WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The United States will likely put weapons in space one day to protect satellites vital for commerce, communications and military dominance, the Air Force's top general predicted on Wednesday.
``I would think that eventually we're going to have to have capabilities to take things out in orbit,'' Gen. Michael Ryan said of the future ability of the Pentagon to destroy enemy space- and ground-based arms threatening U.S. satellites.
``And we had better not be second,'' he said in an interview with reporters.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently gave the Air Force oversight over U.S. military space programs. He stressed, however, that the Bush administration had not decided whether the United States would become the first nation to station arms such as lasers in space.
Ryan, who will retire next month as Air Force chief of staff, said Washington was too dependent on satellites for everything from spying to commerce and weather forecasting to leave them unprotected.
``I would suggest that sometime in the future here we are going to have to come to a policy decision on whether we're going to use space for both defensive and offensive capabilities,'' he told reporters.
New Space Plane?
The general noted that the Air Force was developing arms including a laser based on a Boeing 747 aircraft within the atmosphere and examining the possibility of building a futuristic bomber that might fly at the edge of space to quickly reach remote land targets.
``We have a huge equity in orbit,'' Ryan told reporters. ``Wherever commerce has gone and our national interests have gone, so have gone our forces. On land, sea and in the air we tended to exploit the realm that we were dependent upon.
``It (space satellites) is one of our asymmetrical advantages of this nation (for) intelligence, communications, reconnaissance, weather, navigation. We depend upon the integration of those things in orbit with what we do in the atmosphere and what we do on the ground,'' he said.
``To the extent that should we lose them, it would be a huge blow.''
The general stressed that such assets had to be protected from electronic interference or outright destruction.
``I think that we have in some way be able to protect those assets, at least defensively,'' Ryan said.
``And that leads you to the thought that if you are going to be up there trying to protect them defensively, where do you cross the line on offensive operations?''
advertisement
