Military is Concerned that Space Debris from Space Weapons could Damage Key Military Satellites Despite the U.S. Army’s program to develop a kinetic kill ASAT, army officials have expressed concerns that using such weapons could create debris clouds that could render useless the U.S. military’s own space assets in a kind of “orbital own goal” (to use a soccer term) or “space fratricide” (to use a military term). This concern has been echoed by top officials at U.S. Space Command. ( More ... ) Hitchens, Theresa. "Space Weapons: More Security or Less?." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 30 ] Weaponization of Space would Threaten Viability of Commercial Satellite Industry The competitive and cost challenges the U.S. satellite industry faces could be increased if the United States moved to make space a battlefield. Until now, the threat that commercial satellites could become direct wartime casualties has been negligible. But an aggressive U.S. pursuit of ASATs would likely encourage others to do the same, thus potentially heightening the threat to commercial satellites. This could be costly for industry, especially because current commercial satellites have little protection (electronic hardening, for example, has been considered too expensive). There would be costs for increasing protection, not to mention the likely further skyrocketing of already sky-high insurance costs, and it is not at all clear that the U.S. government would cover all those costs. ( More ... ) Hitchens, Theresa. "Space Weapons: More Security or Less?." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 31 ]
Despite the U.S. Army’s program to develop a kinetic kill ASAT, army officials have expressed concerns that using such weapons could create debris clouds that could render useless the U.S. military’s own space assets in a kind of “orbital own goal” (to use a soccer term) or “space fratricide” (to use a military term). This concern has been echoed by top officials at U.S. Space Command. ( More ... ) Hitchens, Theresa. "Space Weapons: More Security or Less?." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 30 ]
The competitive and cost challenges the U.S. satellite industry faces could be increased if the United States moved to make space a battlefield. Until now, the threat that commercial satellites could become direct wartime casualties has been negligible. But an aggressive U.S. pursuit of ASATs would likely encourage others to do the same, thus potentially heightening the threat to commercial satellites. This could be costly for industry, especially because current commercial satellites have little protection (electronic hardening, for example, has been considered too expensive). There would be costs for increasing protection, not to mention the likely further skyrocketing of already sky-high insurance costs, and it is not at all clear that the U.S. government would cover all those costs. ( More ... ) Hitchens, Theresa. "Space Weapons: More Security or Less?." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2002. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 31 ]