The U.S. preeminence in outer space can be seen in comparisons of various nations' spending and resource commitments to space. Nearly 60 cents out of every dollar spent globally on space is spent by NASA. The US military space budget similarly outpaces that of the rest of the world. As a reflection of its national commitment to space, the United States dedicates more money per capita toward space than any other nation.
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a supporting argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a related argument.
[Samuel] Huntington implies that other nations would only enter an arms race to preserve the balance of power. But what if that balance of power was already overwhelming in favor of one side to begin with? Currently the United States has no peer in the world either economically or militarily. The United States has become the world's sole remaining superpower. If the United States added space weapons to its already massive arsenal of weapons, would this change the balance of power sufficiently to require other nations to respond? This is doubtful. Any other nation - China, Russia, France, and others - would have to simultaneously develop a robust terrestrial military capability while at the same time engaging in an arms race in space. ( More ... ) Hyten, John E. A Sea of Peace or a Theater of War: Dealing with the Inevitable Conflict in Space. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, April 2000. [ 8 quotes ]
The choices made now about which space programs to pursue and how to formulate rules and engage in agreements about conduct in space will set the tone for space operations and strategic relationships for years to come. The United States, in particular, as the most influential user of space, has a great opportunity to shape the future. These issues have been visited before, most notably during the Cold War. But context is important, and a number of changes in political, strategic, and technical context have occurred in the last twenty years—changes that may lead to new policies regarding space weapons. This revisit finds the world with the United States as the single dominant space power, without the peer competitor relationship of previous years. At the same time, satellites and services from them, the use of which is not at all exclusive to space-faring nations, are much more deeply ingrained in the international economy than in the past. And the number of states with the ability to build and launch satellites,[3] or the aspirations to do so, has grown steadily. Grego, Laura. "Statement of Dr. Laura Grego." Testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. Ed. . Washington, D.C.: , May 23, 2007. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 3 ]
It must first be noted that the US level of reliance on space for its defense and security interests remains unique in the world. As already recalled, this reality is related to the particular history of the political and military position of the United States; it also reflects the need to capitalize on an already developed powerful industrial base and know-how that has helped America reinforce its international status as a political and economic superpower. Possible "peer strategic competitors" such as Russia or China have either lost a large part of their ability to compete in these high-technology fields or have just begun their entry in the "race." Moreover, other military doctrines or different political objectives may not consider space as such a central issue even if it is widely accepted that satellites will have an increasing role in global security. Pasco, Xavier. "Enhancing Space Security in the Post Cold War Era: What Contribution from Europe?." Perspectives on Space Security. Ed. Audrey M. Schaffer. Washington, D.C.: Space Policy Institute, December 2005. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 54 ]
The situation is further complicated by the evolving relationships between the various space-faring states. On one hand, there is growing interest in more multilateral space efforts. For example, two days prior to the conference, Russia and the EU announced plans to expand their cooperation in space development. At the same time, many states worry about the future of US space efforts and the likely impacts of those efforts upon them, as the United States operates as a "space hyper- power." Indeed, one theme of the opening speaker's remarks, and of the conference in general, was that the United States is the largest, most important space power, with the widest array of capabilities and greatest financial and technological resources devoted to space. US decisions affect space programs worldwide. In space policy, all roads eventually lead to Washington. The preeminence of the United States can be seen in comparisons of various nations' spending and resource commitments to space. Nearly 60 cents out of every dollar spent globally on space is spent by NASA. The US military space budget similarly outpaces that of the rest of the world. As a reflection of its national commitment to space, the United States dedicates more money per capita toward space than any other nation. Of the world's top five space organizations (in terms of spending), three are American: the Department of Defense, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Center for Naval Analysis. China's Space Program: Civillian, Commercial & Military Aspects. Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analysis, October 6, 2005. [ 6 quotes ] [ page 3-4 ]