In spite of the intuitive similarities between seafaring and spacefaring, however, there is one fundamental difference between them which makes the sea-space analogy very weak: ships primarily transport goods and people, while spacecraft (with only minor exceptions) are built to collect, relay, or transmit information. This means that space piracy is not a problem, so space navies are not required to suppress it, while "commerce raiding" threats to space systems can be ameliorated by building redundant, distributed systems of satellites; for merchant shipping this is obviously not an option. It also means that whatever threats may be posed by enemy space systems, invasion is very low on the list. In short, satellites have more in common with lighthouses than with oceangoing ships, and space commerce resembles telegraphy or terrestrial radio more than it does maritime trade. This does not mean that nothing we know about sea power can be applied to space, or that space strategists should not study the works of Corbett and Mahan. However, there is little reason to conclude from the evolution of naval forces either that the weaponization of space is inevitable, or that it is not.

---

Mueller, Karl P. "Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization Debate." Astropolitics. Vol. 1, No. 13 (Summer 2003): 4-28. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 15 ]