If we suitably widen our definitions of what constitutes military technology then despite the many calls to solidify outer-space treaties - the weaponisation of space has already happened. The cosy relationships between the US military, trans-national academic research and the usual corporate suspects such as Boeing, SAIC [note the CIA acronym], Raytheon and Halliburton* hint at vast targeting of resources in this area including worrying signs, according to ex L.A.N.L. employee Lauren Moret, of shifting nuclear powered systems out of the embargo'd, gravity well of the planet.

In 2001, a packed National Press Club in Washington DC heard testimony from a military whistle-blower who had been shown an array of satellite-type objects in high-earth orbit. On closer inspection he noticed and commented to a technician in charge of the equipment controlling these modules that they weren't pointing the usual direction to monitor terrestrial happenings but instead created a powerful mechanism for monitoring objects headed toward the earth. This system was operation decades ago so we can assume that things are way past this point by now and, given that the current US regime refuses to sign updated space weaponisation agreements, the desire to keep this expanding arena below the radar is paramount.

The reports of a "spy" satellite needing to be destroyed after 'breaking down' soon after arriving in its designated slot in orbit could well indicate that as well as the usual pseudo-concerns over Russia or terrorists obtaining the technology - the military are afraid to have the wider public become aware of just how advanced such systems are and their possible offence/defence purposes vis-a-vis extra-terrestrial intelligences. To achieve this feat - the Pentagon have authorised use of cutting edge weaponry - especially rush-equpiied for the task according the the UK's Guardian:

In a matter of weeks, three Navy warships - the USS Lake Erie, USS Decatur and USS Russell - were outfitted with modified Aegis anti-missile systems, the ships' crews were trained for an unprecedented mission, and three SM-3 missiles were pulled off an assembly line and given a new guidance system. 

..other reports have mentioned the use of exotic particle beam systems to ensure fast and comprehensive destruction of the device and its apparently polluting energy source. 

 
Just as with NASA's [see - DIA, NSA] obvious use of the Shuttle for new energy testing in space, some ET groups or federations will undoubtedly make decisions to disable or destroy any gadgetry that is inserted in high earth orbit or further even for what we see as benign, testing or research purposes. Whilst offensive terrestrial platforms for weapons may be tolerated - it's possible that simply dispatching satellite systems with dangerous powering mechanisms is sufficient for ETI to act and disable such equipment as part of the ongoing embargo on our civilisations move into space.

* Leuren Moret has recently highlighted the fact that Halliburton has become a dominant player in R&D related to deployment of advanced and nuclear powered space platforms.

-- 

U.S. to Shoot Down Its Own Spy Satellite: Navy Cruiser to Aim Missile at Satellite Before Re-Entry. [Feb. 14, 2008  Ned Potter]

The Pentagon says it will ask the Navy to shoot down a broken spy satellite that was expected to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in late February or early March.

In a briefing at the Pentagon, Defense Department officials said they believe about 2,800 pounds of the two-and-a-half-ton satellite could survive and crash, in pieces, on Earth. The satellite, launched in December 2006, broke down soon after reaching orbit. Officials say it was a "test bird," launched by the National Reconnaissance Office, but did not want to give more details.

Globalsecurity.org, a Web site that follows defense issues, has said the satellite is called NROL-21 and was testing new radar systems. Other sources called it USA-193. It was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by a Delta II rocket.

The chances of the debris actually hitting anyone are quite small, they say; 70 percent of the planet is water, and most of the rest is mountain, desert, tundra, or open farmland.

But the satellite does carry hydrazine fuel in a well-insulated tank, and the officials said they would like to destroy that tank to protect against the chance of its landing near people.

Hydrazine is highly toxic, and the tank would almost certainly leak. Modeling suggests that the tank, 40 inches in diameter, is the largest component likely to survive re-entry.

"That's our objective. Get rid of the hydrazine and have this fall in the ocean," said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefing reporters this afternoon.

"If we fire at the satellite, the worst is that we miss. If we graze the satellite, we're still better off because we'll bring it down sooner and more predictably," said Gen. Cartwright. "The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighs the regret factors of acting."

Some defense analysts said the U.S. has another, unmentioned motive: it doesn't want pieces of the secret satellite falling into the wrong hands.

"I think they are maybe afraid that pieces of it are going to end up in Russian or Chinese hands; souvenir hunters find this thing selling on eBay, and the Russians and Chinese will get into a bidding war to see who can get these pieces," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.

Cartwright disagreed. He said the charred wreckage that reaches Earth  if it is ever found  is unlikely to be of much use to an unfriendly country.

The Pentagon said it would deploy three Aegis cruisers, one of which would fire a small missile at the satellite. The other two would act as backups. The Defense Department says it has high confidence that the missile would launch  but actually hitting a satellite in an unstable orbit at 17,000 miles an hour is an iffy proposition.

"This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft," said Cartwright.

Officials didn't provide an exact date for the shoot-down, but said late February or early March was likely.

Other sources, who declined to be identified, said the Pentagon may be thinking of this effort as target practice. U.S. forces may someday want to destroy an enemy satellite in wartime.

The case is also potentially embarrassing to the United States in its relationships with other countries, said officials. The U.S. informed other countries when it realized the satellite was likely to re-enter, and has now told them of its plans to intercept it.

"We believe in an exchange of information," said Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffries, "and we believe in keeping them informed and we will live up to all of our international obligations."

In 2007, China successfully launched a missile to destroy a weather satellite  and the U.S. forcefully objected. The debris from the collision gradually spread out in a vast ring several hundred miles above the Earth, and many spacecraft, including the International Space Station, regularly passed through that ring. There have been no reported accidents, but the potential risk to orbiting vehicles was raised.

The Pentagon today said such a risk should not be created if the U.S. successfully destroys the spy satellite. The attempt would only be made when the satellite is within a few days of re-entry. Debris from a successful hit would mostly follow the satellite's original orbit, and soon burn up in the atmosphere.