may be unable or unwilling to differentiate between military and nonmilitary assets. However, if analysis determines that there is a reasonable, probable, and predicable threat to this nation's national interest or terrestrial humankind's existence from an extraterrestrial force (meteor or alien driven), then there are indeed strong considerations supporting the development of and positioning of such force-projection weapons in outer space to protect and defend life on this planet. However, if the development and positioning of such force projection weapon systems is intended for the sole purpose of controlling terrestrial nation-states or terrestrial humankind, the answer is far more problematical.
As the United States has already learned with respect to its global positioning assets, once mined over for use to the earth's body politic, such assets are difficult to retrieve for national security purposes. On the other hand, our current technical capabilities make unlikely the development and launch of any unforeseen hostile offensive weapons into outer space by another earth-bound nation-state. Assuming such, should the US initiate an offensive arms race in outer space that would likely place its eyes and ears at risk? Currently, probably not. Given advancement and higher standards of living associated with the use of outer space now afforded all of terrestrial humankind, all of which benefits are premised on the principle of free passage, outer space is perhaps presently best left preserved as all of terrestrial humankind's asset. Finally, by internationalizing the benefits derived from outer space, perhaps the assets generating such benefits can be made inviolate.
89
