![]() "If we keep using the current space policy without necessary and needed changes, the U.S. intervention without firing a single shot," Chow said. This would be the perfect outcome for China, as it prevented U.S. "Facing these two bad choices, the United States might end up not intervening at all. Secondly, Chow said that the United States may not be able to fight effectively without the support of some critical satellites. "However, without discussing and resolving these two ambiguities with the international community in peacetime, the United States could be condemned as the aggressor who fired the first shot, which led to a war in space possibly spreading to Earth - something both sides tried to avoid," Chow said. ![]() "First, the United States could preemptively destroy the space stalkers to save the targeted satellites so as to maintain space support to military operations during crisis and war," Chow said. For instance, China could reason that space stalkers would be the best type of anti-satellite system, because it would present the United States with two bad choices. The uncertainties surrounding preemption and stalking are dangerous, Chow said. Related: 2 Russian satellites are stalking a US spysat in orbit, and the Space Force is watching national security space strategy is ambiguous about preemptive self-defense, including when it faces a threat from space stalkers, he said. The international community is ambiguous about whether a nation is allowed to tailgate another country's satellites, Chow said. "Once these spacecraft are in place, mounting attacks from such a close range would give us insufficient warning time to fashion a defense and save our targeted satellites," Chow told. An adversary is not prevented from placing its dual-use spacecraft close to our satellites in peacetime. ![]() "Actually, we can accept some rules and measures so that we can enjoy the benefits of these spacecraft and prevent them from harming our satellites at the same time."Ĭhow senses that the present problem is that the international community has not prohibited spacecraft, whether peaceful or hostile, from staying arbitrarily close to satellites operated by another nation. "Because their peaceful uses are important to space prosperity, they should not be banned," Chow said. Space is already weaponized by dual-use robotic spacecraft serving as weapons to disable our satellites, said Brian Chow, an independent policy analyst with over 25 years' experience as a senior physical scientist specializing in space and national security. "So really, the path to war in space is a space arms race, one that has long been postponed but that is only made more imminent and potentially explosive as technology advances in the absence of binding commitments to space arms control," Gubrud concluded. The only good news here is that this hasn't happened yet, he added, probably because there is enough recognition of how dangerous it would be. "Here the potential for rapid escalation becomes a severe threat to nuclear stability, as the main confronting powers would almost certainly be the US, Russia and China," he said. The greatest danger will arise from a massive proliferation of Earth-based anti-satellite systems that are able to affect spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit and beyond, or the pre-deployment of various types of such weapons in space that would allow them to reach their targets within minutes or seconds, rather than hours, Gubrud said. Air Force) Absence of binding commitments Space Force has been established to keep a keen military eye on the space domain that is congested and contested by numbers of nations. "Therefore, we should build on the United Nations Outer Space Treaty with a further treaty that bans all forms of harmful interference and weapons for causing interference," he said. Gubrud said that all of these forms of harmful interference could potentially lead to escalation risks as they are more widely and commonly practiced and as adversaries develop reciprocal capabilities. ![]() ![]() and perhaps others have made extensive use of the ability to intercept and interfere with commercial telecom traffic, though this is an asymmetric capability of major powers that presents little risk of escalation. According to some reports, he said, the U.S. "While the full extent of such activities may not be known, they appear to occur sporadically up to now," Gubrud said. He pointed to jamming satellite communications, laser dazzling of photo-snapping satellites, hacking systems to selectively block or eavesdrop on phone or data streams, and probing systems to see if they can be hacked. The term " warfare in space" could entail things that are already taking place, said Mark Gubrud, an adjunct assistant professor in the Curriculum in Peace, War & Defense at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |