The American military has begun planning for combat in space, an Air Force report reveals. And commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites -- are all on the potential target list.
"Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1: Counterspace Operations" is an apparent first cut at detailing how U.S. forces might take out an enemy's space capabilities -- and protect America's eyes and ears in orbit. Signed by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, the unclassified report sketches out who would be in command during a space fight, what American weapons would be used and which targets might be attacked.
In that way, the report is similar to hundreds of others in the Pentagon's archives. But buried in the report's acronyms and org charts are two striking sentiments, analysts say. First, the document declares that the U.S. Air Force is duty-bound to slap down other countries' space efforts, should the need arise. Then, Counterspace Operations (.pdf) declares that a satellite or ground-control station doesn't have to belong to one of America's enemies in order to get hit.
"You could be inflicting large costs on a company or country that has no role in a war. And that introduces great possibilities for backlash and political fallout," warned Theresea Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information. "You could wind up damaging the capabilities of our allies -- or even ourselves."
But the Air Force may not have much of a choice, really. Nearly all the world's militaries -- including America's -- rely on private companies' satellites for relaying messages, taking pictures or guiding bombs. During the Iraq invasion, for example, commercial orbiters carried 80 percent of U.S. forces' satellite communications.
In the opening pages of Counterspace Operations, the Air Force announces that it has a new job: to maintain America's "space superiority" -- the "freedom to attack as well as the freedom from attack" in orbit. This emerging mission has become just as important to American forces as control of the skies, the report states. And together, the two form "crucial first steps in any military operation."
Keeping this "space superiority" is really three jobs in one, the Air Force argues. The service needs to know what's happening in space, from solar flares to hostile satellites to orbiting debris. It has to defend against attacks on its space-related systems; last year, Iraqis tried to jam the Global Positioning System, and the Air Force expects similar moves in the years to come. Finally, the Air Force has to be ready to break down opponents' ability to use space at any time.
These opponents aren't just the few countries sophisticated enough to be called "space-faring," the document makes clear. Smaller states now routinely rely on larger countries' satellites to take pictures and route calls from above. Even low-tech terrorist cells have used satellite phones to make calls. So the Air Force sees nearly every nation, and every insurgent group, as a potential adversary in space.
The Air Force states this matter-of-factly in Counterspace Operations, as if the notions were anything but controversial. In truth, they represent a kind of power grab for the service, argues Jim Lewis, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The Air Force is advancing a pawn in the game," he said. "They have a goal that they've wanted to do for a long time -- they want to do warfare in space. This is a way to put it out there, and see if anybody slaps it down."
Counterspace Operations, released quietly in August, builds on previous Air Force reports on space combat. Earlier this year, the service released a "Transformation Flight Plan," discussing plans for outlandish, orbiting weapons, including giant metal rods that would be sent crashing earthward from above the skies. But the Flight Plan only examined "what weapon systems are planned, and what weapon systems they'd like to have to undertake space-war missions," Hitchens explained. "Doctrine papers (like Counterspace Operations) spell out what the mission is, and how you go about accomplishing it. This is in some ways more important than the Flight Plan, because the latter is very much a 'wish list.' This paper is an official statement of what the Air Force actually intends to do."
What the report makes clear is that the Air Force intends to put a halt to all sorts of commercial or neutral satellite operations, if they're seen as aiding an adversary. Counterspace Operation's potential targets include satellites that may "service the communications requirements of many users, including some who may be adversarial, others who may be friendly or neutral." Launching pads "supporting adversarial interests (that) may be in third-party countries" are also fair game. Even the takedown of weather satellites is allowed; the report discusses "planning operations against an adversary's space-based weather capabilities."
Such attacks may be legal under the rules of war. The Hague Convention of 1907 says that combatants "are forbidden to use neutral ports ... to erect wireless telegraphy stations or any apparatus for the purpose of communicating with the belligerent forces." These rules would likely extend to space.
However, the consequences of these assaults -- potentially leaving millions without access to weather forecasts, satellite-assisted navigation and emergency communications -- could be politically catastrophic, Hitchens observed.
The Air Force readily acknowledged the potential bear traps hidden in attacks against neutral satellites. That's why the service would rather temporarily jam an enemy's access to space than destroy it.
"We're concentrating on effects that are reversible," said Lt. Col. Andy Roake, with Air Force Space Command. "You blow up an aircraft or an airfield, these are things that can be repaired or replaced." That's not as true for a space system, Roake noted.
"Plus," he added, "if you blow something up in space, you create lots and lots of bitty pieces that threaten your own assets."
Nevertheless, the Air Force would like to pursue weapons that could be used to destroy a satellite -- if Congress will let it. Next year's proposed budget for Counterspace Systems was slashed by nearly two-thirds, to $28.4 million, according to a report (.pdf) from University of Maryland researcher Jeffrey Lewis.
