Home > Bibliography > View Citation

View Citation


Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]

Evidence Related to this Citation

U.S. Deployment of Space Weapons won't Initiate an Arms Race because Other Countries will Realize U.S. is not a Threat to Them
 
Hence, the argument that the unilateral deployment of space weapons will precipitate a disastrous arms race is misplaced. To be sure, space weapons are offensive by their very nature. They deter violence by the omnipresent threat of precise, measured, and unstoppable retaliation. They offer no advantage if the target set considered is not global. But they also offer no advantage in the mission of territorial occupation. As such, they are far less threatening to the international environment than any combination of weapons employed in their stead. A state employing offensive deterrence through space-weapons can punish a transgressor state, but is in a poor position to challenge its sovereignty. The transgressor state is less likely to succumb to the security dilemma if it perceives its national survival is not at risk. Moreover, the tremendous expense of space weapons inhibits their indiscriminate use. Over time, the world of sovereign states will recognize that the US does not threaten self-determination internally, though it challenges any attempts to intervene militarily in the politics of others, and has severely restricted its own capacity to do so. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]
No Other Nation would be Able to Challenge the U.S. in Space if it Deployed Space Weapons
 
And America would respond -- finally. But would another state? If America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take to achieve a minimal counter-force capability -- essentially from scratch -- would provide more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments in kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the US deploy weapons there -- at least for the next few years -- is extremely remote.
Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]
U.S. Dominance of Outer Space would Prevent Hegemonic Power Struggle
 
Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the US is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race is space. From low-Earth orbit (LEO), the enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space, or to readily engage and destroy terrestrial ASAT capacity, makes the possibility of large scale space war and or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote. Moreover, if the US were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient, such an action would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems. Should the US use its advantage to police the heavens (assuming the entire cost on its own), and allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of LEO could be viewed as a global asset and a public good. Much in the manner that the British maintained control of the high seas, enforcing international norms of innocent passage and property rights , the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst of economic expansion. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]
U.S. Dominance of Outer Space is Preferrable to Allowing another Country to Dominate
 
Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order, with the weaponizing state at the top. The action would be a challenge to the status quo, not a perpetuation of it. Such an event would be disconcerting to nations that accept the current international order (including the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within it) and intolerable to the US. ( More ... )
Dolman, Everett C. "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on Space Security. Washington, D.C.: , September 14, 2005. [ 4 quotes ]