What assessment do M.V. Smith and Forrest E. Morgan share about deterring attacks on U.S. space systems?

• A. Our ability to deter potential enemies from attacking U.S. space systems can be strengthened by dispersing our military space capabilities across a greater number of platforms.
• B. Future wars will probably begin with salvo attacks on satellites to destroy an adversary's space capabilities.
• C. Future adversaries will avoid space combat due to risk to their own assets.
• D. Deterrence is easy with a single, dominant space platform.

Answer: (A)

The core idea is that effective deterrence of space attacks comes from making attacks harder and less attractive by spreading space capabilities across many platforms. Smith and Morgan argue that distributing military space assets reduces the payoff an attacker can achieve from a strike, because no single hit cripples operations and recovery becomes more difficult and time-consuming. This dispersion raises the cost, risk, and uncertainty for the attacker, which strengthens deterrence because potential aggression becomes less appealing when success is uncertain and rebuilding is slow. If capabilities were concentrated on a few dominant platforms, an adversary could threaten a decisive blow with relatively fewer targets, making deterrence weaker. The other statements either assume space warfare will always start with a damaging salvo, imply adversaries will avoid space combat outright, or claim deterrence is easy with one platform—all of which clash with the idea that resilience and extended reach through multiple platforms are what sustain deterrence.