Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization Debate

The debate over space weaponization is typically cast in simplistic, unidimensional terms, while many participants caricature their opponents as naive pacifists or rabid warmongers. This article redraws the subject more realistically. First, it surveys the question of what systems are truly space weapons and what developments would constitute weaponization. Second, it describes six distinct schools of thought regarding weaponization: idealist, internationalist and nationalist sanctuary theories, and preemptive, utilitarian and hegemonist pro-weaponization perspectives. Third, it analyzes and largely debunks the leading arguments which hold that space weaponization is inevitable. Finally, it suggests reforms to make the debate more sensible and productive.     

An Assessment of Anti-Satellite Capabilities and their Strategic Implications

ABSTRACT

The success of space-based communications, navigation and reconnaissance programs – in both the commerical and military arenas – presents a significant vulnerability. Intuitively, as the economic importance and military indispensability of space systems grows, so will their attractiveness as targets. Although attacks against satellites would involve significant operational challenges, economic costs and diplomatic risks, it is well within the realm of technological possibility. For example, China's decision to research ASATs is an indication of its long-term strategic goal of weakening America's monopoly on military space capabilities. This essay describes the current capabilities of anti-satellite (ASAT) technology, assesses its military impact and considers its broader policy and security implications. In light of the broad implications of ASAT weapons on the debate about missile defense in particular and space weaponization in general, the author concludes that the best way to protect America's space-related economic and military functions is to avoid ASATs development.     

Space Strategy Considerations for Medium Space Powers

When compared to the strategies of superpowers, the strategies of medium powers are often different due to a medium power's frequent desire to act independently while being comparatively more constrained by available material and fiscal resources. For this reason, the space strategy of medium space powers is different from either emerging or super space powers. The fundamental purpose of any medium space power's space strategy should be to ensure access to and use of celestial lines of communication to support national objectives, whether during peace or conflict. When deciding how best to protect its interests in space, a medium space power will have a variety of non-military and military options. These options may include diplomacy, economic measures, benign defensive technologies, or the employment of offensive actions in space. Though the debate surrounding the weaponization of space continues, it is worth noting that the application of the inherent right of self-defense provides the authority for states to protect their assets or interests when attacked, and this protection may include the use of force in space, if needed.     

The Inevitability of the Weaponization of Space: Technological Constructivism Versus Determinism

The concept of national security is based on the need to maintain the safety and security of the population. In 1957, the Soviet Union was the first state to threaten this safety in space with the launch of Sputnik. Although Sputnik did not pose a credible threat, it was perceived as such by the Western world. As the space race intensified in the 1960s, efforts were made to prevent the development and use of space weapons. With the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, space weapons were effectively made unlawful, with signatories agreeing to forgo these expensive technologies. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, factors and efforts are beginning to converge that indicate the inevitability of space weaponization. Based on a new concept of technological development, this article proposes that as technology advances, space weaponization not only is likely, but indeed is inevitable in the near future. Grounded in the competing theories of technological determinism and social constructivism, I offer a new theory that incorporates both and introduces new components to analyze a near-future technological timeline for space weapons. I argue that the development of these weapons is inevitable and should therefore be accelerated in the United States, given the country's position as the lone superpower, to command and control the space commons. If the United States leads this drive for development, then in the end, as with thermonuclear weapons, space weapons will make the world more, not less, secure, and will contribute to the spread of democratic peace and globalized capitalism.     

U.S. Initiative to Place Weapons in Space: The Catalyst for a Space-Based Arms Race with China and Russia

The United States must ensure sustainability and stability in space by protecting its satellites to safeguard national security and economic vitality. Concerns for obtaining this security are mounting, as U.S. satellites are increasingly vulnerable to developing threats from adversaries. This article proposes that the United States will eventually initiate the weaponization of space to defend its space systems and supporting infrastructure. The consequence for such an initiative will manifest a pronounced counteraction from China and Russia, the key spacefaring adversaries of the United States. Such a counteraction will consist of a space-based arms race, as each nation will jockey to position itself as the dominant power in space.     

Cascading Crises: Orbital Debris and the Widening of Space Security

The term space security is often used, but seldom analyzed. This is a significant gap in the literature of space politics, as it posits considerable implications for debates on how to deal with a runaway growth in the space debris population, and how we argue for or against space weaponization. Securitizing all threats in space may lead to greater difficulties in enacting debris removal measures, as these systems are inherently dual-use. A case is made for keeping space security in its traditional connotations of national security so that environmental issues related to orbital debris can be resolved with reduced security concerns in a space development framing.     

VIEWPOINT: EXPANDING THE HIGH FRONTIER: SPACE WEAPONS IN HISTORY

A hot topic within national security policy circles involves space weaponization. Concerns about a future arms race, cost, operational capability, and other problems appear to be new. However, past space weaponization efforts have addressed these same issues. Current policy makers can look to World War II German experiments, the Soviet Union's co-orbital anti-satellite system, and the United States' X-20 Dyna-Soar proposals to explore these same challenges. A look to the past might help policy makers to consider many of these same questions that past governments have wrestled with in any attempt to gain an operational status for a proposed space weapon.     

Viewpoint: Space System Negation in the Context of Space Policy and Law

For 21st century warfare, space is the unquestioned new high ground for military operations. The United States (U.S.) has relied on satellites for significant support to military operations and activities since Desert Storm in 1991. Indeed, the U.S. enjoys an asymmetric advantage in modern warfare utilizing our space capabilities. States with interests hostile to the U.S. believe that the significant dependence on space assets by the U.S. military could become its “Achilles heel” in future combat operations. What are the legal and policy bases for the U.S. to respond to threats to space systems that provide support to our military forces? Should the U.S. rely on space arms control initiatives to ensure security in space? This Viewpoint analyzes the international space law regime and U.S. National Space Policy framework applicable to the conduct of military space operations and activities, including the use of force in space to protect and defend our satellite networks as well as our military forces.     

US grand strategy and its contradictions

US global expansion at the beginning of the 21st century is far more ambitious than anything pursued or imagined by previous imperial powers. American elites are presently seeking to reshape the world geopolitical terrain, with hundreds of military bases in more than 120 countries added to hundreds more installations across its own territory. This new militarism is rooted in a new imperialism, part of a grand strategy that aspires to nothing short of world domination—the project of neoconservatives that received new life with the Bush presidency and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It involves far‐reaching changes in the US armed forces, including high‐tech innovations, weaponization of space, new global flexibility, overall growth of the war economy, a bolstering of Empire through economic globalization, military interventions in the Middle East and beyond. As in the past, Empire cannot long survive without mass belief‐systems such as nationalism, religion, and political ideologies that can justify burdensome adventures and deflect public attention away from the terrible costs of war. In this context an urgent question for the fate of the planet is whether US ruling elites can for long sustain their drive toward global domination where the preferred mode of rule is military force and political coercion. It is argued here that the contradictions of US grand strategy are bound to intensify over time, leading to more social polarization, ecological crisis, blowback, and various forms of local and national resistance to Empire. These contradictions can be expected to sharpen both domestically and globally.     

Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict

Economic sanctions are frequently used as a tool of foreign policy, described by some as falling between diplomacy and military force. An important question regarding the use of sanctions is whether they can function as an alternative to military force by demonstrating the sender's resolve and making military force unnecessary, or if their use tends to result in an increased probability that military force will be used. Based on a theory of sanctions as costly signals, the authors develop and test hypotheses regarding the relationship between sanctions and military force. The results show that after a sanction occurs, there is a significantly increased probability of a use of military force. Democracies, because of their propensity to tie their hands with audience costs, while at the same time facing domestic pressure to devise sanctions to be costless to the sender, are highly likely to be involved in a militarized dispute after using sanctions.     

Astropolitics and the “Exopolitics” of Unacknowledged Activities in Outer Space

The role of unacknowledged classified programs remains an enigma for fully understanding activities in space and the study of astropolitics. Classified programs by law are not publicly announced, and remain inaccessible to all except those with valid security clearances to be briefed about them. In the United States, waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs are the most highly classified programs conducted by the military and intelligence community. The same classification protocols are also required of private contractors working with U.S. military departments and intelligence agencies on classified programs. As space continues to grow in its national security significance, the number of these unacknowledged programs pertaining to space is likely to grow significantly from its current number. This requires adopting the necessary conceptual tools and methodological flexibility for investigating unacknowledged activities in space. This also extends to evidence concerning unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial life. This article suggests that “exopolitics” is a unique multidisciplinary approach to extraterrestrial life that offers a helpful set of conceptual tools for studying unacknowledged space activities, and complements the field of astropolitics.     

Military Space Cooperation: Aligning the Balance of Power and Building Common Interest

The strengthening of alliances through cooperative military activities is a long-established tradition for land, sea and air forces. With the rise of spacepower over the last 50 years, and the growing number of spacefaring and space-using nations, military space programs provide new opportunities for military-to-military cooperation. Military space programs often represent the most technical and secretive of capabilities and there may be risks in sharing the inner workings of these capabilities, even with trusted allies. Is there a way to share the benefits of these strategically and tactically important capabilities in a manner that enhances the peace, justice and security of all stakeholders? Many nations around the world are answering ‘yes’ to this question as they enter into agreements on cooperative space projects for commercial, environmental and military security. More and more they are using their space programs to realign the old balance of power and create new common interests. As the number of spacefaring nations increase and the number of space users grow around the globe, the traditional space powers, such as the United States, need to reconsider how to integrate military space cooperation in their strategies of strengthening alliances and building common interest.     

Space Weapons: Alternatives for Today

The massive budgets for U.S. military space and missile defense represent the beginning stages of a new arms race in space. But with the United States facing record budget deficits and record defense spending and with the international community expressing increasing concerns about the weaponization of space, the next administration faces some real questions about how hard it wants to push for new attack weapons in space.

No matter how the upcoming U.S. presidential election turns out, the next administration faces dilemmas with respect to the lack of a justifying threat, the technical difficulty and cost of placing weapons in space, how far its international partners want to go with missile defense and with weapons in space, and, finally, the type of international negotiations in which it is willing to engage. Each of these situations creates alternatives for today, alternatives which the next U.S. President will confront and the international community can and should engage.     

The role of East Timor's security institutions in national integration – and disintegration

Abstract

This article examines the interplay between security sector developments and national unity in East Timor since the Indonesian occupation ended in 1999. Particular attention is paid to the regional distinction between Loromonu and Lorosae – people from the west and east of East Timor, respectively. In 2006, East Timor experienced a crisis that saw the disintegration of the military and police forces, and widespread violence that led to massive internal displacement. It was during this crisis that the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction first emerged as a major societal cleavage. The article argues that the independence cause and the guerrilla force Falintil had been an important focus of East Timorese national unity in 1999. In the years that followed, however, the implementation of flawed security policies led to new military and police forces that were politicized, factionalized and lacking in cohesion. Prior to the 2006 crisis, the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction was primarily an issue within the army. As the crisis escalated, however, the violence was to a large extent framed by the east–west dimension, and popular perceptions of the military as ‘eastern’ and the police as ‘western’ hardened. A year after the crisis, little if any progress had been made towards reducing the increased salience of the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction in society. The main internal security challenges – gang activity, the unresolved issue of the so-called ‘petitioners’, and the destabilizing role played by fugitive former head of military police Alfredo Reinado – all had an east–west dimension. The article also finds that new initiatives aimed at reforming East Timor's military and police forces appeared to be lacking in both depth and relevance for addressing the country's new level of internal division, and its immediate, internal security challenges.     

Explaining Japan's Tortured Course to Surveillance Satellites

On December 25, 1998 the Japanese government reinterpreted a long‐standing policy prohibiting the use of outer space for military purposes by announcing its intention to develop a network of domestically produced and deployed “information‐gathering” satellites to be utilized primarily by the Japan Defense Agency (JDA) and other national security institutions. This decision is important in its own right—for one, Japan is a major player in the space technology arena—but also because of the precedent it sets for other areas of technology and military policy in Japan today. As many observers have noted, Japan appears to be undergoing a broad reexamination both of its view of the appropriate level of interaction between government bureaucracy and industry and of its military security strategy in the first decade of the twenty‐first century. The case of surveillance satellites links these two areas together, offering broader lessons for the course of Japanese policy in numerous areas in the future.     

To revise or not to revise: the ‘peace constitution’, pro-revision movement,and Japan's national identity

Why do conservative nationalists in Japan continuously seek to revise the constitution despite the past failures, and what is the likelihood of successful revision and its impact on Japan's norm of pacifism and its use of force? The article offers an analytical framework for the issue based on national pride and national security, and argues that the ‘revisionists’ seek to create a new national identity, one that infuses a greater sense of national pride among the public and enables the exercise of collective self-defense, thereby removing Japan's postwar psychological and institutional limitations on nationalism and military activities. The LDP's 2012 draft is most explicit and ambitious in this regard, with the current revision attempt under Abe having the highest chance of success since the 1950s. Successful revision would significantly expand Japan's security activities, particularly within the framework of the US–Japan Security Alliance, and entail the end of Japan's unique postwar institutionalized pacifism, although the norm of pacifism will linger on as a constitutional principle. For a smoother return to the international military scene, the Japanese government must distance itself from historical revisionism and utilize its enhanced military role to promote regional public goods rather than merely protecting its narrow national interests.     

Constraining war: Human security and the Human right to peace

Conclusion The explicit articulation of a cosmopolitan conception of human security and a corresponding right to peace is a positive development in global politics, inasmuch as it decenters the state in our understanding of the human community and delegitimizes organized violence as the generally accepted means for the “continuation” of realist politics. I have argued that just war theory, when defined in suitably narrow fashion, helps to contribute to our thinking on issues of human security in several ways. First, it provides a stringent normative framework for a reasonable humanitarian justification of the resort to force. Second, it enables us to conceptualize significant moral and legal constraints on war and thus on the powers of states to wage war, thereby displacing the use of force from the statist paradigm of security. Third, it contributes to the delegitimation of unjust wars, that is, military actions undertaken for any purposes other than human security. Fourth, insofar as it provides a justificatory basis for the increasing demilitarization of society, it may influence the progressive and just pacification of global politics. As long as the types of human wrongs that present the gravest threats to human security continue to haunt the global community, there remains a need to be able to respond effectively so as to protect the rights and well-being of individuals. This need poses a genuine dilemma for humanitarian morality and politics, insofar as many of the military capabilities required to defend and to aid vulnerable persons can also be the source of threats to human life and welfare. Yet the existence of this dilemma need not lead us either to apathy or to cynicism. The nexus of human security, the right to peace, and just war theory offers a resolution to the traditional security dilemma by challenging the realist rationale for aggressive militarism, and by supporting the emergence of global security structures and processes guided by the humanitarian norms of just peace. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A28BB021 00002     

Buttery Guns and Welfare Hawks: The Politics of Defense Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies

In this article, we present a new theory that, given the economic consequences of military spending, some governments may use military spending as a means of advancing their domestic non‐military objectives. Based on evidence that governments can use military spending as welfare policy in disguise, we argue that the role of ideology in shaping military spending is more complicated than simple left‐right politics. We also present a theory that strategic elites take advantage of opportunities presented by international events, leading us to expect governments that favor more hawkish foreign policy policies to use low‐level international conflicts as opportunities for increasing military spending. Using pooled time‐series data from 19 advanced democracies in the post–World War II period, we find that government ideology, measured as welfare and international positions, interacts with the international security environment to affect defense spending.