Space weapons are destabilizing for other reasons, as well. Space warfare is unlikely to be confined to space, since the platforms that would be primary targets for attack support terrestrial military operations. Civil societies have worked diligently to affirm laws of war to limit dangers to noncombatants. The dictates of international law that warfare be pursued in a discriminating and proportional fashion -- guidelines that are reinforced by the "revolution in military affairs" pursued by the United States -- are undercut by space warfare, since satellites subject to attack provide essential services to noncombatants as well as to armies, navies, and air forces. Their destruction is likely to make orbital swaths unusable for commercial and military purposes because, even if extreme care is taken by the stronger party to employ non-destructive techniques of satellite warfare, the weaker foe is unlikely to abide by such niceties. Moreover, the destruction of satellites by whatever means is likely to trigger vigorous, but less precise military actions by the armies, navies and air forces adversely affected.

---

Katz-Hyman, Michael and Michael Krepon. Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space. Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center, April 2003. [ 16 quotes ] [ page 91 ]