U.S. Withdrawal from ABM Treaty and Military Use of Space

　　　　 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　      

by Yasuo OHKUSHI

Member of Research Committee, DRC

 

Introduction

United States President Bush unilaterally told the Russian President Putin secession from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty last December, and the ABM treaty lost the effect on June 13, 2002. The ABM treaty was concluded by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union based on the nuclear deterrence theory in the Cold War era. The U.S. recognizes that there is an urgent need to construct the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system to counter the threat of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile in recent years. However, the outdated ABM treaty for only two major military powers became a high barrier, so the United States proposed the ABM treaty abandonment. Though the main reason of withdrawal from the ABM treaty is to construct the BMD system against the ballistic missiles from dangerous nations, this is a great one step forward to the military power disposition to space and the military campaign from and in space.

 

1. ABM Treaty Abandonment and Missile Defense

 

(1) ABM Treaty

The ABM treaty was concluded in 1972 between only two countries, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, based on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategy, so that each other's nuclear preemptive strike would be deterred for fear of the   retaliatory strike by each other. Deployment of ABM system was severely restricted for both side, such as the capital area and one ICBM site, that the missile defense capability of both countries would be restrained at a fairly weak level for retaliatory nuclear attack. The deployment of mobile defense systems on the ground, the sea, and in the air was prohibited, and also the defense system in space.

The danger of confrontation of large-scale nuclear war has become remote by the end of the Cold War. Though the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks between the U.S. and Russia progressed greatly and the nuclear weapon reduction has steadily advanced, both countries still possess a large amount of nuclear weapon that can destroy other country many times over. Even if the U.S.-Russian relation is very much improved, as long as both countries possess a large amount of nuclear weapon, it can be said that the MAD strategic theory and the meaning of the ABM treaty would be still effective. 

Contrastingly, the United States is concerned about following impending problems. China is advancing the development of the nuclear and the missile war potential and already possesses and has deployed certain amount of ICBMs in spite of the U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament. North Korea, India and Iran are estimated to develop nuclear warhead ICBM in the near future. Further proliferation to Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan etc. are worried. Those countries disregard the international regime for nonproliferation of WMD and ballistic missile and are suspected of advancing their development and possession. Some of them are so called "rogue states" supporting terrorism. Now, the ABM treaty lost its significance of existence, because of the severe restriction only for the U.S. and Russia to deal with these ballistic missile threats. The U.S. suggests it is time to construct a new frame for the two countries.

(2) ABM Treaty Abandonment

The United States had been developing the ABM system since 1960's, which would intercept the Soviet ICBM. However, by the ABM treaty in 1972, these ABM systems were prohibited to be deployed to the CONUS except the areas surrounding the capital and one place in Alaska, and also deployment of mobile type aboard ship, aircraft, and armor vehicles. Furthermore, the development, test and deployment of a new ABM system were strictly limited.

However in 1983, President Reagan came announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to start development of new missile defense plan. It was an epoch-making idea aimed at the future advanced technology for deploying various sensors, lasers, and beam weapons to space. It was called "The Star Wars program" to intercept and destroy a ballistic missile in all stages from right after its launching until flying over space and reentry to the earth.  The SDI was assumed to be a program for research and concept study only, not for actual development and deployment. So that, the SDI was advanced with the interpretation that it does not violate the ABM treaty. However, the SDI program was terminated because of   historical background such as the collapse of Cold War, the decrease of major threats and the reduction of defense budget.

After the end of Cold War, the concern about the proliferation of WMD and ballistic missiles as a means of its transportation came true in the Gulf War in 1990, when the patriot SAMs were employed for emergency use to intercept the SCUD missile attack by Iraq. Originally, the ABM treaty was the one to restrict the development, test, and deployment of the ABM system, which was meant to intercept and destroy the ICBM nuclear warhead of the 5500km or more range. The ABM treaty was not to limit the development, test and deployment of the defense system against the Theater Ballistic Missile (TBM) in the middle and short distances. Therefore, the United States enacted the missile defense law in May 1993 and began the development of the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) as a more advanced system in full scale. Moreover, the mutual agreements concerning the development and deployment of TMD were obtained between U.S. and Russia in September 1997.

On the other hand, the development and deployment of China's making ICBM have advanced steadily, and North Korea also developed the "Taepo Dong" missile and conducted the launching experiment over the Japanese Islands. Furthermore, as North Korea appealed with challenging propaganda leaflet that the missile was aimed at the United States, the ICBM threat to the CONUS has become a real concern.  Therefore, the development of National Missile Defense (NMD) system to defend the CONUS from these ICBM was recognized urgent to be advanced.  To promote the NMD, the revision of ABM treaty or annulment was needed.  Though President Bush tenaciously persuaded President Putin about the abandonment of the ABM treaty and necessity of new missile defense construction, it became a unilateral notice of the ABM treaty abandonment without Russian agreement in December 2000.

(3) Ballistic Missile Defense

The main objective of the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty is to get rid of the MAD mutual destruction strategy that was a legacy of the Cold War era, and the U.S. and Russia should corporate to improve the missile defense capability rather than the attack capability, and to advance a further strategic arms reduction for the security of the world.  In May 2002 at the Moscow summit, the U.S. and Russia signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (The Moscow Treaty), which would reduce the strategic nuclear warhead of the two countries to 1,700−2,200, about 1/3 respectively by the end of 2012. At the same time, the U.S. and Russia issued joint declaration entitled “New Strategic Relationship” which declares clearly to pursue the possibility of cooperation in the missile defense field. Consequently, U.S.- Russia talks concerning the missile defense has been started and Russia gave tacit consent to the U.S. promotion of the missile defense program and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

The TMD and NMD systems have been distinguished for flight range and altitude difference to deal with TBM and ICBM.  In each stage of boost phase → midcourse phase → terminal phase, to detect, identify, track,  intercept, and destroy a ballistic missile, various sensors, telecommunications, BMC4I system and intercept weapons are required. But majority of technology research and development, functional equipment system, and operation system are fairly overlapped and indistinguishable for TMD and NMD.  Therefore, it is said that President Bush assumed it was possible to remove the division of TMD and NMD, and integrate them to Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) for more effective development. At the same time, he assumed the missile defense system is “International" by the deletion of word “National" from its name. It is impossible to defend the United States and allied countries from ballistic missiles from dangerous nations potentially in all parts of the world, until a global missile defense system is deployed by the allies’  understanding and cooperative support. It can be said that it is the result of pursuing the nuance of the missile defense for not only the United States but also for the world.

As the restriction of the ABM treaty was gone, the United States is now free to research, develop, test and deploy effective BMD system, large-scale experiment was activated and construction of new 6 ABM experiment sites were started in Alaska. Moreover, the U.S. positively requested allies’ cooperation and support, especially to NATO and Japan, for the support of joint development and technical co-operation, etc. But so far, U.S. allies have reacted warily and careful for various restrictions related to the technological difficulties, practical effectiveness, fiscal problems and U.S. prevention of technology drain to other country. Now, several cases of bilateral cooperation for substantial development  exist, including a short-range antimissile system known as the Arrow program with Israel, the Medium Extended Air Defense System with Germany and Italy, the Standard Missile �V program with Japan and an observation satellite program known as RAMOS with Russia.

(4) Use of Space and Missile Defense

Various sensors, radars, and interception weapon systems for the BMD will be deployed not only on the ground, on sea, in the air but also all possibilities of use of space. The space use so far has been limited to the detection of missile launch with IR sensor of an early-warning satellite, the tracking, the impact area and time forecast, and finally the transmission of warning information to the missile interception system. It is said that estimation accuracy is improved recently to several km and several seconds of the impact point and time, compared to several ten km and several minutes of the Gulf War days by the DSP satellites. It will be possible to have real-time warning and exact impact point estimation when the SBIRS satellites are employed in scheduled 2006.

In the future, the tracking accuracy will be much improved by the SBR (Satellite Based Radar) and layered interception and attack will be possible through all flight phases of ballistic missile： Boost phase → Midcourse phase → Terminal phase by the space deployment of ASAT (Anti Satellite: attack satellite) equipped with SBL (Satellite Based Laser; laser equipped with the satellite) beam weapon and the kinetic energy weapon. On the contrary, enemy ballistic missile side will take evasive actions including the orbit conversion, multi-warhead and evasion treatment to the missile defense. So that, it is noteworthy way to defeat enemy ballistic missile during their weakest boost and midcourse phases assuming that the evasive action will be sealed off by these interception from the space.

 

2. Space policy and Ramsfeld report

The United States promoted the review of space policy and space military strategy and the reform measures steadily and strongly, based on the report of “the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization” (The Space Commission Report) in January 2001. Recognizing that the Space capabilities are extremely important for national security and prosperity, the United States is going to assume a new leadership with strong will for creating new international regulations governing space.  Withdrawal from the ABM treaty for the BMD is just a sign of its extraordinary determination. Now, the United States is approaching serious   turning point for a space military strategy and looks like trying to set forth a new concept as a frontier.

(1) Recognition of Space

The United States dependence on space is extremely high and increasing every year. The space related capabilities are so vital not only for national security but for politics, diplomacy and economy that the review of U.S. space policy and the improvement are top priority. The space power of the United States and the allies would control the fate of world peace, safety and prosperity. However, the space assets are so fragile and vulnerable and exposed to danger of threat. By using words of "Space Pearl Harbor", the commission warned that they have not become aware yet its urgency though symptom were given. It will be too late to panic after a surprise attack. It is necessary to transform military capabilities for space to deter and defend against hostile act.

The historical human activities expanded from the land, to the sea, and into the sky, where competition, conflict and war occurred. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Neither the means both to deter and defend against hostile actions in and from space, nor domination in space has been secured yet. The Commission concluded that the adjustment of the organization, chain of command and policies should promptly be merged to meet the national security space needs.

(2) Criteria for Space Policies

The Commission pointed out following criteria for the future of the U. S. space policies, based on the above-mentioned recognition.

�@Provide for national-level guidance that establishes space activity as a fundamental national interest of the United States.

�ACreate a process to ensure that national-level policy guidance is carried out among and within the relevant agencies and departments.

�BEnsure the government’s ability to participate effectively in shaping the  domestic and international rules and policies that will govern space.

�CCreate conditions that to encourage the DOD (Department of Defense) to develop and deploy systems in space to deter attack on and , if deterrence should fail, to defend U.S. Interests on earth and in space.

�DCreate conditions that to encourage the Intelligence Community to develop  revolutionary methods for collecting intelligence from space.

�EProvide methods for resolving the inevitable issues between the defense and intelligence sectors on the priority, funding, and control of space programs.

�FAccount for the increasingly important role played by the commercial and civil space sectors in the nation’s domestic and global economic and national security affairs.

�GDevelop a military and civilian cadre of space professionals within DOD, the Intelligence Community and throughout government more generally.

�HProvide an organizational and management structure that permits official to be agile in addressing the opportunities, risk and threats that inevitably will arise.

�IEnsure that DOD and the Intelligence Community are full participants in preparing government positions for international negotiations that may affect U.S. space activities.

As stated above, it is understood that even the U.S. who keeps a far ahead position in the space development and utilization, it is not to lie in complacency. There are various problems that have been left until now, such as the lack of leadership, guideline and the cooperation within the government organizations. It is noteworthy that the Commission urged with sharp recognition and foresight for impending expansion of near future space age how to defend national interest against potential threat. What should the U.S. take action to keep domination and secure a leading position in space activities? The Commission stressed on that it is inevitable issues to correct the existing incomplete structure and establish new space policy of the U.S. for future immediately and promote it in coordination with military, civil and, intelligence space functions.

The recommendations of the Commission has carried considerable weight because Mr. Rumsfeld, chairman of the Commission, has become the Secretary of Defense, an important cabinet minister of Bush Administration. The proposal points were examined immediately, and have been embodied steadily and strongly. A year and half has passed since the Commission reported to the Congress. There are too many projects to enumerate such as; reviews of the doctrine, policies related to space, strengthening of the organization in the government, promotion of the research and development for space systems and equipments. I cannot help feeling the degree of zeal and power of the United States.

Moreover, to remedy the abuses that the decision of space policies and the construction of space systems have been conducted by unqualified people, the career development, education and training for space professionals are to be strengthened. It is said, "An excellent person with discernment, ability, and experience on space activities should discuss and implement space matter".

 

3. Space Threat and Future War

 

(1) Threat to Space System

The space systems are always exposed and extremely vulnerable against potential threats not only of satellite system itself but also all stages from the launch process to the circular orbit, together with the ground-based facilities and instruments. The political, economic and military value of space systems makes them attractive targets for   the enemy. The dangerous countries and the terrorist organizations already exist. The more increase of the world nations space activities, upgrade of advanced technology for space systems and growth of space industries proceed, the more unbalance between the advanced and late-started countries of the prosperity will expand and the competition and conflict will be more and more keen. As the space systems become more sophisticated, its vulnerability increases more and more. On the other hand, the potential threats increase their space power by using generalized space systems. An interruption or functional decrease of space systems will cause serious social confusion, and also greatly decrease operational capabilities and combat efficiency in military affairs. It is no exaggeration to say that consequence of future war will be influenced by the offense and defense space operation capabilities.

The potential enemy will disrupt or destroy our space systems by attacking the satellites in space, communications nodes on the ground and in space, or ground nodes that command the satellites before their invasion or simultaneously. The nature of threats is categorized to following 5D actions such as Disrupt (obstruction), Deception (cheat), Denial (unavailability), Degradation (function decrease) and Destroy (destruction). Our operational capabilities decrease drastically due to loss of various sensor functions, data links and satellite communication network. As a result, C4ISR function, missile early warning function and battlefield recognition abilities will be deteriorated. Moreover, due to loss or decrease of the GPS function, battlefield management and targeting ability will be so faint that the demonstrations of PGM (Precise Guided Munitions) attacks become difficult. Therefore, it makes the confusion of the land, sea and air combat power in the battlefield, and causes the delay of combat operation speed, the increase of battle damages, and makes difficult to accomplish the mission of the war.

(2) Schriever 2001

In January 2001, the U.S. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) conducted a joint level scale war game entitled “Schriever 2001”, assuming how much future military operations depend on space assets and should counter against space threats. The game scenario was assuming that one red country, which had large-scale conventional forces and strategic nuclear force, invaded with attacks to the space system in 2007 timeframe. Examining the importance on military utility of space systems in future combat aspect, it is said that the U.S. Space Command recognized the necessity to establish the doctrine, strategy, and concept of operations for space warfare at early stage and also was aware of the incompleteness of future U.S. space power which will be built up in accordance with present force program for space. These results and the lessons learned are immediately reflected to the QDR in 2001.   Continuously, it will be reflected to further consideration of national space policy and strategy, and construction of future space capabilities. War games are so important to examine future concept and force structure that the U.S. Space Command is preparing a war game of larger scale than “Schriever 2001” in 2004.

(2) Attack Mode of Threat

The following attack modes are considered as the threats to the space systems including ground-based instruments. 

a.D&D (Denial and Deception)

Counterspace D&D is a highly attractive technique to disrupt enemy sensors, reconnaissance and C3I systems. It is categorized as direct and indirect. Most countries employ indirect D&D during peacetime or before hostilities. However, for increasing availability of information, Direct D&D will be used by simplified method.

b. GSAS (Ground Station Attack/Sabotage)

GSAS is a physical attack/sabotage against the ground infrastructure facilities. Variety of potential targets will be in danger for variety of attack methods. Special Forces or Guerrilla-Commando will conduct destruction attack using conventional weapons just before hostilities.

c.   EA (Electronic Attack)

EA is the electronic countermeasures to the satellite system by jamming of communication equipment, links, or ground facilities. Though downlink jamming is possible with very low power and low cost, uplink jamming is extremely tough to achieve global effect. Regarding the increasing military use of commercial communication satellite, it is recognized defenseless and all satellite communications systems are susceptible. Though all satellite systems become potential targets, EA influence is only effective while EA system is operating, and not enduring.

GPS jammer made in Russia is in the open market. In spite of low power of 20 watts, it can deny access out to about 100NM, and disrupt military missions. However, it is not difficult to aware, detect, and suppress it because jammer’s transmit electric wave like a beacon.

  d.　ASAT (Anti Satellite)

ASAT is categorized into interceptor weapons and direct energy weapons. Variety of ammunitions and various methods are being researched and developed.  As interceptor weapons attacks, there is kinetic energy attack by hitting the enemy satellite directly to destroy, and micro-satellite or nano-satellite group attack by flying alongside the enemy satellite until commanded to disrupt, disable or destroy. As direct energy weapons attack, there is laser weapon attack by irradiating laser beam to the enemy satellite from ground, aircraft, or spaceship to destroy or deteriorate its function. Nuclear explosion in the space will destroy nearby satellites and shorten lifetime of satellites in the line of sight, by nuclear detonation.

It is indispensable for ASAT attack to have sophisticated technology to identify, track or intercept enemy satellites. Though countries, which can become a potential threat of ASAT attack are limited now, technology applicable to ASAT weapons has been proliferating. The strategic threshold of ASAT attack is fairly high, but it is necessary to keep alertness for ASAT attack just before or immediately after of the enemy invasion.

e. Cyber Threat

The military C4ISR systems are extremely dependent on space system including ground facilities. Cyber Threats would invade into the computer system or network of C4ISR system, using hackers to decrease enemy operation and   combat capabilities by means of deception, exploitation, and destruction. It is recognized as a threat with the highest probability from peacetime to wartime.

 

4. Details and Directions of Military Use of Space

 

(1) Details of Space Military Use

The development of space activities has progressed as a part of military technology, so that space and military affairs are originally in close relationship. The U.S. and the former Soviet Union had competed in space development, which put the national prestige as part of the achieving military purpose, and technological development in the Cold War. The space development　has progressed in close relation to military affairs such as rocket vehicles or nuclear transportation missile technology, the satellite communication systems or military telecommunication technology, and the earth observation-remote sensing satellites or reconnaissance satellite technology. 

In the state of recent war since the Gulf War, the space military use technology that is closely linked with the RMA (military technological revolution) technologies became an extremely important requisite for the aspect of the strategy and transformation of the military. Various sensors of reconnaissance and early warning satellites enable the high-quality military intelligence, and the GPS satellites contribute to accurate battlefield recognition, targeting and all weather PGM strike. The C4ISR network and data-links of the communications satellite enable to relay necessary information from sensor to shooter in real time. Those brought epoch-making revolution for accomplishment of military operations. Of course, it has synergy effect by integration with the weapon systems of AWACS, JSTRS or UAV in the air and other systems on the ground, and military use of space system became   indispensable for modernizing and strengthening the combat or war operation capabilities of Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Though the Gulf War is some time called as the first Space War in human race, it dose not deserve to be called so. Because there were no obstruction or attack to the space system either into space, or on the earth, and nothing of attack from space   too. The space system itself was under early developmental stage that existed on orbit around the earth, and the military use technology is not yet fully developed or experienced.  In fact, in only eight years between the Gulf War and the Kosovo War, the accuracy of missile warning and timing have been improved so rapidly from several minutes to several seconds for after-launch missile warning, and several 10km to several km for estimation of impact point. The space technology and application technology have drastically pushed ahead the accuracy, the speed, capacity, and range of activities.  By the release of military space technologies, the civil and commercial space systems have been developed and advanced remarkably in variation and application. On the other hand, the dependence of the military on the commercial space system is also common.  It can be said that present state of military use of space is still in early stage and has just started, seen from the future’s fully developed space technology.

(2)　Transitional Military Use of Space

Considering the intensity of military space use, and state of space activities, it can be divided into the following three stages. And now, the United States is posed for a large turning point to the third stage and moving to launch out the military deployment to space and military action in space.

In the first stage, the construction of space systems and space utilization activities are promoted under narrow sense of peaceful use of space. It preserves space sanctuary based on ideal concept that never allows bringing military affairs in space and securing a freedom of the space use. Among the least developed countries, there are a lot of countries that declare the same standpoint strategically in principle. The Diet resolution of Japan of the space peaceful use is the typical one in that case. Military forces mainly engage in the “Space Support” mission to launch of the rocket and operation support of the space system.

In the second stage, the nation develops and utilizes the military purpose space system for the “Force Enhancement” mission to increase the war accomplishment abilities and the combat capabilities of the Army, Navy and Air Forces on the earth. Yet, restraining from military deployment and activities in space, the nation conducts the “Space Control” mission to observe, identify and manage all artificial things in space, and then to secure the freedom of military space use.  At present, the world including the U.S. is staying at this concept of the second stage.

In the third stage, anticipating that the threats related to space become a reality, the concept of the “Force Application” mission will take place. This concept is an attempt of power projection into space as well as air, land and sea operations to deter or defend against potential threats attack in space. It has not been   internationally acknowledged yet, to enable power projection or military demonstration in space, from space, through space and to refuse the enemy freedom of space use at the same time. 

The United States recognizes firmly that the military activities in space are a historical fate of mankind that cannot be evaded, and now it is a time of transition. For securing the future “Space Superiority”, the U.S. seems willing to undertake the pioneer role to lead and negotiate for international agreements.

(3) Reshape of International Space Law

The United States thinks that it is indispensable to reshape the international legal and regulatory environment related to space activities considering the importance of further development in the near future. Because of its investment in space and its increasing dependence on space-based capabilities, it is obvious that international competition, conflict, provocation and dispute for use of space will take place.

Space activities have been governed by treaties and by international and domestic laws and regulations. Though appreciating its achievement so far, it is advocated that the legal and regulatory framework should be adjusted to the new space age with expansion of space system development and space activities. Especially, it is forecasted that the allies will be requested to agree with this law shaping to enable   power projection to space and military campaign in space under the initiative of the United States.

As to the criticism of contradiction to "Peaceful use of space" principle, the U.S. emphasizes the definition of “peaceful” should be interpreted to mean “ non-aggressive”.  According to the U.N. Resolution No.1348 in 1958 and No.1884 in 1963, the space is assumed to be excluded from a national domain, for freedom of use, and must be used for peaceful purposes. However, “peaceful” means “non-aggressive”, not “military”, so it does not contradict the customary international law allowing for routine military activities in space. Though the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 proscribes placing any WMD in space, and any military installations on the moon or other celestial bodies, and using the moon or other celestial bodies for any experiment of military purposes, it does not deny the military deployment and campaign in space. The objection to the criticism means, "the space use of military forces which defend peace is just a peaceful use of space".

Every country has the right to defend the benefit and national interest in space and from space. The international customary law admits the routine military activities in outer space as well as on the international waters and in the international airspace. There are no articles anywhere in international law prohibiting the existence of military power and activities in space. However, the U.S. is cautious of agreements with intended or unintended consequence of restricting future military activities in space, from space and through space.

 

After word

The withdrawal from the ABM treaty by President Bush is considered as a step for the initiative to take lead in new space order, which enables power projection and military campaign in space, as an important transition of the U.S. national strategy.  Risking the headwind of world opinion, the U.S. will firmly promote it, based on a foresight for the security and national interest in new space age, and with the U.S. pride as the world’s leading space-faring nation with pioneer spirit to a new era of space.

Though present state on the military use of space is still in its early stage, the development of space capability and the importance of space mission are rapidly increasing. The “Space Superiority” that secure the freedom of friendly space activities and refuse enemy freedom will become a top priority not only for military operation but also for national strategy in the near future. The world is advanced to the time of "The nation who controls space controls the world". It is time seriously to examine and consider the space policy or strategy of Japan as to how we should respond to the new space age.

 

○    Biographies of authors

○    Contents