While legally banning antisatellite systems or activities associated with their use would not appear to add much value at the moment, it may be possible for nations to mutually refrain from activities that might be construed as threatening to the satellites of others. Such undertakings are not without precedent. When it has been within their general interests, nations have held back from employing certain weapons and engaging in certain activities during wartime, even in the absence of specific agreements. For the most part, the major powers avoided the use of chemical weapons during the Second World War. None of the nuclear states have employed their nuclear arsenals in military conflicts since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Gven the cost of developing weapons in space and the ramifications of attacking a satellite and thereby inviting some sort of retaliation (either against one's own space systems or elsewhere), nations might conclude that the long-term costs are not worth the potential gains. As long as such mutual restraint is exercised, it may be possible for the space powers to uphold the principle of unfettered access to space without the need to actually employ antisatellite weapons either to deter or defend against their use by others.

---

Klotz, Frank G. Space, Commerce, and National Security. Washington, D.C.: Council on Foreign Relations, January 1999. [ 12 quotes ] [ page 18 ]