Home > Bibliography > View Citation

View Citation


Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ]

Evidence Related to this Citation

Space-based weapons needed to protect the space assets the U.S. relies on
 
The arguments in favor of weaponizing space center around the fact that the United States relies heavily on space-based assets for both military and commercial needs. Protecting these assets will become increasingly important as access to space becomes cheaper and the technology needed for this access becomes more available. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 3-4 ]
Every environment accessible to humanity eventually becomes weaponized
 
Another line of argument in favor of space-based weapons, or at least an argument for why they are inevitable, devolves from the fact that every environment accessible to man has eventually become an arena for combat. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 4 ]
Self-interest will motivate other countries to match U.S. deployment of space weapons
 
By doing this initial R&D, the United States will be paving the way for other nations to follow. The result may well be that assets which are now safe�because no other nation has a pressing need to develop weapons to attack them�will become vulnerable to attack because other nations will feel compelled to emulate the United States and deploy space-based weapons of their own. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 4-5 ]
Protection through redundancy offers an alternative to space-based weapons
 
Until very recently, US satellites have tended to be fairly large, very capable, and very expensive. These satellites pre - sent an opponent with lucrative targets, where the loss of even one would often constitute a dramatic loss in capability. This is particularly true for current generation reconnaissance sat - ellites since these are very capable, relatively few in number, and very vulnerable owing to their need to be in LEOs. Fortu - nately, deploying defensive space weapons is only one way to protect these assets. One option for mitigating this vulnerability is to deploy large numbers of less capable satellites. These satellites could provide the same capability as a larger satellite by working in concert. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 52 ]
Improving rapid reconstitution capability would reduce need for space weapons
 
An additional step that can be taken to assure access to space is to develop a responsive space-lift capability. The ability to prepare and launch a satellite within days could quickly replenish combat losses. This approach would be most costeffective for small, cheap satellites but would also be effective for larger satellites, particularly if an enemy had only a limited number of ASAT weapons. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 53 ]
Rapid reconstitution best way to counter HANDs Strike
 
An additional point about passive defense bears considera - tion. While nuclear weapons are not a primary focus of this study, rapid reconstitution may be the best way to overcome the effects of a high-altitude nuclear detonation. While the international political repercussions may prevent most potential adversaries from using nuclear weapons even in space, there are those who may not be dissuaded. If one of these nations develops and uses nuclear ASATs, space-based defensive weapons may be of little use. The ability to quickly reconstitute space-based assets may well be the only practical solution.
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 54 ]
Jamming is an effective, and less politically divisive approach to space control
 
A more practical approach to denying an enemy use of his space-based assets may be to jam the communication links between the satellites and the ground stations. Since this approach would not damage the satellites, the fact that they may be owned by third parties would be less of a factor. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 56 ]
To minimize collateral damage, the U.S. could jam the ground-based recievers of satellite date rather than the satellite itself
 
The best method for disrupting these communications may prove to be conventional jamming of the handheld phones the field commanders would be using. While this is not a very elegant solution, it may be the only feasible one since any large-scale interference with a satellite-based telephone system would have global repercussions. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 57 ]
U.S. interests best served by constraining development of ground-to-space strike weapons
 
The argument against space-based weapons for attacking airborne or surface targets is very similar. If the United States deploys such weapons, other nations may feel compelled to do likewise. In this case, the United States would not only be making a segment of its defense system vulnerable to attack but also could very well make US cities vulnerable. Unfriendly nations with orbital weapons capable of attacking terrestrial targets would be able to strike the United States, or anywhere else on the globe, without investing the tremendous resources necessary to field a US-style military. ( More ... )
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 6 ]
U.S. should not alienate allies with unilateral deployment of space weapons
 
In light of international opposition, unilaterally deploying weapons in space has little to recommend it. Such an offensive attitude (in both senses of the word) would do little to generate international support for actions such as the 1991 Gulf War. Some may argue that the United States's current position of power makes international support irrelevant and that the United States did not need a coalition to defeat Iraq, but the costs of acting unilaterally would undoubtedly have been much higher. It seems unwise to alienate potential allies at the same time that force reductions may make acting unilaterally difficult or impossible.
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 98 ]
V-2 Example shows Importance of Determining Whether Weapons are Needed before Deploying
 
As Colin Gray aptly put it, the decision of whether or not to deploy weapons in space should not be based only on the fact that it is technologically possible to do so. It is equally important to determine if such weapons are truly needed. Creating new weapons merely because it is possible to do so can have unfortunate consequences. An historical example of such a technological imperative producing a weapon of questionable value is the Nazi rocket program of World War II. Approximately 2 billion marks (500 million 1942 dollars) produced enough V-2 rockets to deliver about 6000 tons of high explosives against the Allies—a quantity that is only about four times that dropped during a single RAF raid on the Peenemünde rocket development center itself. While this effort was not the sole cause of the Nazi downfall, it certainly absorbed resources that could have been better used elsewhere. The current era of austere defense budgets makes it imperative that the U.S. military avoid a similar miscalculation.
Spacy, William L. Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, September 1999. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 9 ]