sign in sign up
<<
Home , Outer Space Treaty, Space Race, Space warfare

North Atlantic Organization

Background Guide B

CAHSMUN XVII

Letter from the Director

Dear Delegates,

My name is David Deng and I have the distinct privilege to serve as the Director of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for CAHSMUN 2021.

Just two years ago, I found myself in the very back of the committee room, speaking only twice as a first-time delegate. Since then, I have come to develop an entrenched passion for the esoteric world that is Model . My journey in MUN has given me more than just an enriching academic experience; it has helped me rid my fear of public speaking, introduced me to various forms of government, and provided me a platform through which I can debate and discuss with others without judgement. Now, I can only hope to provide you, the delegates, with the same life-changing experience that I had. Make the most out of your time as a delegate, and channel your inner passion for change; we, the dais team, will help you when you need it, but it is up to you to make a difference in our ever-changing world.

This year, NATO will feature two topics: The Rise of ’s and Anti- Threats. Both topics are extremely pertinent to today’s world and should provide an in-depth experience into today's current events.

I will be joined by Matthew Leung and Laura Choi who will be your chairs for NATO. We are all excited to see you debate and discuss the two topics we have chosen this year, and we are eager to see your upcoming growth as a delegate.

I wish you the best of luck for your preparation and research, and I’m excited for the fruitful discourse this weekend will bring. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at @cahsmun.org. I look forward to meeting you all this April!

Godspeed,

David Deng NATO Director — CAHSMUN 2021

Committee Description

The aftermath of World II left in a state of political and economic turmoil, with the majority of the continent disorganized and unprepared for the rise of the (USSR). The Soviet Union’s propagandist mentality and pursuit of atomic led to many leaders in Europe coming together and creating an alliance to oppose the rising threat of the USSR. Hence, on April 4, 1949, a twelve-state alliance committed to defence, conflict resolution, and individual liberty was born from a need to ensure security in Europe. With that, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created.1 In the years following the consolidation of NATO, the alliance acted as a counterweight to the Soviet bloc, planning armed militancy and solving political disputes. The fundamental principle that NATO was built off, safeguarding the security and freedom of its members, applies to all member states and binds them to any decision NATO passes. In the case of an attack on one of its members, all countries in NATO are committed to declaring war; therefore, an attack on a country in NATO is an attack on the alliance itself. This long-standing principle of collective defence differentiates NATO from other UN organizations and is what promotes a sense of solidarity within the alliance.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has readjusted itself to fulfill an expanded role in the 21st century. Instead of only focusing its efforts in Europe and North America, the alliance has also ventured into Asia-Pacific and African affairs. Through protecting non- NATO members and projecting their values globally, the alliance has become more than a organization; its mandate has shifted towards global and conflict resolution. In conjunction with the UN, NATO has aided many countries in the fight for democracy and justice, using their political influence as a philanthropic tool.

Delegates in NATO will simulate work in the North Atlantic Council (NAC). The NAC is the main decision-making body in NATO and oversees militaristic and political affairs that NATO deals with.2 The council consists of 29 member states that are legally bound to the mandate of NATO. The topic NATO will be discussing, the Rise of China’s Expansionism, deals with the implications of a growing Chinese threat. Delegates will have to work cohesively to confront the threat and ensure global peace is kept.

1 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm 2 www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49763.htm.

Topic Overview

Since the landing in 1969, the US and its allies have had an iron grip on . Although space exploration has yet to be perfected, the US has performed 135 missions to space from 1981 to 2011—the most out of any country.3 The US, along with NATO members, lead a global trend to further space innovation and ultimately find a planet for habitation However, in NATO’s search for a habitable planet, espionage and greed have held them back, twisting space exploration into a war for territory and technology. Although space exploration was dominated by the US and the Soviet Union throughout the , innovation and improved technology have allowed for the rapid proliferation of satellite launches. are defined as a “moon, planet or machine that a planet or star” and enhance crucial day to day activities such as navigation, financial transactions, and meteorology.4 5 Satellites also provide countries with militaristic advantages, allowing for increased tracking, geo-location, and target identification between countries. Naturally, leaders of NATO have announced the importance of the alliance’s presence in space, declaring that “space [is] an operational domain for NATO, recognizing its importance in keeping us safe and tackling security challenges while upholding international law.” 6 Members of NATO will have to confront this shifting geopolitical domain and deal with the realities of increased responsibilities in space.

Since the ratification of the Treaty in 1967, which prohibits weapons of mass destruction to be used in space, actors with malign intent have sought to limit NATO’s presence in space. In particular, China, , , and have all shown increased mobilization on celestial bodies. There have been several reports from the US Defense Intelligence Agency announcing Russia and China’s recent development of outer space weapons that are equipped for war.7 It is an likely reality that NATO will enter into a conflict with Russia and China at some point in the next few years, especially considering the global search for another habitable planet. Evidently, members of the alliance will have to work cohesively to develop an assertive plan against anti-satellite threats (ASATs).

3 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/index.html 4 www..gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a-satellite-58.html. 5 www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military Power Publications/Space_Threat_V14_020119_sm.pdf. 6 www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/04/22/nato-and-outer-space-now-what 7 Ibid

Timeline

October 4, 1957 - The first space satellite, Sputnik, is launched into space by the Soviet Union. During this period in space exploration, the US and the USSR are in an ideological war, competing against each other to send the first man to space.8

January 31, 1958 - The US launches Explorer, its first space satellite, into space. However, just last year, the USSR already launched , a mission that sent a dog into space.9 For the next decade, the USSR accomplishes a series of space missions—putting the nation years ahead of the US in the —and is deemed the world’s flagship space agency.10

June 23, 1963 - After the world nearly spirals into nuclear war during the , a nuclear conflict between the US and the Soviet Union, both countries sign the Hotline Agreement—a series of terms that streamline communication between the two governments. A telegraph is built in two terminal points: and Washington. It enables both countries to directly contact each other in the case of international escalations, like the Indo-Pakastani war and Arab Israeli War.11

January 27, 1967 - The is officially ratified by 105 countries and signed by another 25 nations. The treaty outlines regulations around weapons of mass destruction in space, militarization on celestial bodies, and boundaries surrounding property ownership in space.12 Countries who ratify the treaty—including the US, Soviet Union, and China—are legally bound to the policies stated in the document and are forbidden to utilize space for military reasons.

July 20, 1969 - American and become the first two men to land on the moon. This landing cements the US and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as the one of the pioneers of space exploration. Although the Soviet Union previously sent multiple satellites into space successfully, the US’s is considered to be the defining moment in the Space Race that pushes them ahead of the Soviets.13

8 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sputnik-launched 9 Ibid 10 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html 11 https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Hotlines 12 www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace#:~:text=The 1967 Outer Space Treaty,exploration and use of space. 13 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html

April 24, 1970 - China launches its first satellite, Dongfanghong I, into space. China lags behind the US and USSR, as political turmoil hinders the country from devoting attention towards their space agency. However, this first satellite would prove to be a sign of China’s upcoming growth as a dominant .14

May, 1972 - The Anti- Treaty (ABM) is officially ratified by the US and the Soviet Union. The agreement limits both parties' missile arsenal and ensures that the proliferation of weapons in space will be monitored, creating more transparency and coherence.15

April 12, 1981 - The first , Columbia, is launched by NASA. The development of the shuttle began before the first moon landing, and gained traction after the success of the landing. As the first successful shuttle launch, Columbia is crucial to NASA’s future development.16

June, 1982 - The US announces its plan to test their new ASAT, the Air-Launched Missile Vehicle (ALMV). The tactic is known as the “kinetic kill” and is popular with many national space agencies including the US, China, Russia, and .17

December, 1985 - The US Congress bans ALMV system testing after the project goes over budget and the 1985 launch results in excess that endangers space walks. As a result, the ALMV program is discontinued in 1987.18

February 1, 2003 - The breaks upon re-entry into ’s atmosphere, wrecking the ship and killing 7 astronauts in the process. As the ship dives towards the Earth’s surface, the shuttle explodes into flames. The implications of this incident change space exploration forever, signifying a newfound emphasis on safety, which, before Columbia’s crash, was believed to be a guarantee.19

January 14, 2004 - US President George W. Bush announces a new space program to send astronauts back to the moon by 2015. This sets a precedent for future presidents, as the effort to find other habitable planets gains traction.20

14 https://westeastspace.com/2020/04/22/chinas-first-satellite-50-years-ago/ 15 https://www.britannica.com/event/Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Treaty 16 https://www.space.com/18008-space-shuttle-columbia.html 17 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/a-history-of-ASAT-programs_lo-res.pdf 18 Ibid 19 https://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html 20 https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html

January 11, 2007 - China shoots down an aging with an homing vehicle, which creates more persistent space debris than any other space event in history. The action raises concerns, primarily by and the US, around China’s new ability to reach outer space satellites.21

February 12, 2008 - China and Russia introduce a new draft treaty named the “Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects” (PPWT). The resolution proposes the reduction of ASATS in space and places strict regulations on the amount of ASATs a country can have. The resolution, however, does little to halt Russia and China’s development of ASATs.22

Historical Analysis

Until the early 1900s, the idea of space exploration was quite foreign to the world’s superpowers. It was not until the 1900s—when became exponentially more efficient— that human civilization began exploring technology to send projectiles into space. In the 1930s, the Soviet Union and the US started their space programs to send the first person to space.23 During II, both countries made minimal and only managed to research and build prototypes. After World War II ended, both countries immediately turned their attention to the Space Race, subsequently increasing funding and recruiting scientists globally. Space exploration was a crucial component of the . Whoever succeeded in sending the first man to space would be crowned as the world’s most influential power. The Soviets were unnerved by the US’s nuclear ability, as it surpassed their capabilities. Consequently, they sought an equalizer that could threaten the US, like the ’ nuclear weaponry that threatened the Soviets. In their search for an equalizer, the USSR discovered the potential of -powered .24 This discovery began the decade-long search for spacesuits, emergency exits, and efficient materials for a spaceship. In the ensuing decade, the Soviets developed a series of prototype rockets that were ready for the journey to space. Their success in prototyping was mainly due to their well-coordinated program that boasted a team of well-known German scientists, recruited after World War II. Russia’s initial achievements were a stark contrast to the US’s progress during this period in time. While the USSR exceeded all expectations, the US seemed to always be one step behind, lacking the

21 https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/history-anti-satellite-programs 22 https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/ 23 https://www.britannica.com/science/space-exploration/Soviet-Union 24 www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13939.8. Accessed 3 Sept. 2020.

cohesion and research needed to rival the Soviets. Nevertheless, the US was still able to keep up with the Soviet innovation, albeit with much less developed technology.

The Soviets’ efforts culminated in a successful launch of their first satellite, Sputnik. Sputnik was an incredible leap for the USSR. They cemented themselves as the global leader for innovation and proved just how far ahead they were compared to the US. Scientists in the US were shocked at the Soviets’ advancement in technology. The USSR’s wall of secrecy fooled the US, who thought that Explorer—their first satellite—would be the first to launch into space. As a result, the US began diverting their attention toward their space agency, urgently directing more resources to their space agency in hopes of closing the gap between them and the Soviets. This sudden sense of urgency marked the start of the “Space Race” fought between the US and the Soviet Union throughout the 20th century. The next year, the US launched their first satellite—the aforementioned Explorer. However, when the US launched their first satellite, the Soviets had already sent a dog to space.25 The Soviets would stay ahead of the US for the next decade with achievements such as the first man in space, first woman in space, first spacecraft to impact the moon, and first spacecraft to impact .26 These victories during the Cold War were a source of pride for the Soviet Union. However, this sense of pride was not necessarily indicative of how the Space Race was actually unfolding. In October of 1959, the US launched its first anti-satellite threat, and the nation was ahead of the Soviets for the first time. Codenamed “Bold ,” the US initiated the programme in an attempt to ensure its future security in space. During the Bold Orion trial, a missile was fired from Explorer VI and came within four miles of hitting its target.27 Nevertheless, the Soviets were still confident in their orbital abilities, as they launched their first anti-satellite threat in 1963. Instead of relying on missiles, however, the Soviets sent “killer satellites” towards adversaries.

In 1967, these two developments led to the creation of the Outer Space Treaty. Perhaps the most influential document regarding security in space, the treaty highlighted the potential risks of missiles in space, and called for the ban of weapons of mass destruction in space. The treaty also called for the prohibition of militarization on celestial bodies. The treaty was ratified by 105 countries and was signed by 26 other nations, including the US, Soviet Union, and China.28 The Soviets rejected the first draft of the treaty composed by the and its allies in 1957, due to their planned launch of the Sputnik in the following year.29

25 Ibid 26 “www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sputnik-launched. 27 www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite--us-asat-missile.html#:~:text= 28 Ibid 29 Ibid

The USSR’s confidence was short-lived. For years, the US had been working on a spaceship that could carry men to the moon, and after gaining clearance, the US was finally ready to launch it into space. On July 20, 1969, 11 officially touched down on the moon’s surface. American astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the dusty, barren land, said the infamous quote, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” and planted an American flag into the ground in an act of patriotism.30 The moon landing was a pivotal moment in the history of mankind, and marked the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.31

In June 1982, the US announced its plan for a new ASAT. They planned to launch a missile from a miniature vehicle, with the missile subsequently locking onto a target in low . The new method, known as the kinetic kill, would destroy or disrupt the threat by colliding with it.32 The larger implications of the kinetic kill were broad-sweeping; it was one of the first weapons that could accurately eliminate targets in space, and thus led to the potential for orbital warfare and an era of weapons development. Although the development of ASATs were not as rapid compared to other technologies like nuclear weapons, the race to find more efficient kinetic kill vehicles was of high priority to the US and Russia.

Current Situation

There are many aspects of anti-satellite threats that are crucial to understand. Attacks can range from cyber attacks on other satellites to jamming and spoofing techniques that interrupt signals. These types of threats are carried out on a regular basis and can damage NATO communication lines.

Cyberspace There are primarily four different types of cyberspace threats: (EW), directed energy weapons (DEW), kinetic energy threats, and orbital threats. Evidently, there are more than four cyberspace threats, but these four are the main sources of ASATs, and ones that delegates will be focusing on.

30 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid

Electronic Warfare

Electronic warfare (EW) is the act of "jamming" communication lines.33 Jamming prevents towers from receiving signals, impeding the tower's ability to reap the satellite's benefits. EW usually consists of controlling the enemies’ electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) so that the tower either does not receive a signal or receives a fake signal. The use of electronic warfare can “jam” communication between NATO members, or stop signals from being received by towers on earth.

Directed Energy Weapons The second threat—directed energy weapons—is much deadlier than electronic warfare and leaves physical marks on satellites. The goal of DEW is to eliminate and destroy enemy satellites through radiofrequency or .34 This type of threat is especially deadly due to its wide range of effects on satellite and military materials; for instance, DEWs could potentially reach the earth's surface and damage military equipment like tanks, military bases, and drones. The US has recently increased funding for DEWs, aiming to increase the wattage of the weapons so that they are better equipped for anti-satellite threats—essentially using one form of anti-satellites to combat foreign anti-satellite threats.35

Kinetic Energy Threats

Kinetic energy threats are facilitated through kinetic kill vehicles. Even without being launched in space, they can cause lasting harm on satellites. The weapon systems of kinetic kill vehicles are meant to be extremely destructive; most countries will use the technology to intercept missiles heading towards their country. These systems are usually propelled from a mobile launch system. Once launched, the system navigates towards and eliminates the threat. The US uses this technology to defend against ballistic missiles and other projectiles that are suspected to hit the country. Although this mechanism for defence is effective, the resulting orbital debris could endanger astronauts attempting spacewalks.36

Orbital Threats Finally, orbital threats are usually used for peaceful purposes. Their functions mainly consist of relocating debris and satellite servicing. However, these functions are not necessarily indicative of their potential use as an weapon. Orbital threats can carry payloads,

33 Ibid 34 Ibid 35 news.usni.org/2019/09/05/pentagon-shifts-focus-on-directed-energy-weapons-technology. 36 Ibid

which may contain kinetic kill vehicles or various anti-satellite threats towards a satellite.37 This technology also employs the use of chemical weapons that can cause permanent damage to a satellite.

Ultimately, although these weapons are not the only methods of warfare in space, they are the main modes of offence for satellites. Understanding both their benefits and shortcomings will be important if NATO wishes to curb anti-satellite threats.

Malign Actors

In January 2019, Dan Coats, a former Director of US National Intelligence, mentioned in a testimony that “China and Russia are training and equipping their military space forces and fielding new anti-satellite weapons to hold U.S. and allied space systems at risk.”38 His claims were supplemented by a series of documents from several intelligence agencies, all emphasizing the risk of China and Russia’s presence in space. Therefore, understanding the root causes of Russia and China’s aggression in space is imperative if NATO wants to ensure peace. Russian and Chinese military capabilities differ in many ways, but one similarity binds the two together: the ideology that expansion in space translates to dominance on earth.

Russia For years, Russia has been considered a pioneer of space exploration. However, in its current state, Russia’s space agency is not years ahead of its competitors like it was in the 20th century. Even so, Russia still maintains a position of aggression in space affairs. Although Russia’s space program is not as well-funded or broadly focused as China’s, Russia continues to develop flagship cyberspace threats capable of endangering NATO. Russia boasts an array of modern satellites that utilize EW and DWT to its full potential. As of May 2018, Russia has 146 satellites in orbit, the majority of which have militaristic purposes.39 Indeed, Russia’s military capabilities should be worrisome for those in the alliance. These capabilities allow Russia to maintain its advantage in space while simultaneously undermining NATO’s role. However, it is not Russia’s innovation and technology that the alliance should be worried about, but instead, Russia’s aggressive position against the West and its doctrine.

37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 Ibid

Map of Russian satellite launch sites scattered across the nation.40

Russia views space as a domain for and war.41 They believe that victories against US satellites will bode well for them in future conflicts. Subsequently, their development in space- related technology is an elaborate attempt at improving offensive techniques that would weaken Russian adversaries. It is well documented that the US relies on its satellites for espionage and day-to-day life. The US has 900 operational satellites in orbit today—the most out of any country.42 Satellites are mechanisms for infrastructure, navigation, weather, and healthcare communications. Should the US experience satellite disruptions, the country would be overwhelmed and underprepared. Russia has full knowledge of this, and has put an immense amount of effort in capitalizing on their reliance on satellites.43 To ensure its dominance in outer space, Russia has continually called for the de-weaponization of satellites, though it likely has no intention of de-weaponizing.44 As evidence, in November of 2018, accused Russia of harassing and disrupting communication mechanisms during a NATO training exercise.45 NATO decided to refrain from taking action, and since then, Norway has reported regular satellite disruptions from Russia. Russia has been blamed for blocking and sabotaging communication lines by several Eastern European nations, further stressing the need for intervention.46 This attack is especially worrying: without proper

40 Ibid 41 https://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029 42 intpolicydigest.org/2020/03/18/here-today-gone-tomorrow-u-s-satellite-dependency 43 Ibid 44 Ibid 45 Ibid 46 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-defence-russia-idUSKCN1QZ1WN

emphasis on cyberspace security, countries within close proximity to Russia, like Norway or the Balkan states, will likely face unprecedented amounts of attacks against their satellites. Furthermore, Russia’s presence in Eastern Europe could possibly expand to the realm of cyberspace. If it does, the situation in the Balkans will become even more dire. The implications for NATO are simple: if the alliance wants to ensure its security in the realm of space, it will have to directly confront Russia.

China

China’s space program had a stagnant beginning. It began during the just prior to Sputnik’s launch; however, due to internal political turmoil, it was woefully underfunded. Since then, China has rapidly consolidated its power in space, transforming their space program into one of the world’s most developed and renowned agencies. China continues to surpass its counterparts in space development, boasting 250 satellites in orbit—making it second only to the United States.47 In 2019, China attempted to increase influence in space through a series of missions that gained international traction, including improving space launches and access to space through the use of cost-efficient materials, strengthening , continuing lunar exploration, and enhancing data relay.48 Along with these ambitious initiatives, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has also acquired kinetic kill vehicles and electronic warfare—weaponry that is likely to be used against NATO. However, their anti-satellite capabilities are relatively unknown, as the PRC has not publicly announced any new threats since 2007. It is fair to assume that China is developing more satellite threats intended to intercept, combat, and eliminate targets. In a report released by the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, the office states that “China is employing more sophisticated satellite operations and is probably testing dual-use technologies in space that could be applied to counter space missions.”49 An increased number of Chinese satellite operations could be detrimental to NATO’s security in space, due to the alliance’s aforementioned reliance on satellites. Approximately 6-7% of Europe’s GDP, around EUR 800 billion, is dependent on satellite navigation. It is known that Chinese satellite threats have the capacity to disrupt communication and attack critical infrastructure. The extent of their potential damage has not been documented, but the mere existence of such threats is enough for Europe to be worried about adequate satellite protection.

47www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take- countermeasures/. 48media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT- FINAL.PDF. 49 Ibid

China views space superiority in a slightly different way than the . Although they both share a common opposition to the , China views anti-satellite threats as an informatized war—a war in which espionage and secrecy are the main drivers of conflict.50 Their development is specialized to combat their adversaries. China sees a decrease in US satellites as a way for China to effectively limit their involvement in regional . As well, the nation predicts that most of its future wars will be fought outside its borders in countries that they are unfamiliar in, which increases the importance of satellite situational awareness.51

The satellites are operated by the Chinese government themselves. The PRC’s space program is highly centralized, with most innovation and technology being developed by the government. This centralization allows China to monitor and target adversaries better than most countries. Chinese government-controlled satellites possess situational awareness (awareness of environmental elements) of regional flashpoints in areas like , the Korean Peninsula, and the South China Sea.52 Although most countries in NATO have government funded space agencies, they lack the centralization and cohesiveness that Chinese agencies possess.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the world, China has maintained its schedule for orbit launches this year. While the US cancelled a bevy of launches due to the pandemic, China launched its Tianwen-1 Mission in July of 2020.53 The cancellations raise concerns around China surpassing the US in space, weakening the alliance’s leverage over China. In order to combat China’s recent actions, it is inevitable that NATO will have to discuss its own budget regarding space exploration.

Other Actors

Other than Russia and China, there are several more actors that play an important role in mitigating satellite threats. Iran, for example, holds capabilities similar to that of Russia, and North Korea has also developed its own space programs. While their space programs are weak compared to NATO members’, Iran’s close ties with Russia and tense relations with the US make them a potential threat.

Both Iran and North Korea have modern ASATs at their disposal. Iran’s main strength is its array of jamming equipment. They have advertised several GPS jammers on their website,

50 Ibid 51 Ibid 52 Ibid 53 https://www.space.com/china-mars-rover-tianwen-1-landing-site

which continue to be of great military significance.54 On the other hand, North Korea does not have the same financial capabilities for a world-renowned space agency. Nevertheless, they still pose a relevant threat to those in NATO. North Korea has two satellites currently in orbit, but their arsenal will likely expand in the next decade. Taking into consideration Iran and North Korea’s historic opposition to the West, their comparatively weak space forces are still an imminent threat to the alliance.

UN/International Involvement

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)

In 1971, as the Cold War entered its closing stages, the US and Soviet Union reached an agreement on several clauses regarding nuclear weapons. The first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) was signed by the US and Soviet Union. The agreement attempted to curtail nuclear weapons manufacturing and their resulting impact on ASATs. The treaty limited both countries to one missile launch area and one hundred interceptor missiles.55 This agreement was imperative to the end of the Cold War and current regulations surrounding war in space.

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) In 1959, the UN established a new General Assembly: the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS). At the time, 24 countries formally bound themselves to the mandate of peaceful cooperation in space. The committee stemmed from a need to “govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity: for peace, security and development.”56 Members of COPOUS have helped generate many of today’s space , including the aforementioned 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The committee’s agenda is constantly changing to reflect and innovation changes, providing COPOUS with the to discuss more recent changes. COPOUS has two subsidiary bodies: the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, and the Legal Subcommittee.57

54 Ibid 55 https://www.britannica.com/event/Strategic-Arms-Limitation-Talks 56 www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html. 57 Ibid

Possible Solutions

Streamlined Space Response For years, members of the alliance have treated potential conflicts in space as frivolous or far- off matters that stray from present issues. However, NATO will have to improve their preparedness for space if they want to rival Russian advancements. Cooperation within the NAC regarding space deployment needs to be at the forefront of discussion, as there is no command structure in place for space exploration. An improved operations system is also imperative to the alliance’s ASAT prevention. Specific actions delegates could target are logistical planning, ASAT coordination, and funding allocation. However, to achieve these targets, countries in NATO will have to heavily rely on US intelligence and its space force. While NATO does boast a threatening space force, the US’s dominance in space is the primary reason why NATO has such an impressive space force. To further complicate things, however, the US may not want to compromise its security and intelligence by sharing resources with the alliance. If the US increases its data sharing within NATO, it leaves a possibility of Chinese or Russian hackers gaining access to that data. This problem is especially prevalent in Eastern European states, where Russia holds significant influence and has a history of initiating cyber attacks.58 Delegates will have to deal with these realities as they consider this solution as a tool to combatting ASATs.

Enforcement/Revision of International Space Regulations

Even with international laws prohibiting countries from engaging in , there are still an abundance of countries who violate these regulations. The most pressing issue with current regulations is a lack of clarity that gives countries ample room to continue mobilizing in space. For example, in 2007, China destroyed one of its weather satellites with a kinetic kill; instead of condemning China, the attack was deemed legal by the UN because the ASAT was not an “weapon of mass destruction.”59 This act was seen as a violation of regulations by most of the international community, yet China suffered no repercussions. Consequently, since then, many countries have exploited these regulations. A possible solution to this issue would be to revise international law for more clarity in the specific boundaries of ASATs. In particular, a definition of “weapons of mass destruction” and “militarization in space” is needed. Once revisions have been made, the alliance will have to ensure that countries follow these laws. Although enforcement may seem like a simple task, countries that abide by today’s

58 https://apnews.com/article/37456bb4d1b7435395acc4e8be56851b 59 swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updated_2012.pdf.

space treaties are rare. If NATO wants any opportunity to curb ASATs, the alliance will have to find a way to stop the exploitation of these rules.

Rapid Proliferation of NATO’s Space Arsenal Another potential solution to mitigating Russia and China’s dominance in space is simply to fight back with NATO’s own space force. After all, many already see Russia’s and China’s tactics in space as borderline violations of international law. Therefore, it is possible that the alliance can take aggressive measures such as rapidly proliferating their own arsenal of ASATs, scheduling more test launches, and increasing training exercises in space in order to prepare for a possible war with Russia and China.

However, there are a few problems that the alliance would face if they were to mobilize. First, it is possible that Russia and China will retaliate if NATO mobilizes. It has been affirmed time and time again that Russia will not back down from war with NATO, with a clear example being the ongoing dispute in .60 As such, the alliance should consider Russia and China’s possible reactions and their subsequent retaliations before debating this solution. Next, if NATO members mobilize, there is a high chance of accidental treaty violations. Even if these violations are without malicious intent, the alliance would be held accountable, which would tarnish NATO’s reputation. Delegates will have to find mechanisms to mitigate this potential pitfall. Lastly, and most importantly, mobilization requires large-sale funding to be effective. Currently, many countries in NATO are not in the proper fiscal state to support mobilization. Historically, the US has been a key contributor to the NATO budget, providing 22% of NATO’s total funding. However, in 2019, US President Donald Trump cut total US funding down to 16%, which put it in line with countries like , despite the US having a much larger economy.61 If this trend continues, the likelihood of the alliance affording this solution in the short term is far fetched at best.

Bloc Positions

North America

The US boasts the largest and most diverse space force in the alliance. The US’s aforementioned 900 satellites in orbit provide its citizens with information for navigation, meteorology, entertainment, and healthcare.62 Along with day-to-day necessities, the US also

60 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ 61 https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/trump-nato-contribution-nato 62 Ibid

depends on its satellites to predict and monitor enemy movements. Its military regularly checks their satellites in order to predict and track suspicious activity, allowing the US to take action before their adversaries. This reliance on satellites thrusts the US into a position of vulnerability whenever its satellites are compromised. The possibility of cash ATMs being inaccessible or the shutdown of a healthcare centre due to a malfunctioning satellite is thus extremely high.63 , on the other hand, has been using satellites in a slightly different manner. While Canada does rely on satellites for daily tasks, many of Canada’s satellites are used to monitor the environment, climate change, and a range of wildlife habitats.64 As a result, this bloc is the most vulnerable if Russia and China decide to further expand their ASATs.

The countries in this bloc are likely to support solutions that emphasize coordination and cooperation within the alliance. The US has been vocal about the need for countries in NATO to meet the 2 percent budget threshold, which calls for all members to put 2 percent of their GDP towards their own military budget.65 With the COVID-19 pandemic hindering North America’s ability to complete their satellite launch schedule, this bloc will likely advocate for ASAT funding. The US and Canada believe they need to keep their leverage in space in order to protect themselves and the alliance from possible cyberspace attacks.

Nordic and Eastern European Countries Countries in this bloc, such as Norway, , and , have been the victims of the most cyberspace attacks in the alliance. Recently, Russian interference with Norwegian satellites in a NATO training exercise went largely unnoticed by the public and was not resolved immediately.66 Russian aggression has been especially prevalent in Nordic low orbit; thus, curbing Russian influence in the region is extremely pertinent. While their space programs are smaller in comparison to North America’s, Nordic countries still play an important role in ensuring the alliance’s defence in space. Furthermore, Eastern European countries, such as , Poland, and , all have functioning space agencies, albeit with limited development in ASATs. As such, this bloc is mainly concerned with building a strong foundation in space exploration; most Eastern European countries do not have the capacity to engage in space warfare or fund multiple satellite launches a year. Thus, these countries will look for measures that can equip their space programs with defensive measures

63https://intpolicydigest.org/2020/03/18/here-today-gone-tomorrow-u-s-satellite- dependency/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Union%20of,any%20sort%20of%20satellite%20disruption. 64 https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/everyday-lives/climate-change.asp 65https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guide line,the%20Alliance's%20common%20defence%20efforts. 66 Ibid

against Russian ASATs. This bloc will also look for solutions that protect their existing satellites, as most Nordic countries do not have upcoming scheduled launches. Further cooperation will also be an avenue of exploration for those in this bloc; coordination will ensure that existing satellites will be safe from attacks.

Western Europe This bloc consists of the , , Germany, etc. In most conflicts, countries in Western Europe take a similar stance to that of the North American bloc. The United Kingdom and France have the second and third largest space force respectively and hold significant influence in space affairs. While these countries do recognize the importance of mitigating Russia and China’s growing ASAT arsenal, they choose to take a more passive approach to dealing with potential threats to their satellites. It is likely that these countries would rather opt for a peaceful retreat than to mobilize its plethora of ASATs in combatting threats. However, the United Kingdom has recently clarified their stance on Russian missile launches, echoing the US’s sentiments. In response to Russia test firing a missile, the UK government admitted that they “badly underestimated the threat posed by Russia,” and accused them of violating the Outer Space Treaty.67 This slight change—from passive to offensive—has slowly but surely pushed Western Europe to satellite mobilization. Therefore, countries in this bloc will be open to solutions that involve direct clashes with Russia and China, though they will likely still look for peaceful solutions before moving on to more aggressive solutions.

Discussion Questions

1. Does your country have significant influence on space affairs? How large is your country’s space force? 2. What is your country’s perspective on space weaponization? 3. How have ASATs affected international security? 4. What past measures have succeeded in creating peace in space? 5. Are current space treaties effective in holding countries accountable? How can NATO ensure countries follow guidelines? 6. What can the alliance do to prepare for a potential conflict in space?

67 www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53518238.

Additional Sources/Works Cited

UNOOSA, www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html.

Secure World Foundation, 2010, 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Fact Sheet, swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updated_2012.pdf.

A History of Anti-Satellite Programs. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/history-anti-satellite-programs

Browne, R. (2019, November 28). Trump administration to cut its financial contribution to NATO - CNN Politics. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/trump- nato-contribution-nato

Catledge, Burton “Ernie,” et al. Space History. Air University Press, 2009, pp. 1–28, AU-18 Space Primer, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13939.8. Accessed 19 Sept. 2020.

Defence Intelligence Agency , 2019, Challenges To Security In Space, www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military Power Publications/Space_Threat_V14_020119_sm.pdf.

D'Zio, Bill. “China's First Satellite 50 Years Ago.” West East Space, 22 Apr. 2020, westeastspace.com/2020/04/22/chinas-first-satellite-50-years-ago/.

Dunbar, Brian. “President Bush Offers New Vision For NASA.” NASA, NASA, www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html.

Dunbar, Brian. “July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind.” NASA, NASA, 19 Feb. 2015, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html.

George, Justin Paul. “History of Anti-Satellite Weapons: US Tested 1st ASAT Missile 60 Years Ago.” The Week, The Week, 26 Mar. 2019, www.theweek.in/news/sci- tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite-weapon-us-asat-missile.html#:~:text=.

“Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: U.S. Satellite Dependency.” International Policy Digest, 19 Mar. 2020, intpolicydigest.org/2020/03/18/here-today-gone-tomorrow-u-s-satellite- dependency/.

Howell, Elizabeth. “Columbia: First Shuttle in Space.” Space.com, Space, 30 Nov. 2017, www.space.com/18008-space-shuttle-columbia.html.

Howell, Elizabeth. “Columbia: First Shuttle in Space.” Space.com, Space, 30 Nov. 2017, www.space.com/18008-space-shuttle-columbia.html.

Howell, Elizabeth. “Columbia Disaster: What Happened, What NASA Learned.” Space.com, Space, 1 Feb. 2019, www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html.

“Https://Kujss.iraqjournals.com/pdf_166170_8dd024058ce4abb6c364bec514cecef8.Html.” Kirkuk University Journal-Scientific Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2020, pp. 1–16., doi:10.32894/kujss.2019.15.2.1.

Loff, Sarah. “ Overview.” NASA, NASA, 18 Mar. 2015, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/explorer-overview.html.

Nato. (2018, June 11). Funding NATO. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The 2% defence investment guideline,the Alliance's common defence efforts.

Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2020, media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD- CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF.

Pifer, S. (2020, March 17). Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal- annexation/

Proposed Prevention of an in Space (PAROS) Treaty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros- treaty/

Rose, Frank A. “NATO and Outer Space: Now What?” Brookings, Brookings, 22 Apr. 2020, www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/04/22/nato-and-outer-space-now-what.

“Sputnik Launched.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 24 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sputnik-launched.

“Sputnik Launched.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 24 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sputnik-launched.

Stojanovic, D. (2019, November 19). US, Montenegro plot cyber warfare ahead of 2020 elections. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/37456bb4d1b7435395acc4e8be56851b

Taking action on climate change. (2019, December 19). Retrieved from https://www.asc- csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/everyday-lives/climate-change.asp

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 5 Feb. 2020, www.britannica.com/event/Strategic- Arms-Limitation-Talks.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Soviet Union. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/space-exploration/Soviet-Union

“UK and US Say Russia Fired a Satellite Weapon in Space.” BBC News, BBC, 23 July 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53518238.

Werner, By: Ben, et al. “Pentagon Shifts Focus on Directed Energy Weapons Technology.” USNI News, 5 Sept. 2019, news.usni.org/2019/09/05/pentagon-shifts-focus-on-directed- energy-weapons-technology.

Zivitski, Maj. Liane. “China Wants to Dominate Space, and the US Must Take Countermeasures.” Defense News, Defense News, 23 June 2020, www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-to-dominate-space- and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/.