Similar to the blockade function is that .of denying access to various facilities. NASA has made the launch facilities at Cape Canaveral available to other countries on a contract basis, but the United States could refuse such services at any time. In orbit, enemy astronauts could be denied access to a space station by securing and defending its airlock. Alternately, enemy astronauts could be denied access to transport vehicles by "hijacking" such vehicles. The distinction between "blockade" and "denial of access" is that the latter uses less force. Orbital facilities provide convenient platforms for installing RF transmitters which could be utilized for direct broadcast to enemy nations, that is, for disseminating propaganda. The electrical power supplied by a power satellite to a foreign nation could be denied by shutting off the power beam. Alternately, power could be stolen from power satellites owned by foreign nations by diverting the power beam. Modified SPS facilities might project an image of increased military strength. This could include showing a "military presence" in space by stationing troops at the LEO base or the GEO base. A credible second strike capability could be claimed if directed energy weapons (DEWs) were installed aboard power satellites and the COTVs, or if RV launchers were installed aboard SPS facilities in space. Enhanced survivability of the military command and control apparatus would be a credible claim if a military command post were actually installed aboard the GEO base or a power satellite. 3.4 Credibility of Threats We now want to examine the extent to which the various threats discussed above are credible. The credibility of a particular postulated threat depends upon the level of technology available to both the attacker and defender, and on the proposed use of that technology to accomplish military goals. The available technology is a function of time. For the current study, the following periods are of interest:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==