Clint,



Very good questions, I will attempt to answer them as they come:



In regards to Astropolitik, do you discuss the viability of seizing low earth orbit?



Yes, though as you point out it is not a particularly deep discussion. Still, it may be enough for your needs. The only issue that makes it unlikely the US could seize LEO is the political will to hold onto it. From a position atop the gravity well of Earth, a satellite firing ?down? has a tremendous time and kinetic advantage over any attempt to engage ?up? (see response on directed energy weapons further down). Saturating LEO with several hundred coordinated satellites would provide real-time engagement capabilities over any point on the earth, and the US would have to be willing to shoot down any attempt to place weapons in space (an expensive endeavor that limits the number of potential targets quite nicely). As you can quickly see, the US would have to establish an inspection regime to complement the effort. Something like demanding that any space launch (or current spacecraft) is subject to inspection by the US. Any attempt to place into orbit an object that has not been inspected would be shot down. As such, space capability is a defense, not a deterrence.



I've found reference to this in some of your work that I have already read, but have been unable to find a deep discussion. It seems like a key point in answering anti-space weaponization arguments predicated on the creation of a space arms race.



And this is a key point for the argument. If the US were to announce such a program and begin placing operational weapon in space with (first) kinetic then directed energy/laser capability, with its tremendous current lead in space technology and lift capability it could get a minimally operational system into orbit (with current technology) in just one to three years. Once ensconced at the top of the gravity well, it could not be dislodged by attempts to engage the on-orbit assets with ground or air-fired kinetic weapons (the analogy would be like shooting slow-moving fish in a very restricted barrel).



You wrote that the threat of nuclear attack from Russia and China is small in the status quo, because of our ability to deter them.



Nuclear deterrence works against rational states.



Would such be the case if we allowed one of them to establish Space Dominance?



Very good. No it would not. In fact, should China, Russia, or any currently space faring nation get to LEO with sufficient space weapons (a 5-10 year crash program for China or Russia, perhaps 15-25 years without any effort should the US stand idly by), it would gain the same advantages of occupying the unflankable high ground as would the US. Like the US, however, neither could deter a massive nuclear attack from the US with space weapons alone, as even if just a few weapons get through the space screen it would be devastating to an enemy. Still, I don?t lay awake at night wondering if China or Russia is just waiting for a moment of weakness in order to nuke us back to the stone age?and I don?t believe the Chinese and Russians sleep poorly thinking that is the American goal.



Could the same space NMD that would be a global asset under American control potentially plunge the world into chaos or extinction in the wrong hands?



Yes. If China, for instance, were to seize LEO and hold it, it would not be for global empire?the Chinese concept of the ?Middle Kingdom? does not desire such power?but for guaranteed sovereignty (for itself) and recognition as the world?s preeminent military, technical, and cultural power. This is why China is in fact working to gain space force protection. With just a few space-to-earth weapons it could become an unfettered regional hegemon, seizing Taiwan and demanding deference from all its neighbors. The US would have to back down from regional engagements that China disapproved, and the tension for a return to isolation would become palpable. Similar would be expected.



America is not perfect, but with its introspection and sound democratic values and institutions, it is perhaps perfectible. The question you must pose is this: If a state can gain global dominance, by seizing and holding LEO, if not the US who should do so? Who would do so? The US is already the hegemon; seizing LEO would do nothing to change the status quo, though it would extend it for some time in my analysis. But this has been at least tolerable to the vast majority of the world and its people, if not desirable. We are not talking about getting rid of the US as the world?s cop and leaving no state in its stead, we are talking about replacing the US in this role. Who would be better for the world?



I realize that you may not believe any foreign power will develop the capabilities to create such a system. But for the purposes of debate, there are some individuals who do, so I'd ask you to indulge me. What would the adverse impacts of another power invalidating American nuclear threats be?



As I said, LEO dominance would not guarantee US nuclear castration?at least not yet. And US LEO dominance would not invalidate the Russian, French, or British current nuclear options, though the Chinese would no doubt have to increase its current arsenal from 40 or so weapons, and India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel would be likely to increase the variety and survivability of their weapons in response.



What other capabilities (such as the potential to destroy our entire Navy) would be destabilizing?



Only if our own navy, which is globally dominant and faces no peer competitor for the foreseeable future, fails to realize that the day the first space-to-earth is deployed, the traditional surface fleet is obsolete, and fails to make changes now. The deep-sea submarine fleet will retain its dominance under the sea, and due to the expense of space weapons, naval air will still be dominant on the oceans?though these should be based on land rather than carriers?for the time being. The Coast Guard will have the bulk of importance in this new structure, as the traditional military means of infiltration will be phased out (as space defense makes limited nuclear or air attacks unviable), and smuggling weapons of mass destruction into enemy territory becomes the preferred delivery means. A surface navy of fast destroyers will be needed for deep ocean and deployed boarding and inspection for these same threats?so I am not advocating the end of the navy, far from it. The bulk of the world?s interstate commerce and the US?s military supply and deployment must still be shipped by sea. I am just saying that major surface combatants, sea-based convoy escort, and carrier battle groups will have seen the end of their eras. Since the US has dominated the world?s oceans since 1943, and American air power has had similar global dominance for at least fifteen years, should the US dominate LEO, one should expect little or no destabilization. Should another state take LEO, the rest of the world might join in a scramble for regional sea and air hegemony. Thus, if you really want an arms race, and not just in space, let China or Russia (or whomever) take LEO.



Even if you believe they would not launch a preemptive attack, could they perhaps be emboldened into military expansionism that would potentially escalate with devastating consequences?



These arguments were pretty well demolished in the Cold War.



You write in your attached Op-Ed that our military would "would hunker down in defensive crouch while it prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign deployments." What do you believe the terminal impacts of this neo-isolationism would be? Many have said it could spawn genocides, world conflict, and even nuclear wars. Do you agree?



Yes, to an extent. The US seems to get blamed for every thing it does ? and everything it does not do. And to a certain extent, rightly so. But the US does attempt to limit suffering around the world, to remove evil dictators where it has a reasonable hope of success, and to starve illegitimate regimes like the Soviet Union into extinction. It hasn?t got a perfect record, but I cannot imagine another state being so consciously helpful, even when the help is not appreciated.



Also, how would you respond to critics like Theresa Hitchens who claim that space weaponization will be ineffective because our systems will be like "sitting ducks" for anyone with a ground based laser to pick off?



Theresa and I get along quite well, despite our myriad differences. On this one she is just dead wrong. In order for a ground laser to hit a satellite moving at relative velocity 17,000 mph, it would have to be extremely powerful and large (to break through the atmospheric distortion ? this is not as big a problem going the other direction, space-to-earth, by the way) and thus its construction



Notice that Theresa and her crowd like to have their cake and eat it too. They will say that it is really easy to shoot down a satellite; anyone could do it ? except the US! We could not possibly take down an ICBM traveling at much slower relative velocities. First of all, the only reason that other states know where satellites are is because we (the US) publish the data free (from Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs). Only the US has the capacity (today) to track and monitor all satellites in orbit. A small orbital maneuver would render the satellite effectively invisible (try finding a satellite with a telescope if you have no idea where to look!). Even if the shooter got lucky, and found the satellite (or it did not maneuver), it would be very difficult to engage that satellite with optical targeting sensors unless it was nearly directly overhead. Again, this is due to the distortion caused by the atmosphere. The most powerful telescopes located on the highest mountains can only get a clear enough view of a satellite to identify it (much less hit it with a tight beam laser) for a few seconds, and then only if it is directly overhead. [P.S. it is a distortion caused by going from a heavier density medium to a lighter density one. Have you ever wondered why satellite photos of the earth are so clear, yet photos of satellites from the earth or just nebulous blobs? Think about looking at someone swimming in a pool. They are quite clear as you are standing in the atmosphere, but try looking at a person standing on the side of a pool from under water. This is why satellites in space would have an easier time targeting with effective energy on the earth yet it requires much more powerful lasers with a longer dwell time to do it from the earth to space] So, knowing within a few kilometers where a satellite is supposed to be is not the same as shooting a sitting duck.



It is also much more expensive and difficult to do than Hitchens will admit. The Soviet Union, at the height of its space prowess and with hundreds of billions of dollars (equivalent) invested, attempted to engage and destroy a satellite 20 times (there own, in tests of the concept). They were successful 10 times, or just fifty percent (by the way, the US went two for two in its own tests).



Still, my ultimate solution to the ground based directed energy attack is simple. If a state builds such a laser (like the US MIRACL in New Mexico or the old Soviet laser in Kazakhistan in the 1980s, which ar eeasily detected from outer space reconnaissance), then it is obvious the state is preparing to use it to attack space (it would have no other purpose). The state has a right to defend itself, of course, but so do we. So, similar to the Israeli destruction of the almost completed Iraqi nuclear plant in 1980, the US must be willing to destroy a ground based laser (from space would be the best way) before it comes on line. Of course, this would be an act of war should the state decide to take it as such (Slobodan Milosovic never declared war on the US as we were bombing Belgrade, so it is only an act of war if the other side wants it to be). It would also be consistent with our stated goal of guaranteeing space for peaceful uses but no opposing weapons in the declaration that uninspected space launches would be shot down. Again, I do not think the US has the will to act in such a manner should China or Russia spend the billions necessary to build such a weapon ? but if it did, the opposing state would be unlikely to see a similar investment go down the drain by trying it again. And for those who claim boost phase intercept is too hard (and thus states are likely to get weapons into space anyway), target the launch pad just before launch. Easy to do, hard to have the political hutzpah to order it done.



Another of the anti-weapons crowd?s paradoxes always gets me: we are told that space weapons are too expensive and won?t work, thus the anti-weapons crowd is patriotically trying to save the US military from making billions of wasteful investments that would be better spent elsewhere and ultimately will hasten the US?s ultimate decline. On the other hand, if the US does go forward with a space weapons program, all the other nations of the world will rush headlong into an arms race to prevent the US from doing so or forever be under its imperial thumb. Well, which one is it?space weapons production will weaken the US or strengthen to the point of global empire?



Furthermore, would the development of space weapons allow us to protect our satellites?



Space weapons alone won?t. But shooting a satellite in a space-to-space engagement is a much easier thing than earth-to-space, all sides of the issue agree. Thus it can help, and would be extremely helpful in a limited attack (or as I mentioned earlier, to take out a ground-based weapon deep within protected territory). But satellites should also be hardened where effective, and the US should move its military satellite capabilities from a few large, expensive, and fragile satellites to networks of small microsatellites with redundant capabilities. This would do more to bring down the cost of space operations and guarantee space support regardless of future weapons program?s fates.



Here?s a thought. Many on the Hitchens side of the aisle lament the US getting ASAT capability and thus threatening Russia?s fragile ability to detect nuclear ICBM attacks from the US (you will hear this a lot). Isn?t transparency the most valuable space asset? Yes, it is, and I agree. So important that should the US attack the Russian nuclear detection satellites (in Molniya orbit), the Russians would have to believe it was a preemptive blinding precedent to a nuclear attack, and may consider a massive strike against the US in response. Therefore, the US has a stated national policy not to interfere with these satellites in times of peace. Yikes. If I hated the US enough, I would develop an ASAT capability and attack not the US satellites, but the Russian ones. If they were blinded, the Russians might do the dirty work for me and launch a massive nuclear attack against America. If the US had ASAT capability, however, it may be able to protect the Russian satellites from attack, thus enhancing its own security in a way that is rarely thought of, and again a boon to the world?s security.



I'm particularly worried about China's ability to destroy our space assets. I could see them destroying our military and communications satellites, and in doing so, emboldening themselves into making a power play to snatch up Taiwan or perhaps even to expand into Russia or the Middle East. Blind, deaf, and dumb, America would have little hope of responding conventionally. I could see this as a scenario where we are pushed to the brink of nuclear war, and at the very least, a great power confrontation. What do you think of this?



Right on, see above. The Chinese see space weapons as one of the few realistic scenarios that would ensure repatriation of Taiwan.



As part of my proposal for a Space Force, I believe I will transfer Non-NASA space labs into the DOD. Do you believe that would constitute an immediate increase in the size of the armed forces?



Actually, cooperation between NASA and the military in tech research is not as separate as most people think. I don?t know that you would have to transfer the labs, though I would lean toward doing so.



As far as increasing the size of the armed forces, I don?t know if this would be an increase so much as a redistribution, a thought that occurred to me after I sent the last note. More people may desire to sign up for the space force, but this may be at the expense of recruiting in the other services.



I've already asked you a great deal of questions which you graciously answered in depth, so please don't feel compelled to spend any time that you don't have, as you are undoubtedly busy. Thank you so much for your assistance and encouragement. I'm very eager to read your response.



I am quite impressed with your depth of knowledge and writing skills, so I have responded quite happily and at a high-level of discourse. I trust we will have more of these dialogues in the future, and I suspect you will be teaching me some things very soon. Contact me any time.



Cheers, Ev








Clinton,



It is good to hear from you, and I trust you will do very well in your debate. I am not sure Astropolitik will give you a great deal of insight in a separate Space Force (SF), but it is nice to read of such interest from a (Model UN?) student. Perhaps you should get a copy through inter-library loan before shelling out the bucks for an e-copy.



While a separate space force is probably inevitable in the long term, the short term prospects are in doubt. Understandably, the Air Force officers I have met are split on the issue. The arguments for SF include the negative complaint of traditional airpower advocates that space is sucking away too much money and capability from the “real” Air Force. Moreover, the Air Force is paying for capabilities that all the services use—arguably the Army is the biggest beneficiary of space support—yet the Army, Navy, and Marines contribute very little of their DoD budgets to space. Even GPS is an Air Force system, paid for out of the AF budget, and the whole world uses it for free! So dependent has the world become on GPS that the AF is no longer able to reduce capabilities (much less turn the system off) in crisis.



Of course, a good debater needs to know the most damaging counterarguments so that a proper rebuttal is readily available when your opponent makes them. Those who oppose a separate space force cite the trend toward “joint” operations as standing in the way. A separate force would create a new, overlapping military bureaucracy and would cause less cooperation than is currently the case. This argument sounds reasonable, so be careful. While a separate force could be more costly than is the case now, it does not have to be so. Efficiencies in military training and education, expertise, base consolidation, and the like, would more than make up for the new bureaucracy. Indeed, most of the necessary bureaucracy already exists as Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs—a transfer to a Space Force would be a mere paper exercise. The issue of integration into all-force or joint operations is also misplaced. Today, space support is seen as an Air Force mission, and the traditional and historical prejudices of supporting Army, Navy, Marine, and Special Forces (sometimes called the nation’s de facto fifth service because of the relative autonomy of Special Operations Command in Tampa) are attendant. A new Space Force, unburdened by standing service rivalries, could (and I think would) be seen as a move in the right direction toward accelerating cooperative operational planning and execution.



Do you believe that the creation of a Space Force would further American Space dominance? Yes, I do. Nonetheless, I am concerned that a new SF could come too soon. One of the arguments against a separate space force now is that current US space capability does not include independent operations. Until there are weapons in or from space, and here you need to look at the precedence of waiting to create an Air Force (out of the old Army Air Corps in 1946) as the precedent setting process. The Air Force was formed fully mature, with a requirement for at least an equal percentage of the DoD budget (relative to other services) immediately. If, however, one example does not make a trend (and it doesn’t, except in law), then perhaps the model for SF expansion is the one of Special Operations Command (SOC, mentioned above) is the pertinent example. A gradual exodus of capabilities and funding to AF Space until it is the de facto, if not de jure, sixth service. Possibly this is what General Lord, the just retired Commander of AF Space has been doing over the last half decade—establishing a space service culture among specialists, consolidating missions, and asserting independent control of several systems—creating a mature space capability that can survive the transition to independent military force.



Would it send the kind of signal that would deter any potential peer competitors from entering a space arms race with us? I think it would help, but only if the US committed to a space dominance strategy and began testing space weapons capabilities (at the least). Just establishing a separate space force would be provocative without any backing. In a twisting of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote, a SF without weapons would be: “Walking loudly and carrying no stick.” I am attaching a recent commentary I wrote for Space News, the foremost weekly on space issues, to show the necessity of space dominance.



What potential conflicts do you think could develop from a failure to develop space dominance and to project American power? Could they escalate towards the use of nuclear or biological weapons? Clearly one of—of not the—initial missions of a SF would be space-based missile defense. It is also possible that a space weapon could neutralize enemy nuclear capabilities (including production, storage) before capabilities exist, without causing war (here is where my book may be useful to you).



Today, the probability of a nuclear attack does not come from Russia or China. These are deterred by our existing nuclear retaliatory capability. The most likely sources of nuclear attack today are undeterrable: an accidental launch, a rogue state or “mad boat captain” scenario (see Tom Clancy’s Hunt for Red October), and terrorist launch of a nuclear missile or placement of a nuclear bomb on a conventional vehicle (ship or truck). Since these very limited strikes could come from anywhere in the world, only a space-based defense could potentially protect all of America. More realistic is the possibility that third party states may initiate a nuclear war that could suck in the major power. What if India were to launch against Pakistan, or Iran against Israel? Only a space-based system could stop such a limited strike that could come without warning. In this way, the whole world (not just America) would be protected by the common good of an American space-based defense system Such a policy of defending any aggressive attack across national borders could include ships at sea and bomber aircraft, once the space weapons capability is developed. So persuasive is the capability (to me), that I suggest space weapons could be effective in preventing terrorist mass-destruction attacks. The capability to engage a target anywhere on the ground in minutes, perhaps seconds, could even be used against low-tech attempts to infiltrate sovereign states with dirty bombs or biological/chemical weapons. It would not be a guarantee, but it is the only possibility that the US could respond quickly enough to an attack anywhere on the world once the intent or target is determined. The first plane that hit the World Trade Center would not have been stopped. No one could imagine such a ruthless method. But the second plane, and the one that hit the Pentagon, might have been. Certainly our own airpower assets were not able to engage these two aircraft once their intentions were known.



And finally, would creating a Space Force substantially increase the number of persons serving in the Armed Forces as the High School Topic mandates? I don’t know, but I think it could. In the 1960s, every engineer wanted to work for NASA, even though they could make much more money in private industry, because NASA was where it was at in space! Today, the private companies and the military do more in space, and NASA cannot fill all of its technical positions with qualified people. If the US were to invigorate it military organization with an SF, it might encourage a generation of technology and space minded high-schoolers to enlist. I ended up enlisting in the Army when I couldn’t find a job after I graduated from college (it was 1981 and we were in the depths of recession). But I may very well have gone into the space force, had it existed, before I went to college … and would have ended up with a lot less debt!



I hope this helps. Most of the above are ad hoc thoughts, but I appreciate your interest and hope you maintain it well into the future. This nation needs young thinkers with vision to move it fully into the new century. Best of luck, and contact me any time.



Cheers, Ev





Dr. Everett Carl Dolman

Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies

School of Advanced Air and Space Studies

600 Chennault Circle

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6424