By Deploying Weapons in Space, Is the United States Opening a Theater of Engagement That Could Disadvantage the United States in the Long Term?

Abstract

Since man's initial contact with space in 1957, the U.S. and Russia have flirted with putting weapons in space. Today, two camps exist in the space weapons debate: sanctuary and weaponization. The sanctuary camp argues that space should remain free of weapons because it is in the best interest of the United States. The weaponization camp feels the U.S. dependence on space is too great to leave assets there unprotected. Weaponization is especially important because of the large dependence of the U.S. military on space for force enhancement purposes. This thesis examines some of the major arguments by evaluating them against the U.S. instruments of national power: diplomatic, information, military, and economic. According to this thesis' research, deploying weapons in space would disadvantage the United States in the long term. The evaluation of the options presented in chapter 3 led to the choice of continuing research and development with a limiting treaty (Option 3A) as the highest scoring option.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2001
Accession Number
ADA395205

Entities

People

  • Regis J. Baldauff

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Space

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Aircrafts
  • Artificial Satellites
  • Contingency Operations (Military)
  • Guided Bombs
  • International Law
  • International Relations
  • Military Applications
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Science
  • National Security
  • Recreation
  • Space Systems
  • Treaties
  • War Colleges
  • Warning Systems
  • Weapons Effects

Readers

  • Space Exploration and Orbital Mechanics.
  • Strategic Security Studies

Technology Areas

  • Space