The folks over at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments released a new report late last week on the U.S. efforts to develop space-based weaponry.
The long and the short of it is that Steve Kosiak, their principle budget analyst and author of the report, believes at this point space-based missile defense and space-based anti-satellite systems are too expensive for their relative effectiveness.
A constellation of space-based weapons designed to defend the United States against an attack with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) would be extremely costly to acquire and support. Moreover, at least based on the technology likely to be available over the next twenty years, such a system would probably not prove to be a cost-effective investment, especially when measured against the cost to a potential adversary of defeating such a system.
Second, while space-based weapons intended to strike terrestrial-based targets could, in some cases, cost substantially less to acquire and support than space-based ballistic missile defense systems, such weapons would likely prove more costlyand, in some instances, far more costlythan comparably effective terrestrial-based alternatives.
Third, while space-based ASAT weapons would also generally be less costly to acquire and support than space-based ballistic missile defense systems, there does not appear to be a compelling need, on either cost or effectiveness grounds, to acquire a dedicated space-based ASAT capabilityin part, because the US military already possesses or is acquiring a range of terrestrial-based weapons with significant inherent ASAT capabilities.
Fourth, space-based defensive (bodyguard) satellites would, to a great extent, be indistinguishable from space-based ASAT weapons. Thus, such systems would likely have similar costs. In addition, their deployment would presumably have similar implications for sparking or accelerating an arms race in space. These weapons would also be incapable of protecting against some of the ASAT threats most likely to emerge in coming years. A more effective and cost-effective approach might be to rely on a range of passive countermeasures. Strengthening US space surveillance and tracking capabilities could also offer an important means of improving the security of US satellites.
Fifth, although space-based weapons designed to strike terrestrial-based targets, conduct ASAT attacks, or intercept enemy ASAT weapons appear to be neither necessary, nor, generally, as cost effective as terrestrial-based alternatives, in a few instancesunlike space-based ballistic missile defense systemsthey appear to be relatively affordable and may even represent cost-effective options. In these cases, non-budgetary considerations, such the perceived strategic importance of the capability and the potential arms race implications of moving ahead with such a system, will have to play the dominant role in shaping programmatic and policy choices.
What he does advocate is some mix of decoy satellites, high-altitude drones that mimic satellite capabilities and the rejiggering of ground-based ICBM interceptors to an ASAT role.
Ultimately … the most cost-effective means of protecting US satellite capabilities may be to rely on a range of passive countermeasures, such as decoys, and terrestrial-based alternatives, such unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). … Strengthening US space surveillance and tracking capabilities offers an important means of improving the security of US satellites.
I tend to believe that space weapons will be increasingly important given the U.S. reliance on satellites for everything from navigation to communications. But I like the idea that the U.S. can exploit vulnerabilities in anti-satellite weaponry and weaknesses without breaking the bank, countering one countrys propaganda win with a quiet so what?
– Christian
Well,
That
We’ve been hearing this from the Left in government circles ever since Ronald Reagan proposed SDI over 20 years ago. It was ridiculed as a Rube Goldberg, impossible, unnecessary, a provocation, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
For me at least, it is a no-brainer to do all we can to develop defenses against Ballistic Missiles, whether it is lasers on planes or satellites, ground-based interceptors, or whatever. It is “MAD” to put ourselves at the mercy of nutcases like Kim Jong-il simply because the Left in America wants to emasculate the United States for the sake of their One-World agenda. So I am skeptical of these assertions that we shouldn’t develop BMD because they are too expensive. There probably hasn’t been a single major weapon system in the history of the US that wasn’t at first thought of as too expensive or ineffective. I remember the same complaints being lodged against the M1 tank and the B1 Bomber back in the 80’s by the likes of Ted Kennedy and his sidekick from Taxechusetts. But I don’t believe anyone would say that we shouldn’t have the M1 or the B1 today, because they have certainly proven themselves.
One of the arguments for not pursuing ASAT technology is that the US would be particularly vulnerable to an arms race because of its dependence on space-based assets. I can understand the logic of not wanting to encourage the development of these systems by potential opponents, but what I don’t understand is how anybody believes that an opponent intent on harming the US wouldn’t target such a vulnerability. The term “a space Pearl Harbor” sounds alarmist and tends to be dismissed as a result, but the danger is very real.
Too bad that BMDO didn’t go ahead with Brilliant Pebbles. It sounds like it was close to something deployable, and would’ve been an incredible capability compared to today’s mid-course system.
Please excuse my first comment.
It was posted in response to a cryptic poem put up by someone who seemed of Chinese origin. It seems to have been pulled, which is a shame, since I think It added “flavor” to the article.
I am sure many people all over the world come and take a look to see what we are up to.
Our openness is our greatest strength and our perceived greatest weakness by people who do not understand us.
As for the article, anything we really work on is going to be in the “black” side, so I do not see what this article is bringing to the table.
Obviously a weapons race in space would be a bad thing.
But seeing how we have the most too loose, and them the most to gain, does anyone here think they are going to stop?
If they had to answer to voters about the Taiwan issue, it would have been settled already.
But they do not and they want it bad.
WADR, some of you need to re-read the article. For example:
”…the US military already possesses or is acquiring a range of terrestrial-based weapons with significant inherent ASAT capabilities…“
Read between the lines; you’ll figure it out. You’re not Chicken Little, and the sky isn’t falling.
Are you going to risk lives just for cost? Did you know you can’t buy lives with money, Christian?
looks like its time for an updated spam filter…
…or maybe someone in China is trying to point out that they don’t have to blow up satellites if they can jam teh Internets.
Thanks so much