We hit it!

According to one naval officer, the US tagged that dying satellite just now.
The Russians and the Chinese are livid, I'm sure.

It is interesting to know that the US military can actually do this. 25 years after SDI was first proposed by President Reagan, we are now starting to see what all that R&D is capable of.

However, the militarization of space is not necessarily a positive development. When Sputnik crossed American airspace (space-space?) in 1957, Eisenhower was correct not to accuse the Soviet Union of an intrusion on US sovereignty. The 1969 moon landing placed an American flag on the moon, to be sure, but Apollo 11 was careful to note that "we came in peace for ALL of mankind." Later on, the Apollo-Soyuz missions provided an important diplomatic example of cooperation -- or, at the very least, a shared expression of the West's and the Communist World's common humanity.  In other words, the civilized world had a tacit understanding that space -- even low-earth orbit -- was taboo as a strategic area of aggressive dominance.

We can probably compare it (imperfectly) to the dominance of the sea of the United Kingdom during the 19th Century. All the powers of Europe were tolerant, if not enamored, with the situation, and they tended to appreciate the stability that the UK brought to the sea.  As a seafaring commercial power, the UK had little desire to create war on the high seas, and many incentives to keep whatever peace existed there.  The other European powers, such as the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch, were happy to benefit from this arrangement; stability on the seas, and freedom from pirates and brigands, meant stability for international trade.  All nations benefited from this, and one of the reasons the European continent was relatively free of international conflict after Napoleon was because a benign hegemony emerged over one critical part of the earth -- the 70% covered by water.
Nowadays, we must admit that the US -- and its allies -- are equally dominant in space. A benign hegemon has emerged, and with it, commercial abilities to transmit information anywhere on the globe has flourished. If it is true that we live in an "information economy," it is also true that we have achieved it through our wiring of space.  Knowing that the United States can keep the peace in this arena can be welcomed for all those who benefit from the free exchange of ideas, and the lucrative opportunities of those ideas.

This of course brings us back to the weaponization of space. America must be careful about its abilities to project power in this new area.  For as much "hard power" as the US has, it is nothing compared to the so-called "soft power" that America has.  It is the power of our framing documents, which proclaim equality for every individual under the law, and freedom to choose his life as he sees fit.  It is the power of our way of life, which rewards hard work and ingenuity more than any other society on earth.  The military might America has pales in comparison to the dream of a Green Card.  For this reason, the US must continue to be a society to be emulated and dreamed for, rather than feared.  A mistaken attempt to control space militarily will make it harder to manage America's troubles on Earth's surface.

Nevertheless, new threats to the free exchange of ideas in communist China and a belligerent Iran have already emerged, and the Chinese have been preparing for this very day.  They are eager to head off this dominance, and we should not be surprised to see China's efforts to become a "space power" accelerate.  Our problem is not the free exchange of ideas; it is that our way of life is based on our common belief that the free exchange of ideas is beneficial.  There are many regimes who simply do not agree with us on this point.  These regimes will hold out as long as they can against the storm of free ideas, which gushes down from the heavens.  They will go for the satellites.  They are the harbingers of their doom, appropriate on the night of an eclipse.