For several reasons, then, the analogy between freedom of the seas and the military use of space is a false one. Transit of space by orbiting weapons is not nearly as "innocent" as transit over the oceans, satellites are not like ships at sea, and the proposed U.S. role in space would be far more overwhelming than the role of Britain during the 19th century. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, in reality, what SPACECOM and its supporters actually want is a version of mare clausum, in which the United States controls space to the full extent of U.S. power. Their use of the freedom of the seas analogy is, in the end, disingenuous: the aspect of the 19th century British experience they are actually most enamored of is the notion of empire, not the freedom of the seas principle. Mahan's theory of control of "chokepoints" is a theory of empire, not a theory of free trade and commerce. Doctrines centering on control and domination are theories of empire and war, not theories of freedom. As one Air Force analyst admits, the development of space forces to protect assets in space "challenges the notion of 'freedom of space,' and 'space for peaceful purposes,'" because, he notes, in wartime nations are quick to abandon freedom of the seas.

---

Tannenwald, Nina. Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space. : , Summer 2004. [ 7 quotes ] [ page 38 ]