2.  Yes—already used for military purposes, is transversed by weapons systems (ICBMs)  No—militarization is distinct from weaponization

3.  Basic question: can we control our base nature?  Capabilities  Current research trajectories  Historical evidence  Human nature  Military advantages  Vulnerability and temptation

4.  China  EMP strikes  Russia  “Space Pearl Harbor”  Terrorists

5.  Alternatives work better (decoys, hardening, redundancy, etc.)  Latent capabilities foster deterrence  Other areas are more vulnerable  Tech barriers

6.  Asset protection  Benign hegemony (Dolman)  Casualty aversion/modern warfare  Intelligence  Power projection/Ultimate High Ground  Terrestrial force enhancement

7.  Balancing—symetric and assymetric  Erodes current space advantages  New center of gravity/vulnerability  Resentment/coalitions  Tradeoffs  Trailblazing costs

8.  China deterrence  Economy (protection, tech)  Proliferation  Terrorism

9.  Arms control  China—relations, war  Economy—cost, commercial sapce  International cooperation  International law  Nuclear power in sapce  Space—debris, cooperatin  War—accidents, arms racing, escalation

10.  Weapons types  Directed energy  Explosive  Kinetic  Weapons targets  Space to Space  Earth to Space Weapons (ESW)  Space to Earth Weapons (STEW)

11.  ASAT systems  Directed energy (lasers)  Missiles (ground and space-based)  Missile Defense  Space-based laser  Space-based interceptor (Brilliant Pebbles)  Rods from God/Kinetic Weapons  Space lasers

12.  Dominance  Restraint  Sanctuary  Treaty  Ban/formal agreement  Code of Conduct