Space superiority will be a key pillar in the war-fighting doctrine of the future. In developing joint doctrine for the twenty-first century, the Joint Warfighting Center (JWC) emphasizes the integration of three capabilities-precision engagement, battlespace awareness, and enhanced Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C⁴I)-to form a "system of systems."¹

The combined effects of such future capabilities as sensor-to-shooter linkage, real-time situational awareness, precise knowledge of the enemy, exponential increases in data processing, and modern command and control systems will increase US destructive effectiveness above that of any competitor.

In the 2025 time frame, each of these capabilities could be performed solely from space, or, if not, will rely heavily on space systems. Battlespace awareness will be gained through spaceborne intelligence gathered in all spectra to turn battlespace awareness into knowledge. Battlespace awareness also includes information warfare. In a world heavily reliant on satellite communications, space will be a critical battlefield in any enemy's information war. Enhanced C⁴I will rely on space technology to identify important targets, handle data provided by the expansion of sensors, and transfer information to the weapons or forces best suited for the engagement. Precision engagement will invariably be dependent upon enhanced satellite global positioning data, space assisted targeting capabilities, and satellite communications to tell the shooter where to put bombs on target. This type of war-fighting framework will rely heavily on space capabilities. Because of this growing reliance on space, a vigorous counterspace capability will be required to protect US capabilities and deny the enemy any advantage to be gained from the employment of their space assets.

Space as a Vital National Interest

In order to understand the importance of counterspace operations to the air and space environment in 2025, it is important to identify why space will be important to our US national interests. In addition to its role as a key enabler of future joint war-fighting doctrine, counterspace capabilities will be driven by three other significant factors in 2025. First, space will contain interests vital to US national security. Second, the US will continue to look at the freedom to operate in space just as we look at the freedom to operate in international airspace or international waters today. Third, the US will depend on unimpeded space operations for achieving information dominance.

Traditionally, the US has gone to war over only those most critical issues deemed vital interests. Historically, space has never been seen to contain such vital interests. US space systems have not yet been attacked. However, the evolution of space as a strategic necessity in the protection of US vital interests will very likely make space assets themselves vital to the protection of US sovereignty. The compelling question is: Will the US consider it an act of war if a critical space asset is intentionally degraded or destroyed in the future? As a point of comparison, Soviet space strategy envisioned space as an extension of the terrestrial and maritime battlefield.² As a result, any attack on their space-based warning system is a threat to which armed force, including nuclear force (if coupled with other signs of preemployment or preparation) might be the reply.³ If the destruction of a satellite or its command and control segment leads to the loss of American lives, this should be seen no differently than the shootdown of a C-17 loaded with airborne troops. Another scenario is one in which space-based intelligence, degraded by an enemy, causes the Federal Bureau of Investigation to fail to stop a terrorist bombing which might have been avoided with unspoiled space-based information. Will this be tolerated in 2025? The ramifications of a failure to achieve and maintain space superiority are far reaching to the civilian as well as the military population.

Gen Charles Horner, former commander in chief, United Space Command, envisioned his worst nightmare as seeing an entire Marine battalion wiped out on some foreign landing zone because he was unable to deny the enemy intelligence and imagery garnered from space assets.⁴ Horner emphasized the need to operate our own space systems while developing and deploying the capability to negate an adversary's use of space to support hostile military or terrorist forces. The means to accomplish these goals lie in the ability to perform the counterspace mission. Options for space system negation are bounded only by methods available to attack an enemy. Hard kill can be accomplished by directly targeting the satellite with kinetic or directed energy weapons or by attacking ground-based control facilities or launch sites. Soft kill methods include jamming or intruding the satellite signal or targeting the communication links or ground stations.⁵

In addition to protecting our satellites and denying the enemy the ability to use space against us, the US must preserve its freedom of action in space. In a future where space is equivalent to international airways or seaways of today, the US must be able exercise an equivalent freedom of passage in space. This includes operating military and commercial satellites when and where they are needed. The increasing impact of space systems on military, political, and economic policy make the freedom to operate in this medium critical to US prosperity. Commercial interests using space today range from global telecommunications to global positioning. Ultimately, ensuring freedom of navigation to friends and allies will serve to enhance US prestige abroad in support of national security objectives. This will require the ability, through force if necessary, to assure friendly space assets the ability to freely operate in space.

Space superiority, gained and maintained through offensive and defensive counterspace actions, supports the concept of information dominance. The main product of space systems is information. From communications to imagery, weather, or remote sensing, satellites provide information which today is used by a broad spectrum of clients. Identified as a significant part of the battlefield of the future, information warfare may be a new type of strategic warfare.⁶ In the future, space will be inextricably tied to information and thus information warfare. Information dominance can mean the difference between success and failure of diplomatic initiatives, successful crisis resolution or war, or forfeiture of the element of surprise. Therefore, the ability to attain information dominance can widen the gap between friendly actions and enemy reactions. On the other hand, failure to achieve information dominance at the onset of hostilities could lead to the inability of friendly forces to conduct military operations successfully.⁷ While this paper does not go into any further discussion of information warfare, it seeks to point out the value of space assets (and therefore vigorous counterspace actions) to achieving information dominance in the future.

In order to protect vital interests in space, ensure freedom of space navigation, and achieve information dominance, the US will eventually require weapons in space. The need to counter future space threats and minimize US space vulnerabilities will drive the American people to accept the inevitable-weapons in space. A discussion of the political, policy, and treaty ramifications of weapons in space will highlight some of the existing hurdles to such a venture.

The Road to Weapons in Space

This paper proposes that by year 2025 the US, and indeed the world, will be so reliant on space systems that space superiority will be of vital importance. This in turn will require the placement of force application weapon systems in space for defense against attack and to carry out offensive actions as necessary. Many futurists, both military and civilian, have hailed the rapid development of technology and have predicted the placement of weapons in space. Many say it is inevitable. There is, however, much more to this question than technological capabilities or some kind of intuitive sense of destiny. It is a significant leap from the current political mindset about space use, to a new mindset which supports placing force application platforms in space. The obstacles to placing weapons in space lie in the following three general areas which are not mutually exclusive: international space treaties, policy, and the space sanctuary illusion.

So the question remains, What will be the road to weapons in space? What preconditions will be necessary in the areas of treaties, politics, policy, and social perspective that will lead our military and political leaders to actually break that self-imposed, invisible boundary? There are several treaties which deal with various aspects of military space activities. These include the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (1972). The only specific prohibition to weapons in space deals with weapons of mass destruction.⁸ The current administration has been negotiating with Russia on modifying the ABM Treaty, which prohibits space-based ABM systems, in order to allow for development and deployment of more capable theater missile defense. Some say the ABM Treaty is a product of the cold war whose time has past. Others say the US should just abrogate it outright. Many are now talking about changing the treaty or abandoning it altogether. It seems possible that the ABM Treaty is on the verge of significant change which may remove one of the main treaty obstacles to force application in space.

With respect to national policy, we have come a long way from Dwight D. Eisenhower's fundamental principles that US space activity would be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. More recently, President George H. Bush's policy specified defense against enemy space attack and assuring freedom of action in space.⁹ One could certainly argue that based on the changes in national policy, an important part of the "road" has already been traveled. Having a national policy that calls for force application from space is a good place to start. The problem is policy is meaningless if the nation's leaders lack the will to implement it or support those who try to implement it. Our national politicians need to recognize the critical nature of space systems, space vulnerabilities, and the need to support pursuing space control and force application capabilities in space. This awakening must occur before a crisis arises and before an antagonistic nation either attacks or deploys the capability to destroy US space assets and holds the nation hostage. Shifts in political will may be forming today as the Congress has been trying to pass legislation to deploy a national missile defense system.

Public will is another matter and is something infinitely difficult to assess. Focusing closer to home, the American people must be asked, "Are you comfortable with the idea that some rogue nation is able to destroy both military and civilian satellites causing you to lose your cable TV, your cellular phone, and the navigation system that guides you to your favorite fishing hole." All things considered, it seems reasonable to predict by 2025 the US will have mustered the political and social will, in recognition of the absolute criticality of assured freedom of operation in space, to get over the sanctuary hurdle and place the necessary space force structure in place.

The Growing Need for Counterspace Capability

In order to understand why a counterspace capability will be critical in 2025, it is only necessary to look at recent developments which point to the explosive growth in usage of space assets worldwide. As both commercial needs and military missions are increasingly met via space systems, the ability to protect the sovereignty of US and friendly satellites will grow in importance. Make no mistake-there is a potential threat. With the intent to "deny the use of outer space to other states," the former Soviet Union developed and tested anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons in the 1960s and 1970s.¹⁰ Moreover, a stated high-priority Soviet objective in the late 1980s was a space-based high-energy laser ASAT weapon to complement their current ASAT capable systems.¹¹ Based on these developments, it is reasonable to assert that a number of nations will develop an ASAT capability over the next 30 years.

Proliferation of Access to Space Systems

United States. The US is critically dependent on space. Communication, navigation, intelligence gathering, and weather observation are just a few of the areas in which the US has leveraged its future into space. This investment vigor extends to the commercial arena as well. Numerous domestic and international businesses have committed large sums of capital in order to deliver products and services to the customer. According to the New World Vistas: "Space Applications Volume," in the commercial telecommunications area alone, six different constellations will become operational in the late 1990s.¹²

Source: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21^st Century (unpublished draft, the space applications volume, 15 December 1995), 7.

In addition to the explosive commercial growth in space, the military continues to press the strategic advantage that control of the space domain offers. Desert Storm can arguably be designated the "First Space War." From weather forecasting to target intelligence, US success relied heavily on spaceborne systems. National assets, combined with our GPS constellation, increased the accuracy of our forces, both in, and out of the Kuwait/Iraq theater. The defense satellite program (DSP) system provided tactical warning of Scud launches within minutes, enabling our defense forces to come to their highest alert and defeat the threat. More so than in any past conflict, connectivity between the fielded forces and the commander make information and decisions instantly available to the one who needed it most-the war fighter. As the US depends more and more on precision as a force multiplier, the ability to detect, identify, and target threats will become paramount. To counter increasingly mobile enemy forces, this ability needs to be either real time or near real time. Space offers a medium for near instantaneous, cheap communications. It offers the possibility of continuous surveillance plus highly accurate positioning. In Jeffery Barnett's book, Future War, he called these "war-deciding capabilities."¹³ As such, our space capabilities must be protected and the enemy's capability must be negated.

The "Rest" of the World. Other economic and military powers also recognize the value of space. The European Community, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Japan, and China, just to name a few, all have active launch programs deploying assets into space. While our future quarrel may not be with the "owner" of the space asset, the enemy's ability to access the information could be very detrimental to our cause. Even in 1991 the "CNN factor" was significant. Saddam Hussein certainly had his television on, even if he could not talk to his troops.

The Teal Group Corporation, a defense and aerospace analysis firm, identified 949 spacecraft that have been funded or scheduled for launch from 1995 to 2004.¹⁴ It is likely that the end of defense export restrictions on sales of computers will allow many countries to manipulate, store, and disseminate medium-resolution data, such as that offered by satellite positioning and tracking (SPOT) and LANDSAT, and make the imagery vastly more useful to foreign militaries. By encouraging US concerns to become commercial leaders in selling imagery as fine as one meter resolution, the government hopes to discourage many other nations from developing their own systems or buying services elsewhere.¹⁵

These current capabilities, demonstrated by multiple countries, are a loud warning to the US to maintain its edge in space technology. Improved capability can be expected in the future. The increase in satellite information vendors means organizations without space capability can purchase the end product from a wide variety of sources.

System Vulnerabilities in 2025

Most, if not all, space systems have three segments: space, ground, and user. Using a communication satellite system as an example, the space segment is the actual satellite. The ground segment likely consists of one or more stations that control customer access to the satellite. The user segment is the customer, the person who is trying to communicate, as well as any user equipment.

Each segment has its own vulnerabilities in a combat environment. Capabilities described later in this paper may make satellites the most lucrative targets to attack, while the political situation may make such an attack untenable. The US may be able to strike a satellite system because it is supplying a third country with intelligence, but unwilling to do so because we are engaged in talks of a delicate nature over a separate issue. Using the same rationale, the ground segment may be too politically sensitive because of its location. In reality, the user segment may be the most politically acceptable target, but it is practically invulnerable due to its dispersed nature.

Existing US technology can strike all segments of space assets. Demonstrated F-15 (ASATs) takes low-earth-orbit systems targets today.¹⁶ Extensions of this, and other technologies discussed later, will make medium earth orbit and high earth orbit systems vulnerable in 2025. Ground and user segments today are vulnerable to both conventional and nonconventional attack.

Threats to Space Systems in 2025

There will be multiple threats to space-based systems in the future. Some will involve threats to the space segment, some the ground, and some the user. These threats could or will come from current conventional forces, space-based forces, or other advanced technology ground/air forces. These threats can be extensions of today's technology, such as F-15 ASAT derivatives or the detonation of nuclear weapons in space. Another possibility will result from leaps in technology that enable realistic directed energy, kinetic energy, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) based weapons to be directed to individual targets.

To this point, the discussion has focused on the need for counterspace capabilities in 2025 and the challenges facing US forces in gaining and maintaining space superiority. The next section describes key technology areas, ranging from space detection and targeting to directed energy weapons, as well as specific concepts and capabilities, which will enable US commanders to absolutely control the high ground in 2025.

Back to 2025 Home Page