real world. Optimization of individual safeguard means or combinations of safeguards for acceptable effectiveness and comprehensive projections of expected absolute and relative effectiveness require in-depth investigations beyond the scope of this study. A qualitative impression of relative effectiveness can be conveyed by indicating whether a safeguard appears applicable in only a counterthreat role, in only a countervulnerability role, or in both, and this indication is included in Table 5-3. Degrees of provocativeness can be estimated qualitatively by informed judgment, and this estimation is incorporated in Table 5-3. Obviously "low" or "moderate" degrees of provocativeness are preferable to "high" provocativeness. Costing of the candidate safeguards identified would require specialized studies, but it is reasonable to assume that, in a general way, cost varies in the same sense as degree of activeness and provocativeness. Based on these comments, Table 5-3, in conjunction with the threat and vulnerability matrices, provides an initial perspective on the array of possible safeguards. Six kinds of safeguards emerge which appear to be of priority importance. These are shown in Table 5-4. Table 5-4. PRINCIPAL SAFEGUARDS TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVE o Self-defense o Resident inspection o Electronic warfare/electronic o Public discussion countermeasures PASSIVE o Space surveillance o International agreements o Design for survivability
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==