MOSCOW, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Earlier this month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new priority for his department -- the protection of America's satellites. As if to underline the importance of the task, he demanded in early February that Congress allocate $10.7 billion for the purpose in 2009.
Russia has voiced similar concerns. Air Force Commander Col.-Gen. Alexander Zelin told a conference at the Academy of Military Sciences in mid-January that the biggest threats to Russia in the 21st century come from air and space.
This concern about space raises several questions. First, why do satellites require protection? Second, does defense of space equate to the militarization of space? Third, how can sophisticated and expensive space hardware be protected from unwanted interference?
Today satellites do require protection. To understand why, we have to understand how warfare has changed.
Recent conflicts have shown that the ideas that dominated military thinking in the 20th century have become desperately obsolete. In the wars of today, and the future, the objective is to deal surgical strikes against an enemy's sensitive facilities, rather than seize its territory. Massive use of ground troops and armor is already a thing of the past. The role of strategic aviation is similarly decreasing. In strategic arms, the emphasis is shifting from the classic nuclear triad to high-precision weapons of different basing modes.
This kind of precision warfare has only been made possible by orbital support vehicles -- satellite-based reconnaissance, warning, forecasting and targeting systems.
Much has been done in recent years for the development of "smart" weapons -- guided bombs and missiles that are highly accurate over hundreds of miles. Military analysts say that by 2010 the leading military powers will have 30,000 to 50,000 such weapons between them, and by 2020 some 70,000 to 90,000 of them.
It is hard to imagine how many satellites will be required to support such a vast arsenal, but without them, the cruise missiles capable of hitting a mosquito at a 100-mile range will be absolutely useless.
Thus, hundreds of seemingly harmless "passive" space systems, which themselves are not designed to attack anything, are a crucial component of high-precision weapons, the main armaments of the 21st century.
But this very strength makes space systems the Achilles heel of the modern army. Disabling its satellites would effectively cripple the U.S. armed forces -- and those satellites are almost completely undefended.
--
Next: What makes space satellites vulnerable -- and how they can be defended
--
(Andrei Kislyakov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
