Space Weapons and U.S. Strategy

Origins and Development

Paul B. Stares

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000280753
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book, first published in 1985, analyses the factors that have shaped the militarization of space. By examining in great detail the determinants of U.S. policy, it explains why for over 25 years space did not become the scene of an arms race, and why this began to change in the late 1970s. Both superpowers did, however, develop a limited anti-satellite capability in the 1960s, and these programmes are also discussed.

1
Introduction

The first missile powers contemplate space with the perspective of the first oceanic naval powers, when they contemplated the globe. Their existing legal and political conceptions do not cover it, and their experience provides them only with analogies. They can have little notion of the problems to which it will give rise, or of the political, strategic and economic importance it will have for them. It is not even clear what it is, or what the human activities are that will be specially connected with it.

Hedley Bull, The Control of the Arms Race (1961)

THE MILITARY IMPORTANCE OF OUTER SPACE

In recent years considerable attention has been given to the growing importance of the use of outer space for military purposes. A particular focus and cause of this interest has been the increasing likelihood that space will become an extension of the arms race between the superpowers and possibly even a future arena of combat. The plethora of books and articles on this subject can leave the impression that the military use of space is a novel activity.¹ Space, in fact, is hardly a ‘new’ military medium. Although weapon systems have yet to be deployed here or used in anger, space has been an integral part of the superpower arms race for over 25 years.

The extent to which space has already become militarized is indeed impressive. As will be illustrated shortly, serious attention was given to the potential military utility of artificial satellites as early as 1945, well before the launch of the first satellite in 1957. By the early 1960s, military satellites designed to perform a wide range of missions were being regularly launched. Since then, over 2,000 military payloads have been put into orbit by the United States and the Soviet Union, which accounts for approximately two-thirds of the total number of all satellites launched over the same period.² The investment to sustain these military space programmes has been equally impressive. While official figures are not available for the Soviet Union, the US Department of Defense between 1959 and 1984 has spent over $70 billion (current dollars). The FY 1984 military space budget alone was approximately $10.5 billion, which is over half of the total US space budget.³

To the public, whose appreciation of the benefits of space is generally limited to the services that satellites provide for weather forecasting and instantaneous telecommunications around the world, these facts will probably come as a surprise. This, however, would be understandable as immense secrecy surrounds the military space programmes of the two major space powers. The Soviet Union refuses even to acknowledge the existence of a military component to its space programme, while the United States chooses to release only carefully selected information on its military operations in space.

For those who have managed to keep abreast of the militarization of space through the careful collation of the limited information available, in addition to educated guesswork about the purpose of Soviet (and some US) satellites from their orbital characteristics,⁴ one conclusion cannot be avoided: the United States and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union are now heavily dependent on the services that military satellites provide for their national security. Military satellites not only play a crucial role in the maintenance of the armed peace between the superpowers but are also vital to the planning and prosecution of warfare at almost every level. This dependency derives in large part from the unique services that satellites provide. Where they are not strictly unique they are usually more efficient and economical. This relationship has been progressively reinforced as the variety of military satellites has widened and as the reliance on equivalent terrestrial systems has diminished, often to the point of atrophy. This trend can be illustrated by a brief account of the benefits that military satellites provide. The major categories are listed below.

Photographic Reconnaissance

The information supplied by photographic reconnaissance satellites is used for a variety of purposes. Although strategic intelligence gathering continues to be the primary mission for this class of satellites, the same information is equally indispensable for monitoring compliance with arms control agreements. As the resolution of the cameras has improved and the speed of the data processing has increased, so these satellites have begun to be used for tactical purposes such as battlefield surveillance. Thus, in peacetime photo-reconnaissance satellites are invaluable for assessing the threat from a potential adversary and for enhancing confidence in their compliance with arms control treaties. In the event of a crisis, these same satellites can look for potentially escalatory actions and thus provide early warning of mobilization and an attack. Once a conflict has begun the same information can be used for locating and targeting military threats to one’s own forces and afterwards measuring the success of the military engagement.

Electronic Reconnaissance

Electronic intelligence (ELINT) gathering from space by what are often referred to as ‘ferref’ satellites complements the photo-reconnaissance missions in a number of important ways. These satellites eavesdrop on the communications of an adversary to gauge the size, deployment and readiness of its military forces. Similarly, by listening to other electromagnetic emissions, for example that from air defence and missile early warning radars, their location and frequencies can be plotted for targeting and electronic countermeasures. Furthermore, as data on the performance of new weapon systems such as ballistic missiles are often transmitted from the test vehicle in the form of telemetry, the collection of this information can also be a valuable aid for arms control verification.

Ocean Reconnaissance

As the title implies, these satellites are used to locate and track surface shipping. They can accomplish this by using the same techniques as ELINT satellites or by the use of specially designed radars; in short, by passive and active means, respectively. In future this mission is likely to expand to include subsurface reconnaissance for submarine detection. Another area of activity where space promises to offer considerable advantages to the military is oceanographic surveillance. Such information as the height of waves; the strength and direction of ocean currents and surface winds; sea and undersea temperatures; the level of sea salinity and coastal features, which can all be obtained by space-based oceanographic sensors, are important for naval activities generally and potentially vital to future antisubmarine warfare operations.

Early Warning

While reconnaissance satellites can provide some advance indication of an attack by conventional forces, early warning satellites are designed to detect the launch of land- or submarine-based ballistic missiles. As an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is likely to take as little as 25 minutes to reach its target, the use of infrared sensors in space to detect the hot exhaust plumes of attacking missiles during their “boost” phase provides a vital margin of warning time over ground-based radars.

Nuclear Explosion Detection

A space-based worldwide nuclear explosion detection system was originally established for arms control purposes to monitor covert atmospheric testing. However, it was also recognized—certainly by the United States—that a system that could detect the location, yield and the height of nuclear bursts would also contribute to post-attack assessments during a nuclear war. As a result, nuclear explosion detection sensors have been refined and fitted to other satellites.

Communications

The use of satellite relays for communicating rapidly and reliably over long distances was recognized from an early date and they were therefore among the first group of satellites to be developed. Not only have they reduced the reliance on expensive and vulnerable land lines, undersea cables and radio relay stations (which are often on foreign soil), but they have increased markedly the level of control, and with it, efficient usage of military forces. This trend will increase as the number of military users at the tactical level multiplies with the miniaturization of satellite ground terminals.

Navigation

Navigation satellites have a similar “force multiplier” effect. In addition to providing very accurate information to submarines, ships, aircraft and land-based forces, these same satellites can also be used to guide weapon systems such as ballistic missiles and even “dumb” conventional munitions to their target with great precision.

Meteorological

Apart from allowing more accurate weather forcasting for general-purpose military operations than was possible before by traditional methods, meteorological satellites also provide invaluable assistance to other military missions. For example, near real-time weather surveillance over specific areas allows for the more efficient usage of photoreconnaissance satellites, whose film may otherwise be wasted in taking pictures of cloud tops. Furthermore, as the amount of wind and precipitation over a target area can affect the accuracy of strategic warheads, timely weather information may allow final targeting adjustments to be made in the event of a nuclear war.

Geodetic

Geodetic satellites provide vital information on the size and shape of the earth’s surface as well as its shifting gravitational fields. This permits more precise mapping of the earth’s surface and also improves predictions of the effect of gravitational forces on the accuracy of ballistic missiles.

From this brief summary of the many uses of military satellites one can see that they have, as Walter Clemens, Jr observed, a “janus-like” quality to them.⁵ Just as they can help reduce fears of a surprise attack and provide invaluable assistance to the monitoring of arms control treaties, they can also facilitate a whole range of warlike operations on earth. This is a characteristic that has caused endless debates about the “peaceful” nature and with it the legal status of military activities in space. Leaving this question aside, the distinctive character of the military use of space has none the less been essentially supportive or ancillary to terrestrial military missions. Space has not yet become a theatre of military operations in which weapon systems per se have been deployed or actually used.

However, the chances of space remaining a “sanctuary” like this into the twenty-first century appear today to be remote.⁶ This prognosis stems from two relatively recent developments. First, both superpowers are actively developing antisatellite (ASAT) systems.⁷ In 1977 the United States declared that the Soviet Union had an “operational” satellite interceptor. This has in part stimulated the United States to develop its own ASAT system, which is scheduled to become operational by the end of this decade. Second, both the United States and the Soviet Union are developing more “exotic” technologies to create laser and particle beam weapons. While the military applications of these Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) are manifold, the two most commonly cited missions are for antisatellite operations and ballistic missile defence (BMD). It was in regard to the latter that, on 23 March 1983, President Reagan called for a major US research effort. While he did not explicitly state that space-based directed energy weapons would be the primary method of defence, this is likely to be the main avenue of development.⁸

In this respect the recent public interest in the military use of space does reflect something new; the trend towards the introduction of weapons for use in or from space does represent a qualitative departure from the dominant trend over the past 25 years of the “space age”. In short, we do appear to be entering a new phase in the militarization of space.

A SENSE OF DÉJÀ VU

For those familiar with the history of the US military space programme, there must be a strong sense of déjà vu. The very same weapon systems that are currently being developed were all proposed in a remarkably similar way during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even the arguments that were used to promote these space weapon proposals are similar. For example, the use of such concepts as “space denial”, “space control”, and the need to take the “high ground”, which are familiar today, were just as common in the early years of the space age.

This early interest in space weapons was a direct result of the fears engendered by the launch of Sputnik. To many the Soviet achievement posed a challenge to the technological supremacy and with it the political credibility of the United States around the world. Others believed it presaged a more direct threat to US national security. In addition to demonstrating that the US homeland was now vulnerable to Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), it also raised the less tangible fear that the United States would somehow become “blackmailed” or “dominated” from space. For example, an editorial of the New York Times declared that the United States was in “a race for survival” and US House of Representatives Speaker John McCormack even went so far as to say that the United States faced the prospect of “national extinction”.⁹ To many in the United States, to use Tom Wolfe’s vivid description, “Nothing less than control of the heavens was at stake”.¹⁰

After Sputnik, a succession of Soviet space achievements reinforced the feelings of inferiority within the United States and heightened the concern about Soviet military intentions in space. In antici...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• Dedication Page
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Origins of the US Military Space Programme, 1945–1957
• 3. Eisenhower and the Space Challenge
• 4. Kennedy and the Years of Uncertainty
• 5. The Johnson Years: The Consolidation of Policy
• 6. US Antisatellite Research and Development, 1957–1970
• 7. The New Soviet Space Challenge, 1968–1977
• 8. Nixon and Ford: Continuity and Change
• 9. Carter and the Two-Track Policy
• 10. US Antisatellite Research and Development, 1971–1981
• 11. The Reagan Presidency: Towards an Arms Race in Space, 1981–1984
• 12. Conclusion
• Appendices
• Glossary of Acronyms
• A Note on Research Methodology and Sources
• Selected Bibliography
• Notes
• Index