An Analysis of the Relationship Between U.S. Space Power and Geopolitics

Many people crow about how technology is making geography obsolescent. Better tanks, better guns, computers, stealth capabilities, and the myriad other advantages are pointed to as examples of how America is becoming too advanced to worry about petty geopolitical concerns. However, there is no technology that inspires this kind of puerile arrogance like American space capabilities. What the arrogant do not realize is that space has its own geopolitics; utilization and weaponization of space may overcome geopolitical obstacles and conditions on earth, but is subject to geopolitical equivalents in space.

The Decisive Advantages of Space Power

The capacity of space power to overcome earthly obstacles is indeed amazing. Many of the necessities to which geography was an impediment (communication, transportation and range, for instance) are to a significant degree conquered by space power. In no institution do the effects of space power show themselves more prominently, or are more indispensable, than in the U.S. military.

As the potency of space power becomes increasingly clear, the military is making great efforts to integrate space technology with their conventional forces.[1] Military operations have made the move from being simply supported by space assets, to becoming “space-enabled”; that is, space has become so integrated into the military that it is unable to function properly without benefits of space power.[2] Since “Operation Desert Storm”, often called the “first space war”, use of space technology has increased exponentially.[3] In “Operation Iraqi Freedom” the U.S. military used forty-two percent times the amount of bandwidth dedicated to the use of space technology than “Operation Desert Storm”.[4]

Space power is better able to answer the timeless questions of warfighting information requirements, namely: Where am I? Where are my allies? Where is the enemy?[5] (Incidentally, these questions are also questions of geography.) Through satellite technology, warriors have better situational awareness than ever before, and consequently a decisive advantage on the battlefield.

A technology that has gained much recognition because of its use for situational awareness in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is Blue Force Tracking (BFT).[6] This technology tracks friendly units at the brigade level and below, and makes that information available to the units that need it.[7] This capability was utilized most notably in the capture of Saddam Hussein, but its true value was proven by its effectiveness in preventing fratricide at the tactical and individual soldier level.[8]

This is just one of many U.S. space advantages. Satellites and space technology provide more than just improved situational awareness. They give greater precision in locating targets, enabling more effective and efficient use of munitions.[9] They can detect and defend against nuclear missile attacks.[10] Radar sensing from space is sufficient to enable tracking of small, mobile targets on both the ground and the air, and over much larger areas.[11] Most importantly, American forces in the field enjoy a greater resilience from “interference”, adverse weather, and attempted deception through the great diversity of sensing means and abilities.[12]

A nation’s strength is in more than its force of arms, however. It must be economically prosperous and have a stable, peaceful society. The advantage of U.S. space power is more than just military; the immense infrastructure in space is also beneficial to the civil and economic sectors of society.[13] Without the bounty of civilian endeavors to fund a military, and, more specifically, a space program, America would not enjoy the advantages that it does.[14]

The United States of America currently enjoys “supremacy in space, and in the employment of space-based technologies.”[15] However, what this does not say is that having supremacy in space means having supremacy on the Earth:

"Space power is… about planning, coordinating, and delivering overwhelming firepower and dominant maneuver in the conventional battlespace, and about providing critical intelligence and command and control in the irregular battle. Space power keeps our footprint small and light, while allowing us to be agile and flexible, and making our air, land, and sea power more effective and lethal. Lastly, space power… [opens up] more strategic and operational options for our civilian leadership and military commanders; it provides us with a decisive qualitative and quantitative edge over our adversaries.[16]"

Space frees the U.S. from geographical concerns and increases the wealth and strength of the nation. To control space is to dominate the Earth.

The Vulnerabilities of Space Power

Despite the overwhelming advantages that space power provides, it does not bestow omnipotence on the wielder. There are some significant drawbacks and weaknesses to reliance on space power.

Space power and capabilities are incredibly expensive. The current budget at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in excess of seventeen billion dollars[17], and that is only a civilian space program. New technology and capabilities in space will be prohibitively expensive, as the costs will go beyond the significant amount of funds that are already dedicated to space. The American space program, then, is vulnerable to economic assault or simple recession.

Take, for instance, the Reagan-era “Brilliant Pebbles” space program, which called for multiple small missile interceptors to orbit the earth.[18] Unfortunately, studies showed that in a best case scenario it would take one thousand six hundred of the little interceptors to take down a single nuclear missile.[19] This program was recently proposed again, and the estimated cost for orbiting just a thousand of the interceptors was around sixteen billion dollars.[20] It would therefore cost nearly twenty-two billion dollars just to defeat a single missile.

Development of space power comes with a hefty opportunity cost. Resources are limited, and dedicating them to space power means cutting costs in other areas. Conventional forces are hit the hardest: armed forces cannot afford the costs incurred by sustaining large numbers of troops.[21] Fewer bodies mean a lessened capability for ground coverage, patrols, and occupation. It also means that military forces deprived of their connection to space are more vulnerable to geopolitical conditions.

Space assets are vulnerable to the ground forces, even, or perhaps especially, to asymmetrical or irregular military forces, such terrorist or special forces.[22] Utilizing space power requires stations on earth; ground stations are vulnerable to attack from the ground. While destruction or hostile takeover of such stations would not destroy space infrastructure, it would render space assets inaccessible, and therefore useless.

It is possible to hide from satellites by exploiting blind spots in coverage, such as underwater, underground structures, and maskirovka. In fact, a strategic emphasis on stealthy forces, such as submarines, would not defeat American supremacy in space so much as avoid it.[23] The result is much the same. Some terrain is difficult for satellite imagery to penetrate, such as in Afghanistan, and building decoy or underground structures can deceive or defeat attempts at sensing. Utilizing such cheap counters, while not perfect, go a long way in reducing the advantages of space power.

American space power, while supreme now, is not guaranteed to remain so. Space is not the exclusive province of America, and other nations, covetous of the benefits of space, are even now venturing into space.[24] Neither is space power “a substitute for all forms of military capacity nor for the economic, diplomatic, and political power on which not only American security in general but space power specifically depends.”[25] These are the greatest weaknesses of space power, namely that it is dependent on other factors, is not itself a solution to every geopolitical problem, and any nation with the will and means can make a bid to challenge America’s absolute power in space. However, there is one more weakness.

The Geopolitics of Space: The Greatest Strength and Weakness of Space Power

To say that outer space has its own geopolitics seems disingenuous; after all, geopolitics deals with the mutual influences of earth and man on one another, and what results from this interaction. The connection fails at a cursory examination: space is not the earth. The impulse to view it like this must be overcome; for space is no longer an unreachable and unusable void. In many ways, space is the new sky, and, by extension, space power is the new air power.

The development of space power may influence the United State’s alliances and destabilize the international order.[26] There is no telling what reaction developing space weapons and power will provoke from allies and enemies alike. Will allies become alienated by an even more powerful America, or will they be comforted? Will enemies view it as a threat and respond, or will they be pacified? No matter what their reaction, there is one indisputable fact: space affects geopolitics on earth, and therefore is itself part of geopolitics.

Militarizing space could be provocative to other nations. “The deployment of space weapons… would accordingly increase sensitivity to vulnerability and needlessly heighten fears and tension.”[27] This heightened fear, the argument goes, would lead to an inevitable first strike, crippling America’s capabilities right when they were needed the most.[28] Although this concern is rather pessimistic, the lesson it provides is to use prudence and caution while developing space power so that a potentially stabilizing defense policy does not backfire because of geopolitical implications.

Furthermore, space power is not, as its names implies, of a solely military nature. It has influence on a broad spectrum of national interests, both civilian and military. Commander John Klein of the United States Navy writes, “[The] moniker space power is an ill-suited strategic context for considering the diverse national interests and activities in space. For many countries - especially the United States - activities in space affect their diplomatic, information, military, and economic interests.”[29] Space and space power has become intimately involved in the U.S. national interests and must therefore figure a large part in geopolitical considerations.

Just as space influences geopolitics on earth, so too do earthly politics affect the arena of space. Even those nations unable to field a space program can still affect U.S. policy in space through attacks on ground facilities that communicate with satellites and through other tactics designed to negate the advantages of American space power.[30]

Those nations with the wealth, technology and ambition necessary to venture a space program are even more pertinent to the geopolitics of space. Opposing space programs and power can threaten U.S. superiority in space, and thereby affect behavior and policy. The threat of force by other nations in space also brings into relief the purely geographic concerns of space: the locations of assets, virtual chokepoints, fields of vision, distance and obstacles and advantages of the different areas of space.

The recent Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test illustrates the political and geographical concerns of space. On January 11th, 2007 the Chinese launched their first successful anti-satellite missile, destroying one of their own low-orbit weather satellites.[31] Many experts contend that the Chinese weapon is primitive, and only able to engage larger, lower-altitude targets efficiently.[32] Indeed, “the same technology [Chinese ASAT capability] is unlikely to guarantee results at much higher altitudes, the communications and navigational satellites are probably still safe…[as are] the satellites collecting electronic intelligence.”[33] The importance of geography in this case is obvious: the higher the satellites are in space, the more safe they are.

However, developing space power and weapons has an effect on more than just the practical demands of defense. They can have a far-reaching impact on both domestic and international politics. For instance, regard the political consequences of the Chinese ASAT missile test, reported in the Washington Times:

"The Bush administration has suspended plans to develop space ventures with China, including joint exploration of the moon, in reaction to Beijing’s Jan. 11 test of an anti-satellite weapon that left orbiting debris threatening U.S. and foreign satellites…suspension is meant to signal U.S. displeasure with the anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) test, as well as Beijing’s failure to provide an explanation for its space arms program.[34]"

While this response is not cataclysmic, it does indicate a further estrangement between two of the most powerful nations on earth, brought about by conflicting space policies.

Part of the theory of geopolitics is that environmental conditions have a profound effect on the development of a people and their culture.[35] While man has been superficially aware of space ever since he could look up at the stars, it is only recently that society has become space-conscious. That is to say, man has gained an understanding of space as a place that can be conquered and used for his purpose, as opposed to some nebulous place as distant from the real world as an abstract thought. The new consciousness of space influences the formation and character of man in much the same that climate and terrain have for centuries.

Space power can have an intoxicating effect on the human psyche. While pursuing its interests in space, the U.S. must be wary of overblown or ideological thinking. There are already murmurings of using space power as a means to pacify the earth and achieve utopian goals such as ending armed conflict, and ushering in an era of peace and prosperity underneath the benevolent hegemonic power of America.[36] Approaching space power through this frame will undoubtedly lead to conflict, both domestically and abroad, and may result in a number of undesirable consequences, the worst of which would be war. However, this reaction to the new possibilities of space does illustrate just how profound an impact the introduction of a new geographical condition can have on the character of a nation.

Space power unable to affect geopolitics would be nothing more than an impotent curiosity. However, that is the paradox of space power. Without it its influence in geopolitics, it would be next to useless, but its entrance into the geopolitical realm makes it vulnerable to geopolitical considerations. Therefore, its strength is also its greatest weakness.

Conclusions

Space is an open playing field (and it will be until mankind starts constructing space navies), and the geopolitical conflicts and rules that would normally play themselves out on earth, but cannot because of America’s smothering supremacy, will now play themselves out in space. New rules and constraints will form once space becomes more crowded, and a significant part of what makes space power so effective (namely, that the United States is the only one who has it) will be lost. The only solution is to be constantly several steps ahead of competitors, and to maintain an edge in technology, integration, proliferation and, most importantly, the capacity to defend the American infrastructure.

Space power is inherently geopolitical, both in what it affects, and what affects it. When applied to earth, space power overcomes geographic obstacles, and decisively enhances the military, economic, and civil sectors of society. The United States of America owes much of its current influence, strength and prosperity to its space programs. Space power is as vulnerable to conventional geopolitical power as geopolitical power is vulnerable to it. In the end, space power is not revolutionary to the theory of geopolitics; it is merely a new, albeit important, consideration. A powerful new piece has been added to the game, but the rules remain the same.



[1] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 156.
[2] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 86.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 89.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mickey McCarter, “Bigger Role for Blue Force Tracking,” Military Information Technology 8, no. 4 (2004), http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=504#top.
[8] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006): 89.
[9] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[10] Lt. Gen. Lawrence J. Dodgen, “Space: Inextricably Linked to Warfighting,” Military Review 86 (2006):86.
[11] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 170.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 143.
[14] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameter 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[15] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[16] John B. Sheldon, “Selling U.S. Space Power Short,” The Space Review (September 4, 2007), http://www.thespacereview.com/article/948/1.
[17] Michael D. Griffin, complier, “N.A.S.A. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html.
[18] Theresa Hitchens, “Return of the Star Warriors,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63, no.1 (2007): 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[22] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Robert Preston and John Baker, Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century, ed. Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeremy Shapiro (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press, 2002), 160-161.
[25] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[26] Steven Lambakis, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” Policy Review 105 (2001): 43.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] John J. Klein, “Space Power: An Ill-Suited Space Strategy,” Air and Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (2006): 77.
[30] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.
[31] Bill Gertz, “Officials fear a war in space by China,” The Washington Times, January 29, 2007, Front Page.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Norman Friedman, “War in Space?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 3 (2007): 90-91.
[34] Bill Gertz, “US halts cooperation in space with China,” The Washington Times, February 5, 2007, Front Page.
[35] Geopolitics. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geopolitics.
[36] Nader Elhefnawy, “Four Myths about Space Power,” Parameters 33, no. 1 (2003), http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/elhefnaw.htm.