It is unlikely that commercial concerns would add substantial and expensive maneuver and counterforce capability to their satellites. Merchant ships did initially provide their own protection, in the form of cannons, convoys, or mercenary marines. Eventually, however, building a navy to provide for their common defense proved more cost-effective than each company trying to do it individually. This would particularly be true to the degree that the United States continues the historical US and British policy of open and free trade on the seas (space). In that case, the only embargoes enforced would be as they had been—on aggressive states and combatants. It is likely that aggressors would seek to counter us through symmetric or asymmetric means. This is due, quite simply, to the very high leverage they would accrue by denying space service to adversaries and preserving it for themselves. As much as we might like to have space declared a "peaceful and demilitarized zone," its importance to any future crisis or conflict mandates that it will be, as it already is, an arena for confrontation. It may even be the initial theater of struggle. If we intend to pre-serve the free and open use of space, we must be prepared to enforce it.

---

Shaw, John E. and Simon P. Worden. Whither Space Power?: Forging a Strategy for the New Century. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University, 2002. [ 8 quotes ] [ page 109 ]