Some have charged that such a policy would lead to the "weaponization of space." Some participants in the debate over military use of space say that we should protect this threshold and not cross it." In current QDR deliberations, these critics express concern about the Department of Defense's vision for military applications in space. Others realize that the threshold has already been crossed technologically and that space was a major focus of military planners in the 2001 QDR, the 2002 Joint Doctrine for Space Operations, the 2004 Air Force Doctrine on Counterspace Operations, and the 2005 National Defense Strategy. The debate -- when space is not regarded as so contentious as to be "unmentionable" -- has been reduced to one over competing definitions. This debate is not readily subject to compromise or policy solutions. As a measure of the complexity of this issue, the competing definitions are:

• Space is not now weaponized, versus space is weaponized;


• U.S. space policy as a choice of dominance or reassurance, or one of reassurance through dominance;


• Space as a value (sanctuary), or simply as a place (the geographic constant in military policy);


• The U.S. as the initiator of a space arms race, or the U.S. dissuading others from engaging in such an arms race; and


• Stand-by counterspace capabilities (what we have now) as adequate, or the necessity for on-hand capabilities.

The side whose definitions prevail will win the debate. Space -- especially the military use of space -- is an extremely technical issue, the specifics of which are sure to be addressed in the QDR. However, the issue of space also provides an excellent example of how the discussion over fundamental capabilities sometimes requires a greater breadth of intellectual and philosophical engagement.

---

Spencer, Jack and Kathy Gudgel. "The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review: China and Space—The Unmentionable Issues." . WebMemo #819 (August 11, 2005). [ 2 quotes ]