The deployment of space weapons could increase the risks of miscalculation and accidental war as any accident or disruption (perhaps caused by space debris or solar flares) would be mistaken as an attack.
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a supporting argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a related argument.
What might happen if the debris strike occurred shortly after a false alarm showing a missile launch? False alarms are appallingly common ... The important point, however, is that such a coincidence would only appear suspicious if the United States were in the business of disabling satellites -- in other words, there is much less risk if Washington does not develop ASATs. ( More ... ) Lewis, Jeffrey. What if Space Were Weaponized? Possible Consequences for Crisis Scenarios. Washington, D.C.: Center for Defense Information, July 2004. [ 16 quotes ] [ page 27 ]
By 2010, the United States may, in fact, have an arsenal of ASATs (perhaps even on orbit 24/7) ready to conduct these kinds of missions to coerce opponents and, if necessary, support preemptive attacks. Moscow would certainly have to worry that these ASATs could be used in conjunction with other space-enabled systems for example, long-range strike systems that could attack targets in less than 90 minutes -- to disable Russia's nuclear deterrent before the Russian leadership understood what was going on. What would happen if a piece of space debris were to disable a Russian early-warning satellite under these conditions? ( More ... ) Lewis, Jeffrey. What if Space Were Weaponized? Possible Consequences for Crisis Scenarios. Washington, D.C.: Center for Defense Information, July 2004. [ 16 quotes ] [ page 27 ]
The loss of an early-warning satellite could look rather ominous if it occurred during a period of major tension in the relationship. While NATO no longer sees Russia as much of a threat, the same cannot be said of the converse. Despite the warm talk, Russian leaders remain wary of NATO expansion, particularly the effect expansion may have on the Baltic port of Kaliningrad. Although part of Russia, Kaliningrad is separated from the rest of Russia by Lithuania and Poland. Russia has already complained about its decreasing lack of access to the port, particularly the uncooperative attitude of the Lithuanian government. News reports suggest that an edgy Russia may have moved tactical nuclear weapons into the enclave. If the Lithuanian government were to close access to Kaliningrad in a fit of pique, this would trigger a major crisis between NATO and Russia. ( More ... ) Lewis, Jeffrey. What if Space Were Weaponized? Possible Consequences for Crisis Scenarios. Washington, D.C.: Center for Defense Information, July 2004. [ 16 quotes ] [ page 27 ]
A buildup of space weapons with capability to execute offensive missions might begin with noble intentions of "peace through strength" deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that ". . . the presence of space weapons . . . will result in the increased likelihood of their use." Military commanders desiring to harness the precision strike capability afforded by space-based "smart" weapons might order deliberate attacks on enemy ground targets in a crisis. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense "use or lose" pressure into strategic calculations, with the specter of split-second laser attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated "hair trigger" devices. ( More ... ) Mitchell, Gordon R. "Japan-U.S. Missile Defense Collaboration: Rhetorically Delicious, Deceptively Dangerous." Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. Vol. 25 (Winter 2001). [ 2 quotes ]
Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the militarization of space is that of war by accident. At any given time, several thousand satellites and other pieces of equipment -- spent booster stages and the like -- are circling the earth, most of them in low orbit. The space immediately above the atmosphere has begun to resemble an expressway at rush hour. It is not uncommon for satellites to miss each other by only a kilometer or two, and satellites crashing into each other may explain some of the mysterious incidents in which space vehicles simply vanish from the skies. One civillian TV satellite has been lost in space; it never entered its intended orbit, and no signals were heard from it to indicate where it might have gone. Collision with something else in space seems a reasonable explanation of this disappearance. Even a tiny fragment of metal striking a satellite at a relative velocity of a few kilometers per second would wreck the satellite, ripping through it like a Magnum slug through a tin can. Now suppose that kind of mishap befell a military satellite -- in the worst possible situation, during a time of international tension with all players in the spacewar game braced for attacks on their spacecraft. The culpable fragment might be invisible from the ground; even something as small and light as a paper clip could inflict massive damage on a satellite at high velocity. Unaware of the accident, a less than cautious leader might interpret it as a preconceived attack. Wars have begun over smaller incidents. ( More ... ) Ritchie, David. Spacewar. New York, NY: Antheneum, 1982. [ 1 reference ] [ page 191-2 ]
Not only does the proliferation of space debris pose a threat to space activities, but it could pose an even greater threat to those of us on earth. The United States and the Soviet Union (together with, increasingly, other powers) depend greatly on space resources to support military intelligence, early-warning, communications, and other functions. If, in a crisis, a key satellite were to be accidentally lost, that loss could be blamed on an adversary and could lead to a potentially disastrous response. As space analyst Daniel Deudney has said, "The Archduke Francis Ferdinand of World War III may well be a critical U.S. or Soviet reconnaissance satellite hit by a piece of space junk during time of crisis." ( More ... ) Reynolds, Glenn Harlan. Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy. New York, NY: Westview Press, 1989. [ 1 reference ] [ page 197 ]
Those that operate satellite systems and are familiar with space operations know the difficulties in determining the exact cause of many satellite malfunctions or “anomalies.” It is oftentimes difficult if not impossible to determine if satellite failures or problems are due to an everyday system anomaly, a natural event caused by the harsh space environment, the result of unintentional interference, or due to a malicious attack. If the US fields weapons that can interfere with spacecraft, failures on adversary spacecraft may be attributed as a us attack even when no such attack occurred. This would obviously heighten tensions which could escalate into larger conflict, and be quite destabilizing. ( More ... ) Coffelt, Christopher A. The Best Defense: Charting the Future of US Space Strategy and Policy. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, June 2005. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 95 ]
Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of global conflict. In such headlong competition—whether in space or elsewhere—equilibrium among the adversaries would be virtually impossible to maintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no guarantee that both sides would perceive it to be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the first side would be strongly tempted to launch a preemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained an advantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons race would ratchet up the chances that a mere technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliably distinguishing an intentional act from an accidental one would be highly problematic. Hitchens, Theresa. "Space Wars - Coming to the Sky Near You?." Scientific American. March 1, 2008.
Now back to Col. Gen. Popovkin's idea that space-based weapons could spark a war. He says that present space systems and complexes are very sophisticated and susceptible to failures, and "in such cases, I cannot guarantee that a failure was not caused by hostile action." Is this statement logical? Surely it is. Strategic nuclear stability -- that is to say, a high-degree guarantee against a surprise nuclear missile strike -- depends on the trouble-free operation of early warning and intelligence satellites. If a satellite fails with another country's attack weapons deployed in orbit, there will be an increase of mistrust, which could lead to a military disaster. Besides, it is well known that tests involving satellite destruction result in a growing amount of orbital debris, which is difficult to counter. According to NASA and the U.S. Air Force, China's anti-satellite weapon tests in January 2007 left up to 2,000 baseball-sized fragments orbiting at altitudes of 120 to 2,340 miles above the Earth. High speed makes these fragments extremely dangerous for man-made space objects. Kislyakov, Andrei. "Outside View: Space race warnings." United Press International. June 5, 2008.