Absolutely, and I'm leading by example. I want to point out that Canada was the first country to join the U.S.-led moratorium on destructive tests of anti-satellite weapons in space, so I think we're doing a good job on this.
I think dissuasion is a wonderful word. It's slightly different from deterrence. It brings in more political tools, to my mind, so thank you for that question.
I think resiliency and redundancy are really valuable for dissuasion. If you can reduce the value of a target and the impact that disrupting a specific capability would have, you dissuade targeting that capability. I think we're seeing the effect of that already with the gradual transition towards distributed space architecture and large constellations of satellites, where the capability of the system is distributed across many different objects in space and not concentrated in one. That also applies to distributed ground station architectures so you don't have one critical point or node in a space system.
I think we are seeing the value of that. Even if we talk about the potential fear that has been raised over nuclear weapons in space, it's aimed at the perception of an invulnerability being developed through resilience. That's why I think these capabilities go hand in hand with the diplomatic side. Canada's Department of National Defence has been a great participant, alongside Global Affairs, on the development of norms in outer space. I think we should continue along that trajectory.
I'm not sure how dissuasive weapons would be in outer space. It's a really bizarre environment where things are moving at incredible speeds. Orbital manoeuvres are not straightforward. I think there's a lot of opportunity for misperception, accidents and activities that can have a long-lasting detrimental effect on everybody in outer space, so the focus on having different systems on earth is valuable.