Space Weapons Essay Example

beam weapons, and bombardment satellites that use kinetic impact, directed energy, and potentially nuclear explosions. It is suspected that certain weapons will use orbiting nuclear reactors as a power source. As reported by The Baltimore Sun on May 19, 2005, this weaponization of space poses a genuine risk to the safety of all individuals on Earth. The American missile defense plan has caused significant concern among European nations.

Russia has highlighted the importance of space-related matters in their bilateral relations and has emphasized the aim of ensuring that space remains free of weapons, likening it to "21st Century Stalingrad." During the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 26, 2001, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov expressed the need for a strategic plan to prevent weaponization of space and urged proper measures to be taken. It is the responsibility of current generations to work together in maintaining peaceful use of outer space. The United Nations should draft a treaty applicable to all member states to prevent weaponization of space.

(Kerry Gildea, 2002.) According to the United Nations General Assembly's resolution A/RES/55/32 from January 2001, the exploration and use of outer space should benefit all nations irrespective of their scientific or economic progress and must be conducted for peaceful motives. The resolution also emphasizes the need to prevent an arms race in space since it is a significant danger to worldwide peace and security. Despite its delicate nature, there are those who believe that conflict in and from space cannot be prevented.

In 2000, Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command Joseph W. Ashy stated that the US has directed energy and hit-to-kill programs designed to engage terrestrial targets like

ships, airplanes, and land targets from space. At the same time, China is worried that the construction of a missile shield by the US could trigger an arms race with other nations - including one in space - which could have serious implications for both military and non-military resources in the United States (Hays, Peter L.).

, (James M. Smith, 2000) The stance of the administration regarding weapons in space recognizes the danger that America and other nations face from attacks and signal interference on valuable and necessary satellite technology. It is evident that countries with space capabilities possess critical assets in orbit. However, pursuing the creation of a Space Force and equipping it with weapons to address this vulnerability could lead to a significant deviation from the current international security structure. This move may have unforeseen and severe consequences for the strategic balance.

In the event of weaponization, calculating and countering new issues and scenarios is inevitable. There have been proposals of deploying mines and swarms of micro particles, but if these measures were implemented, it could ironically make our valuable assets in space, including vital commercial satellites, more vulnerable. While technical challenges need to be overcome, the legal implementation of weaponizing space may be easier than anticipated due to the limited number of related treaties currently in place.

(Johnson, Dana J, 1998.) The potential use of dual-use technologies for non-civilian purposes in space could disrupt the existing security balance on earth. As stated by the Pentagon's Space Command, space is becoming the fourth frontier of warfare, and this has significant implications for the regulation and control of such technology. The dual-use dilemma arises from the fact

that the same technology that enables us to explore space may also be adapted for military applications. Without effective regulation, the potential uses of these technologies are uncertain and could further destabilize the situation.

The dual-use nature of new technology poses a significant threat to humanity. Converting a satellite's launcher into an intercontinental rocket or a space platform into an orbital weapons carrier are examples of this danger. In the past, the international community struggled with this issue, but fifty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed the "Atoms for Peace" initiative during his speech to the UN General Assembly in 1953. As a result, the UN developed safety measures, rules, and verification procedures to limit the dual utility of nuclear energy. Despite its imperfections, the International Atomic Energy Agency remains an international regulatory body established to serve the goals of "Atoms for Peace," allowing non-nuclear states access to alternative sources of energy benefits.

According to a study by Stanislav Radionov in 1993, the GPS network is susceptible to disruption due to its low power signals and public commercial and local usage. Similarly, Jason Bates notes in 2001 that Russian handheld jamming devices are capable of blocking GPS receivers. Additionally, the 24 GPS satellites have stable yet vulnerable orbits, but vulnerabilities do not necessarily equate to threats. To pose a threat to American space installations, military or commercial, a potential adversary would need both industrial capabilities and an objective to use them in a hostile manner.

Despite the lack of evidence indicating any other state's possession of advanced technology or intent to pose a threat to American military or commercial installations in space, there is an absence

of any inclination by any nation or state to hold space weapons. The technical obstacles to the development and integration of space-based weaponry are significant, including for the American military. Kinetic kill weapons and lasers face serious challenges when targeting both space and terrestrial objectives. Laser concerns include the necessity of power generation provisions, which add to size, and huge amounts of chemical fuel and refueling needs. Additionally, there are issues concerning beam transmission and stabilization over long distances or through the atmosphere. Space-based kinetic energy weapons also face their own challenges, including the achievement of proper orbital trajectories and velocities, mandatory propellant requirements, and risk of damage to own-forces from debris following destruction of an enemy satellite.

Discussing the technology challenges of space-based weapons is not within the scope of this paper, but there are numerous issues, such as predictable orbits and difficulty of regeneration, that make these weapons vulnerable. One informative source on the matter is Maj. William L. Spacy II's "Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?" paper from September 1999, written for the College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Currently, it is uncertain whether any state has a plan or motivation to engage in a space war.

On the other hand, some countries like China and Russia are calling for a global ban on space arms. A number of experts, including Air Force members such as Lt. Col., argue that if the US attempts to deploy offensive weapons in space, it could trigger other nations to follow suit and create a new danger.

Bruce M. DeBlois suggests that it is impractical to assess

potential threats to American national security without classified information. He further asserts that creating a national security plan involves more than just considering threat assessment. It is important to determine the most efficient means of neutralizing urgent threats, such as those presented by space operations, and evaluate the pros and cons of being the first nation to introduce weapons into space. The evaluation of associated risks is particularly critical.

Among the issues that arise from contemplating space weaponry for America are the risks of initiating an arms race that could cause political and military harm, as well as negatively affecting the dominant American commercial space and telecommunications business in the global market. While measures to secure American space assets are necessary, it remains uncertain whether possessing space weapons is crucial for their protection. Any decision to pursue such measures should be justified to society beforehand. Over and above technological challenges and the government's readiness and ability to make a long-term uneconomic investment for military space operations, there are potential hazards to national security and the economy. Whether weaponizing space would provide an ultimate security solution or be a dangerous gamble is a significant question.

Before modifying the current policy of restraint, it's crucial for the American government to conduct a thorough assessment of the benefits, drawbacks, and alternatives. While utilizing space weapons initially may offer significant immediate benefits to the U.S. military, it is essential to contemplate its possible long-term military, political, and economic outcomes.

The establishment of a basis for policy changes that will result in sustainable enhancement of U.S. national security is the responsibility of the administration. Prompt and comprehensive policy evaluation is crucial,

especially with the rapid implementation of space missile defense strategy by the Bush administration.

It is crucial not to base the decision of weaponizing space solely on the missile defense program. The potential consequences regarding strategy, military, and economy must be considered. Ideally, forming an interagency team by the National Security Council to investigate alternative passive security options for space assets and solutions for arms control would be best. Independent experts and institutions should have input in this process with help from the Space Policy Committee. Congress should also carry out a study on this matter which includes holding hearings about adding a space-based component to missile defense architecture while addressing broader issues.

A comprehensive public discussion is required to ensure that policy-makers have a thorough understanding of the implementation of breaking through the "final frontier".