COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Beefing up U.S. military space capabilities beyond what current budget projections permit would enhance the Pentagons deterrent capabilities, a group of current and retired U.S. military officers said during a war game here.
Potential adversaries would think twice about attempting to disrupt U.S. satellites if they knew there was plenty of backup capability available, officers said. In addition, the U.S. military could use its space systems to send subtle but clear warnings to its enemies, they said.
These were some of the preliminary conclusions of Schriever 2001, a simulated conflict hosted by U.S. Air Force Space Command that raged here from Jan. 22 through Jan. 26. The exercise was the first in a series that Space Command hopes to run every 18 months to examine space doctrine, utility of space systems and the integration of space and terrestrial systems, said Rob Hegstrom, chief of modeling and simulation at Space Commands Space Warfare Center.
Hegstrom directed the war game. He and other participating officers met with reporters Jan. 24 to discuss some of their preliminary conclusions, although they spoke in generalities due to the classified nature of the exercise.
In Schriever 2001, a fictitious country asked for U.S. help after a menacing neighbor massed troops along its border. The geographic setting of the simulated conflict is classified, according to Lt. Col. Don Miles, a spokesman for Air Force Space Command.
Preparing on two levels
The game ran under parallel scenarios, said Air Force Brig. Gen. Doug Richardson, commander of the Space Warfare Center. In the so-called Baseline Force scenario, the Pentagon had space capabilities consistent with projected U.S. military budgets. The second scenario, dubbed Robust Force, featured a U.S. military with more and better space systems, he said.
Enemy capabilities were the same under both scenarios, Hegstrom said.
Early indications are that the United States had better deterrent capabilities and more flexibility with the more robust space force, Hegstrom said.
Previous Pentagon war games have suggested, for example, that U.S. dependence on satellites makes them inviting targets for potential adversaries. However, destroying or disrupting U.S. satellites would be less attractive as an option if the U.S. military had more in orbit or was able to replenish them quickly, Hegstrom said.
In addition, Hegstrom said, the satellites under the Robust Force scenario would be better protected against enemy jamming, radiation or laser attacks.
The Robust Force scenario also would afford the Pentagon more room to maneuver prior to any outbreak of open hostilities, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Lance Smith, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
Deterrent force
One way to deter a major conflict is through a show of resolve, which today might entail bombing a target that is of little value to the adversary, Smith said. The problem with this strategy is that it limits the adversarys options to backing down and publicly losing face or escalating the conflict, he said.
Satellites, especially under the Robust Force scenario, might be able to send the same message of resolve quietly, without attracting media, and therefore public attention, Smith said.
"You may be able to do some things in space to demonstrate that you have capabilities that can hurt [the adversary] in another dimension, whether it is military or economic, and you can force some conversations at very senior levels that you might not otherwise be able to do in a very public environment," Smith said.
These demonstrations might include non-lethal, reversible measures such as using satellites to jam the signals of enemy spacecraft, said Capt. Adriane Craig, a spokeswoman for Air Force Space Command.
Retired Air Force Gen. Thomas Moorman, former vice chief of staff of the Air Force, who participated in the war game, said the deterrent measures were surprisingly effective during the war game, but added that more work needs to be done to understand them.
Schriever 2001 cost about $1.5 million to run, according to an Air Force Space Command fact sheet distributed at the war game.
advertisement
