This is John Batchel, speaking with colleague Henry Sikolsky of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education

Center, about lower earth orbit and the militarization of lower earth orbit, which, according to

the space treaty is forbidden. But then again, Henry makes the case, and others have as well,

that the constellation of satellites we call Starlink and the

prospect of more of the same. Kuiper, for example, for Jeff Bezos and Amazon, not yet

deployed, but the plans are there. Do those constitute militarization of space?

Certainly, they are communications tools that can be used in the event of war fighting, hence the example of Ukraine.

Does that mean that anti-satellite weaponry into orbit is just answering a provocation already,

with Starlink and Kuiper and other systems from Russia, from Japan, from India, from other commercial enterprises. It's a question that has not

been answered yet. Henry Sikovsky on militarization in space and how we need to prepare for it and game it out.

Much more of this later.

I think the way to think about large constellations in low Earth orbit is that in the face

of possible anti-satellite threats like lasers that are based on the surface of the earth,

direct ascent, and even satellites that maneuver, they call them rendezvous satellites,

that could defuel damage or move out of proper orbit.

Against all these threats, the argument that has been made by our military is that if we have enough

small satellites in the thousands in lower orbit, it would be very difficult for anyone to disable the entire system,

and then therefore as a passive military defense against anti-satellite activity, which is present.

So you could argue that things are militarized to the extent there's anti-satellite problems already,

but that the small satellites that have large numbers in low Earth orbit will constitute a military defense.

I think that's going to be something that Trump administration is going to question.

And it's already begun.

...