Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?

By Yousaf Butt | 22 July 2008
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Article Highlights
- While offensively potent, space weapons don't offer any defensive capabilities that could protect U.S. satellites.
-In fact, there are many other smarter, more cost-efficient means in which to safeguard Washington's enormously important space assets.
-Whether intended for defensive purposes or not, a U.S. push for space weapons could signal to its adversaries that they, too, need to strengthen their space capabilities, potentially igniting another arms race.


Both presumptive presidential nominees--Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama--have called for strengthening and/or increasing the number of international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation should they be elected president. An important new pact for them to consider is an agreement that restricts the weaponization of space. Not only are space weapons expensive and provocative, they're also useless: They simply cannot protect us.

Over the years, many voices in Washington have called for green-lighting space weapons as a way of neutralizing the threat to U.S. satellites. For instance, the 2001 U.S. Space Commission report warned against a "Space Pearl Harbor" and advocated that, "The [United States] must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space." It went further to suggest that the Defense Department "vigorously pursue the capabilities . . . to ensure that the president will have the options to deploy weapons in space."

Throughout this debate, it's almost taken as an article of faith that space weapons can be defensively useful. Yet, there's little technical basis to support this belief: While certainly offensively potent, space weapons are defensively ineffective. More...