Back to news

October 27, 2020 | International, C4ISR

With its new space centre, NATO seeks the ultimate high ground

Murray Brewster

It's not the Space Force you may have heard about. Still, NATO's newly announced space centre boldly takes the seven-decade-old institution where no international military alliance has gone before.

Most of its leading members and adversaries have sought individual advantage in the final frontier over the decades. And while the European Space Agency is a collective body, its civilian mission and its politics are inarguably different from those of NATO.

That difference was on display this week as NATO defence ministers, meeting online, put the final pieces in place for the new centre, which has been in the works for a couple of years.

"The space environment has fundamentally changed in the last decade," said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

"Some nations, including Russia and China, are developing anti-satellite systems that could blind, disable or shoot down satellites and create dangerous debris in orbit."

NATO "must increase our understanding of the challenges in space," he said.

Unlike U.S. President Donald Trump's much-hyped plan to make the Space Force a separate branch of the U.S. military, the North Atlantic alliance has been careful to present its space centre not as a "war fighting" arm but as something purely defensive.

A 1967 international treaty commits 110 countries, including the United States and Canada, to limiting their use of space to "peaceful purposes" alone and prohibits the basing of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs, for instance) in orbit. It further prohibits the militarization of the moon and other celestial bodies.

Stoltenberg has insisted that alliance activities will be in line with international law.

The rising threat of war in space

That's an important point for Paul Meyer, adjunct professor of international studies in international security at Simon Fraser University in B.C. He warned in a recent policy paper for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that the "prospects for armed conflict in space appear more likely than they have been since the days of the Cold War."

Meyer said world leaders should think hard about what role — if any — arms control could play in avoiding a war in space.

"Diplomatic solutions are not being pursued, despite the fact that irresponsible state conduct in space can ruin it for everyone," he said Friday.

NATO has no satellites or space infrastructure of its own — but many member nations do and Stoltenberg said the alliance will draw on their expertise in setting up the new centre.

Almost all modern militaries rely on satellites. In any major conflict between NATO and either Russia or China, the orbital communication and navigation grid would be the first piece of infrastructure to be hit.

Not only does NATO need satellites for surveillance, reconnaissance and communications, an increasing number of military operations are being targeted from space.

A good example is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, during which 68 per cent of airstrikes employed smart bombs guided by lasers and satellites.

Those "eyes in the sky" are also important for defence against ballistic missiles and (naturally) weather forecasting.

Diplomacy and deterrence

Dan Coats, the former U.S. director of national intelligence, warned Congress almost two years ago that China and Russia have trained and equipped their military space forces with new anti-satellite weapons.

Those warnings have not been limited to the Trump administration. In the spring of 2019, Norway accused Russia of "harassing" communications systems and jamming Norwegian Armed Forces GPS signals.

Last spring, the NATO space centre reported that Moscow had test-fired a satellite-killing missile.

Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said in a recent online policy analysis that outer space will need to be "mainstreamed" within NATO when it comes to planning and operations.

He also argued that the alliance will need to find a way to "incorporate diplomacy into any eventual strategy."

Meyer agreed and noted in his October 2020 policy paper that Canada is largely absent from any meaningful debate on the militarization of space.

The Global Affairs website, he said, contains outdated material, is full of banal, non-specific references and is largely devoid of Canadian content.

"Pity the Canadian citizen who wishes to understand where our country stands on this troubling issue of outer space security," Meyer wrote.

It's not clear what sort of contribution Canada might make to the new NATO space centre.

In a statement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said it's important for Canada's allies to develop a strategy that "ensures a peaceful use of space while protecting ourselves.

"Canada has been a leading voice in NATO about the importance of space for the Alliance and we remain committed to working with our Allies and partners to prevent space from becoming an arena of conflict."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-space-command-space-militarization-stoltenberg-1.5775269

On the same subject

  • Here’s how Air Mobility Command will improve aircraft survivability

    September 24, 2018 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

    Here’s how Air Mobility Command will improve aircraft survivability

    By: Charlsy Panzino In a great power conflict, mobility aircraft will be essential to deliver fuel and supplies to the warfighters. But increasing concern over anti-access/area denial threats from potential foes, and the fact that big bodied mobility aircraft present inviting, in fact, critical targets has the attention and concern of Air Force leadership. The new head of Air Mobility Command is focusing on four key areas to improve the survivability of mobility aircraft and gain persistence over the battlefield. Gen. Maryanne Miller, who took the controls Sept. 7 when Gen. Carlton Everhart retired, told reporters at the Air Force Association's annual Air, Space and Cyber Conference that the Illinois-based command is looking at four categories of survivability improvements: Situational awareness of the battlefield New countermeasures to operate in a combat environment Self-defense systems Disciplined signature management “Looking at each one of these categories will help advance the survivability for our platforms in the threat environment,” Miller said Tuesday. Miller is carrying forward work that was done under her predecessor. Early this year, AMC completed an assessment about how to improve the survivability of aircraft in contested environments. The “High Value Airborne Asset” study recommended improvements to communications, situational awareness and self-protection systems. There are many different technologies to consider and develop for self-protection. including light armor, signature management tech and high-energy lasers. Former AMC commander Gen. Carlton Everhart often talked about his desire to put lasers on mobility aircraft, beginning with the KC-135, and the command has also been working to improve secure communications, notably on the C-17. The service needs integrated situational awareness capabilities that provide all aspects of pertinent battlefield information. New sensors will help the command better understand everything that's happening within the battlefield. As Air Mobility Command looks at how best to build that situational awareness, it could mean building sensors onto the aircraft or new air frames to meet those requirements. “Given the threat environment, it's probably a little bit of both,” Miller said. With signature management, or detection avoidance, Miller said AMC is looking at new air frames that will have common cockpits, advanced propulsion systems, payload, offload, range, speed and fuel efficiency. Miller said the command is figuring out if modifications can be made on current air frames or if new ones need to be built. “We're really trying to take advantage of signature management properties associated with each air frame itself,” she said. Meanwhile, U.S. Transportation Command and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense have been assessing the number of tanker aircraft, airlift aircraft and sealift ships needed to meet future combatant commander requirements. The study, known as the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study, is expected to be completed this fall. “America's air refueling fleet is the most stressed of our air mobility forces," Gen. Darren McDew, commander of USTRANSCOM, told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. “The combination of an aging fleet, increasing demand, and global tanker distribution puts a significant strain on this scarce national resource.” “Our ability to deploy decisive force is foundational to the National Defense Strategy. The size and lethality of the force is of little consequence if we can't get it where it needs to go when we want it there,” said McDew. The rate of change in technology requires quick innovation to overcome threats, Miller said. The force needs aircraft that are “able to survive, integrate and operate in DoD forces in current and future threat environments.” Miller said the key is understanding the threats of the future and modifying or building a plane that allows the Air Force to operate through that threat environment. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/22/heres-how-air-mobility-command-will-improve-aircraft-survivability

  • Microsoft Revamps Controversial AI-Powered Recall Feature Amid Privacy Concerns

    June 9, 2024 | International, Security

    Microsoft Revamps Controversial AI-Powered Recall Feature Amid Privacy Concerns

    Microsoft's AI-powered Recall feature sparked major privacy concerns. Now, it's becoming an opt-in.

  • TOP US INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL SUE GORDON WANTS SILICON VALLEY ON HER SIDE

    November 12, 2018 | International, C4ISR

    TOP US INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL SUE GORDON WANTS SILICON VALLEY ON HER SIDE

    SUE GORDON, THE principal deputy director of national intelligence, wakes up every day at 3 am, jumps on a Peloton, and reads up on all the ways the world is trying to destroy the United States. By the afternoon, she has usually visited the Oval Office and met with the heads of the 17 intelligence agencies to get threat reports. The self-described “chief operating officer of the intelligence community” has a lot to worry about, but the nearly-30-year veteran is generally optimistic about America's future. Now, she says, she just needs Silicon Valley to realize that tech and government don't have to be opposed. On a recent trip to Silicon Valley, Gordon sat down with WIRED to talk about how much government needs Silicon Valley to join the fight to keep the US safe. She was in town to speak at conference at Stanford, but also to convince tech industry leaders industry that despite increasing employee concerns, the government and tech have a lot of shared goals. “I had a meeting with Google where my opening bid was: ‘We're in the same business'. And they're like ‘What?' And I said: ‘Using information for good,'” Gordon says. That's a hard sell in Silicon Valley, especially in the post-Snowden years. After Snowden's leaks, tech companies and tech workers didn't want to be seen as complicit with a government that spied on its own people—a fact Gordon disputes, saying that any collection of citizen's information was incidental and purged by their systems. This led to a much-publicized disconnect between the two power centers, one that has only grown more entrenched and public in 2018, as Silicon Valley has undergone something of an ethical awakening. Gordon agrees with and supports a broader awareness that technology can be abused, but came to Silicon Valley to explain why government and tech should solve those problems hand in hand. Pairing Up Gordon knows from public-private partnerships. The CIA's venture capital accelerator In-Q-Tel—which for nearly 20 years has invested in everything from malware-detection software to biochemical sensors to micro-batteries—was Gordon's idea. Groundbreaking at its conception, In-Q-Tel directly funds startups that could be of interest to national security, without limits on how that money can be used, and without owning the intellectual property. Among other successful investments, In-Q-Tel backed a company called Keyhole, which Google would go on to acquire and turn into Google Earth. Full article: https://www.wired.com/story/sue-gordon-us-intelligence-public-private-google-amazon

All news