ON the morning of September 13, 1985, Air Force Major Doug Pearson smashed through the sound barrier in his F-15. Pointed almost directly upward more than seven miles above the Pacific Ocean, he tapped a little red button on the side of his control stick, and released a missile strapped to the belly of his plane. ... It was the one time an American pilot had ever destroyed an object in outer space. People still talk about Pearson as the country's first "space ace." ( More ... )

---

Miller, John J. "Our Next Manifest Destiny." National Review. Vol. 54, No. 13 (July 15, 2002): 35-7. [ 2 quotes ]

 

It is also widely believed that only sophisticated states or groups will be able to mount attacks on global communications, particularly against the space nodes. In fact, this is not true. Consider an incident in 1996 between the states of Tonga and Indonesia -- neither highly developed technologically. Both states had claimed a GEO satellite communications slot. When Tonga moved its national communications satellite into this disputed spot, Indonesia protested. However, it appears that Indonesia did more than just protest, for Tongan soon began having difficulties in using their satellite; apparently it was being jammed. ( More ... )

---

Shaw, John E. and Simon P. Worden. Whither Space Power?: Forging a Strategy for the New Century. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University, 2002. [ 8 quotes ] [ page 91 ]

 

Second, there is historical context to consider. Critics of expanding the military uses of space are wont to make a clean-cut distinction between 'militarizing' space, on the one hand, which they say already has happened, and 'weaponizing' space on the other, which they say has yet to occur. But this is a distinction without a meaningful difference, because the combat or force function, which naturally involves the use of arms, is a potential part of any military activity. Even some peacekeepers carry arms. Viewed in this light, the term 'weaponization' may be used, in a general way, to characterize activities that countries have undertaken for nearly 60 years. In other words, the so-called weaponization of space is happening under our very noses. ( More ... )

---

Lambakis, Steven. "Putting Military Uses of Space in Context." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2002. [ 4 quotes ] [ page 23 ]

 

Nonetheless, the above paragraphs indicate that the United States quietly crossed this space threshold at the end of the last century in ways that did not pertain to missile defense. The United States now leverages satellites to fight battles in ways that overwhelm adversaries. Our satellites allow field commanders to see the entire battlefield, communicate globally and instantaneously, attack targets precisely, avoid threats, and warn of aggression in ways that no other nation in the world can match. Arguing that space already affords the United States an overwhelming military advantage is no overstatement. ( More ... )

---

McLaughlin, Kevin. "Would Space-Based Defenses Improve Security?." Washington Quarterly. Vol. 25 (Summer 2002): 177-191. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 186 ]

 

The absence of hostile anti-satellite systems during Desert Storm also made the achievement of space control for the positive uses of space extraordinarily simple. Not too long ago, however, the United States could not take the liberty of planning for war without providing for satellite survivability. During the cold war, the United States had to defend against an enemy that had developed the capability to disrupt and destroy space systems. For almost two decades, until its collapse, the Soviet Union maintained a dedicated co-orbital interceptor in readiness at its launch site at the Tyuratam cosmodrome. The Soviets also deployed exoatmospheric nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles around Moscow, which could have been used against U.S. satellites in low Earth orbit. It was believed that Moscow also sponsored research and development of directed-energy weapons, lasers, and nonnuclear direct-ascent interceptors for use against enemy satellites. Today, Russia continues to deploy nuclear interceptors and may still have an operational co-orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon. ( More ... )

---

Lambakis, Steven. "Space Control in Desert Storm and Beyond." Orbis. Vol. 39, No. 3 (Summer 1995). [ 6 quotes ]

 

"The die is cast," Suetonius reports Julius Caesar said as he exhorted his men to cross the river Rubicon and created the popular idiom for a point of no return. The long-held Rubicon in space, the deployment and use of so-called space weapons, was crossed long ago by both the former Soviet Union and the United States. Still, many have claimed that it is possible to turn back history’s pages and preserve space as a sanctuary. If there were ever serious doubts about the impossibility of that dream, they are dispelled now. Last fall, when reports that China had used lasers to "blind" a U.S. satellite were made public, the Rubicon of space was crossed (again) and now we learn that China has demonstrated successful anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities launched from earth.1 In destroying their own satellite, China has signaled to the world its capability to threaten essential satellites directly, by physically destroying them, and indirectly, by using lasers and other jamming techniques to deny free use of them.

---

Kueter, Jeff. "Crossing the Rubicon in Space Again: Iacta Alea est." . January 23, 2007. [ page 1 ]

 

The policy debate centers primarily on how we use space and whether it should be a matter of US policy to develop and deploy “weapons in space” as a means of protection. The difficulty with this proposition starts with our understanding of space weapons. A definition is elusive. If a space weapon is any weapons system capable of rendering a satellite temporarily or permanently useless, then it could target the satellite in orbit, its data link to the ground, or its ground-control station. Moreover, a space weapon could be land-, sea-, air-, or space-based and use kinetic energy (e.g., direct-ascent missile), directed energy (e.g., laser), other electromagnetic energy (e.g., jammer), or even nuclear energy to disable a satellite. If one believes this definition, then space is already “weaponized.” The Cold War–era Soviet co-orbital ASAT and US F-15-launched ASAT would qualify, as would present-day GPS and SATCOM jamming and, surely, the Chinese ASAT test.

---

Everett, Terry. "Arguing for a Comprehensive Space Protection Strategy." Strategic Studies Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 1 (Fall 2007): 20-35. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 32 ]

 

Nonetheless, many space analysts and arms control advocates in the United States and abroad said the shot had opened the door to antisatellite tests by more nations.

"Demonstrably, we do have an [antisatellite] capability now," said David Mosher, a defense and space specialist with Rand Corporation.

"Anyone who followed national missile defense issues knew we've had that inherent ability for some time," he said. "But now it's real, and we can expect there will be consequences."

Clay Moltz, a professor of nuclear and space policy at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, agreed that the destruction of the satellite did not signal a new capability, but he said it might have sent a signal to other countries that could set a bad precedent.

"It solved a short-term problem, but it may cause us long-term headaches in terms of emerging test programs in other countries," Moltz said.

---

Kaufman, Marc. "Satellite downing shows US arsenal." Boston Globe. February 22, 2008.

 

The consequences of war in space are in fact so cataclysmic that arms control advocates like Mr. Kimball would like simply to prohibit the use of weapons beyond the earth's atmosphere.

But it may already be too late for that. In the weeks since an American rocket slammed into an out-of-control satellite over the Pacific Ocean, officials and experts have made it clear that the United States, for better or worse, is already committed to having the capacity to wage war in space. And that, it seems likely, will prompt others to keep pace.

What makes people want to ban war in space is exactly what keeps the Pentagon's war planners busy preparing for it: The United States has become so dependent on space that it has become the country's Achilles' heel.

---

Myers, Steven Lee. "Look Out Below. The Arms Race in Space May Be On." New York Times. March 9, 2008.