At the same time, there is growing concern that future adversaries could use space to support their own forces in conflicts with the United States. The Gulf War vividly demonstrated the enormous importance of space systems to the American military. It also suggested to thoughtful observers that the United States should not count on an indefinite monopoly in this field--particularly as spaced-based products and services became increasingly available in the commercial market. The consequences of facing an enemy with the same or similar capabilities of observing the battlefield from space or providing precise navigation data to its forces would be profound. If, for example, Iraq had had access to this kind of information, the coalition's victory would not have been as easy. Commercially available satellite imagery might have unmasked preparations for the ground force's "left hook" into Iraq. As satellite communications, remote sensing, and navigation services become more widespread, future adversaries-including those with otherwise limited military capabilities-would be able to acquire, process, and quickly disseminate information that could be used against American forces. As a rule, military commanders seek to gain the high ground--not to share it. Thus, in future conflicts, the United States would no doubt want to deny the use of space capabilities to its enemies, lest they achieve the same advantages in space. The central dilemma is how to accomplish both ends-protecting one's own use of space, while at the same denying it to an adversary.

---

Klotz, Frank G. Space, Commerce, and National Security. Washington, D.C.: Council on Foreign Relations, January 1999. [ 12 quotes ] [ page 15 ]