Security & Space - delivered at International Conference on Semantic E-Business & Enterprises Computing 17-19 September 2008, Kerala

SECURITY AND SPACE

A QUASI-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Y.S.RAJAN

INTRODUCTION

 

Space security is a wide subject with many connotations. It can mean security of space operations – civilian and military – operated by and / or for various countries and also for other entities within the State. A military commander depending on satellite communications for his logistics and operations would like to see uninterrupted operations; and would not like any surprise developments in its functions (such as reduction of capacity or interference). So would be the CEO of company depending on satellite communication. Those depending on satellite surveillance for strategic or tactical applications would requite the continuity (including periodicity, resolution etc) to be kept up without any surprise interruption. Any possible vulnerability would bother all of them. One can cite many more examples.

The above concern naturally brings in the issue of security in space. How safe are the objects placed in space? Can somebody interfere with the satellite or the launch vehicle from ground or space ? Can somebody attack a space object? Or disable it? Or reduce its performance ?

 These natural questions would further go to the issues of protecting them. The communications to and from the satellite must also be protected. Issues are many. The communications to and from the satellite must also be protected. Issues are many. Some can pertain to making the sensors or transponders reasonably “proofed” against external interference. Of course, these “proofings” cost effort and additional money in making a Space System. In addition, cost of operations to have such “proofing” is higher.

Since space operations are not merely for communications, remote sensing, navigation and weather operations but also encompass activities such as carrying and delivering to the targets even weapons of mass destruction, space security concerns also cover the ability to deflect or destroy space objects considered to be detrimental to a country. In fact these concerns are due to the use of rocket systems for offensive purposes; they are used now as strategic tools and for tactical operations. There are many support space systems (tracking satellites, navigation satellites, surveillance satellites etc) which support such offensive military capabilities. (Those who possess them may state that they are “defensive” as they do not intend “first use”!)

Offensive capabilities naturally lead to search for defensive and counter offensive capabilities. This (vicious) circle has led to a sort of race in space which does cause concern in general about “Space Security”.

Some of these issues are being addressed by a pilot study project Space Security starting from 2003. It is an important milestone providing the first comprehensive set of assessments of the longer term trends and annual developments that shape the dynamics of space security, defined as secure and sustainable access to and use of space and freedom from space-based threats (Ref. SPACE SECURITY 2007 www.spacesecurity.org). The annual exercise goes on regularly, improving on methodology and perceptions.

I am therefore not addressing those details nor am I analysing individual aspects such as security of civilian space operations of a non-space faring country.

I am going to give a reflective account of the evolution of the idea of space security ever since the actual launch of the first artificial satellites Sputnik in Oct 1957. More so from the view point of my experiences with the Indian Space Programme and its international experiences of bilateral cooperation and UN forums. I had the good fortune of direct experience up to 1988, the formative years up to a period when India had begun operational satellites.

CONCERNS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

After October 1957, there were many aggressive cold-war-prompted space projects from USA and (the then) Soviet Union. Two other permanent UN Security Council members France and UK also began building a strong space development capabilities. Space programmes fitted very well into the “military – industrial” complex already built up driving the World War II and which got strengthened during the subsequent Cold War. For the scientists, an entirely new area of Space Sciences opened up spanning various disciplines like atmospheric physics, chemistry, plasma, cosmic rays, nuclear particles, astronomy, astrophysics, planetary geology, etc. Almost all technologies were challenged in the multi-disciplinary adventures of space craft, launch vehicles, ground support, testing, quality control etc. (I started my career with research on Cosmic Rays at the Physical Research Laboratory Ahmedabad in 1964.)

Since this space era was preceded by the two atomic bombs about 12 years before i.e. in 1945. Nuclear weapon technology was advanced further by 1957 – event through various atmospheric testing. Nuclear arms race started between USA, then Soviet Union and with France & UK not falling behind). Launch vehicle development – which is the key to the delivery of a nuclear bomb – with surprising speed – was given a high priority by China (the fifth Security Council member) along with the nuclear weapon development.

The developing countries started getting aware of the civilian benefits (economic and societal) through the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN – CO PUOS). It meets once a year as the Main Committee and there are two sub-committees : Scientific and Legal which also meet annually. There was a general awareness that they should also derive the benefits of space science and technology speedily. However, it was not easy for them. The technologies were exclusive to a few select countries. One would find that most of the proceedings of UN-COPUOS in the seventies and eighties were full of emphasis about easy transfer of technology to developing countries. Many European countries started their satellite development projects as their individual national projects. Japan developed a comprehensive space technology development programme. China also started a full-fledged space programme in addition to the focus on big sized launch vehicles. Developing countries like Argentina, Brazil and India started programmes for launch vehicles, satellites and ground systems.

FEAR OF CONTINUITY

Indian worries about technology denials were genuine. What would happen if the country’s services started depending on space technology like satellite communications and the launching nations deny launch of satellites. Therefore the emphasis of security of the benefits led it to follow the path of “self-sufficiency” in space technology. Such would have been the considerations of Argentina, Brazil, China and Japan. (China had a much bigger target of delivery of atomic bombs through inter-continental missiles (ICBM) as well).

 Later developments in various forms of technology denials and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) operated by groups of countries led to cartelisation by the powerful. End of the Cold War did not relax the situation regarding the formal regimes regarding the transfer of various forms of space technologies. In fact Russia and former Soviet allies also joined such groups, in the post-cold-war period and such groups still exist.

 However with emergence of additional space faring nations (i.e. those with launch capabilities) like China, Japan and India, and also due to high cost of development of space systems and hence the desire to reap financial benefits through enlarging the markets, presently satellites for communications are available for most of the countries willing to pay for the satellites launch and other related services. In fact there is a competition between Space companies to win satellite projects from other countries. Economics has its own logic !

 It appears that in this phase of the 21st century, about 50 years after the first satellite (Sputnik) launch, the fear of continuity in communications satellites has practically disappeared (through theoretical possibilities of “sanctions” may remain.) Any country or business entity can get a full satellite or use part of it on lease, rental and part-ownership; satellite communications capabilities are being vended in the market place as “a product”.

FEAR OF SPYING

During the early days of remote sensing when USA was allowing free access to its LANDSAT satellites (with no fees for accessing the imagery!), the questions about the rights of countries over information on natural resources on other countries were seriously discussed. The worries were that the space faring nations will find out information on other countries’ natural resources and use the information which may be detrimental to the “sensed” country. The questions of “prior approval for sensing” and “prior consultation for sensing” etc were strongly debated issues during the 1970’s and 1980’s. (During this period, I had led the Indian teams to UN-COPUOS or was member of it). They were considered as serious security issues. These were with satellite resolution capabilities of 70 meter spatial resolution!

 Today these concerns may look laughable as much higher resolutions with single digit spatial resolutions are available to almost all countries for sale. (Some of us who knew technology used to “balance” the views of diplomats but there are political angles also we need to take care as Indian delegation!.) Commercialisation of remote sensing data is a profitable business now. Many remote sensing satellites are operating in the world now. Also data are available on a click in services such as in Google.

 Practically therefore the fear of security posed by high resolution data have also disappeared though of course a number of countries including India control access of high resolution data by its own citizens within their countries! (I am often amazed by the ability of developing countries to shoot their own citizens in their feet through archaic policies and poor governance.)

 A related fear was about access of high accuracy navigational or global positioning data. US naval satellites which were prime source of navigation data in the seventies and eighties had a broadcast mode (low resolution) data and a restricted high resolution data which were denied to non-NATO countries and non-allies of USA.

 Presently though much better navigation data and importantly with light weight high quality systems ground receiving systems are available now, there are few concerns about the restrictions. Those who have followed the current differences between USA and European Union (EU) about the former’s right to suspend signals over some countries of Europe, have led to building of independent navigation systems by EU and Russia – with different consortia. (How much of such disputes commercial and how much political is difficult to discern. Don’t be surprised if in a few years time, USA, EU & Russia may float a global joint company !.)

 I believe such competitive systems will eventually lead to plenty of data availability and therefore access will be assured by the market forces as it has happened with satellite communications and remote sensing.

 Therefore the earlier concerns of continuity of space operations have disappeared in practical terms mostly through the sheer volume of space business – the world total for 2005 is estimated to be 180 billion US dollars (Ref. Space Report 2006).

There are now new concerns, not all being openly articulated in formal forums.

Let us consider a few of them.

NEW CONCERNS

 Present concerns are about the hidden tendencies for arms race in Space though there are various forms of cooperation between USA, Russia, EU countries and other countries. Also worrisome are the possible exclusivity in the use of space stations, moon and mars. Though there may be some space tourism for people from different parts of world (at a high cost now and it may come down in the future), space assets may be used for aggression against other countries. Space systems allow for precision guidance of tactical weapons and their carriers against specific targets at different parts of the world, from long distances – proven several times in the 1991 Gulf war and other areas of the world (such as Europe, Afghanistan etc). Recent operations Iraq in 2003 also indicate these operational capabilities in action. (It may be true that ground war is protracted; but a ruling governmental system was eliminated in a few days mainly due to space and other advanced systems!).

 It is another question that such space based aggression does not easily allow supremacy to rule a country; then ground forces, albeit with superior technological capabilities, some of which are provided by space systems, are required. But all the same, it is possible to destabilise other countries from a distance, with advanced guided weapons enabled through space assets of powerful countries.

 Naturally (space) powerful countries divert some of their efforts towards anti-missile and anti-space system capability. (They don’t want others to attack them in surprise.) There are many offensive and defensive systems under experimentation, study etc. These are extensively covered by the Space Security Project referred to above, to the extent open data are available.

 Also some countries have adopted a “national interest doctrine” towards protection of their space assets even if they may be parties to the international treaties. Such doctrines may bring back to the public memories some of the earlier worries but in different forms.

There is a very good research paper by Deganit Paikowsky (DP) as a part of Economics and National Security Program established by the Samuel Neaman Institute for advanced studies in Science and Technology at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (www.neaman.org.il). It is titled “Space Technology, Patterns of Warfare and Force Build up: Between a Power and a Small State”.

 The paper has beautifully analysed the growth of the Space era and how it has transformed the military doctrines of USA and the world. It gives important turning points and vital statistics about the growth of role of Space technology as a part of military operations.

 Many of those changes are irreversible. For example the dependence on large quantity ground forces has changed. There is a “Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)” after the Space Power was first demonstrated during the Gulf War 1991. But USA had recognised the military significance of space as early as 1978. In May 1978 President Carter has outlined in a document American Policy on Space. The document states about the “right of self-defence in Space”.

 The author (DP) gives details of new Warfare patterns. Most important advantage of space is the intelligence capabilities for tracking and pinpointing targets; providing capabilities guidance and accurate position location as well as communication to forces engaged in combat and weapon systems.

 The author (DP) has given calculations to show how precision guided weapons are far cheaper than sending separate cruise missiles. But such precision targeting and use of guided weapons requires elaborate space systems (either possessed by the country itself or provided by a friendly country). Israel derives benefits of some assistance from USA for space support systems.

 The role of space (not just as missile) encompasses a whole gamut of systems for global/regional watch, intelligence, Global Positioning System (GPS) guided smart weapons, communication etc. For the 2003 operations of Iraq about 70% the weapons were space precision guided weapons.

 Thus as the paper by DP argues even small countries can derive large number of military advantages if the space systems are selected very well by them. Judicious use of space power can help reduction of costs (in defence and in attack) with much more effectivity. The RMA leads to victory of Quality over sheer Quantity of traditional military forces.

 These precision tracking and guidance and positioning systems and joint direct attack munitions are not easily available to other countries. USA is perhaps the sole possessor of these total systems. Medium and smaller nations have to get only those optimum for them and try arrangements for space support system. The author (DP) has given an estimate of US Dollar 40 Billion a year for space of which USD 20 Billions are for military activity which is 4.5% of the total defence budge of USA. For Israel military space expenditure is estimated as $ 50 – 60 million a year. For India a figure is not available and military uses are still in initial stages in terms of RMA doctrine described earlier.

 Thus one can see a full fledged integration of Space Power with military (force-multiplier) capabilities of USA and the usage by Israel in a similar direction. Other European countries have varying degrees of capabilities with and without US support. So satellites (communications, intelligence gathering ones, precision GPS, satellites weather satellites etc) are vital military assets of countries. Many countries would like to equip themselves with these capabilities.

 But all other civilian benefits of space like remote sensing, communications, GPS etc are not completely denied to other countries as was feared in the early years even during the eighties (1980’s). Only some select capabilities are denied. One should not forget the globalisation of trade, economics and businesses. They have their own effects on the approach of governments to international relations. It is no longer the “original forms” of sovereignty as existed in the sixties, seventies and eighties. In the era of globalisation of trade, commerce, and investments, countries are willing to “reduce” their sovereign controls through agencies like World Trade Organisation (WTO).

BASIC ISSUES

How have Space Assets become a problem of security ?

The most crucial reason is its ability to carry nuclear weapons at a great speed across the globe.

 Basic issue is therefore around NUCLEAR WEAPONS which have become increasingly sophisticated since 1945. Added now is the space capability to precision guide weapons (be it conventional or nuclear) to the desired targets (which can be closely identified through space systems).

Space launch vehicles or missiles have enabled extremely fast delivery of nuclear weapons than it was possible in 1945. (Nuclear weapons have become very small in size since 1945, with more capabilities). Thus the world has become much more dangerous place than what it was during the end of World War II, purely from a scientific and technical viewpoint of capabilities of a few nations.

A greater problem is about the nature of technology diffusion. Howsoever care is taken by the (technology) powerful nations to protect technologies from diffusion to others (i.e. through non-proliferation regimes), the simple law of life is that any knowledge (be it of science or technology or in art) grows only through interaction. Science by its very structure is universal and its growth requires openness. Even technologies grow by sharing (see Global Business, Technology and Knowledge Sharing : Lessons for Developing Country Enterprises) by N S Siddharthan and Y S Rajan).

Any attempt at non-diffusion is effective only for a short period – may be a couple of decades. Finally technologies, even in their original older forms, proliferate. One can see the fate of nuclear non-proliferation regimes. Even a relatively self-sufficient Indian nuclear programme has benefited from the scientific knowledge available in open literature. Islands of scientific knowledge cannot exist in the human community.

Therein lies the dangers to the modern world through actions of those who have extreme beliefs. 9/11 events are only some relatively simple symptoms.

Let us not forget that the weapons of mass destruction are not limited to Nuclear Weapons alone. It is well known that Chemical & Biological weapons did exist (if not do exist!) though they are now covered under an international agreement for their elimination.

Will a non-state extremist entity be restricted because of that treaty ?

 Also biological sciences are advancing at a very rapid pace. What if missiles or guided weapon delivery systems carrying microbes, viruses etc hit different targets in a country, because of actions of extremists operating in States which are under anarchic situations? Of course one has to remember that it is not easy to possess good guided missiles. Even if they are assembled, space surveillance systems can detect them and targets can be pinpointed. Space guided joint direct attack munitions (JDAM’s) can be used to destroy select targets. But it can lead to international political repercussions. Can we rule out the possibility of proliferation of JDAM technologies to some States (countries) determined to acquire capabilities. One should also remember that it is not easy to maintain surveillance, GPS, communication satellites in orbit in good operational condition. Big powers have powerful tracking systems for keeping daily (round the clock) watch on the Space Objects though they may not share the data with others. Thus while proliferation of these high precision space supported attack systems is not easy, one cannot totally rule them out in the course of next few decades. In such a case under the doctrine of strategic defence of their own space assets, very advanced countries may attack some of the successful attempts of some countries to build space assets for themselves to be able to have independent force-multiplier capabilities.

Continuing research on satellite destruction systems (fully described in Space Security Review quoted before) is probably based on the fear that space supported precision guided systems may hurt their own superiority. Recently reported satellite-distract experiment conducted by China may be based on such a premise.

However based on the historical evolution of military systems one cannot rule out proliferation of human knowledge given a long enough period.

WAY FORWARD

 One can come to a conclusion that the technological-one-up-manship is inevitable despite several diplomatic efforts and international discussion forums and commissions and therefore every country should try to do the best for its own national interest. They can point out to the fact that the nuclear and space missile capabilities have not led to major war and in fact confined conflicts to limited locations or regions. Others may argue that world is becoming a much dangerous place to live with these unbridled development. (I have hinted at some of the possible scenario in this paper as well allowing for various views to be brought out). Frustrated extremists may catch hold some of these deadly precision guided weapons and destroy parts of countries which they hate.

 I have some ideas for way forward which can be considered subjective or speculative. But they are based on sound reasoning behind it. Excessive suppression of particular technologies and deriving exclusive political power at the global level by virtue of possession of them, lead and lure others aspiring for it. This is the lesson from Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Missile Technology Control Regimes (MTCR). Under NPT and MTCR even simple civilian applications which will benefit nations were severely controlled by a very few nations who had become political cartels for these, though otherwise they were not friends.

 One may say that these were available for those who signed NPT and satisfied the requirements of MTCR etc.

 But my considered opinion based on several observations and experience, is that enforcing of such denial regimes by a few select countries did not balance adequately the aspirations of sovereignty. While countries are ready to let go some of their sovereignty with little murmur as they did for WTO, frequency spectrum, control and geosynchronorms slot allocations by International Telecommunications Union and such bodies etc why some of them are uncomfortable with NPT & MTCR. This is where some innovative and creative thinking is called for. How to create a system which can balance the sovereign aspirations with legitimate access for civilian use. Yes some may cheat. But if you close the door, they also go out and create technologies over a period or steal or purchase. Khan is only publicly known case. There are several others. That is the experience over the past few decades.

 If the countries especially big space military powers and other emerging space powers as well as aspiring ones can find a Mutually Beneficial Access of Technologies (MBAT) instead of denials by MTCR, then space assets of all countries (including those with large space supported attack capabilities) will be much safer than what it is now.

A question may be asked to me? What happens to the non-State extremists making use of these ? Don’t they use internet? Don’t they use mobile phones? Don’t they use various chemicals freely available in the market ? Don’t they use high energy batteries for ignition of suicide bombs ?…. Yes, these are some dangers in the transitional period. But if high technologies like Nuclear, Space or several other new technologies are much more easily accessible to all aspiring countries for civilian economic benefits, world economies (and the economies of these countries) will accelerate faster. The leaders of today need not lose their position to others : they will also go much further ahead as the sale of these high technologies and businesses from these technologies will help the developed countries much more. They can also accelerate further research to keep their lead (even in their militaries !) But other countries will grow faster than what they do now. Better economic conditions for all has a much greater effect of undermining extremism. If mid-east is relatively peaceful now (notwithstanding the Iraq situation and confrontation between Iran and some Western countries) it is because many of the other countries have become much more richer and prosperous than what they were around 1950’s.

A much faster economic prosperity which process can be assisted by better access to technologies (not free but through market forces without political denials) will weaken the extremist actions. No doubt various societies will have their extremists – religious, linguistic, identity politics based etc… But all such actions may get confined to their own locations and global appeal for them may be crushed by the people in that society itself as they have much more to lose if they are target of precision guided attack by other countries who see them as a source of attacking extremists.

 So I have shared some of these thoughts for those who genuinely desire Security in Space. Let us hope humanity will continue to evolve in a positive direction.

FURTHER THOUGHTS FOR RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

I have given a quick recapitulation of the crucial issues of security in space concluding with a few ideas for a way foreward. Security aspects of simple living on the earth itself are becoming very complex during the modern times. There are wonderful developments and accelerating growth in scientific, technological and medical knowledge and skills as well as in the economies of countries. But there are also novel methods of crimes, violence and terrorism in the physical space as well as in cyber space.

As of now most people including space experts and security analysts are taking for granted the safety of the new frontier of the human beings – Space, which has been physically explored and utilised only during the past 50 years. Within these fifty years, there are lots of developments which have made Space as a formidable extension of human beings including for military aspects. Upto now, a consensus is keeping Space free of nuclear weapons. But it is not yet safe from human attacks let alone other dangers such as space debris and natural space environment itself.

Therefore, it is essential for the younger generation to take more interest in all aspects of Security in Space. Limiting space faring nations to the current 12 alone may not solve the problems. Current 40-odd nations having space assets may increase to 100 in a decade or more.

Some of the solutions to Space Security can be through technological means such as :

Use of inertial sensors to reduce possible attacks on attitude control systems (the challenges are in having low cost systems)

Making communication systems (transponders etc) robust against jamming and also having systems to locate the jammers

Ability of satellites to sense ASAT’s and be able to dodge by quick movements.

Having new materials and systems to reduce space debris as well as by deploying systems to clean up the wastes.

More could be added but they may sound like science fictions now. Much of the security in Space has to be assured through development of consensus amongst nations against attack on space assets. (This is in one sense no different from what happens on the earth – most nations respect or tolerate existence of even nations whom they hate !) The emphasis has to be on confidence building measures which can assure countries that nothing against them is being done by satellites or launchers of other countries. Another important aspect will be to devise methods of sharing the benefits of space without it being too exclusive for a few countries. In these areas, it will be good to study the fears and aspirations of influential persons in many countries in the world. This is an area for continual research. Finding from such researches should lead to several actions through COPOUS and other diplomatic and informal channels.

Major mass communication exercises would need to be done to make people of the world understand that unlike their utilisation of earth, the use of space has just started and the benefits are still fragile. If activities in Space are overloaded too much through fears of Space Security then the beneficial growth will be severely hampered.

In the final analysis, human security can be ensured only through better human understanding of mutual interdependence of multiple self interests.

Thus there is plenty of scope for many creative minds to work on many complex multi-disciplinary areas covering sciences, technologies, businesses, law, diplomacy and economics.

To be presented

 

by

Dr Y S Rajan

Principal Adviser, CII

[y.s.rajan@ciionline.org]

[website: www.ysrajan.com]