Space has been militarized for over four decades. Should it now be weaponized? This incisive and insightful book argues that it should not. Since the cold war, space has come to harbor many tools of the tactical warfighter. Satellites have long been used to provide strategic communication, early warning of missile launch, and arms control verification. The U.S. armed forceSpace has been militarized for over four decades. Should it now be weaponized? This incisive and insightful book argues that it should not. Since the cold war, space has come to harbor many tools of the tactical warfighter. Satellites have long been used to provide strategic communication, early warning of missile launch, and arms control verification. The U.S. armed forces increasingly use space assets to locate and strike targets on the battlefield. To date, though, no country deploys destructive weapons in space, for use against space or Earth targets, and no country possesses ground-based weapons designed explicitly to damage objects in space. The line between nonweaponization and weaponization is blurry, to be sure—but it has not yet been crossed. In Ne ither Star Wars nor Sanctuary, Michael E. O'Hanlon makes a forceful case for keeping it this way. The United States, with military space budgets of around $20 billion a year, enjoys a remarkably favorable military advantage in space. Pursuing a policy of space weaponization solely in order to maximize its own military capabilities would needlessly jeopardize this situation by likely hastening development of space weapons in numerous countries. It would also reaffirm the prevalent international image of the United States as a global cowboy of sorts, too quick to reach for the gun. O'Hanlon therefore asserts that U.S. military space policy should focus on delaying any movement toward weaponization, without foreclosing the option of developing space weapons in the future, if necessary. Extreme positions that would either hasten to weaponize space or permanently rule this out are not consistent with technological realities and U.S. security interests....
|Title||:||Neither Star Wars nor Sanctuary: Constraining the Military Uses of Space|
|Number of Pages||:||173 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Neither Star Wars nor Sanctuary: Constraining the Military Uses of Space Reviews
O'Hanlon provides a realistic (if perhaps a little squishy) outlook on the future of space weaponization. Basically, he says it's not in the interests of the U.S. to weaponize, but acknowledges that it is likely to happen at some point. As such, he advocates a hedging strategy that staves off as long as possible through pragmatic regime-building while at the same time creating a foundational capacity for rapid launch, reconstitution, and latent weapons capabilities and programs that could be genned up quickly if need be. O'Hanlon advocates a middle ground between the hawkish weaponization crowd and the dovish cooperation crowd that is probably the more realistic and plausible than either.
This gets a 5 for existing and me stumbling upon it in a brick-and-mortar bookstore. How we, as a species, present ourselves towards the rest of the universe is likely to reflect on how we are treated .. if we are not alone and a very junior newcomer to galactic civilisation. It would be foolish to dismiss such an option. We should tread with care. Speaking for myself, I advocate sports in space.