"Because we depend so heavily on space capabilities, we must be prepared when directed to confront adversaries on the high ground of space," acting Air Force Secretary Peter Teets told Congress last month. "If [diplomatic or nonlethal] measures fail, we reserve the right under international law to take defensive action against an adversary's space capability."
While I would expect rivals or potential enemies to try and block efforts to defend our space assets, I am amazed that some over here would also oppose our efforts:
Yet critics suggest that it is a small step from monitoring US satellites to attacking other satellites. To them, the administration is overreacting. China and Russia, they note, are pursuing new laws to outlaw weapons in space, and would be drawn into a space arms race only if the US went first.
"They will go there if we go there," says Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information here. "If somebody else did go first, we could go second very quickly and probably better."
China and Russia only proposes international laws to hobble us until they can compete. They will go there whether we do or not. It is absolutely silly to think otherwise and it is amazing that an American would suggest we should let a potential enemy gain the advantage on the assumption we will simply catch up! Even several years of disadvantage could be exploited to our disadvantage. And if we fall behind, why would we automatically catch up?
Seize the high ground. This is what we've done. Now we must defend it. I won't trust the good will of other potential space rivals.
