e-Prints

In addition to the potential tactical applications of civilian imagery systems like Landsat and SPOT, there are also possible significant strategic applications. Coupled with a priori knowledge from other sources of intelligence that can identify a general area to be imaged, Landsat and SPOT have also demonstrated some military utility by providing useful strategic intelligence information. Tables 2-5 shows how the 10- to 20-meter ground resolution of Landsat and SPOT imagery appears to have more than adequate resolution capabilities to detect and provide general identification of major port and rail facilities, urban areas, and surfaced submarines. The satellite photographs used by the US government in public international forums to substantiate US accusations that the Soviet radar at Krasnoyarsk constituted a violation of the ABM treaty were SPOT images.

Other nations in addition to the US use commercially available imagery from civilian satellites to augment their military strategic intelligence efforts. West Germany, for example, acknowledged using SPOT images to gather intelligence and confirm the existence of the disputed chemical warfare plant in Libya. Another example is the Japanese, who purchased Landsat photos in 1985 to identify and assess airfield improvements for TU-22 Backfire bombers at Zavitinsk.

Spectral resolution is the second qualitative measurement pertinent to imaging systems. Spectral resolution refers to the various light frequencies, such as infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, X-ray, and so forth, that sensors are designed to detect. Using several spectral bands to observe the same patch of earth simultaneously can provide information that allows the discrimination between vegetation and soil, identification of thermal gradients in the ocean, measurement of surface moisture, and a variety of other analyses. Current civilian technology, however, restricts the data capacity of satellite downlinks; therefore, there are tradeoffs between the number of spectral bands and the spatial resolution of sensors. Typically, the more spectral bands a satellite sensor has the larger the spatial resolution. Conversely, the fewer spectral bands, the smaller the spatial resolution. The total amount of raw data for each image is increased in proportion to the number of spectral bands. Likewise, the amount of raw data for each image is also increased as the spatial resolution decreases. For example, the amount of raw data per image for a sensor with one spectral band is about half as much as a sensor with two spectral bands.

Collecting imagery of the same area in different spectral bands can often provide more information than a high quality black and white image with ground resolutions of less than 10 meters. This is because various soils and plants have different chemical characteristics and, therefore, reflect light in different frequencies. The variations in the way light is reflected cause soil, plants, and man-made objects to look different in various spectral bands. Table 6 shows the spectral bands of the Landsat and SPOT satellites and the capabilities associated with each of the different spectral bands. Imaging an area with a sensor in the green light spectral band, for instance, could not distinguish between real vegetation and green camouflage, but imagery in any of the near- or mid-infrared band could. The use of Landsat and SPOT imagery during Desert Storm provides a good example of the military utility of imagery in different spectral bands. Whenever a vehicle traversed over the ground, sand, or grass, the ground was disturbed. This disruption caused chemical changes in the terrain that could be identified using multispectral imagery from Landsat and SPOT and provided US warfighters with useful insights into Iraqi operations. Likewise, imagery from Landsat and SPOT, if made available to the media, could have revealed US plans for the left hook at the start of the ground war. In addition, fusing the data from different spectral bands of the same area on Earth can reveal various surface features undetected by imagery in a single spectral band. Table 7 shows a comparison between the civil applications for multi-spectral imagery and some of the related military applications of multi-spectral imagery from satellites such as Landsat and SPOT.

The last qualitative measure for assessing the utility of imaging and remote sensing satellites is timeliness. There are three variables affecting the timeliness of remote sensing imagery: satellite revisit time, image processing time, and image delivery time. Timeliness, therefore, refers to the "throughput" time, --- the time it takes from tasking the sensor to delivery and exploitation of the product.

All entries for Landsat and SPOT in microns.

One variable in timeliness is revisit frequency. Revisit frequency is the time, usually in number of days, it takes the satellite to fly over the same point on the earth twice. For example, a typical orbit for a remote sensing satellite has an altitude 800 km and an inclination of approximately 98 degrees. Satellites in this type of orbit have a frequent revisit time at high latitudes and an infrequent revisit time at low latitudes. Measured at the equator, the more frequent the revisit time the greater the opportunity to image the area of interest on the ground and the quicker an image can be provided to the warfighter.

Some military planners have suggested that to be useful for weapon system targeting and keying a throughput time of less than two or three days is needed, while throughput times less than 30 days could be useful for ocean surveillance and battle damage assessment. Throughput times greater than a month, however, would only be considered useful for fixed target surveillance, verification, and terrain analysis.

During Desert Storm, Landsat images were routinely delivered to the theater commander anywhere between five and 12 days after the request. If the area to be imaged was already in EOSAT's data base, the delivery time would be less. Given the Landsat revisit time of 16 days it could take the two Landsat satellites between one and eight days before one of them would image the desired area and another three to four days for EOSAT/NOAA to provide the imagery to the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA). After DMA had received the imagery, it normally took only one day to forward it to the theater commander. Given the timeliness criteria suggested by military planners, Landsat's throughput range between five and thirteen days substantiates its capability to provide targeting, damage assessment, surveillance, and terrain analysis information.

The throughput time for the SPOT system is estimated to be between four and fourteen days. Although the revisit time on the SPOT satellite is 26 days, the satellite's capability to view areas up to 27 degrees off centerline enables SPOT to image a given area between three and six days after initial tasking. Image processing normally takes about one day and, depending whether or not the requestor has direct access to SPOT data, delivery times can range from zero to seven days. In the final analysis the timeliness of SPOT imagery, between four and 14 days, also appears to have significant military utility for targeting, damage assessment, surveillance, and terrain analysis.

The end of the Cold War and the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, coupled with decreasing US military presence overseas, has motivated US allies in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific to reexamine their security needs. An increasing number of nations are choosing not to remain dependent on the United States to provide critical space services and products. As a result, they have commenced to develop or purchase commercially available space products.

Proliferating space technologies and products could have significant implications for US national security. First, proliferating space capabilities could provide regional military powers with an advantage over US forces in any future regional conflict. Advantage could be gained by eliminating the US ability to achieve strategic and tactical surprise. The inability of US forces to achieve surprise could lead to protracted engagements. Second, modern warfare is becoming highly dependent on space systems for communication, intelligence gathering, and environmental monitoring. Operation Desert Storm provides a good example of how the control of space may be a decisive factor in dominating the battlefield and the successful execution of a nations military strategy. Just as air was the "high ground" during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, space is emerging as today's "new high ground". As the capabilities and military utility of civilian space platforms increase, so does the probability that these systems will be integrated with ballistic missiles and deep strike weapons.

In sum, a new type of space threat seems to be emerging. Although future conflicts for the US will probably be confined to militarily inferior regional powers, the increasing availability of space technologies and products could offset the US military advantage. The US, therefore, must insure that its space control policy and strategy is flexible and responsive to deal with the changing world space order.

For most of the last forty years US national security strategy has focused on the containment of the Soviet Union and the spread of the communist ideology. Consequently, the threat of Soviet military power became institutionalized as the threat for US military planning activities. The need to counter the threat presented by the Soviet's antisatellite system was the principle rationale for the US antisatellite program. It was from this threat that our space control policy and strategy was derived. The threat from space, however, is changing. Although Russia remains the only nation capable of challenging US access to space, the proliferation of space technologies and capabilities suggests a potential threat emerging from space against US terrestrial military operations. Having characterized and discussed the proliferating threat, we now turn our attention to assessing the effectiveness and credibility of our current space control policy and strategy against the threats posed by tier-one, two, and three space-capable nations.

Before the effectiveness and credibility of our space control policy and strategy can be assessed, a brief explanation of the Air Force framework in which it is normally discussed is necessary. Air Force Manual (AFM) 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, March 1992, lays out the framework in which Air Force space control planning and operations are performed and serves as the source of contextual definitions for the roles and missions of space control.

AFM 1-1 integrates space control into the basic role of aerospace control. According to AFM 1-1, the ideal aim of aerospace control is the absolute control of the air and space environment. All military activities having the objective of gaining and maintaining control of the air and space environment fall into two broad mission categories: counterair and counterspace. The purpose of counterspace mission is to gain and maintain control of space through offensive and defensive counterspace operations. According to AFM 1-1, the objective of offensive counterspace operations is to "seek out and neutralize or destroy enemy space forces in orbit or on the ground at a time and place of our choosing". The objective of defensive counterspace operations, on the other hand, can be viewed from the perspective of active and passive counterspace defense. The aim of active counterspace defense is to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy enemy forces in space or passing through space attempting to attack friendly forces, or to penetrate the aerospace environment above friendly surface forces. The objectives of passive counterspace defense are to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the survivability of friendly satellites and include measures such as frequency hopping, nuclear hardening, and maneuverability. Although the survivability and protection of friendly space assets is essential if the enemy threat against our space forces is significant, typically the most efficient method for achieving control of space is to attack the enemy's assets close to their source. With respect to space systems, this infers attacking satellites in orbit.

The National Space Policy, published 2 November 1989, acknowledges the vital role space systems play in achieving national security objectives. This policy states the national security objective of space control is to ensure freedom of action in space.

The Department of Defense (DOD) also recognizes that space control includes both freedom of access to space and the ability to deny this access to a potential enemy. Unlike the balanced approach of the National Space Policy, DOD policy appears to be oriented towards offensive counterspace operations, emphasizing the need for a flexible and responsive mix of antisatellite weapons to degrade the effectiveness of an enemy's ground, air, and sea forces by denying them support from space-based systems. Furthermore, DOD envisioned the ASAT fulfilling a response in kind role, acting to deter attacks against US satellites by the Soviet ASAT system.

Gen John Piotrowski, the former Commander-in-Chief of United States Space Command, not only reaffirmed the offensive orientation of our current space control policy, but established the strategic objectives of offensive counterspace operations. According to General Piotrowski, an ASAT weapon is needed, not only to deter attacks against US space assets, but as a deterrent against a Soviet decision to go to war; and, if deterrence fails, as a needed warfighting capability.

Traditionally, military planners have envisioned the ASAT warfighting capability as a hard kill (i.e. physical destruction) weapon system, such as a satellite interceptor missile (kinetic energy) or a ground-based laser (directed energy), engaged in offensive counterspace operations to destroy orbiting enemy satellites. DOD's most recent ASAT project was seeking to develop a ground-based kinetic energy interceptor with provisions in the long term for the development of a directed energy ASAT.

As outlined in AFM 1-1, our current space control strategy can be summed up as a strategy aimed at achieving space supremacy. In this context, space supremacy means absolute control of the space environment. The ability to achieve space supremacy is presumed, as articulated by General Piotrowski, to deter attacks against US space assets, deter against a Soviet decision to go to war, and, if deterrence fails, serve as a critical warfighting capability. Any assessment, therefore, of the flexibility and credibility of our strategy for relying on an ASAT weapon for offensive counterspace operations must be made in the context of the condition desired: deterrence and warfighting against the emerging spectrum of potential threats from tier-one, two, and three space-capable nations. Before assessing current space control strategy against the emerging threat, one inconsistency regarding our current ASAT policy must be addressed. As previously stated, General John Piotrowski stated an ASAT was needed to deter attacks on US space assets. The belief that an ASAT can deter attacks on US satellites did not originate with General Piotrowski; rather it has its basis in the initial argument used by the Air Force to justify an ASAT. According to this argument, the US is more dependent on space systems than the Soviets and the ASAT will be a strong deterrent against Soviet attacks on US space systems. The inconsistency of this argument lies in the fact that if space systems are actually more important to the US than the Soviets, how can threatening Soviet space systems deter an attack on US space systems? This would seem to be analogous to threatening a chess opponent's knight in hopes of deterring him from taking your queen. Rather, the perceived asymmetry between the importance of US and Soviet space systems to their overall warfighting capability suggests that the threat from the Soviet ASAT could be used to limit US ability to respond in a crisis situation.

Because space systems are becoming increasingly important for successful conventional military operations, the capability to deny critical information and functions from space systems contributes to conventional deterrence and is militarily useful, if deterrence fails for other reasons. Of course, the extent to which an ASAT contributes to deterrence depends on the opponent's perception of the importance of his space systems to his ultimate success and the extent to which he believes you have the will to deny him the use of these space systems. It would seem logical to assume that as the space capabilities of nations decrease from tier-one through tier-three, so too does the importance of space to their overall military strategy. Furthermore, as the importance of space systems to a nation's warfighting capability decreases from tier-one through tier-three, so too does our incentive to use an ASAT weapon. Therefore, it appears that as the space capabilities of a nation decrease across the tiers, the contribution of an ASAT to deterrence also decreases.

The warfighting utility of an ASAT against the emerging space threat resulting from the proliferation of space technology and products is assessed in the three scenarios that follow. The first scenario looks at a conventional conflict between the US and another tier 1 nation while the second scenario deals with conflict with a tier-three nation. Lastly, the third scenario discusses the utility of the ASAT in conflicts between the US and a tier-two nation.

The first scenario is conventional conflict between the US and a tier-one space capable nation. As discussed, the nations currently comprising tier-one are Russia and the United States. In a wartime environment US and Russian space systems will provide reconnaissance, surveillance, weather, navigation, and mapping/geodesy information as well as provide communication functions essential for combat operations. However, enhancing our terrestrial forces' warfighting operations is not just a function of how much information can be provided, but also a function of how much information can be denied by the enemy. Consequently, in addition to their extensive dedicated military space systems, Russia also has an operational ASAT weapon that would likely be used to deny critical warfighting information and functions from our space systems to our national command authorities and theater commanders. It is precisely this scenario that has served as the motivating threat for US space control policy, strategy, and force structure. Clearly, using an ASAT in a conventional war with the Russians to destroy their satellites appears to provide the most reliable means of denying critical military information and functions from space systems.

The second scenario, conflict with a tier-three space capable nation, represents the most likely type of conflict we may face in the future. Tier-three space capable nations are those nations that do not actually possess a space capability but receive satellite information from tier-one or tier-two nations either by direct purchase or by operating licensed satellite ground stations. Regardless of how tier-three nations receive their space information, third party satellite imagery and surveillance can affect US national security. The warfighting utility of an ASAT in a conflict with a tier-three nation may be limited because of the political consequences of using an ASAT. These consequences can be illustrated by considering the situation where the US is engaged in a limited war with a tier-three nation licensed to operate a SPOT ground station. In this situation it is extremely difficult to envision the US using an ASAT to destroy a French SPOT satellite. First, in accordance with the outer space treaty, attacking a nation's satellites is an act of war. It is unlikely that the US would commit a unilateral act of war against France over SPOT imagery. Secondly, an attack on a SPOT satellite would likely result in some sort of retaliation. Retaliation could range from political and economic sanctions involving France and other European countries to some sort of military retaliation. Politically the European community could deny port call privileges, deny overflight, or cancel status of forces agreements for forward based US forces in Europe. Militarily, France could choose to broaden its support or even enter the conflict against the United States. France could also consider executing a response in kind option by exploiting the inherent ASAT capability of their strategic ballistic missiles. Any military benefit of attacking a SPOT satellite, therefore, would seem to be overshadowed by the associated risk of conflict escalation.

The third scenario involves the use of an ASAT against a tier-two nation. Second-tier space capable nations have little or no dedicated military space systems, and therefore, rely primarily on their civilian space systems for warfighting information and functions. In addition, most tier-two nations currently do not have a dedicated ASAT capability and, consequently, do not present a significant threat to orbiting US space assets. The use of an ASAT to destroy a second-tier space nation's satellite in a conflict situation falls in a gray area. On one hand, similar to the first scenario, destroying a satellite providing information and services to an enemy during war would seem justified with the ASAT being the most reliable means of insuring the denial of information and those services. On the other hand, most tier-two nations typically sell the data from their satellites on the commercial market to other nations. Therefore, in this scenario, destruction of the satellite not only denies the enemy information and services, but also all the licensed operators of foreign ground stations and their customers. The time and cost to reconstitute this capability may result in long term economic retardation, not only for the tier-two nation, but also the users of the satellite data as well. Economic hardships, coupled with some pre-existing political instability, could lead to increased regional instabilities and potential hostilities directed against the US. This would seem to imply that although the destruction of a civilian satellite may be militarily prudent, the long and short term impacts on nonbelligerent countries could result in intolerable political consequences.

On the surface, the current space control strategy emphasizing the employment of ASAT weapons might seem viable. However, after assessing this strategy in the context of the existing space threat and the emerging space threat from the proliferation of space technologies and capabilities, there appear to be some weeknesses.

First, although ASATs contribute to our overall conventional deterrent, the extent they contribute seems to diminish across the threat spectrum. As the space threat decreases from a tier-one to a tierthree nation, the contribution of an ASAT to conventional deterrence also decreases.

Second, regardless of the inherent military utility a civilian satellite may possess, the military benefits of destroying a civilian satellite must be weighed against the potential political backlash created by intentionally targeting and destroying a nonmilitary system.

As General Kutyna, another former Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, inferred, enhancing terrestrial force operations through offensive counterspace operations is a function of how much information can be denied the enemy. This reinforces the notion that the actual threat from space systems is the information they provide and not the space systems themselves. However, in accordance with our policy, doctrine, and strategy, the stated goal of offensive counterspace operations is to achieve supremacy over the environment (space), to deny the enemy the use of space through the destruction of his space based assets. This appears to shift the focus away from the information and functions space systems provide, and leads one to focus only on the destruction of the orbiting asset.

The military utility of an ASAT appears to be dependent on political and military factors limiting the feasibility of destroying satellites. The current focus of offensive counterspace operations on space supremacy through an ASAT seems to lack the flexibility and responsiveness needed to deny potential enemies information across the spectrum of conflict scenarios. This would suggest we refocus our space strategy away from space supremacy and the denial of space for enemy use, to a strategy based on the denial of information.

Before discussing offensive counterspace operations in support of information dominance, an understanding of the strategic objectives of an information dominance strategy is in order.

As presented previously, information dominance should be thought of as a state in which a nation possesses a higher degree of understanding of an adversary's military, political, social, and economic strengths, weaknesses, interdependencies, and centers of gravity, while denying the same information on friendly sources of national power to the adversary. Military actions directed against the enemy should be undertaken with the strategic objective of delaying, disrupting, and denying information used by the enemy leadership for the effective execution of military strategy. The objective is to convince the enemy of his inability to execute his military strategy successfully. Therefore, in an information dominance strategy, the strategic center of gravity is the enemy leadership, both military and civilian, that rely on information to execute the national military strategy. In essence, the end game is to coerce the enemy by increasing his uncertainty regarding his ability to successfully execute his military strategy.

In modern warfare, space systems will be the strategic and tactical eyes and ears of a nation's national security establishment. Therefore, controlling space is essential to achieving information dominance. In an information dominance strategy, however, the objectives of space control must be viewed in a different context. Currently, as outlined in AFM 1-1, the objective of space control is to gain space supremacy or control over the environment of space. The nature of this objective has, historically, tended to focus offensive counterspace operations on the destruction of the satellite in space. Space control under an information dominance strategy, on the other hand, seeks control over the information or products space systems provide. An objective of this nature recognizes that space systems are distributed weapon systems, consisting of three segments: an orbital segment, a ground segment, and a link segment, connecting the orbital and ground segment together and disseminating the information to military and civilian leadership. Controlling the information from space systems can be accomplished by attacking any of these segments and does not necessarily involve the physical destruction of equipment or facilities. The operational objective of offensive counterspace operations for information dominance, therefore, is to delay or deny an enemy's capability to collect, process, and disseminate information by disrupting or destroying, as required, the enemy's space systems.

Since information dominance can create uncertainty regarding the focus and thrust of the theater campaign, offensive counterspace operations should normally precede other theater operations. To attain information dominance, offensive counterspace operations should use a combination of lethal and nonlethal weapon systems to attack the operational center of gravity of a space system. Depending on the space system, enemy, and level of conflict, the center of gravity can be located in any of the three segments of an enemy's space system.

Operational centers of gravity in the orbital segment of an enemy's space system can be the entire satellite or the satellite subsystems critical for mission performance. This implies a satellite does not have to be destroyed to prevent it from accomplishing its mission. Rather, permanently or temporarily damaging or disrupting vital satellite subsystems can prevent satellites from effectively accomplishing their mission. Examples of vital subsystems include satellite attitude control sensors, mission sensors, uplink/downlink antennas, and power generation systems.

The center of gravity in the link segment is the communications link, the radio frequency used to pass information to and from the satellite. Since most satellites rely on uplinked command and control information from the ground for station keeping, payload management, and satellite health and status functions, attacking a satellite's uplink during critical commanding periods could seriously degrade mission performance. The effectiveness of electronic jamming, however, is limited because of line of sight restrictions and increased satellite autonomy, therefore, attacking the downlink, rather than the uplink, is usually easier and more reliable at disrupting a space system. Since the satellite downlink telemetry contains the mission information and health and status information on the spacecraft and the satellite's sensor, successfully attacking the downlink directly attacks information flow and, therefore, has a more immediate effect on achieving information dominance.

The centers of gravity in the ground segment include satellite launch facilities, command and control facilities, and processing stations (airborne, sea-based, fixed or mobile land-based). All parts of the ground segment are vulnerable to attack from various means such as clandestine operations, air attack, and direct ground attack.

What type of technology do we need to conduct offensive counterspace operations for information dominance? Historically, our doctrine and policy addressing space control has focused primarily on the hard-kill technologies to destroy orbiting satellites. Other technologies, however, can be used to achieve offensive counterspace objectives without physical destruction of the orbiting satellite. Non-destructive soft-kill (e.g. mission kill) technologies can permanently disable the satellite without destruction while non-lethal technologies can be used to achieve nonpermanent space system mission degradation and disruption. The specific technologies used for offensive counterspace operations can be grouped according to the segment they are targeted against: orbital, link, or ground.

Offensive counterspace weapons used to attack the orbital segment of a space system usually fall into two technology categories: kinetic energy and directed energy.

Kinetic energy is a hard-kill technology causing physical destruction of the orbiting satellite. Weapons based on kinetic energy employ projectiles that can be launched into space to destroy orbiting satellites through the shock of impact. There are various types of kinetic energy ASAT weapons: exploding fragmentary warheads, guided non-explosive warheads that collide with satellites, and space mines. The benefit of using a kinetic energy ASAT weapon is the high probability or certainty of denying the information from the attacked satellite. The disadvantages, on the other hand, include a lack of plausible deniability regarding the reason the satellite failed and the originator of the attack.

Perhaps the most flexible of the technologies used for offensive counterspace weapons is directed energy. Directed energy weapons can be employed to achieve a destructive hard kill, a non-destructive soft-kill, or a nonlethal temporary disruption or degradation. Examples of directed energy weapons are lasers and high-power microwave weapons. Lasers use electromagnetic radiation (light) for either lethal or non-lethal attacks on satellites. Depending on their power, lasers can damage, disrupt, or destroy a satellite by overheating its surface, puncturing the outer surface of the spacecraft to expose internal equipment, or by blinding critical on-board mission or control sensors. Ground based lasers, such as the Russian laser at Sary Shagan, are estimated to have a satellite hard-kill capability up to 400 km and a soft-kill capability up to 1200 km. Another directed energy technology that can be used for offensive counterspace operations is high-power microwave. High-power microwave weapons employ radio frequencies to damage satellite electronics. Unlike kinetic energy and some types of laser attacks, high-power microwave weapons achieve satellite subsystem failure rather than vehicle failure. Intelligence estimates suggest it is possible to construct a microwave radiation weapon today with a satellite soft-kill capability of about 500 km. In addition, microwave radiation at lower power levels can be effectively used for satellite jamming. There are several advantages of using directed energy weapons against the orbital segment in offensive counterspace operation. First, directed energy attacks take place at the speed of light, therefore, the result of the attack is near instantaneous, thereby minimizing the effectiveness of enemy defenses. Second, there is plausible deniability associated with softÄkill and nonlethal satellite attacks. Potential adversaries may not have the capability to detect the nature, nor the source, nor whether a hostile action actually occurred. Hence, plausible deniability can be useful in politically sensitive situations. Third, the desired results can be tailored from nonpermanent disruption and degradation to permanent degradation and destruction.

The link segment, as mentioned earlier, consists of the electromagnetic energy used for space system uplink, downlink, and in some cases a crosslink. Given that the link segment is made up of electromagnetic energy, the primary technology used to attack the link segment is electronic warfare. There are two ways of using electronic warfare to attack the link segment: jamming and spoofing. Jamming is essentially transmitting a high-power, bogus electronic signal that causes the bit error rate in the satellite's uplink or downlink signals to increase, resulting in the satellite or ground station receiver losing lock.

Attacking the link segment by spoofing involves taking over the space system by appearing as an authorized user, such as establishing a command link with an enemy satellite and sending anomalous commands to degrade its performance. Spoofing is one of the most discrete and deniable nonlethal methods available for offensive counterspace operations.

Offensive counterspace operations directed against the ground segment include all offensive actions directed against a satellite launch complex, satellite command and control facilities, and satellite ground processing stations. The ground segment is vulnerable to all types of terrestrial attacks; from special operations to strategic attack with gravity bombs. While the ground segment is the most vulnerable segment in a space system, it may also represent the higher political and military risk. Typically, ground segments for space systems are distributed within the enemy's homeland to reduce single point failures and to reduce their vulnerability to attack. In addition, high development costs associated with dedicated military space systems and rapidly advancing commercial technology possessing inherent military utility has resulted in an increase of dual use (military/civilian) space systems. Therefore, in many tier-two and tier-three space capable nations, ground segment targets are usually located near urban areas susceptible to collateral damage and civilian casualties. Although susceptible to all forms of direct attack, it may be more politically acceptable and less risky militarily to attack ground segment targets with highly accurate precision munitions in discriminating attacks .

In the final analysis the available technologies for conducting offensive counterspace operations appear flexible and responsive, however, the employment options are situation dependent.

As discussed, the biggest drawback of our current offensive counterspace strategy is that there are some conflict situations in which destroying an enemy's satellite with an ASAT is not an attractive or realistic option. However, an information dominance strategy has as a primary objective the delay or denial of information, therefore, employment options for offensive counterspace operations can exist for all threat nations, at all conflict levels, against all segments of a space system.

Employment options for conducting offensive counterspace operations in an information dominance strategy are influenced by three major variables: the threat (e.g. tier-one, -two, or -three), the level of conflict (e.g. peace, crisis, or war), and the segment of the space systems to be attacked (orbital, link, or ground). Figure 1 illustrates how options for offensive counterspace operations can be viewed discretely depending on the combination of variables the situation represents. Depending on the threat and the level of conflict, employment options for offensive counterspace operations applicable to the three segments of a space system can range from "no option" at the low end of the spectrum, to ASAT attacks against the satellite or strategic attack against the ground station at the high end of the spectrum.

Examples of suggested offensive counterspace employment options for tier-one, -two, and -three space-capable nations are shown in figures 2, 3, and 4. Although an information dominance strategy provides our military planners with greater flexibility for conducting counterspace operations, examination of figures 2, 3 and 4 reveals two trends shaping offensive counterspace operations. First, as the level of conflict moves from peace to war within a tier group, the different segments of a space system subject to attack increases and the level of acceptable violence of the attack also increases. For example, figure 3 shows that during a crisis the orbital segment of a second tier nation could be attacked with nonlethal disruption weapons whereas during war, the orbital segment could be attacked by either hard or soft kill mechanisms.

Second, as the threat from space decreases across the tier groups from tier-one to tier-three, the conflict threshold for attacking space systems segments increases while the level of acceptable violence of the attack decreases. This is illustrated by comparing the available options for attacking the orbital segment during war on both figure 2 and 4. In no case is attacking an orbital segment of a tier-three nation with hard and soft-kill mechanisms viewed as being politically acceptable, whereas it would be against a tier-one nation.

The ability to delay and/or deny information from space systems, at all levels of conflict, permits the establishment of information dominance during peacetime and its sustainment through crisis and war. Determining options for offensive counterspace operations for information dominance can be illustrated in the following scenario. The potential for a crisis exists between the US and a tier-three space nation with a licensed SPOT ground station. If a crisis erupts, the US wants to be prepared with a rapid show of force in the theater of operations and has, therefore, issued an warning order to preposition forces. To insure secrecy, the theater commander has requested offensive counterspace operations be conducted to deny the enemy nation information from the SPOT system that could reveal the force mobilization. As shown in figure 4, the only available option for offensive counterspace operations during peacetime is electronic warfare against the link segment. If the situation escalated to a crisis, or to war, the options for counterspace operations would expand and eventually span all segments of the space and cut across the spectrum of violence from nonlethal to lethal soft-kill, to lethal hard-kill.

Information dominance strategy as an alternative to the current space control strategy has several advantages. First, because the strategy focuses on the denial of information rather than the denial of the environment, the link and ground segments of the space system correctly reÄemerge with an increased relevance to offensive counterspace operations. This total systems approach has essentially increased operational flexibility of offensive counterspace operations by increasing the operational centers of gravity which can be targeted. Second, the total systems approach, coupled with a philosophy that satellite destruction is no longer essential, has resulted in an increase of available technologies for offensive counterspace operations. Options for employing existing capabilities such as non-lethal directed energy, ECM, and precision guided munitions seem more politically viable than the destructive ASAT, which in the past has been questioned by many within Congress. Finally, the increased number of space system targets subject to attack, coupled with the ability to employ a broader assortment of lethal, and nonlethal technologies, creates options for employing offensive counterspace operations across the spectrum of conflict.

Traditionally, offensive counterspace operations have been synonymous with an antisatellite (ASAT) capability, employed to deny the medium of space through the destruction of the enemy's orbiting satellites. However, the US does not currently have a capability to destroy satellites on orbit, and judging from the political opposition to such weapons, is not likely to get one. Indeed, even if the US had an operational ASAT capability, situations exist in which the attack and physical destruction of an adversary's satellite is not politically desirable. If the US is to deny the enemy critical warfighting information from satellites, we must adopt an offensive counterspace strategy capable of defeating the enemy's space order of battle within existing political constraints.

Conducting offensive counterspace operations with an objective of attaining information dominance does, however, offer an alternative strategy for controlling space information to the operationally limited strategy of space supremacy. Offensive counterspace operations under an information dominance strategy center on delaying and denying the information and support space systems provide by disrupting or destroying, as required, targets within the orbital, link, and ground segments of the enemy's space system. Consequently, a total systems approach to targeting, encompassing the link and ground segments, in addition to the orbital segment, is employed.

Implementing an offensive counterspace strategy based on information dominance in support of a theater campaign requires the resolution of two major issues: organizational responsibility for implementing an information dominance strategy and the need for a comprehensive space order of battle for the emerging threat from space.

The first issue to be resolved is that of organizational responsibilities, or more specifically, who is responsible for developing and implementing the offensive counterspace strategy.

The Unified Command Plan assigns the responsibility of the space control mission to the Commander-in-Chief United States Space Command (USCINCSPACE); however, the issue of who is responsible for developing and implementing the strategy for offensive counterspace operations in support of a theater campaign would seem to be driven by the responsibilities of the supported commander vis a vis the supporting commander. According to Joint Pub 5-02.1, Joint Operations Planning System (JOPS) Vol I, the supported commander is responsible for coordinating and synchronizing warfighting activities of the supporting commander's military forces in conjunction with his own forces. In addition, the supported commander normally has the authority to designate the objectives and the timing and duration of the supporting commander's actions within the theater. The supporting commander, on the other hand, is responsible for determining the needs of the supported force and taking actions to fulfill them by providing forces and/or developing a plan for supporting the supported commander. Although the supported commander has the authority to determine objectives for the supporting commander, assigning the plan development function to the supporting commander would suggest the responsibility for strategy development and implementation also rests with the supporting commander. According to Joint Pub 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces, the supporting force gives support or operates in support of another force -- the supported force. Because of their warfighting role in theater campaigns, space forces are normally designated supporting forces. Consequently, USCINCSPACE, as the supporting commander, would be responsible for developing the theater plan for counterspace operations in support of the supported CINC's objectives.

Although USCINCSPACE is responsible for implementing offensive counterspace strategy within the theater, there remains no one within the theater specifically identified for integrating counterspace operations into the theater campaign plan. The emergence of spacepower as a potentially decisive warfighting capability in the aftermath of Desert Storm provides some incentive to identify an individual or organization responsible for integrating counterspace operations into the theater campaign plan.

One alternative would be to create a Joint Forces Space Component Commander (JFSCC) responsible to the Joint Force Commander (JFC). Since Congress chose not to assign the space warfare mission to any single service, but rather to the unified command US Space Command (USSPACECOM), the organizational relationship of the JFSCC to the other services and the unified command for space is not clear. Realistically the JFSCC should be some sort of USSPACECOM element reporting directly to the JFC, and conceptually be similar to a subunified command. One major problem with the JFSCC concept, however, is that as a component command, the forces assigned to the JFSCC would normally be under the operational command of the JFC. However, the operational command of USSPACECOM space forces will not chop to the JFC. Therefore, the JFSCC would essentially be a facilitator or coordinator with USSPACECOM for the surveillance, reconnaissance, communications and weather support requirements of the theater component forces. Although facilitating and coordinating the space requirements into the theater campaign is an important function, creating a new component command, led presumably, by a general officer, to perform coordination activities that could be performed by existing staff elements, seems to be a misappropriation of resources.

With respect to counterspace operations, the JFSCC would coordinate between USCINCSPACE and the JFC and component commanders to insure the space control strategy is consistent with the overall theater strategy and the counterspace operations are integrated into the theater campaign plan. In this capacity the JFSCC would have a role similar to that of the US Transportation Command liaison, who, also has no forces assigned.

Another, and perhaps more defendable, alternative for offensive counterspace operations in support of a theater campaign would be to establish a space planning and operations cell under the JFACC. One potential organization capable of assuming the planning function of offensive counterspace operations for information dominance would be Air Force Space Command's (AFSPACECOM) Forward Space Support in Theater (FSST) team.

The objective of the FSST team is to provide regional CINCs space expertise to facilitate the near-term theater level integration of air and space. FSST teams are currently assigned to Air Force component commands to assist in developing operations plans (OPLANs), training, and insuring integrated space support. While the primary focus of the FSST teams currently centers around the force enhancing attributes of space forces, adding counterspace operations responsibilities appears feasible. Given the propensity for offensive counterspace operations to be conducted by air and electronic warfare forces, subordinating the space planning and operations cell to the JFACC would appear to facilitate the integration of the enemy space order of battle into the overall air operations planning effort and the resulting air tasking order (ATO).

The second issue to resolve for offensive counterspace operations in support of the theater campaign is the requirement for a comprehensive space order of battle for potential enemies. The space order of battle required to support offensive counterspace operations for information dominance must have the same total systems approach as the targeting philosophy. The enemy's order of battle for the orbital segment of a space system includes information such as ephemeris, subsystem vulnerabilities, maneuverability, sensor configuration, and periods of natural disruption such as solar interference, satellite eclipse, and proximity operations. Ground segment order of battle information would include information such as the locations of ground stations and control facilities, the existence of mobile ground stations, and ground station vulnerabilities (such as electrical power). Likewise, order of battle information on the link segment would include information on the number of up/downlinks, frequencies, and anti-jam/encryption capabilities. In addition to the information relating to the physical attributes of a space system, space order of battle should also include operational information such as how the system is used, an assessment of its potential contribution to the enemy's overall military strategy, system reconstitution capabilities, and periods of critical commanding. The existence of a comprehensive space order of battle will facilitate the integration of offensive counterspace operations into the theater operations plan and inclusion of space order of battle targets into the ATO and electronic warfare plan.

Integral to USCINCSPACE's responsibility for planning counterspace operations within the theater is the task of developing and maintaining the space order of battle for the threats from space. Currently, USSPACECOM's Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC) is responsible for developing and maintaining the space order of battle with data provided from the Joint Space Intelligence Center and the Space Surveillance Center. Because of the Cold War legacy imprinted on our space control strategy, space order of battle is oriented on the Soviet space threat and focuses primarily on the orbiting satellites and includes information such as the satellite function, configuration, orbital parameters, and overflight predictions. However, since an information dominance strategy focuses on attacking the entire space system, the level of effort needed to develop and maintain a space order of battle for counterspace operations appears to exceed the current capabilities of the SPADOC.

As space technology proliferates, the need for a US strategy to exercise control over potentially threatening space systems increases. Basing our offensive counterspace operations on a strategy of information dominance seems to be a logical approach for determining the focus of a space control campaign. Even though the US has no dedicated operational ASAT capability to provide the lethal, hard-kill options, there are many operational weapon systems that possess inherent capabilities for lethal soft-kill, or non-lethal counterspace applications.

It is increasingly clear that space capabilities are becoming more decisive in the outcome of war. In the current political environment, we need to be more creative and innovative in our approaches to solving national security problems. Information dominance represents a different approach for confronting the threat from multilateral space capabilities and for viewing the objectives of our space control mission.