El informe organiza las armas basadas en el espacio en seis categor\u00edas, con versiones cin\u00e9ticas y no cin\u00e9ticas de los sistemas Tierra-espacio, espacio-espacio y espacio-Tierra. De ellos, se han probado tres categor\u00edas mediante pruebas, implementaci\u00f3n o uso operativo. Varios pa\u00edses, incluidos Jap\u00f3n , Francia, Corea del Sur y los Estados Unidos , est\u00e1n expandiendo o defendiendo organizaciones militares espec\u00edficamente enfocadas en el espacio, declaran que necesitan expandir sus respectivas capacidades de armas espaciales.<\/p>\n
With the increasing militarization of space, there have been a number of efforts to find an international agreement to create controls on the use of space weaponry<\/a>. But there\u2019s a problem: How do you create a meaningful framework for a treaty against space weapons if no one defines them the same way?<\/p>\n It\u2019s an issue that Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies tackles in a new paper<\/a>, first viewed by C4ISRNET, in which he attempts to create a taxonomy of space weapons.<\/p>\n The report comes at a time when a number of countries, including Japan<\/a>, France, South Korea and the United States<\/a>, are expanding or standing up military organizations specifically focused on space, with officials in those nations hinting at, if not outright declaring, the need to expand their respective space weapon capabilities.<\/p>\n While the Partial Test Ban Treaty<\/a> and the Outer Space Treaty<\/a> place limits on the weaponization of space, Harrison argues there is no real consensus on what the weaponization of space means \u2014 even as it is becoming impossible to deny that a number of nations already have space weapons.<\/p>\n \u201cTo get to a consensus definition on what counts as a space weapon and what doesn\u2019t, you would need a treaty mechanism that is widely accepted,\u201d Harrison said. \u201cThe odds of that happening are slim to none. So I think in a practical sense, countries will continue to define space weapons to mean whatever they want it to mean to suit their own purposes. And we\u2019re going to have to navigate through that, in terms of communicating with allies and partners and communicating with the public.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople are still saying we shouldn\u2019t militarize or weaponize space. When you go through the framework, and you look at what countries have already done, I think you have to stop and say it\u2019s already been weaponized. And it\u2019s been that way for decades.\u201d<\/p>\n The report organizes space-based weapons into six categories, featuring kinetic and non-kinetic versions of Earth-to-space, space-to-space and space-to-Earth systems. Of those, three categories have been proven through testing, deployment or operational use:<\/p>\n\n