Placing space mines in the immediate vicinity of high-value American satellites would likely be a major component of an opponent's strategy. These weapons could be fairly lightweight and possess considerable range. For example, a directional fragmentation warhead similar to that of a Claymore mine could project 100,000 one-grampellets in a pattern that would cover a 100 x 100 meter area with 10 pellets per square meter at a range of 1 kilometer. One approach to the space mine is to "design a very small stealth weapon that is moved into position over a long period of time" and in secrecy. However, while a stealthy space mine has definite advantages, it is not clear that an unobserved approach is required. In a fully weaponized space environment, U.S. space-based lasers and mirrors, each capable of attacking satellites thousands of kilometers away, threaten distant satellites as much as would a space mine in close proximity. In any case, until space mines actually damaged or interfered with their victims, it would be difficult to challenge their legitimacy. To attack or disable them as a potential threat would set a precedent for preemptive strikes against U.S. space-based weapons, if not all its satellites.

---

Hardesty, David C. "Space-Based Weapons: Long-Term Strategic Implications and Alternatives." Naval War College Review. Vol. 58, No. 2 (Spring 2005): 45-68. [ 2 quotes ]