James Moltz, The Politics of Space Security
- Author uses an environmental lenses to examine space policy
- 4 schools of thought: Space Nationalism, Tech Determinism, Social Interactionism & Global Institutionalism.
- Finds that environmental concerns play a heavier hand.
- Nuke tests in space are stopped once damage to satellites and possible harm to manned space flight is understood.
- - Van Allen Belts are made more lethal.
- - Also, ASAT test are addressed due to amount of debris.
- Space cannot clean itself like over environments.
- It is a benefits/costs analysis - neither side wanted to lose access or space capabilities so was willing to negotiate test bans.
Notes from Gloves: Moltz, Politics of Space Security 1-227 / coordinating national and commercial interests is the most important means to have space security 7 / three analogies – New World, sea and air power, Antarctica 13 / Gagarin and Glenn like Columbus and Vespucci 16 / space hasn’t been survival of the fittest 17 / commerce leads militarization, says seapower theorists 18 / dual and shared use of military and commercial space complicates militarization along seapower lines 19 / four schools of thought: space nationalism, technological determinism, social interactionism, and global institutionalism 23 / spacenat = “strong do what that can and the weak suffer what they must” 24 / space hegemony is spacenat writ large 26 / spacenat says nonstate actors got nothin’ 27 / globinst thinks space becomes a sanctuary from the evil of mankind 27 / Grotius and Kant favor globinst 28 / space sanctuary requires nations to forego some sovereignty 31 / techdet says tech will drive either space war Armageddon or cooperation nirvana 32-3 / tragedy of the commons follows techdet, as space players proliferate and free riders and bad actors mess it up for all of us 34-5 / socinteract sez politics determine what’s important 37 / socinteract constructivist 39 / author prefers a soft power approach 40 / it’s not a space weapon if it just passes through space 42 / space weapon is any system whose use destroys or damages objects in or from space, excepting dual-use, missiles just passing thru, jammers, or accidents; includes ABM and ASAT targeting space assets, and military tests that damage space assets (like nuke tests in space) 43 / maybe a better way to approach space is to treat it like a fragile environment, with an eye toward stewardship rather than sovereignty 43-4 / milspace restraint (from nuke tests, e.g.) due to space’s characteristics (don’t ruin it) 46 / main argument – environmental factors influence space security 46 / man-made radiation a physics problem 51 / space debris can multiply, as pieces hit pieces and make lots more smaller pieces 54 / interdependence doesn’t dictate cooperation, but does encourage it 56 / commercial and military space use (not space science) led to interdependence and cooperation 57-8 / actors learn from each other as they interact, which can lead to changed norms (the Reds aren’t all bad) 59-60 / nuke test in space broke several sats, and convinced the bipolar world to cooperate to keep space access safe 64 / early US-USSR space competition follows techdet and spacenat 71 / Schriever – future national safety may require space battles 95 / Ike cautious military space, JFK daring commercial space 106 / Berlin failure led to Soviet acquiescence to COPUOS resolution 110 / Soviet fear US would discover that there was no missile gap hurt cooperation 118 / impact of nuke tests in space may have influenced that part of the nuke test ban 123 / int’l restraint allowed civ, science, and mil supt in space 126 / Cuban missile crisis led superpowers to look for common ground, and space seemed suitable 135 / even LeMay recognized political elements 139-40 / personalities matter – Johnson in, Khrushchev out 142-6 / moon landing a propaganda defeat for USSR, close to impact of Sputnik 164 / Nixon and Brezhnev cooperation applied to space as well 172 / 1962-75 globinst 175 / national security fears and Reagan’s plan to dominate USSR led to spacenat 176 / Carter not good enough internationally to revive space coop 181 / Soviet systems couldn’t be stopped on a dime, like Buran, which was useless 218 / 1991 ended the cold war in space, as the USSR broke up 226
notes from seminar / weaponizing space doesn’t require weapons in space – control of ground, sea, air elements could protect ours and hold theirs at risk / three benefits from globinst – economic, political, no arms race / non-weaponization may reveal weakness, which is provocative / space weaponization could be the next upgrade to nuclear deterrence / weaponizing space cedes the moral high ground to seize the strategic high ground / weaponization leads to destabilization – every time