My Favorite Web Sites
IV Homepage
Inside the Vault
Alien index
Miracl directory
...........
DEFENSE POLICY
LASER SHOW
Critics charge that the Pentagon's antisatellite laser test
could set a dangerous precedent
In early October U.S. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen announced he would allow the army to fire a
massive laser beam at an aging air force tracking satellite 260 miles above the earth. The Pentagon
emphasized the defensive nature of the test by stating that the main goal was to gather data about the
vulnerability of U.S. satellites to laser attacks.
Few were convinced. For years the army believed its Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) at
the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico had the potential to disable satellites, but a congressional ban
kept the service from testing the hypothesis. After a Republican-led Congress let the ban drop, however, the
army proposed a test of MIRACL's ability to "negate satellites harmful to U.S. forces." Only after extensive
press coverage and congressional criticism did the Pentagon announce the emphasis of the test had shifted
from antisatellite (ASAT) experimentation to the assessment of the vulnerability of the air force target satellite,
which had been selected because it could report back on any damage from the laser. After several mishaps,
the army fired at the target satellite in late October; problems with both the laser and the satellite, however,
kept the Defense Department from attaining much data.
The test failure did little to settle the controversy. "Although the Pentagon is spinning the tests as a way to
measure U.S. satellite survivability, most arms-control analysts would describe them as a major step forward
in developing an antisatellite weapon," says Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. "These are the same type of tests
that I and others in Congress objected to years ago."
For the Pentagon to approve the test was a significant leap. Antisatellite projects have not fared well in the
Clinton Defense Department and have been kept alive largely because of congressional appropriations.
Moreover, critics charge, the Pentagon lacks any clear policy on ASAT weaponry, although one is in the
works. "The Congress, the White House and the Pentagon have to have a serious discussion of our nation's
antisatellite weapons plans before we go down the road of testing these weapons. We simply have too much
at stake," Harkin remarks. As it is, he adds, "these laser tests are both unnecessary and provocative."
With House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri and other opponents, Harkin believes a test of the
MIRACL laser now would only incite other countries to speed development of their own antisatellite weapons
and bolster the protection of their satellites. Further, argues Federation of American Scientists analyst John
Pike, potential enemies probably will not even build their own reconnaissance satellites. For imagery, smaller
nations such as Iraq and North Korea might rely on more technologically advanced countries (such as France,
Russia, Israel and India).
In that case, the U.S. would be left with one unsavory option--the "wholesale destruction" of allies' imaging
satellites, Pike notes. Taking such drastic action, "on the off chance that one of these countries might be
slipping an adversary a few pictures on the side, does not seem a terribly plausible prospect or a compelling
military requirement," he adds.
For the U.S. military, however, space is integral to its plans. Supporters of ASAT weapons maintain that
having a proved means of disabling a satellite will discourage other countries from relying on them too
heavily. Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration Pentagon official and ASAT supporter, contends
that successful ASAT testing should give the military "confidence that it can control the use made of space by
future adversaries."
For Pike, however, the laser test serves a dangerous motive. "A simple mathematical calculation demonstrates
that it could destroy a spy satellite in low earth orbit, and no further proof is needed," he declares, adding that
ASAT tests "will establish little beyond the legitimacy of attacking satellites."
--Daniel G. Dupont in Washington, D.C.
from Scientific American, Dec. 1997.