Which of the following is NOT an approach to deny potential adversaries the benefits of attacking satellites?

• A. Striking a potential adversary's terrestrial-based space weapons before they can be employed.
• B. Developing defenses to the extent feasible and affordable.
• C. Dispersing space capabilities across a larger number of platforms.
• D. Developing terrestrial backups to space support wherever possible.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is reducing how attractive attacking satellites is by making space assets harder to disrupt and easier to recover. Striking an adversary’s terrestrial-based space weapons before they can be used is an offensive action aimed at nullifying the attacker’s capability, not at denying them the benefits of attacking satellites through protection, redundancy, or continuity. It shifts the dynamic through preemption rather than strengthening the defenses and resilience that keep space operations going even if an attack occurs. By contrast, developing defenses to the extent feasible and affordable directly raises the cost and difficulty of an attack; dispersing space capabilities across more platforms reduces the risk of a single successful hit; and developing terrestrial backups ensures missions can continue even if space assets are degraded.