A.F., thanks for pointing out how hollow this paper is. I found more at their site on Space Assets and the War in Iraq:
Instead of seeking dominance in space, the United States national security interests are best served by a "space assurance" posture. Space assurance requires better monitoring capabilities, so that troubling developments or anomalous events can be discovered quickly. A space assurance posture also requires new initiatives to lessen U.S. vulnerabilities in space or at ground stations servicing space assets. The United States must be prepared to respond quickly to troubling developments. Continued laboratory research and development into space warfare capabilities could help reinforce caution in other states, given the ability of the United States to compete effectively in this realm.What a notion. "Surrender is peace," how Orwellian.
A good defense in space does not require going on the offense. Space assurance, unlike space dominance, promises the continued benefits to the United States of the twin revolutions in military affairs and space-aided commerce.
At the bottom of each of these notions is the idea that no one country should ever become so powerful that it "threatens" another, no matter how morally superior that country may be. So despite America's century-long history of liberating third world countries and defending the western world from the hordes, we hear this kind of thing again and again.
How fitting it is that a Frenchman would remember to stand up for us in support of our strategic strength. Also, from what I understand, France is not as far behind us technologically, if at all.