By By Paul Wallis Dec 24, 2016 in World Washington - Nothing like a little Christmas Cold War to really warm things up. A new Russian missile test has exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. satellite net, a critical part of U.S. military infrastructure. Russia claims the new missiles are anti-missiles. China The GPS system is one of the cornerstones of this network. A combination of terrestrial jamming systems and missile strikes could crash the system, making navigation a lot harder for U.S. military responses. Despite the years of dithering, the U.S. does have a few tricks up its sleeve. It does have some “discreet” and direct ways to combat hostile satellites and it’s not like modern technology doesn’t give other options for basic targeting, or That said, there are no positives to a serious satellite system breakdown. Space is a natural dimension in any future war, whether anyone likes it or not. Russia may or may not develop a significant anti-satellite capability, depending on which way the Kremlin is blowing. More credibly, China’s increasing space capabilities, combined with apparently unilateralist regional moves, do not inspire confidence in a rickety, 30 year old system which was never designed to meet combat risks. The dithering factor The Ofek-9 was successfully launched into space on June 22. The first transmission received today confirmed that the high-tech spy satellite had established and maintained orbit. Israel Ministry of Defense You’d never guess that, from the rather banal, laissez-faire U.S. approach to space threats in recent years. America has allowed its military technological edge to erode substantially, at least in public sight. Maybe there’s more happening out of sight, but a “Pearl Harbor in space” is a credible possibility. This is complex warfare at its most complex. Combine a massive cyber-attack with a satellite attack, and there can’t be any good outcomes for the U.S. The unthinkable, a U.S. military outmatched both in cyberspace and real space, is possible, thanks to the general ignorance and infighting in the U.S. Congress we’ve all come to admire so little. The strategic environment – Mixed messages, but no goodwill The other side of this coin of dubious values is military reality. China and Russia have been upgrading their own somewhat dilapidated former military organizations for some time now. The overall configurations of current Russian and Chinese military strengths don’t point to any sort of capacity to wage large scale conventional operations against the U.S. on a global scale at any level. PROBLEMATIC: Ships believed to be Chinese dredging vessels are seen in the vicinity of Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in a photo from 2015. U.S. Navy/Wikimedia Commons There’s a caveat to this rather rosy view. They’ve been upgrading; the U.S. has been treading water, with a few exceptions, in terms of projectable global military power. Both nations have the capacity to expand fairly rapidly, if they ever got serious about major military power projection. That’s not the case at the moment, but that can change, if situations generate any incentive for them to do so. They can also very effectively wage smaller scale operations. That may be a serious problem for the U.S., because the pattern of wars with super powers involved is usually a mix of super high costs and political maneuvering. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Next Generation Fighter Capability DND/Lockheed Martin Corporation Given the U.S. history of The last few U.S. wars haven’t shown any ability at higher levels of government to get the lead out and focus on military realities. The idiotic “boots on the ground” approach, seen in context with a powerful military which only needs boots to be put where they’re actually required, is a case in point. Political inputs in recent years have included the insane frenzy regarding using the word “insurgency” in Iraq to refer to a full scale battle in progress for months. This template for incompetence included major political demand not to even use that word in press releases, rather than any considerations being given to the tough task the Marines faced in Fallujah dealing with a real insurgency. In Vietnam, micro management was also the key to failure. The military culture has changed long since, but the political culture is as obtuse as ever. It’s a lesson that apparently needs to be taught until it can penetrate the thickest heads. The message for the U.S. military regarding the Russian tests, therefore is the same as ever – “We have met the enemy, and they are us”. The message for U.S. governments, present and future is also the same – “Stop finding ways to lose the wars that your military otherwise wins.” The problem is that they can act as anti-satellite missiles , regardless of any tactical euphemisms. The U.S. is heavily dependent on its satellite net for targeting, navigation, and basic communications. Any serious hit on the network could be a major blow against the U.S. military. The U.S. lacks anti-satellite missiles, too, although there are other options available to it in the event of a real “space war”.China tested some anti-satellite missiles a few years ago, without the euphemisms. The overall picture is looking progressively murkier, and far less clear-cut than five years ago, when U.S. supremacy in space satellite technology was basically invulnerable to any attack.The GPS system is one of the cornerstones of this network. A combination of terrestrial jamming systems and missile strikes could crash the system, making navigation a lot harder for U.S. military responses.Despite the years of dithering, the U.S. does have a few tricks up its sleeve. It does have some “discreet” and direct ways to combat hostile satellites and it’s not like modern technology doesn’t give other options for basic targeting, or real combat capabilities outside that framework. That said, there are no positives to a serious satellite system breakdown. Space is a natural dimension in any future war, whether anyone likes it or not. Russia may or may not develop a significant anti-satellite capability, depending on which way the Kremlin is blowing. More credibly, China’s increasing space capabilities, combined with apparently unilateralist regional moves, do not inspire confidence in a rickety, 30 year old system which was never designed to meet combat risks.The U.S. partial withdrawal from hard space capacity, the ability to physically do things in space, has been a baffling mix of Congressional funding cuts, lack of clear directions, and an astonishing slowness to recognize emerging threats. No combat system, regardless of type, is immune to obsolescence and a changing environment.You’d never guess that, from the rather banal, laissez-faire U.S. approach to space threats in recent years. America has allowed its military technological edge to erode substantially, at least in public sight. Maybe there’s more happening out of sight, but a “Pearl Harbor in space” is a credible possibility.This is complex warfare at its most complex. Combine a massive cyber-attack with a satellite attack, and there can’t be any good outcomes for the U.S. The unthinkable, a U.S. military outmatched both in cyberspace and real space, is possible, thanks to the general ignorance and infighting in the U.S. Congress we’ve all come to admire so little.The other side of this coin of dubious values is military reality. China and Russia have been upgrading their own somewhat dilapidated former military organizations for some time now. The overall configurations of current Russian and Chinese military strengths don’t point to any sort of capacity to wage large scale conventional operations against the U.S. on a global scale at any level.There’s a caveat to this rather rosy view. They’ve been upgrading; the U.S. has been treading water, with a few exceptions, in terms of projectable global military power. Both nations have the capacity to expand fairly rapidly, if they ever got serious about major military power projection. That’s not the case at the moment, but that can change, if situations generate any incentive for them to do so.They can also very effectively wage smaller scale operations. That may be a serious problem for the U.S., because the pattern of wars with super powers involved is usually a mix of super high costs and political maneuvering.Given the U.S. history of ridiculously high cost bases for technologies and absurd time frames , there are obvious problems. Add to this unholy mix a sort of political stupor when it comes to matching military realities to political objectives, and the prognosis isn’t good.The last few U.S. wars haven’t shown any ability at higher levels of government to get the lead out and focus on military realities. The idiotic “boots on the ground” approach, seen in context with a powerful military which only needs boots to be put where they’re actually required, is a case in point.Political inputs in recent years have included the insane frenzy regarding using the word “insurgency” in Iraq to refer to a full scale battle in progress for months. This template for incompetence included major political demand not to even use that word in press releases, rather than any considerations being given to the tough task the Marines faced in Fallujah dealing with a real insurgency.In Vietnam, micro management was also the key to failure. The military culture has changed long since, but the political culture is as obtuse as ever. It’s a lesson that apparently needs to be taught until it can penetrate the thickest heads.The message for the U.S. military regarding the Russian tests, therefore is the same as ever – “We have met the enemy, and they are us”.The message for U.S. governments, present and future is also the same – “Stop finding ways to lose the wars that your military otherwise wins.” This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com More about US miltiary, Russian antisatellite missiles, Chinese antisatellite missiles, F35, Fallujah More news from US miltiary Russian antisatellit... Chinese antisatellit... F35 Fallujah US military and poli...