I Want to Take You Higher

Today, Scientific American posted an article by Theresa Hitchens from the March 2008 issue, Space Wars - Coming to the Sky Near You. Not so coincidentally, the article opens with a passage from Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

In war, do not launch an ascending attack head-on against the enemy who holds the high ground. Do not engage the enemy when he makes a descending attack from high ground. Lure him to level ground to do battle.
—Sun Tzu, Chinese military strategist, The Art of War, circa 500 B.C.

I suppose there is no higher ground than space… Hitchens provides several reasons why the weaponization of space has been avoided:

• "[S]atellites and even orbiting weapons, by their very nature, are relatively easy to spot and easy to track, and they are likely to remain highly vulnerable to attack no matter what defense measures are taken."
• "[D]eveloping antisatellite systems would almost surely lead to a hugely expensive and potentially runaway arms race, as other countries would conclude that they, too, must compete."
• "[E]ven tests of the technology needed to conduct space battles—not to mention a real battle—could generate enormous amounts of wreckage that would continue to orbit Earth. Converging on satellites and crewed space vehicles at speeds approaching several miles a second, such space debris would threaten satellite-based telecommunications, weather forecasting, precision navigation, even military command and control, potentially sending the world’s economy back to the 1950s."
  

This has recently changed with China's test of an antisatellite weapon. Hitchens writes that China's test has given way to "Congressional reaction … along predictable political lines": China Hawks are calling for an space arms race, and moderates are calling for international bans on space weapons.

Hitchens also points out that in addition to the U.S., Russia and China, India is also now working on space weapons and if India gets them, Pakistan is sure to follow. Even Japan is expressing interest in joining the race for the hottest new space weapon.

Currently there are three things holding the world's nations back from developing space weapons:

• "Political opposition"
• Space weapons destroy our "eyes in the sky" which reduce our early nuclear missile detection which would produce distrust that "could rapidly lead to catastrophe"
• "Technological challenges"
• They're all vulnerable, and the proliferation of space debris hurts all nations
• "High costs"
• $2,000 to $10,000 per pound of weapon put in low orbit, and $15,000 to $20,000 per pound in geostationary orbit
  

Hitchens ends with a paragraph that has meaning far beyond just a new space race:

"Space warfare is not inevitable. But the recent policy shift in the U.S. and China’s provocative actions have highlighted the fact that the world is approaching a crossroads. Countries must come to grips with their strong self-interest in preventing the testing and use of orbital weapons. The nations of Earth must soon decide whether it is possible to sustain the predominantly peaceful human space exploration that has already lasted half a century. The likely alternative would be unacceptable to all."

The full article is free online, and like any SciAm article contains a lot on the details of the weapons including XSS, Rods from God, parasitic satellites, and Space Bombers.

Anti-nuclear proliferation group Federation of American Scientists, has also convened a Weapons in Space Panel under its Military Analysis Network. The FAS are into details, and you can find plenty at their site.

For further reading checkout Travis Hodgkins' blog post at Transnational Law Blog, chronicling the Wired blog posts "How China Loses the Coming War" (Parts I, II & III) on space war. Also, see Disharmony in the spheres at The Economist.

EDITED: Inserted the name of the Wired blog posts. Thanks to a reader for the suggestion.