Report questions cost effectiveness of space weapons

Putting weapons in space to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the United States or to destroy enemy satellites would be a poor investment, particularly when compared with ground-based weapons designed to do the same thing, according to a new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank.

The report, "Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons," examined a number of potential space-based weapons systems, many of which remain largely theoretical, and attempted to quantify the costs of such systems and the likelihood that they would actually work.

It acknowledged the difficulty of assessing space weapons, since most of the information on them is highly classified. But based on available information, the report concluded that a constellation of such weapons presents enormous costs, technological challenges, potential risk of escalation of an arms race in space, and is of questionable effectiveness.

The most widely discussed option, stemming from the Reagan-era Star Wars missile defense proposal, is to build a constellation of satellites that would fire either missiles or lasers at incoming ballistic missiles. Considering the technological leaps required, particularly for a space-based laser, the report considered it unlikely that such a system could be built within 20 years. If the technology hurdles were overcome, the costs to build such a system could approach $200 billion.

Any space-based missile defense system simply could be overwhelmed with decoys or ballistic-missile salvoes. The report noted that since the production costs for ballistic missiles is relatively low -- in the tens of millions per copy -- compared with the cost to build defenses, a simple cost-exchange analysis shows space-based missile defenses to be an unwise investment. The report suggested the same may hold true for ground-based missile defenses, which, depending on the system, can cost up to $80 billion.

The report also examined anti-satellite weapons and defenses. The United States has had anti-satellite capability since the Cold War era. Russia and China also have developed and tested such weapons. In January, the Chinese destroyed an aging weather satellite using a ground-based rocket. "It was irresponsible," said Gen. Kevin Chilton, leader of the Air Force's Space Command, on Sept. 25. "They created a debris hazard" for both military and commercial satellites in low-Earth orbit.

Most analysts agree that, according to publicly available information, no nation has yet placed actual weapons, such as armed satellites, in space. The notion of using satellites to shoot at other satellites or as roving "space mines" to destroy other satellites remains controversial.

But recent comments by some military officials have suggested a change in U.S. policy toward arming space. Speaking to defense reporters last fall in Washington, Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel, director of the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, said that during the Cold War, "we took extraordinary steps to protect our satellites" from Soviet attack. "We're going to see a lot more investment to rebuild those capabilities." Both ground- and space-based systems to handle any potential space-based threats are critical, he said.

The report examined potential "bodyguard" satellites, designed to protect U.S. imaging and communications satellites. It found that they would have "at best, only limited capabilities," against even the simplest space weapons, such as kamikaze satellites or ground-launched anti-satellite missiles. In the process of trying to destroy an incoming enemy missile or satellite, the bodyguard satellite would create a debris cloud that could cripple the satellite it was trying to protect.

There would be little reason to build space-based anti-satellite weapons, according to the report, because the U.S. military already possesses or is building ground-based anti-satellite systems that would be more effective.