Although Technically Possible, Political Constraints may Prevent U.S. from Attacking Neutral Space Systems
This discussion considers two possible strategic cases. In one, America joins a coalition against a second-tier power whose own space capabilities are limited and who relies extensively on leasing the commercial and military space assets of other nations for information systems, communications, and targeting data. In the other, America is in a coalition against a first-tier power which relies extensively on its own space systems. Which power is likely to be more vulnerable to our information operations?
The second-tier power clearly will not have the ability to challenge us in space. Blinding or destroying its satellite systems will be relatively easy, and its ability to damage our satellite constellation will probably be limited. It is this scenario which makes the "information RMA" so appealing, as it conjures images of American precision-guided munitions ravaging the enemy's infrastructure while any precision-guided munitions the enemy might have lie unused for lack of sensors to guide them. But what of the intelligence provided to this adversary by neutral states or commercial interests? This question, if raised, is usually brushed aside by noting that we can blind neutral satellites too or pressure neutrals not to provide such information to the enemy. The problem, however, should not be taken so lightly.
We will, almost certainly, be technically able to blind neutral space systems as they pass over a theater of operations, but we will probably be unable to do so politically. Worse still, apart from the difficulty of verifying whether neutrals are providing such information, we will probably have virtually no leverage with which to pressure them to stop selling intelligence to our adversaries even as we are fighting them. To understand the problem, we should cast the question of information operations in the paradigm of trade and commerce in time of war. From that standpoint it becomes clear that we will be unable politically to shut off the flow of information to the enemy.
Kagan, Frederick W. "Star Wars in Real Life: Political Limitations on Space Warfare." Parameters. (Autumn 1998): 112-20. [ 2 quotes ]