Is Space Weaponization Inevitable? (Part 1)

Short answer: Yes

Long Answer: It's complicated.  Within 10 years, maybe not, within 50years, probably, within 100 years, definitely. 

Even Longer Answer: 

    When speaking of the future of space colonization, many individuals and groups downplay or even assume that the military or weapons will play little part in the outward expansion into the solar system and further into the wider universe.  There are many laudable and even well-intentioned (and also not-so-well-intentioned) reasons to oppose the weaponization of outer space.  But my thesis is that weaponization is inevitable.  What backs this up?  Just all of HUMAN HISTORY!  :)
But more specifically, militarization in general and weaponization specifically is inevitable BECAUSE of commercialization of space, not in spite of it.  In reality, the phenomena of industrialization, commercialization, and militarization are entwined and interdependent. 
Not in any particular order, but the first reason is the nature of nation-state rivalry and the balance of power.  As launch costs are lowered, there will come a tipping point in which the commercialization of space in cislunar and farther afield will increase manifold as investment in space becomes more attractive.  A new colonial space scramble would start in order to establish assets on the moon and other celestial bodies.  Incidently, there was an FAA ruling on business regulation on the moon.  :)  Because the commercial rewards will increase the home-country's economic-base, the laggard states will then be put at a disadvantage, upsetting existing balances of power.  Rivalry over control of Lagrange points and other critical points for interplanetary commerce will further drive nation-state militarization of space in order to maintain freedom of the seas, or rather the æther.  And of course to protect assets from rivals or more aptly to maintain parity in order to not fall behind.   

There are many historical examples of these dynamics at play. The first and second waves of European expansionism offer up some lessons.  The first wave was set off when across-the-sea navigation became technologically feasible in the 1400s, pioneered by Portuguese explorations down the west coast of Africa.  Then the New World became an object of European nation-state rivalry when Columbus touched foot onto the New World.  A reason for this expansion was partly catalyzed by demand for goods from the Orient,

notably spices and silks (thus the name of the Silk Road).  The middlemen in this overland trade were the Ottoman and Venice merchants.  Merchants in the west such as Portuguese and Spanish wanted to find oversea routes to the East in order to profit and cut out the middlemen so to speak.  Finding these new overseas routes eventually led to rise of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires followed then by the English, French, and Dutch.  The shift of power in Europe shifted west from the Mediterranean (such as Italian trading city-states).  As trade was developed, triangular trade patterns emerged between Europe, the Americas, and Africa.

The second wave of European colonialism was in large part the "Scramble for Africa" in the latter half of the 19th century.

From wikipedia:
"The 'Scramble for Africa' is the popular name for the invasion, occupation, colonization and annexation of African territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914. It is also called the Partition of Africa and the Conquest of Africa. In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it was 90 percent of the continent, with only Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Liberia still being independent."

Further down, strategic nation-state rivalry is posited as a reason for setting off the scramble:

"The rivalry between Britain, France, Germany, and the other European powers accounts for a large part of the colonization.  While tropical Africa was not a large zone of investment, other oversea regions were. The vast interior between the gold and diamond-rich Southern Africa and Egypt had strategic value in securing the flow of overseas trade. Britain was under political pressure to secure lucrative markets against encroaching rivals in China and its eastern colonies, most notably India, Malaya, Australia and New Zealand. Thus, securing the key waterway between East and West – the Suez Canal – was crucial.
 Slaves captured from the Congo aboard an Arab slave ship intercepted by the Royal Navy (1869). One of the chief justifications for the colonization of Africa was the suppression of the slave trade.
The scramble for African territory also reflected a concern for the acquisition of military and naval bases, for strategic purposes and the exercise of power. The growing navies, and new ships driven by steam power, required coaling stations and ports for maintenance. Defense bases were also needed for the protection of sea routes and communication lines, particularly of expensive and vital international waterways such as the Suez Canal.
 Colonies were also seen as assets in 'balance of power' negotiations, useful as items of exchange at times of international bargaining. Colonies with large native populations were also a source of military power; Britain and France used large numbers of British Indian and North African soldiers, respectively, in many of their colonial wars. In the age of nationalism there was pressure for a nation to acquire an empire as a status symbol; the idea of 'greatness' became linked with the sense of 'duty' that many European nations used to justify their imperialistic ambitions."

In no small part, the unfolding of the first and second industrial revolutions played parts both in nation-state rivalry and outward expansion of these states to new markets and an increasing need for raw resources as industrial inputs.  The advent of steam-power and new production methods catalyzed an explosion of innovation and industrialization of Europe and the United States among other nations.  Increasing need for resources drove further territorial expansion as well as a need to expand markets for these newly produced goods.  Technologies were developed which greatly enhanced military capability, further increasing an industrialized nation's power.  Inventions in transport and communications technologies made longer global supply chains possible.  Moreover, military power was used to expand and protect these supply chains, and of course, investors' capital assets which both fed and took part in these global supply chains.  Expansion into space may follow a similar pattern, especially as Space development is a technological and capital intensive process. 

In the next part of this series, I will explore other related drivers which will make weaponization of space inevitable.