GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS



GRADUATE SCHOOL OF

PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

University of Pittsburgh

PIA 2340-1100

Dr. Forrest E. Morgan

Office at RAND Corporation

(412) 683-2300 x4924

Email: forrest@

SPACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Space systems contribute a great deal to America’s security, prosperity, and quality of life. This course examines how space-based services provide critical support to military and intelligence operations and contribute to national security more broadly. The course is designed to investigate several interrelated themes, weaving together relevant aspects of technology, strategy, and policy. The material is approached from both functional and historical perspectives, exploring the basics of military and intelligence space operations and ending with an examination of the space-related technical, strategic, and political challenges facing the nation today and in the foreseeable future.

The course is taught in three phases. The first focuses on the fundamentals of satellite operations. Here students explore, at a non-engineering level, the major components of satellite networks and the basic principles of orbit in order to grasp both the advantages and the constraints of performing military and intelligence missions in space. Students learn what kind of military and intelligence missions are performed in space, at what orbit each mission is performed, and why.

The second phase surveys key developments in space operations and national policy in the Cold War. Here students consider how the inability to monitor developments in the Soviet nuclear program from terrestrial platforms in the 1950s made the development of reconnaissance satellites a key U.S. national security objective and also made achieving international acceptance of the principle of “freedom of space” for satellite over-flight a policy priority of the Eisenhower Administration. Students then examine how military satellite programs developed over the course of the Cold War and what missions they came to support. Finally, students discover how, as the Cold War drew to a close, space operations evolved from supporting national strategic missions—i.e., nuclear deterrence and nuclear war-fighting missions—almost exclusively to providing critical support to conventional military operations on the battlefield.

The final phase of this course examines America’s dependence on space today, surveys emerging threats to the nation’s space infrastructure, and considers the implications of these developments for U.S. national security policy. Here, students examine some of the most prominent contemporary theories on space power and space warfare. Then, taking technical, strategic, and political considerations into account, students weigh the pros and cons of such controversial programs and concepts as ballistic missile defense, anti-satellite weapons, and orbital weapons designed to attack targets on earth.

Student evaluation will be based on the following:

1. A three-page point paper (20 percent).

2. A three-page bullet background paper (20 percent).

3. A ten-page position paper (60 percent).

4. A bonus of up to 5 percentage points may be earned through class participation.

Required texts (available for purchase online):

Dolman, Everett C. Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age. London: Frank

Cass, 2002.

MacDougall, Walter A. The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space

Age. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Additionally, other readings will be drawn from books available in full text for free online. Links to them are provided below. The readings will be taken from the following books:

AU-18, Air University Space Primer (Second Edition). Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air

University, September 2009. Available at:

.

* Lutes, Charles D. and Peter L. Hays (eds.). Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected

Essays. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 2011. Available at:



* Morgan, Forrest E. Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space: A Preliminary

Assessment. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2010. Available at:



Muolo, Michael J. Space Handbook: A War Fighter’s Guide to Space.

Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, December 1993.

Available at:

* Oberg, James E. Space Power Theory. From a draft by Brian R. Sullivan. Colorado

Springs, Colo.: Air Force Academy, 1999. Available at:



*Preston, Bob, Dana J. Johnson, Sean J.A. Edwards, Michael Miller, Calvin Shipbaugh.

Space Weapons, Earth Wars. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2002. Available at:



*These books are also available for purchase in hardcopy from online vendors.

Academic integrity

Students in this course will be expected to comply with the University of Pittsburgh’s Policy on Academic Integrity as set out in GSPIA’s Handbook of Academic Policies and Procedures for Master’s Degree Programs (available on the web at ). In particular, they must be familiar with the Academic Code of Conduct (on pages 4-5 of the Handbook) and the provisions concerning plagiarism in Appendix A (pages 18-20 of the Handbook). Any student suspected of violating this obligation will also be liable to participate in the procedure, initiated at the instructor level, outlined in the University Guidelines on Academic Integrity.

Statement Concerning Students with Disabilities

If you have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both Dr. Morgan and Disability Resources and Services (DRS), 216 William Pitt Union, (412) 648-7890 / (412) 383-7355 (TTY), as early as possible in the term. DRS will verify your disability and determine reasonable accommodations for this course.

Schedule

The course will consist of 14 sessions, 3 hours each.

PHASE 1—HOW SPACE SYSTEMS FUNCTION

January 6

Lesson 1: Introduction to the Course and to the Concept of Space Power

In this first session we will get to know each other and introduce the course, covering objectives, “rules of engagement,” and any necessary administrative issues. Then we will launch into the substance of the course, starting with a discussion on what space systems are, how they operate, and why they are important. Finally, we will introduce a couple of issues that will be central to this course—the concepts of space power and space power theory.

Assigned readings:

Jon Sumida, “Old Thoughts, New Problems: Mahan and the Consideration of Space

Power,” Chapter 2 in Lutes and Hays, Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected

Essays.

Harold R. Winton, “On the Nature of Military Theory,” Chapter 2 in Lutes and Hays,

Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays.

January 13

Lesson 2: Satellites, Launch Operations, and the Fundamentals of Orbit

In today’s world (as opposed to world’s envisioned by George Lucas and other science fiction writers), spacecraft supporting military and intelligence functions operate almost exclusively in the orbital space around our planet and are oriented toward supporting activities in earth’s terrestrial environment. That is because wars are fought between human beings, predominately within the earth’s atmosphere, over interests that are almost entirely earthbound. Spacecraft orbiting the earth—that is, satellites—provide support to military forces and national decision makers by collecting, generating, and relaying data to users below. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for becoming a space power is access to space—that is, a state has to be able to put equipment in orbit around the earth in order to become a “spacefaring nation” and reap the benefits of space support to terrestrial operations. To understand how space operations perform these functions, we must consider how satellites are launched, how they operate, and how the physical laws of orbit both enable and constrain their employment.

Assigned readings:

Oberg, Space Power Theory, Chapter 3: “Impediments to the Exercise of Space Power,”

pp. 67-86.

Air University Space Primer, the following chapters:

Chapter 6: “Orbital Mechanics”

Chapter 20: “Space-Lift Systems”

Chapter 22: “Spacecraft Design, Structure, and Operations”

January 20

Dr. Martin Luther King Birthday Observance—No Class

January 27

Lesson 3: Military and Intelligence Satellite Missions and Satellite Control

Now that we have a fundamental understanding of space power and how space vehicles are launched and maintained in orbit, it is time to examine the principal missions of satellite systems and consider how they support military and intelligence operations. In this lesson we look into the main categories of space support: communications, surveillance and reconnaissance, environmental monitoring, and navigation. We review some of the specific systems dedicated to those functions and learn how they operate and are operated.

Assigned readings:

Air University Space Primer, the following chapters:

Chapter 13: “US Space-Based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance”

Chapter 14: “Satellite Communications”

Chapter 15: “Weather/Environmental Satellites”

Chapter 16: “Navstar Global Positioning System”

Michael J. Muolo, Space Handbook: A War Fighter’s Guide to Space, Chapter 3: “Space

Support to the Warfighter: Space Missions and Military Space Systems,” read

from the beginning up to the section “Force Enhancement”.

February 3

Lesson 4: Missile Launch, Missile Warning, and Space Surveillance

When most people think of U.S. space operations, they think of the space shuttle or, perhaps, people processing data from U.S. satellites. However, a substantial portion of U.S. military and intelligence space operations involve people on the ground in missile launch centers or operating networks of radars and other ground- and space-based sensors devoted to collecting information on space vehicles launched by other countries. Among the most important foreign space vehicles to detect and track are those launched with ballistic, suborbital trajectories—i.e., missiles and their warheads, or, as space operators call the latter, reentry vehicles. During the Cold War, the United States established an elaborate network of sensors to detect missile attacks and a rigid protocol for determining the validity of warning triggers produced in that system and getting attack assessments to national decision makers in the shortest time possible. Today, that system still stands alert around the clock, as does the space surveillance network, a worldwide array of sensors used to detect, identify, and catalog every object in orbit around the earth. In this lesson we will learn about these little talked about but crucially important systems.

Note: Writing Assignment 1, a three-page point paper, will be assigned via email today.

Assigned readings:

Air University Space Primer, the following chapters:

Chapter 17: “Missile Warning Systems”

Chapter 18: “Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles”

Chapter 19: “Space Surveillance Network”

Chapter 12: “Space Event Processing”

PHASE 2—THE HISTORY OF U.S. SPACE OPERATIONS AND POLICY

February 10

Lesson 5: Genesis of the Soviet and American Space Programs

The United States first became interested in acquiring military space capabilities after witnessing developments in German rocketry in the Second World War. The Soviet Union, its manned bomber force inferior to that of the United States, also became particularly interested in developing ballistic missiles. So, as the war drew to a close, both countries snatched up all the German rocket scientists and rocket components they could find. The race to build an intercontinental ballistic missile had begun. But ballistic missiles were not the only potential fruits of rocket technology. U.S. Air Force leaders had heard that, given a rocket with sufficient thrust, one could throw an object so high and so fast that it would not fall back to earth; it would remain in orbit! They found that idea intriguing, but was it true? And if it were true, what purpose might such a capability serve? And, perhaps most importantly, was the technology for building such a “world-circling spaceship” within reach? Those were the first questions submitted to a new analytical project formed under a contract with the Douglas Aircraft Corporation: Air Force Project Research and Development (RAND). RAND’s answers to those questions would shape the space development effort in the decade ahead and predict the nature of space operations for more than half a century.

Assigned reading:

Walter A. McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth, pp. 41-140.

If interested, also see: Douglas Aircraft Corporation, Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship, Report No. SM-11827, Santa Monica, Calif., May 2, 1946, at:

February 17

Lesson 6: Eisenhower, Khrushchev, and the Setting of Superpower Space Policy

The decade of the 1950s was the formative era of U.S. and Soviet space policy. The Soviet Union, struggling to match U.S. power and influence, exploded its first atomic bomb in 1949 and its first two-stage nuclear device in 1953. Shortly afterward, with Russian scientists racing ahead in the development of heavy-lift rockets, Khrushchev began blustering about Soviet power, and Eisenhower worried that the United States was falling vulnerable to a surprise nuclear attack. U.S. leaders desperately needed a way to collect intelligence on the Soviet industrial-military complex and missile installations in the vast Eurasian interior. Satellites seemed to offer the potential access denied to reconnaissance aircraft, but no one knew whether Moscow (or, for that matter, other national capitals) would tolerate foreign spacecraft over-flying their sovereign territories. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force was sponsoring preliminary design work on “weapon systems” for use in space even before the first satellite achieved orbit. How did U.S. and Soviet leaders resolve the over-flight question? How did that solution shape space policy for the remainder of the 20th century?

Assigned readings:

McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth, pp. 141-297.

February 24

Lesson 7: U.S. Space Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations

Having lost the race to put the first satellite in orbit and weathered a supposed “missile gap”, Americans longed for new and inspirational leadership in world affairs. President Kennedy appealed to that yearning with his 1961 declaration that the United States would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. That gambit both inspired the American public’s imagination and galvanized national resolve to demonstrate that not only no nation on earth was more technologically advanced than the United States, but also that the American free enterprise system was a superior engine for achieving such a feat than was the Soviet Union’s command economy. Victory in the moon race was a tremendous boon for U.S. prestige around the world. More importantly, the public enthusiasm that it generated enabled Washington to funnel billions of dollars into space research and development, much of it supporting systems as applicable to military and intelligence missions as to manned space exploration.

Assigned readings:

McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth, pp. 301-407.

March 3

Lesson 8: U.S. Space Policies From the “FOBS” to the Present

The successful conclusion of the Apollo Program, combined with the mood of fiscal retrenchment that followed the Vietnam War, resulted in the cancellation of many space development efforts. But policies on military and intelligence space operations continued to evolve, nonetheless, and the United States and Soviet Union both developed space weapons in various periods. By the late Cold War era, the nuclear stalemate that had stabilized U.S.-Soviet relations led some observers to conclude that space had become a sanctuary from war. Washington and Moscow did indeed share a common interest in not attacking each other’s space assets, but technological and geo-strategic conditions were changing. As the wars of the 1990s and early 21st century revealed. Space support was becoming indispensable to conventional military operations. A growing number of U.S. strategists began asking whether, in the event of a serious conventional war, it is reasonable to assume that an enemy would not attack U.S. space systems, knowing that those systems provide U.S. forces dramatic advantages on the battlefield. What do you think?

Note: Writing Assignment 2, a three-page bullet background paper, will be assigned via email today.

Assigned readings:

R. Cargill Hall, Military Space and National Policy: Record and Interpretation.

Skim pp. 1-7; read pp. 8-32 (includes Robert Butterworth’s counter argument: “Comment: Provoke or Deter” and Hall’s “Reply”.

John M. Logston, Chapter 12: “Emerging Domestic Structures: Organizing the

Presidency for Spacepower,” Chapter 27 in Lutes and Hays, Toward a Theory of

Spacepower: Selected Essays.

Forrest E. Morgan, “Background on the Policy Issue,” excerpted from Morgan, et al.,

America’s Dependence on Space: Informing the National Defense Debate, unpublished monograph. Skim pp. 1-9; read pages 10-25.

March 10

Spring Recess—No Class

PHASE 3—SPACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

March 17

Lesson 9: America’s Dependence on Space—Is Our Greatest Strength Also Our Greatest Vulnerability?

Space systems now play important roles in every American’s security and well-being. The First Gulf War demonstrated how important space support had become to conventional military operations, and as the information age gathered momentum in the 1990s, it became increasingly apparent how integral space services were becoming to commerce, industry, public safety, scientific research, and the American way of life. As a result, the United States is, once again, looking at a future in which other world actors might have the motive and ability to attack its satellites, their associated terrestrial infrastructure, or the electronic links that connect them. But just how dependent is the United States on space, really, and what are the real threats to U.S. space systems? In this lesson, we cut through the rhetoric so often heard on these issues and look at these questions objectively.

Assigned Readings:

Martin L. Libiki, “Civilian Dependence on Space,” excerpted from Morgan, et al.,

America’s Dependence on Space: Informing the National Defense Debate.

Stephen Whiting, “Military Dependence on Space,” excerpted from Morgan, et al.,

America’s Dependence on Space: Informing the National Defense Debate.

Tom Wilson, “Threats to U.S. Space Capabilities,” paper prepared for the Commission to

Assess United States National Security Space Organization and Management,

2000.

March 24

Lesson 10: Astropolitik: A Classical Geopolitical View of Space Power

While some strategic thinkers believe the United States should tread lightly in space, others argue that the United States should capitalize on its technological advantages and “seize the high ground” while it can. Everett Dolman is perhaps the most emphatic proponent of that argument. He describes his theory, Astropolitik, as an “application of the prominent and refined realist vision of state competition into outer space policy, particularly the development and evolution of a legal and political regime for humanity’s entry into the cosmos.” In fact, he argues for assuring the sustained preeminence of U.S. national power by seizing control of and dominating space! What do you think of his argument? Can the United States really achieve world dominance via space dominance? Just what is space dominance, and can the United States achieve it? Should it try?

Assigned reading:

Everett C. Dolman, Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age. Read pp. 1-9;

skim pp. 12-85; read pp. 86-183.

March 31

Lesson 11: In Defense of the Sanctuary Doctrine

Given the difficulty of defending space systems and the long record of successfully avoiding military conflicts in space, some strategists argue that the security interests of the United States are best served by preserving the current status quo in space weaponization as long as possible. Some of these authors are among them. They maintain that, while one must not rule out the possible need to introduce space weapons in the future, they are not needed now. Meanwhile, strategists need to consider more broadly the complex domestic and international issues surrounding space weaponization and weigh other alternatives carefully. Read their arguments and see if you agree.

Assigned reading:

David W. Zeigler, “Safe Heavens: Military Strategy and Space Sanctuary,” in Col Bruce

M. Deblois (ed.), Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power

Thought, pp. 185-245.

Michael Krepon, Theresa Hitchens, and Micheal Katz-Hyman, Chapter 6: “Preserving

Freedom of Action in Space: Realizing the Potential and Limits of U.S.

Spacepower,” Chapter 20 in Lutes and Hays, Toward a Theory of Spacepower.

Oberg, Space Power Theory, Appendix 2 to Chapter 3: “A Discussion of Applicable

Space Treaties,” pp. 97-101.

April 7

Lesson 12: Space Weapons, Earth Wars

Space theorists and strategist alike spend a great deal of time arguing over whether the United States should place weapons in space and how those weapons should be used, once available. Unfortunately, too few of them know to what extent such weapons are even viable or what can and cannot be accomplished with them. In Space Weapons, Earth Wars, several of RAND’s top space systems analysts examine these questions objectively. Among other things, they define the attributes of various classes of space weapons, explain their potential capabilities and limitations, and consider how they might be used. Do the findings of this study shed any light on the viability of arguments presented by advocates of space control or space warfare?

Note: Writing Assignment 3, a ten-page position paper, will be assigned via email today.

Assigned reading:

Bob Preston, et al., Space Weapons, Earth Wars. Read the summary (pp. xv-xxiii)

carefully. Also read pp. 1-4; skim pp. 5-22; read pp. 23-107. Review the

appendices selectively for more technical information.

April 14

Lesson 13: Is There a Middle Ground?

Thus far you have read the work of a theorist who advocates taking an aggressive stance towards space and a strategist who argues that space should be maintained as a sanctuary for as long as possible. You also have examined some objective analysis on the potential utility of space weapons. I now invite you to consider the arguments of a strategic thinker who maintains that neither extreme is tenable. Michael O’Hanlon, a researcher at the Brookings institution, looks at the pros and cons of each school of thought and opts for a position in the middle. Does his arguments make sense, or is he just being indecisive?

Assigned reading:

Michael E. O’Hanlon, “Balancing U.S. Security Interests in Space,” Chapter 21 in Lutes

and Hays, Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays.

April 21

Lesson 14: Space Power Today and In the Future

By now you should have a good understanding of how space—i.e., networks of space- and ground-based systems, with all their strengths and vulnerabilities, flexibilities and constraints—support military and intelligence operations. You have also examined the historical roots of U.S. space policy, and you’ve read an assortment of arguments for directions the United States should take space policy and strategy in the future. At this juncture, we return to the fundamental concept of space power. Just what is space power? Does it really exist, or is space support merely an enabler or “force multiplier” for instruments of national power wielded in the terrestrial environment? More importantly, what space policies and strategies do you think the United States should pursue to best ensure its security in the coming decades?

Assigned readings:

Peter L. Hays, “Space Law and the Advancement of Spacepower,” Chapter 28 in Lutes

and Hays, Toward a Theory of Spacepower, pp. 299-318.

Consider adding the Listner article. It’s in the Readings folder.

Simon P. Worden, “Future Strategy and Professional Development: A Roadmap,”

Chapter 14 in Lutes and Hays, Toward a Theory of Spacepower, pp. 319-339.

Forrest E. Morgan, Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space: A Preliminary

Assessment, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2010.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download