Ballistic missile defence and space warfare
by MATTHEW BEHRENS
As Americans went to the polls in November, the ability to “protect America” from unknown threats dominated campaign rhetoric. Among George W. Bush’s long-planned October “shows of strength” was the deployment of a bare bones ballistic missile defence (BMD) system to protect the US against “rogue states” and accidental missile launches.
While the Canadian government insisted the BMD system would not lead to the weaponization of space, even a cursory glance at a host of Pentagon documents shows that Ottawa is either lying or hopelessly naive.
The concept of BMD is simple. The US hopes to spot, track and destroy any missile fired in its direction either by a nuclear-armed state or an international “rogue” player.
A series of ground-based interceptors, or kill vehicles, would be launched at a speed of 36,000 km/h to hit the incoming missile, flying at a rate of 20,000 km/h.
On the surface, it may sound like a reasonable idea in a world where tens of thousands of nuclear weapons remain on high alert, pointed at cities large and small.
Yet, even the strongest supporters of Missile Defence have expressed reservations about a system that scientists have called a “rush to failure,” asking whether a speeding bullet can be hit and destroyed by another speeding bullet. The head of the Strategic Defence Initiative (the precursor to Missile Defence), General James Abrahamson, stated in 1984, “Nowhere have we stated that the goal of the SDI is to come up with a ‘leakproof’ defence.”
A May 2004 report, Technical Realities, by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, found “no basis for believing the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack.”
During 2003, four separate studies by the US General Accounting Office (like Canada’s Auditor General) found that none of the 10 essential technologies to make Missile Defence work had been tested under real conditions and that 80 per cent of the technology was not even at the development stage.
BMD tests have been rigged, providing decoys which are impossible to miss, placing Global Positioning System (GPS) beacons on the target missile, and artificially increasing the heat source on a target so the infrared sensors on the kill vehicle cannot fail to identify their target.
If it won’t work, why is it beig pursued?
Because it is literally impossible to hit an incoming missile with a kill vehicle, military planners hope to advertise the benefits of space-based kill vehicles which will blast enemy missiles before they exit their launch phase halfway around the globe. While this will be couched in defensive terms, such dreaming tends to downplay the largely offensive role space-based platforms would play.
The ultimate goal of the current BMD regime is to act as a kind of Trojan Horse, enabling the development of a space warfare fighting capacity.
Signs of this outcome are literally everywhere. General Joseph Ashy, who during the Clinton years was Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, declared: “Some people don’t want to hear this, and it sure isn’t in vogue, but absolutely – we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space, and we’re going to fight into space…That’s why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms.”
Vision 2020, the key document of US Space Command, states: “Many of the systems and concepts for Missile Defence may have applicability to Force Application. This concept envisions holding a finite number of targets at risk anywhere, anytime with nearly instantaneous attack from space-based assets.”
Vision 2020 also states, “Ground-Based Interceptors, Space Operations Vehicles, Space-Based Platforms and Lasers, and High Power Microwaves are crucial. The Space-Based Laser and High Power Microwave will use directed energy to strike nearly all potential targets.”
The Bush administration’s 2005 budget plans, meanwhile, call for $10.2 billion for missile defence and “a space-based interceptor test bed … and development and testing of light weight space-based interceptor components… beginning in 2005.”
The US has for over a decade operated a Colorado-based “Space Warfare Center” designed to “develop and test concepts, applications, and procedures that enable the Warfighter to more fully utilize the unique capabilities of space-based assets. The Space Warfare Center is tasked with ‘operationalizing’ space, making its use timely and routine to the Warfighter.”
Vision 2020 also states that, “By 2020, a second generation system for National Missile Defence is expected to be in place-with many of the weapons and sensors potentially moving into space. Surveillance and strike missions for land, sea, and air will improve using space systems. For example, a force application system based in space could be available for strategic attack, and space-based surveillance may augment systems on land and in the air.”
Space is already considered a crucial part of the Pentagon’s arsenal. During the invasion of Afghanistan, the Pentagon entered an agreement with the American firm Space Imaging to buy up all images of Afghanistan from that company’s Ikonos satellite to prevent journalists from obtaining pictures of US bombing.
At least 50 military satellites supported the US invasion of Iraq, with reconnaissance data, communications links, targeting data for cruise missiles and smart bombs, weather forecasting and more.
Canada’s role
While Canada has not formally signed on, and a March 2004 poll showed 69 per cent of Canadians do not want to be part of Missile Defence, the actions, policies and contracts of Canadian government, research and corporate entities show that Canadian involvement is active and growing:
• The 1994 Canadian Defence White Paper allowed for Missile Defence research and development.
• In October, 1997, the US and Canadian militaries signed a joint Statement of Intent for military space cooperation.
• Canada’s Technology Investment Strategy 2000 declares: “Space soon will be the fourth medium of warfare, it will not only bind all war fighting forces together but will also become strategically critical to the survival of warfighters…For future coalition warfare, space superiority will be fundamental.”
• The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) website states: “Canada and the US also established a [missile defence] bilateral information sharing working group that has met twice a year since 2000. In addition, Canada placed a Canadian Forces Liaison officer with the US Missile Defence Agency in early 2001 for the purpose of supporting the ongoing consultation and information gathering process.”
•Early in 2004, Canadian War Minister David Pratt wrote US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that “[we want to] ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the US missile defence program.” Rumsfeld replied: “I am supportive of the approach to missile defence cooperation that you outlined in your letter.”
• The February 23, 2004, Globe and Mail reported “Canada is talking to Washington about the use of Canadian soil for stationing interceptor rocket launchers and radar stations as part of a continental ballistic missile defence program.”
• In February, 2004, the Canadian War Department issued tentative contracts worth $700,000 to test Canadian radar technology during Missile Defence tests slated for the summer, 2004.
• Canadian military researchers have been involved in a series of Missile Defence-related projects, including:
(a) the Quantum Well Infrared Photo-detector, a “key contributor to the collaborative work with the (US) Ballistic Missile Defence Organization”;
(b) Defence Research and Development Canada exploration of the science behind placing light-weight weapons platforms in space, asking, “Will technology allow us to fit 70 tons of lethality [killing power] and survivability into a 20 ton package?”;
(c) use of Canada’s RADARSAT-2 satellite to produce “a ground moving target indication (GMTI) capability” will “provide an improved operational picture to the war fighter…there is a high level of US interest in the Space-Based Radar GMTI Project”;
(d) The Canadian Defence Industrial Research program has developed products useful for the Missile Defence interceptor, the exo-atmosphere kill vehicle;
(e) Defence Research and Development Ottawa is working on expanding the uses of X-bandwidths, which will be used as part of the radar detection system of missile defence.
• The Canadian Defence Industries Association produced a paper called, “The National Missile Defense Program: An Assessment of Market Opportunities for Canadian Industry,” which predicted upwards of $1 billion in military exports from the program.
• Canadian corporations which either have contracts for missile defence-related programs or have contributed to the formation of the weaponization of space include CAE, Panorama Business Views, COMDEV and Bristol Aerospace.
Such work is proceeding despite a caution from the Canadian War Department which, in a classified document obtained by the Ottawa Citizen in January, 2004, declared “A significant risk associated with BMD [missile defence] from the non-proliferation and disarmament perspective is its reinforcement of trends towards the weaponization of outer space.”
War Minister Bill Graham’s plea that signing on is necessary because we live next to the US is a clear signal that Ottawa will continue to go along with the US foreign policy lead, even if it does so in the traditional Canadian way of saying one thing and doing another. ★
Matthew Behrens is a founding member of Homes not Bombs, a nonviolent direct action network. He was one of a group arrested at DREO, Canada’s home of space warfare research and development, in 2001 after trying to conduct a citizen’s weapons inspection.