become a lost art in government. The intra and interdepartmental coordination of the liability treaty, described in chapter 6 above, typified the sterile paper coordination process particularly when compared to the discussions at the ACC.
While the ad hoc approach generally has allowed the unfettered development of technology to drive what would become accepted practices and customs, two major exceptions to this approach were the bilateral Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) and Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Treaties. ASAT truncated development of weapons lethal to spy satellites while the ABM treaty curtailed the development of antimissile technology. Clearly, certain policy considerations underpinning the efforts to achieve ASAT were consistent with Eisenhower's strong desire to have "open skies"-the freedom of passage for spy satellites in outer space so as to preclude a nuclear Pearl Harbor. More recently, development of technology in support of missile defense initiatives has tested the limits of the ABM Treaty.
As the Air Force considers the "operationalization" of outer space as analyzed by Gen Thomas S. Moorman Jr.'s Blue Ribbon Panel and/or the development, implementation, and placement of force projection weapons (beyond force-enhancing "eyes and ears" systems) in outer space, it must revisit the policy issues underlying the Eisenhower administration's efforts to establish the free passage of intelligence-gathering devices in outer space. Reconsidering these issues is critical given that the unrestricted movement of intelligence-gathering devices in outer space exists as a result of commonly accepted custom and practice. Such accepted custom and practice could change rather quickly should nation-states determine that such free passage is inimical to their national interests. Military history has taught us a Newtonian symmetry regarding military weapons/measures; that is, for every weapon/measure, there will be at least an attempted countermeasure or system.
The positioning of force projection weapons in outer space could result in the loss of our force-enhancing eyes and ears in outer space and recession of the freedom of passage in outer space as a principle of international legal custom and practice. Other nation-states might target our force enhancing systems because they might be unable or refuse to differentiate between our force projection and force enhancement assets. Or they might even view the force enhancing assets as hybrids. The proliferation of expensive civilian assets further complicates the issue. These civilian satellites also would likely be at risk since other nations
88
