U.S. Space Program

May 28, 2005

The U.S. Space Weapons Program

The U.S. Air Force is currently submitting to President Bush a directive related to national security, aimed at developing new offensive and defensive weapons. An detailed article on this topic appeared in the New York Times on May 18, 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/.......VfbtZ8wdA). Some observers believe this project could be seen by U.S. allies (and potential enemies) as a revival of a new arms race in space. This would represent a significant shift in defense policy, given the policies followed since President Clinton’s decisions in 1996. Until now, space has been used militarily only for monitoring compliance with demilitarization and non-proliferation treaties, as well as for intelligence purposes.

Implementing this directive to deploy space weapons will present numerous financial, technological, political, and diplomatic challenges. However, according to official White House spokespersons, no international treaty explicitly prohibits such weapons. A positive decision is expected in the coming weeks.

In reality, according to Air Force representatives, the goal isn’t to place weapons in orbit, but rather to gain unrestricted access to space for both defensive and offensive purposes. In this context, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars preparing weapon systems and their deployment methods. These proposals were put forth in January 2001 by a commission chaired by newly appointed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Following these recommendations, President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibited the deployment of weapons in space.

Today, it’s clear that for the Air Force, achieving absolute dominance in space means having the freedom to attack as well as defend from space.

This requires new weapons, new types of satellites, and new ways of cooperating with armed forces. The technological hurdles are enormous; estimates suggest costs could reach hundreds of billions of dollars. It’ll also be necessary to convince “allies” that U.S. territory now extends into space—but to what extent?

The Air Force has developed a new strategy called “Global Strike,” which involves creating a spacecraft known as the “Common Aero Vehicle.” This vehicle can carry half a ton of guided munitions. According to General Lord, who testified before Congress, this vehicle would have “incredible capabilities to destroy command centers and missile launch sites anywhere in the world.” It could reach its target within 45 minutes after completing half a round-the-world flight. Developing this vehicle is considered a top priority.

The Air Force has already built several prototypes of such weapons; we’ve covered their tests in our magazine. One example is the XSS-11, a microsatellite capable of jamming communications and reconnaissance satellites belonging to other countries. The Pentagon has made it clear it wouldn’t hesitate to use such weapons to destroy satellites belonging to “allies” who might pose a threat, such as those involved in Europe’s future Galileo satellite program, which involves cooperation with countries like China, considered adversaries.

Another program, aptly named “Rods From God,” involves dropping tungsten, titanium, or depleted uranium cylinders from space to penetrate deep into targets on Earth. Traveling at speeds of 10,000 km/h, they’d function like mini atomic bombs.

A third program involves using lasers or radio waves to disable or destroy troops and equipment on the ground.

General James E. Cartwright, head of the United States Strategic Command, recently told a Senate subcommittee on nuclear weapons that the aim was to enable the U.S. to “launch attacks very quickly, without lengthy preparations, anywhere on Earth.”

However, many senators expressed concerns. How would Russia, the EU, China, and India react? What would the U.S. do if one of these countries decided to develop similar weapons? Would preventive strikes be necessary? Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, echoed these concerns. “Space must remain an international domain, free from militarization.”

Moreover, the budgets proposed by the Air Force itself—ranging from $220 billion to $1 trillion—seem unrealistic. The cost per strike would rise from $600,000 using Tomahawk missiles to $100 million using these new systems. Even “simple” reconnaissance and observation satellites would see their costs triple. This applies to the new Future Imagery Architecture satellite program, whose estimated cost is $25 billion—though its results may prove disappointing. Such costs would only be feasible if all existing weapon systems were repurposed, which seems both unrealistic and dangerous.

But General Lord believes none of these objections hold water. “Space superiority is our destiny. It’s a mission we must undertake daily. But it’s also a vision for the Great Future.”

It’s likely that industries hoping to profit from these billions—not just to develop weapons but also to apply this expertise in civilian applications—share this viewpoint. 05/22/05