View Citation

Evidence Related to this Citation

• U.S. ground stations are a much easier target to attack
• Adversaries more likely to attack U.S. resources assymetrically rather than with space weapons
• Existence of vulnerabilities does not necessarily make an attack inevitable

U.S. ground stations are a much easier target to attack

 

Even if an enemy did want to disrupt the use of American satellites, attacking their ground communications stations and launch facilities might be far more effective than striking satellites in orbit, as well as much easier. ( More ... )

---

Mueller, Karl P. "Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable?." . (March 27, 2002). [ 3 quotes ] [ page 10 ]

---

Adversaries more likely to attack U.S. resources assymetrically rather than with space weapons

 

Moreover, it is quite possible that if a potential enemy did want to develop the ability to attack U.S. space systems, it would choose to do so in ways—such as investing in ground-based ASAT lasers or computer network attack capabilities—that would not involve weaponizing space, and against which the logical defensive countermeasures would not involve placing U.S. weapons in orbit either. ( More ... )

---

Mueller, Karl P. "Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable?." . (March 27, 2002). [ 3 quotes ] [ page 11-12 ]

---

Existence of vulnerabilities does not necessarily make an attack inevitable

 

There is no question that space systems are a key center of gravity (or perhaps several) for U.S. military capabilities. An enemy that attacked them might be able to impair U.S. military operations very seriously, and this ranks high among threats that concern U.S. strategists. It need not follow from this that the enemies of the United States will do so, or invest in the weapons required to do so, however. ( More ... )

---

Mueller, Karl P. "Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable?." . (March 27, 2002). [ 3 quotes ] [ page 11 ]

---