That objective is not new, and broad hints of it have come in earlier documents, first articulated in 2001 in a report of a space commission chaired by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But the Air Force's official focus traditionally has been on countermeasures and protective technology, rather than on killing enemy satellites.

Two documents released this year indicate that, while perhaps not codified, the Air Force is acknowledging that space will not be weapon-free, and that dominating space will require armaments in orbit.

The Air Force last February revealed concepts for weapons that could disrupt or destroy spacecraft. Mentioned were space-based radio transmitters, air-launched missiles and ground-based lasers. In August, it released another document, called “Counterspace Operations,” that went further in describing the doctrine of space warfare. Officials advocated development of anti-satellite (ASAT) munitions on space vehicles. “Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack,” the report stated.

The Bush administration currently is reviewing the National Space Policy that was set forth in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. It leaves many gray areas of space weapons doctrine.

The Center for Defense Information, a group that is working to keep space weapons from being deployed, called the 1996 rules “vague and somewhat contradictory,” but “widely interpreted … as eschewing if not prohibiting in some cases, the deployment of ASATs and on-orbit weapons.” Groups opposed to placing weapons in space worry that testing could add to dangerous orbital debris and encourage other nations to develop them, which could trigger an arms race in space.

Now it appears, according to CDI analyst Theresa Hitchens, that the Air Force is adopting a more aggressive policy.

“In effect, the new document establishes as fact U.S. Air Force intentions to not only weaponize space, but also conduct anti-satellite operations, possibly preemptively, against enemy military satellites as well as those with primarily civilian functions,” she wrote in an October analysis of the counterspace operations report.

The two reports give anti-weapons groups, such as CDI, plenty to worry about. February's report, called “The Transformation Flight Plan,” detailed several offensive systems the Air Force is pursuing, including a space-based, radio-frequency energy weapon and hypervelocity rod bundles, which could be dropped like small meteors with precision on earth targets.

Another project is a network of satellites containing high-power radio-frequency transmitters that could be used as a non-kinetic anti-satellite weapon. Both projects are considered far-term projects, with no possible deployment occurring before 2015.

Yet another possible anti-satellite weapon is the near-field infrared experiment (NFIRE), a project being conducted by the Missile Defense Agency. It is creating a small satellite to lob a probe at a ballistic missile to positively identify it while in-flight. That probe is called a “kill vehicle,” and although in current incarnations it lacks steering jets, there has been some concern that an acquired maneuvering skill could eventually be translated into an anti-satellite capability.

NFIRE received a little more than half of what was requested in fiscal year 2004: $44.5 million instead of $82 million. The satellite is to be built by Spectrum Astro, and the launch rocket by Orbital Sciences.

Preventing attacks on space systems is the other facet of the debate over weapons in space. Attacks on U.S. assets could include laser weapons aimed at satellites to destroy them, other dazzling lasers that could blind sensors on satellites or high-altitude nuclear air bursts that could take out a swath of civilian and military systems.

“Each time we've sought the higher ground throughout history, our adversaries developed capabilities to attempt to deny this advantage. Space is no different,” said Gen. Lance Lord, commander of the Air Force Space Command, at a recent Air Force symposium. “Future adversaries will attempt to counter our capabilities in future conflicts with counter-space weapons that I'm confident will range from kinetic kill through numerous non-kinetic effects. We saw the first use of these in the conflict this past year with Iraq's use of GPS jammers in Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Unlike the contentious missile defense program, which includes space-based interceptors like NFIRE, there are several concepts on the table to win a future battle for low earth orbit by using munitions and disruption weapons from aircraft or ground stations, according to experts and Air Force documents.

The ability to launch replacement satellites is crucial to the safety of the network, experts in and out of the military agreed. To this end, the Air Force is developing a responsive access small cargo affordable launch, or RASCAL.

“It will be composed of a reusable airplane-like first stage and an expendable rocket second stage, and we're pressing toward a first launch in fiscal year 2006 to meet the timelines,” Lord explained.

An effort to launch micro-satellites is also under way, with prototypes being created and launched throughout 2004, Lord added.

The Federation of American Scientists in October released a report that contended that putting weapons in space is not necessary or effective at countering space threats for the next five years.

“Space weapons can not counter an enemy's ability to jam GPS or satellite links,” said Leonard Weiss, chairman of the FAS advisory committee on the weaponization of space. “There are other ways of mitigating against that threat. Satellites can be made more resistant to jamming; one can establish international norms with sanctions against jamming and ultimately one has the ability to destroy jamming stations with conventional military attack.”

The FAS report recommended a minimum of U.S. research should be devoted to offensive weapons, so that if a rival nation established space weapons the Air Force could respond, but not enough to encourage other nations to join an orbital arms race. Weiss declined to put a dollar figure on what FAS would consider “appropriate.”

“While no potential adversary of the United States will be in a position to launch space mines for at least five to 10 years from now, we should work to enhance the maneuverability of critical satellites,” Weiss said, adding that intelligence and tracking of possibly hostile space programs is essential. “Prevention is a better avenue than cure.”

One large breach in the system identified by FAS and the Air Force is the information gap that exists between orbiting systems and the ground. Space contains a myriad of threats, ranging from orbiting debris, sun spot activity to technical malfunctions, which can be confused with hostile attacks.

To remedy this, the Air Force is developing the rapid attack identification and reporting system (RAIDERS) program—a satellite with a sensor, with the capability to detect if something is going wrong with the system, and report details back to ground controllers.

“We've got some prototype things we're doing out at Schriever Air Force Base [in Colorado] to look at how we can do that. I'm confident that's going to give us a great leg up as we work defensive counterspace,” Lord said. “I'm satisfied that we'll fly the first version of the RAIDERS in the next year or so.”