Astropolitik

Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age

Everett C. Dolman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135763992
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia militare e marittima

This volume identifies and evaluates the relationship between outer-space geography and geographic position (astrogeography), and the evolution of current and future military space strategy. In doing so, it explores five primary propositions.

1 Introduction: Realism and Geopolitics

Astropolitik is grand strategy. Indeed, it is the grandest strategy of them all. The entirety of the Earth is reduced to a single component of the total approach, critically important to be sure, but in many cases no more than a peripheral component. Within this brief text, an attempt is made to outline the framework of a consistent strategic approach to the current and near future realms of state rivalry in outer space. This is not an operational or tactical account. Technologies of war and the intricacies of force application are considered only to the extent that they illuminate and rationalize strategic policy.

In its narrowest construct, Astropolitik is the extension of primarily nineteenth- and twentieth-century theories of global geopolitics into the vast context of the human conquest of outer space. In a more general and encompassing interpretation, it is the application of the prominent and refined realist vision of state competition into outer space policy, particularly the development and evolution of a legal and political regime for humanity’s entry into the cosmos. This work considers the former view, begun with a few keen insights from Dandridge Cole and Marc Vaucher but never adequately synthesized into a coherent theory, to be more academically provocative. ¹ The basic format of this more precise and rigorous model is fully delineated here for the first time. The latter view, which encompasses a sizable and growing body of pertinent literature, nowhere expressed better than in the magnificent study of superpower confrontation in the space age by Walter McDougall, is addressed to reinforce and help explain the former view. ²

This is not meant to denigrate or minimize the importance of the realist, even harsh Realpolitik, view of humanity’s tendency toward confrontational diplomatic exchange in the history of space exploration. Political realism is a central theme of this work. Without the jurist’s and historian’s painstaking chronicle of the Space Age, astropolitics as elaborated upon here might not be comprehensible. It is simply to acknowledge that others have served the genre much better, and that if this work is judged to have any merit it will not be for adding significantly to that splendid astrohistorical collection. The effort herein is primarily an attempt to place a more stringent conceptual framework around and among the many vectors of space policies and chronicles, to establish a separate domain of realist academic and theoretical study in the space arena, and to reinforce what is astropolitical and what is not. Just as the term geopolitics is over-used, diminishing its explanatory power and reducing its utility, astropolitics has been likewise abused. If everything that happens in space is astropolitical, then the term loses its meaning.

Thus I propose corralling the elements of space and politics recognized as realist into their proper places in grand strategy. Colin Gray, in his penetrating analysis of the meaning and place of modern strategy, makes an almost unassailable case that the elements of strategy are unchanging, and applicable across all levels of analysis—that is, across system, across level, and across time. ³ His argument is wholly compatible with the tenets of astropolitics and Astropolitik: ‘there is an essential unity to all strategic experience in all periods of history because nothing vital to the nature and function of war and strategy changes’. ⁴ In his rigorous definition, Gray asserts that strategy is ‘the use that is made of force and the threats of force for the ends of policy’. ⁵ Threats may be implicit or explicit, but the connection between violence and policy is vital to an understanding of grand strategy. While it may seem barbaric in this modern era to continue to assert the primacy of war and violence—‘high politics’ in the realist vernacular—in formulations of state strategy, it would be disingenuous and even reckless to try to deny the continued preeminence of the terrestrial state and the place of military action in the short history and near future of space operations. Even as states publicly denounce the use of violence and force in space operations, all spacefaring states today have military missions, goals, and contingency space-operations plans. A case will be made here that the reality of confrontation in space politics pervades the reality of the ideal of true cooperation and political unity in space which has never been genuine, and in the near term seems unlikely.

At this juncture it is probably necessary to set down a defense of the selection of an admittedly contentious term for the title. Astropolitics is innocuous enough. It conjures a sense of commingled realms of politics and space-age technology. It is narrower and more powerful than that, as will be shown, but as an appellation it should not rankle. Astropolitik, as the saying goes, is another kettle of fish. Yet it is chosen carefully and with much thoughtful deliberation. The text nowhere concludes that a harsh realist outlook is the only one for the future of space exploration and exploitation. It simply avers that this has been the pattern, and that policymakers should be prepared to deal with a competitive, state-dominated future in space. Nor is there any intimation that such an environment is inevitable or even probable. In the author’s view, in the long term, such a sustained policy is counterproductive and detrimental. The colossal effort to conquer space will be done much more efficiently by a united world, if for no other reason than that the enormous expense of a truly large-scale conquest and colonization effort may require the enthusiasm and support of all Earth’s people. Simply put, in a world of modern territorial nation-states (whose demise has been prematurely announced ⁶ ), collective action dilemmas will prevent those political entities from cooperatively exploiting the realm, and efforts to enjoin states to do so will have negative if not countervailing results. These views are discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4–6. In the short term, despite our best intentions, we may be relegated to a harsh, discordant, entirely realist paradigm in space.

Therefore the term Astropolitik is chosen as a constant reminder to those who would read this book, and carefully weigh many of its claims, of the horrible depths to which other geopolitical-based Realpolitik strategies of dominance ultimately degenerated. The German school of Geopolitik, despite the equivocal intentions of its founders, became a racist and utterly unscientific invective about the superiority of the ‘Aryan’ race and its inevitable domination of the world. Geopolitik, too, was a grand strategy, an action plan for conquest. The good intentions of the author of the current work aside, the potential for misuse and abuse of Astropolitik is plain. The theory describes the geopolitical bases for power in outer space, and offers suggestions for dominance of space through military means. Policymakers ignore such a strategy at their state’s peril. When the time has come for a theoretical perspective to emerge, and that perspective cuts across the grain of extant ideology, wishing it were not so cannot make it go away. Some state will likely employ the principles of Astropolitik and may come to dominate space as a consequence. It is to be hoped that this state will be a relatively benign one. It is with some trepidation and angst, then, that this argument is put forward. The author understands and accepts the opinion that practitioners who believe the world is evil and dangerous will in their actions continually tend to recreate it. Before this degenerates into a self-absorbed mea culpa, it is essential to note that astropolitics and Astropolitik make no distinction among the many motives of those who might apply them. The following chapters do make a few specific calls for action. A new regime for outer space that could reignite the fervor for space exploration that culminated during the 1960s, and a military policy based on territorial control are pre-eminent among them. Neither of these moves by themselves, nor the realist foundations upon which they are based, necessarily engenders evil or malicious outcomes. The tenets within, however, cannot and should not escape the past from which they were drawn, and so the title is chosen as a constant reminder of that past, and as a grim warning for the future.

The simple fact that Gray’s definition of strategy is accepted, and is itself a modification of Clausewitz’s renowned if widely misinterpreted dictum that war is a continuation of political discourse by other (extreme) means, indicates the hard-realist paradigm of ever-present violence and fear cannot be separated from Astropolitik and nor should it be. Astropolitik, like Realpolitik, is hardnosed and pragmatic, it is not pretty or uplifting or a joyous sermon for the masses. But neither is it evil. Its benevolence or malevolence will become apparent only as it is applied, and by whom. For instance, it is anticipated, that a critical understanding of the propositions cautiously proffered here could lead the reader to anticipate a future where violent competition is transferred to an economic realm. In that case, states will employ competition productively, harnessing natural incentives for self-interested gain to a mutually beneficial future, a competition based on the fair and legal commercial exploitation of space. The axioms of astropolitics and Astropolitik fit just as well in an economically competitive environment as in a continuously warring one.

There is some hope for this view. Mounting empirical evidence points to the proliferation of modern liberal democracy as a pacifying force in international relations. Liberal-democratic states have not gone to war with each other, and, although they have had considerable conflicts of interest, appear content to resolve common disputes with rare resort even to the threat of military violence. Such is the enormous drain on national economies that advanced liberal-democratic states are the most likely to undertake and sustain a dominating space program. As more states democratize, these observations lead to the promise of an ever-widening democratic zone of peace, ultimately encompassing the globe then spreading out to the cosmos and ushering in an era of true cooperation and stability.

Although David Singer and Melvin Small first empirically described the phenomenon, it was Michael Doyle who provoked a storm of activity with his attempt to tie the observation to Kant’s claim that liberal-democratic states would be naturally less prone to war. ⁷ Tests of the hypothesis showed that democratic states appear just as likely to engage in war as any alternative politically organized state. What remained intriguing, and promising, was the empirical evidence and rationale that democratic states do not go to war with each other. ⁸ Causal explanations tend to cluster around structural and normative factors of government capacities and leadership qualities, and represent some of the most sophisticated international analyses in ongoing political science debates. ⁹ If mutual liberal democracy is in fact a sufficient precondition for inter-state peace, then democratic peace theory provides both the means and end for a stable and pacific world (and presumably space) order. Any policy that efficiently enhances the process of democratization in authoritarian and developing states will have positive inter-state results, and should be thoughtfully considered. When all states are democratic, war will be a social relic. Astropolitics and Astropolitik encompass the social and cultural effects of new technologies, in this case space technologies, on the subsequent evolution of political institutions (Chapters 2 and 5). The direction of influence on democratization of astropolitical variables is introduced here, though it is not definitively announced. If, however, primarily democratic states enter and exploit space, and these states are best equipped to sustain robust space programs, then the tenets of Astropolitik are structurally less malicious—since these states are unlikely to pursue violent confrontation with each other—and so can be used for commercial and system stability (policing) and productive economic advantages.

Needless to say, a contradictory thesis is prevalent. For many traditional peace theorists, who concentrate on eliminating war by reducing and eliminating the military capacity to engage in combat, democratic peace theory appears fully complementary to their views. Since war is the problem democracy is held to correct, they presume that the tools of war are, by association, ‘anti-democratic’. ¹⁰ The widely held belief that disarmament promotes peace has long been acknowledged, and then quickly dismissed, by such eminent theorists as Friedrich Schumann and Hedley Bull. ¹¹ Still, the notion hangs on and is the prescriptive cornerstone of the World Peace Movement. ¹² Reducing or eliminating arms promotes peace and decreases external threats, so the argument goes, which in turn fosters domestic development of individual liberty. William Thompson makes precisely this point as he argues that peace causes democracy, not the reverse. ¹³ Moreover, say the peace theorists, when all states are democratic there will be no need to maintain the military forces necessary to prosecute war, and all states will be able, if not compelled by socio-economic necessity, to complete any remaining process of disarmament. For these advocates, astropolitics and Astropolitik will be considered politically and socially reprehensible, if not dangerous. The preferred prescription is that humanity begins its entry into the cosmos without weapons, warriors, or Clauswitzian theorists. If the non-weaponized model is pursued, peaceful coexistence is inevitable. Unfortunately for their utopian position, the short history of space exploration already belies that hope. The militarization and weaponization of space is not only an historical fact, it is an ongoing process.

Most international realists choose to discount the democratic peace (this work is a distinct exception). They aver that the correlation is a coincidental facade, that democratic states have not gone to war simply because traditional power politics inducements have not yet presented themselves. ¹⁴ Democratic states have too short a history, and in that brief time they have always been allied against ideological positions that sought the end of liberalism—first monarchy, then fascism, then communism. It is only recently that liberal-democratic states have shared borders, the realists will point out, as their numbers have risen to important minority status in the community of states only since 1945. They argue it is not weapons or armed force that destabilizes, it is the attitudes and perceptions of the potential wielders of weapons that matter. States must anticipate increasing resource and market competition in the future, and should expect democratic states to act as any other power-optimizing state, regardless of domestic governing arrangements. Stable peace, wholly desirable but fragile, can be obtained only via balancing strategies based on mutual positions of strength. ¹⁵ Democratic states may be especially vulnerable in a less militarized world, since their societies tend to be more open, mobilization is public and difficult, and they are thus susceptible to first strike attacks. ¹⁶ Under these conditions, all states should avoid eliminating or unduly weakening their armed forces. To do so would be an invitation to war.

The concerns of the realists are well argued, and cast a wary doubt on the abundance of empirical evidence cited by the democratic peace proponents. If one accepts for the moment, as an analytical assumption only, the proposition that liberal-democratic states do not go to war with each other, then an alternate and exceptionally cooperative future can be projected. Indeed, if such states do not go to war with each other, then the level of armaments they possess or the military attitudes they project should not be a serious threat. Calls for disarmament may be economically efficient, but they should not be necessary. Liberal-democratic states have nothing to fear from other such states, and the size and strength of their armed forces need not be of concern. If one further accepts that a stable inter-state peace is the goal of both liberal and realist theory—a reasonable one in that a stable peace has been the holy grail of international theorists since the possibility of global destruction via nuclear devastation has been hypothesized—then a compatible path is opened. The means of one school (realist military preparedness) are reconciled with the means (liberal democratization) and ends (global then interstellar peace derived from the condition of full democracy) of the other. The point of harmonization is democracy itself.

The bulk of democratization theory correctly emphasizes socioeconomic factors as the foundation of democracy, and my analysis is not intended to contradict this significant body of established theory. If anything, the relationship between rising wealth and rising democracy is an ‘iron law’ of political science. Should the vast wealth of space be tapped and brought to constructive use on Earth, the wealth of all people should dramatically rise (at least in terms of per capita income, but undoubtedly in more meaningful ways as well). Significant infusions of capital, such as that observed in the sixteenth century after the discovery of the New World by the Spanish, serve to ignite systemic economic booms. The principles of astropolitics and Astropolitik promote such economic endeavors, and rising wealth should have a complementary effect enhancing democratization, in this way limiting the negative effects of space-based militarization. To be sure, the state that too aggressively pursues military power will lose ground in commercial productivity. If war never occurs, then all attempts to prepare for it are (in the liberal view) wasted. On the other hand, if the democratic peace is not so robust, and in the future democratic states may indeed go to war, then the realists have not sacrificed their defensive postures. Vigilance and force of arms will be ready to assure the peace in a breakdown of theory. Astropolitics and Astropolitik constitute but one view of the future, which cannot accurately foretell real world events. It can only provide predictions of what the model will output if certain expressed assumptions are accepted. Readers will find evidence both for and against a prognos...