g.w.
03-25-2003, 02:09 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL FORUM'S DISCUSSION ON "WHY FIGHT IN SPACE?"
____
GWR: It seems the most immediate (and tactical) answers to the question ("Why fight a 'hot' war in space?") are: 1) to influence earth (or, if we can reach a little farther, some other body of interest); and 2) to influence the local space environment. But as usual, with answers come more questions. For instance, as James asked me several months ago, who is the enemy and what threat does the enemy pose? Is fighting in space inevitable (as intimated in the final chapter of Robert O'Connell's "Of Arms and Men")? Is the potential gain of fighting a space battle worth the expense? In other words, would the victory be worth the expense, or would losing be so catastrophic as to justify the cost of fighting?
ELI: Being as "Clausewitzian" (is that a word?) as I can be, war is an extension of politics. Therefore the space war must fit in with some objectives of the state. Efficiency and effectivity seem to be what the people of our nation demand. Space can enable those desires. I would love to see the day that fighter pilots are just a memory (not really true, but I'm trying to make point here) because a laser beam in low earth orbit is shooting down enemy aircraft that cross some "line in the sand" (read "air") as they say. That would kick butt and be efficient/effective at the same time. As proud as Mom and Dad are of Capt Johnny from Hog Hollow, Iowa and his F-16 wings, I still don't think they want him to die. Space can probably (one day) reduce the number of casualties in war and ultimately get the politicians re-elected.
Therefore, yes, the cost is worth the benefit. Not just for the pure military reasons, but also for the "spinoff" technologies that will filter down to Joe Six-pack at some point in each of our lives.....computer chips, GPS, Pyrex, etc of today are a few examples.
[**GWR: Two things to add here. First, you (and Clausewitz) are exactly right. We will only fight in/from space if it advances our national aims--spinoffs are nice, but not the main thing. Second, your efficiency/effectiveness argument is interesting, but is it focused in the right direction? Rather than looking at how many US lives space weapons might save, should we look at how many enemy our space weapons will kill? Isn't that the measure of a weapon's effectiveness? Isn't victory the political aim of the fight?**]
[**ANON: In your commentary on Eli's input, re: the focus of space weapons, and dead enemy being the measure of a weapon's effectiveness - it sounds to me like you are equating killing the enemy with "victory", which doesn't necessarily follow, (mind you, I know you know this, I'm just thinking out loud here). Vietnam, with a 12:1 / 19:1 kill ratio equaled "defeat" for the United States, however you want to define it. I submit that "victory" is just as much convincing a potential enemy that the benefit of attack is not worth the cost.**]
~taylor: "ground which both we and the enemy can traverse with equal ease is called accessible. in such ground, he who first takes high sunny positions convenient to his supply routes can fight advantageously." (ch. 10: terrain) the art of war by sun tzu (~ 500 b.c.e.)
as you can see, i started by quoting a master on the issue:-)
first, we (e.g., humans) have already begun the "fight in space". our (e.g., human) nature is one of conflict. historically, whenever we have transversed to a new medium (e.g., land to sea, land/sea to air, air to space), we bring this conflict with us. unless the very nature of who we (e.g., humans) are changes, then i propose to that it is logical to assume that we will take conflict into space with us. assuming that you accept this "inevitable" principle, then a "hot" war is the natural evolution of our species.
second, space is accessible for us (e.g., usa); however, not so much so for many of our potential adversaries. for a time, we are able to "fight advantegeously". if i was a potential enemy state of the u.s., i would be looking for ways of taking away this advantage. a u.s. "...laser beam in low earth orbit..." means only one thing to me (as an adversary): target! [especially if my country currently lacks the ability to gain physical access]. i would be pouring resources at anti-satellites (micro-satellites), directed energy weapons, etc.--anything that gets my country to the "high ground".
[**GWR: Why throw bad money after good? As I've argued elsewhere, why not target the ground stations and other C2 with more conventional weapons?**]
third, the imminence of this "hot" war is directly proportional to the (continuous) human presence in space. the more players that gain access to space will naturally stress the environment and conflict will ensue.
[**GWR: An interesting notion. How many nations now own satellites? Will someone go to war over an ITU slot, or a specific LEO track? Or will a serious space collision lead to some "denial of service" or "denial of access" attacks?**]
[**ANON: let's try to define "access" for the purposes of information/cyber warfare, which I think will be part and parcel of our overall discussion.**]
wow! rather pessimistic, eh? i am not advocating that this is what "should" be. i am acknowledging what is most probable (based on our past). of course, we (e.g., nations of citizen states) will world to avoid this (e.g., enlightened self interest); however, the "disenfranchised" will "press to test", ya know?
i guess that is what those of us who serve (e.g., in & out of uniform) are for, eh?
MIKE: I also tend to think that given a military scenario (under the requisite national leadership direction, as Eli mentioned) with an adversary that holds extensive amounts of denied access territory, space proves to be a very viable option. . .regardless of the desired effect. The challenge becomes an issue of our ability to defend our on-orbit assets (commercial and military) after an offensive attack from, through or in space.
Also, how would we protect coalition space assets?
[**GWR: Some of us discussed this many moons ago, and I'm not sure anyone is any closer to figuring out the answer. This could be an excellent continuation topic.**]
[**ANON: Can we agree that we have to know what the coalition brings to the table before we discuss that?**]
JAMES: As re: the question on the table, (This by the way fellows, is what you get when you include acadumbics like me, long lead-ins and rhetorical questions), I return to the original question mentioned by GWR: Who is the enemy, and what threat does he/they pose? The answer, I suspect, is hidden in the question - Why did we pursue a "space race" in the first place? It certainly was not to put satellites into orbit, or to boldly go where no man has gone before, but rather to deliver strategic weapons quickly and accurately, without risking aircrew.
[**GWR: I'm not so sure ... the lack of aircrew risk was, I think, secondary to the speed and power of a transorbital strike.**]
[**JG-B: As to delivering strategic weapons quickly and accurately, without risking aircrew, vs. the speed and power of a transorbital strike, I submit that these are two complimentary facets of the same gemstone. Both true, as far as they go, but both secondary to the direct purpose of delivering the weapons in the first place. This, I think is mainly an issue of semantics, as much for politicians as it is for personnel on the sharp end. Just an opinion, take it for what it is worth.**]
[**GWR: I’d have to delve into the original documents to resolve this one. Let’s table this.]
If the above is accepted as accurate, then our approach to space warfare is next under the gun - will our space warfare TO&E/infrastructure be general purpose, generic one-size-fits-all, or tailored to mission-specific, opponent-specific goals?
I am forced again to return to Wiegley's thesis, and propose the following: Our space warfare architecture will, and needs must be predicated on:
1) Our National experience
2) Our available resources
3) The perceived threat/threats
____
GWR: It seems the most immediate (and tactical) answers to the question ("Why fight a 'hot' war in space?") are: 1) to influence earth (or, if we can reach a little farther, some other body of interest); and 2) to influence the local space environment. But as usual, with answers come more questions. For instance, as James asked me several months ago, who is the enemy and what threat does the enemy pose? Is fighting in space inevitable (as intimated in the final chapter of Robert O'Connell's "Of Arms and Men")? Is the potential gain of fighting a space battle worth the expense? In other words, would the victory be worth the expense, or would losing be so catastrophic as to justify the cost of fighting?
ELI: Being as "Clausewitzian" (is that a word?) as I can be, war is an extension of politics. Therefore the space war must fit in with some objectives of the state. Efficiency and effectivity seem to be what the people of our nation demand. Space can enable those desires. I would love to see the day that fighter pilots are just a memory (not really true, but I'm trying to make point here) because a laser beam in low earth orbit is shooting down enemy aircraft that cross some "line in the sand" (read "air") as they say. That would kick butt and be efficient/effective at the same time. As proud as Mom and Dad are of Capt Johnny from Hog Hollow, Iowa and his F-16 wings, I still don't think they want him to die. Space can probably (one day) reduce the number of casualties in war and ultimately get the politicians re-elected.
Therefore, yes, the cost is worth the benefit. Not just for the pure military reasons, but also for the "spinoff" technologies that will filter down to Joe Six-pack at some point in each of our lives.....computer chips, GPS, Pyrex, etc of today are a few examples.
[**GWR: Two things to add here. First, you (and Clausewitz) are exactly right. We will only fight in/from space if it advances our national aims--spinoffs are nice, but not the main thing. Second, your efficiency/effectiveness argument is interesting, but is it focused in the right direction? Rather than looking at how many US lives space weapons might save, should we look at how many enemy our space weapons will kill? Isn't that the measure of a weapon's effectiveness? Isn't victory the political aim of the fight?**]
[**ANON: In your commentary on Eli's input, re: the focus of space weapons, and dead enemy being the measure of a weapon's effectiveness - it sounds to me like you are equating killing the enemy with "victory", which doesn't necessarily follow, (mind you, I know you know this, I'm just thinking out loud here). Vietnam, with a 12:1 / 19:1 kill ratio equaled "defeat" for the United States, however you want to define it. I submit that "victory" is just as much convincing a potential enemy that the benefit of attack is not worth the cost.**]
~taylor: "ground which both we and the enemy can traverse with equal ease is called accessible. in such ground, he who first takes high sunny positions convenient to his supply routes can fight advantageously." (ch. 10: terrain) the art of war by sun tzu (~ 500 b.c.e.)
as you can see, i started by quoting a master on the issue:-)
first, we (e.g., humans) have already begun the "fight in space". our (e.g., human) nature is one of conflict. historically, whenever we have transversed to a new medium (e.g., land to sea, land/sea to air, air to space), we bring this conflict with us. unless the very nature of who we (e.g., humans) are changes, then i propose to that it is logical to assume that we will take conflict into space with us. assuming that you accept this "inevitable" principle, then a "hot" war is the natural evolution of our species.
second, space is accessible for us (e.g., usa); however, not so much so for many of our potential adversaries. for a time, we are able to "fight advantegeously". if i was a potential enemy state of the u.s., i would be looking for ways of taking away this advantage. a u.s. "...laser beam in low earth orbit..." means only one thing to me (as an adversary): target! [especially if my country currently lacks the ability to gain physical access]. i would be pouring resources at anti-satellites (micro-satellites), directed energy weapons, etc.--anything that gets my country to the "high ground".
[**GWR: Why throw bad money after good? As I've argued elsewhere, why not target the ground stations and other C2 with more conventional weapons?**]
third, the imminence of this "hot" war is directly proportional to the (continuous) human presence in space. the more players that gain access to space will naturally stress the environment and conflict will ensue.
[**GWR: An interesting notion. How many nations now own satellites? Will someone go to war over an ITU slot, or a specific LEO track? Or will a serious space collision lead to some "denial of service" or "denial of access" attacks?**]
[**ANON: let's try to define "access" for the purposes of information/cyber warfare, which I think will be part and parcel of our overall discussion.**]
wow! rather pessimistic, eh? i am not advocating that this is what "should" be. i am acknowledging what is most probable (based on our past). of course, we (e.g., nations of citizen states) will world to avoid this (e.g., enlightened self interest); however, the "disenfranchised" will "press to test", ya know?
i guess that is what those of us who serve (e.g., in & out of uniform) are for, eh?
MIKE: I also tend to think that given a military scenario (under the requisite national leadership direction, as Eli mentioned) with an adversary that holds extensive amounts of denied access territory, space proves to be a very viable option. . .regardless of the desired effect. The challenge becomes an issue of our ability to defend our on-orbit assets (commercial and military) after an offensive attack from, through or in space.
Also, how would we protect coalition space assets?
[**GWR: Some of us discussed this many moons ago, and I'm not sure anyone is any closer to figuring out the answer. This could be an excellent continuation topic.**]
[**ANON: Can we agree that we have to know what the coalition brings to the table before we discuss that?**]
JAMES: As re: the question on the table, (This by the way fellows, is what you get when you include acadumbics like me, long lead-ins and rhetorical questions), I return to the original question mentioned by GWR: Who is the enemy, and what threat does he/they pose? The answer, I suspect, is hidden in the question - Why did we pursue a "space race" in the first place? It certainly was not to put satellites into orbit, or to boldly go where no man has gone before, but rather to deliver strategic weapons quickly and accurately, without risking aircrew.
[**GWR: I'm not so sure ... the lack of aircrew risk was, I think, secondary to the speed and power of a transorbital strike.**]
[**JG-B: As to delivering strategic weapons quickly and accurately, without risking aircrew, vs. the speed and power of a transorbital strike, I submit that these are two complimentary facets of the same gemstone. Both true, as far as they go, but both secondary to the direct purpose of delivering the weapons in the first place. This, I think is mainly an issue of semantics, as much for politicians as it is for personnel on the sharp end. Just an opinion, take it for what it is worth.**]
[**GWR: I’d have to delve into the original documents to resolve this one. Let’s table this.]
If the above is accepted as accurate, then our approach to space warfare is next under the gun - will our space warfare TO&E/infrastructure be general purpose, generic one-size-fits-all, or tailored to mission-specific, opponent-specific goals?
I am forced again to return to Wiegley's thesis, and propose the following: Our space warfare architecture will, and needs must be predicated on:
1) Our National experience
2) Our available resources
3) The perceived threat/threats