresources. It is essentially monitoring the signsof attacking long-range aircraft and missiles,either toward the United States or within a the-ater/region of operations. The Defense SupportProgram satellites, using infrared sensors, cur-rently provide early warning and assessmentcapability for attacks by long-range interconti-nental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The SpaceBased Infrared System (SBIR) high program isthe planned follow-on to DSP.

Weather and Environmental MonitoringWeather and environmental satellites are

an example of dual-use space satellites.

According to the RAND report: Weathersatellite information is crucial to missionplanning for all the armed services, as well asvital to civilian public safety and scientificresearch around the world.10 Currently,both the Department of Defense (DoD) andthe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration have separate weather satel-lite programs, which use different orbitalpaths and instruments but use the sameorbital vehicle or bus.

SatcomCommunications probably represents the

single biggest use of space for both the mili-tary and civilian/commercial sectors.According to former U.S. Air Force vice chiefof staff Gen. Thomas S. Moorman Jr. (ret.):Space-based communications is the giant inspace commerce. The giant clearly will beeven more dominant in the future, and theinformation revolution will be the driver.11

Although the DoD operates several com-munications satellites (or payloads on othermilitary satellites to provide communicationsservices)for example, the Defense SatelliteCommunications System, Air Force SatelliteCommunications System (AFSATCOM),Leasat, UHF Follow-On (UFO), and MilitaryStrategic and Tactical Relay (MILSTAR)thissegment is largely commercially driven.Indeed, according to the RAND report: Thetechnology for new satellite communications,especially high-speed mobile services, is evolv-ing so rapidly that the DoD is planning tomake greater use of commercial systemsrather than fielding its own systems.12

Surveillance and ReconnaissanceSpace-based remote sensing for surveil-

lance and reconnaissance is essentially anextension of aerial observation done previous-ly by balloons and aircraft. Clearly, this is anarea w