The Chinese People's Liberation Army and Space Warfare

Space warfare will be an integrated part of battle planning by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in any future conflict with the United States. The People's Liberation Army has carefully absorbed and is reacting to what the American armed forces have published on space warfare and counter-space operations. Chinese strategists and legal scholars are engaged in an internal debate on how traditional ideas of sovereignty and the laws of war apply in space. One authoritative volume explored the importance of ensuring that the People's Liberation Army sets out legal justifications for military actions in advance of any conflict. Chinese scholars believe that many of the concepts surrounding the conduct of war on the “common seas” apply in space. Also, there is disagreement between the United States and China on the American position on outer space. The United States treats “peaceful uses” to mean “non-aggressive,” whereas the Chinese interpretation is that to be peaceful uses, it must be “non-military.”     

The Influence of Technology on Space Strategy

The influence of technology on the conduct of warfare and the development of strategy is still largely misunderstood. This confusion also holds true regarding technology's influence on space warfare and the development of space strategy. Judging from history, we can expect that advances in space-related technology will be used in ways commensurate with the current paradigm, especially with respect to military operations. Therefore, space operations will probably play supporting roles to operations on land, at sea, and in the air, at least in the near term. It will likely be some time until the strategic advantages of space-based or space-enabled operations are fully appreciated and effectively employed. Additionally, the historical theory and principles of general warfare remain valid, even when considering military operations in space. While advances in space-related technology or space-based weaponry will not change the fundamental nature of warfare, they are expected to change warfare's conduct and character. Through a better understanding of technology's influence on military operations, it is possible to develop a more complete theory and more fully developed strategic principles of space warfare.     

Protecting the Space Network and the Future of Self-Defense

The inherent right of self-defense is critical in protecting the United States (U.S.) space network from growing threats. The scope of this right is frequently questioned, and as applied to the space network, raises several questions. To what extent does the right of self-defense extend outside U.S. territory? Is it permissible under this right to defend non-U.S. registered space assets? What is the standard for establishing an “armed attack” in space? Is the intent of the attackers or the scope of the attack relevant in exercising this right in space? In a 2003 case from the International Court of Justice, the Case Concerning Oil Platforms, many of these questions were addressed, not in the context of a space war, but in the context of a factually analogous conflict, the Tanker War of the 1980s. The Oil Platforms case may be a harbinger for an international shift in the interpretation of the inherent right of self-defense in such a manner as to severely limit U.S. military options in response to an attack on it space systems. This is a shift the U.S. must be prepared to counter.     

Space and Diplomacy: A New Tool for Leverage

This essay investigates how United States space systems can be used to directly achieve diplomatic objectives. While space systems are widely acknowledged as vital enablers of terrestrial-based forces, they are often overlooked as a critical component of national power capable of directly pursuing national objectives. The essay presents the Space-Diplomacy model that posits seven facets to the diplomatic power of space assets and shows when they can be effective over the spectrum of conflict: prestige, technology partnerships, access to space services, legal precedent, objective information, presence, and threat of punishment. Therefore, it is in the U.S. national interest to…use the nation's potential in space to support its domestic, economic, diplomatic and national security objectives. Report of the Space Commission During the three decades after World War II ended, on the average, U.S. armed forces were used as a political instrument once every other month. Barry M. Blechman and Stephen S. Kaplan     

Military Space Cooperation: Aligning the Balance of Power and Building Common Interest

The strengthening of alliances through cooperative military activities is a long-established tradition for land, sea and air forces. With the rise of spacepower over the last 50 years, and the growing number of spacefaring and space-using nations, military space programs provide new opportunities for military-to-military cooperation. Military space programs often represent the most technical and secretive of capabilities and there may be risks in sharing the inner workings of these capabilities, even with trusted allies. Is there a way to share the benefits of these strategically and tactically important capabilities in a manner that enhances the peace, justice and security of all stakeholders? Many nations around the world are answering ‘yes’ to this question as they enter into agreements on cooperative space projects for commercial, environmental and military security. More and more they are using their space programs to realign the old balance of power and create new common interests. As the number of spacefaring nations increase and the number of space users grow around the globe, the traditional space powers, such as the United States, need to reconsider how to integrate military space cooperation in their strategies of strengthening alliances and building common interest.     

Counterspace Operations and Nascent Space Powers

In twenty-first-century warfare, satellites have become indispensable for gaining dominance in battlespace. This highlights the need to protect space assets while countering the qualitative edge that space can provide to adversarial actions. Hence, “counterspace operations” continue to gain the attention of military planners and researchers around the globe. Although it is the major space powers that have developed requisite capability and are showing more concerns for space security, these concerns are global in nature. As such, there is a need to develop a framework that can be utilized by nascent space powers to ensure protection of their space assets. This research work is intended to draw the attention of policymakers, space-technology protagonists, and military personnel, particularly of nascent space powers, to these global concerns. It gives an overview of counterspace operations and explores the doctrinal view-point of major military space powers for safeguarding their own space programs and negating the advantage of space to the enemy. Based upon this, a step-by-step approach is proposed for nascent space powers for embodying of elements of counterspace operations to remain protected during peace, crisis, or war.     

Weapons in Space: The Need to Protect Space Assets

Space assets represent the most critical undefended resource of the United States. Though the government has clearly been aware of this weakness for over a generation, little appears to have been done about it. Every day these assets become more critical, and the threats against them are growing in kind. The United States must address these threats in order to prevent potential future issues in regard to military command and control, as well as the American way of life. This article not only outlines threats to space assets but proposes means by which U.S. space assets could be protected. Such protection comes not only from technology, which has been capable for years of doing the job, but from policy choice as well. In regard to policy, increasing research and development for space-based weapons, reevaluating existing treaties, and increasing interagency cooperation are all needed to better protect U.S. space assets.     

North and South Korean Space Development: Prospects for Cooperation and Conflict

North and South Korea both have developed rocket technology for military and civilian applications, but their space programs differ in many important aspects. As late developing space powers, neither country poses a serious direct threat to U.S. space assets, but a successful U.S. cooperative engagement strategy towards the Koreas could help achieve U.S. policy objectives. The domestic politics of the two Koreas are very different, and Korean space development will depend upon a number of variables including inter-Korean relations and whether the two Koreas unify, domestic politics and budget constraints, the overall strategic environment, as well as opportunities for Korea in the realm of international space cooperation. The United States has opportunities to implement an engagement strategy in Korea, but it could be complicated by different U.S. objectives in North and South Korea, and by linkage to other issues. Despite the complexities, Washington should be prepared for a number of possibilities.     

Space Weapons: Alternatives for Today

The massive budgets for U.S. military space and missile defense represent the beginning stages of a new arms race in space. But with the United States facing record budget deficits and record defense spending and with the international community expressing increasing concerns about the weaponization of space, the next administration faces some real questions about how hard it wants to push for new attack weapons in space.

No matter how the upcoming U.S. presidential election turns out, the next administration faces dilemmas with respect to the lack of a justifying threat, the technical difficulty and cost of placing weapons in space, how far its international partners want to go with missile defense and with weapons in space, and, finally, the type of international negotiations in which it is willing to engage. Each of these situations creates alternatives for today, alternatives which the next U.S. President will confront and the international community can and should engage.     

U.S.-India Space Partnership: The Jewel in the Crown

The new strategic partnership between the United States and India is creating opportunities for security cooperation. A key element in this partnership—U.S.-India space cooperation—will most likely become the defining relationship for international space cooperation around which other space-faring nations will posture. The Indian space program is rapidly developing world-class capabilities and presents itself as a worthy partner. The U.S. space program should be able to provide innovative ideas for fruitful collaboration. Despite these propitious circumstances, there are potential obstacles of cost, security, and risk. The biggest obstacle, however, might simply be bureaucratic intransigence and inertia. The opportunity is here, now, for the United States and India each to add an important new jewel to their crown of international space cooperation activities. Most importantly, this new space partnership should enhance the security and prosperity of the United States, India, and the world.     

Highway to the Danger Zone: United States Legislative Framework Regulating the Commercial Space Sector

The last decade has been witness to a rapid rise of the commercial space sectors of many countries. This development offers myriad prospects for the development and exploration of outer space, but simultaneously poses threats to the international community if not regulated properly. The potential dangers of outer space activity were recognized by both the United States and the former Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War, which led to the concretization of the international legal regime regulating outer space activities. However, without the enforcement of these legal standards at the municipal level of the state, this regime is ineffective. Therefore, it is an imperative that all states with a commercial space presence develop national space legislation that appropriately incorporates international standards. The U.S. space legislation is, at present, the most robust legal framework which addresses many of the necessary concerns. At the same time, in attempts to promote the growth of its space sector, the U.S. regime regulating commercial space ignores some of the standards developed in the international regime. The critical evaluation of the salient features of the U.S. legislation undertaken by this article serves as a guide for many states seeking to develop their own legislation regulating the commercial space industry. It serves as a guide to adopting comprehensive standards of protections provided for in the U.S. legislation and the International Law Association’s “Model Law on National Space Legislation,” but also cautions against the dangers of weaponization, poor environmental protection, and exposure to international liability. A thorough legislative framework that adequately balances economic, strategic, and political concerns with accepted legal principles of international law is essential to prevent commercial space activities from becoming a “highway to the danger zone.”     

A New American Way of War? C4ISR,Intelligence and Information Operations in Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’: A Provisional Assessment

This work examines publicly material available released as of 2 September 2003 on the role of intelligence for the Coalition side during the 2003 Gulf War. It assesses how far the Coalition side practised deception, psychological warfare, and information operations during that conflict, and how far intelligence served the needs of military forces. It focuses on failures as well as successes. It compares the real performance of intelligence during the conflict with the role forecast for C4ISR and Information Operations by theorists of the RMA, and modern strategy. It concludes that the Coalition forces practised Information Operations very well, but that at the operational level, there had been no revolution in military intelligence.     

Space and Security: The Emerging Role of Europe

Space systems have grown increasingly integral to the United States' national security in the post-Cold War era. The diplomatic and military leverage that space capabilities can provide is not going unnoticed by other countries. Since the collapse of the USSR, the United States has enjoyed a near-absolute dominance in space activities. Only the civilian European space program has mounted any sort of technical challenge to the United States, with little interest devoted to space military activities, but the period of US hegemony in the space military domain might come to an end. In recent years the European Union (EU) and its member states have taken numerous steps towards designing and assembling a Common Foreign and Security Policy and a coherent European Security and Defence Policy. Furthermore, several important steps toward linking security needs and space capabilities have been taken by the tandem European Union–European Space Agency and other relevant institutions. Space is now seen as an essential asset for European integration and for non-dependence in the current geo-strategic context, since space-based systems and derived information can bring necessary capabilities for autonomous decision making. The development of an integrated European space capability for security is at an early stage, but it is an ongoing process presenting some opportunities to enhance European independence and security.     

Law of Space Resources and Operations on Celestial Bodies: Implications for Legislation in the United States

The U.S. assertion of a right to own resources harvested from space is consistent with the distinction in international law governing analogous res communis areas between resources harvested from a common area and the common area itself. Under the Outer Space Treaty regime, private entities do not have any more right to appropriate celestial bodies than governments do. However, U.S. law does not give private entities such a right. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act’s chapter on Space Resource Commercial Exploration and Utilization generally avoids taking a position on exactly how to deal with disputes in the event the activities of entities from the United States and other states interfere with each other. The U.S. law does not assert a right to declare safety zones or otherwise exercise jurisdiction outside space objects, but doing so can, under some circumstances, be consistent with international law. Many of the specifics of what rules will govern the gathering of space resources remain undetermined, yet the act’s basic premise is correct: international law and the treaty obligations of the United States allow for the U.S. government to authorize its citizens to own resources obtained from space.     

Astropolitics and the “Exopolitics” of Unacknowledged Activities in Outer Space

The role of unacknowledged classified programs remains an enigma for fully understanding activities in space and the study of astropolitics. Classified programs by law are not publicly announced, and remain inaccessible to all except those with valid security clearances to be briefed about them. In the United States, waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs are the most highly classified programs conducted by the military and intelligence community. The same classification protocols are also required of private contractors working with U.S. military departments and intelligence agencies on classified programs. As space continues to grow in its national security significance, the number of these unacknowledged programs pertaining to space is likely to grow significantly from its current number. This requires adopting the necessary conceptual tools and methodological flexibility for investigating unacknowledged activities in space. This also extends to evidence concerning unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial life. This article suggests that “exopolitics” is a unique multidisciplinary approach to extraterrestrial life that offers a helpful set of conceptual tools for studying unacknowledged space activities, and complements the field of astropolitics.     

A New US-Sino Space Relationship: Moving Toward Cooperation 1

Since the late 1990's the United States has maintained a strict policy of no cooperation with China on space activities. The reasons for that are several, including the desire to inhibit the development of dual-use technology considered potentially threatening to the United States and political reluctance to work with a communist country. Increasingly, however, it has become clear that policy is not constraining China from dual-use technology development and that the policy overall may be detrimental to U.S. security interests. Therefore a policy change, from a realistic consideration of circumstances, must be considered.     

U.S.-China Space Cooperation: Balancing Act between the U.S. Congress and President

There are a growing number of U.S. space scientists and managers calling for reinitiating cooperation with China in space. It is well-known that investigations of the U.S. Congress into various allegations involving China have resulted in a series of laws curtailing space cooperation between these two countries. By surveying the concurrent political developments within the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, this article attempts to reveal the domestic compulsions that propelled changes in the U.S. space policy towards China. The fundamental impetus is the power struggle and differences between the U.S. president and Congress in their perception of U.S. economic interests and national security in the context of space technology that strained these relations. Recent U.S. presidents who inherited this situation added to the discourse based on their own perceptions about outer space and China. These perceptions either found congruence with the policy of the U.S. Congress or led to finding ways to circumvent its legal restrictions. Based on these developments, it is concluded that the view of the U.S. president has alternated between necessary, desirable, and objectionable on the issue of U.S.-China space cooperation, and the U.S. Congress has thus shifted from supporting to restricting and then legally banning cooperation.     

Needed: A smaller and very different U.S. military

Conclusion How should the Pentagon decide those missions that it will retain in house? Those missions for which it should seek strategic alliances? Those new missions that it will actively seek to develop a competency in? Or those missions that require service competition because they are viewed as critical? Or those missions that have acquired redundancy due to service poaching, and thus can prudently be the target of reductions?The answers to these questions very much depend on the leadership's developing a view of the long-term future that is very different from the past. For example, will the United States be in the business of maintaining stability in troubled Third World regions? If so, what kind of capabilities, what kind of missions, does it see as necessary to conduct effective operations in these conflicts? What can the U.S. military count on from its strategic partnerships with other nations? What competing roles will the U.S. military be asked to play? What resources are available?These are fundamental, first-order questions. But they must all be answered - a credible vision of the business must be established - before restructuring can proceed in a productive manner. This does not imply a definitive prediction of the future; rather, it involves recognizing that the United States is in a period of relatively low danger, high uncertainty and dynamic change. For that reason the defense establishment should restructure to be more flexible, innovative and adaptive. A primary goal should be to exploit rapidly advancing technologies, while meeting (or preferably forestalling) the greatest and most likely challenges to national security. In summary, developing a credible vision of the future security environment, and acting upon it, is essential if the U.S. defense establishment is to avoid the pitfalls of the interwar French military and the IBM of the 1980s, dominant organizations that restructured to be more efficient in a competitive environment that was rapidly passing into history.     

Viewpoint: International Traffic in Arms Regulations—Controversy and Reform

The International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have, for decades, played a crucial role in shaping the movement of sensitive technology from the United States to the world. Originally intended to ensure military dominance, the ITAR regime is seen by some as stifling the competitiveness of American industry. A list known as the United States Munitions List (USML) contains the items subject to the ITAR export controls. This list includes clearly dangerous military technology such as missile navigation systems and fighter jet avionics but also includes seemingly benign items, such as coolant hoses or tape recorders for spacecraft. Among the items considered controversial are a number related to the space industry. An incident in the early 1990s began a jurisdictional tug of war. The United States strengthened its grip on the export of space technology. In the last two decades, some have observed a decline in the competitiveness of American industry. The content of the USML should be reviewed based not on the historical “catchall” approach, but rather based on a “military intent-based” or “military capability-based” approach. This will improve the competitiveness of the U.S. space industry without sacrificing national security.