Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Holds Hearing on National Security Space Programs

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Mar. 12, 2003
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Holds Hearing on National Security Space Programs

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Secretary Teets and Admiral Ellis.

Let me ask just a few questions. First, last year, Mr. Secretary, when you were questioned with respect to space and weapons, you stated that, "I believe that weapons will go into space. It's a question of time. We need to be at the forefront of that."

Can you just elaborate on the current policy of the United States with respect to weaponization of space? Has there been any significant changes in the last few years?

TEETS:

I think there have not been changes yet implemented in terms of that policy. But I think policy is under review at the current time and could conceivably change.

In the statement that I made earlier today, I think the time has come for us to push hard on the issue of space control. And that will involve some things that are currently within our capability—like space surveillance, like attack warning systems, like even some defensive counterspace kinds of measures that we can take. But I, for one, believe that the time has come for us to consider changing policy, which would allow us to have some offensive capability as well.

REED:

Mr. Secretary, the Space Commission unanimously concluded that, in their words, "The U.S. has an urgent interest in promoting and protecting the peaceful useful of space." Is that inconsistent with your introducing offensive weapons into the . . .

TEETS:

Well, I think not, because I think that what I'm not—I'm not advocating the use of those weapons unless our forces are threatened or put under attack by an adversary's system in space. And what I don't want to do is be the victim of a space Pearl Harbor and find, at some point in the future, when we are as dependent on our space systems as we are for effective warfighting capability, that we lose them because of an enemy action and find ourselves having no capability to preclude an enemy's use of space assets.

REED:

I think, from listening to your comments—and I appreciate it's a very serious topic and you would address it in a serious and substantial way—at this junction in history, we are one of the few powers that really have the capability of effectively weaponizing space, just as we were once one of the few powers that had the capability of deploying atomic weapons, nuclear weapons. And there is a logic that it might be attractive to us now, but if others copy us, copy that, then we could be in a worse situation.

And I hope—and I know—you are considering that also.

TEETS:

Yes, sir.

REED:

Admiral Ellis, as the head of STRATCOM, you have the responsibility for the global command and control of U.S. strategic forces, including integrated missile defense. And you have an important stake in the decisions that are involved with respect to missile defense, to goals, capabilities.

The president has made a decision apparently to deploy. I think prior to that deployment, if I'm correct, prior to his deployment decision, your recommendation was not for deployment in 2004. Is that correct?

ELLIS:

I don't recall the conversation or the context, sir. As you know, we set a goal for deployment of an initial operational capability in October of next year. And the president has characterized the limited scope of that effort as part of a continuing developmental process that will extend the course well beyond that led by the Missile Defense Agency.

Our role in that is to assist in the operationalization of what has up to now been a developmental program. That includes concepts of operations. That includes command and control structure. That includes the details that certainly would be essential to making that a completely effective system once the development is complete.

REED:

One of the issues here, at what point does an operational test bed become a deployment? I would think, though, if it is a deployed system, your role, as such, would be critical, that it would be within your responsibilities. Is that fair?

ELLIS:

The concept, as I mentioned, for its employment, is under development, the operational concept, if you will. But clearly, there will be an interest, since it's now global missile defense and not just regional or national missile defense. And each of the combatant commanders will have a statutory responsibility for the defense of their area of responsibility. In Northern Command's case, certainly that's the United States of America and North America. And the regional combatant commanders are also interested.

And how we blend together all of the layers or levels of the systems that can contribute to that, that's our role, to make that architecture common, to have common concepts of operations, to have interoperability across theaters, to ensure that there are no seams in what, as you right characterize, is essentially a global capability, and then provide that to the regional combatant commanders, as it's currently structured, for their use.

REED:

Just one quick follow up. In the year 2004, do you anticipate that you will have an operational system that you, as a CINC, will be integrating globally, even if it's declared a deployment?

ELLIS:

The system goals, ambitious as they are, indicate that there will be a limited operational capability in this developmental system when it is in place by the fall of next year. And clearly, as we move beyond that, there will be additional refinements and elements that will contribute, as follow-on concepts that could contribute to this layered defense delivery.

But initially, yes, sir. It is our intent to have in place the operational elements that could use this developmental capability should the need arise in defense of the nation.

REED:

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.

General Lord, Secretary Teets suggested that there is a growing momentum to weaponize space. Do you think that is inevitable that it will happen and happen within a short period of time?

LORD:

Thank you, Senator Reed. Excellent question.

I mean, I think we all realize that there is a difference between weaponization and militarization of space. And it has certainly been militarized. And space is an economic, as well as military center of gravity for our country. And we are critically dependent upon that.

I agree with what Mr. Teets said. I think that we need to maintain a balanced approach to that. And I think offensive kinds of capabilities in space are important to enforce our ability to use ours and act as a deterrent against others to interfere with our capabilities.

And I think we'll have to think carefully about how we proceed in that area. But I think a balance in the space control area, of space situational awareness, which is critical, and defensive counterspace measures to protect ourselves against the vulnerabilities and then offensive counterspace capabilities when we need it to not only dissuade others from trying to do something, but be able to protect our assets.

REED:

You have identified one line of demarcation, which is those defensive measures that you have put up to protect satellites, even self-contained defensive measures, which I think probably roughly falls into what most people assume is this militarization of space, if not weaponization. But when you cross the line to offensive weapons, I think it raises concerns.

Do you think that we will inevitably have to put offensive weapons into space?

LORD:

I think that day may come. I think it's a matter of—I mean, not if somebody is going to mess with our systems. I think it's not a matter of it, but when somebody is going to try to, you know, perturb our asymmetric advantage in space, if you will, and try to interfere with that.

And I think we have to be able to be able to enforce that and use the capabilities. And on our war games and all the things we look at, as we do simulations, et cetera, the high value of those assets certainly is recognized and has a premium on them. We'll take prudent steps as we go there.

REED:

Cosumano, do you have any thoughts on this, since the Army has a significant role?

COSUMANO:

Thank you, senator, for the question. Yes, sir. We do. We lump this under the mission area called space control. And many times, you can control your access to space and deny the other—the adversary's access to space with airborne systems or ground systems. And so oftentimes, we can accomplish that mission of space control and really don't need to get into that business in outer space itself.

And so the Army is pursuing, with the Air Force as the lead, a series of programs to do just that.

REED:

Thank you.

Admiral Mayo, any thoughts you might have?

MAYO:

Definitely, sir. Space for the Navy, being forward deployed almost all the time, provides us—space provides us our connection. Space provides us our content, our absolutely critical key combat information for the battle space. So space is absolutely critical.

It is going to become even more critical in the future, as we try to become a capabilities-based Navy, capable of dealing with any kind of an emergent threat to the president. So that kind of reliance and critical dependence upon space makes space control that much more important to us.

As I said, we have contributed to this capability for STRATCOM. And I would be happy to go into this any further in a closed or classified session. It's absolutely critical.

REED:

Thank you very much.

One final follow-up question. It strikes me that the technology to get into space is getting such that may people who couldn't compete years ago can compete now. And in a sort of simpleminded way, if you can access a computer and you can get into a network, you might even be able to influence our satellites in space, et cetera.

And as we go forward, and I think this has to be borne in mind, when we start thinking about what we can do in space, I think the threshold for other people to do things in space is going to lower dramatically, which I think should have some influence on your decisions about what weaponization, what you put up there.

Is that a point that you are considering, General Lord?

LORD:

Absolutely. I think that with the asymmetric advantage we have—we want to maintain that asymmetric advantage and continue to perfect that and deny somebody using that against us. I mean, that's a key to our continued success and being able to support both economic and military operations we want to maintain that advantage.

But living and deterring in an asymmetric environment requires a different set of rules, I think, and different theology, if you will, about how you think about that. And we certainly want to maintain our advantage and work all aspects of this.

I don't want to be redundant. But I think that the three pillars of space control are important—space situational awareness, understanding what's in the environment, the defensive measures to protect yourself against that. And then lastly, the offensive counterspace to protect your assets and deny who means to move against you.

REED:

Thank you very much, general.

General Cosumano, Admiral Mayo, thank you.