[Cincinatus]

Instead of having a space architecture that consists of a few big satellites that are complex, expensive, and difficult to replace, the United States should move to a model consisting of many inexpensive micro-satellites that offer the same capability. Other nations are already moving in that direction.

We've already done this. Moreover, GPS, comsats, and reconnaissance assets all orbit at varying altitudes and inclinations. We have as distributed a space architecture as is technically possible.

What we really need is better situational awareness in space -- who else is up there, where they are and what they are doing in both space and time. This need preceeds space-based (or even ground-based) weaponry. But to unilaterally give away our option to deploy space weapons would be foolish beyond measure. Needless to say, that's exactly what a Democrat administration would do.

[jimtorr]

What we really need is better situational awareness in space -- who else is up there, where they are and what they are doing in both space and time.

I am happy to say that we have already been there and done that. There is a wide ground-based network of telescopes to monitor orbital space. In fact, there is a new, open, program in the works to place cameras on satellites to scan orbital space.

[edpc]

Odd how those that wistfully declare "weapons and war should be kept out of the heavens" usually don't have any faith in God or the concept of Heaven.

[Laserman]

Well said. Knowledge of what is in space is key. And controlling space is also critical. If we have the ability to determine who can put systems in space, we can prevent the nutjobs like Iran, Korea, etc. from threatening us from space.

SDI type weapons in space are purely defensive. Your not going to take out cities or kill millions of people with a space based laser (death star advocates aside).