Although I vigorously oppose those people who use this fortunate circumstance to justify reckless cuts in defense spending or to ratio-nalize their refusal to support an effective ballistic missile defense, I do see an opportunity for us to exploit this period of unchallenged conventional superiority on Earth to shift substantial resources to space. I believe we can and must do this, and, if we do, we will buy generations of security that all the ships, tanks, and airplanes in the world will not provide. This would be a real "peace dividend" -- it would actually help keep the peace. None of us can truly imagine the opportunities that space may one day offer. ( More ... )

---

Smith, Bob. "The Challenge of Space Power." Air & Space Power Journal. (Spring 1999). [ 1 reference ]

 

For space assets to truly exploit their presence and influence upon states, the United States must demonstrate a willingness to use its space presence to some end (e.g., release objective information about other states’ questionable behavior or enable a terrestrial attack to punish a state for aggressive behavior in violation of international law). Interestingly, as the United States purposefully and publicly uses the other components of space assets’ diplomatic power to increase diplomatic advantage, the ability of American space assets to exert presence will increase. States will not be concerned about space assets if their presence does not potentially lead to some negative consequence. ( More ... )

---

Whiting, Stephen N. Policy, Influence, and Diplomacy: Space as a National Power Element. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, June 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 76 ]

 

The sixth component of space assets’ diplomatic power is the ability to shape behavior and exert influence through presence. As defined in the Joint Doctrine Encyclopedia, “Forward presence activities demonstrate our commitment, lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis response capability while promoting United States influence and access.” Put another way, presence is the proximity of space assets to a location, such that international actors change their behavior or are deterred based solely on the location of space assets. ( More ... )

---

Whiting, Stephen N. Policy, Influence, and Diplomacy: Space as a National Power Element. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, June 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 73 ]

 

The US military improves every time it does this. Its skill today boggles the mind. Satellites detect objects on the ground and relay their coordinates to commanders in hardened bunkers thousands of miles away, who radio the data to Green Berets and Delta Force soldiers carrying laser pointers in the field. The pointers point. The bombers bomb. The enemy evaporates. The world's fourth-largest army: smashed. Battle-hardened Balkan fighters: smashed. The most feared and respected mountain bandits on earth: smashed. It's a new strategic reality. The Pentagon's role in world affairs has gone through an epochal transformation: from the Fulda Gap to the Highway of Death, from Agent Orange to GPS, from arsenal of democracy to global cop. When you're a cop, sometimes you kick doors in. Most of the time you stay on patrol. Outer space is where a global cop patrols. America's eyes, ears, and nerves are up there, all day, everyday, circling the blue yonder. Space vehicles are the ultimate asymmetrical asset. They can't be reached with a hijacked jet. They laugh at anthrax. The point of having cops is to manage robbers. The trick is to keep the robbers earthbound. ( More ... )

---

Sterling, Bruce. "Peace is War." Wired Magazine. Vol. 10, No. 4 (April 2002). [ 2 quotes ]

 

There are sound political and strategic justifications for looking to space. First, a weapon that exploits Earth's orbit may increase the number of foreign policy and military options available to our leaders and commanders. More options mean that a leader may not be forced to take a more destructive or weaker course of action, that he has choices on how his country should act in a dynamic, complex, and often dangerous world. Effective military options, in other words, can work to improve deterrence and stability and help leaders deal more intelligently, even more diplomatically, with surprises.

---

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 25 ]

 

Second, enhanced military power in the hands of states that uphold the rule of international law can work to improve peace and stability in the world. Treaties dealing with the space environment are written to establish stability and order on the space frontier. And this is good. Washington has never considered space to be a domain of anarchy. Indeed, it is in the U.S. interest to develop proper laws and exercise force in a restrained and responsible manner to prevent space from devolving into a lawless, disorderly realm. ( 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 25 ]

 

Space has the unique capacity of being the 'unflankable' high ground. So tactically advantageous is the high ground position that has both line of site over and defensive domination of the battlefield that commanders have always sought it. Space control is not only tactically advantageous on the battlefield, it is strategically so in diplomacy. The entity in control of space has real-time presence and persistence over the globe. So strong is the fortified position at the top of the Earth's gravity well that should any nation seize it, it could effectively deny access to space to any other state that should attempt to put assets there. A simple argument could be made that the United States has an imperative to seize control of space on this point alone, to prevent a dangerous enemy from taking it, but such a case could be made for any state that desired domination over the world. My point is that not only is the United States the sole country with the capacity to seize space (currently), it is the only great power that has a history of benign intervention and overall disdain of empire that it is morally important it do so before any state bent on world domination and oppression can. ( More ... )

---

Dolman, Everett C. Space Power and US Hegemony: Maintaining a Liberal World Order in the 21st Century. : , 2003. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 23-4 ]

 

Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the US is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race is space. From low-Earth orbit (LEO), the enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space, or to readily engage and destroy terrestrial ASAT capacity, makes the possibility of large scale space war and or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote. Moreover, if the US were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient, such an action would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems. Should the US use its advantage to police the heavens (assuming the entire cost on its own), and allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of LEO could be viewed as a global asset and a public good. Much in the manner that the British maintained control of the high seas, enforcing international norms of innocent passage and property rights , the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst of economic expansion. ( More ... )

---

Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]

 

Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order, with the weaponizing state at the top. The action would be a challenge to the status quo, not a perpetuation of it. Such an event would be disconcerting to nations that accept the current international order (including the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within it) and intolerable to the US. ( More ... )

---

Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]

 

There is reasonable historic support for the notion that the most peaceful and prosperous periods in modern history coincide with the appearance of a strong, liberal hegemon. America has been essentially unchallenged in its naval dominance over the last 60 years, and in global air supremacy for the last 15 or more. Today, there is more international commerce on the oceans and in the air than ever. Ships and aircraft of all nations worry more about running into bad weather than about being commandeered by a military vessel or set upon by pirates. Search and rescue is a far more common task than forced embargo, and the transfer of humanitarian aid is a regular mission. Lest one think this era of cooperation is predicated on intentions rather than military stability, recall that the policy of open skies advocated by every president since Eisenhower did not take effect until after the fall of the Soviet Union and the singular rise of American power to the fore of international politics. The legacy of American military domination of the sea and air has been positive, and the same should be expected for space. ( More ... )

---

Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 172 ]

 

Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. ( More ... )

---

Dolman, Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2006): 163-174. [ 10 quotes ] [ page 171 ]