From: Allen Thomson (thomsona@netcom.com) Subject: Re: AWST interview with DoD Space Architect Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.tech, alt.politics.org.cia Date: 1996/06/10 In article <4p5hpe$n8j@lace.colorado.edu>, Frank Crarywrote: FC: Allen Thomson wrote: AT: "And while the actual physical attack of an orbiting U.S. AT: spacecraft probably won't happen for a long time, the AT: development of crude anti-satellite weapons is not particularly AT: difficult, he [Gen. Dickman] said." AT: This seems contradictory. If acquiring rudimentary ASATs isn't AT: difficult (which I believe to be correct), and attacking the AT: satellites is militarily very desirable (which it obviously is), AT: then why are such attacks not to be expected for a "long time?" FC: Because military decisions almost never focus on a single issue, FC: especially during a war. ASATs would be easy if almost any FC: nation focused most of its military effort on producing them. FC: But, in a crisis, they are likely to ask themselves, "How FC: useful would this be? Would we be better off expending the FC: same effort to increase tank production instead?" Or something FC: similar. The thing about attacks (ASATs or other) directed against US space systems is that they have enormously high leverage against the widely-advertised US intent to achieve quick victories through "information dominance of the battlefield." A great deal of that dominating information is either produced by satellite systems or passes through them or both. And the number of satellites and ground stations involved is, in some crucial cases, so small that taking out even one would make an important difference to the ability of the US to fight the kind of war it's preparing for. The most worrisome are the imaging reconnaissance satellites, of which there are apparently four in LEO (two optical and two radar) plus (maybe, this is still a matter of speculation) one or two in MEO -- and, as far as is known, the ground stations are even fewer. So an Evil Country (EC) contemplating the possibility of future conflict with the US would very likely consider that space denial capabilities should be high on its shopping list for military hardware. At present, it would probably take an EC like pre-1991 Iraq a few years (I like to say five) to come up with an arsenal of a couple of dozen ASATs on its own, less if it could cut a deal with China or other such power. FC: In addition, there are political issues. Iraq could probably FC: developed an ASAT variant of their Scud missiles before or FC: during the Gulf War, but a terror weapon that could reach Israel FC: was seen, politically, as a valuable thing. Presumably (assuming FC: they even thought of ASATs), knocking out a few satellites FC: wasn't considered as important. True, it's always difficult to predict how people will set their priorities. Even though I think that there's a powerful case to be made that ECs would give high priority to space denial weapons, there's no telling how someone sitting in Teheran will view things. BTW, there have been a couple of post-Desert Storm reports that the Iraqis were thinking about ASATs, and perhaps had done some preliminary work on them. FC: Also, there are some theories about "limited war" that argue FC: that group global weapons together and say that _any_ use FC: of ballistic missiles would result in retaliation from FC: ballistic-missile launched weapons. Basically, "If we FC: launch a ballistic missile, they'll feel free to nuke us." FC: That strikes me as an absurd idea, but I have heard it FC: suggested by academic, "political scientists". But, to FC: a lesser degree, I could easily see many nations viewing FC: ASATs as an escalation of the conflict, which they might FC: not be willing to do. I often heard versions of this while in the gummint: "If they [the Soviets at the time] attack one of our satellites, we'll nuke 'em." When a rationale was expressed for this seemingly lunatic statement, it was that the USSR would only attack our spysats as an immediate precursor to a general nuclear attack against the US. I was never sure of this, and am just as glad we never had the chance to put it to the test. More recently and more relevant to the present context, an official of the NRO's programs and analysis office opined (*) in mid-1992 that no EC would dare attack US satellites because of the massive conventional retaliation that would ensue. IMHO, this will depend greatly on time and circumstance. If an Ira[nq] were to zap one of our spysats in peacetime or time of tension, then yes, we'd have the option to take out their launch site (if it could be found) or something of equivalent value, like some airbases. No significant international opprobrium would be likely to be created by such a retaliatory action. More drastic retaliatory measures seem implausible, because the satellites are unmanned machines and have a not insignificant military role. In time of war, I can't see that destruction of a spysat would be seen by the international community as justifying any change in the rules of engagement. Could we have carpet-bombed Baghdad (or worse) if they'd taken out a KH-11 during Desert Storm? What would have happened to the Coalition if we had? FC: So I don't really see a contradiction in the statement you quote: FC: In more detail, it might mean, "ASATs are currently possible and FC: would be harmful to our military, but for other reasons, they FC: probably won't be used in the near future, i.e. until they become FC: easy and opposed to possible." I'd modify this to say "extremely harmful" and "but we think that for other reasons,..." I.e., we're risking a lot on the proposition that hostile countries will agree with our assessment of risks and benefits and forgo potentially vast advantages on that basis. As for when ASATs and other space-denial techniques become easy, that is largely a matter of will and commitment, not technology or even money. (*) Actually, the full version of his opinion was even more interesting: it was, as I recall and paraphrase, 'Our systems aren't at risk, and anyway no EC would dare attack US satellites because of the massive conventional retaliation which would ensue.' As this was opined shortly after the current round of reduction of the numbers of satellites and ground stations got underway, it probably reflects the thinking that went into the decision to downsize. That is, some combination of defensive measures and deterrence was felt to insure the survival of small numbers of big, expensive, difficult-to-replace satellites. Let's hope that will be true for the next couple of decades, because few, big, and difficult-to-replace is the way we're going.