海角大神

鈥淚 have to say,鈥� said President Trump in an April video call with astronauts aboard the International Space Station that was broadcast to schoolchildren nationwide, 鈥渢here鈥檚 tremendous military application in space.鈥�

The United States has long worked on that assumption, to the extent that much of its military prowess now depends upon a vast network of satellites orbiting the planet.

Other nations have come to understand that dependence 鈥� both Russia and China have reportedly tested anti-satellite missiles in recent years 鈥� which in turn has led to a growing clamor from politicians and influential thinkers聽for the US to improve its satellite warfare capabilities.

Most recently, the rapid development of North Korea鈥檚 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program has boosted calls for all kinds of missile defenses 鈥� including those based in outer space.

Yet there is another side to the debate, with some calling for the strengthening of international agreements that would constrain all countries from escalating the militarization of space.

鈥淭echnology is developing rapidly,鈥� says聽Laura Grego, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists鈥� Global Security Program. 鈥淭here are lots of changes happening. Many more actors are in space and many more people are interested in space. There are trends that might be stabilizing or might be destabilizing depending on how we create rules about how we use them.鈥�

Ratified 50 years ago,聽the Outer Space Treaty聽binds its signatories to use聽鈥漜elestial bodies鈥� 鈥� the moon, asteroids, and planets, but not artificial satellites聽鈥� for 鈥減eaceful purposes鈥� and prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

But it does not enact a blanket prohibition on all space weapons, and it does not include rules for distances between satellites or for the appropriate use of military satellites. Nor does it specify protocols for how space-faring nations can interact with one another. This lack of clarity, say some observers, could聽leave the door open for聽increased militarization.

US聽still聽seen聽as dominant

鈥淭here are members of the current Congress quite hawkish on space and who see it as the next battleground, and if the Outer Space Treaty could prevent that, I think it would be a very good thing,鈥� says Philip Coyle, a science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and聽Non-Proliferation聽in Washington. 鈥淏ut this competes with people who want to do more, not less, in space, and industries that feel the same, that have systems they think would be useful in space.鈥�

In 2016, Russia reportedly tested its first anti-satellite missile, and the country has long focused its energies on developing its space forces, with 150,000 troops in the Russian Aerospace Forces, compared聽with聽38,000 troops in the US Air Force Command. China, too, has been steadily advancing its military capabilities in space, successfully testing an anti-satellite missile in 2007 and recently completing its own version of GPS.

Most analysts agree that the US still dominates with its array of capabilities in outer space. Back in 2008, it used a surface-launched missile to take out one of its own satellites that had malfunctioned.

According to聽Brian Weeden, director of program planning at the Colorado-based Secure World Foundation, missiles of the type used in 2008 can reach an altitude of about 300 kilometers, or about 185 miles; but there are others, based in Alaska and California, capable of striking targets as high as 1,000 km 鈥� bringing the majority of satellites within range.

鈥淣one of this is any good if you don鈥檛 know where things are in space,鈥� says Dr. Weeden, whose research areas include global space situational awareness and protection of space assets. Here again, the United States excels.聽Its聽Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program聽satellites, for example,聽sit聽36,000 km above the planet鈥檚 surface and peer down toward the Earth, tracking other satellites that orbit far closer to home.

Then聽there鈥檚聽the Air Force鈥檚 X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, whose mission statement talks of developing 鈥渞eusable spacecraft technologies,鈥� but which, according to some observers, likely has additional, more classified, purposes. The latest iteration 鈥� OTV-4 鈥� just touched down again in May, after 718 days in orbit.

Separate Space Corps?

Despite these assets, pressure has been mounting in the US to take space even more seriously as a new frontier in any large-scale conflict. Only last month, a bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives ushered through a bill that would require the Pentagon to聽create a separate Space Corps聽within the Air Force 鈥� much as the Marine Corps is to the Navy. More recently, in the wake of North Korea鈥檚 rapid advancement in ICBM capabilities, dozens of Senate members are supporting a proposal to blanket outer space with a system of sensors to detect and track missile launches; Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas takes it further, having voiced his support for聽space-based missile interceptors.

Indeed, the Department of Defense is already undertaking 鈥渁 comprehensive ballistic missile defense review,鈥� says Heather Babb, a department spokeswoman, 鈥渨hich will include looking at number and placement of interceptor options.鈥�

For some 鈥� including Dr. Coyle of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation 鈥� space-based sensors could be a reasonable proposition. Escalating to space-based interceptors raises a host of uncomfortable questions, however.

鈥淚f we ever have ICBMs actually flying in space and space-based interceptors trying to shoot them down, there could be collateral damage to space-based assets that had nothing to do with that particular engagement,鈥� says Coyle, who was formerly associate director for national security and international affairs in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Moreover, he adds, 鈥淲ould they be just [defensive], or would they be anti-satellite weapons, too?鈥�

In an October 2016 op-ed for Space News, a trade publication for the global space industry, Trump policy advisers Robert Walker and Peter Navarro called for the United States聽to step up its military-focused space initiatives. 鈥淭he future military necessity of using smaller force projection into hostile聽arenas聽will demand the speed and agility that only space-based assets can supply,鈥� they wrote, adding that 鈥渂oth China and Russia are aggressively moving forward with a range of hypersonic weapons that are very difficult to defend against with traditional air-defense interceptors.鈥�

In聽a Nov. 21, 2016 article in the Washington newspaper Roll Call, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) of New Jersey, now chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said he supported聽platforms for disabling another country鈥檚 satellites.聽

Rep. Trent Franks (R) of Arizona, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Roll Call that 鈥渨e find ourselves in a grave deficit鈥� against other countries. 鈥淚n every area of warfare, within the Geneva Conventions, America should be second to none. That includes satellite聽warfare,聽if it鈥檚 necessary. We cannot be victims of our own decency here.鈥�

Norms of conduct

But not all observers say the US should pursue another arms race; some argue that an element of diplomacy is needed. Indeed, Russia and China聽proposed a treaty聽in 2014 that would ban 鈥渁ny weapons in outer space,鈥� but the terms were rejected by the United States as 鈥渇undamentally flawed,鈥� in the words of Ambassador Robert Wood, the US representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Yet if a new treaty is too much of a stretch, there may be another way 鈥� something less than a formal treaty, more like 鈥渘orms of conduct, or rules of the road,鈥� as Coyle puts it.

鈥淚t is within those parameters I see the best opportunity for keeping the space environment usable for all countries and companies,鈥� says Joan Johnson-Freese, professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

The United Nations, for one, has endeavored to construct such a framework ever since the inception of its Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 1959. The work of that body included the Outer Space Treaty, but over the past few years, says Dr. Johnson-Freese, it has also made strides toward bolstering such treaties with 鈥� 鈥榖est practices,鈥� voluntary guidelines for space activity.鈥�

Such聽agreements,聽say聽observers, would serve the interests of every nation that聽aspires聽to participate in space activities. The debris from a satellite destroyed by a missile test, for example, can add hundreds of thousands of fragments to the cloud聽already encircling our planet, projectiles that threaten spacecraft and astronauts irrespective of their nationality.

鈥淚 think that there would be benefits to all聽spacefaring聽countries to agreed limits on behaviors and technologies,鈥� says Dr. Grego. 鈥淭here鈥檚 fertile ground where I think countries would find shared interests, and I think it鈥檚 way overdue that we talk about it in a serious way.鈥�