Use of ‘outer space’ (also referred as ‘space’) to fight wars is not a new idea. Rockets reaching high into the atmosphere was talked about since World War II. The investments made by the Nazi’s towards development of such rockets are well known. In the 1960s, the erstwhile USSR had an orbital weapon called a “killer satellite”. However, this weapon had some problems with its guidance system which led to failure of the entire project.
The Soviets also had an orbital weapon known as the FOBS (Fractional Orbit Bombardment System). The concept was to place a hydrogen bomb in low earth orbit (LEO) for quick launch against a ground target if need arose. The system was secretly tested from 1966 to 1970, and the Soviet government revealed that it had 18 FOBS launchers in their inventory at Tyaratam.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the US had demonstrated, among other things, what can happen when a nation that does not enjoy the benefits of space exploitation wages a war against one that has it.
Space was used for nuclear testing during the 1950s and early 1960s. Subsequently, atomic testing in space was banned by the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963). However, underground testing continued till 1980 with France and China being the last to carry out such tests. Space was important for Ronald Regan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (which subsequently became famous as “Star Wars”) during the eighties. Today, space is an inseparable part of the US missile shield plan. This article attempts to address the issues related to space and security against the backdrop of Chinese ASAT test in January this year.
The politico-military events during the last two or three decades indicates that the world is witnessing a new paradigm of security. The end of the Cold War, environmental degradation, increasing menace of terrorism, and rise in fundamentalism have raised new threats to global security which are asymmetric in nature. At the same time, technology is playing a major role for the modernisation of the armed forces across the world. This has highlighted the revolution in military affairs (RMA) for the modern day defence discourse.
Also read: Chinese avionics & missiles for Pakistan
There is an increasing awareness that in the years to come the world will witness another transformation in the conduct of war; its scope will be decided by the emerging RMA, which is significantly governed by space technologies. At the same time space technologies, which essentially covers a wide spectrum of technologies ranging from asteroid mining to rocket science to satellite operations to navigation to telemetry to reentry to artificial intelligence is a specialized field and very few nations possess it. Naturally, those possessing it have an asymmetric advantage over others in these capabilities.
The Soviets also had an orbital weapon known as the FOBS. The concept was to place a hydrogen bomb in low earth orbit for quick launch against a ground target if need arose. The system was secretly tested from 1966 to 1970, and the Soviet government revealed that it had 18 FOBS launchers in their inventory at Tyaratam.
Remote Sensing, Aerial Photography, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Navigation, Broadcasting and Communication, and Scientific Experimentation are civilian uses of space technologies. However, the dual use nature of these technologies help nation-states to exploit them for military purposes. As well over the last few decades the ‘space haves’ have successfully used space technologies in military conflicts. The 1991 Gulf War, NATO intervention in Kosovo, the post 9/11 US involvement in Afghanistan and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – have seen the use of Space Technologies with success. During these wars, the military use of space provided inputs for weather monitoring, communication, navigation and intelligence gathering.
Currently, most military operational requirements are driven by technology. Military leadership understand the importance of Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence, Reconnaissance, Surveillance (C4ISR) systems. These C4ISR strategies and policies are being developed and are based on various transformative principles that include space technology for purposes like telecommunications, military information networking, electronic intelligence gathering, photographic reconnaissance etc.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the US had demonstrated, among other things, what can happen when a nation that does not enjoy the benefits of space exploitation wages a war against one that has it. In that conflict, the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly on space-based surveillance, communications, and navigation support. The US with its network of highly capable electro-optical and radar imaging satellites were able to determine exactly where to attack with which munitions, while avoiding enemy troop concentrations, thereby reducing casualties. Similarly, during the Kosovo conflict, Afghanistan campaign and the 2003 invasion of Iraq the overall concept of the US operations was dependent on the information received from space-based systems.
Also read: The naked truth of Naxalism
Particularly, since the 1991 Gulf War, the world has seen the usage of space technologies, mainly by the US and allied forces, for various military purposes. In all these conflicts the US had an asymmetric advantage over their enemy in the area of space technologies. In recent conflicts the US forces have used GPS guided weapons like JDAMS (Joint Direct Attack Munitions). So they used their space assets for providing navigational support to their weapon delivery platforms but also to the weapons themselves. All these uses of space technologies for war waging fall into the category of the militarization of space.
Militarisation of space essentially occurs by using various space assets for purposes of information gathering or helping the military to undertake land, air and sea battles. But, the weaponisation of space signifies getting into the act of destroying of space assets of other states.
In peacetime, nation-states use their space assets for intelligence gathering and communication purposes. Therefore the use of space assets for military purposes is not a new notion; what is new is that the capability to jam or destroy other state’s operational space assets. There is a subtle difference between ‘militarisation of space’ and ‘weaponisation of space’. Militarisation of space essentially occurs by using various space assets for purposes of information gathering or helping the military to undertake land, air and sea battles. But, the weaponisation of space signifies getting into the act of destroying of space assets of other states, either by using ground based or space based weapons. Also, the arming of satellites with weapons that would be used against ground targets could get included. Besides, the weapons used to attack missiles traveling through space could also be termed space weapons.
Now, it seems that a new era of fighting wars in space is likely to commence. On 11 January 2007, China successfully carried out an anti-satellite (ASAT) test. For this purpose they had targeted their own aging weather satellite FY-1C. The type of weapon used for this kill was KKV or kinetic kill vehicle. This is a non-explosive weapon, which was fired with the help of a ballistic missile in space. This weapon hit the satellite and it was fragmented due to impact. The Chinese ASAT test has added more debris to space which could put other satellites out of action in any collision with them. This test has questioned the world’s earlier belief that space would never become a battleground in future.
Actually, this is not the first time that such an act was undertaken. In 1959 and 1968 the US and the erstwhile USSR had tested anti-satellite systems. The late sixties was a period when ‘weaponisation of space’ was a much debated isue. The last ASAT test before this recent Chinese adventurism was carried out during the mid-eighties by the US. However, subsequently, the consequences of weaponising space were understood, and the superpowers realised that such tests would cause huge amounts of space debris which could harm their own satellites. So, an unwritten understanding was reached that states would not attempt to “conquer” this last bastion. But, the latest Chinese ASAT test indicates that this ‘space reality’ may change. Such tests would boost the desire of space powers to engage in one-upmanship.
Also read: India’s maritime threat
However, the Chinese test cannot alone cannot be held responsible for creating ripples in the global space architecture. Over the years, the US has always taken an entirely divergent stand on matters relating to space security. Now it seems the Bush administration wants to enhance this asymmetry by placing offensive and defensive weapons into outer space. The January 2001, Donald Rumsfeld led Space Commission, had recommended that the military should “ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space”.
It was reported by the media that in September 2006 Beijing had secretly used lasers to “paint” US spy satellites with the aim of “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices to prevent spy photography as they pass over China.
In fact, Rumsfeld expressed the opinion that “space could be the next Pearl Harbour for the US”. In 2002, after examining this report, President Bush withdrew from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) with Russia, which had banned the placement of space-based weapons.
According to the May 2007 report of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) on US Space Policy:
“The United States considers its space capabilities vital to its national interest, and, accordingly, will take the actions necessary to protect and preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space. This requires effective deterrence, defense, and, if necessary, denial of adversarial uses of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests. The Secretary of Defense is specifically directed to develop capabilities, plans and options to ensure U.S. freedom of action in space and to deny such freedom of action to adversaries when necessary. This requires robust capabilities for sustainable U.S. space control.”
All recent US policies relating to space issues indicates that the US believes that freedom of action in space is important and reject proposals to ban space weapons. Under the United Nations banner they would support discussions on space and disarmament issues, but they will not enter into any negotiations on space weaponry.
On the other hand, this Chinese act of destroying a satellite should not be considered as an one-off event. On 11 January 2007, they successfully carried out an anti-satellite (ASAT) test, but this was preceded by three earlier unsuccessful attempts. Their interests in the weaponisation of space has been known for some time. However, China had continuously talked about establishing an international structure for stopping the weaponisation of space over the last few years while assiduously working towards developing space weapons.
Also read: Pakistan: The anti-India identity
According to a 2001 report, China had also ground tested an advanced anti-satellite weapon called ‘Parasitic Satellite’. It could be deployed on an experimental basis and enter the phase of space tests in the near future. This ASAT system can be used against many types of satellites in different orbits like communication satellites, navigational satellites, reconnaissance satellites and early warning satellites. According to a ‘Space Daily’ report this nanometer-sized “parasitic satellite” is designed to be deployed and attached to the enemy’s satellite. There are three components to the ASAT “parasitic” satellites system: a carrier (“mother”) satellite and launcher, and a ground control system. During conflict, commands are sent to this satellite to interfere or destroy the host satellite. The cost of building these satellites is 0.1 percent to 1 percent of any typical satellite.
The January 2001, Donald Rumsfeld led Space Commission, had recommended that the military should “ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space”.
It was reported by the media that in September 2006 Beijing had secretly used lasers to “paint” US spy satellites with the aim of “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices to prevent spy photography as they pass over China. The Chinese aim was not to destroy the US satellites but to make them useless over Chinese territory. It has also been reported that the US military was so alarmed by this Chinese activity that it has begun to carry out test attacks against its own satellites to determine the dimensions of this threat.
The global powers cannot do much about the Chinese ASAT test, apart from condemning it. This is mainly due to the absence of a space treaty regime. For the last few years many players in the global space arena are trying to work out an international regime under the aegis of the United Nations. Although an informal international understanding obtains to desist from sending weapons into space, no mechanism is available to punish infractions.
The United Nations in 1958, shortly after launching its first artificial satellite, started to crystallise its policies on space. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space was set up by the General Assembly in 1959. The mandate for the committee was to review the scope of international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space. The committee is also expected to study the legal problems arising from the exploration of outer space. This Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has 67 member states and makes recommendations to the General Assembly from time to time.
Also read: ‘India First’ policy mandatory
The important disarmament agreement to provide the basic framework on international space law is the Outer Space Treaty, which entered into force in October 1967. This is the second of the so-called “non-armament” treaties (first being the Antarctic Treaty). It guarantees cooperation between states in all peaceful uses of outer space. Unfortunately the treaty only prohibits the presence of nuclear weapons in space and it cannot therefore address the issue of weaponisation of space. Another important space treaty called the Moon Treaty came into being in the year 1979. This treaty declares that the moon (including all celestial bodies) should be used for the benefit of all states and the international community. It also expresses the desire to prevent the moon from becoming a source of international conflict. Unfortunately, the treaty has not been ratified by any nations engaged in manned space missions, so it is a non-starter.
There now is a need to convert Chinas ASAT test into an opportunity to evolve long-term and short-term space policies. There is a need to establish a strategic balance among the larger nations, and break the monopoly on the utilisation of space by a few.
The negotiations on space arena in various international forums have remained un-productive over the last few years. The Conference on Disarmament (CD) has not been able to agree on the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee since 1994 to negotiate a convention for the non-weaponisation of outer space. The prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) initiative is also on the UN agenda since 1982. However, the US and Israel are unwilling to cooperate with the international community on the issue of PAROS. The US has even argued that the existing multilateral arms control regime is sufficient, and that there is no need to address a non-existent threat.
Apart from the hostile attitude adopted by countries like the US towards the establishment of any space treaty, the proposed regime also suffers from the problem of defining weapons in outer space. This is mainly because almost anything can be used as a weapon in space to obstruct satellites. There would also be technical and financial constraints for verifying any irregularities, because of the complex problems involved in the verification of outer space activities.
As a fresh approach to the disarmament discourse on weaponisation of space, analysts like Michael Krepon and Michael Heller have suggested the negotiation of a code of conduct between space-faring nations to prevent incidents and dangerous military activities in space. Also, global cooperation is possible in various other areas of space activities. The international space station (ISS) is one of the finest examples of such collaboration where 16 countries have come together to undertake scientific experiments in outer space on a made-to-order platform. Similar collaborations are possible (in few cases they already exist) in areas like Navigation, Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV), Space Commerce (Launch Business), exploring outer space to study the cosmos and use space assets over problematic border areas (like Kashmir) for strengthening confidence building measures (CBMs).
There now is a need to convert China’s ASAT test into an opportunity to evolve long-term and short-term space policies. There is a need to establish a strategic balance among the larger nations, and break the monopoly on the utilisation of space by a few. In general, it needs to be understood that while the peaceful uses of space and satellites are developing at a dizzying pace, facilitating global information and communication, the most advanced military powers are calculating how they can pursue war in this environment. The challenge for sensible space powers is to continue doing ‘defence’ from space without weaponising it.
Notes
- “Space as a military base”, Indian Express, June 06, 2005.
- Hans Blix et al, Weapons of Terror, report of 2006 Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.
- “Space Weapons”, South Asia Defence & Strategic Review, New Delhi, Vol 1, Issue 1, Mar-Apr 2007.
- http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=402
- http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77mkmh.htm
- Felicity Hill, “Militarising Space: Quantum Leaping Backwards”, United Nations Ishikawa-Kanazawa Conference, available at http://www.wilpf.int.ch/publications/2001japan.htm
- http://menorahblog.typepad.com/menorah/2006/09/beijing_secretl.html
- Various websites on the subject.
Please wait...
