| Abstract: | The debate about whether or not to weaponize space is contentious and sometimes heated. Arguments on both sides often ascribe to space-based weapons broad capabilities that are either technologically unfeasible or extraordinarily expensive to develop. Major questions many fail to address include what capabilities space-based weapons provide that land, sea or airborne weapons cannot, and what space-based weapons are likely to cost. This article evaluates the military utility and relative feasibility of space-based weapons to find that there are few missions for which they are uniquely suited. Barring dramatic breakthroughs in technology, land, sea and airborne weapons are more feasible and equally effective. |
