U.S. Anti-Satellite Program: ‘Space Is Part of Our Security’

Rowny’s article is self-contradictory and is misleading in its facts. Its concepts are dangerous because both the Soviet and U.S. satellites protect us all from unintentional nuclear war.

Rowny wants us to develop anti-satellite weapons to destroy Soviet satellites. He states that most of our satellites are for non-military use, while 90% of the Soviet satellites are for military purposes. A weather or navigational satellite can be used both for military and civilian activities, as can an observational satellite gathering information on human activities such as communications, agriculture, etc. There is a monopoly of innocence in this regard.

Rowny states correctly that the Soviet ASAT system is operational and that we do not have one. However, the Soviet system is extremely inefficient and operates only in low orbit (up to 1,000 miles). We have the F-15 system which, while not operational now, will have much greater capability than the Soviet’s and will be able to strike objects in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles). Soviet satellites are mostly in low-Earth orbit or in highly elliptical orbits making them very susceptible to attack.

All this is beside the point.

We are much safer if the Soviets see that our intentions are innocent, and they are safer if we see that they are not preparing to attack. We want their satellites to operate well and they want ours to function well.

In a world where space is filled with ASATs, the loss of an important satellite through accident or malfunction could be construed as an attack by one side against the other. This could precipitate a nuclear war.

A program to destroy your enemies’ satellites would be pure nonsense if it were not so dangerous. In reality it is criminal.

RICHARD G. SAXON

Encino