Outer Space Weapons - The Threat of Weapons in Outer Space

In the past 15 years, while the Conference on Disarmament has stood at a frustrating standstill, many countries have expressed concern over plans of the United States to weaponize space. The U.S., while denying plans to place weapons in space, has invested considerable amounts in technology that would be useful for such purposes. Various government documents outlining space and national defense policies clearly indicate the government's ideas for military capabilities of fighting enemies. Apart from calls to begin negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT), most countries have underlined the importance of also beginning negotiations on a treaty on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). The General Assembly for over 25 consecutive years has voted on such a treaty with results as great as 175 to zero against space militarization.

Outer space holds enormous amounts of both real and potential benefits to humanity in efforts to solve the most pressing problems and to achieve challenging goals. Space is critical for one of today's most important technological assets, telecommunications. It also facilitates our ability to manage resources, respond effectively to natural disasters, and to observe environmental trends and events. The United Nations realizes the potential space technology offers to its efforts in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Space is also critical to the security policies of nations, specifically with respect to early warning and verification of arms control agreements. The preservation of space for peaceful uses is in the interest of all nations. Logically, then, any impairment in the ability to benefit from space assets are a common threat to us all.

The emphasis by most nations is based on the necessity of protecting space from becoming the next battlefield. Introducing weapons into space is not only impractical, based on the laws of physics and the enormous costs implied by a functioning space weapons program, but it also poses a grave threat to all space assets. Debris in space destroys space assets indiscriminately, due to the immensely greater speed at which objects move in space. Even an object the size of a marble could have disastrous effects on a space vessel. With such serious damage almost sure to beset the U.S.'s own space-faring capabilities, the plans to weaponize space appear especially short-sighted. Even if in the short term one country does gain an immediate advantage by destroying other nations' space assets, the resulting debris would inevitably restrict its own ability to utilize space - to the detriment of all humanity.

The physical limits to the utility of space weapons are well established and well known. Scientists Laura Grego, Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright in The Physics of Space Security identify four specific military functions that space weapons serve:

• Space-based ground attack;
• Space-based missile defense;
• Space-based satellite defense;
• Attacking other nations' space assets

Of these four functions, only the last is physically and economically practicable. Attacking ground targets from space is both more costly and less effective than ground-, sea- or air-based means. Space-based missile defense, in order to be effective, would require placing hundreds more satellites in orbit in order to ensure that one is within range of the target at any one time. More importantly, satellites are extremely vulnerable to ground-based attack, because their orbits are highly predictable. Space-based missile defense can easily be destroyed by, for instance, using a less expensive missile to "punch a hole" in the defense, through which an Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) could then be sent. For this same reason, the third mission - defending space assets - is also impractical. "Asymmetric" means of destroying satellites include space mines and nuclear-weaponized ICBMs, which would easily destroy any satellite, regardless of its function.

In determining that space-based satellite attack is the only military function to which space is physically conducive, Laura Grego elaborates that those countries with the greatest ability to pursue this mission are the same ones that have the most to lose from a weaponized outer space. Not only do space weapons bring with them the threat of generating huge amounts of debris - an ASAT fired at a satellite would generate more than 250 pieces of space debris[1]. Just as many view missile defense as an attempt to attain first-strike capability, they would most likely view space weapons as an extremely offensive maneuver. Without any binding international agreements against the weaponization of space, other countries would almost surely begin developing their own ASAT technology in an effort to retain some sense of political balance.

One would wonder why the U.S. appears increasingly determined to weaponize space. After evaluating the positive and negative aspects of space weapons, it becomes clear that the only ones who stand to gain would be those employed to research, develop and potentially use such technology. The world's largest weapons manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman -- all play major roles in developing and promoting space weapons technologies. The Department of Energy (DoE) laboratories and the U.S. Air Force have both been especially vocal in promoting space weapons as a potentially imperative element of U.S. national security.