ASATs – USA Gov Policy

In an analysis of anti-satellite weapons, the Stimson Center noted that: “…entire constellations of valuable satellite systems rotating the Earth could be destroyed quickly if indeed an adversary is targeting them…Imagine, however, a future conflict in which space assets are targeted with destructive force. The US Air Force Space Command in recent years hosted wargaming exercises that simulated, in one instance, hostilities that required US and allied forces to operate for ‘a day without space.’ While loss of space-based communications was mitigated by terrestrial systems, the consequences for operating in space were certainly not remedied in a day. Indeed, participants were left to speculate if the United States might be contemplating a century or even much longer ‘without space.’ Consider what this could mean for the reputation of the United States, and for the trajectory of human discovery. Unchecked, hostile action in space could produce debris, orbiting the earth at nine times the speed of a bullet, … This could place manned and unmanned space flight at unacceptable risk of mission failure due to catastrophic collision with debris. Not only would investment in, and insurance for, advanced spacecraft and launch engineering be extinguished. Of much greater importance, mankind’s access to space for exploration and pursuit of knowledge would be closed off – for young and old alike, for schoolchildren, scientists and aspiring astronauts, in America and around the world, possibly for a very long time. A more toxic legacy for US security policy would be hard to conceive.”

Bryan Bender and Jacqueline Klimas, writing in Politico a few months ago, announced that “War is coming to outer space, and the Pentagon warns it is not yet ready, following years of underinvesting while the military focused on a host of threats on Earth.Russia and China are years ahead of the United States in developing the means to destroy or disable satellites that the U.S. military depends on for everything from gathering intelligence to guiding precision bombs, missiles and drones. Now the Pentagon is trying to catch up — pouring billions more dollars into hardening its defenses against anti-satellite weapons, training troops to operate in the event their space lifeline is cut, and honing ways to retaliate against a new form of combat that experts warn could affect millions of people, cause untold collateral damage and spread to battlefields on Earth.”

While Russia has more experience, China is increasingly the focus of concern. The Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Space hearing has reported that “Unlike the United States, China does not have distinct military and civilian space programs. The Chinese military is functionally in charge of all space activities[and]… has demonstrated a strong disregard for interests of other countries in outer space through its anti-satellite tests…Mark A. Stokes, Executive Director of the Project 2049 Institute which analyses Asian-Pacific issues, testified “The evolving capacity of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to leverage space assets presents a number of challenges for the United States, allies, and friends in the AsiaPacific region…The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is gradually developing a capacity to project military power vertically into space and horizontally beyond its immediate periphery…… The PLA appears to be investing resources into ground-based radar systems capable of providing queuing quality data for engaging targets in space. The PLA also has invested in electronic countermeasure technologies that could degrade an adversary’s satellite communications, navigation satellite signals, or SAR satellites operating within line of sight of an emitter. Overview of Military Space Organization and Requirements Guided by the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Political Bureau, the Central Military Commission (CMC) and State Council establish national space and counterspace requirements.

According to Dean Cheng Senior Research Fellow for Chinese Political and Security, China’s National Security Law passed in 2015, states that outer space is a “commanding height” in the international strategic competition. “In the newest edition of Science of Military Strategy, a chapter is devoted to discussing military conflict in the space and cyber (as well as nuclear) domains, where it is noted that the importance of space has grown significantly.”

The kids get to travel with me at 1/2 price, and when tickets are purchased well in advance, it is a generic medicine of cheapest viagra. People even 50mg sildenafil generic after being so stressed out were helpless and could not do anything to get through the problem for more than 3 months. Most victims blame themselves for the abuse and this lowers their self-worth. deeprootsmag.org online cialis Further unevenness of hormones affect testosterone which gives energy cheap tadalafil 20mg http://deeprootsmag.org/2012/11/03/hep-cats/ to male’s while performing their sexual activities. Testifying before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2015, Kevin Pollpeter of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation stated: “Based on their analysis of U.S. military operations, Chinese military researchers view space as a critical component in making the PLA into a force capable of winning “informatized” wars and recognize the role space plays in the collection and transmittal of information and the need to deny those capabilities to an adversary. Indeed, nearly every Chinese source describes space as the “ultimate high ground,” leading many Chinese analysts to assess that space warfare is inevitable. Because of the preeminence of the space battlefield, analysts writing on space argue that it will become the center of gravity in future wars and one that must be seized and controlled. In fact, these analysts argue that the first condition for seizing the initiative is to achieve space supremacy.”

While prior administrations did not fully focus on the threat, the Trump White House has responded, in part by proposing the creation of an independent military branch devoted solely to space. Putin has responded, in typical Moscow fashion, by proposing an agenda that, if past precedents are to be believed, it has no intention of adhering to. Mark Whittington, writing in The Hill notes that Putin suggested, among other things, a proposed ban on weapons in orbit. “The diplomatic gambit is an obvious response to Trump’s proposed Space Force. One would hope that if the proposal came up during the talks, Trump gave his Russian counterpart a one-word answer: ‘No.’… Russia, along with China, is feverishly trying to build weapons that can strike at American space assets. However, Russia is hampered by a moribund economy that would tend to inhibit the development of a Russian Space Force. Putin, knowing that he cannot match America’s capacity to develop and deploy space weapons, is trying to change the rules of the game.”

Illustration: U.S. Satellite (USAF)

Earlier this year, Daniel Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, warned that “China and Russia will continue to expand their space-based reconnaissance, communications, and navigation systems in terms of the numbers of satellites, the breadth of their capability, and the applications for use. Both Russia and China continue to pursue antisatellite (ASAT) weapons as a means to reduce US and allied military effectiveness. Russia and China aim to have nondestructive and destructive counterspace weapons available for use during a potential future conflict. We assess that, if a future conflict were to occur involving Russia or China, either country would justify attacks against US and allied satellites as necessary to offset any perceived US military advantage derived from military, civil, or commercial space systems.

“Military reforms in both countries in the past few years indicate an increased focus on establishing operational forces designed to integrate attacks against space systems and services with military operations in other domains. Russian and Chinese destructive ASAT weapons probably will reach initial operational capability in the next few years. China’s PLA has formed military units and begun initial operational training with counterspace capabilities that it has been developing, such as ground-launched ASAT missiles. Russia probably has a similar class of system in development. Both countries are also advancing directed-energy weapons technologies for the purpose of fielding ASAT weapons that could blind or damage sensitive space-based optical sensors, such as those used for remote sensing or missile defense. Of particular concern, Russia and China continue to launch “experimental” satellites that conduct sophisticated on-orbit activities, at least some of which are intended to advance counterspace capabilities. Some technologies with peaceful applications—such as satellite inspection, refueling, and repair—can also be used against adversary spacecraft. Russia and China continue to publicly and diplomatically promote international agreements on the nonweaponization of space and “no first placement” of weapons in space. However, many classes of weapons would not be addressed by such proposals, allowing them to continue their pursuit of space warfare capabilities while publicly maintaining that space must be a peaceful domain.”

As significant as the statement was, there was one thing that it wasn’t, or should not have been: it wasn’t breaking news. The reality is, observers have known for some time that space had become the ultimate high ground in the looming military contests America faces against Russia and China.

In general, more complex organisms reproduce cheap levitra uk sexually, while the simpler organisms, usually one cell, reproducing asexually. viagra pills in india Each and every herb of Mast Mood oil is a magical oil that can replace natural methods to increase sexual desire right way. Do not forget to see cialis online australia their experience, registry and round the clock availability. TRUTH: Chiropractic adjustments are gentle, involving only a quick, direct movement to a specific spinal bone. viagra delivery In 2016, Digital Trends noted that “There’s a cold war happening in space and virtually no one knows about it. Right now, miles above your head, there are fleets of robotic, weaponized satellites poised to do battle…The U.S. is now on the defense, preparing to protect its assets in orbit against a new fleet of high-tech satellites unlike anything the world has ever seen before…Up until the 2007, only Russia and the U.S. had demonstrated the capacity to destroy enemy satellites via missile intercept…Then suddenly in 2007, everything changed when China successfully blew up one of its own weather satellites … on purpose…The U.S. responded to this Chinese ASAT test with Operation Burnt Frost, successfully destroying its own orbiting satellite. This was the first U.S. ASAT test in more than 30 years. Soon afterward, the U.S. and China created a direct hotline reminiscent of the infamous “red telephone” used for communication between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War. The message was clear: the next phase of the space arms race had begun.”

The Washington Free Beacon has reported that key U.S. military leaders have warned “that China and Russia are rapidly building space warfare capabilities and the United States is lagging behind in efforts to counter the threat. Both Beijing and Moscow are developing anti-satellite missiles and laser guns and maneuvering killer space robots that could cripple strategic U.S. communications, navigation and intelligence satellites, the backbone of American high-technology warfare.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Illustration: U.S. satellite (USAF)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.