1976-1980 SOVIET POLITICAL USES OF SPACE*
PATTERNS OF THE PAST AND PRESENT
FAMILIAR THEMES OF THE PAST
Part-2
*Prepared by Joseph G. Whelan, Senior Specialist in International Affairs, Senior Specialists Division, CRS.
Past studies in this series on Soviet space activities revealed that space exploration, though strictly a scientific and technological undertaking, has important political uses and that the Soviet Union, being fully cognizant of the value of space in international politics, has over the years seemed to have taken every opportunity to exploit space for political purposes and the advantages it could yield in foreign policy. (12)
Among some of the familiar themes of the past was the downgrading of American space efforts that was generally juxtaposed in Soviet propaganda with efforts to magnify and often distort Soviet space achievements. The underlying purpose of this political tactic was to maintain and increase the prestige of the Soviet Union in the eyes of the world—prestige meaning a reputation for power, or the shadow cast by power. Soviet success in space was demonstrated proof of the perfect ability and the superiority of the socialist system over that of the capitalist. In contrast with the United States, which the Soviets claimed sought to militarize space, the Soviet Union was always portrayed as carrying on space exploration for the purposes of peace and the benefit of mankind. Within this pattern of the past, efforts were persistently made to identify Soviet space achievements with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Soviet Government, meticulously emphasizing that both, notably the party, were the source of Soviet success. Soviet political leaders were accordingly featured prominently in efforts to maximize party linkage with space. The value and practical results of space exploration for the national economy were also emphasized in efforts to justify the cost both human and material that went into space exploration. Space scientists and cosmonauts became particularly convenient and effective political instruments for educating the Soviet people on space, justifying the extensive investment of resources, and advertising Soviet achievements at home and abroad.
In time a certain mystique and mythology seemed to take shape in the political rituals surrounding manned spaceflights from liftoff to subsequent official tributes to the cosmonauts in the Kremlin that in sum glorified the U.S.S.R., its institutions, people, leaders, and ideology and dramatically underscored the value of space exploration as a worthy enterprise.
SOME THEMES DURING 1976-80
Secrecy and style
A sampling of Soviet literature on space during 1976-80 suggests little variation from what has now become traditional themes and a confident style in Soviet space politics. Secrecy is absolute, and available information politically managed; the style reflects self confidence and a "businesslike approach to a very serious business, space exploration.
Secrecy remains the watchword in Soviet reporting on space, and thus effectively draws a curtain around public knowledge of Soviet space activities. Dr. Charles S. Sheldon II, the American specialist on Soviet space activities, drew the following comparison with NASA that, while dealing specifically with information made public at launchings, nonetheless, suggests the character of Soviet secrecy in virtually all respects of their space programs:
The NASA (civilian) part of the U.S. program is generally run on a very open basis with the press at launches and most questions about flights answered both before they occur and after they are over. There is less openness in the Department of Defense space launchings, most which are not given names or purposes, advance notice, or published results.
The Soviet Union holds to a minimum advance notice of flights, limits information on the bulk of their flights, but at least makes a prompt announcement, assigns a name, and gives orbital parameters for all flights which are successful in reaching some kind of an orbit which looks reasonable. All are described as scientific in purpose and successful in some degree. While a reporter in the United States can query NASA for more details of NASA flights, reporters rarely are able to gain elucidateing details through questioning Soviet officials about their flights. (13)
The tone of such Soviet announcements on space is very matter-of-fact and professional. (14) Gone is the excessive, heavy-footed propagandistic style that was characteristic early in the Space Age. To be sure the Russians make their political points, but they do so seemingly with more finesse and subtlety. This change in style reflects the serious, "businesslike" approach of the Brezhnev leadership in the conduct of its international relations. But it also reflects a growing sense of self-confidence among the Russians that they have come a long way since the launching of Sputnik over two decades ago and that they have good reason to be proud of their accomplishments in space and sure in the direction their programs are going.
Political use of cosmonauts
The Soviets continue to prominently display their cosmonauts abroad as political spokesmen for their country. The effect of this device is to link their celebrity with particular political ideas and policy lines then being advocated by Moscow or with long-held ideological assumptions and historic Communist traditions. At the invitation of the British Communist Party, Valentina Nikolayev-Tereshkova led the Soviet delegation in October 1977 to London to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. At a press conference the world's first woman cosmonaut stressed the common bonds of friendship and solidarity between the CPSU with the British Communist Party and "the working people of the two countries" that have existed since the Bolshevik Revolution. She expressed her pleasure in having heard while in London "very many kind words and appreciative remarks addressed to the Soviet Union for the enormous contribution it is making to mankind's struggles for lasting peace, for effective international detente and for the developing and deepening of mutual understanding among the nations." Tereshkova is a member of the CPSU Central Committee and chairman of the Soviet Women's Committee. (15) Since her spaceflight in 1963, she has been actively engaged as an ambassador-of-goodwill for her party and government. Tereshkova has been especially active among international women's organizations.
Cosmonaut German Titov, head of the Soviet-Vietnamese Friendship Society, performed his role as a prestigious spokesman to reinforce the Hanoi-Moscow political relationship. This connection has been especially important to Soviet policy in Southeast Asia, where since the American withdrawal from Vietnam it has sought to expand its preeminent influence. By expressions of friendship, gratitude, and political support on such occasions as the Vietnamese national holiday and the Vietnamese Lunar New Year, Titov demonstrated Russia's deep and continuing concern for its important Asian ally. Titov reminded the Vietnamese that the "life-giving" source of their friendship has been "the immortal ideas of Lenin and the Great October Socialist Revolution" without which "the people of Vietnam would not have carried out their August revolution." In commemorating the Lunar New Year, Titov pledged that, "Now, as during the war, the land of the October Revolution always remains beside you. You can always rely on the Soviet people's support and assistance." (16)
Joint flights of East European cosmonauts with their Soviet colleagues became occasions for triumphal visits and laudatory expressions on mutual friendship, solidarity, and support for common policies. A particular case in point was that of Czech cosmonaut Vladimir Remek's participation in the Soyuz 28 flight that docked with the Salyut 6 space station in March 1978. At a commemoration of the successful Soviet-Czech flight (a first for the Czech's) in Prague during May 1978, Jozef Lenart, the Czech Communist leader, greeted the "five space brothers" (Vladimir Shatalov, head of the Yuriy Gagarin Space Center, and cosmonauts Aleksy A. Gubarev, Romanenko, Grechko, and Remek); voiced "our great gratitude" to the Soviet people, Brezhnev their leader and the Soviet scientists; expressed pride in the role played by Remek; hailed the Interkosmos program and the Czech contribution to it as an example of the internationalization of science; and underscored the relevance of the development of space science to the national economy—a basic justification persistently proclaimed by the Soviets. In a broadly gauged political statement, Lenart seemed intent on reinforcing Prague's relations with Moscow, gravely damaged by the intervention of 1968, when he exclaimed amid the applause of his audience:
By this flight, socialist countries have shown the world that the development of the national economy and the growth of the wellbeing of the people are the basic interests to which we want to subordinate all scientific, research and production potential. This is why our people speak so resolutely against the next round of the arms race which the American military-industrial complex wants to start. This is why we are against the neutron bomb, against the fact that socialist countries would be forced to produce it. We do not want to focus the skill and creativity of our scientists on destruction but on the creation of new values for a happy life of man-kind on earth."
And as customary when in orbit Soviet cosmonauts continue to dutifully report to Brezhnev on the accomplishment of their mission and use the occasion to reaffirm their pledge of Communist fealty and to convey expressions of socialist patriotism. Thus on February 23, 1977, cosmonauts Col. Viktor Gorbatko and Lt. Gen. Yuriy Glazkov sent the following message to "Dear Leonid Ilich" from Salyut 5:
On the glorious anniversary of the Soviet Army and Navy we ask you to accept from the crew of Salyut 5 the warmest and most cordial congratulations. From the bottom of our hearts. Dear Leonid Ilich, we wish you good health and new achievements in your tremendous activities for the benefit of the Soviet people and in maintaining peace throughout the world.
We report to you that the program of work on board the Salyut 5 station has been fulfilled in its entirety. We would like to dedicate this flight to the forthcoming 60 th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. (18)
Sevastyanov and Ursul: "Cosmonautics and Social Development"
(1) Scholarship, space, politics and propaganda
How space functions as a reinforcing agent in Soviet international politics is apparent in an article appearing in the November 1977 issue of International Affairs entitled, "Cosmonautics and Social Development." (19) Published in Moscow in many languages by the "All-Union ZNANIYE Society," International Affairs contains commentaries and analyses on foreign affairs by qualified Soviet specialists that are at once analytical within the limitations of Marxist-Leninist thought and official Soviet policy but flavored with political propaganda. Heavily politicized and nonacademic in the strictest sense, the publication is nevertheless intended for the serious general reader on the Soviet view of international relations.
The authors of this particular article are V. Sevastyanov, Cand. Sc. (Technology)
and Pilot-Cosmonaut of the U.S.S.R., and A. Ursul, D. Sc. (Philosophy). The immediate background for the publication was the launching of the Salyut 6 space station on September 29, and Soyuz 25 on October 9, 1977. Soyuz 26 was launched on December 10. Eventually crews from Soyuz 26 through and including Soyuz 37 were to occupy the station by the end of 1980. The occasion for publication was commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik I and the 60th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.
This article, approximately 6,300 words in length, is a comprehensive statement of the Soviet attitude toward space exploration placed within a political context. For the purposes of this study it constitutes a classic statement of Soviet observations, projections and assessments of their space activities whose underlying directed purpose is to gain political influence abroad. To illustrate this point, as well as the traditional themes in Soviet space politics and propaganda, excerpts from the article are quoted below within selected categories that are self-explanatory.
(2) Altruistic aims of Soviet space activities
The development of Soviet cosmonautics fully and entirely accords with the principle recorded in the Programme of the CPSU: "Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man". Space studies in the USSR and other countries of the socialist community set the profoundly humane task of making outer space and space technology serve man. Space research has greatly expanded the horizons of scientific knowledge and brought about an intensive development of many branches of the national economy. Artificial earth satellites and other space vehicles have made possible long-distance radio- and tele-communications, precise weather forecasts and global cartography, and rendered effective the search for mineral deposits. Space exploration is accelerating and stimulating the scientific and technological revolution. (P.72)
* * * * *
To utilize space and cosmonautics in the interests of mankind for the solution of major scientific technological and economic problems—this should be the aim on which man bases his activity in space. It is this approach to the problems of cosmonautics, providing for a combination of activity on earth and in space, for using cosmonautics for the good of man, that is a true alternative to the various bourgeois views on the prospects of conquering space.
It would be wrong to set up an opposition between activity in space and on Earth or to absolutize the importance of one of them to the detriment of the other because achievements in space development have a beneficial effect on the economic development of the nation, while the march of social progress on Earth creates new potential for the further cognition of near-terrestrial space. Man's penetration into the Universe, his study and conquest of it are not a manifestation of his inability to cope with terrestrial problems, not a flight from them but a qualitatively new, often unique, means of resolving many of the pressing tasks of developing science, technology and economics. The development of space research in the USSR clearly and patently shows the prospect of using cosmonautics for the benefit of man that is revealed under socialism, (p. 75)
(3) Negative aims of "bourgeois " space activities
Problems related to the mastery of outer space are constantly discussed in the Western technical, political and philosophical press. It is indicative that many bourgeois researchers, among them M. Born, A. Weinberg, V. Pickering, F. Hoyl, X. Shapley and L. Eiseley, are urging the scaling down or even termination of space studies. They contend that a further intensive and extensive development of cosmonautics can bring about only negative consequences for society, in particular, an increase in nonproductive spending to the detriment of the population’s living standards and the solution of its more pressing social problems.
It is evident that the exponents of these views believe that it is not the nature of social relations existing in capitalist society but technical means themselves which constitute a factor that adversely influences social development. The authors of this concept negatively absolutize the achievements of cosmonautics and of science and technology in general.
At the same time, representatives of the world of business and firms, with whom orders have been placed in connection with space exploration, profess diametrically opposite views. For them space exploration is a source of immense profit, and they distort the role of cosmonautics in the belief that the solution of many social problems, for instance unemployment, will depend mostly on its development.
It is absolutely clear that in both instances we are dealing with views of an apologetic nature, which reflect overtly or covertly capitalist society's inability to direct the scientific and technical revolution for the benefit of man and society as a whole. At the same time, the appearance of such views points to the increasingly aggravating contradiction between the requirements of scientific and technical progress in an age of space exploration and the inability to utilize them in a full and comprehensive manner under capitalism, (p. 75)
W Source of Soviet space success: CPSU and Soviet Government
The accomplishments of Soviet cosmonautics have won international acknowledgement and convincingly demonstrate the potential created by the socialist system for scientific and technical progress. The Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee on the 60th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution says that "socialism has created limitless possibilities for developing science, and made it serve the people.... Soviet science has major achievements in the study of social development to its credit, and it has traveled to the most advanced frontiers in several directions in mathematics, mechanics, quantum electronics, solid-state physics, nuclear engineering, chemistry, biology, space research, Earth sciences and many other fields of knowledge", (p. 70)
* * * * *
The development of theoretical and practical cosmonautics in the Soviet Union and the consistent fulfillment of most sophisticated space programmes are striking evidence of the advantages and potential of socialism. The very concern shown for K. Tsiolkovsky's heritage, which manifested itself in the tempestuous development of space technology, is irrefutable evidence of the CPSU's inspiring and stimulating role in the progress of cosmonautics. The creators of space technology in the USSR carried out their projects under the guidance of and thanks to the tireless concern of the Party, and regarded its policy as an earnest of future accomplishments in cosmonautics. (p.71)
* * * * *
Today, more than three decades since these lines were written, it can be said with confidence that the works of the outstanding scientist were placed in reliable hands. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government created the necessary economic, social, scientific and technical conditions for the development of cosmonautics, and as a result of this the world's first socialist state opened the road to the stars for mankind, (p. 72)
(5) Record of Soviet space success
During the comparatively short period of twenty years, Soviet cosmonautics has traversed the road from the first artificial Earth satellite to the first manned space flight, from one-man spacecraft to big orbital stations with replaceable crews, from the launching of spacecraft purely for research to the large scale and profitable utilization of space technology in the national economy. Flights into outer space may now appear habitual and routine, but this is patent evidence of the tremendous progress achieved by the USSR in the field of space research, (p. 70)
(6) Soviet commitment to space exploration
Cosmonautics has firmly entered the life of the present generation, and more detailed space studies are becoming a major field of human activity. The development of modern science and technology is inconceivable without space research. As was noted in this context in the Report to the 25th CPSU Congress by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev global problems such as primary materials and energy, the eradication of the most dangerous and widespread diseases, environmental protection, space exploration and the utilization of the resources of the World Ocean are already sufficiently important and urgent. In the future they will exercise an increasingly perceptible influence on the life of each nation and on the entire system of international relations. The Soviet Union, like other socialist countries, cannot hold aloof from the solution of these problems which affect the interests of all mankind", (p. 70)
* * * * *
All these fields of research have already grown beyond the stage of initial, groping experiments and are characterized by a systematic and planned study of outer space, the Earth and terrestrial objects in space conditions. In the future each of these fields of study will develop even more rapidly and the scale of investigation will expand. Of course, it is difficult at present to say with confidence what discoveries or fields of space research are the most important ones. It is hardly justifiable to accent, for instance, only on applied research or to restrict to a minimum studies of "near" and "distant" space and technological experiment in favor of other fields of space research, (p. 73)
* * * * *
The turn towards space studies related to the environment and the Earth's natural resources, that has become evident in the recent past, is not only of scientific and economic importance: it is important for mankind as a whole. The development of cosmonautics is increasingly involving problems of cardinal importance for the entire human community and not just for individual countries.
Likewise, the solution of scientific, technological and economic problems as well as of socio-political problems which are of a global, international importance is being increasingly linked with cosmonautics. When thinking about the future, we also increasingly realize that in the future human activity will depend in many ways on the manner in which space technology is utilized—for peace or for war. (p. 75)
The 25th Congress of the CPSU outlined the elaboration and implementation of a whole set of effective measures to protect the environment, to use rationally and reproduce natural resources, in particular, "to study natural resources and monitor the state of the environment and the source of its pollution by means of up-to-date scientific and technological facilities". Cosmonautics is designed to play an important role in tackling this task.
Space means make it possible to control the state of the environment from outer space on a global scale. Even more promising is the influence of cosmonautics on preventing an ecological crisis in the coming decades. In addition to the coming transition to wasteless technology, it is intended by means of space vehicles to transfer to outside our planet first the more harmful industries and then the rest, starting with power generation. The development of industry in space will thus make the conditions of man's existence on Earth even more favorable.
Space studies and exploration are exerting a substantial influence on the interaction between nature and society. Owing to the development of cosmonautics, man is making ever more use of the wealth of the planet and the surrounding outer space. Having started with the exploration of the near-terrestrial space, mankind demonstrates its "cosmic potential". As it was written by K. Tsiolkovsky, mankind is showing its ability to influence the evolution of the Universe in the future, (p. 76)
(7) Space exploration as aid to the national economy
Today we are witnesses not only to persistent and comprehensive studies of outer space but also to its large-scale utilization in the interests of the national economy, this being a patent example of the turning of science into a direct productive force. Contemporary cosmonautics is an integrated system of various sciences and theories (theoretical cosmonautics) and, on the other hand, also of numerous experimental and technical and industrial fields (practical cosmonautics) designed to study and utilize space by means of rockets and various space vehicles, (p. 71)
* * * * *
Cosmonautics is becoming an important branch of the national economy. It is for good reason that the country's latest five-year economic development plans include extensive programmes for activity in space, the application of space technology in the interests of Soviet society. The entire space programme of the Ninth Five-Year Plan was fulfilled. It provided both for the development of fundamental space research and for the utilization of cosmonautics in the interests of the national economy. The "Guidelines for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR for 1976-1980" set the task of carrying on "space research and utilization, to extend research on the application of space means in studying the Earth's natural resources, in meterology, oceanology, navigations, communications and other economic uses". The large-scale development of space research and the effective application of space technology in the national economy are evidence of the great potential of a developed socialist society in science, production and technology, (p. 72)
* * * * *
The development of cosmonautics and space research opens up fundamentally new ways and possibilities of transforming productive forces and creating the technology of the future. The 25th Congress of the CPSU has called on Soviet scientists to advance these vital fields of scientific, technical and social progress. Thanks to cosmonautics, sweeping horizons are opening up before science, technology and industry, an integrated approach is applied in practice to the solution of scientific and technical problems, to the introduction of their achievements into the national economy, and a substantial contribution is being made to creating the material and technical base of communism.
A characteristic feature of contemporary scientific and technical progress is the transformation of science into a direct productive force and the putting into practice of scientific achievements. Many discoveries and inventions made in the course of space research have now been introduced into non-cosmic spheres of technology and production and are being utilized in agriculture, in the organization and management of the national economy, and in everyday life. (p. 73)
It should be noted that the development of cosmonautics involves several branches of economic activity. This includes the creation of facilities for the output of space technology, the establishment of testing ranges, tracking stations and other land installations required for space flights. It also includes the utilization of space apparatuses for communications, navigation, meteorology and other economic needs.
These space vehicles contribute towards the further intensive development of industry and agriculture. Moreover, the results achieved in the process of developing space technology are utilized in purely "terrestrial" industries that are not related to space.
Last but not least, cosmonautics opens the way to create an "extra-terrestrial" industry and technology. A highly automated space industry and "agriculture" are gradually being created on the basis of a thorough study of the specificities and laws of technological processes in space (welding, cutting, processing of materials, etc.), where they take place in physico-chemical and technical conditions differing from those on Earth. Their origination is caused both by the need to develop space technology and further space exploration, and by the need to increase "terrestrial" production by means of unique substance, that are obtained in space and which either cannot be produced on Earth at all or whose production cost is discouraging, (pp. 73-74)
(8) Scientific value of space exploration
It should be borne in mind that the most valuable thing we will be receiving from space in the nearest future is scientific information. True, in the future man will start using space not only as a valuable source of information but also as a store of boundless natural resources, energy, etc. Meanwhile, however, outer space remains primarily an object of cognizance enabling us to obtain important scientific information. The attention that is being given to the problem of information at the present stage in the development of cosmonautics makes it possible to draw the conclusion that the several decades of man's penetration into the expanses beyond the planet can be described as the "information" period of space exploration.
In fact, space exploration is yielding a wealth of information. Within just a few days a single artificial earth satellite can produce information quantitatively comparable with that contained in the world's largest libraries. This poses the very important problem of increasing the efficiency with which this information is processed with the help of terrestrial and space techniques, (pp. 74-75)
(9) Importance of space cooperation; detente as prerequisite
Under present-day conditions, the most effective exploration of outer space and utilization of the achievements of cosmonautics are possible only through an extensive development of international cooperation and concerted effort by all the countries of the world. As is known, space exploration requires considerable allocations. Quite often many costly space projects are beyond the means of individual states and demand the cooperation of a number of countries. Since the flight trajectories of space vehicles pass over the territory of various countries, the need arises for such flights to be regulated by international law. All this determines the international character of space activities.
The view has already been expressed in Soviet literature that in the near future major space projects will be carried out within the frame-work of the international division of labour. Any interested country could take part in the fulfillment of such projects and on the same equal footing share the results obtained with other countries. (pp.76-77).
* * * * *
Whereas at the first stage international cooperation in space studies was limited mostly to exchanges and joint discussions of the results obtained, a comparison of methods and, at best, to a coordination of a number of projects, this has also given way to multilateral cooperation in extra-terrestrial observations connected with space experiments. Now it is becoming important to create space vehicles through the joint efforts of various states and use them for peaceful scientific and practical purposes. The results of space research should belong to all the peoples of the world.
But cosmonautics can be used for the good of all nations only when we have a further lessening of tension in international relations, an improvement in the world political climate. From the beginning of the space age, the Soviet Union has called for extensive international cooperation in space studies and striven to place its space achievements at the service of all peoples, in the name of peace and progress. As is stressed in the materials of the 25th Congress of the CPSU, the USSR is successfully continuing its space effort "in the interests of national and world science, in the name of progress for mankind". Soviet accomplishments in the field of space research are recognized throughout the world and have become an asset of world science, (p. 77)
* * * * *
The development of space projects in the coming decades—the creation, for instance, of permanent orbital scientific stations, scientific bases and industrial facilities on the Moon, and flights to other planets of the solar system—will necessitate vigorous international cooperation. It is quite understandable that the extensive use of space means for studies of the Earth is possible only as a result of purposeful and long-term international cooperation. The Earth is not only a natural "spaceship in which mankind is "travelling" through the Universe, but it is first of all our home and one which we are not planning to leave in the foreseeable future. It will be possible to keep our home clean and preserve it for posterity only by concerted joint efforts of all the peoples and countries of the planet, (p. 77)
(10) An appeal to reason based on performance
The tone of the Sevastyanov-Ursul article is not offensively polemical, though it takes care to place the Soviet space effort in the best light. Compared with other political writings, particularly on the Soviet charge that the United States seeks to militarize space, as examined in the next section, criticism of the United States and the West is benign. What is significant is the glow of rationality that seems to permeate this piece. It is intended to persuade, not to browbeat; to influence, not to alienate; it is a piece that fits the descriptive term "friendly persuasion."
Drawing upon both truth and fiction, the authors affirm the wisdom of the party as the primary source of Soviet success in space. They summarize the formidable Soviet record in space as a fact well known. They restate with authority the Soviet commitment to continue space exploration. They justify this activity by emphasizing the practical spinoffs from space that aid the national economy. And they underscore the value of space exploration as a means for acquiring scientific information. Persuasive themes.
Finally, the article concludes with a statement on the value of space cooperation and the need for an easing of international tension as a prerequisite.
In brief, the piece appeals to reason on the basis of successful Soviet performance in space. It connotes credibility, and when correlated with the idea of detente as an argument to insure not only peace and progress on Earth and in space but also to insure that all people will benefit from space exploration, it generates a positive appeal. The Soviet Union is made to appear as the prime mover, the center of positive attraction due to its space activities. In a larger context a reader could infer from the article that the Soviet Union and its socialist system are winners, a country and a system with a future, and thus deserving of emulation and support in world affairs.
U.S. MILITARIZATION OF SPACE: RENEWED EMPHASIS, 1977-78
Renewed focus on "hunter-killer satellite"
Not so benign was the Soviet accusation that the United States was seeking to militarize space. This propaganda theme, for years a stock weapon in the Soviet political arsenal, was revived with renewed vigor during 1977-78. The cause of the revival was the sharp U.S. reaction to Soviet experimentation with military space interceptors—the so-called "inspector-destructor," ASAT (antisatellite), or the "hunter-killer" satellite. U.S. efforts to counteract this military space weapon by developing its own interceptors to match the emerging Soviet capability elicited Soviet claims of innocence and provoked retaliatory Soviet accusations that the United States was seeking to militarize space. (20)
Soviet experimentation with "hunter-killer satellites"
Both space powers have developed what the Americans term "nonaggressive" military space programs—such military applications of space as reconnaissance, navigational and meteorological satellites. (21) But for some time "aggressive" military programs were not pursued with any sense of high priority. The Soviets had come close to developing an "aggressive" system with their fractional orbital bombardment system (FOBS). Failure to continue flight-testing FOBS since 1971 has apparently eased much of the American concern that existed. The United States has regarded a FOBS program neither necessary nor desirable.
Indeed, the disadvantages of space weapons sufficiently outweighed the advantages for both space powers that they denied themselves access to them. Accordingly, in 1967 they agreed not to orbit nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and in the SALT I agreement in 1972 they pledged not to interfere with the "national technical means" (that is, reconnaissance satellites) for policing the agreement. (22)
Thus far both sides have adhered to these restrictive agreements. However, evidence during 1976-78 that the Soviets were flight-testing an anti-satellite system aroused new concerns about Soviet intentions in space. The Soviets had conducted seven tests of "hunter-killer satellites" from 1967-71. Though conclusive assessments could not be made of these early tests in the absence of satisfactory Soviet data, still the suspicion lingered on that the Russians had developed an inspect-and-destroy capability. (The United States had developed an interceptor system called Saint but abandoned it before its first flight test.) (23)
Early suspicions of this emerging new Soviet capability were confirmed by a series of Soviet test flights of "hunter-killer satellites" during 1976-78. In 1976, the Russians used three target satellites and four interceptors; they repeated the same configuration in 1977. The last interceptor to be flown prior to 1980 was the single test in May 1978. (24)
U.S. response to the Soviet "hunter-killer satellite"
(1) The U.S. reaction
U.S. officials and the press expressed alarm at these new developments in Soviet space weapons. Concern was focused not only on the "hunter-killer satellite" but also perceived Soviet progress in the potential use of directed energy weapons in space.
Indicative of the U.S. concern was the final report of February 1977 by Malcolm R. Currie as director of military research in the Department of Defense in the departing Ford administration. Currie expressed concern with "Soviet activities in the area of directed-energy weapons." "We know few details of the Soviet programs," he said, "but the scope and degree of commitment of their interests in these weapons of the future is quite large as judged by their investments in physical plant for research and development." After noting increased Soviet research on concentrated beams of light known as high-energy lasers between 1971 and 1975, Currie said, "There are indicators which point to Soviet interests in particle beams technology which may have advanced weapon applications." He asserted that the Soviet Union "is seizing a new initiative and creating the prospect of a new dimension of military conflicts—war in space." And he warned that "if the Soviet Union chooses to continue along the path they appear to be taking, they will find it a dangerous one." "Perhaps the most portentous Soviet activity in space," Currie said, was the resumption of efforts to develop "hunter-killer satellites." (25)
Throughout 1977 and into 1978 U.S. officials, including President Carter and Defense Secretary Harold Brown, became increasingly worried by the development of Soviet space weapons. This worry was aggravated by the accidental disintegration of a Soviet military satellite (Kosmos 954) over Canada, though Kosmos 954 was a naval reconnaissance satellite and not a "killer satellite." According to the press, American national security specialists were "extremely worried" about the threat posed by Russia's new "hunter-killer satellites." Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan Jr., former Chief of U.S. Air Force intelligence, characterized the threat as "grim." (26) Congressional sources described the developing Soviet military space program as having "immense strategic importance." One Senator exclaimed, "The arms race is entering space and is just beginning to escalate. If steps are not taken immediately to control this lethal contest it could be too late." (27) Such official concerns were reflected in editorial comment in the press. (28)
(2) Why the sharp U.S. reaction?
Explanations for the sharp U.S. reaction to Soviet progress in military space systems centered on two points: the impact on the strategic balance, and the disastrous effect on U.S. national security should its defensive satellite systems be destroyed.
Currie explained the threat in terms of the balance of power, presumably, having in mind its impact on diplomacy as well as national security. He stressed that the Soviet Union "is seizing a new initiative and creating the prospects of a new dimension of military conflict—war in space." Then he stated categorically:
We cannot let them obtain a military advantage in space through anti-satellite weapons, because the consequences to the future military balance between the U.S.and U.S.S.R. could be no less than catastrophic. (29)
What antisatellite weapons could do to U.S. defense systems in space (for example, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites) was best summed up by one intelligence source who said, "They're up there like sitting ducks," meaning "ducks" in a shooting gallery waiting indefensively to be shot down. (30) U.S. defense officials expressed fears that a successful antisatellite system could prevent them from communicating with and thus giving orders to ships, planes, submarines, missile silos and ground forces around the world. Such a destructive capability could give the Soviets a critical strategic advantage if nuclear war broke out. With its space communications silenced, it was argued, the United States could be prevented from ordering a retaliatory strike in the event the Nation were attacked. (31)
In brief, the "hunter-killer satellite" exposed the vital center of U.S. national security, its first line of detectors and communications. Hence, the vigor of the U.S. reaction.
(3) Counteraction through diplomacy and defense
Faced with this threat to its security, the United States sought to create a counterforce capability against Soviet space weapons; it also sought to do this without triggering an arms race in space through diplomacy.
Early in March 1977, President Carter reported in a press conference that he had suggested to the Soviets that "we forgo the opportunity to arm satellite bodies and also to forgo the opportunity to destroy observation satellites." (32) But the Russians ignored his appeal and continued testing "hunter-killer satellites" throughout the rest of the year.
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East in the fall of 1977, Marshall Shulman, presidential adviser on Soviet affairs in the State Department, urged that an agreement be reached with the Soviets before the techniques of these space weapons could be perfected. But faced with continuing Soviet experimentation, he said, the United States "would clearly draw on its strong technological base to develop capabilities at least as strong as those of the Soviet Union." (33)
As a hedge against failure of the diplomatic option which seemed to have only very limited possibilities of success even though discussions had been agreed upon, the United States expanded its military space programs. In March 1977, Robert N. Parker, Acting Director of Research and Development in the Defense Department, disclosed that U.S. military space programs were being accelerated. He noted that $2.77 billion was earmarked for fiscal year 1978, $478.5 million more than Congress had appropriated in 1976. (34) In September, the Air Force awarded a contract to the Vought Corp. in Dallas to develop an instrumented target for antisatellite tests, perhaps as early as 1981.35 Large contracts were also awarded to Hughes Aircraft, Lockheed, TRW, and LTV to develop an ASAT system. (36)
In brief, the United States, responding to the Soviet military threat in space, as one press account put it, "mounted a research and development effort aimed at matching and even overtaking the Soviet lead in hunter-killers and ocean-scanning satellites." (37)
In June 1978, after the successful completion of a Russian test on May 19, talks began in Helsinki on banning "hunter-killer satellites," but were inconclusive. Two separate rounds of talks took place in early 1979 in Switzerland and during April-July in Vienna. But they too were inconclusive. The Soviets demanded that the United States halt its development of the Space Shuttle as part of an agreement to prohibit antisatellite weapons. (In February 1981, the Soviets charged that the first task of the Space Shuttle then in its final testing mode was "to test a target finder for a laser weapon which will be put into orbit and is designed to destroy Soviet missiles." (38) Subsequent success of the Space Shuttle was greeted by an outpouring of Soviet propaganda^ statements charging that its primary purposes were military.) The United States reportedly hoped to reach agreement on a 1-year ban on testing ASAT's with the expectation that it would be a prelude to a treaty banning weapons entirely. (39)
Soviet propaganda attacks on United States
Counterattack was the natural Soviet response to publicly expressed American concerns about the Soviet development of space weapons. In defense of its developing ASAT system the Soviets took the offensive, accusing the United States of militarizing space—an old propaganda canard dating back early in the Space Age—and in an air of offended innocence portraying the Soviet Union as the victim not the perpetrator.
Illustrative of Soviet political distortion of legitimate U.S. efforts to counter Soviet space weapons is the commentary by V. Begishev published in the February 1, 1977 issue of Leningrad Pravda. The focus of the attack was two articles on the "Soviet threat" in space, one published in Newsweek of December 6, 1976 and the other in The Washington Post of January 10, 1977. Begishev referred to the "fable" of Soviet lasers blinding U.S. satellites noted in Newsweek and to the Pentagon's "alarm" over the potentialities of "hunter- killer satellites" as demonstrated by Soviet testing, "though how these tests were detected no one knows." In Begishev's view both articles, "besides the obvious intention to sow mutual misgivings in both sides," suggested two further themes:
First is the growing pressure from the military-industrial complex, which is striving to transfer the arms race into new spheres. The U.S. aerospace industry is now concluding military contracts worth about $15 billion per annum, and appropriations channeled into development of space equipment "for defense purposes" exceed $2 billion. The people who have such sums at their disposal to a certain extent are becoming an independent force capable of seriously hampering the peace-loving policy which, judging by its statements, the new Carter Administration has been intending to implement. It has been not Soviet but U.S. military figures who so far have discussed the prospects of utilizing shuttle spacecraft to seize and carry off others' space stations and satellites, or the creation of "strike" spacecraft. At the same time it is clear that pollution of the "fourth medium" by weapons would have adverse consequences of an unpredictable nature for the cause of detente.
And second: Such speculation shows an obvious desire to reassure the public with the notion of the possibility of a war that is "not terrible" and of battles that would take place at altitudes beyond all imagination and would end "without a single shot fired on earth." Newsweek, expounding this idea itself, calls it "almost certainly a Utopia." But the word "almost" is superfluous here. It is precisely a Utopia, and a harmful one at that. Relations between the great powers can develop either—and the Soviet Union sincerely desire this—in the direction of total and stable peace or toward war, which would be the end of civilization. Seen in a historical perspective, there is no third direction. The theory of "limited conflicts" whether in space or on earth was thought up by those who, using the theory to hide behind, would like to create a total confrontation.
In contrast to this negative American view of space is that of the Soviets which Begishev described in this positive light:
Granted, Soviet leaders also speak of "conquering space," but in a quite different sense. "By expanding our activity in the study of space," L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, noted in one of his speeches, "we are not only laying the foundations for future gigantic conquests by mankind, whose fruits will be enjoyed by future generations, but we are also drawing immediate practical benefit today for the earth's population, for our peoples, and for our cause of Communist building."
In this space offensive the USSR is cooperating not only with socialist, but also with many capitalist countries.
Placing the burden of responsibility on the United States for the militarization of space, Begishev concluded: "Why do those who love to fantasize on space themes not dream of the boundless horizons of such cooperation, instead of considering methods of 'hunting' other people's spacecraft?" (40)
In a Tass report on April 4, 1977 the Soviets (erroneously, it should be noted) accused the United States of violating space agreements on the exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes. According to Tass, the Los Angeles Times had published a story about a Pentagon report to Congress on a secret program to develop an ASAT system. Tass concluded:
The special atmosphere of secrecy surrounding this Pentagon program is no accident, for it is being implemented in direct violation of the treaty on the principles of activities of states in exploring and utilizing outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, a treaty signed by the United States.
The Pentagon report bluntly states that it regards satellites as a means for supporting military operations. The compilers of the report apparently realize that their plans are illegal: it is not for nothing that this cynical document notes that, though today outer space is regarded as untouchable, this situation may eventually change. (41)
The message is clear: The United States is a sinister force in the exploration of space.
In similar fashion G. S. Khozin cast the United States as "the heavy" in his article on a new space agreement appearing in the leading Soviet journal on American affairs, USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology. Success in cooperation in space and in other fields of science and technology, he said, depended upon the United States taking on a realistic approach to arms control, including "the prevention of the use of outer space for military purposes." Again placing the burden of responsibility on the United States, Khozin wrote:
Everyone knows of the attempts made by the heads of the U.S. Department of Defense to expand their plans for the military use of space. For this purpose, they are resorting to any kind of trick and are trying to misinterpret the problems arising during the course of arms limitation talks.
By way of underscoring this point Khozin recalled the Newsweek commentary "about the fourth—cosmic—dimension of war" and the Los Angeles Times account of the "Pentagon's intention to develop 'antisatellites,' that is, space systems for the destruction of the satellites of other states."
Khozin contrasted such U.S. military applications of space with the altruistic Soviet approach. He wrote in conclusion:
The space age was begun 20 years ago by the Soviet Union. The TASS report on the launching of the first artificial earth satellite in the world said: "Our contemporaries have had the privilege of witnessing the way in which the free and conscious labor of the people of the new, socialist society can make the wildest dreams of mankind a reality." During this year of the 60th anniversary of October, our nation will continue to aim all of its achievements at the good of the workers and establish the ideals of genuine freedom, equality, justice and social progress. (42)
Thus the United States was portrayed as the violator of peace in outer space, the Soviets as the enforcer of peace. This did not square with reality since both were developing military space systems, the Soviets at a faster pace than the Americans, notably the "hunter-killer satellites." In April 1980, after a 2-year lapse, the Soviets tested another "hunter-killer satellite," Kosmos 1174. It was not clear whether it was a success or failure; one Pentagon source termed it an "apparent failure" in part because the "hunter-killer satellite" might not have approached close enough to the target to destroy it. Before this test the Soviets had conducted 16 tests where their antisatellite demonstrated the capability to intercept a target satellite. Pentagon officials speculated that this test possibly signaled a more assertive phase in Soviet arms policy. The American antisatellite system is still in the development stage but unlikely to be tested before 1982. (43)
THE "SPACE RACE," A FADING THEME
The so-called "space race" was once a dominant theme in Soviet-American space relations. By the late 1970's, however, this theme seemed to have faded away. Placing Soviet and American space activities within a comparative context, particularly when looking at space historically, has continued to be a convenient method of analysis on the American side. (44) But an examination of various news commentaries during the period September 1977 through the summer of 1978 suggests little of the intense competitive spirit that marked the early years of space. For example, the report in The Christian Science Monitor when Salyut 6 was about to break Skylab's 84-day endurance record for manned flight on March 4, 1978 was restrained and matter-of-fact. "Once the record is broken," wrote Kenneth Gatland from London, "the U.S. has little chance of regaining it for many years because there is no ongoing space station program." (45) NASA officials routinely stated in testimony before congressional committees the U.S. policy of "maintaining a position of leadership in space science and planetary exploration," as NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch had done in 1979. (46) And others stressed the importance of a competitive response to the busy Soviet space program. But, by and large the notion of a space race was far from being a concern of the American people who were scolded editorially by The Christian Science Monitor in January 1978, on the occasion of continued Soviet space successes, for a "lackadaisical public attitude" toward space. (47)
Much the same can be said for the Soviet side. While the Soviets have not hesitated to emphasize their "firsts" in space, nonetheless, they have in general taken a more mature approach and sophisticated attitude toward their many achievements in space. Having "arrived" as a major space power, the Soviets seemed to comport themselves with an air of confidence touched with a certain appealing dignity. They did not flaunt the success of Salyut 6 in outdoing Skylab, for example, but rather seemed to take this achievement as a matter of course given the planning and pace of their space programs. Congratulations extended to Romanenko and Grechko, the orbiting cosmonauts, by the American Skylab team was covered in the Soviet media.
An explanation for the decline of the "space race" could be attributed to declining U.S. interest in manned space flight after shutting down the successful and globally eye-catching Apollo program. The competitive spirit, however, could rise again with the successful flight of the Space Shuttle. A continuing downturn in political relations could contribute to sharpening this competitive spirit.
References:
A. SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS: 1976-80, SUPPORTING VEHICLES AND LAUNCH VEHICLES, POLITICAL GOALS AND PURPOSES, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE, ADMINISTRATION, RE-SOURCE BURDEN, FUTURE OUTLOOK PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF HON. BOB PACKWOOD, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES SENATE, Part 1, Dec. 1982.
12. For the most recent study on Soviet space politics, see, U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Soviet Space Programs, 1971-75: Goals and Purposes, Organization, Resource Allocations, Attitudes Toward International Cooperation and Space Law. Staff Report, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976, vol. II, pp. 27-63.
13. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology. United States and Soviet Progress in Space: Summary Data Through 1979 and a Forward Look. Report prepared by Dr. Charles S. Sheldon II, Senior Specialist in Space and Transportation Technology, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1980, p. 31.
14. The announcement over Moscow Radio on the termination of the Salyut 4 flight illustrates the matter-of-fact, professional style of the Soviets. The broadcast simply states the fact of the termination of the flight. It gives the specific facts on the date of launching and notes that two expeditions of cosmonauts worked on the station for 93 days. It describes briefly the procedure for bringing down Salyut 5 above the target region in the Pacific Ocean. In one paragraph the announcement summarizes the purpose of the flight in which Cosmonauts Gubarev and Grechko and later Klimuk and Sevastyanov carried out prescribed research programs aboard the station. The statement noted the successful accomplishment of the flight of Salyut 4 lasting more than 2 years and concluded with this subdued commentary on its success: "The results obtained are of great importance and are being successfully applied in the interests of the economy, science and the further improvement of space technology." (Moscow Domestic Service in Russian, 1530 GMT, Feb. 3, 1977, FBIS 47.)
15. Soviet News, Nov. 1, 1977, p. 380.
16. Moscow Tass in English, 1801 GMT, Aug. 30, 1977, in FBIS Daily Report: Soviet Union, vol. 3, Aug. 31, 1977, p. LI, and Moscow Radio in Vietnamese to Vietnam, 1000 GMT, Feb. 7, 1978, in FBIS Daily Report: Soviet Union, vol. 3, Feb. 9, 1978, p. L6.
17. Prague Domestic Service, in Czech, 1930 GMT, May 2, 1978, in FBIS Daily Report: Eastern Europ, vol. May 3, 1978, pp. D3-D4
18. Moscow Domestic Service in Russian, 1200 GAT, Feb. 23, 1977, in FBIS 29. It was especially fitting on this occasion for the cosmonauts to address Brezhnev as not only General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, but also by his military titles. Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Defense Council and Marshal of the Soviet Union.
19. Sevastyanov, V. and A. Ursul. Cosmonautics and Social Development. International Anairs, November 1977: 70-77.
20. Sheldon, United States and Soviet Progress in Space, pp. 44-48.
21. Ibid., p. 41. According to Sheldon, about 56 percent of U.S. spaceflights are conducted for the Department of Defense, with 48 percent for strictly military purposes. About 69 percent of Soviet flights are for military purposes.
22. Ibid., pp. 43 and 47.
23. O'Toole, Thomas. U.S. Draws Up Plans for War in Space. The Washington Post, Jan. 10, 1977, p. Al.
24. Sheldon, United States and Soviet Progress in Space, p. 47.
25. Wilson, George C. Pentagon Report Envisions Need for Far-Out Weapons. The Washington Post, Feb. 5, 1977, p. A2.
26. Lyons, Richard D. U.S. Officials Fear Soviet Leads in Hunter-Killer and Spy Satellites. The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1978, p. 1.
27. Lyons, Richard D. Carter Favors Ban on Atomic Reactors in Earth Satellites. The New York times, Jan. 31, 1978, p. 1.
28. See, No Time to Hunt in Space. (Editorial.) The New York Times, Oct. 14, 1977, p. A26, and, 20 Years in Space. (Editorial.) The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 13, 1977, p. 30.
29. Wilson, George C. Carter Concerned on Outer-Space War. The Washington Post, March 10, 1977, p. A4.
30. The Washington Post, Jan. 10, 1977, p. Al.
31. The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1978, p. Al. For other discussions of this problem, see, Zorza, Victor. Soviet-Killer-Satellite Jogs Pentagon. The Christian Science Monitor, May 11, 1977, p. 7, and Middleton, Drew. Soviet Tests Producing Increase in U.S. Space Defense Research. The New York Times, Feb. 15, 1977, p. 8.
32. The Washington Post, Mar. 10, 1977, p. A4.
33. O'Toole, Thomas. Space Wars: Laser-Armed Killer Satellites, False Signals Worry Pentagon. The Washington Post, Nov. 6, 1977, p. Al.
The disintegration of Kosmos 954, a nuclear-driven navigation satellite, over Canada in early 1978 aroused renewed concerns about the potentialities of killer-satellites to threaten American communication systems. But it also spurred diplomatic efforts by President Carter to urge upon the Russians a ban on Earth satellites from carrying radioactive materials as a protection against contamination in event of an accident. The President also gave assurances that at the moment the Soviets could not threaten American communication systems. (The New York Times, Jan. 31, 1978, p. 1.)
34. The Washington Post, Mar. 10, 1977, p. A4.
35. The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1981, p. A4. This date has now slipped to 1984 or 1985.
36. The Washington Post, Nov. 6, 1977, C4.
37. The New York Times, Jan. 30, 1978, p. A4.
38. Moscow Tass International Service in Russian, 12203 GMT, Feb. 15, 1981, FBIS 20.
39. Facts-on-File, Dec. 31, 1979, p. 979D2.
40. Begishev, V. Escalation of Morbid Fantasies. Leningrad Pravda, Feb. 1, 1977, p. 3, in FBIS 52.
41. Moscow Tass in English, 1644 GMT, Apr. 4, 1977, in FBIS 58.
42. Khozin, G. S. New Space Exploration Agreement. USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology, No. 8, September 1977, translated in JPRS 69794, Sept. 15, 1977, pp. 65-66.
43. O'Toole, Thomas. Russians Resume Testing of Satellite Designed to Hunt and Destroy Others. The Washington Post, April 19, 1980, p. A6, and Burt, Richard, Russians Again Test a "Killer Satellite." The New York Times, April 19, 1980, p. 28. This date has now slipped to 1983.
44. See, for example, Sheldon, United States and Soviet Progress in Space, p. 29.
45. Gatland, Kenneth. Soviets Gaining Lead in Long Spaceflights. The Christian Science Monitor, Feb.28,1978, p.1.
46. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, 1980 NASA Authorization. Hearings, 96th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, vol. 1, pt. 2, p.532.
47. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 17, 1978, p. 24.
