Moore, beyond a shadow of a doubt, takes a liberal institutionalist view towards space and military actions in space.

Unilateral military actions in space will not guarantee American security; they will guarantee conflict, and possibly a new cold war.

  • A vigorous space-control capability and weapons in space would be regarded by many states as an expression of contempt for the global norms of the international nation-state system and a challenge to their sovereign rights.
  • Eisenhower firmly believed in space for peaceful purposes, turning aside proposals by CSAF Thomas D. White and others to pursue space weapons programs. In spite of their criticism on the campaign trail, Kennedy and Johnson would ultimately uphold Eisenhower's space for peaceful purposes policy.
  • Unilateral space dominance would be viewed by many nations as an exercise in imperial arrogance.
  • In contrast, a treaty to ban space weapons can potentially deter any nation, including the US, from testing and deploying the dangerous hardware necessary for space dominance (Moore uses "deterrence" here in a much looser fashion than Schelling, et al., in 632).
  • Governments of any type attempt to maximize their own freedom of action. Moore agrees with Dolman that America is a relatively benign state, but differs in his belief that unilateral space dominance is a bridge too far that other nation-states will not accept.
  • The ASAT threat against which space-control would be deployed is not realistic for more than a handful of advanced industrial nation-states. Even then, it is difficult to contemplate that Russia or China would accept the consequences of deploying ASATs.
  • Ballistic Missile Defenses are a Janus-faced proposition. What is defense against missiles to the US is offense against satellites to the rest of the world.
  • Other nations are likely to assume the worst about America's military plans for space. If the US talks about unilateral space dominance (in joint and service military doctrine and other literature), then the leaders of a few nations will believe that it is achieveble and try to stop it.
    • The US must resist applying a Monroe Doctrine analogy to space, where all other states are to stay out of the US sphere of influence as it extends into space.
  • A great nation founded on the rule of law can afford to be generous, visionary and bold.
    • What could be bolder and more visionary than leading the world to a treaty that would ensure that space remains free of conflict?
  • If the US talks of friendship with China while building a space-dominance capability, it may find itself in a new, expensive and potentially dangerous cold war.

To obsessively assert that one's nation is incomparably more virtuous than every other nation in the world is as bizarre as it is self-defeating. Yet in the end, that is the meaning and the message of American exceptionalism and ultimately the drive for space dominance.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.