<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>astropolitics.org Blog &#187; Space Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/index.php/category/space-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1</link>
	<description>Dr Dolman's place in cyberspace</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 01:09:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Is the X-37B a prelude to space warfare?</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/14/is-the-x-37b-a-prelude-to-space-warfare/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/14/is-the-x-37b-a-prelude-to-space-warfare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jeremy Hsu writes in the Christian Science Monitor :
The X-37B, A U.S. Air Force space raises concerns about weapons in space. While its exact purpose remains unclear, it joins a host of new space technology that could usher in a new era of space warfare.
 
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeremy Hsu writes in the <a title="x37b csm 2" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0510/Is-the-X-37B-a-prelude-to-space-warfare" target="_blank"><em>Christian Science Monitor</em> </a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The X-37B, A U.S. Air Force space raises concerns about weapons in space. While its exact purpose remains unclear, it joins a host of new space technology that could usher in a new era of space warfare.</p></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div id="attachment_113" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 519px"><a href="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/0505-X37B-space-warfare_full_6001.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-113" title="0505-X37B-space-warfare_full_600" src="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/0505-X37B-space-warfare_full_6001.jpg" alt="X37b CSM 2" width="509" height="351" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">This undated file image released by the U.S. Air Force shows the X-37B spacecraft, an unmanned space plane. The Pentagon&#39;s forays into earth&#39;s orbit have raised concerns about space warfare.</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/14/is-the-x-37b-a-prelude-to-space-warfare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Black World&#8217; Space Shuttle: Air Force Raises the Stakes for a New Arms Race</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/10/black-world-space-shuttle-air-force-raises-the-stakes-for-a-new-arms-race/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/10/black-world-space-shuttle-air-force-raises-the-stakes-for-a-new-arms-race/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 03:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crass Self-Promotion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is from Tom Burghardt, a “researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.” He has a pretty interesting article in the Pacific Free Press.
It&#8217;s not as if things aren&#8217;t bad enough right here on planet earth. What with multiple wars and occupations, an accelerating economic meltdown, corporate malfeasance and environmental catastrophes such [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is from Tom Burghardt<strong>,</strong> a “researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.” He has a pretty interesting article in the <em><a title="X37b Burghardt" href="http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6171-raising-the-stakes-for-a-new-arms-race.html" target="_blank">Pacific Free Press</a></em>.</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s not as if things aren&#8217;t bad enough right here on planet earth. What with multiple wars and occupations, an accelerating economic meltdown, corporate malfeasance and environmental catastrophes such as the petroleum-fueled apocalypse in the Gulf of Mexico, I&#8217;d say we have a full plate already.</p>
<p>Now the Defense Department wants to up the stakes with new, destabilizing weapons systems that will transform low- and high-earth orbit into another &#8220;battlespace,&#8221; pouring billions into programs to achieve what Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has long dreamed of: &#8220;space dominance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Indeed, Pentagon space warriors fully intend to field a robust anti-satellite (ASAT) capability that can disable, damage or destroy the satellites of other nations, all for &#8220;defensive&#8221; purposes, mind you.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s the set-up, and Burghardt highlights one of my favorite Lance Lord quotes:</p>
<blockquote><p>Back in 2005, The New York Times reported that General Lance W. Lord, then commander of AFSPC, told an Air Force conference that &#8220;space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. &#8230; Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Of course, I only saw this because I was ego-surfing on Google (see crass self-promotion). I got a kick out of how an accurate quote of mine is intermixed with an opinion on Area 51 (somethign I did not do but am looking forward to the web hits it will generate):</p>
<blockquote><p>This view is shared by Everett Dolman, a professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.</p>
<p>&#8220;Regardless of its original intent, Dolman told Space.com, &#8220;the most obvious and formidable is in service as a space fighter&#8211;a remotely piloted craft capable of disabling multiple satellites in orbit on a single mission and staying on orbit for months to engage newly orbited platforms.&#8221; <em>A project such as the X-37B, more advanced systems still on the drawing-board or in development in any number of Air Force black sites such as Groom Lake (Area 51)</em> &#8220;would be a tremendous tactical advantage,&#8221; Dolman said.</p>
<p>Even were the system not to be transformed into a space bomber, Dolman theorized that the X-37B could be maneuvered close to an adversary&#8217;s satellite and capture details in the form of signals intelligence. &#8220;With the anticipated increase in networked-microsatellites in the next few years, such a platform might be the best&#8211;and only&#8211;means of collecting technical intelligence in space.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The italics are mine, in the excerpt above, if not the words or sentiment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/10/black-world-space-shuttle-air-force-raises-the-stakes-for-a-new-arms-race/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Schriever X</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/09/schriever-x/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/09/schriever-x/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 02:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crass Self-Promotion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2010 version of the Schriever Wargame series&#8211;Schriever X, which is actually the sixth iteration, but I quibble&#8211;is on, and I am present with uberprofessor Mike Pavelec. Fabulous Las Vegas will have to wait, because this game is for real.
Look for my after action report in a couple of weeks:
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. &#8211; The Space [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 2010 version of the Schriever Wargame series&#8211;<a title="Shcriever X game 1" href="http://www.defencetalk.com/space-wargame-focused-on-improving-wartime-capabilities-11443/" target="_blank">Schriever X</a>, which is actually the sixth iteration, but I quibble&#8211;is on, and I am present with uberprofessor <a title="History Mike" href="http://www.historymike.com" target="_blank">Mike Pavelec</a>. Fabulous Las Vegas will have to wait, because <a title="Schriever X 2" href="http://www.afspc.af.mil/pressreleasearchive/story.asp?id=123203458" target="_blank">this game </a>is for real.</p>
<p>Look for my after action report in a couple of weeks:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo.</strong> &#8211; The Space Innovation and Development Center will conduct the sixth Schriever Wargame at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., starting May 7, 2010.</p>
<p>The Schriever Wargame, set in the year 2022, will explore critical space issues and investigate the integration activities of multiple agencies associated with space systems and services.</p>
<p>The objectives of the wargame will center on: 1) Investigating space and cyberspace alternative concepts, capabilities and force postures to meet future requirements, 2) Examining the contributions of space and cyberspace to future deterrent strategies, and 3) Exploring integrated planning processes that employ a whole-of-nations&#8217; (comprehensive) approach to protect and execute operations in space and cyberspace domains.</p>
<p>Although the details of the scenario remain classified, the game stresses space planning and deterrence in the context of a future global conflict. This wargame builds on the challenges associated with U.S. and allied space systems highlighted during the previous five wargames.</p>
<p>The Space Innovation and Development Center will conduct this wargame on behalf of Air Force Space Command headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colo.</p>
<p>Approximately 350 military and civilian experts from more than 30 agencies around the country as well as from Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, will participate in the wargame.</p>
<p>The Schriever Wargame Series is &#8220;an important tool that helps us understand a very complex operational environment,&#8221; said Gen. C. Robert Kehler, AFSPC commander. &#8220;These games give the Air Force and all space mission partners a better idea of how to protect space assets from potential adversaries and how to better integrate space systems through our national security community.&#8221;</p>
<p>Agencies participating include: Air Force Space Command; Army Space and Missile Defense Command; Naval Network and Space Operations Command; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Space Office; Air Combat Command; Office of the Secretary of Defense; US Joint Forces Command; US European Command, US Pacific Command; US Strategic Command; US Southern Command; US Transportation Command; US Special Operations Command; US Northern Command; NORAD; Defense Information Systems Agency; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; the National Security Agency; NASA; the Office of Homeland Security; Department of Transportation; Department of State; and the Department of Commerce.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/09/schriever-x/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It just gets better &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/03/it-just-gets-better/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/03/it-just-gets-better/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 16:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now we are really getting things out of context. Really? Iran is Spooked?
From Asia Times, &#8220;US Robotic Shuttle Spooks Iran.&#8221;
 
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now we are really getting things out of context. Really? Iran is Spooked?</p>
<p>From <em><a title="X37b AT" href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE04Ak05.html" target="_blank">Asia Times</a></em>, &#8220;US Robotic Shuttle Spooks Iran.&#8221;</p>
<p> <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-103" title="88709_pesawat_luar_angkasa_x_37b_milik_militer_as_300_225" src="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/88709_pesawat_luar_angkasa_x_37b_milik_militer_as_300_2251.jpg" alt="88709_pesawat_luar_angkasa_x_37b_milik_militer_as_300_225" width="300" height="225" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/03/it-just-gets-better/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USAF Responds: No Weapons Here</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/usaf-responds-no-weapons-here/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/usaf-responds-no-weapons-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 21:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[USAF Deputy Undersecretary for Space Programs, Gary Payton, played down any speculation that the X37B is a test platform that could have any weapons applications. See the full response first reported in the Christian Science Monitor.
Methinks he doth protest too much.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>USAF Deputy Undersecretary for Space Programs, Gary Payton, played down any speculation that the X37B is a test platform that could have any weapons applications. See the full response first reported in the <a title="X37b CSM" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0423/Air-Force-says-X37-B-space-plane-is-not-a-weapon" target="_blank">Christian Science Monitor</a>.</p>
<p><em>Methinks he doth protest too much.</em></p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-98" title="04-22-space-plane_full_600" src="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/04-22-space-plane_full_600-300x199.jpg" alt="04-22-space-plane_full_600" width="300" height="199" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/usaf-responds-no-weapons-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Is That Thing?</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/what-is-that-thing/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/what-is-that-thing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 21:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/?p=91</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple of weeks ago, I was asked to comment on the upcoming launch of the USAF&#8217;s super-secret X-37B Space Plane. 
First reported by Leonard Davies in Space News, it was picked up by MSNBC :
 
 
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>A couple of weeks ago, I was asked to comment on the upcoming launch of the USAF&#8217;s super-secret X-37B Space Plane. </em></p>
<p><em>First reported by Leonard Davies in <a title="X37B SpaceNews" href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-speculation-100412.html" target="_blank">Space News</a>, it was picked up by <a title="X37B on MSNBC" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36425763/ns/technology_and_science-space/" target="_blank">MSNBC </a>:</em></p>
<p><em> </em><em><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-94" title="090602-x-37b-space-plane-02" src="http://astropolitics.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/090602-x-37b-space-plane-02.jpg" alt="090602-x-37b-space-plane-02" width="348" height="286" /></em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2010/05/02/what-is-that-thing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Food Fight! Navy Man Bites Air Force Satellite Dog</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Navy Hits USAF On Satellite Acquisition (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL 17 MAR 08)WASHINGTON &#8212; The U.S. Navy has told lawmakers it fears being short-changed when cuts are made to over-budget spy satellite programs run by the Air Force.
In unusually blunt testimony, Rear Adm. Kenneth Deutsch, director of warfare integration in the Navy&#8217;s communications networks office, raised [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="2"><font size="2"><strong><em>Navy Hits USAF On Satellite Acquisition</em></strong> (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL 17 MAR 08)</font></font><font size="2"><font size="2">WASHINGTON &#8212; The U.S. Navy has told lawmakers it fears being short-changed when cuts are made to over-budget spy satellite programs run by the Air Force.</p>
<p>In unusually blunt testimony, Rear Adm. Kenneth Deutsch, director of warfare integration in the Navy&#8217;s communications networks office, raised a series of concerns about the U.S. Air Force&#8217;s management of some Defense satellite programs.</p>
<p>The March 4 testimony was first reported by GovernmentExecutive.Com&#8217;s Bob Brewin, who said it broke (an) unspoken code of conduct&#8221; that &#8220;top officials of the four services &#8230; usually take pains to not take shots at each other.&#8221;</p>
<p>Deutsch said satellite programs managed by the Air Force, which is the Defense Department&#8217;s executive <span id="more-76"></span>agent for space, &#8220;tend to shortchange&#8221; &#8212; in Brewin&#8217;s phrase &#8212; Navy requirements and missions.</p>
<p>&#8220;Without active Navy involvement today in ongoing deliberations over future satellite programs, the Navy risks operating in future scenarios with multibillion-dollar National Security Space systems sub-optimized for the maritime environment, which is increasingly important as maritime domain awareness requirements are developed.&#8221;</p>
<p>He told the hearing it was important Navy official were involved from the start in planning the satellite acquisition programs, which take years to reach fruition and are notorious for running over budget.</p>
<p>&#8220;Due to the long lead times involved, it is therefore critical that naval requirements and maritime missions be factored into the pre-launch design and planned in-orbit operation of all future satellite systems being considered for acquisition through the (Defense Department) executive agent for space,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>In his testimony, he fretted that many such programs already &#8220;face technological and budgetary hurdles, which could force future capability trade-offs affecting the maritime environment and could ultimately impact their utility to the Navy.</p>
<p>**********************</p>
<p><strong>COMMITTEE: Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces</strong></p>
<p><em>Navy Man Bites Air Force Satellite Dog</em></p>
<p><a href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/March/Deutsch%2003-04-08"><u><font color="#0000ff" size="2"><a href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/March/Deutsch%2003-04-08.pdf">http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/March/Deutsch%2003-04-08<font size="2">.pdf</font></a></font></u></a></p>
<p>When top officials of the four services appear before congressional committees, they usually take pains to not take shots at each other.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a wise move, or a hearing could end up a partisan food fight.</p>
<p>Rear Admiral Kenneth Deutsch, director of warfare integration in the Navy&#8217;s communications networks office, broke this unspoken code of conduct on March 4 when he took some rather direct shots at Defense satellite programs managed by the Air Force.</p>
<p>Deutsch told </font><font size="2">the committee that satellite programs managed by the Air Force,</font></font><font size="2"> which is the Defense executive agent for space, tend to shortchange Navy requirements and missions. &#8220;Without active Navy involvement today in ongoing deliberations over future satellite programs, the Navy risks operating in future scenarios with multibillion-dollar National Security Space systems suboptimized for the maritime environment, which is increasingly important as maritime domain awareness requirements are developed.&#8221;</font><font size="2">He told the hearing that &#8220;due to the long lead times involved, it is therefore critical that naval requirements and maritime missions be factored into the pre-launch design and planned in-orbit operation of all future satellite systems being considered for acquisition through the DoD executive agent for space..&#8221;</p>
<p>Deutsche said many satellite programs currently under development &#8220;face technological and budgetary hurdles, which could force future capability trade-offs affecting the maritime environment and could ultimately impact their utility to the Navy.&#8221; He added the service intends to press its case with Defense leadership to ensure its &#8220;needs in space are identified, understood, resourced and protected.&#8221;</p>
<p>How Deutsch will make this happen, I don&#8217;t know. Maybe send a carrier battle group after the Air Force?</p>
<p> </p>
<p></font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/25/food-fight-navy-man-bites-air-force-satellite-dog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A New Art of War?</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thought this one was worth posting. Looks like General Chilton might be coming around to a warfighter&#8217;s view of space. Not a bad thing to have happen to a former Shuttle astronaut now in charge of the nation&#8217;s Strategic Command. And Mike Vickers always knows what he is talking about.
The New Art of War By [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought this one was worth posting. Looks like General Chilton might be coming around to a warfighter&#8217;s view of space. Not a bad thing to have happen to a former Shuttle astronaut now in charge of the nation&#8217;s Strategic Command. And Mike Vickers <em>always</em> knows what he is talking about.</p>
<p><font size="2"><a title="pincus" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202216.html" target="_blank"><strong>The New Art of War </strong>By Walter Pincus</a></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><em>Washington Post</em>, Monday, March 3, 2008; A15</font><font size="2"> </font><font size="2">If there were any doubts that the United States is preparing for war in space and cyberspace, testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee last week would have wiped them away.<span id="more-74"></span></p>
<p>According to Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, &#8220;our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities, and we must be ready to detect, track, characterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our space infrastructure.&#8221;</p>
<p>Although space threats have received much attention in the past, it was the possibility of cyberspace warfare that was given new emphasis at the hearing.</p>
<p>Chilton described cyberspace as an &#8220;emerging war-fighting domain.&#8221; He said that &#8220;potential adversaries recognize the U.S. reliance on &#8230; [its] use and constantly probe our networks seeking competitive advantage,&#8221; providing the reasons for developing defensive and offensive systems in this area.</p>
<p>U.S. cyberspace, in Pentagon terms called the Global Information Grid, serves as &#8220;a conduit that links human activity and facilitates the exchange of information,&#8221; Chilton said.</p>
<p>Michael G. Vickers, assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities, who also testified, told the panel: &#8220;Threats to our computer networks are real and growing,&#8221; and attacks and attempted intrusions come &#8220;on a daily basis.&#8221;</p>
<p>Strategies and institutions have been created for the war to protect cyberspace. There is, for example, the classified 2006 National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, which concludes that &#8220;offensive capabilities in cyberspace offer both the U.S. and our adversaries an opportunity to gain and maintain the initiative.&#8221;</p>
<p>Strategic Command, working with Joint Chiefs of Staff personnel, is developing contingency plans and carrying out operations that protect the government&#8217;s computer networks through detection and coordinated counterattacks against intruders. This often involves other Pentagon and interagency elements, according to Chilton.</p>
<p>Capabilities are being developed &#8220;to operate, defend, exploit and attack in cyberspace,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Here are a few of the units that Chilton said have been enlisted to prepare for cyberspace battles:</p>
<p>The Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations in Arlington directs operations and defense of the worldwide Defense cybernetwork in real time at strategic, operational and tactical levels. It is involved in fighting, intelligence gathering and conducting normal business.</p>
<p>The Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare is led by the director of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade. This group manages the cooperative arrangements for defending national computer operations and for carrying out network warfare against adversaries. In an article on the command three years ago, Wired magazine reported: &#8220;It could best be described as the world&#8217;s most formidable hacker posse.</p>
<p>Ever.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Joint Information Operations Warfare Command, located at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, integrates elements of electronic warfare, military deception, operations security and strategic communications to ensure that cyberspace is controlled and available to friendly forces for offensive and defensive uses.</p>
<p>When it came to space vulnerabilities, Chilton and Vickers both pushed for &#8220;prompt global strike&#8221; capability. That refers to an intercontinental ballistic missile with a conventional warhead or another type of delivery system that could reach anywhere in the world within an hour, programs that are being researched today.</p>
<p>The threat was described to the panel by Vickers, who said, &#8220;Our space capabilities face a wide range of threats such as radio frequency jamming, laser blinding and anti-satellite systems,&#8221; including the &#8220;anti-satellite capability demonstrated by China last year.&#8221;</p>
<p>Asked by Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.) what could be done if the Chinese continued to &#8220;dazzle&#8221; U.S. satellites with lasers, Vickers referred to that same type of prompt global strike concept.</p>
<p>&#8220;We believe we need that capability now,&#8221; Vickers said.</p>
<p /></font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/05/a-new-art-of-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Words Matter</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jim Oberg has another great take on &#8220;Sense, nonsense, and pretense about the destruction of USA 193&#8221; in The Space Review.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Oberg has another great take on &#8220;<a title="usa 193 nonsense" href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1073/1" target="_blank">Sense, nonsense, and pretense about the destruction of USA 193</a>&#8221; in <em>The Space Review</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/03/03/words-matter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dolman Speaks (too)</title>
		<link>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/</link>
		<comments>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dolman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Military Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space Warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jeremy Hsu of Imaginova penned an article for Space News: &#8220;Space Arms Race Heats up Overnight.&#8221; A few choice bits (my emphases):
&#8220;It was an unfortunate choice by the United States that seems to have been unnecessary. The fact is that satellites fall from space all the time and the risk of it was fairly minimal,&#8221; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeremy Hsu of Imaginova penned an article for Space News: &#8220;<a href="http://www.space.com/news/080221-asat-aftermath.html" target="_blank">Space Arms Race Heats up Overnight</a>.&#8221; A few choice bits (my emphases):</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8220;It was an unfortunate choice by the United States that seems to have been unnecessary. The fact is that satellites fall from space all the time and the risk of it was fairly minimal,&#8221; said <strong>Stephen Young</strong>, the senior analyst in Washington, D.C., for the<strong> Union of Concerned Scientist&#8217;s Global Security Program</strong>. &#8220;But the implications of the satellite shootdown could be very severe. <em><strong>We&#8217;re talking about a potential arms race in space</strong></em>.&#8221; </span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8220;It&#8217;s a step backward in terms of weaponization of space because whatever the U.S. government&#8217;s official stance is, the world perception is that this was an ASAT test,&#8221; said <strong>Phil Smith</strong>, assistant director for Research and Planning for the <strong>Secure World Foundation</strong>. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial" /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8220;<strong><em>This is obviously being hailed as a victory</em></strong> both politically, because the [</span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial">] administration can claim there was no loss of life, and <strong><em>technically because it worked</em></strong>,&#8221; said <strong>Theresa Hitchens</strong>, <strong>Center for Defense Information </strong>director. &#8220;It helped the [</span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial">] Navy demonstrate the capabilities of its missile defense system.&#8221;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&#8220;Since <span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> did their ASAT [anti-satellite] test and got into political hot water, there&#8217;s been debate in </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> about whether to go forward,&#8221; Hitchens said. &#8220;This would seem to give PLA [People's Liberation Army] hardliners more ammunition for their argument, and also gives other nations the signal that it&#8217;s okay if you test this technology if it&#8217;s done safely.&#8221;</span></p>
<p /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial">Another expert saw </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8217;s internal debate differently, even as </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> asked for more information about the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> satellite shootdown.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em>&#8220;Their concern is not whether they should continue with their military space program,&#8221; said <strong>Everett Dolman</strong>, a professor of comparative military studies at Maxwell Air Force Base.</em></p>
<p /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-family: Arial">Dolman added that much of the international outcry over </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8217;s test was over the large debris field left in orbit by the Chinese satellite&#8217;s destruction, and so the Chinese were likely discussing how to prevent such international condemnation in future tests. He sees the continuing weaponization of space as almost a certainty, particularly as the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> continue jockeying to maintain and increase their global power.</span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8220;If there is going to be a big conflict between the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial">, it&#8217;s likely the first salvoes will be in space because the security needs of the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial">China</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> are incompatible there,&#8221; Dolman said.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-family: Arial" /></em><em><span style="font-family: Arial"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial">At least one </span><span style="font-family: Arial">expert saw the demonstration as a crucial step by the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> to ensure its military and political dominance if a space arms race becomes inevitable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial">&#8220;This was in my view a very positive move by the </span><span style="font-family: Arial">U.S.</span><span style="font-family: Arial"> for stability,&#8221; said Dolman. &#8220;The fact that you&#8217;re using a Navy ship and a fairly standard weapon to do this is really ratcheting up the technology curve.&#8221;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial" /></p>
<p /></span></em></span></span></p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2008/02/26/dolman-speaks-too/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.372 seconds -->
