Space Warfare

Strategy, Principles and Policy

John J. Klein

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781135988838
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Geschichte
• Categoria: Militär- & Seefahrtsgeschichte

This new study considers military space strategy within the context of the land and naval strategies of the past.

Explaining why and how strategists note the similarities of space operations to those of the air and naval forces, this book shows why many such strategies unintentionally lead to overemphasizing the importance of space-based offensive weaponry and technology.

Counter to most U.S. Air Force doctrines, the book argues that space-based weapons don't imbue superiority. It examines why both air and naval strategic frameworks actually fail to adequately capture the scope of real-world issues regarding current space operations. Yet by expanding a naval strategic framework to include maritime activities—which includes the interaction of land and sea—the breadth of issues and concerns regarding space activities and operations can be fully encompassed.

Commander John Klein, United States Navy, uses Sir Julian Corbett's maritime strategy as a strategic springboard, while observing the salient lessons of other strategists—including Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini, and Mao Tse-tung—to show how a space strategy and associated principles of space warfare can be derived to predict concerns, develop ideas, and suggest policy not currently recognized.

This book will be of great interest to all students and scholars of military and strategic studies and to those with an interest in space strategy in particular.

Part I

Introduction and Framework

Chapter 1

Where we are and Where we’re going

Since the 1940s, the nature of space operations and the need to develop a space power theory has been debated.¹ In an attempt to formulate such a theory, both theorists and strategists have noted the similarities of space operations to those of air and naval operations. Consequently, many have attempted to derive a theory of space warfare through analogy to either air power or sea control models. By using past strategic frameworks as a guide, the hope was to develop a clearly articulated, all-encompassing strategy for military operations in and through space. Despite these previous efforts to develop a comprehensive theory and strategy of space warfare, it has been observed that such a strategic framework – one encompassing the essence of space operations and associated national interests – has yet to be formulated.² This failure is a consequence of the many divergent and conflicting ideas regarding space strategy, since in the end they only offer a menagerie of competing strategies and viewpoints.

This work will look at past air and naval strategic frameworks to see if space operations and associated national interests in space have any analogous parallels to either military operations in the air or at sea. Then, the best historical framework will be used as a guide in developing the relevant strategic principles of space warfare. Since the developed strategic principles will be based on a historical framework, these newly developed principles will need to be tested and compared with contemporary thought regarding military operations in space. Finally, the military and governmental space policy implications resulting from the deduced strategic principles will be addressed.

Through this investigative process, the conclusion reached is that both air and naval models fail to capture the true breadth of pertinent issues regarding space operations and strategy. Yet, by expanding the purview of naval operations to include those of maritime operations, the full extent and nature of space operations can be adequately represented. Furthermore, by using a maritime theory based on the work of Sir Julian Corbett, a suitable strategic framework can be defined and relevant space strategy subsequently extrapolated. The resulting strategic principles, while not entirely in agreement with conventional wisdom, do encompass many of the current observations and ideas regarding national interests and military operations in space.

Laying the Foundation: Terms, Definitions, and Current Operations

Some pragmatic critics may ask, “Why bother developing a space power theory?”, their argument being that the United States has done quite well in developing space systems and operational doctrine, even without a consensus on what a theory of space warfare entails. The rebuttal to this view is the adage, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” This statement may seem trite at first, but it accurately conveys the problem. A theory attempts to make sense of what would otherwise be inscrutable and sets forth “rules of the game” by which actions become intelligible.³ The Prussian military strategist and land warfare theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) praised theory, noting that theory educates the mind so that useful order can be gleaned from an apparently disorderly universe.⁴ He emphatically stated: “[Theory] can give the mind insight into the great mass of phenomena and of their relationships, then leave it free to rise into the higher realms of action.”⁵

In order to achieve the insight of which Clausewitz wrote, past strategic theories will be compared against one another, and the one best representative of operations and activities in space will be used as a framework for developing the strategic principles of space warfare. The intent is to use past strategic theories as a guide in this endeavor, since such historical understanding and knowledge improves one’s ability to solve problems more wisely than arbitrary choice, pure chance, and blind intuition would allow.⁶ From the underpinnings of the theory, strategic principles can be developed, which are those concepts that ought to be considered prior to and during the course of war.⁷ A distillation of these strategic principles is the major input when formulating any military strategy.

After the principles of warfare, the next consideration is strategy. Strategy refers to the art and science of marshalling and directing resources to achieve some objective. Or, more simply, it refers to the balancing of one’s ends with one’s means.⁸ Strategy can be distinguished further into two types: grand strategy and military strategy. Grand strategy, also called national strategy, applies during both peace and war to all instruments of national power to achieve a state’s objectives. In contrast, military strategy typically refers to plans that organize and direct military elements in achieving specific objectives.⁹ Below military strategy is battlefield strategy, more commonly referred to as tactics.¹⁰

Since available technology affects one’s means, strategy will change as technology advances. Furthermore, tactics are closely tied to available technology, so they too will change with technological advancement. On the other hand, the theory and strategic principles of any form of warfare should remain unchanged – if they are indeed theory and strategic principles – even with the passage of time and as technology advances.¹¹

In trying to conceptualize these different terms and nuances of usage, it is convenient to think of theory addressing why; strategic principles addressing what; tactics addressing how; and military strategy bridging the gap between what and how. From this hierarchy of military thought, it is understood that from theory we develop strategic principles; from principles we derive strategy; and from strategy we formulate tactics.¹² So, theory is the first and most necessary step in thinking about warfare.

Differing from strategy is policy. Although some within the government use “policy” interchangeably with “strategy,” the two are considered different. Both policy and national strategy are interrelated, since a distillation of grand strategy serves as the foundation for policy. Nevertheless, policy, as interpreted here, refers to official government guidance, whether in spoken or written form. Therefore, policy itself is the actual communication of strategy regarding a topic of national concern.

The instruments of national power – whether diplomatic, economic, information, or military – are used to achieve the objectives of national strategy.¹³ The diplomatic instrument refers to political efforts used between states in the realm of international affairs. Although sometimes “political” is used instead of “diplomatic,” their meanings and usage are mostly the same. The primary difference of “political” is that it refers to the general domestic influence of politicians within a country, whereas “diplomatic” pertains to activities between different countries or regions of the world. The economic instrument refers to the influence of trade, commerce, and financial activities.¹⁴ The military element of national power is the influence achieved through the application of presence, coercion, or force. The diplomatic, economic, and military instruments are the categories of national power most typically acknowledged by other theorists and strategists. Yet other instruments of national power have been suggested also. These include psychological, intellectual, social, and technological.¹⁵ These additional instruments of power mostly pertain to the method of influencing others through culture, values, and information using news and media sources. The best term to describe this instrument of power is actually “information/’ as it refers to facts, data, or instructions in any medium or form, along with their transfer and meaning assigned by humans.¹⁶

It is important to realize that all instruments of national power are methods by which one state can influence another, but they also represent reciprocal methods by which one can be influenced as well. Furthermore, while it is mentally convenient to separate the instruments into separate categories, any national strategy or state action may influence any one instrument of power or any combination of them.

This work primarily deals with space warfare at the strategic level, while suggesting possible operational and tactical implementation of the concepts.¹⁷ Even though the subject deals with the theory, principles, and strategy, some comment regarding the implementation of tactics is warranted to lend a greater understanding of the espoused strategic principles, thereby effectively putting “meat on the bones” of the space strategy’s skeletal framework. Failure to provide specifics on how to execute a space warfare strategy could potentially impede the formulating of required doctrine, tactics, and future governmental policy. While the strategic principles presented are in the context of general military operations, they go under the label of “space warfare.” Although the term “space warfare” may invoke strong passions and bring with it the associated “baggage” that comes from preconceived ideas, the term provides a suitable context for discussing military space operations. Although the focus here is on military strategy, both military and grand strategies are inextricably linked, as changes in one can dramatically affect the other. Therefore, both will be addressed.

What is “Space”?

Before comparing past strategic theories of warfare, it must be understood what space is and is not. Such a simple task turns out to be not so simple, as space has been defined in a variety of ways. The report Space Power 2010 summarizes the difficulty in defining space, by noting:¹⁸

If trying to define where space begins for biological reason, one might choose 9 miles above the earth, since above this point a pressure suit is required. If concerned with propulsion, 28 miles is important since this is the limit of air-breathing engines. For administrative purposes, one might find it important that US astronaut’s wings may be earned above 50 miles. An aeronautical engineer might define space as starting at 62 miles above the earth’s surface, since this is where aerodynamic controls become ineffective. Conventional and customary law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee of orbiting space vehicles.

Joint Publication 3-14, Joint Doctrine for Space Operations, defines “space” as a medium, like the land, sea, and air, within which military activities shall be conducted to achieve national security objectives.¹⁹ For our discussion, “space” or “outer space” will be functionally defined as beginning at the lowest perigee required for orbit and extending out to infinity, since this is in keeping with observed customary law.²⁰ Although the scope of this work is not intended to describe in detail the intricacies of operating in space or orbital mechanics, some rudimentary information is useful prior to considering a strategy of space warfare.²¹

Current Space Activities

The United States and the world have become increasingly reliant upon space. Currently in the United States, space-based technology enters homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, and government offices through applications related to transportation, health, the environment, telecommunications, education, commerce, agriculture, energy, and military operations. This has lead to the observation, “The US is more dependent on space than any other nation.”²² As space operations continue to grow, many countries are likely to become even more reliant on space-based assets.²³ Although the range is indeed broad, a state’s space activities can be divided into four major sectors – civil, commercial, intelligence, and military.²⁴

Civil space activities include those to explore space and advance human understanding. For instance, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is involved in these. Through human spaceflight missions – like Apollo, Skylab, and the International Space Station – and unmanned scientific missions – like Viking, Voyager, and Mars Pathfinder – space exploration and scientific understanding have been advanced.

Commercial activities are those where private companies and industries provide services with the intent of making a profit. Currently, satellites performing telecommunications services form the most profitable segment of the commercial space sector, and other services that may soon become profitable include global positioning, launch, and remote sensing.²⁵ The International Telecommunications Union and the Federal Aviation Administration have responsibilities for overseeing and enforcing many of the regulations involving commercial activities.²⁶

The intelligence sector includes surveillance and reconnaissance missions conducted by government agencies, such as the National Reconnaissance Office. Through the use of space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems, the verification of arms control agreements – including those between the United States and the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War – has been possible. Presently, these systems are frequently used to monitor and gather intelligence leading up to and during combat operations. Whereas these kinds of systems have been historically used at the strategic level of planning, the current trend, especially in the United States military, is to push the information and data provided down to operational and tactical- level warfighters.

Military space activities are those promoting national...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Part I Introduction and framework
• Part II Strategic Principles of Space Warfare
• Part III Implications and Recommendations
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index