Igor Jadan. Men, don't pester Aelita

Men, don't pester Aelita
Igor Jadan

Publication date: February 18, 2004

In a year, Russian-American rivalry in space may celebrate its half-century anniversary: ​​on February 12, 1955, the USSR decided to build the Baikonur Cosmodrome. All these years, two nations - the Russians and the Americans - have been fiercely fighting for supremacy in space-based military technology. However, none of them managed to achieve a decisive advantage.

According to a US Department of Defense report, in 1991 the USSR had superiority over the US in missile defense and anti-satellite weapons programs. Only the USSR had a permanent orbital station. Additionally, the Soviet Union had twice as many types of spacecraft and conducted five times as many launches as the United States. According to American data, the USSR also had an operational ground-based anti-satellite system. Over the past 13 years, the United States has taken a significant lead in the space race, but has not yet achieved decisive superiority.

Reagan's "star wars" program of the late 80s, as we know, was never implemented, but managed to capture the minds of the American defense department. In 1999, the Clinton administration's Secretary of Defense stated in a report to the President and Congress: "Access to, use of, and control of outer space are critical to military strategy."

With the advent of the Bush administration, American intentions to militarize space have become even more open. The United States not only officially withdrew from the treaty with Russia on limiting missile defense, but also changed the entire concept of its construction to a more proactive one. Now we are no longer talking about the careful and gradual deployment of a limited defense system, but about the parallel development and testing of all conceivable technologies and components that could theoretically be successful.

The question of the structure of a specific defensive system that will be put into service will be decided on the basis of what specific types of interception - space, air, laser, etc. - will prove their greatest effectiveness. Such a “fast and furious” approach, in fact, required a complete renunciation of any coordination with Russia upon the US withdrawal from the treaty, which was ultimately done by the administration of the “personal friend of the Russian president.” The results are obvious, and, according to the latest data , there are all signs that the American missile defense development program is moving ahead of schedule.

Technologies for placing laser and kinetic weapons in orbit will provide an additional opportunity to wage war by conventional means. They will give the United States additional opportunities to win in a local conflict. We can talk about carrying out (or threatening to carry out) various kinds of blockades of the state and the aerospace space lying above it, as well as water areas, sea routes and territorial enclaves like Kaliningrad. Groups of military satellites will be able, in addition to supporting existing ground groups in providing communications, reconnaissance and target designation, to provide direct fire support for traditional military operations. In the future, it is quite possible to imagine a situation where winning in a local conflict is achieved by space means of attack. Just as the air war decided the outcome of the NATO conflict with Yugoslavia .

If, as the escalation scenario develops, the deterrent potentials of Russia and the United States are mutually neutralized, the United States will have a decisive net advantage in conventional weapons. They will be able to use it when sorting out relations with Russia as if both sides had only conventional weapons.

Note that throughout the Second World War, both sides had a huge potential for chemical weapons, which in the minds of politicians and military men of the first half of the twentieth century occupied the place that nuclear weapons now occupy in the minds of leaders. It may seem strange that the presence of unconventional weapons not only did not affect the results of the war, but they were not even used in any significant operation. Obviously, this happened because the unconventional potential of the parties was “mutually neutralized” in the minds of politicians ahead of time, and the outcome was determined by the net superiority of the Allies over the Axis countries in conventional weapons. This is worth remembering for those who mischievously call for complete reliance on the country’s existing nuclear potential and not to get involved in the conventional arms race.

As U.S. space technology develops, more and more new and unexpected applications for national security will emerge. The consequences of possessing any technology cannot be calculated until it is in your hands. Hence another alarming conclusion for our country: as the American technological base in the space field expands, it will become increasingly difficult to correctly assess its consequences for Russia’s security. In the end, you can completely lose sight of the race leader and completely drop out of the game.

Regarding American plans for a flight to Mars and a “return to the Moon.” If the attractiveness of this idea does force cash-strapped America to fork out cash, the technologies created and the experience of long-term human presence in space will again allow the Americans to advance in the military field (the construction of military space bases in “near space” and, perhaps, even on the Moon).

The intention expressed by US President Bush to curtail American participation in the International Space Station project is indicative. This intention only confirms that the main thing in American plans is to achieve technological superiority, and not scientific discoveries. The ISS is a project in which the parties are forced to share experience. While Russia had a certain advantage in organizing long-duration space flights, for the United States the ISS made some sense. Now, after the United States has set its sights on absolute technological superiority, any “contact” between the space projects of the two countries becomes uninteresting to them, since the main benefit from cooperation is received by the lagging party. At the same time, it turns out that cooperation undermines the main goal - gaining an undeniable advantage in space. We have to admit that the hopes of Russian enthusiasts , together with the United States, to colonize Mars have little chance of coming true.

By the way, it recently became known that by 2025, nine European countries and Canada are going to send their “Euroastronauts” to Mars.

However, it does not follow from the above that Russia urgently needs to create a parallel flight program to Mars. Quite the contrary. The technological possibility of accessing new spaces beyond the Earth looms on the horizon. So far - with unclear practical significance. (Although some experts talk about the possibility of extracting fuel for thermonuclear power plants - helium-3 - on the Moon.) Despite this uncertainty, you can be 100% sure that practical applications for these spaces will be found over time. The situation is reminiscent of the situation on the eve of the era of great geographical discoveries. At first, the only goal of European expeditions was to search for gold, but as new lands were explored, many other goals appeared.

The parallel between the great geographical discoveries and the beginning of the exploration of the solar system allows us to draw another conclusion: the biggest winner is not necessarily the pioneer. And, quite possibly, the one who will be able to control the cosmic paths. As you know, the Spaniards and Portuguese were in the lead in the race to new lands, but the naval power of England put everything in its place. And now the “race to Mars” is just a PR ploy to squeeze money out of Americans for the development of new technologies. Russia doesn't have to repeat this trick exactly. Obviously, the decisive battles for control of space will take place differently, not as we imagine based on the history of past conflicts. However, in order to understand exactly how, it is necessary to develop the appropriate technologies.

Russia's rivals have long accepted the concept that whoever controls outer space will rule the world. The thesis that “space is the center of the military strategy of the future” is periodically repeated. The strongest power sees control over space as a continuation of the strategy of control over sea routes. As you know, it was the advantage at sea that ensured the prosperity of the “mistress of the seas” - Great Britain.

And the beautiful, streamlined phrases that the country “unequivocally made its choice in favor of preventing weapons competition in outer space, but to consolidate this requires the collective efforts of the international community,” in their meaninglessness could only be compared with hopes for the strength of the notorious “Belgian neutrality " .