Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
December 2017 Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space A Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa)® Report Deeper Analyses Clarifying Insights Better Decisions Produced in support of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment www.NSIteam.com (SMA) Office (Joint Staff, J39) Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space 1 Authors Weston Aviles Nicole Peterson Dr. Belinda Bragg George Popp Please direct inquiries to George Popp at [email protected] ViTTa® Project Team Dr. Allison Astorino-Courtois Sarah Canna Nicole Peterson Executive VP Principal Analyst Associate Analyst Weston Aviles Dr. Larry Kuznar George Popp Analyst Chief Cultural Sciences Officer Senior Analyst Dr. Belinda Bragg Dr. Sabrina Pagano Dr. John A. Stevenson Principal Research Scientist Principal Research Scientist Principal Research Scientist Interview Team* Weston Aviles Nicole Peterson Analyst Associate Analyst Sarah Canna George Popp Principal Analyst Senior Analyst What is ViTTa®? NSI’s Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa®) provides rapid response to critical information needs by pulsing our global network of subject matter experts (SMEs) to generate a wide range of expert insight. For this SMA Contested Space Operations project, ViTTa was used to address 23 unclassified Questions submitted by the Joint Staff and US Air Force project sponsors. The ViTTa team received written and verbal input from over 111 experts from National Security Space, as well as civil, commercial, legal, think tank, and academic communities working space and space policy. Each Space ViTTa report contains two sections: 1) a summary response to the question asked (see Summary Response section) and 2) the full written and/or transcribed interview input received for the question asked from each expert contributor organized alphabetically (see Subject Matter Expert Contributions Section). Biographies for all expert contributors have been collated in a companion document. * For access to the complete corpus of interview transcripts and written subject matter expert responses hosted on our NSI SharePoint site, please contact [email protected]. Cover Art: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/bwhi1apicaaamlo.jpg_large.jpg RESEARCH ▪ INNOVATIONNSI ▪ EXCELLENCE Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space 2 Question of Focus [Q2] How does each entity in the following categories conceive of space operations for military and commercial purposes? How do they approach space operations and services? Is there any difference in how their commercial ventures (if any) consider security during peace, crisis, and conflict? a. PRC, Russia, Iran, North Korea b. European Space Agency, Japan, India, South Korea, Israel c. Canada, Brazil, Australia, Singapore, Ukraine, others Expert Contributors Major General (USAF ret.) James B. Armor, Jr.2 (Orbital ATK); Dr. Gawdat Bahgat (National Defense University); Marc Berkowitz (Lockheed Martin); Brett Biddington (Biddington Research Pty Ltd, Australia); Duncan Blake (International Aerospace Law and Policy Group, Australia); Caelus Partners, LLC; Dean Cheng (Heritage Foundation); Faulconer Consulting Group; Gilmour Space Technologies, Australia; Dr. Namrata Goswami (Wikistrat and Auburn University Futures Lab); Dr. Laura Grego (Union of Concerned Scientists); Harris Corporation, LLC.; Dr. Jason Held (Saber Astronautics, Australia); Theresa Hitchens (Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, University of Maryland); Jonathan Hung (Singapore Space and Technology Association, Singapore); Juan Hurtado (United States Southern Command); Group Captain (Indian Air Force ret.) Ajey Lele3 (Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India); Dr. Martin Lindsey (United States Pacific Command); Agnieszka Lukaszczyk (Planet, Netherlands); Sergeant First Class Jerritt A. Lynn (United States Army Civil Affairs); Colonel David Miller (460th Space Wing, United States Air Force); Veerle Nouwens and Alexandra Stickings (Royal United Services Institute, UK); Dr. Deganit Paikowsky (Tel Aviv University, Israel); Kevin Pollpeter (CNA); Victoria Samson (Secure World Foundation); Brent Sherwood (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory); ViaSat, Inc.; Dr. Brian Weeden (Secure World Foundation); Charity Weeden (Satellite Industry Association) Summary Response Given the complex nature of this question and the number of countries covered, the body of this summary response has been organized by country. Looking across all these countries, however, several themes and patterns emerge, and these are presented in Table 1 below. While Iran, Russia, the PRC, and North Korea have historically seen space as integral to national security and defense, the expert responses suggest this attitude is spreading. Motivated by the perception that regional instability is increasing, many other states, which previously conceived of their space operations as primarily civil in nature, are beginning to regard space as essential to their national security and defense. This, in turn, has led to a greater focus on dual-use technologies. Many, not just Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, also view space as a source of national pride and international prestige. Finally, while the specific organization of the space sectors in these countries may differ, all have fewer institutional barriers to military use of civil (government and/or commercial) capabilities than we see in the US. Furthermore, there are institutional and financial incentives for government and commercial entities to work together. These findings are consistent with the analysis of the experts who contributed to Question 7.4 2 The subject matter expert’s personal views, and not those of his organization, are represented in his contributions. 3 The subject matter expert’s personal views, and not those of his organization, are represented in his contributions. 4 To access the full NSI Space ViTTa Q7 report, please visit: http://nsiteam.com/commercial-space-industry-for-military-purposes- by-non-western-states/ RESEARCH ▪ INNOVATIONNSI ▪ EXCELLENCE Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space 3 Table 1: Summary Table of Actors’ Space Operations and Approach to Space Activities5 Characteristics of Actor’s Approach to Space Activities and Capabilities 6 Russia PRC Iran North Korea ESA Japan India ROK Israel Canada Brazil Australia Singapore Ukraine Has an increasing focus on dual-use technology Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes - - Perceives US dominance in space as a threat Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - - - No - No - - Recognizes and may exploit US asymmetric dependence on space in times of crisis or Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - - - No - No No - conflict Space operations are a source of national pride and international prestige Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - - - Space operations are increasingly viewed as essential to national security and defense Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes No - Uses, or seeks to use, civil space program for peaceful exploration and scientific Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - research MILITARY Has a military space program Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes - No No - Uses space for military purposes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No - Participates in joint military space ventures / receives military assistance from other Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - nation(s) Military space activities reliant on partner nation capabilities No No - - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - CIVIL Has a civil space program Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - Uses space for civil purposes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - Participates in joint civil space ventures with other nation(s) Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - - COMMERCIAL Has a commercial space sector - - No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Commercial space sector largely reliant on government funding Yes Yes - - - - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes No - Has a quasi-commercial space sector that is overtly or covertly controlled by the state Yes Yes - - - No Yes - Yes No No No No - Engages in joint commercial ventures with international partners Yes Yes - - Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes - Yes Yes - 5 NOTE: A “-“ is used within the table to indicate characteristics that are not specifically addressed in the expert contributions. 6 NOTE: Coding here relates to ESA specifically, therefore it may not necessarily be reflective of individual member states’ national approach to space. Ally, Adversary, and Partner Use of Space 4 People’s Republic of China (PRC) Kevin Pollpeter of CNA considers China’s approach to space to be motivated by the desire to “increase what [the PRC] calls its comprehensive national power … the basket of everything that makes a country powerful: its military might, its economic power, its diplomatic power, its cultural power.” This assessment is consistent among the contributors who discussed China,7 although there was some deviation regarding the scope of China’s ambitions relative to their military, commercial, and civil/scientific pursuits in the space domain. Veerle Nouwens and Alexandra Stickings of the Royal United Services Institute refer to Beijing’s “strategic vision as a global power,” whereas Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation frames such strategic vision as being more regional orientated and not expeditionary in nature. These ambitions are grounded in the long-term “future-orientated,” multi- generational planning (Dr. Namrata Goswami, Wikistrat and Auburn University Futures Lab) characteristic of Beijing’s centralized approach to policy development. How does the PRC approach space operations?