Full-Spectrum Dominance and the Weaponization of Space

I have two sons and I will allow none of my children to serve in the United States Military. If you join the U.S. military now, you are not
defending the United States of America you are helping certain policy makers pursue an imperial agenda. -Karen Kwiatkowski,
retired Air Force colonel,as quoted in Why We Fight (2005)

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any
situation across the range of military operations.
http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289

For the joint force of the future, this goal will be achieved through full spectrum dominancethe ability of U.S. forces, operating
unilaterally or in combination with multinational and inter agency partners, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the
full range of military operations.
Additionally, given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas presence forces and
the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full spectrum dominance.
The full range of operations includes maintaining a posture of strategic deterrence. It includes theater engagement and presence
activities. It includes conflict involving employment of strategic forces and weapons of mass destruction, major theater wars, regional
conflicts, and smaller-scale contingencies. It also includes those ambiguous situations residing between peace and war, such as
peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations, as well as noncombat humanitarian relief operations and support to domestic
authorities. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Vision 2020
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a526044.pdf

Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The
globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between haves and have-nots. Accelerating rates of
technological development will be increasingly driven by the commercial sector not the military. Increased weapons lethality and
precision will lead to new operational doctrine. Information-intensive military force structures will lead to a highly dynamic operations
tempo. USSPACECOM Vision for 2020, capstone military template
https://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf

Its politically sensitive, but its going to happen. Some people dont want to hear this, and it sure isnt in vogue butabsolutely
were going to fight in space. Were going to fight from space and were going to fight into space
General Joseph W.Ashy Former COMMANDER IN CHIEF U.S. Space Command
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433750.
http://www.afspc.af.mil/About-Us/High-Frontier-Journal/High-Frontier-Journal-Archive
http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1010/101097.opin.opin.1.html

Now if the argument is whether or not the United States should be the hegemon is on the table, well, that's a different argument. The fact
is, the United States is the hegemon, and putting weapons in space will extend that period of hegemony into the foreseeable future. . . . A
hegemonic power, a strong power, willing to use its police capacity--and this is a police force, a space cop type of idea--can make the
global heavens an exploitable resource for all, whereas right now there is no guarantee even that if a corporation or a nation should go into
space and find wealth there that it could keep it or have a reasonable share of keeping it. Everett Dolman, professor at the Air Force
School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4666532

The resolution asks the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to begin negotiations that would lead to an agreement (or agreements)
that would prevent a space-related arms race. Virtually all nations have gone on record year after year since 1981 as favoring PAROS. The
most recent UN General Assembly vote was December 2, 2008. One hundred and seventy-seven nations voted in favor of the treaty
resolution The United States offered the only "no" vote. (Israel, as has been its custom, abstained.)
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/ethics_online/0029.html