Few criticize the U.S. decision to attempt the destruction of a fully fueled, disabled spy satellite before it crashes to Earth. Using missile-defense assets to further minimize the risk of harm is commendable. But some question our motives and claim we are shooting at the satellite to demonstrate an anti-satellite (ASAT) capability, not to protect lives and property, and they call for an international treaty to ban weapons in space.
As it has for the past 50 years, the United States should resist calls for a new space treaty. Space is routinely used for military purposes, and the integration of space-based intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance into tactical military operations offers clear incentives for attacking U.S. spacecraft.
A ban is neither enforceable nor verifiable. Cold War-era space arms control efforts faltered when they could not reach agreement on what constitutes a space weapon. The U.S. space shuttle was viewed as a space weapon by the Soviets. The Chinese used a standard ballistic missile topped with a sophisticated warhead in their January 2007 ASAT test, but a treaty capable of eliminating the missiles is improbable, as is verifying the destruction of the warhead or the capacity to reproduce it in the future.
Electronic warfare - blinding satellites with lasers or jamming of information sent from space - presents a widespread and immediate challenge to the United States, but attributing the source is difficult, and the capabilities draw upon technologies readily available for other purposes.
Russian and Chinese efforts to advance a new treaty provide cover for their self-serving attempts to constrain the United States, while doing nothing to restrict their own clandestine ASAT programs. In the past several years, the Chinese military successfully executed at least two ASAT tests, while their diplomatic corps raged against the supposed weaponization of space by the United States.
Those who suggest that such an agreement would protect U.S. interests have yet to explain why others would abandon the capability to hold at risk the most vulnerable elements of American military power. A restraint on space weaponry, far from keeping the heavens safe, instead leaves them vulnerable to 9/11-style space terrorism.
