Unlike other environments of international activity, space competition is affected in unique ways by orbital physics. Compared to the collective "good" of safe access to orbital space, we can consider space radiation and debris as collective "bads." This does not keep states from periodically attempting to overcome these limitations, as seen in China's 2007 test. But it does create significant operational obstacles to continuing such harmful behavior, as well as stimulating widespread international pressure to prevent it. These constraints are increasing over time, not decreasing, as space becomes more crowded. Thus, critic of space arms control miss the point when they discount the possibility of unique military restraint in space as a "fallacy." Instead, it is a far worse "fallacy" to believe that states can overcome the laws of orbital physics. Put simply, orbital warfare on any scale cannot occur without ruining critical regions of space (such as low-Earth orbit) for other purposes. As few as a dozen explosions--capable of releasing some 420,000 fragments of dangerous space debris--could effectively shut down this region for decades. Thus, to expect that countries will act against their own interests by using space in this way is counterintuitive. To date, we have seen a powerful logic of "environmental security" at work in space. When countries have crossed the line in terms of damage to space, they have retreated (or been pushed) backwards by the risk of a loss of access .

---

Moltz, James Clay. "Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First 50 Years of Space Security." Space Policy. Vol. 23 (November 2007): 199-205. [ 12 quotes ] [ page 202-3 ]