As the economies and defense structures of countries worldwide are increasingly dependent on space activities, space will be the next great forum of competition among global powers.

The US is the world’s dominant space power, owning over half of the nearly 850 satellites that operate today (source). The US government has deemed space assets vital to national security, and an ensuing debate has risen over how best to ensure those assets while continuing to enjoy the immense benefits of space activity. The debate centers on the development and/or deployment of space weapons – an ill defined term that “encompasses space-based missile defense interceptors, ground attack weapons based in space, and anti-satellite weapons – both ground-based and spaced-based (source).”

Whether a muscular or more cooperative stance is taken to space policy, it is clear the US will have a strong influence in shaping the global approach towards space weapons and space activity as a whole.

Common Agreement

There is common agreement among policy makers and subject matter experts on four key aspects shaping future US space policy:

• satellite capability is a critical tool of the US military and intelligence services;

• satellites are critical to growing commercial services;

• satellites are highly vulnerable to attack; and the

• US needs improved situational awareness surrounding its space assets.

Global powers, led by the US, have clearly ‘militarized’ space. In addition to providing strategic reconnaissance, orbiting satellites now play an intrinsic role in kinetic operations. Among other functions, Global Position System (GPS) satellite constellation navigates US troops in enemy terrain, pinpoints enemy locations, and guides precision strike munitions (source). Yet these critical satellites are highly vulnerable to attack, especially at lower orbiting levels. Nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, an adjusted missile defense system, lasers, micro satellites (100 kgs or less), and even common space debris are all capable of damaging or destroying satellites. An increased ability to monitor US space assets and the surrounding environment will aid the protection of satellites and satellite capability – providing warning of imminent attacks or potentially troubling developments in the space environment.

Muscular Approach

The muscular approach to US space policy is driven by the conviction that other nations and non-state actors will act to discover and exploit US spaced-based vulnerabilities. For a country that is increasingly dependent on space assets for its national security, such a nightmare scenario – dubbed a ‘space Pearl Harbor’ – must be actively countered with all measures of deterrence, including further space testing and potential deployment of anti-satellite weapons. Moreover, proponents argue, space-based arms control treaties are virtually unverifiable – and are supported most ardently by US competitors, (China, Russia), inclined to undermine arms control tenets. Therefore, those that support the muscular approach believe treaties only serve to inhibit countries that follow them.

In line with the muscular approach, the US government released a 2006 US Space Policy that was significantly more security focused than its 1996 predecessor. The 2006 policy notes, “freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power”, and seeks the capability to, “deny such freedom of action to adversaries.” Moreover, a recent UN vote to prevent the weaponization of space fell 171-1-1, with Israel abstaining and US vetoing the proposal. The Bush Administration has requested 2008 funding for a Missile Defense Space Test Bed, which would establish the nascent infrastructure of a space-based kill vehicle (source).

Cooperative Approach and a Code of Conduct

Proponents of a cooperative, multilateral approach interpret the 2006 US Space Policy as combative, arguing that the emphasis on defensive, unilateral measures will spur an arms race in space that could undercut the goal of preserving and growing US capabilities . As the dominant space power and chief benefactor of the current environment, the US will suffer disproportionately from a weaponized space environment where every asset is continually under threat.

While some satellites can be hardened against ground-based interference, it is exceedingly difficult to defend against a space-based anti-satellite weapon (reconfigured ballistic missile, micro satellite fitted with explosives) and it certainly is not cost-effective. Furthermore, a destroyed satellite is converted into thousands of smaller, indiscriminate, orbiting object that can damage other satellites because of the lasting nature of space debris. Therefore, the mutual vulnerability of all space-faring countries can contribute to a mutual deterrence without the need to test or deploy weapons in space (source).

If the mutual deterrence does not suffice, US testing of anti-satellite weapons and a dominant conventional power projection on Earth are additional factors that will deter potential attacks against US space assets. Outside of deterrence, cooperative approach advocates emphasize that “redundancy” – having multiple satellites performing simultaneous functions and the ability to quickly replace damaged satellites – is a critical capacity that lowers the value of individual satellites as targets and ensures the continuity of US space activity.

The cooperative approach proponents also emphasize the need for diplomatic initiatives to regulate the activities of space-faring nations. Such a multilateral mechanism would be designed by states to clarify responsible and irresponsible behavior. The commercial satellite industry, with obvious economic interest in securing a safe space environment, has joined the EU and Canada in supporting this type of multi-lateral agreement (source).

Future Debate Will Have Lasting Effects

The US is currently the dominant space power, and while efforts persist to maintain a competitive advantage over all rival nations, the gap will inevitably close over the ensuing years. Thus, the US is now in a unique position to dramatically influence the course of space activity and the framework of relations among space-faring nations.