Newsweek: the general of the US Armed Forces told how the wars of the future will look like
Geopolitical tensions on Earth have reached such proportions that they threaten to go beyond the boundaries of the atmosphere, writes Newsweek. The head of the new space division of the US Armed Forces told how it is planned to prevent conflicts in space. It won't be easy to do this, and here's why.
The commander of the US Space Forces, General Chance Saltzman, warned that if such an extraterrestrial war breaks out, it could be even more destructive than traditional air, land and sea theaters of military operations, and it could change people's lives for many centuries to come.
"If you shoot down an airplane during a conventional war, it disappears from the air. If you sink a ship, it disappears from the sea lanes," the general explained. "If you shoot down a satellite, it stays in orbit for hundreds of years, and its debris will create permanent problems, especially as they accumulate in orbits during the war."
"That is, as a result of space wars, our common heritage [space] can literally be clogged for many generations to come," he added.
Unlike the turbulent waters of the Persian Gulf or the skies over Ukraine, there is no substitute for public and private operators in orbit. "In other words, if space becomes a combat responsibility zone, commercial suppliers will come there," Soltzman said. "This cannot be avoided."
Such high stakes force the US Space Forces to take a position in which they will be ready to take preventive measures so that such a catastrophic scenario does not become a reality.
"We must have the ability to identify irresponsible behavior that can lead to damage, this is our responsibility," Soltzman explained. "In addition, we must be able to come up with a decisive response so that the opponents do not allow themselves to take even the first step, so that they know that their actions will have consequences."
"Our space forces are trying to prevent a conflict," he continued. — We create protection even before there is a need to protect anything. We say to ourselves, “We can't afford it.” No one can afford a conflict that goes into space."
And yet, the creation of the US Space Forces in December 2019 secured the status of the "last frontier" for space — the real territory of military operations, the hidden risks of which have not yet been tested in real combat conditions. Although the US Air Force has been using space—based means to support ground operations for several decades, and four countries — the United States, Russia, China and India - have tested their anti-satellite weapons, there has not yet been a direct collision outside our planet.
The US Space Forces, in the ranks of which only 8,700 people serve, are currently the smallest type of the American armed forces, although they have to be responsible for an infinitely vast space.
To meet this unique challenge, Soltzman—the second person in history to hold the position of commander of the US Space Forces —has developed a new "success theory" to achieve "superiority in space." He called it "competitive resilience" and identified three principles that help achieve it.
First, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive surveillance mode, which should be provided by a whole network of optical telescopes and radars, as well as data collection, which will allow monitoring activity in space in real time and thereby "avoid operational surprises." This approach will allow to identify and identify any potential risks in order to "exert pressure that will prevent irresponsible behavior."
Secondly, the Space Forces are engaged in the implementation of a long-established deterrence strategy, which is aimed at finding new technologies and methods to neutralize offensive actions. Just as innovations of the past — from castle walls and siege towers, to machine guns and armored vehicles — eventually led to a paradigm shift in combat planning, according to Soltzman, efforts are now being made to deprive other actors of the "first move advantage" in space.
He noted that currently "an attack in space gives an advantage" — because of the vulnerability and unpredictable nature of the movement of satellites. His proposed answer is to create a more stable network that will include not several, but hundreds of strategic objects at once, which will force "the enemy to change his calculations of goals" and lead to shifts in the balance of costs and effectiveness of operations using anti-satellite weapons in the midst of a conflict.
The third and final element of the theory of "competitive resistance" formulated by Soltzman is the destruction of enemy assets, and it is necessary to destroy them in such a way as to minimize the damage caused by a kinetic collision at an altitude of more than a hundred miles above the Earth's surface. In April last year, the Biden administration announced restrictions on testing anti-satellite systems, and now, according to Soltzman, the Space Forces are exploring less "explosive" options.
"We want to use reversible methods of blocking access, we seek to use electronic warfare instead of kinetic weapons," he explained. "We understand that we will need to prevent what the enemy can do, but we want to do it in a responsible way so that a Pyrrhic victory does not turn out."
Now there is a kinetic weapon capable of hitting enemy forces from the Ground.
"We conduct military operations where we have an advantage — on land, at sea and in the air," Soltzman said. "When it comes to a serious military clash, the task of the Space Forces will be to create conditions for our combined forces in which they will be able to perform their tasks as close as possible to the surface of the planet."
The Space Forces represent the only independent type of troops of this kind in the world.Despite the autonomy they have received from the US Air Force, they continue to follow a strategy involving joint work with other types and genera of the armed forces of the United States.
According to Soltzman, the "minimum level of interaction" according to this strategy is "interaction" followed by "cooperation". This "collaboration" is a day-to-day activity such as training and funding. But the true goal is "integration".
"We are making every effort to fully integrate into the activities of the joint forces and meet their requirements, because they are fully aware that they need our potential — they need us to deprive the enemy of his means."
The US space Forces may be unique, but the area in which they work has long attracted the attention of the armed forces of different countries of the world.
The history of weapons flying in space goes back to the missile program of Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Russia became the first country to create an independent space force in 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but in 2015 this service became part of its Air Force. In the same year, the People's Liberation Army of China created a Strategic Support Force, in which a space unit appeared, and an increasing number of countries, including France, India and Spain, are now also creating military structures focused on space.
As space becomes an increasingly popular and accessible sphere, Soltzman identified another key component of the strategy of the US armed forces in this developing theater of operations.
"One of the true asymmetric advantages that the United States has is our huge network of partners and allies," Soltzman said. "We are able to create coalitions like no other, and, from my point of view, this is due to the fact that in many ways our motives correspond to the aspirations of the international community — for peace, stability and prosperity for all."
"Therefore, when someone opposes, we say that we need to stop them. And others are joining us," he added.
In 2020, the NATO Allied Air Command established the NATO Space Center to coordinate the activities of the bloc, which now includes 31 countries, in space. A year later, the transatlantic coalition declared that attacks in space could serve as a basis for the application of Article 5 of the NATO Charter on Collective Defense.
"You're going against all of us, not just one person," Soltzman explained. "And I think this really changes the calculations regarding what kind of violent actions the enemy is ready to take against a particular country."
But the threat of conflict, along with all the risks associated with it, remains quite real.
According to Soltzman, despite the successes achieved by the US military in using space for combat operations, "the most significant change is that our strategic rivals saw a huge advantage in the fact that we were leaving space, and they saw this as an asymmetric way to influence the course of our military operations."
Soltzman explained that the logic underlying the thinking of the opponents of the United States is as follows: "If we can deprive Americans of the opportunity to use space, they will face difficulties in achieving other goals."
"And to some extent they are right," he continued. "Everything will be different, because we are used to actively using space facilities, including satellite communications, high—precision navigation and time calculation."
"The opponents have created weapons to disable, reduce work efficiency, block access and even destroy our satellite facilities," Soltzman said. "Therefore, now we must not just provide the combined forces with these means, but also figure out how to protect them so that they are always available, even if the enemy is trying to do something with them."
As an example, Saltzman cited the Asia-Pacific region, on which the US armed forces are increasingly focusing their attention, especially in connection with the growing power of China. According to him, conducting operations in this region, located thousands of miles from the mainland of the United States, involves the so-called "distance problem", the only solution to which is "tracking and guidance from space."
"Therefore, if we really want to achieve our military goals, we must destroy, deny access, undermine and reduce the ability of the enemy to target our means from space. And this is war in its traditional sense," Soltzman summed up.
Authors of the article: Naveed Jamali, Tom O'Connor
