Is American Dependence or Strengh to Blame for Adversaires Development of Counterspace Weapons?

Part 2 of Chris Stone’s rebuttal of “resiliency” to protect space assets.


In the same STRATFOR article written by Mr. Omar Lamrani, the author states that “The current dependence on space…could give adversaries incentive to attack its infrastructure in orbit.” This entry will discuss this false notion that military dominance in space or at least the capability for offensive deterrence breeds war and vulnerability breeds peace.

It’s not the dependence on space or its “strength” in space that gives adversaries “incentive to attack [U.S] infrastructure in orbit”, it’s our vulnerabilities that create that incentive. Yet for some reason, people have viewed strength as the catalyst for war rather than its deterrent and view vulnerability as a measure of security. As one space writer put it, “Deterrence is by no means assured, it could break down by conscious choice or by accidents, uncontrolled events, or inadvertence…Mutual vulnerability in space could serve, in part, to keep warfare in space from occurring.”[i]

One of the problems…

View original post 826 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s