The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on existing space assets.
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a counterargument.
The most compelling reason for moving forward with dispatch toward acquiring at least the essential elements of a serious space control capability is that the United States is now unprecedentedly invested in and dependent on on-orbit capabilities, both military and commercial. Since these equities can only be expected to grow in sunk cost and importance over time, it is fair to presume that they will eventually be challenged by potential opponents. In 1997, then- CINCSPACE General Howell M. Estes III pointed out that with more than 525 satellites then on orbit (including more than 200 U.S. satellites) and with more than $250 billion likely to be invested by 46 nations in space assets by 2000, space had indisputably become an economic center of gravity and, hence, a major vulnerability of the United States and its allies. ( More ... ) Lambeth, Benjamin S. Mastering the Ultimate High Ground: Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2003. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 99 ]
The Rumsfeld commission argues that the United States needs weapons for space warfare because it is now both more vulnerable in and more dependent on space. The first assertion may be debatable, but the second is incontrovertible. America today depends on its satellites as never before. The U.S. Space Command estimates that by 2010, some 2,000 operating satellites will orbit the earth, compared to roughly 600 today. Much of this growth will be tied to civilian and commercial applications, especially those in communications-related sectors. Since 1996, revenues from commercial space ventures have exceeded government space expenditures, and this differential continues to widen. ( More ... ) Krepon, Michael. "Lost in Space: the Misguided Drive Toward Antisatellite Weapons." Foreign Policy. Vol. 80, No. 3 (May/June 2001): 2-8. [ 1 reference ]
The biggest change in spacefaring activities is the recent emergence and now dominance of the commercial space sector. Whereas governments drove space activity in the early days of space venturing, commercial businesses launched more payloads into space than governments in the late 1990s. Business revenues exceeded $80 billion in 2000 and are projected to more than triple in the next decade. While this is a drop in the bucket of the overall global economy in terms of dollars, it is far more important to consider the type of information collected or moved by the commercial space sector and the capabilities that will be lost if these satellites are negated. Commercial satellites carry banking information, credit card authorization networks, video feeds for cable and broadcast feeds, cellular telephone networks, pager networks, communications networks, and corporate communications systems. All rely heavily on the commercial space sector. ( More ... ) Smith, M. V. Ten Propositions Regarding Spacepower. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, October 2002. [ 5 quotes ]
For many Americans, the most visible images of space are the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. These programs have accomplished amazing things and have greatly contributed to our quality of life. ... In total, today's space industry exceeds $100 billion annually world-wide, and is projected to exceed $150 billion per year by 2010. We could do without space capabilities, but only if we are willing to step back in time about 30 years. ( More ... ) Lord, Lance W. "Why America Needs Space: The Prerequisites for Success." High Frontier Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1 (September 2005): 2-3. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 2 ]