Home > Bibliography > View Citation

View Citation


Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ]

Evidence Related to this Citation

An Attack on U.S. Space Assets would Collapse Global Economy and Cripple Military
 
No nation relies on space more than the United States -- none is even close -- and its reliance grows daily. A widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous for American military security and civilian welfare. America's economy would collapse, bringing the rest of the world down with it. Its military would be obliged to hunker down in a defensive crouch while it prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign deployments. To prevent such disasters from occurring, the United States military -- in particular the United States Air Force—is charged with protecting space capabilities from harm and ensuring reliable space operations for the foreseeable future. As a martial organization, the Air Force naturally looks to military means to achieve these desired ends. And so it should.
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 163 ]
Multiple Indicators of U.S. Military Reliance on Space Assets
 
The tremendous growth in space reliance from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom is evident in the raw numbers. The use of operational satellite communications increased four-fold, despite being used to support a much smaller force (fewer than 200,000 personnel compared with more than 500,000). New operational concepts such as reach back (intelligence analysts in the United States sending information directly to frontline units) and reach forward (rear-deployed commanders able to direct battlefield operations in real time) reconfigured the tactical concept of war. The value of Predator and Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), completely reliant on satellite communications and navigation for their operation, was confirmed. Satellite support also allowed Special Forces units to range across Iraq in extremely disruptive independent operations, practically unfettered in their silent movements.
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 165 ]
Should not Criticize Military Planners for Evaluating Space Weapons -- thats a Policy Decision
 
This is where criticism leveled at military planners preparing for the use of space weapons continues to astonish. It is not the business of military strategists to dictate when and where military means should be employed. That responsibility lies with the political leadership. The military planner’s duty is to be prepared to use military means when and where instructed. Thus the Air Force’s duty is to plan for and prepare to use the military means in its control to most effectively accomplish its assigned tasks, within the limits placed upon it—including efforts to minimize collateral damage and loss of life. Therefore, we should not be discussing the correctness of the military’s planning to use weapons to engage in operations it has been assigned. If we decide we do not want weapons in space, then the military should not be given the responsibility of protecting our interests there. To do otherwise is absurd. Imagine relying on the U.S. Navy to guarantee freedom of the seas for American interests, but ordering it to so without the use of warships or any other form of martial force—even the latent threat of such force in reserve. We would be asking the Navy to guarantee a vital national interest without employing the only means at its disposal to do so. Thus, the Navy is equipped with the most modern weaponry, with which it trains incessantly, so that it may be available to perform the functions assigned to it.
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 166 ]
Technical Objections to Space Weapons Usually Fall Away Over TIme
 
We have learned much, it would seem, or else bluntly negative scientific opinion on space weapons has been weeded out over time. Less encompassing arguments are now the rule. As the debate moved completely away from the complete impossibility of weapons and wars in space to more subtle and scientifically sustainable arguments that a particular space weapon is not feasible, mountains of mathematical formulae have been piled high in an effort, one by one, simply to bury the concept. But these limitations on specific systems are less due to theoretical analysis than to assumptions about future funding and available technology. The real objection, too often hidden from view, is that a particular weapons system or capability cannot be developed and deployed within the planned budget, or within narrowly specified means. When one relaxes those assumptions, opposition on technical grounds generally falls away.
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 168 ]
Other Nations Unlikely to Engage U.S. in Space Arms Race
 
In such circumstances, America certainly would respond eventually. Conversely, if America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the necessary infrastructure is too high—hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment needed to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the United States to entrench itself in space and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 169 ]
Funds for Space Weapons will Necessarily come from Budgets for Existing Conventional Operations
 
The immediate budget impact of significant funding increases for space weapons would be to decrease funding for combat aircraft, the surface battle fleet, and ground forces. This may well set the proponents of space weaponization at odds with both proponents and opponents of increased defense spending. Space advocates must sell their ideas to fellow pro-weapons groups by making the case that the advantages they provide outweigh the capabilities forgone. This is a mighty task. The tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars needed to develop, test and deploy a minimal space weapons system with the capacity to engage a few targets around the world could displace a half-dozen or more aircraft carrier battle groups, entire aircraft procurement programs such as the F-22, and several heavy armored divisions. This is a tough sell for supporters of a strong military. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 170-1 ]
Historically, Dominance of a Regime (Air, Sea) by a Liberal Hegemonic State has been Beneficial for Commerce and Peace
 
There is reasonable historic support for the notion that the most peaceful and prosperous periods in modern history coincide with the appearance of a strong, liberal hegemon. America has been essentially unchallenged in its naval dominance over the last 60 years, and in global air supremacy for the last 15 or more. Today, there is more international commerce on the oceans and in the air than ever. Ships and aircraft of all nations worry more about running into bad weather than about being commandeered by a military vessel or set upon by pirates. Search and rescue is a far more common task than forced embargo, and the transfer of humanitarian aid is a regular mission. Lest one think this era of cooperation is predicated on intentions rather than military stability, recall that the policy of open skies advocated by every president since Eisenhower did not take effect until after the fall of the Soviet Union and the singular rise of American power to the fore of international politics. The legacy of American military domination of the sea and air has been positive, and the same should be expected for space. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 172 ]
U.S. Dominance of Low-Earth Orbit would Prevent an Arms Race
 
Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 171 ]
U.S. Should not Allow another Country to Acquire Breakthrough Technology of Space Weapons
 
Indeed, it is just this concern for the unanticipated arrival of technology X that initially motivates my own preference for the immediate deployment of space weapons. So long as America is the state most likely to acquire a breakthrough technology in this area, my concern is limited to the problem of letting technology take us where it will. But what if an enemy of democratic liberalism suddenly should acquire the means to place multiple weapons into orbit quickly and cheaply? The advantages gained from controlling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any liberal state, and the concomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to our already-dependent military forces could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the United States dithers on its responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize low-Earth orbit before America is able to respond. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 169 ]
Space Weapons will not Pose Offensive Threat to other Countries' Sovereignty
 
Hence, the argument that the unilateral deployment of space weapons will precipitate a disastrous arms race is further eroded. To be sure, space weapons are offensive by their very nature. They deter violence by the omnipresent threat of precise, measured, and unstoppable retaliation. But they offer no advantage in the mission of territorial occupation. As such, they are far less threatening to the international environment than any combination of conventional weapons employed in their stead. What would be more threatening to a state in opposition to American hegemony: a dozen lasers in space with pinpoint accuracy, or (for about the same price) 15 infantry divisions massed on the border? ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 171 ]