Dueling Satellites

By Bruce van Voorst/Washington

Soviet scientists and cosmonauts may have left their frustrated U.S. counterparts behind for now, but Kremlin military brass are hardly breathing any easier. American military space technology still far surpasses that of the Soviets. U.S. KH-11 satellites have sent back such detailed photographs of the Soviets' Krasnoyarsk radar site in Siberia that even the recent inspection by U.S. Congressmen added little to what was known. U.S. monitoring systems follow Soviet naval ships around the world and may eventually be able to spot Soviet submarines underwater. U.S. satellites can track mobile Soviet ICBMs, and would be instrumental in verifying Moscow's compliance with any future arms-control agreements.

The past decade has witnessed a sharp increase in U.S. and Soviet satellite capabilities. Infrared sensors have added enormously to satellite ability to "see" any objects that give off heat, even if they are concealed or underground. The U.S. and the Soviets now relay satellite information to ground stations immediately, without the hours-long delay of earlier transmissions. The U.S. has eleven of 18 projected NAVSTAR global positioning satellites in place, allowing military units down to the platoon level to use briefcase-size sensors in plotting their own locations within a few yards. Cruise missiles travel to their targets guided by digital mapping and targeting information transmitted from satellites. The U.S. is on the verge of installing satellite-oriented targeting systems in "smart" artillery shells and short-range missiles.

Some experts fear that the increasing U.S. reliance on reconnaissance satellites is creating a strategic Achilles' heel. Satellites in space are fragile systems, their sensors and solar arrays vulnerable to physical attack and a variety of electromagnetic radiation. "There is a great risk," says one Pentagon official, "in the increasing dependence of our whole military system on vulnerable space-based systems." Others, however, point out that satellites are protected by the vast distances in space and that they can be "hardened" to withstand various sorts of radiation and even physical contact.

Both sides are busy developing antisatellite, or ASAT, weapons. The Soviet Union has what Pentagon officials describe as the "world's only deployed ASAT system," but it is primitive in concept and ineffective. Soviet ground-based ASAT lasers are expected to be in effect long before space-based ones. The U.S. ASAT program involves launching an 18-ft. satellite buster from a high- flying F-15 aircraft, but it is plagued by problems. Moreover, the Air Force now expects the fledgling system to cost $5.3 billion -- more than an aircraft carrier. Nonetheless, argues U.S. Vice Chief of Staff General John Piotrowski, "there's no question in my mind that we have a compelling need to deter the Soviets from attacking our satellites."

Reagan Administration planners believe the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative system, if deployed, would pose a far more dramatic threat to Soviet satellites. Armed with kinetic rockets and, ultimately, particle beams, SDI would pose a greater danger to satellites than to its ostensible targets, incoming Soviet strategic missiles. Indeed, that may largely explain current Soviet worries about SDI.

With so much at stake, pressure is mounting for an international agreement restricting antisatellite-weapons development. The Soviets have observed a self-imposed ASAT test ban since 1982, and recently called for a bilateral moratorium on further testing. For several years, Congress has backed a partial ASAT moratorium, but the Pentagon has persistently opposed such constraints. ASAT critics argue that if the U.S. continues to develop antisatellite weapons it will only force the Soviets to do likewise -- and ultimately put U.S. devices at risk. "ASAT arms control," notes Congressman George Brown, a California Democrat, "will serve this nation better than will an ASAT arms race."