Astropolitics and the militarization of space

 The intersection of Astropolitics and the militarization of space is one of the most critical and complex geopolitical topics today.¹ Astropolitics, a theory largely developed by Everett Dolman, applies classical geopolitical principles (like those of Mahan and Mackinder) to the space domain, positing that control of certain orbital "high ground," particularly Low Earth Orbit (LEO), can confer significant strategic advantage and influence over terrestrial affairs.²

Here is an overview of the militarization of space based on these theoretical and geopolitical considerations:

1. Militarization vs. Weaponization in Astropolitics

A key distinction in this field is between militarization and weaponization:

• Militarization: This refers to the use of space for military support functions, which is already a reality and permitted under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST).³ This includes:

  • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) satellites.⁴

  • Global Positioning System (GPS) and other navigation/timing services critical for military operations.⁵

  • Secure satellite communications (SATCOM).⁶

  • Missile warning and tracking systems.⁷

• Weaponization: This means the actual deployment of offensive weapons in space or on celestial bodies (the latter is prohibited by the OST).⁸ The current arms race is increasingly focused on Counter-Space Capabilities—systems designed to disrupt, degrade, or destroy an adversary's space assets.⁹ These include:

  • Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons: Kinetic (missiles launched from Earth to destroy a satellite) or non-kinetic (lasers, electronic jamming, cyber attacks).¹⁰

  • Orbital/Co-orbital Weapons: Satellites capable of maneuvering near an adversary's asset to inspect, tamper with, or attack it.

Dolman's theory emphasizes that "Who controls Low-Earth Orbit controls Near-Earth Space.¹¹ Who controls Near-Earth Space dominates Terra."¹² This underlines the idea that the power struggle for influence on Earth is extending to the orbital domain.

2. Nations Most Capable to Lead the Space Race

The race for geostrategic control is overwhelmingly dominated by a few major powers, largely due to their massive investment, existing infrastructure, and advanced dual-use technologies:

• United States (US): Currently the undisputed leader in space capability, though its dominance is being contested.¹³ The US military is heavily reliant on space for all global operations, a dependency that makes its assets both vital and vulnerable.¹⁴ The establishment of the US Space Force formalizes space as a distinct warfare domain, focused on maintaining space superiority and freedom of action.¹⁵

• People's Republic of China (PRC): The PRC has rapidly advanced its space program, which is closely integrated with the People's Liberation Army (PLA).¹⁶ It has developed a comprehensive range of space-based assets (navigation, communication, reconnaissance) and, critically, sophisticated counter-space capabilities, including ASAT weapons.¹⁷ US intelligence anticipates that China will significantly erode American influence in the space domain by 2030.¹⁸

• Russian Federation: Russia retains a substantial legacy space industry from the Soviet era, and while its civil program has faced constraints, it continues to focus heavily on military applications and the development of offensive counter-space systems. Recent activities include deploying counter-space weapons into the same orbit as US government satellites.¹⁹

• Other Growing Powers: Nations like India have demonstrated ASAT capabilities (Mission Shakti in 2019), proclaiming themselves "space superpowers" and signaling their growing role in the strategic balance.²⁰ Europe (via the ESA and individual nations like France) is also focused on gaining greater strategic autonomy in space capabilities.²¹

3. Private Possible Armies and Geostrategic Control

The "New Space" era is defined by the exponential growth and integration of the commercial sector, which drastically blurs the line between civilian and military use.²² Private companies are not forming traditional "armies," but their capabilities grant them immense geostrategic importance:

• Dual-Use Technology and Integration: Commercial assets, such as large satellite constellations for broadband internet (e.g., SpaceX's Starlink), are inherently dual-use and are increasingly being leveraged and integrated into national defense networks.²³

  • The Ukraine Conflict: The use of Starlink by the Ukrainian military for critical, secure communications demonstrated the vital role and strategic vulnerability of commercial satellites in modern warfare.²⁴

• Strategic Vulnerability: Because military forces now rely on commercial space services for their operations, these private assets become legitimate military targets in a conflict, drawing the private sector directly into geopolitical disputes.²⁵

• Erosion of Governance: The rise of powerful private actors, driven by profit and rapid innovation, challenges the existing international regulatory framework, which was designed for state actors.²⁶ This creates a regulatory vacuum, encouraging unilateral initiatives and potentially escalating the risk of miscalculation.²⁷

• Geostrategic Leverage: Companies like SpaceX, with its dominance in launch and satellite deployment, essentially control a major portion of the "celestial coastline." This gives the US and its allies a significant advantage, but it also creates a vulnerability based on over-reliance on a single, private entity.²⁸ The vast capital and technological leadership of these private actors mean that they are now indispensable components of national space power.