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. For military as well as commercial satellites, “bodyguard” weapons in space would offer protection only from certain sorts of attacks, while the terrestrial links in satellite systems would remain inviting targets. Again it is the transition to larger networks of smaller satellites that will do the most to reduce vulnerability, perhaps together with supplementing satellite platforms for some military functions with new types of terrestrial systems, such as high endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),[36] and improving terrestrial weapons with which to attack ground-based ASATs and satellite launch and control facilities. Conversely, if the United States decides that it must have the ability to deny an enemy the use of its satellites, it is quite possible that the most attractive means for doing this will prove to involve non-space weapons and, to an even greater extent, tools that are not weapons in the conventional sense at all.

---

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