With the increasing threat from the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, the U.S. needs to defend itself by developing and deploying a ballistic missile defense system. A space-based ballistic missile defense system is ideal because it maximizes flexibility and coverage and can hit the missile at the optimal point as it leaves the earth's atmosphere.
Keywords: Missile Defense, Space-Based Missile Defense.
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.
The benefits of space-based defense are manifold. The deployment of a robust global missile defense that includes space-based interdiction capabilities will make more expensive, and therefore less attractive, the foreign development of technologies needed to overcome it, particularly with regard to ballistic missiles. Indeed, the enduring lesson of the ABM Treaty era is that the absence of defenses, rather than their presence, empowers the development of offensive technologies that can threaten American security and the lives of American citizens. And access to space, as well as space control, is key to future U.S. efforts to provide disincentives to an array of actors seeking such power. Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 Report. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, August 28, 2006. [ 13 quotes ] [ page VIII ]
Other things being equal, it is preferable to intercept threatening ballistic missiles as far away from their intended targets as possible and as early in their flight trajectory as possible. Best of all would be to have the capability to destroy an attacking missile shortly after it is launched, while its rockets still burn and any perturbation will lead to its destruction -- with, in many cases, the debris falling back onto the area where the attack was launched in the first place. The capability to interdict a missile and its warheads in any phases of their flight (boost, midcourse, and terminal) requires an ability to detect and intercept the attack within a very few minutes and to track and destroy the attacking missile and its warheads during their longer midcourse traverse through space before they begin to reenter the atmosphere so that the debris will burn up on reentry. Finally, the last ditch defense would be to destroy the attacking missile as they reenter and pass through the atmosphere in the terminal phase enroute to their target. The best defense capability would be layered so that it could provide opportunities for destruction in all three phases of flight. Only space-based defenses inherently have this global capability and permanence. While sea-based defenses can move freely through the two-thirds of the earth's surface that are oceans, their capability is limited by geography and by the specific operations of the fleet -- including where the sea-based missile defense happens to be deployed at any given time, and how quickly it could be redeployed to meet a crisis situation. Air-based and ground-based defenses, meanwhile, can have global capabilities, but frequently take considerable time to deploy when and where needed and are also dependent on the cooperation of U.S. friends and allies in permitting the necessary supporting activities on their territories. Thus, only a space-based missile defense will possess both constancy and global availability, irrespective of allied support and agreement. As such, space-based missile defense constitutes the only truly global system, with all the rest being either "regional" or "local." Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 Report. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, August 28, 2006. [ 13 quotes ] [ page 10-11 ]
To begin with, arms races stem from competition for offensive weapons and while it is true that some of these are designed in part to overcome someone's defenses, the converse that no defenses breed no offensive weapons is without historical basis. Indeed, this proposition is supported by irrefutable evidence that the United States never has had missile defenses for its population, much less its military installations (save for selective use of limited "point" defense, such as the Patriot). But that reality has not prevented either nuclear proliferation or nuclear arms buildups; it has in all probability been the reverse.The evidence also is clear that the past forty years, most especially the last decade, have seen relentless buildups and bold moves to spread the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as witness evolving events in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (discussed elsewhere in this report). One of the few times there has been a significant slowing of momentum was in the brief period 1985-1993, which was the height of missile defense development in the United States.In other words, if anything, a credible missile defense – even in development stage – is much more likely to help slow an arms race and discourage proliferation, because it raises the costs and lowers the chances of success for aggressor nations or terrorist groups to try to find ways to overwhelm an effective missile defense system with their offensive weapons. In this sense, it can become a deterrent and thus contribute to stability. Arguably, there is some evidence of this likelihood, in that at least some of the reasons for the Soviet Union collapse was due to an inability to keep up with U.S. technological developments in this field, and even as the USSR was scaling itself down, it was engaging in ways to share missile defense technology and use – an effort that was discontinued by the U.S. government after 1993. Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 Report. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, August 28, 2006. [ 13 quotes ] [ page 68 ]
Considering the current global security situation and trends, any debate on the deployment of weapons in space should be focused on finding a balance between all states' security needs rather than on trying to find a way to ban the larger spectre of military application platforms in space. Future US administrations may be willing to engage in a debate-even negotiation-on the weaponization of space if US security concerns could really be addressed by it. To make this possible, a tentative first step would be to recognize that not all space-based weapons constitute a threat to international security. Some may even enhance it-such as a future global capability to intercept in-flight missiles fired from a rogue state. Failure to make any concession on the reality of the proliferation concern and the potential of space systems to address this concern will probably lead to the continuation of the present US policy and ultimately to the absence of any progress in the prevention of an arms race in space. Gruselle, Bruno. "The final frontier: missile defence in space?." Disarmament Forum. No. 1 (2007): 53-57. [ 4 quotes ] [ page 56 ]
There are several space combat mission areas of interest to the future defense of the United States, including space control, offensive strike, and ballistic missile defense. Each combat mission offers very different operational and strategic possibilities, and each should be evaluated separately and judged independently. Recognizing that weapons that leverage Earth orbits can make different contributions to national defense strategy, lumping them together in order to draw a general conclusion about the prudence of deploying "weapons in space" makes little sense. Our progress in this area will depend greatly on our ability to mature our rhetoric so that we can make meaningful distinctions. So I will focus here on the possible advantages of adding a space-based layer leveraging hit-to-kill interceptors to the newly deployed U.S. missile defense system. Highly effective missile defenses would appear to offer a very significant payoff over the long term when one takes threat and national vulnerability to catastrophic attack into consideration. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
And the stakes couldn't be higher. A ballistic missile delivering a nuclear payload to an American city would be truly devastating. For comparison, the Insurance Information Institute estimates total economic loss so far from Hurricane Katrina at more than $100 billion. By some calculations, it is going to take New Orleans 25 years to recover fully, and the cost of rebuilding the city is predicted to be as high as $200 billion. The direct cost to the New York City economy following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was between $80 billion and $100 billion. These figures do not include indirect costs or the incalculable human losses. Now just imagine the costs imposed by a ballistic missile nuclear strike against a U.S. city. The economic toll from a single nuclear attack against a major city, which would involve extensive decontamination activities and impact the national economy, could rise above $4 trillion. The economy could also be devastated by the electromagnetic pulse generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion. The resulting electromagnetic shock would fry transformers within regional electrical power grids. The interdependent telecommunications (including computers), transportation, and banking and financial infrastructures that people and businesses rely on would be significantly damaged. Such an event would leave us, in some cases, with nineteenth-century technologies. This situation could jeopardize the very viability of society and the survival of the nation. Moreover, the paralysis leaders would experience would leave the country and its allies exposed to highly lethal twenty-first century threats. The blackmail possibilities of these weapons are as mind-numbing as they are terrifying. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
Conversely, ground interceptors that are near the target can defend only a small area, but they can potentially protect that point from launches anywhere in the world. Yet it is simply unaffordable to do a point defense for every place you want to defend in the United States, every place that U.S. forces go, or everywhere that our allies are. The ability to do area defense - to defend against multiple launch points as opposed to doing point defense of a very limited area - is fundamental to successful missile defense. Political, strategic, and technological uncertainties could change the missile defense scenario by causing a shift in the threat from one region to another. Given that it takes years to field, test, and make operational new fixed interceptor and sensor sites, a shift in the threat could leave the nation vulnerable. Because many of the interceptors and sensors in the current system are fixed to geographic points, we are limited in our ability to defend the homeland, for example, against missiles launched from surprise locations such as a ship off our shoreline. We also might face an adversary tomorrow that deploys tens or even hundreds of ballistic missiles or one that has more sophisticated countermeasure and reentry technologies. Those, too, would be expected to stress the current system, which is designed at the moment to deal with more limited threats. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
The policy benefits of a space-based missile defense layer are straightforward. A more effective missile defense system that fully leverages space would provide a true on-call global defensive capability, and this could lead to increased stability in the world. Defenses deter attacks by reducing confidence in the success of any attack. The more effective the missile defense system is, the greater will be its deterrence value, and the less likely will we be to have to use it at all. At some point, when the system is seen by other governments as highly effective, they could recognize a diminishing marginal rate of return in their own ballistic missile investments. As more allies invest in missile defense, U.S. space-basing activities could build on current missile defense cooperative activities and open up new avenues for international collaboration, both to develop elements of the space-based layer and to participate in operations. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
It is also known that enemies of the United States can put a nuclear weapon over U.S. territory using a ballistic missile. The detonation of this weapon at a high altitude could unleash an electromagnetic pulse that would wipe out satellite and airborne navigation, intelligence, and communications systems and impede any U.S. military response to the aggression. Such a pulse of energy would disable or destroy the unprotected technological infrastructure of a region or the nation. According to the EMP Commission, "a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our nation. . . . [A]t some point the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support its population." Space-based interceptors may be the only effective way to counter this threat and mitigate the effects of an electromagnetic pulse resulting from the intercept. Engaging the missile close to its launch point would release the resulting explosion of gamma rays closer to the attacker's territory. Relying on an intercept in space, in the midcourse of a missile's flight, risks damaging unprotected satellites (i.e., just about all commercial and civilian satellites), regardless of who owns them. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
Because the missile defense system is "layered" and will have multiple elements working together synergistically, sharing information, sharing existing sensors, communicating as a single system worldwide, even a small constellation of space-based interceptor platforms would allow the entire system to work more efficiently. The massive constellations projected back in the heady days of the Strategic Defense Initiative, in other words, do not seem to be necessary, especially when the targeted adversaries have very limited ballistic missile inventories. By attacking even just a portion of the threat missiles in boost and midcourse, the space layer has the effect of thinning out the number of attacking missiles so that the other elements of the system, which are based on the ground or at sea (midcourse and terminal systems), can be more effective. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
While space assets generally follow predictable orbital paths, they do provide a unique form of mobility - they can be present and persistent over many places on the globe. Indeed, in 2007, the Missile Defense Agency will begin demonstrations with two satellites hosting sensors designed to provide very fine surveillance and tracking data on in-flight ballistic missiles and payloads. A constellation of these satellites would become the sensor backbone of a global missile defense capability and would make possible the global mission endorsed by the Bush administration: the protection of the United States, its deployed forces, and allies and friends. Similarly, a space-based interceptor layer would enable a global on-call missile defense capability and a timely response to rapidly evolving threats, even threats emanating from unpredicted locations with very different azimuths from those we plan to be able to defeat today. A space-defense capability also would allow the country to engage longer-range threats originating from deep within the interior of a threat country. Lambakis, Steven. "Missile Defense From Space." Policy Review. No. 141 (February and March 2007). [ 8 quotes ]
In the future, we may face adversaries unknown to us today, fight in unexpected regions, or have to defend against new types of ballistic missiles and countermeasures. The significance of this uncertainty for missile defense planners is enormous. This means that we cannot be totally focused on "who" poses the threat today because the "who" can change with a political decision or by a surprise shift in capabilities from one region to another. Similarly, a focus on the "how" does not mean we can ignore today's enemies or their present-day capabilities. On the contrary, today's ballistic missile threats continue to drive our Nation's near-term missile defense fielding and long-term development efforts. Today's threats provide "ground truth," a measure of what is possible today and, therefore, a low-end representation of what we must be prepared to defeat tomorrow. The "high end" represents ballistic missile threats that today are either unrealized or unknown but yet are possible to develop. Lambakis, Steven. "Leveraging Space to Improve Missile Defense." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2 (March 2007): 25-29. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 25 ]
Optimal orbits for engaging missiles from space would depend on the satellites' inclinations, which bound the orbital engagement zone between latitudes north and south of the equator at similar distances. With weapons on-orbit, missile defenders would have a capability to engage intercontinental- to mediumrange ballistic missiles launched from any region within that zone. Intercepts in the boost and midcourse of that missile’s flight could be possible. Essential work to demonstrate the feasibility of critical space-based interceptor functions has already been done (as part of the Brilliant Pebbles development program in the 1980s and early 1990s). The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), should it receive the support of the administration and Congress, could continue development efforts to perfect command and control of space-based assets and long-term storage of propellant, among other things. Lambakis, Steven. "Leveraging Space to Improve Missile Defense." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2 (March 2007): 25-29. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 26 ]
The on-call, persistent defensive capabilities made available by space-based assets would improve missile defense response times, expand areas of engagement, provide better information on offensive missile events, and generally improve the worldwide integration of the system. The improved flexibility space offers would allow the US to better defend against emerging threats. This would allow it to improve crisis response times and enable US military forces to be more agile and protected on the battlefield. The US would be in a better position to defend its interests and more readily able to meet the defense commitments of its allies and friends. The confidence of the leadership would also improve, and the leadership, in turn, would have greater freedom of action to defend US interests and populations from a wider range of missile threats. Lambakis, Steven. "Leveraging Space to Improve Missile Defense." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2 (March 2007): 25-29. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 28 ]