If this analysis is correct, then the analogy between the development of navies in response to guerre de course and the emergence of space-based military capabilities in response to prospective attacks on satellites breaks downs in important ways. Sinking a nation's ship on the high seas, whether a military or commercial vessel, has long been viewed as an act of war. Article VIII of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states that any party "on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body." In 1996, the United States declared as national policy that the space systems of any nation are "national property with the right of passage through and operations in space without interference." Nevertheless, damaging or destroying satellites does not seem to have quite the same status as damaging or sinking a nation's ships and killing its crew. Satellites may have owners and operators, but, in contrast to sailors, they do not have mothers. Granted, the destruction of a KH-11 or comparable satellite at a key juncture in a crisis with a major regional power would be taken very seriously by American leaders. Whether this act would inevitability lead to war, however, is far from clear.

---

Watts, Barry D. The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, February 2001. [ 8 quotes ] [ page 28 ]