[Infowarrior] - Talk of Satellite Defense Raises Fears of Space War

[Richard Forno]

Talk of Satellite Defense Raises Fears of Space War
U.S. Says Attacks on Crucial Systems Are Possible, Warns It Would Respond
Forcefully

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 17, 2006; A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600
791_pf.html

For a U.S. military increasingly dependent on sophisticated satellites for
communicating, gathering intelligence and guiding missiles, the possibility
that those space-based systems could come under attack has become a growing
worry -- and the perceived need to defend them ever more urgent. And that,
in turn, is reviving fears in some quarters that humanity's conflicts could
soon spread beyond Earth's boundaries.

In a speech last week, a senior Bush administration official warned that
other nations, and possibly terrorist groups, are "acquiring capabilities to
counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems." As a result, he said, the
United States must increase its ability to protect vital space equipment
with new technologies and policies.

Elaborating publicly for the first time since the October release of a new
national space policy, Undersecretary of State Robert G. Joseph made clear
that the administration would react forcefully to any attempt to interfere
with U.S. space technology -- whether used by the military or by businesses
ranging from paging services and automated teller machines to radio and
television providers.

"No nation, no non-state actor, should be under the illusion that the United
States will tolerate a denial of our right to the use of space for peaceful
purposes," said Joseph, undersecretary for arms control and international
security.

"We reserve the right to defend ourselves against hostile attacks and
interference with our space assets. We will, therefore, oppose others who
wish to use their military capabilities to impede or deny our access to and
use of space. We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets
by active or passive means."

The administration insists that there is no arms race in space, although the
United States is the only nation that opposed a recent United Nations call
for talks on keeping weapons out of space.

The statement of American resolve in space came against the backdrop of an
intensifying debate between those who criticize any push to put weapons in
space and others who say the nation cannot afford to let potential
adversaries get the upper hand.

Some Democrats and representatives of other nations are becoming more vocal
in their concern about the administration's rhetoric and possible plans
regarding space defense. Although the 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty, signed
by the United States, allows only peaceful uses of space, some believe that
the United States is moving toward some level of weaponization, especially
related to a missile defense system.

Both the new space policy and Joseph's speech "left a lot of room for
weaponization of space, which is something that our members have been very
concerned about for a while," said Loren Dealy, spokeswoman for the
Democratic majority on the House Armed Services Committee. "It also took a
very unilateral approach and did not address the issue of multinational
agreements to protect satellites that are there."

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) earlier criticized the president's new
national space policy, saying, "As we deal with the threats to peace and
security from the proliferation of land-based weapons, surely we need to
think long and hard before creating potential space-based proliferation
threats."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense
Information, said she found the tone and substance of Joseph's comments last
week puzzling.

"It is somewhat ironic that while he kept saying 'There is no arms race in
space' -- which says to me no real threat in space -- his whole pitch was
how we have to protect our satellites, including using weapons," she said,
citing Joseph's mention of "active means" of defending assets. "The truth of
the matter is that the most likely threats are from the ground -- jamming,
hacking, blowing up a tracking station -- and anti-satellite weapons and/or
space-based weapons do nothing to resolve those threats."

The deputy head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, Vitaliy Davydov, was
the most blunt. He called the Bush space policy "the first step towards a
serious escalation of the military confrontation space," according to the
Russian news agency Interfax. He also said that, unlike air and sea weapons,
space weapons would be "global and would hang over the entire world." He
said, moreover, that Russia has the capability to "also roll out certain
military elements into outer space."

Some Capitol Hill staffers on military affairs committees said they think
the administration's tough talk on space defense may be setting the stage
for a future budget request, especially for funds to start a controversial
space-based "test bed" of missile interceptors that could be used in a
future missile defense system. One staffer, speaking on the condition of
anonymity because of committee rules, said the Pentagon has been hinting
that it wants to make such a request for 2008, but it is unclear whether it
would be in the budget due out in early February. A Pentagon spokesman said
it would be inappropriate to discuss possible budget requests because they
are in a "pre-decisional position."

The recent emphasis on space defense coincides with the release of several
Government Accountability Office reports criticizing the Pentagon's
management of space programs designed to enhance "situational awareness" --
the essential ability to know what is happening to satellites in space and
why. In its most recent report, the GAO said last month that "on a broad
scale," Defense Department space programs are behind schedule and over
budget.

The department "starts more weapon programs than it can afford, creating a
competition for funding that encourages low cost estimating, optimistic
scheduling, over-promising, suppressing of bad news," the GAO wrote.

Nonetheless, Capitol Hill staffers said there is bipartisan agreement that
U.S. space assets are vulnerable and need to be better protected, although
there is disagreement about how to do that.

Joseph's comments were especially well received by the group that sponsored
his talk, the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit group that
specializes in technical aspects of defense and environmental debates.
Institute President Jeff Kueter said Joseph highlighted a major and growing
U.S. vulnerability that needs to be addressed.

He said China, in particular, is a potential adversary in space and one that
appears to be developing its capacities quickly. The publication Defense
News reported this fall that the Chinese had succeeded in focusing a
ground-based laser on an American satellite in a test of anti-satellite
capabilities.

Given the nation's reliance on satellites and space technology as well as
the vulnerability of the equipment, Kueter said, "the administration and
Congress need to think quite seriously about what we do about countering
space threats and protecting space assets. Not enough thought is being given
to implementing the space policy, to taking those next steps."

Kueter said his institute hopes the Pentagon will ask Congress to fund the
space-based "test bed" for national security purposes, though not
necessarily as part of an immediate space-based missile defense system. His
views were captured in the title of a Marshall Institute policy statement he
wrote in October: "The War in Space Has Already Begun."