Role of Outer Space

On the Role of Outer Space in Confronting Aggressive Threats
(Learn from Hobbes and apply Ockham)

by "MAB"

The use of outer space is ubiquitous and implicit in our daily lives. It is thus a self-evident truth that space should play a significant role in the delivery of, or defense from, an aggressive threat. This role may however have profound consequences that need exposing before too long.

The key issue is to delineate between those military uses of outer space necessary for national defense and international security and those which could be detrimental for global stability.
To this effect it may be useful to proceed by a sort of reverse order through the direct analysis of the role of space weapons, assumed in orbit, in carrying out or meeting the threats and deduce the political and military ramifications rather than adding up the military assets needed in relation to the individual threats.

Threats to International Security and Their Sources

I believe there are three sources of space-related threats: 1) Rogue states; 2) International terrorism; and 3) A challenge for supremacy.

Each has different identifying traits, motivations and methods.

1. Rogue states have a precise identity on the geo-political scene. They have borders and occupy a well-defined territory. More often than not they have an autocratic political system not prone to accepting dissent and peaceful change. These states can be tempted to engage in rogue activities to achieve local advantages, such as prestige and leadership among the Arabs in the case of Iraq, or to draw attention away from internal problems (a time honored method of which several contemporary examples can be identified, not least the Falkland Islands war). They control a territory and financial assets and thus have relative impunity. They can indeed put up a rocket with which to lob a nuclear weapon at the US or detonate it in space. But, because the motivations are essentially nationalistic and power related, the theatre remains specific to one geographical location even if the aggression is carried out far out from the state's borders. Rogue states can be forced into discipline by sanctions or international injunctions and can be confronted with conventional means. This peril is also the least sophisticated. It is brute force and damage.

    

2. International terrorism is an entirely different source and is indeed diffuse over the planet, regardless of borders. Typified in the past by criminal organizations of Mafiosi stamp, it often served ideologies such as irredentist and anarchic movements and has now been joined by fundamentalism, which after the flash of the Twin Towers is now perceived as the greatest danger to society and the security of mankind. Terrorism does not have a unified and recognized political structure and does not consider itself to be accountable to any earthly authority. Contrary to the case above, it cannot be put under pressure by international sanctions, agreements or Security Council resolutions. It has funds in rich supply and uses unconventional techniques for its activities and their funding (as witnessed in terrorist groups' financial networks, for example), and for its command structure. It thus is by and large unassailable by conventional means and can only be confronted through the closest cooperation among intelligence services and indeed by the mobilization of all citizens. Since it does not possess a territory with recognized borders within which to site a major hardware facility as a launcher or a nuclear reactor, its tools need to be more ingenious and subtle. There is no way of gauging when such threat will abate, not until and unless fundamentalism challenges itself from the inside, in its own version of 1789.

    

3. A challenge for global supremacy by two contenders is in the long term a likely event. At present the superiority of the USA and its allies is beyond reach, but who would have predicted only 17 years ago the demise of the USSR and reunification of Germany? The theatre of this threat is again planetary, but the combat lines are drawn. This conflict will be global and invest all elements of the civil and military society. Here, space will have a predominant role.

Having so discussed the sources of possible threats the question is then:

What Role Will Space Play in the Three Cases Above?

1. Rogue states could go through space to deliver a nuclear device on an adversary's soil (they may rather go for a bomb in a suitcase but that is not covered in this paper!) or to detonate it in orbit, neutralizing satellites in low orbit. They could also make use of existing space facilities (e.g. GPS) to hit a precisely defined target. This threat is very destabilizing and dangerous and needs to be confronted.

    

2. International terrorism would hardly be able to reach space directly by conventional means due to a lack of territory and infrastructure (unless they team up with rogue states). But it could wreak havoc on space assets by neutralizing ground stations. Space assets in general could become targets of terrorism and serve as a means for conducting terrorist acts. Much is now being written about how cyber-terror and indeed infiltration and control of the cyber network could use a nation's own critical infrastructure and facilities to inflict damage upon itself (September 11). An electric grid system could be knocked out, dam controls manipulated and, why not, a US nuclear reactor brought to criticality. Science fiction? It looks unrealistic today but is it really so tomorrow? As a countermeasure there is here a crucial need for tight security and protection of the cyber network, which invests all the components on and above the ground. At least at present, however, insofar as the space segment is concerned, the aggression would be electronic rather than physical.

    

3. In a competition for planetary supremacy, the contenders would utilize without exclusion all possible means to achieve victory. Because the theatre is planetary, space will certainly become one of the crucial elements in the struggle, if not the central one. This depends entirely on whether space becomes a war theatre itself (weaponized) or whether it is used in a crucial but supporting role to ground operations.

    

In the first scenario (space as war theatre), weapons would be deployed to attack the adversary's space assets, to attempt to deny access to space and to attack targets on the ground. In the second scenario (supporting role), space assets would be used for surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, telecommunications, etc, and no active weapons would be deployed.

The fundamental point here is that the consequences resulting from either of the two scenarios above are extremely different. It is not simply the case of choosing between two options, for the decision between the two is an existential choice.

On the Role of Space Weapons to Conduct or Confront the Threats.

Weapons in orbit in outer space will play a very different role in the three cases above.

1. Weapons in space, as part of a multilayered defense shield, would stifle rogue states' attempts to deliver a nuclear or bacteriological bomb against its adversary or to detonate a nuclear bomb in space. However, this countermeasure could well be disproportionate because the attacker, confronted with such a development, may opt for other less visible ways to deliver the same damage. Also, ground-based interceptors could probably be successfully called into action.

    

2. As regards international terrorism, the damage it can inflict on its perceived adversaries could become apocalyptic if it indeed can infiltrate and take control of the cyber network. An act of physical aggression against space assets is less likely and of dubious interest for their strategy. Hence this threat is not likely to be mitigated or contained by weapons in space, nor could the latter be efficiently used in a fight against the terrorist network because of its extreme diffusion over the planet.

    

3. In terms of a challenge for supremacy, two scenarios can be visualized, as indicated above. In the first scenario (space as war theater), active weapons will be deployed with the capability to attack and destroy space assets and ground objectives. In conventional modern wars, airspace dominance and control is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for victory. Conversely, in full discontinuity and extension of that comparison, in the scenario of space as a war theatre, dominance and control of space is a necessary but also sufficient condition for victory, for total space dominance amounts to the de facto achievement of supremacy. In other words, whichever of the two contenders achieves full dominance and control of space will also have gained a hegemonic position without having fired a single shot on ground. That is the equivalent of the Pax Romana that Rome achieved and imposed for centuries on the rest of the then-known world. In today's world and for the foreseeable future, that would be the coming into being of Hobbes' Leviathan. However, this scenario need not become true for as long as nations refrain from deploying even a single active weapon in space.

    

In the second scenario (space in a supporting role) the availability of secure and reliable space assets is a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory. Space weapons are not deployed in this scenario.

On Consequences, Actions and Reactions.

The Leviathan scenario has the most dramatic consequences. On this issue I fully share the analysis of the Russian General Vinogradov and of the head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's disarmament department, Sha Zukang (cfr. The Eisenhower Institute's meeting reports), but I believe the consequences will be even more radical.

It is an historical truism that a great power seeks to assert, defend and project its might beyond its borders. This has been a fact of the world for as long as mankind has existed and to deny it is indicative of a good dose of "angelism" (the hermeneutics of which span from the anti-global movements to September 11). But in today's world the nation that gains the capability to attack and destroy all adversarial space assets and provides full security for its own means will achieve outright planetary supremacy.

It would therefore be self-deceptive to believe that other countries would remain idle and passive observers of one (however benevolent and generous) country's attempt to achieve full control of space, conscious of the dramatic consequences for all of them. As a first outcome, it becomes virtually certain that other countries will attempt to develop counter weapons and confront such initiative. That will lead to a re-enactment of the arms race and the probability of a conflict in space will be extremely high, seemingly vindicating the prophecy of Mr. Rumsfeld. (The alternative to an outright conflict would be a prolonged, agonizing, unfruitful standoff in space between the two heavily armed contenders reminiscent of the Cold War).

The vitally important point here is that victory can smile upon either of the contenders. History tells us that the fortunes of war are unpredictable. The victor's name will only be known at the end of the conflict and the situation will then be one of no return. Therefore no state and no human being can wish or tolerate that this type of war should become possible at all.

As a second and different outcome, but with no lighter consequences, it could well be expected that, confronted with this fait accompli, the other countries would be driven into the least assailable form of opposition, which is terrorism with its indefinable contours and against which the domination of space will be of little use.

In the scenario where space assets are only used in a supporting role, but no active weapon is deployed, countermeasures by the two contenders would include jamming of the signals and interfering with the operations of the adversary spacecraft, as well as attacking ground stations.

Turning back to the rogue states threat, I believe that it should be accepted that any country has the right and duty to defend its space assets and to prevent its own soil from becoming the target of an attack from space. Some sort of defensive shield could be developed that would deter a potential aggressor. There is, however, a general concern that, because of the dual uses of various components, the deployment of some kind of antiballistic shield harbors within it the germ from which a Leviathan scenario could evolve. To prevent that, without denying the possibility of defense, the shield architecture should from the outset be conceived with Ockham's razor cutting out without indulgence anything that would not be proven to be unique and crucial to the exclusively defensive objective. Hector and Achilles had purely defensive shields, and even a sword can be used strictly for defense, in which case the cutting edge and the sharp end shall be of little use except as deterrent. That hardware development could involve close cooperation with other countries under the same threat. They could be willing to take part in it and thereby rectify the asymmetrical relationship in which they find themselves while at the same time obtaining security for their own assets. In conclusion, while maintaining a continuous dialogue and pressure it is likely that countermeasures consisting of a military package, (including monitoring from both air and space, a defensive shield and the threat of a massive, punitive retaliation) together with an appropriate package of political and economic measures, could be efficiently brought to bear on the unruly state. In other words, the might of the US and its allies should only be deployed to the level necessary to meet the threat.

With a view to the threat of terrorism, the above defensive shield should also cater for protection of the space assets from electronic manipulation.

Summary

The analysis of the present sources of threats and of the role of space in each of them leads to the following tentative conclusions:

1. Possible threats through space by rogue states could be confronted by a package of military measures (including a purely defensive shield) and political and economic sanctions.

    

2. International terrorism cannot be defeated from space, but space assets can contribute substantially to its containment. The security and protection of the ground and space components of the cyber network against attacks or misuse by terrorism is of critical importance to this goal.

    

3. A war for global supremacy could involve space in the following ways:
   1. Deployment of active weapons in space, sustained by an arms race between two challengers that will eventually lead to a conflict. The (unknown) winner would achieve planetary supremacy (the Leviathan scenario). An alternative to an outright conflict would be a long, agonizing, unfruitful standoff in space reminiscent of the Cold War.

       

   2. Deployment of active weapons in space by one country. This could drive other countries, confronted with the fait accompli, to resist by joining and hence vigorously expanding terrorism.

       

   3. Space assets only in supporting roles to an essentially earthbound conflict (including, of course, aircraft), with no weapons deployed in space. This is the closest to a conventional war.

Conclusions

The comparative analysis of the sources of threats and their use of space leads to conclusions that not only underline the contribution of space in supporting and confronting these threats but also emphasize the dramatic escalation of the consequences as soon as an active weapon is deployed there.

In fact, while the use of space in a supporting function such as reconnaissance, telecom, monitoring and navigation represents already a tremendous increase of capabilities compared to the conventional battle field (the First World War is light years away from Desert Storm, Kosovo and Afghanistan), the introduction of weapons in space represents a quantum jump, a total discontinuity, an existential choice of incalculable consequences for the political and societal order of mankind.

Overall supremacy, delivered by achieving full control of space, will not be in the best interest of the multicultural, diversified humanity that belongs to us all and that we all cherish.

A Step-by-Step Approach?

Clearly an issue of such proportions, particularly because of its planetary dimension, demands a vast dialogue among the major powers.

Realistically a step-by-step approach has been proven in the past to permit faster and more substantial progress than an overall settlement.

The first step consists of stating the problem and identifying its main components.

The second step could be the creation of an appropriate framework that takes the measures necessary to prevent an irreversible situation from arising out of the already now emerging unregulated, unilateral initiatives.

The third step could see the establishment of an international agency (such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, which operates under the philosophy of the Atoms for Peace framework) to establish rules, procedures and limitations for space assets and possible defensive shields.

Acknowledgement: This note is a contribution to the discussions within the project of The Eisenhower Institute, "The Future of Space: The Next Strategic Frontier." The author is indebted to Mr. Ryan McFarland for his constructive remarks and support.

MAB
October 2002