In Krepon's view, which approach should the United States take to preserve freedom of action in space?

• A. The United States should not jeopardize its advantages in space by pursing weapons.
• B. The United States should pursue space weapons to expand freedom of action.
• C. The United States should withdraw from space to prevent conflict.
• D. The United States should rely on allies to maintain space superiority.

Answer: (A)

The approach is to protect the United States’ freedom to operate in space by avoiding the weaponization of space. The idea is that adding weapons to space would invite countermeasures and spark an arms race among competitors, making space more fragile and contested. By not pursuing space weapons, the U.S. aims to preserve its advantages through non-weapon means—such as resilience, redundancy, and robust space infrastructure—while reducing the likelihood that adversaries see space as a battlefield.

Context helps here: freedom of action in space depends on reliable, uninterrupted access to satellites and data. Weaponizing space could provoke adversaries to develop defenses, countermeasures, or anti-satellite capabilities in kind, raising the risk of accidental or intentional damage to essential assets. Instead, focusing on norms, transparency, diplomacy, and resilient systems helps keep space operations stable and predictable, preserving the ability to act when needed without triggering unnecessary escalation.

Other approaches that rely on deploying space weapons, or withdrawing from space or relying solely on allies, tend to increase instability or dependence and can undermine real freedom of action.