Appendix A discusses the Resident Inspection Operations at greater length. Appendix B discusses some multilateral agreements which bear on the military implications of SPS. Appendix C discusses a variety of technical topics, including technological projections in some key areas. 1.5 Conclusions Several principles and themes have emerged in this study: (1) Military implications clearly depend on the arrangements under which one or more nations pursue the implementation of a SPS program. It could be conducted as a unilateral program, a multilateral program including only friendly partners, or a multilateral program, including potential adversaries. Military implications further depend on whether SPS development and operation is monitored by international resident inspection operations. (2) The Unmodified Reference Resign SPS has no capability for military force delivery or for military CI functions. It does have some modest military support capabilities. Most significant here is the inherent capacity of the system to transport large quantities of equipment and large numbers of people (compared to present standards) between the surface of the Earth and high Earth orbit (past GEO, at least). The detailed nature of military activities in space which could then be carried out independent of the rest of SPS is beyond the scope of this study. Power satellites, the LEO base, the GEO base, and many of the vehicles used for SPS could all be used as platforms for various communications, reconnaissance, and surveillance functions. These facilities and vehicles could also be used to support maintenance and repair of military satellites and vehicles. (3) Weapons modules having tactical and strategic significance could be added to a Satellite Power System. The more significant military capabilities which could be added are as follows: a) A ballistic missile defense (ABM) system based on directed energy weapons (DEW’s), most likely high energy lasers. Depending on the rate of technological advance, such weapons might ultimately achieve the capability of neutralizing low-altitude aircraft and cruise missiles. Unilateral deployment of such a system could be considered provocative by other nations. On the other hand, with proper safeguards, multilateral deployment of such defensive systems could be internationally stabilizing. b) A variety of antisatellite (ASAT) systems. These could include DEW’s, space-to-space missiles (either rockets or projectiles), space mines, and grapplers (either manned or remotely operated). Except for DEW’s and small projectile weapons, a comprehensive space surveillance system should be able to detect and track such weapons, making it difficult to attack without warning. c) Reentry vehicles for Earth bombardment with either conventional high explosives or nuclear warheads. Although it would be difficult
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==