> So moving to beam ASAT that can disrupt / destroy sensors precisely without adversely risking the space commons might not be a terrible development in terms of space arms race.
Um, lowering barriers for using weapons is obviously a bad thing: it means they are more likely to be used, and cause a response by the adversary. So unless you mean that this beam-tech should be freely shared all you're doing is increasing the risk to the commons.
But my larger point is this: the incredibly costs of space weapons only make sense if you think your adversary doesn't have any counter-move, this is what I meant by my supposition that USSP thinks space warfare is advantageous.
To illustrate: remote detection can be counteracted by masking and decoys, both of with are much more mundane than ASAT capabilities but will work pretty good for a fraction of the cost and without any risk at all to the commons.
Um, lowering barriers for using weapons is obviously a bad thing: it means they are more likely to be used, and cause a response by the adversary. So unless you mean that this beam-tech should be freely shared all you're doing is increasing the risk to the commons.
But my larger point is this: the incredibly costs of space weapons only make sense if you think your adversary doesn't have any counter-move, this is what I meant by my supposition that USSP thinks space warfare is advantageous.
To illustrate: remote detection can be counteracted by masking and decoys, both of with are much more mundane than ASAT capabilities but will work pretty good for a fraction of the cost and without any risk at all to the commons.