The Space Force should not take this thinking to orbit. Those are usually the right answers - on Earth. “Joint warfighting” and “multi-domain warfare” roll off the tongues of many officers. Since most officers in the Space Force were trained in other services, they over-learned the lessons the Pentagon has been trying to teach since the passage of Goldwater-Nichols in 1986. Space Command quickly turn to avenging satellite attacks on the ground. The sad condition of space deterrence is the reason that discussions of the Space Force and U.S. House Armed Services Committee is already focusing on reducing such over-classification. America must be able to show its strength without compromising its sources. Forget the pretty pictures of the Rover on Mars - space attacks involve tracking bullets or lasers. America has limited means of doing so but they are highly classified and would seem abstract and hard to believe to the world’s citizens. How do you prove that space litter was not guilty?Īssuming that the United States can persuasively attribute the attack, then it must convincingly defend against it. There are tens of millions of pieces of space debris too small to track already in Earth’s orbits. Absent a “smoking gun” anti-satellite missile launch, the United States would find it difficult to make a persuasive case for retaliation should a sensitive (or classified) space asset suddenly go offline, particularly if officials were uncertain why. Although early warning systems would likely spot the heat flares accompanying an anti-satellite missile attack, determining the source of a sophisticated cyber attack is far more challenging. retribution after an attack, also seems feeble. With so few satellites of their own to protect, they can focus on playing offense.ĭeterrence by punishment, the threat of U.S. North Korea and Iran are also in the hunt. Countries like China and Russia are exploiting this, which is why they’ve developed arsenals of anti-satellite systems. Satellites follow predictable orbits - the lowest of which can be reached by a missile within five to 15 minutes - and they and their ground stations are equally vulnerable to non-kinetic attacks such as laser dazzling, electronic jamming, and cyber attacks. space assets too daunting to think of attacking. The United States can’t fall back on deterrence in space, whether by denial or punishment. Sadly, Americans read more about Space Command’s new headquarters than about safeguarding our infrastructure. and allied satellites may soon be targets, each one dry tinder for war. America’s treaty commitments have astronomical reach because tens of thousands of U.S. Last month, they confirmed that the alliance’s mutual defense obligations extend to space, in theory bolstering deterrence but in practice expanding the U.S. In comparison, most satellites are naked. At least the fleet at Pearl Harbor had big guns - its mistake was being caught off-guard. There are also constellations of NASA, commercial, and allied satellites that are completely vulnerable. They are both exquisite and relatively defenseless, just as the U.S. ![]() John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, calls our military satellites “big, fat, juicy targets.” He’s correct. The clock is ticking because the United States has been inviting an orbital Pearl Harbor for decades. America needs better answers - and clearer thinking - fast or the Space Force and Space Command will be failures. I thought the new Space Force and the revival of the old Space Command were supposed to give America better options. leaders to either create casualties on the ground or condone aggression in space. Either way, lowering a space conflict down to Earth means climbing up the escalatory ladder because it forces U.S. If the satellite attack were to fail, bombing a ground station seems belligerent, but not responding at all risks encouraging future attacks. Even if the prior attack destroyed one of our key satellites (which is not clear in the hypothetical), retaliating by blowing up a ground station and killing its staff seems disproportionate. What is the right answer?īombing an adversary’s ground station means attacking a sovereign asset like an embassy, probably killing enemy soldiers. John Raymond, chief of operations of the Space Force, said, “There’s no such thing as space war. When asked a similar question at the National Press Club in March, Gen. One of my congressional colleagues said recently, “Let’s take out their ground stations with cruise missiles,” but that made me cringe. What should the United States do if one of its satellites were attacked and the Pentagon had no way to respond in space? The answer to this question is surprisingly revealing about Washington’s space policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |