A reader, Apollo, writes:

Gary I would like to bring this article to your attention from the heritage foundation, what do you think is are the implications of the weponization of space and how should the U.S. handle it? "Weaponization of Space: Designing a U.S. Military Policy Toward Space That Is Based on Reality "

The authors start this article by saying the those against weapons in space start with a worldview that have the following attributes:

Attribute #1: Space is not yet weaponized. Attribute #2: The U.S. is not now militarily dominant in space. Attribute #3: Space is a value, not a place. Attribute #4: It is U.S. actions that will pro­voke a space arms race, not the inherent mili­tary advantages of controlling or denying access to space. Attribute #5: The military does not need to have on hand the capability to respond to ene­my attacks on U.S. space-based assets or the use of space-based assets by enemies to attack other targets.

The authors address this worldview with the following facts:

Fact #1: Space is already weaponized. Fact #2: The U.S. does not face an either/or choice between reassuring other states of its intentions in space and space dominance. Fact #3: The morality of weapons in space is derived from the ends for which they are used and how they are used, not their existence. Fact #4: Dissuasion is an option for confront­ing a space arms race. Fact #5: The spiral development approach to the acquisition of space weapons and other sys­tems can provide future Presidents with viable options for confronting enemy attacks in, through, and around space.

However, strategy teaches that you must first understand the philosophy of your opponent. There are a series of unspoken assumptions made by those who are against weapons in space. 1. Weapons and the military are the cause of wars not deterrence to war. 2. The US is an evil goliath bent on using its technology and wealth for world domination. 3. Space should be protected against any "exploitation" by a selfish culture that rapes the natural environment. Given this underlying philosophy, I doubt the authors' arguments are going to make much of an impression. Personally, I would like to see more of the selfish exploration of space by individuals rather than governments. Governments just extend their bureaucracy. Their have no clear goals in space (other than defense) and waste a great deal of taxpayer money. As a child that grew up dreaming of the colonization of space, I would like to see humanity moving out into orbit, then to the planets, and then to the stars, not as "government entities" but as private individuals seeking freer, better lives for themselves and their children. That is why I find these (here and here) developments so exciting.