54 Lt Col William Possel, USAF, Lasers and Missile Defense: New Concepts for Space-Based and Ground-Based Laser Weapons,Occasional Paper No. 5, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base,Alabama, July 1998.55 Defense Science Board, op. cit., p. 15.56 Bob Preston, et. al., Space Weapons, Earth Wars, MR-1209-AF, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Ca, 2002, Chapter 4.57 George Edmonson, “Super-secret Microwave Weapons may be used in Iraq,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 16, 2002, p. 1.58 Walling, op. cit., p. 20.59 Dr. Robert Cooper, Remarks at Lexington Institute Seminar on Directed-Energy Weapons, August 28, 2002.The Military Uses and National-Security Implications of Directed-Energy Weapons37
The Political and Legal Implications of Directed-Energy WeaponsChapter ThreeThe introduction of new military technologies, particularly if they serve as the catalyst for a Revolution in MilitaryAffairs (RMA), can send shockwaves through the international system. An RMA is a transformation in the way militaryforces are equipped, organized and employed. It is usually based on the introduction of new technologies.Among the historical examples of technology-driven revolutions in military affairs cited by experts are the stirrup,gunpowder, the internal combustion engine, and nuclear <strong>weapons</strong>. 1It is not surprising that political and legal issues arise when a new class of <strong>weapons</strong> with radically different characteristicsis introduced. Weapons imply power, and changes in power relationships or potentials are central issues in themanagement of the international system. Among the problems that new <strong>weapons</strong> can bring forth are changes to thebalance of power, strategic instability, arms races, and tensions within preexisting collective-security arrangements.The legal issues that confront new <strong>weapons</strong> technologies have to do, in the main, with established laws of warfare andexisting international norms. There is a body of international law that does address some limited aspects of <strong>directed</strong><strong>energy</strong><strong>weapons</strong> use. As <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> <strong>weapons</strong> become more ubiquitous and support new types of operations ormilitary activities in new domains, the range of legal issues their use suggests will grow.The political and legal consequences of <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> <strong>weapons</strong> will be experienced over time as the applications ofthese technologies expand and their presence in the force structure grows. In the period between 1916 and 1939, thetechnologies of air power and armored warfare were in their infancy, and they had only limited impact on warfare andthe international system. From 1939 on, they became central. Similarly, it took nearly twenty years for precision<strong>weapons</strong> to become a central element of military force-structures.I. THE IMPLICATIONS OF DIRECTED-ENERGY WEAPONSFOR U.S. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSThe early applications of <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> <strong>weapons</strong> are unlikely to have major impacts on the international environment.Initially, at least, the role of <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> <strong>weapons</strong> systems will be extensions of existing capabilities andalso will be largely defensive in character. The systems closest to deployment, the Airborne Laser (ABL) and theMobile Tactical High-Energy Laser (MTHEL), are defensive in character. Even here, their role is tactical in nature. Ifanything, these <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> capabilities may exert some stabilizing influencing on international affairs by offeringnon-offensive means of responding to threats posed by theater ballistic missiles, short-range rockets and even longrangeartillery fire.However, both systems will have some impact on the international environment as elements of a general movement bya number of nations to expand their abilities to defend against ballistic missiles. The 1972 ABM Treaty never prohibitedtheater ballistic-missile defense systems. ABL will provide a significant new defensive capability by engaging theaterballistic missiles in the earliest, or boost, phase of their trajectory. The limited number of ABL that will be procuredinitially and operational constraints on their use suggest that this system will not pose a threat to strategic stability.Some critics of missile defenses were concerned that <strong>directed</strong>-<strong>energy</strong> <strong>weapons</strong> violated the Treaty’s prohibition ondeveloping defenses based on “new physical principles.” Since the U.S. withdrew from the treaty in December 2001,even that restriction is no longer applicable. The creation of a nationwide or global missile-defense capability is an38
Change language