The United States cannot expect that the entire world will sit idly by as it deploys weapons in space which, effectively, border every state on the planet. If the united states had unlimited armies, navies, and air forces, would it surround every border and coastline with them, ready to put down potential aggression or implement united states policy objectives at a moments notice? Adversaries and allies alike would certainly find such action offensive, possibly spurring them to respond. Putting weapons in space will elicit a similar reaction and/or countermeasures which decrease or negate the intended security benefits. Even without the intense bipolar competitive environment of the cold war, weapons in space could spark an arms race where others (alone or cooperatively) attempt to match the new capability to ensure their interests are similarly secured in space. While the likelihood of spurring a preemptive attack appears low, it remains a possibility that a strategist must consider. Putting weapons in space may elicit a preemptive attack from a threatened state or states. Striking in the early phases of a space weapon deployment is advantageous because the new weapon system may not have its full capability. Additionally, striking before the United States could potentially prepare and mass for a first-strike gives the threatened state its best chance for success. Aside from the militarily negative consequences of deploying weapons into space, there are also distinct non-military disadvantages.

---

Coffelt, Christopher A. The Best Defense: Charting the Future of US Space Strategy and Policy. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, June 2005. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 79-80 ]