The Ethical Use of Outer Space - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 111

At the end of the Cold War, US and USSR military space systems were providing
key functions for command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, sur-
veillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) in addition to important early warning, navi-
gation and weapon guidance applications.

3.3.1 US Military Space Development

'Operation Desert Storm' in Iraq in 1991 is considered to be the fi rst time that there
was a signifi cant use of space technology for warfi ghting. The United States
employed so-called 'smart' weapons whose guidance and targeting systems
employed the use of satellites (Webre 2003 ). This experience was extended in
Yugoslavia in 1999, when the aerial bombardment of Serbia was described by
Chalmers Johnson as the fi rst 'space-enabled' war (Johnson 2004 ), and the War in
Afghanistan in 2001 through to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' in 2003, and space tech-
nology was used to integrate land-, sea- and air-based military networks together
into a combined command and control system. This use of space technology and the
networking of the control and management of military activities have become
known as 'netcentric warfare' (Halpin et al. 2006 ).
Development of satellite technology for C4ISR has reached a level where a mili-
tary response is expected to be achieved in minutes rather than hours or days. To US
space commanders, space has become 'the ultimate military high ground' through
the deployment of, and dependence on, a range of space systems that handle and
integrate communications, weather forecasting, eavesdropping, surveillance and
early-warning functions. In addition the US Global Positioning System (GPS) has
become part of a space-based weapon system and is being used to direct troops,
support vehicles and guide the so-called 'smart' weapons. However, the dependence
on space-based technologies has created a diffi culty for the military. Donald
Rumsfeld's 2001 Space Commission Report highlighted the vulnerability of satel-
lite systems and concluded that it was necessary for the United States to completely
dominate all aspects of space in order to ensure an adequate defence of their space
assets and to protect against a possible 'Space Pearl Harbour'.
This centred the prevailing US military thinking around concepts such as 'full-
spectrum dominance' in which it was important to 'pursue superiority in space
through robust … defensive and offensive capabilities', maintain a fully integrated
'land, sea, air and space war-fi ghting system' (US Space Command 1997 ) and inte-
grate civil and commercial space operations with military ones (Garamone 2000 ).
To achieve this, the US Air Force adopted a doctrine of 'Counterspace Operations' -
'the ways and means by which the Air Force achieves and maintains space superior-
ity' - the 'freedom to attack as well as the freedom from attack' (Air Force Doctrine
Center 2004 ). Although the forceful and confrontational language may have changed
somewhat since George W. Bush's Administrations, the intent seems to remain.
Despite cuts in spending during the recent fi nancial crisis, the United States contin-
ues to spend billions of dollars on the development of a number of military space
programmes (Werner 2013 ; Rawnsley 2011 ) and the deployment of missile defence