Weaponization of Space

Here is an interesting piece on placing military assets in space. I personally think calling "Weaponization of Space" just a moronic negative spin on distribution of legitimate military armaments.

This quote is very interesting:

Michael Krepon was quoted in a recent article in The Washington Post as stating, ‚“Space was to be used for peaceful purposes, but if someone messed with us, we couldn‚’t allow that to happen.‚”

Lovely rhetoric. Just imagine if the US had done such things with nuclear weapons after WWII. Letting potential enemies get the lead in any military context is a recipe for disaster.

Read the article. I think it's a bit thin in places, but the over all argument is on target.

This website is a further discussion on the topic. The links on the site are for articles on the topic and government reports.

This article from the Stimson Center is an argument against deployment. I'm not really convinced in this case, mainly because it makes the assumption that other countries will not be moving into military deployment and are the countries that we will need to help us prevent such proliferation. Considering historical conflicts, I would say that this assumption is an extreme flaw.

The Stimson report concludes that U.S. military and economic security is best served by avoiding the flight-testing and deployment of space weaponry. The pursuit of space dominance could impair global commerce, produce long-lasting, environmental debris in space, and harm alliance ties as well as relations between the United States and Russia and China, the two countries whose help is most needed to stop and reverse proliferation. The quest to dominate space could prompt low-cost, low-tech countermeasures in the form of space mines and other anti-satellite devices. Potential adversaries in space would be faced with the dilemma of shooting first or risk being shot. The quest to secure dominion over space would therefore elevate into the heavens the hair-trigger postures that plagued U.S. and Soviet officials during the Cold War.

They have a point that deployment of such technologies would upset certain rivals on the world stage. Would this lead to an arms race? Could be. The costs are very expensive, and that will likely slow even the US implementing such systems, but it shouldn't eliminate research and development. This doesn't mean that other countries won't do their own R&D either. Does this make a race though?

It is a complex issue, but I'd rather fault to being prepared than having to catch up in crisis. The US has far too many examples of having to catch up, and it cost lives that could have been saved had the politicians had tried to be ready instead of popular.