![]() Several space-faring countries are planning to develop a capability to service and refuel satellites on orbit to extend their service lives. In the future, the problem of defining an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) is likely to get even more complicated. It is highly unlikely that the United States or others would agree to ban capabilities that they believe are essential to protect their military operations on land, at sea, in the air, or in space. Lasers, electronic jamming, directed energy weapons, and offensive cyber tools designed for a wide range of other national security missions can also threaten satellites. ![]() Terrestrial-based missile defense interceptors can and have been adapted to also destroy satellites. In the first place, defining what constitutes a space weapon can be daunting. Share on Twitterīut negotiating legally binding limits on weapons or activities that threaten use of space by all nations has so far proven elusive, for several reasons. Negotiating legally binding limits on weapons or activities that threaten use of space by all nations has so far proven elusive. The 2010 U.S.-Russian New START nuclear arms control agreement prohibited either country from interfering with the other side's “National Technical Means” for monitoring compliance, which is understood to include satellite reconnaissance systems as well as other intelligence collection methods The 1967 multilateral Outer Space Treaty prohibited the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in orbit. Thus, it is worth asking whether arms control can play a useful role in mitigating potential threats to U.S and allied interests in space. So too has been the pursuit of arms control agreements as a complementary approach to enhancing stability, bolstering deterrence, and avoiding costly arms races. national security policy, especially in the nuclear domain. Deterrence, and the capability to respond with overwhelming force to aggression, have long been central elements of U.S. interests through deterrence and, when necessary, the application of force.” According to its first statement on doctrine, the primary purpose of military space forces is “to secure U.S. Space Force-was created in large part to deal with the threats posed by Russia and China to U.S. military could operate as effectively as it has over the past two decades without unfettered access to the information derived from and transmitted through space.Īmerica's newest independent military service-the U.S. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how the U.S. economic and national security have grown increasingly dependent on the global communications, precision navigation, weather forecasting, and overhead imagery provided by on-orbit systems. Twice this year, Russia has tested different systems capable of destroying U.S. ![]() and allied space assets in the event of a crisis or conflict. Ironically, both Russia and China are actively developing and testing a variety of technical approaches to threaten U.S. technological prowess in developing advanced space capabilities, especially those that might be applied to missile defense or anti-satellite operations. Both nations share a common desire to curb the U.S. As far back as 1985, the USSR called for a ban on “space strike weapons.” Moscow has sounded variations on the same theme, often aided and abetted by China, ever since. There's hardly anything new in Putin's pronouncement. On September 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that leading space powers agree to prohibit the “stationing” of weapons in space and the “threat or use of force” against space objects.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |