Locating a satellite in orbit is not complex, and this is a hobby for many "satellite watchers." Satellites can be seen just after sunset and just before dawn when the spacecraft are still in sunlight but the viewer is in shadow. The International Space Station, which can be as bright as Jupiter or even Venus, is a popular target. There is a great deal of information on the Internet about each satellite and their orbit. After the 9-11 terror attacks, the U.S. government began to implement restriction on its satellite data fearing that terrorists could somehow target them. [1]

Since satellites are easy to track and cannot maneuver, they are ducks in a shooting gallery. Basic SCUD missiles or cheap "sounding rockets" fitted with a modified air-to-air missile can destroy those in low orbit. Powerful lasers are another anti-satellite weapon since they can blind or damage sensors. The only defense is to accept that satellites are easily downed, so the answer is redundancy and a quick launch method for replacements.

The cost and complexity of keeping conventional weapons in space is prohibitive. Placing nuclear weapons in orbit for instant use is possible, but the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans putting weapons of mass destruction in space or on the moon or other celestial bodies. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits targeting another country's satellites. Nevertheless, the U.S. Air Force implies that blinding satellites with lasers (dazzlers) or radio frequency jamming is not targeting, so this is deemed permissible.

The U.S. Congress banned anti-satellite weapons testing for ten years in 1985, fearing it may spark an arms race. After this ban expired, the U.S. Army gained approval for testing from President Clinton in order to "develop countermeasures" in case American satellites are targeted. On October 21, 1997, the U.S. military tested an anti-satellite laser called the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIACL). This TRW laser has been around since the 1980s, a left over from Reagan's "Star Wars" research programs.

Test laser shots were fired at an unused U.S. Air Force satellite 260 miles above Earth. The satellite was not destroyed, but the Army was more interested in testing the vulnerability of delicate satellite sensors. Huge ground-based lasers cannot burn up satellites because almost the entire laser beam is scattered as it passes through the Earth's atmosphere. Nevertheless, blinding a reconnaissance satellite effectively destroys it.

Many American military space programs are funded through National Missile Defense (NMD). Since most cannot work as advertised, skeptics assume these are examples of corruption. However, the true purposes of some programs are secret. For example, as part of NMD, the U.S. Air Force is developing an airborne laser system and hopes to mount some inside militarized 747s within a few years. Because of the curvature of the Earth, they will have to fire through the dense lower atmosphere to hit a rising ICBM. This greatly limits range and accuracy, so success is very questionable.

However, at 40,000 feet a 747 is above most of the Earth's atmosphere, so an airborne laser is ideal to fire upward at satellites. The new NMD missile interceptors can also hit satellites, however, the U.S. military states that physically destroying a satellite is a bad idea because it produces hundreds of chunks of orbiting space debris that will damage its own satellites.

This may result in nations launching satellites for that purpose, which was once proposed for NMD as the "brilliant pebbles" idea. A satellite would have an explosive charge surrounded by thousands of small ball bearings. If war breaks out, an encrypted message will cause it to explode, polluting space with hundreds of ball bearings that circle the planet for years and destroy numerous satellites. This may result in a new version of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept. If war occurs, a nation may blow up their MAD satellites and pollute space with killer ball bearings that destroy everyone's satellites.

In response to criticism of its anti-satellite test, China has offered to negotiate a treaty to further limit space weaponry,[2] and Russia has expressed interest, but the U.S. military has no desire to limit options. This will lead to tension because many issues are ill defined. For example, if using a smokescreen to blind satellites is okay, what is wrong with using a laser to blind them? If a spy satellite is transmitting targeting data about a nation while orbiting overhead, what is wrong with jamming its signal? Since satellites often stop functioning for unknown reasons, a mischievous nation can zap an expensive satellite with a laser or microwave beam, and the owner could not know what caused it to fail. Countermeasures are difficult because these "dazzlers" travel at the speed of light, so advance warning of an incoming beam is impossible.

Space access has even become an issue in fighting terrorists. Anyone with an Internet connection and a credit card has access to recent satellite imagery at websites such as: Google Earth, Terraserver, GlobeXplorer, and Space Imaging. Customers can place orders for satellites to take pictures of specific locations. Globalsecurity.org has annoyed the Pentagon for several years by posting satellite images of key US military bases on the Internet, most they later withdrew.[3] Google Earth removed images of British bases in Iraq after complaints that Iraqi insurgents were using them, and agreed to remove hundreds of other sensitive images at the request of governments.[4] There is little governments can do against companies and websites outside their borders, other than bombing their ground facilities or destroying their satellites. Satellite wars are a likely battleground in which high-tech surveillance falls victim to low-cost weaponry.

____________________________________________

[1] "Satellite watchers worried about Air Force restrictions"; Spaceflight Now; March 2, 2005; http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/02observing/

[2] "Bold move escalates space war debate"; MSNBC; Jan. 18, 2007; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16694039/

[3] "Public Eye"; Globalsecurity.org; 2006; http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/pic-2006.htm

See also The Heron's Latest Catch, "Ever wondered where all those nukes are stored?" February 28, 2007. http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1140&Itemid=104

[4] "Google erases British bases in Iraq"; The Register; Jan. 18, 2007;