DOCSLIB.ORG

Anti-Satellite Weaponry: Keeping American Satellites Safe and Sound

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anti-Satellite Weaponry: Keeping American Satellites Safe and Sound Anti-Satellite Weaponry: Keeping American Satellites Safe and Sound Brian Britt August 2, 2020 Executive Summary Satellites are foundational to American interests and capabilities across a variety of industries. Anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons that disable or destroy satellites pose threats to the U.S. and the international community generally. American space systems planners should harden and our protect satellite systems against the threat of ASAT weapons by increasing system redundancy and satellite radiation hardening, establishing “Do-Not-Orbit” zones, equipping reconnaissance and intelligence satellites with optical protectors, and ensuring satellites are equipped with sufficient maneuverability capabilities to avoid known threats. While the U.S. maintains preeminence in ASAT weaponry, it should construct international norms and pursue diplomatic efforts to prevent further ASAT tests, head off an ASAT arms race, and hinder the proliferation of ASAT weapons across the globe. 2 Satellites are indispensable to modern life. They represent the backbone of commerce, navigation, entertainment, and our national security. “Navigation systems like the Navstar Global Positioning Systems,” made possible by satellite constellations, are used by “civilians and the military for navigation on land, sea, and air.” Credit card machines, automated teller machines, gas pumps, and video conferencing services rely on satellites. Accurate weather and climate monitoring are only possible through satellites. Much of space science progress in recent decades can be attributed to powerful research satellites, like the Hubble Telescope.1 Satellites allow the U.S. to project its force across the globe, maintain military dominance, and collect intelligence on malicious activities. Why ASAT Weaponry Matters Some claim ASAT weapons pose little real threat to U.S. capabilities. Pavel Podvig of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project explains that “any nation whose security could be significantly compromised” by ASAT technologies would work to reduce its vulnerabilities: "There are clear ways of doing that. You go to distributed capability, you go to smaller satellites, you go to redundancy. And in the end, you can shoot down a satellite, but so what?" he said. "In that sense, I'm an optimist. I do believe that these [ASAT] capabilities will not be used, just because I do believe that they don't give you much in terms of military capability."2 Podvig’s language is misleading. It is indeed possible that the use of an ASAT weapon on an American satellite could have no impact on our capabilities. But such an action could be considered a provocation or act of war and could lead to larger military engagements. The use of an ASAT weapon could still trigger conflict, even if it had no direct impact on American capabilities. And in reality, shooting down a satellite could still do the United States harm amid an engagement. Many of our space systems “have designs that date back to the Cold War.” Too many satellites contributing to American constellations today are too vulnerable to attacks. Damage to American satellite systems could cripple our command and control capabilities. Counter to Podvig’s claim, most space system architectures lack ideal levels of redundancy.3 "The presumption that space assets will always be available" is foundational in current military space policy.4 Not should the concept of an ASAT attack be limited to attacks on satellites. Ground stations that act as links between satellites and Earth are vulnerable, too. Nations lacking the ability to attack satellites directly could still hinder our ability to communicate with satellites through conventional attacks on ground stations. 1 What are satellites used for? | Union of Concerned Scientists. (2015, January 15). https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-are-satellites-used 2 Wall, M. (2020, April 30). Don’t panic about Russia’s recent anti-satellite test, experts say. Space.Com. https://www.space.com/russia-anti-satellite-weapon-fears-overblown.html 3 Air Force Space Command. (2020). Resiliency and Disaggregated Space Architectures [White Paper]. Air Force Space Command. https://Fas.org/spp/military/resiliency.pdf 4 Allen, T. (2005, December 16). Thinking about space warfare. https://Fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/at_960422.htm 3 Desert Storm’s success brought our reliance on space systems into painful relief for our adversaries.5 It is all but certain that our adversaries have developed plans of attack to disable our space systems and/or our ability to access and use them. Whether these plans would be effective during a conflict should not be left to chance. Threats to satellites are threats to the industries and activities which rely on them. ASAT weapons give countries the ability to shoot down, disable, or destroy satellites, and therefore damage our capacity to conduct necessary activities in each industry. Satellite architectures and the degree to which U.S. interests rely on them remain a weak point in our defenses. Even if ASAT weapons are never used in a hostile manner, the use of these weapons in tests poses a significant threat to American interests and the international community. ASAT tests in space threaten to activate the Kessler Syndrome. The Kessler Syndrome stipulates that as the density of particles in Low Earth orbit (LEO) increases, the likelihood of collisions between these particles increases. Each collision results in the production of more debris pieces, thus increasing the likelihood of further collisions. The theory stipulates that the growth in LEO debris would grow exponentially, "even if a zero net input rate in the catalogue is maintained.”6 LEO, over the decades, has become increasingly densely populated by commercial, scientific, military, and intelligence satellites launched by a variety of nations and organizations across the globe. Some of these satellites have collided. Others have been victims of kinetic ASAT tests. In either case, these events have produced hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller debris pieces that have contributed to the rise in density of particles occupying LEO. Each subsequent ASAT test could significantly push forward the Kessler timeline. And as LEO density and thus object collisions increase in the region, satellites that support U.S. interests, be they commercial, scientific, or security, are increasingly threatened. The U.S. and the international community have a marked interest in preventing further ASAT tests that produce debris in LEO. Relevant ASAT Testing History To date, four countries have tested ASAT weapons: The United States, Russia, China, and India. For the scope of this paper, cyberattacks will not be considered ASAT weapons. The United States and the Soviet Union were responsible for early ASAT tests. Original ASAT systems were constructed from ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems using imprecise missiles endowed with nuclear capabilities. The United States was first to test ASAT weaponry in 1959, successfully launching a direct-assent “‘air-launched ballistic missile’” from a “B-47 bomber” within 4 miles of a targeted satellite.7 8 Later, high altitude nuclear testing by both the United States and the Soviet Union demonstrated how radiation and high-speed electrons emitted in an electromagnetic pulse from nuclear weapons detonated at extremely high altitudes could disrupt satellite electronics. The 1962 Starfish Prime test, for example, damaged and eventually disabled 5 Air Force Space Command. (2020). Resiliency and Disaggregated Space Architectures [White Paper]. Air Force Space Command. https://Fas.org/spp/military/resiliency.pdf 6 Kessler, D., Johnson, N., Liou, J.-C., & Matney, M. (2010). The Kessler Syndrome: Implications to Future Space operations. American Astronautical Society. 7 Parsch, A. (2005). WS-199. Directory oF U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. http://designation- systems.net/dusrm/app4/ws-199.html 8 George, J. (2019, March 27). History of anti-satellite weapons: US tested 1st ASAT missile 60 years ago. The Week. https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite-weapon-us-asat-missile.html 4 at least six satellites.9 In the mid-1960s, the Soviet Union tested a dedicated co-orbital ASAT system that was designed to “approach a satellite within one or two orbits” and then “detonate an explosive that would damage the target with shrapnel,” declaring the system operational in 1973.10 The U.S. successfully tested an air-launch kinetic kill missile called the ASM-135, nicknamed the Flying Tomato Can, in 1985. The missile was fired from an F-15A at “38,100 feet” and reached its target at roughly “345 miles above the Pacific Ocean.”11 The late 1980s brought reports of a Soviet ASAT laser to the attention to American force planners, spurring the U.S. Navy to develop an ASAT ground-based laser that successfully dazzled or damaged a satellite’s at 261 miles above sea level in 1997. The early 2000s brought developments of ASAT jamming and anti-jamming capabilities. “The United States deployed the ground-based Counter Communications System” (CCS) in 2002, thought its capabilities remain largely unknown.12 Russia is thought to possess a similar system. In 2007, China used a “mobile, ground-launched missile” to destroy one of its satellites "by direct impact.”13 In 2008, the U.S. successfully tested a sea-launched BMD SM-3 kinetic kill missile on an “an inoperative U.S. satellite.”14 India announced it had completed the most recent ASAT weapons test to date in 2019, using a ground-based “ballistic missile defense interceptor, the Prithvi Delivery Vehicle Mark-II,” to kinetically kill one of its satellites, making it the fourth country to demonstrate ASAT capability.15 Who Has What To understand the risk posed to U.S. space architectures and where the U.S. stands among its competitors, it’s important to understand which countries have what weapons. China The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has made it clear they consider space to be “‘commanding point for the information battlefield.’” “PLA writings emphasize the necessity of ‘destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy's reconnaissance ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LAYERED HOMELAND MISSILE DEFENSE a Strategy for Defending the United States
    LAYERED HOMELAND MISSILE DEFENSE A Strategy for Defending the United States “Our fundamental responsibility is to protect the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life... A layered missile defense system will defend our homeland against missile attacks. ~ National Security Strategy, 2017 DEFENDING THE HOMELAND Defending the U.S. homeland is DoD’s number one objective. Rogue states seek to threaten the U.S. homeland with long-range ballistic missiles to coerce us, restrict our freedom of action, and undermine our resolve to defend allies and partners. A secure U.S. homeland allows us to defend our security interests, commit to the defense of others, resist coercion, and negotiate from a position of strength. THREATS TO THE HOMELAND Rogue state adversaries like North Korea and Iran seek dangerous capabilities, including long-range ballistic missiles that can threaten the U.S. homeland, support regional aggression, and deter potential U.S. responses. North Korea, despite repeated diplomatic engagements, is developing and testing nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could reach the U.S. homeland. Iran has demonstrated a space-launch capability that could lead to the development of an ICBM. These threats are likely to advance in capability and capacity by mid-decade and beyond, which is why President Trump stated, “We are committed to establishing a missile defense program that can shield every city in the United States. And we will never negotiate away our right to do this.” U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY U.S. missile defense policy recognizes the reality and enduring nature of these threats – plus the need to hedge against the uncertain nature of future threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Space in Russia's Security Strategy
    Outer Space in Russia’s Security Strategy Nicole J. Jackson Simons Papers in Security and Development No. 64/2018 | August 2018 Simons Papers in Security and Development No. 64/2018 2 The Simons Papers in Security and Development are edited and published at the School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University. The papers serve to disseminate research work in progress by the School’s faculty and associated and visiting scholars. Our aim is to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the series should not limit subsequent publication in any other venue. All papers can be downloaded free of charge from our website, www.sfu.ca/internationalstudies. The series is supported by the Simons Foundation. Series editor: Jeffrey T. Checkel Managing editor: Martha Snodgrass Jackson, Nicole J., Outer Space in Russia’s Security Strategy, Simons Papers in Security and Development, No. 64/2018, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, August 2018. ISSN 1922-5725 Copyright remains with the author. Reproduction for other purposes than personal research, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), the title, the working paper number and year, and the publisher. Copyright for this issue: Nicole J. Jackson, nicole_jackson(at)sfu.ca. School for International Studies Simon Fraser University Suite 7200 - 515 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 5K3 Outer Space in Russia’s Security Strategy 3 Outer Space in Russia’s Security Strategy Simons Papers in Security and Development No.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Weapons Earth Wars
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces. SpaceSpace WeaponsWeapons EarthEarth WarsWars Bob Preston | Dana J. Johnson | Sean J.A. Edwards Michael Miller | Calvin Shipbaugh Project AIR FORCE R Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2007
    2007 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine 74 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 Space 0.05g 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth Orbit begins 300 miles 0.95g 100 miles Low Earth Orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Illustration not to scale Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 75 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather infor- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations and operation of those satellites mation, missile warning, com- when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to through a worldwide network of mand and control, and intel- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome ground stations. ligence to the warfighter. of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant Fiscal 2007 dollars 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Fiscal Year 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total 1959 1,841 3,457 240 5,538 1983 13,051 18,601 675 32,327 1960 3,205 3,892
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Europe Safe
    Missile Defence Update Keeping Europe Safe November 2017 Issue INSIDE SMART InvestmentS: EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENCE MAKES IMPORTANT PROGRESS MISSILE DEFENCE SUCCESS IN ACTION PAGE 3 Next-GenERATION Missile Defence PAGE 5 by MISSILE DEFENCE UPDATE Every day, missile defence systems safeguard hundreds of millions of people across Europe, identifying and responding to the unprecedented security challenges coming from multiple sides. These advanced, proven, interoperable systems ensure Europe has capabilities that will keep it safe. Sustaining this level of protection requires smart, strategic investments by the member states of NATO and the European Union. Many of these countries are users of Raytheon’s Patriot Air and Missile Defense system and other defensive systems, which offer the best technology and the best value to taxpayers. This issue of the Missile Defence Update highlights the recent advancements, investments and strategies that allow European countries to rise to the challenge of stopping these threats. CONTENTS 2 SMART INVESTMENTS IN MISSILE DEFENCE 3 SUCCESS IN ACTION 4 HOW DOES LAYERED MISSILE DEFENCE WORK? NEXT-GENERATION 5 MISSILE DEFENCE NEXT-GENERATION 6 MISSILE TECHNOLOGY 7 PATRIOT MAKES THE GRADE 8 PATRIOT MAKES ITS WAY IN EUROPE POLAND’S COMMITMENT TO PATRIOT 9 READY NOW FOR GERMANY THE NETHERLANDS: PATRIOT INVESTMENT 10 LITHUANIA PURCHASES THE NASAMS SYSTEM AEGIS ASHORE TRANSFORMS EUROPEAN 11 MISSILE DEFENCE SKYCEPTOR INTEGRATION IN POLAND’S MISSILE 12 DEFENCE SYSTEM 13 RAYTHEON IN EUROPE 1 Missile Defence Update • November 2017 Issue MISSILE DEFENCE UPDATE SMART INVESTMENTS IN MISSILE DEFENCE PROTECTING EUROPE Continued investment in the Patriot also has many economic advantages THROUGH COLLABORATION that contribute to the growth of AND INTEROPERABILITY Europe’s defence industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement-By-Iran-Os.Pdf
    (Please check against delivery) Statement by Mr. Seyed Mohammad AH Robatjazi, Director, Office for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Affairs, Islamic Republic ofIran Before the First Committee ofthe United Nations General Assembly On Outer Space (Disarmament Aspects) New York, 24 October 2018 In the Name ofGod, theMost Compassionate, theMostMerciful Mr. Chairman, My delegation associates itselfwith the NAM statement delivered by Indonesia. According to international space law, outer space is the common heritage and province of all mankind, and all States have freedom and equality to access outer space for peaceful purposes. With this right comes an obligation that the use ofouter space by one country should not degrade the space environment for future users, and the commitment that the exploration and use ofouter space shall be for the benefit ofall countries, irrespective oftheir degree ofeconomic or scientific development. However, the militarization and weaponization ofouter space undermines these global rules and commitments. To ensure a peaceful outer space environment, prevention of its weaponization and an arms race therein is an essential and urgent priority. The rapid advances in space science and technology, the existing shortcomings in international space law, coupled with the irresponsible actions and policies of certain States, have made the danger ofthe weaponization of outer space more imminent than ever. As a result, the occurrence ofan arms race in outer space is a real possibility today. We are very concerned about the U.S. space policies and plans which threaten the sustainability of a peaceful space environment and risk triggering a destructive arms competition in outer space. The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Congress on the Strategic Defense System Architecture (U)
    Sr:CfCr:T/NOfiOftN/fiOflM!flLY ReSTRICT!!) DATA DECLASSIFIED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE INTERAGENCY SECURITY CLASSIFICATION APPEALS PANEL. E.O. 13526, SECTION 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP No. ;tt>09 - 0 a3> , document '1. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE (U) \.. 17 DECEMBER 1987 ', .. , ... ,:' Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Washington. D.C. 20301-7100 St!CRETfNOFORN/FORMERLV RESTRICTED DATA a,... M" ff}I /" seCRET/NOFORN/FORMERLV RESTRICTED DATA' REPORT TO CONGRESS ON 'THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE· SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE (U) 17 DECEMBER 1987 Prepared by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Washington, D.C. 20301-7100 SRCIR' T ABLE OF CONTENTS UST OF ACRONYMS ii I. INlROOUcnON 1 A. Purpose of Repon 1 B. Strategic Defense System Architecture Concept 1 II. STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3 A. Overview 3 B. Phased Deployment 4 C. Phase I 5 O. Description of Selected Architecture for Phase I 8 E. Follow-on Phases 11 III. STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEM PHASE I 15 A. Strategic Defense Mission 17 B. System Characteristics 18 C. Concept of Operation 21 IV. 50S FOLLOW-ON PHASES CONCEPT OF OPERATION 27 V. ACQUISmON STRATEGY 29 A. Acquisition Approach 29 B. SOS Acquisition Strategy Elements 29 VI. ISSUES 31 A. Interaction With Interim Operational Command 31 B. Survivability 31 C. Discrimination 31 D. Affotdability 32 E. Lethality 32 F. Readiness 32 G. Security 33 H. Advanced Launch System 33 I. Industrial Base 33 1. Effectiveness in Natural and Nuclear Perturbed Environments 34 vn. SDS ARCIm'ECfURE DEVELOPMENT 35 A. SOS Srudies. - Phase I 35 B. Architecture Analysis - Phase I 35 C.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE POLICY PRIMER Key Concepts, Issues, and Actors SECOND EDITION
    JOHN PAUL BYRNE John Paul Byrne is an undergraduate at the United States Air Force Academy. He was recently an intern at The Aerospace Corporation, where he supported the work of the Center for Space Policy and Strategy. He is working as the president of the Air Force Academy’s International Applied Space Policy and Strategy cadet club, where they focus on developing space-minded officers for the Air and Space Forces. John will earn his bachelor’s degree in political science with a focus in international relations, and a minor in German in 2021. ROBIN DICKEY Robin Dickey is a space policy and strategy analyst at The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy, focusing on national security space. Her prior experience includes risk analysis, legislative affairs, and international development. She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in international studies at Johns Hopkins University. MICHAEL P. GLEASON Dr. Michael P. Gleason is a national security senior project engineer in The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy and is a well-regarded author on space policy subjects, including international cooperation, space traffic management, national security, and deterrence. He has presented his research on critical space policy issues at conferences in Canada, Europe, Japan, and across the United States. A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Gleason served 29 years active in the Air Force space career field, including stints in spacecraft operations, on the Air Force Academy faculty, at the Pentagon, and at the Department of State. He holds a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Missile Defense “Arms Race” Myth
    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - POLICY FORUM The Missile Defense “Arms Race” Myth US policy toward ballistic missile defense (BMD) of the homeland is designed to stay ahead of the rogue state threat while relying on nuclear deterrence to prevent an attack from the nuclear missile arsenals of Russia or China. Today, the United States has 44 ground-­­based interceptors (GBI) and plans to increase the total number of its most capable interceptors to 64 by 2030 with the deployment of the Next Generation Interceptor. After its recent successful test against an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)-type threat, the United States is also examining how the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA could complement GBIs in a layered home- land missile defense architecture. Domestic critics of US homeland missile defense, as well as Russia and China, claim that increased US missile defense capacity and capability will lead to an arms race. They assert that it will stimulate Russia and China to build more offensive missiles in response, ultimately making the United States less safe. The critics’ logic also assumes that US restraint in missile defense will obviate Russian and Chinese perceived needs for missile modernization and production. These individuals predict a proto- typical action-­­reaction dynamic that has little empirical support and de- serves great scrutiny. Russian Reaction to US Missile Defenses roadly speaking, Russia could react in two ways to overcome per- ceived advances in US missile defense: proportionally or dispro- portionately increase the overall number of missiles, launchers, and Breentry vehicles in an attempt to overwhelm US missile defense capacity, or develop specific weapon systems meant to evade US missile defenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting U.S. Space Systems the Case for Weaponization A
    SECTION 4 Protecting U.S. Space Systems The Case for Weaponization a. The Rumsfeld Space Commission Report he National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2000 established Ta Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organi- zation. It was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld. The report came to be known as the Rumsfeld Commission report (or alternatively as the Space Commission's report). The Commission's report was published in January, 2001, when Rums- feld was about to take office as the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Below is a summary of its key findings. In accordance with its charter, the Commission concentrated on military and intelligence space operations and asserted a critical need for "national leadership to elevate space on the national security agenda." It also stated its unanimous con- clusions that "the United States has an urgent interest in promoting and protect- ing the peaceful use of space…."3 The Commission concluded that the relative dependence of the United States on space made its space systems a potentially attractive target for attack. It warned that such an action during a crisis or conflict should not be considered an im- probable act and recommended that the nation must strive to reduce its vulnera- bilities, if it were to avoid what it called a "Space Pearl Harbor."4 It concluded five key areas needed immediate attention. First, space should be made a national security priority. Second, disparate U.S. space activities should be merged, especially those of the DOD and the intelligence community. Third, there should be better cooperation between the Director of the Central Intelli- gence Agency and the Secretary of Defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense
    Updated December 29, 2020 Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense The United States has been developing and deploying North Korea likely has an arsenal of hundreds of SRBMs ballistic missile defenses (BMD) to defend against enemy that can reach all of South Korea and perhaps dozens of missiles continuously since the late 1940s. In the late 1960s MRBMs (whose reliability at this point remains uncertain), and early 1970s, the United States deployed a limited capable of reaching Japan and U.S. bases in the region. nuclear-tipped BMD system to protect a portion of its U.S. North Korea is in the process of developing an ICBM land-based nuclear ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capability that could strike the U.S. homeland with a force in order to preserve a strategic deterrent against a nuclear warhead. Although North Korea has conducted a Soviet nuclear attack on the Homeland. That system number of nuclear tests, it is unclear whether any of their became active in 1975 but shut down in 1976 because of ballistic missiles are armed with a nuclear warhead. concerns over cost and effectiveness. In the FY1975 budget, the Army began funding research into hit-to-kill or The IC assesses that Iran has the largest inventory of kinetic energy interceptors as an alternative—the type of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Those missiles are interceptor technology dominates U.S. BMD systems today. armed with conventional warheads; Iran does not have a nuclear weapons capability. Most of Iran’s ballistic missile In 1983, President Reagan announced an enhanced effort force consists of SRBMs with ranges less than 500 km, for BMD.
    [Show full text]