Putting an expensive space-based missile defense system would only encourage rogue nations to build cheaper systems capable of taking the space-based hardware out of service, said Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute.

"Im worried this will only cause an arms race in space," Eland said.

The Commission to Assess United States Security Space Management and Organization report released Jan. 11 was correct in pointing out that satellites should be hardened against attack though, Eland said.

Williamson Murray of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, Va., agreed and said it would be far easier for a nation with a rudimentary missile program such as North Korea to launch a missile to low Earth orbit and take out defense satellites, than to actually strike the United States.

Commercial satellite operators wont pay to harden their spacecraft because stockholders would protest against the high cost, however if a nuclear weapon was exploded in space, the same stockholders would call it "an act of God," and hold the operators blameless, Murray said.

With an economy increasingly dependent on space-based technology, "we have the most to lose up there," Chris Hellman of the Center for Defense Information based here said. But stopping potential enemies from attempting to sabotage these systems might prove difficult, he added.

"How we can keep others from developing these technologies, Im a little bit gray on," Hellman said.