We advocate developing the means to operate in space in a manner analogous to establishing and maintaining blockades at sea. If our nation has the ability to physically confront -- or prevent adversaries from confronting -- a space system in space, it will intrinsically have the ability to regulate use of that asset. These means are straightforward -- being able to get to a location in space when necessary, and moving to another location as rapidly as possible, all within reasonable cost. Currently, this would seem to mandate development of small, reusable launch vehicles equipped with even smaller space-maneuvering elements. These capabilities would enable us to protect our space assets and deny their use to adversaries through either nondestructive or destructive means, as necessary.

---

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 138 ]

 

It is unlikely that commercial concerns would add substantial and expensive maneuver and counterforce capability to their satellites. Merchant ships did initially provide their own protection, in the form of cannons, convoys, or mercenary marines. Eventually, however, building a navy to provide for their common defense proved more cost-effective than each company trying to do it individually. This would particularly be true to the degree that the United States continues the historical US and British policy of open and free trade on the seas (space). ( 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 109 ]

 

For example, as European commerce began to expand to other regions of the world in earlier centuries, the opening of new trade routes and establishment of overseas outposts were initially undertaken by ostensibly private enterprises, such as the British East India Company. However, the European powers eventually found it necessary to create large navies and expeditionary forces to protect the sea lanes as well as the foreign holdings of their merchants. In other words, the flag followed trade. Moreover, conflicts between the great powers that arose from predominantly local disputes frequently entailed clashes among rival military forces at sea and in territories far removed from European shores. In the same manner, national security officials contend, future conflicts on the Earth's surface will inevitably entail attempts to disrupt the new "lines of communication" in space. And, just as navies were called upon to protect the sea lines of communication, the military has a role in protecting the space lines of communication. ( More ... )

---

Klotz, Frank G. Space, Commerce, and National Security. Washington, D.C.: Council on Foreign Relations, January 1999. [ 12 quotes ] [ page 11 ]

 

How space is utilized for peaceful purposes will depend on who ultimately controls space. This is analogous to control of the seas that has been deemed essential to sea faring states over the centuries. There is a widely accepted historical example of those states with a great interest in trade, notably The Netherlands and Great Britain, which also had highly developed naval capabilities for sea control designed to ensure peace-time commerce. Such countries played an indispensable role in both developing and enforcing the "rules of the road." The United States, in association whenever possible with allies, must be prepared to play a similar role in space in the decades ahead. Space control is therefore a vital element of U.S. programs and policies.

---

U.S. State Department. Study on Space Policy: Report of the International Security Advisory Board. Washington, D.C.: U.S. State Department, April 27, 2007. [ 9 quotes ] [ page 3 ]