Space control and global hegemony
Abstract This article argues that in addition to ideology and an ensuing discourse, one—if not the only—effective grand strategic means for a great power to establish global hegemony is through space control. Today, the sole power with both the will and the capability to achieve the grand strategic end of hegemony is the United States, which spends nearly as much on space and armaments as all other countries combined. However, time is not on the side of the United States. Unless it proves able to secure control of space in the coming few years, the European Union and Russia will hardly consent to U.S. domination of space—and through it world politics. Thus, military space control is not the only way ahead.
Space Weapons: Crossing the U.S. Rubicon
In the next decade, planned U.S. military activities in outer space will cross several important thresholds. By 2008 the U.S. Missile Defense Agency intends to deploy a test bed of space-based kinetic-energy kill vehicles (KKVs) to destroy high-speed collision test targets that mimic nuclear-armed reentry vehicles in the midcourse of their arc through space. In early 2006 a Missile Defense Agency satellite experiment, NFIRE, is planned to attempt to intercept a rocket in or near boost phase. Beyond missile defense, these U.S. space-deployed weapons will have broad implications for the entire space sector. Because a KKV designed to intercept missiles could also function as an antisatellite weapon (ASAT) and as a means to deny other countries' access to space, U.S. adversaries might feel compelled to develop means to counter these and other U.S. space weapons with their own systems based in space or on the ground. In light of these impending developments, this article examines the possible roles for space weapons in addition to missile defense-for protecting satellites, controlling space, and projecting force-in terms of capabilities and cost.1 Our analysis is intended to help policymakers in the executive and legislative branches to make more fully informed decisions about missile defense and related near-term U.S. military activities in space, taking into account implica-
Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy
Abstract : Space-sanctuary advocates will appreciate what follows as a comprehensive summary of their position; likewise, space-weaponization advocates will have to address these issues if their belief (that American preemptive weaponization of space best serves this nation) is to remain on firm ground. The following summary of the case against space weaponization proceeds from the historical trend of US nuclear and space policy to consider domestic and international political concerns. It then addresses the space-weaponization is sue by briefly examining adversarial potential (the threat), technological limitations, financial trade-offs, practical considerations of military strategy, and the emotional appeal of global security and wellbeing. This article is not meant to be an in depth study of each facet of the debate; rather, it is a terse summary of the space-sanctuary argument aimed at opening the debate.