Echoes of the Past, the Space Force as Target

• In Event: Technological Advancement and Employing New Tools in Foreign Policy

Abstract

Echoes of the Past, the Space Force as Target


This paper examines certain implications arising from the establishment in December 2019 of the U.S. Space Force (USSC) as the sixth military service. The new service represents the culmination of years of lobbying by military space professionals. Its creation reflects presidential support (not previously available) plus a rapidly changing space threat environment. Recent actions by several states especially China and India signaled the reality that the United States and Russia no longer stand above all other military space players. Based on that change, the assumption is often that the United States will move forward with a decision to deploy weapons in outer space. Such weapons are considered essential for effective missile defense and space operations, the latter being more long term in nature. This belief reflects a combination of current policy concerns, American ideology and misconceptions about the technologies involved. The current policy concerns arise from U.S. efforts at building a useful missile defense profile capable of handling multiple threats including hypersonic weapons. Weapons looking down draw upon long standing views that argue holding the high ground (outer space being the highest) is to maximize effectiveness in deterring or defeating attacks. Initially, the effort will involve deploying new sensors in orbit capable of dealing with potential missile threats. In time, the assumption is that sensors will be deployed in conjunction with space-based interceptors probably directed energy weapons although kinetic weapons may also be employed. The technologies involved draw American attention since its self-image is that of a power capable of accomplishing technological feats which mounting such a military capability would be one example. The American fixation on the offensive with its inherent aggressive possibilities for victory is central to American plans. Here, however, the analysis is flipped in the sense that the Space Force in principle while appearing very powerful and overwhelming but may contain its own demise if certain actions are pursued without thought as to the likely consequences. The Space Force emerges out of the Air Force with its ethos of attack – personified in an earlier generation in the Strategic Air Command. It also embodies the technological imperative that drives U.S. military policy. At least in the post-World War Two environment (possibly even more so post First Gulf War or the “first space war”), U.S. military discussions often exaggerates the benefits presented by new technologies. What is less emphasized is the question of shortcomings or vulnerabilities of these new assets. The central point examined here is that the Space Force presents the possibility that it mirrors the earlier debate over forward deployment of SAC bomber wings. RAND analyses highlighted the possibility that a Soviet attack could effectively decimate U.S. deterrent power embodied in such forces. The result was the withdrawal of forces back to CONUS in order to conserve their striking power. Ballistic missiles further highlighted their vulnerability if stationed overseas. The Space Force presents another iteration of the question of possible overexposure of U.S. forces to preemptive strike with unknown outcomes. American defense policy enters a new era with the standing up of the Space Force, enthusiasm may generate greater vulnerability, increasing strategic instability. Rather than lowering the potential for military conflict, the outcome may be a heightened sense of insecurity.

Author

• Roger B. Handberg, University of Central Florida