LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  June 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE June 2003

Subject:

U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:20:32 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad

By Loring Wirbel
EE Times
May 22, 2003 (1:26 p.m. ET)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - While much of the talk around the Pentagon these days
focuses on "transformation" of the military, some of the United States' closest
allies worry about another buzzword being used in subtler ways at the National
Reconnaissance Office: "negation."

The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S.
spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command
about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other
nation at any time-not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to
NRO director Peter Teets.

At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets
proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites
be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the
benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm
of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to
learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto
power."

Beginning next year, NRO will be in charge of the new Offensive Counter-Space
program, which will come up with plans to specifically deny the use of
near-Earth space to other nations, said Teets.

The program will include two components: the Counter Communication System,
designed to disrupt other nations' communication networks from space; and the
Counter Surveillance Reconnaissance System, formed to prevent other countries
from using advanced intelligence-gathering technology in air or space.

"Negation implies treating allies poorly," Robert Lawson, senior policy adviser
for nonproliferation in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, said at a
Toronto conference in late March. "It implies treaty busting."

Hints of such a policy showed up in the Rumsfeld Commission report of January
2001, which warned of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the United States did not
dominate low-earth, geosynchronous and polar orbital planes, as well as all
launch facilities and ground stations, to exploit space for battlefield
advantage.

The European Union complained in no uncertain terms five years ago that the NRO
and National Security Agency were using global electronic-snooping programs
like Echelon outside the boundaries of mutual NATO advantage. The European
Space Agency chimed in last fall, when the Defense Department tried to bully
ESA into changing its design plans for a navigational-satellite system called
Galileo.

In the aftermath of the successful Iraq campaign, concern goes much deeper and
extends to the heart of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command
inside Cheyenne Mountain near here. While Canada is supposed to be an equal
member of NORAD, representatives of Canada's military and civilian
establishment are complaining that they are not allowed to use space-based
communications and intelligence in the same way the United States can.

"We cannot address the way the U.S. views missile defense and weapons in space
without dealing with their insistence on space negation head-on," said Lawson
of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs.

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Judd Blaisdell, director of the Air Force Space Operations
Office, said recently, "We are so dominant in space that I pity a country that
would come up against us."

Missile-defense critic William Hartung, of the Institute for Policy Studies,
said none of this should be a surprise. U.S. unilateralism in space was
codified in a Sept. 20, 2002, document titled the "National Security Strategy
of the United States."

After the administration renounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty last year,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made it clear that the abrogation of treaty
constraints in the use of radar and tracking devices was not just for the
benefit of fielding a missile-defense system, but to build better unilateral
networks to manage the planet from space.

In fact, NRO director Teets said here and in earlier Congressional testimony
that it is artificial to see communication tools, intelligence tools and
missile-defense tools as separate. In reality, he said, the programs all feed
into each other and help reinforce the Pentagon's current overwhelming space
dominance.

Currently, the NRO manages a series of imaging satellites, including the
20-year-old Advanced Crystal system. It manages a family of large radar
satellites called Lacrosse/Onyx, and two classes of listening satellites: a
microwave-only system known as Vortex or Mercury, and a multifrequency behemoth
known as Magnum or Orion. The last two geosynchronous satellites are so large
they must be launched by the massive Titan-IV rocket.

Even though billions were spent every year on these satellites in the 1980s and
1990s, they could not fulfill the new NRO mission of disseminating intelligence
beyond the nation's civilian leaders, direct to the attlefield. NRO lobbied
Congress for a radar satellite follow-on, now called Space-Based Radar. While
NASA is supposed to be a customer for such a system, Teets said its primary
purpose is to improve moving-target indication on the battlefield.

On the imaging and signals fronts, Boeing Corp. won separate contracts in the
late 1990s for a next-generation imaging network called Future Imagery
Architecture and for a listening satellite called Intruder. Both Boeing
projects now face Congressional scrutiny for being over budget and behind
schedule.

To fill the imaging gap during the Afghan and Iraq wars, the NRO and the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) bought up all the image products
from two companies that fly commercial imaging satellites, Space Imaging Inc.
and DigitalGlobe Inc. In the first phase, ClearVision, the agencies merely
bought up existing photographs. But a new phase, NextVision, calls for NRO and
NIMA to specify how the commercial firms should build their next-generation
satellites.

The constellation of 27 satellites in the Global Positioning Satellite
navigation network were used in Iraq to turn dumb bombs into precision weapons.
With further upgrades planned in the GPS-III system, DoD wants to be sure the
United States holds the trump in space-based navigation.

The SBIRS-High infrared detection system, meanwhile, has become one of the
Defense Department's biggest white elephants.

The SBIRS-High Increment 1 software finally was installed at Buckley Air Force
Base in Aurora, Colo., almost two years late, but the birds themselves are
plagued with problems involving the infrared telescopes and other glitches.

New communications satellites are being rolled out for the Defense Information
Systems Agency, under the management of NRO. The Advanced Extremely
High-Frequency satellite is the successor to Milstar. Voiceband communications
will be handled by the Multi-User Objective System satellite, or MUOS, while
new broadband video services will be handled by the Wideband Gapfiller.

But NRO's Teets said those three programs are only the beginning. The
Transformational Communication Office was established last September to meld
the communication and intelligence interests of the Defense Department. NRO and
NASA will spend more than $10 billion in coming years to define a network of
joint NRO-NASA satellites that will bring Internet-like space communications to
terrestrial battlefields.

What will this massive palette of space resources bring? Teets told Congress
that what's already in place allows U.S. military dominance in any possible
battle scenario.

This transformational use of space resources may play well since the end of the
Iraq War, but it is causing some defections. Several analysts at the Naval War
College and Air Force Academy published essays in the months leading up to the
Iraq assault, warning against assuming that the United States can maintain sole
dominance of space. In March, retired Brig. Gen. Owen Lentz, former director of
intelligence for Space Command, publicly voiced his opposition to using space
intelligence assets for first-strike warfare. Just because the strategy worked
in Iraq, Lentz warned, "does not mean that it should become a pattern for
future action against others."

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager