Threats to Space Assets – USA Gov Policy

America’s space assets, so vital for both defense and civilian infrastructure, are deeply threatened by China and Russia

Space is integral to the way the United States military fights, according to John F. Plumb, the assistant secretary of defense for space policy. He spoke at the Aspen Security Conference in Colorado, carefully discussing the still classified Space Strategic Review. That document looked at the national security environment for space.

The Pentagon considers China as the key challenge. China has already fielded ground-based counterspace weapons and it continues to seek new methods to hold U.S. satellites at risk. China is building a space architecture that enables its military to execute long-range precision strikes.

“China ultimately seeks to challenge our ability to conduct joint operations in the Indo-Pacific,” Plumb said. “They are fielding and developing increasingly complex capabilities to deny space missions to the U.S. joint force. Over just the last few years, the quantity and quality of counterspace threats have increased significantly. China has already fielded ground-based counterspace weapons and it continues to seek new methods to hold U.S. satellites at risk. China is building a space architecture that enables its military to execute long-range precision strikes. …China ultimately seeks to challenge our ability to conduct joint operations in the Indo-Pacific.”

As China (as well as Russia) becomes more capable of attacking U.S. satellites, the military DOD is moving from having a few very large and expensive satellites, in geostationary orbits to a proliferated architecture in low-Earth orbit. According to Plumb, that has several advantages, the first being it makes attacking the target harder, and it means the U.S. can capitalize on the so-called “refresh rate.” The large “exquisite” satellites are very expensive and designed to last 20 years. The low-Earth orbit satellites last three to five years and “provide an ability to innovate at speed and not have to look out for my requirements 20 years from now.”

In previous testimony to the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Plumb described the importance of space to America’s defense. “It provides us with a missile warning and missile tracking critical to defending our homeland. It provides position navigation and timing to strike targets with precision. And it provides communication in austere environments to support global command and control. To put it simply, space-based missions are essential to the U.S. way of war.”

The U.S. Space Command assumed responsibility for missile defense this year. “In the increasingly complex global threat environment, missile defense is critical to defending the homeland,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, USSTRATCOM commander. “I am confident that this…better supports our integrated deterrence framework in safeguarding our nation.”

President Trump created the Space Force in 2019.

An Atlantic Council study noted that “the proliferation of counterspace capabilities creates ongoing threats to space security that the United States must prioritize addressing in order to ensure the continuance of its space activity. The United States is reliant on space for all manner of things critical to its security, including positioning and navigation; civil and military communications; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and tracking, assessing, and communicating military commands. China and Russia understand the asymmetric nature of the United States’ reliance on space for defense and security purposes and thus are increasingly developing counterspace capabilities to place US space and terrestrial assets at risk. China’s and Russia’s development and testing of direct-ascent ASAT capabilities and soft-kill satellite attacks such as dazzling and lasing should be carefully studied.”

During the summer, U.S. Space Force Deputy Chief of Space Operations, Strategy, Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant made history by leading the first-ever Space Engagement Talks with Japan, aiming to enhance combined space operations and establish a bilateral roadmap for future collaboration.

Photo: DoD

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.