Analysis Brief

PrintPrint CiteCite
Style: MLAAPAChicago Close


Toward American ‘Space Dominance’

Prepared by: Michael Moran
December 5, 2006


Fateful decisions over Iraq dominate the American foreign policy and national security debate at the moment, yet at least part of the Pentagon is focused like a laser beam on the cosmos. A report in October alleged China had “dazzled” (Defense News) a U.S. satellite with a ground based laser—that is, painted the satellite with the laser in a test of its ability to blind the U.S. military in times of crisis. The Pentagon has avoided specifics about the report, but soon afterward the Bush administration released an unclassified version of its new U.S. National Space Policy, which goes far beyond previous policies in asserting America’s right to respond forcefully to such threats. Bill Martel, a space policy expert at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, tells in this podcast that the new space policy “sounds like a precursor to the weaponization of space.” Supporters readily concede the point. “Space supremacy is now the official policy of the U.S. government,” writes Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard.

Space policy traditionally applied primarily to the science and economics of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s efforts to send satellites aloft or to mount ambitious exploration programs. Even today, the public associates “space policy” more with things like NASA’s December 4 decision to work toward establishment of a Lunar Base Camp (National Geographic) by 2020 than with military affairs. Yet for years now, national security issues have driven much of American space policy, and claim an ever larger share of funding for space programs than purely scientific pursuits.* Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s 1983 proposal for space-based missile defense, the military’s share of U.S. space spending has more than tripled. Related Pentagon-led efforts to create a National Missile Defense system have cost about $100 billion (PDF) since the Missile Defense Agency’s creation in 1985, though deployment of a reliable system remains possible only in theory.

As a matter of national policy, at least, “No nation has deployed destructive weapons in space,” notes the Union of Concerned Scientists, though it adds: “This norm may be breached in the near future.” Fearing the U.S. lead in this realm, and the perceived window left open BY U.S. policy pronouncements, China and Russia jointly offered to open negotiations to ban space weapons at the United Nation’s annual Conference on Disarmament in 2002. But some in the United States viewed the initiative as a threat to the country’s freedom of action (Space Review). Michael Krepon and Michael Katz-Hyman of the Stimson Center argue that foreclosing on negotiations without testing the possibility of banning some kinds of activity in space is shortsighted. University of Miami researcher Nader Elhefnawy notes China’s gross domestic product already is 75 percent that of the United States, and it might be the world’s largest economy as early as the 2020s. “A case can be made that the current U.S. lead in resources and technology would be best employed to slow down any further weaponization of space” (Space Review).

*Editor's Note: An earlier version of this report erroneously suggested military shuttle missions were on the increase.

More on This Topic


The Path to Mars

Speaker: Charles F. Bolden Jr.
Presider: Shirley Ann Jackson

Charles F. Bolden Jr. discusses the future of U.S. space policy.


Space Jam

Author: Micah Zenko

Micah Zenko considers the prosaic, though important, matter of how U.S. civilian and military officials think about national security space...


Waste of Space

Author: Micah Zenko

Orbit space debris threatens U.S. space assets and assured access to the domain. Micah Zenko argues that the United States has a unique...