Simple – debating whether or not the U.S. should deploy sky-sweeping, particle-beam lasers is fun for policy wonks like me and its my site.

Seriously though -- I initially intended to start this project with a broader, more topical question such as the war on terrorism, gay marriage, or global warming but I was concerned about overwhelming the project before it got started. I chose to start with a smaller, more focused issue to help pace the project's development and allow time for better tools and methods to evolve. I'm really not sure how this will work, if at all, and I wanted to build in a learning curve.

The space weaponization issue is ideal for this for several reasons. First, while interest in the issue has picked up recently with the expected release of the new U.S. National Space Policy, the issue is still not on the "national radar." This will hopefully keep the project from becoming too politically polarized while the system matures. Secondly, the extent and growth rate of the literature (journal articles, policy papers, books, etc.) on both sides is manageable so as not to create an undue research burden for users to keep up with. Finally, while the issue of space weapons has been debated since the beginning of the space age, there is still some room for compromise. While some might argue that the weaponization of space is inevitable, most would agree that there is still some uncertainity as to when and how that will happen.

However, I don't want to understate the importance and relevance of this topic. The debate over U.S. military space policy touches on many other current foreign policy debates and themes including: the increasing interdependence of the global economy, the future of arms control and international law, the potential for conflict between the U.S. and China, the limits or extent of U.S. military power and the legality and practicality of missile defense. If the debate seems wonkish or esoteric now it is unlikely to remain so over the next 5-10 years.