"It's very similar to missile defense, where they're trying to convince Congress that there are dramatic new threats that aren't being defended against — and urging that very large sums of money be addressed to those threats. Interestingly, Rumsfeld led the commission on missile defense, too, which led the CIA around by the nose and produced a much scarier report about potential missile threats than the CIA had previously done.
"To say we're more vulnerable to a potential threat doesn't really help us make decisions. The authors of the report are convinced that the Russians, Chinese, Libyans and Iranians are straining at the bit to shoot down our satellites. But the question is how likely or imminent are these threats, and are they the best way for America to spend its defense dollars. That's going to be the debate."
But reading paranoid phrases like "a Pearl Harbor in space" and scenarios in which Libya manages to destroy U.S. space vehicles with rockets — a technology that the U.S. has not perfected despite investing billions of dollars in its missile defense schemes — we have to ask: Are they serious?
"Of course they're serious. You can posit anything and ask if it's possible. But for years, the U.S. has taken the approach of building its defenses against what is likely to happen, rather than basing them on what is possible. But with both missile defense and this report, we're moving toward focusing on what's possible. And that raises the ante considerably.
"It's interesting because in the Cold War we were prepared to shoulder a greater level of threat. The enemy had more soldiers, and we had to live with that. In response, we decided to build some extra nuclear weapons, and we knew that in the event of an invasion of Western Europe, we might have to go nuclear first and more quickly. But now that the Cold War is over, we seem incapable of making those kinds of judgments that say here's a threat, but how imminent is it, and how much money should we spend countering it."
What's driving the shift in discussion from real and immediate threats to worst-case scenarios?
"America has long been an island nation, and because of that we have largely been invulnerable to the slings and arrows of hostile nations. In today's world that sort of invulnerability has gone. Long-range missiles and cyber threats have changed that. The Atlantic and Pacific Ocean can't shield us in the way they once did. But also, a lot of Americans feel the need for a threat. They have a reflexive desire to embrace an enemy, as opposed to taking a more reasoned approach."
Does Rumsfeld's involvement make this report a harbinger of the new administration's thinking on defense spending?
"It accurately reflects the thinking of a wing of Congress that's really into space-based threats and wants to defend against them, just as they're driven to defend against all threats, real and imagined. They're unlikely to carry the day, but they may lead us to greater investment in these threats. The real question Congress will debate is whether this the best use of our limited defense dollars."