1. The United States already has satellite killers, why shouldn’t anyone else?

You say the US has the ability to incapacitate the satellites of any other nation. Why, then, shouldn't other nations reserve the ability to incapacitate US satellites? Is the method of incapacitation particularly relevant?

2. The latest United States “space policy” declares that it will “deny access to space” to those players it deems hostile, which translates to pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground infrastructure.

If that document doesn't mean the US will deny access to space, what DOES it mean? Do you doubt the US wouldn't deny access to space to players it deems hostile if it could do so without reprisal? (See IRAQ, THE INVASION, for examples of US commitment to international cooperation.)

3. The US is planning to deploy space-based weapons (including nuclear weapons) to attack other objects in space and on the ground.

To quote your rebuttal: " So these accusations seem to confuse proposed projects (usually already rejected—that’s why the proponents go public with their ideas) or even Hollywood science fiction for actual hardware." In other words, the "planning" is not to be confused with "proposed projects" and "usually - - - rejected" means "always rejected". A stretch there.

4. The embryonic US “National Missile Defense” (NMD) system will give the US an unfairly asymmetric and destabilizing military advantage by threatening low-orbit satellites.

Your reply, that the Russians could do this too with an antiquated system designed to protect Moscow does not seem to respond adequately to, say, Chinese concerns. Would a responsible Chinese government forgo developing that capacity in light of the US actions?

5. Sensor tests of a proposed space-based missile interception system are first steps on the road to using such a weapon as an anti-satellite system.

Rockets launce satellites. Sensors to detect rockets in an aid to shooting them down could be used to prevent deployment of satellites.

6. The Soviet Union opted out of the “space arms race” in 1983 by declaring—and following—a moratorium on further testing of anti-satellite weapons.

So there could be no "moratorium" if the Soviets weren't doing it in the first place. And they couldn't "opt out". Ain't that an interesting argument for saying there's no need to match them, because they weren't active in the area in the first place.

7. The Soviet “killer satellite” of the Cold War was big, clunky, and ineffective, so no US response was needed.

So the Soviets ARE doing it, and the US needs to do it. I thought the US wasn't. See #s 1 & 2.

8. A “killer satellite” (like the Soviet weapon) is no more of a threat than any other kind of “satellite killer”.

I didn't understand your "rebuttal" to this myth at all. Seems to say the Soviets developed a good killer satellite and the US needed to do the same. I thought you have said the US wasn't.

9. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) prevented the development of orbital nuclear weapons and this success is an example for new treaties to do the same for anti-satellite weapons.

You say the Soviets demonstrated a capacity to do this, but didn't. Why have a treaty if there isn't the capacity? And if there is a capacity, and a treaty, and no one does it, isn't the treaty a success?

10. Without new treaties there is no legal protection for US military space assets.

The reply, that there is no protection at all without treaties would seem to negate your argument. For law-abiding nations. (See again, IRAQ, THE INVASION, for an example of a rogue nation acting in disregard of international agreements, treaties, laws and conventions.)

11. Rules and treaties can be helpful, even if they “leak”, because anyone breaking them can be identified and punished by the international community.

Your argument is that treaties are no good because anyone can violate them. That is true, in the case of rogue nations (see IRAQ, THE INVASION, for an example).

12. Other nations are justified in building “space weapons” because the US has done so, or is about to do so.

Your argument, that other nations are doing it because they assume the US is, and therefore the US must, could be countered if the US WASN'T and didn't declare it's intentions to do so. In other words, a treaty. Might work for some nations (again, see IRAQ, THE INVASION, for an example of dishonorable conduct by a rogue nation).