The wisdom and feasibility of acquiring and deploying one or more of these kinds of space-based weapons can only be determined through an analysis that takes into account a broad range of strategic, operational, technological, political, and financial considerations. Of all of these factors, historically, the area that has received the least attention has been the financial costs—specifically, the funding requirements—that would be associated with the acquisition and support of space-based weapons.
This is understandable to some extent. Weapon system cost estimates can only be as accurate as the quality of information available concerning the system’s technical characteristics, overall system architecture and operational concept. In the case of space-based weapons, the quality of such information is typically poor. On the other hand, an analysis of space weapons that does not consider the system’s budgetary requirements is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, provides a misleading picture of the system’s potential cost-effectiveness.
In an effort to raise the level of debate concerning the wisdom and value of acquiring and deploying one or more of the four types of space-based weapons noted above, this report provides rough, order of- magnitude, estimates of the potential cost of acquiring and supporting such systems. Based on the cost estimates identified or derived in this report, and existing unclassified assessments of potential system effectiveness, this report also offers a range of tentative and preliminary conclusions concerning the likely cost-effectiveness of various types of
space-based weapons.
This analysis, which focuses on the potential for deploying space based weapons over the next 20 years, suggests five broad observations and conclusions:
- First, a constellation of space-based weapons designed to defend the United States against an attack with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) would be extremely costly to acquire and support. Moreover, at least based on the technology likely to be available over the next twenty years, such a system would probably not prove to be a cost effective investment, especially when measured against the cost to a potential adversary of defeating such a system.
- Second, while space-based weapons intended to strike terrestrial based targets could, in some cases, cost substantially less to acquire and support than space-based ballistic missile defense systems, such weapons would likely prove more costly—and, in some instances, far more costly—than comparably effective terrestrial-based alternatives.