Japan Looking into Space Forces
January 24, 2006 :: Kyodo :: News
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party plans to study the feasibility of relaxing Japan’s restrictions on deploying space forces for defense purposes. According to the Kyodo Japanese news agency, the LDP will seek to deploy defense forces in space as long as they are not aimed at invading or spying other countries. The party plans to set up a special subcommittee to discuss the matter, which will convene in late January. The subcommittee will be headed by Takeo Kawamura, a House of Representatives member of the LDP and the former Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The party will recommend to the government as early as August 2006 that a 1969 Diet resolution limiting Japan’s space development be changed to allow defense purposes. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Japan, Space-Based Systems
Popovkin on Need for Space Awareness
January 24, 2006 :: News
Colonel-General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian Space Troops, recently claimed that Russia “monitors the state of domestic and foreign spacecraft, because it’s necessary to know the whole situation in outer space.” In a conversation with Russian and French presidents Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac, Popovkin noted that Russia’s existing system makes it possible to receive “objective and full information” on space objects, define the trajectory of their flight, and establish what state they belong to. He added that Russia currently operates approximately 100 space apparatuses in different orbits. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Russia, Space-Based Systems
Hackett on Topol-M Tests, Space Defenses
November 14, 2005 :: Analysis
James Hackett writes in the Washington Times of the numerous reports of Russia’s Topol-M test of a maneuvering warhead on November 1, which he labels both “breathless” and perhaps even to some degree “hype.” Hackett adds a few details about the Russian test which have not previously reported, including that the test included three independently targetable warheads, that the missile is equipped with faster burning engines designed to shorten the boost phase, that 46 single-warhead missiles have been fielded to date, and that 350 more armed with multiple warheads are eventually to replace the SS-25 missiles being phased out.
Hackett notes the irony behind Russia’s “Cold War”-like attempt to overcome U.S. missile defenses which are not even designed or capable of defending against Russian missiles in type or number: “you would think the Cold War never ended. …[the Russians are] ignoring the inconvenient fact that the U.S. does not intend to attack Russia.”
Hackett emphasizes too the significance such Russian developments have for U.S. missile defense efforts, namely, that they reinforce the arguments for going to space. The proliferation of the technologies to evade interceptors in midcourse and terminal phase make all the more necessary space-based interceptors. An excerpt:
A Nov. 2 report in Moscow Gazeta boasted that Russia’s new weapons will be able to overcome America’s missile defenses, noting these new weapons could only be stopped by a layer of space-based interceptors that could strike them before their final phase of flight. That is why, the article says, Moscow keeps pushing a U.N. resolution to ban weapons in space.
The Russians are right in recognizing the importance of weapons in space. The best way to stop a missile launched from an unknown location deep inland—and off-road mobile launchers can go anywhere—is from overhead. When technologies such as rapid ascent rockets and multiple maneuvering warheads spread to China, North Korea and Iran, defenses in space will be urgently needed.
It is not wise to wait until the offense gains too much advantage over the defense. The Pentagon should put more resources at an earlier date into the initial step of designing an architecture for space-based missile defenses, and get on with the developing a weapon that can perform that mission.
The full text is well worth reading: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Analysis, Maneuverable Warheads, Space-Based Systems
» Missile details: SS-N-6
Pentagon Releases Report on Chinese Military Power
July 20, 2005 :: Department of Defense :: News
The Pentagon has released its annual report to Congress on Chinese military power, which describes China at “a strategic crossroads.” The 45-page report covers a host of topics, including Chinese military strategy and doctrine, the effects of military modernization, and an assessment of the security situation in the Taiwan Strait. “Questions remain about the basic choices China’s leaders will make as China’s power and influence grow, particularly its military power.” Of particular note is attention to such themes as China’s defense spending, strategic missile forces, the increasing number of short range missiles deployed near Taiwan, space policy, and the threat posed by a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse. (More »»»)
» NY Times: China’s Military Geared to Deterring Taiwan, Report Says
» Text of 2004 DOD Report on Chinese Military Power
» More stories on: China, Chinese Missile Defenses, Space-Based Systems
» Missile details: CSS-2, CSS-2A, CSS-3, CSS-4, CSS-4A, CSS-5 Mod 2, CSS-5, CSS-9 (DF-31), CSS-NX-5 (JL-2)
» Missile system details for: S-300P (SA-10 Grumble)
Deep Impact Probe Uses “Star Wars” Technology
July 4, 2005 :: San Diego Union Tribune :: News
The Deep Impact spacecraft’s successful collision with the Tempel 1 comet on July 3 was largely the result of technology created by Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Bruce Lieberman, writing in the San Diego Union-Tribune, notes the seemingly insurmountable obstacles overcome by NASA scientists and engineers: “Sending a spacecraft to a comet presents its own navigation challenges. But hitting one, at closing speeds of 23,000 mph, was a different ballgame.” As Lieberman notes, technology designed and developed under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program contributed to allow NASA engineers to meet the challenge of creating a spacecraft capable of colliding with a comet at such enormous speeds. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Space-Based Systems
Dinerman: Why Not Fight Wars in Space?
June 20, 2005 :: The Space Review :: Analysis
Taylor Dinerman has another fine article on the subject of the weaponization of space in The Space Review. Besides recalling the physical principles and strategic facts which make space a useful base of operations, and the fact that America is already very dependent upon vulnerable space-based satellites, Dinerman also addresses the charged politics behind those so violently opposed to the use of space for the defense of America. A brief excerpt:
The nature of space technology, and of space itself, as the ultimate high ground, means that there will be weapons, and future battles, outside Earth’s atmosphere. No matter what actually happens, it is almost certain that some will find a way to blame America. Therefore, any decision regarding the building of any space warfare system should be made strictly on the basis of military utility. Since no argument or foreign threat will likely change the minds of those who are against space weaponization, any change in US space policy, no matter how mild or hedged with caveats, will be portrayed as opening the doors of hell. Rather, under current circumstances, President Bush should authorize the pursuit of more and better space assets, including weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld should be pushing the Air Force to radically improve the way it designs and builds all its space systems.
After all, why not fight wars in space? There’s lots of room there and not a lot of civilians to get in the way.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Oberg on a Sober Approach to Space
June 14, 2005 :: USA Today :: Analysis
Recent newspaper stories have sparked a flurry of warnings that United States efforts to protect its assets in space, upon which our military has come to be extremely dependent, will provoke an “arms race,” and countries which are ordinarily described as no match for American might are endowed with superpower capabilities, from which they refrain only so long as America will not cross the Rubicon of “weaponizing” space.
James Oberg writes in USA Today on the seemingly contagious hyperventilation about this heated issue, from a somewhat different perspective. Oberg suggests that the arms controllers who so virulently denounce research for space-based systems could actually be helping to provoke the sort of response by Russia and others of which they warn—a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Oberg’s article is a fine one. It does not, however, address the separate issue of whether America should be taking steps to protect its assets in space, and moreover to use the advantages of such strategic high ground to protect its homeland, allies, and troops on the Earth’s surface.
Without specifying any systems, Oberg claims that space has already been weaponized, off and on, but mainly by other countries:
Weapons have occasionally been deployed in space for decades, without sparking mass arms races or hair-trigger tensions. These are not just systems that send warheads through space, such as intercontinental missiles or the proposed global bomber. These are systems that put the weapons into stable orbits, circling Earth, based in space. And these systems were all Russian ones, by the way, most of them predating President Reagan’s “Strategic Defense Initiative” to develop an anti-missile system.
An extended excerpt: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Space-Based Systems
Goldfarb on “Rods From God” Space Weapons
June 8, 2005 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
Michael Goldfarb, writing in The Weekly Standard, explains the concept of kinetic-energy space-based weapons otherwise known as “Rods from God”—a possible defense against underground, hardened missile facilities, such as those deployed by Iran. “Rods from God” would consist of two satellites: one serving as a communications platform, the other carrying an arsenal of tungsten rods, each roughly 7.0 m long and 0.3 m in diameter. The rods, when dropped from space, would enter the Earth’s atmosphere at approximately 11,000 m/s, about as fast as a meteor. This weapon would rely on kinetic energy, rather than explosives, to generate its destructive force. Upon impact, the rods would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without the radioactive fallout. Goldfarb admits that “Rods from God” are at least 10 years away from being operational, and face numerous technological and financial obstacles. Nevertheless, he maintains that space-based assets such as the rods will eventually become reality, and that the U.S. can either pursue such systems, or step aside and let Beijing lead the way. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Peter Brookes on Weaponizing Space
June 7, 2005 :: The Weekly Standard :: Analysis
Peter Brookes, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argues persuasively in the New York Post for the deployment of strategic space-based military assets. He reiterates that space is critical to U.S. national security, but laments the fact that the Bush administration’s soon-to-be-issued National Space Policy—the first update since the Clinton administration’s in 1996—has created “hysteria” among arms control advocates, many of whom are already condemning Bush’s new policy with terms such as “arms race,” “strategic instability,” and “militarizing space.”
Brookes pays particular attention to the contention that space-based systems could provoke an arms race, concluding that, “It ain’t necessarily so.” He reminds us that for decades, arms controllers denounced ballistic missile defense, warning that it would destabilize relations with China and Russia and spark a devastating post-Cold War arms race. Yet no such scenario has materialized. According the Brookes, “The Bush administration’s initial deployment of missile defense hasn’t caused an arms race or made relations with Beijing and Moscow any tougher than they already were. It has, however, improved our national security by providing the first protection against ballistic missiles—ever.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Space-Based Systems
Russia Threatens Response to Space Deployments
June 2, 2005 :: BBC Worldwide Monitoring :: News
Russia will take retaliatory steps if any country deploys weapons in space, threatened Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Thursday. As quoted by Russian news agencies, Ivanov emphasized that Russia is “categorically against the militarization of space,” and that “if some state begins to realize such plans, then we doubtless will take adequate retaliatory measures.” Ivanov added that Russia has plans to create a new missile system using SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles that will be able to launch multiple space vehicles into orbit using a single booster.
Despite Ivanov’s rhetoric, there is reason to doubt whether Russia actually has the capability to take retaliatory steps against the U.S. in space. As Pavel Podvig, author of Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, recently suggests, Russia “has lost its capability to carry out serious development projects in military space and is very unlikely to recover it.” If Podvig is correct, the U.S. need not worry about such an arms race. (Article, Link)
» May 20, 2005: Podvig on Russian Space Capability
» More stories on: Russia, Space-Based Systems
» Missile details: SS-20
