Celestial Rivalries: Navigating the New Space Race Among Global Powers (Part III)

In an increasingly multipolar world, the dimensions of competition and warfare are going to become more space-centric - what does it mean for Earth?

With the advent of technological advancement, geopolitics will now extend deeper into space with profound consequences for Earth. The final frontier is the next iteration in the evolution of our global political paradigm. This report was inspired by Tim Marshall’s book, The Future of Geography. Direct citations will be in quotes.

This is part III of III of a special report. The first focused on the unique nature and dynamics of the Moon and satellites. This second installment focused on the regulations and accords shaping future space relations. This final report will focus on military developments in the final frontier and what it means for Earth’s security.

For the Benefit of All Mankind

Any conflict extending into space would essentially focus on terrestrial battles. Considering the fact that advanced nations heavily rely Earth-orbiting technologies, space has become a defining feature of modern military strategy. The current leaders of the global space race are the US, Russia, and China.

And while this report will focus primarily on those three power players, there are emerging forces looking to enter the final frontier of geopolitics. The UAE has been advancing its space exploration efforts: in 2021, it joined the ranks as the fifth entity to reach Mars, following the US, Soviet Union, ESA, and India. China followed as the sixth, arriving just a day later. Additionally, the UAE is working on creating its own cluster of small satellites, known as Sirb, which translates to 'flock of birds' in Arabic.

Regional competitions also frequently act as a catalysts for other nations to enter the race. India is aware that China’s advancements in space military capabilities will beneficially influence Beijing’s ally and New Delhi’s arch nemesis, Pakistan.

Taking a macro view, given the current geopolitical context, it is not surprising that the two semi-regional blocs defining the rules of space are the US-led Artemis Accords and Sino-Russian lunar initiatives. As the space sector's economic and military value increases, so does the urgency to choose between blocs.

Like on Earth, the security implications of collaborating with a foreign adversary are beginning to outweigh the idealistic aspirations of exploring space “for the benefit of all mankind”. Technology and geopolitics have changed since that phrase was enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Militarization

There are a wide range of precision weapons capable of disabling satellites from Earth or space. This arsenal features ballistic missiles, lasers that can reach from Earth to geostationary orbit, high-powered microwaves, and cyberattacks. Apart from lasers, most of these are quite familiar.

However, now, there's also the possibility of using chemicals to obscure a satellite's vision by targeting its cameras. Additionally, the mechanical arms on satellites meant for collecting space debris could be repurposed to aggressively eject another satellite from its orbit. The line separating sci-fi and reality is blurring.

“Satellites tend to work in groups, or constellations, to create a “net” and often communicate with each other, as well as with the ground stations, to create permanent coverage” Tim Marshall writes. Compromising that ability would dent Earth-related military activities and potentially alter the course of a battle - and even a war.

As mentioned in part I, the proliferation of satellites over the past few decades alone is indicative of the astro-strategic value space has for global geopolitics. The development of anti-satellite weaponry is therefore the next logical step in the evolution of modern warfare.

United States

Established in December 2019 as the sixth branch of the military, Space Force’s budget of ~$26 billion is likely to increase as geopolitical relevance of space grows. While some critics argue that its lead to the militarization of space, it overlooks the fact that space has been a militarized zone since the 1960’s.

Funds are being channeled into the creation of lasers poised for future deployment in space. The US Navy, which has been experimenting with laser weapons since 2014, showcased a leap in technology in 2022 by using a high-energy, all-electric laser to down a swift cruise missile.

The operational cost for this laser's "kill shot" is minimal, merely a few dollars for the electricity. This is in stark contrast to the hefty price tag of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single missile. The deployment of such laser systems in space could prompt similar actions by other countries.

As recent as last month, the United Kingdom announced the successful test of its high-power laser weapon, codenamed DragonFire. It is reported to be precise enough to hit a coin from a kilometer away.

Source

In line with the US strategy around laser development, Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said the technology could reduce "the reliance on expensive ammunition, while also lowering the risk of collateral damage". According to BBC news quoting senior military officials: “firing the DragonFire system for 10 seconds is the cost equivalent of using a regular heater for an hour, with the cost of operating it typically less than £10 per shot”.

Washington is also reacting to the danger posed by hypersonic missiles by pouring resources into advanced early-warning satellites equipped with sensors designed to pick up the infrared heat signatures emitted by both ballistic and hypersonic rockets. This information is then securely sent to military command centers on the ground.

These satellites constitute the "Tracking Layer" that the US is deploying in low Earth orbit. By the year 2028, the aim is to have a network of one hundred satellites serving as a protective barrier against fast-moving, agile missiles.

Fundamentally, the capability of the US to extend its military power relies almost solely on support from space-based assets. This encompasses precision navigation, as well as intelligence and surveillance operations. It is therefore not surprising that other space-faring nations are developing countermeasures.

Enter the Russo-China space axis.

Russia-China Space Collaboration

The Russian and Chinese militaries are at the forefront with their development of advanced hypersonic glide missiles. These missiles are capable of altering both their altitude and direction while traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 5, or 1,714 meters per second. This is in stark contrast to intercontinental ballistic missiles, which follow a predictable trajectory.

Russia more generally is anticipated to pivot from space exploration towards emphasizing military applications, paralleling China, whose space program is more militarized than any other nation's cosmos-exploring initiatives.

As mentioned before, these developments have hastened the segregation of space-faring projects into two factions: one spearheaded by China and the other by the US. The political governance of both Moscow and Beijing give it an edge vis-a-vis Washington.

The decision-making process in Beijing's Politburo faces no hindrances from factors like opinion polls, opposing political factions, or democratic scrutiny of its budget, contributing to the stability of the Chinese space program. In contrast, the American space initiative doesn't enjoy this level of stability.

NASA’s budget has experienced significant fluctuations throughout its history, reflecting changes in national priorities, economic conditions, and political interests. After its establishment in 1958, NASA's budget rapidly increased during the 1960s to support the Apollo program and the race to the Moon.

Following the success of the Apollo missions, the budget faced reductions in the 1970s. The funding levels have varied since then, with increases to support initiatives like the Space Shuttle program and the International Space Station, and decreases due to broader budgetary constraints or shifts in focus.

In China, there's an ongoing strategic move to more formally integrate the state, private businesses, and leading research universities into cohesive technology hubs, far surpassing the level of coordination seen in the US. This approach is a component of China's wider strategy to blend civilian and military capabilities within its overarching industrial policies.

More importantly, space factors into China’s new approach to warfare which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) calls “System’s Confrontation”. According to RAND:

“Chinese military publications indicate that the PLA has recognized that war is no longer a contest between particular units, arms, services, or even specific weapons platforms of competing adversaries, but rather a contest among numerous adversarial operational systems. This mode of fighting is unique to modern warfare, as are the battlefields on which conflict is waged. This is referred to as systems confrontation [体系对抗]…[and] is waged not only in the traditional physical domains of land, sea, and air, but also in outer space, nonphysical cyberspace, electromagnetic, and even psychological domains. Whereas achieving dominance in one or a few of the physical domains was sufficient for war fighting success in the past, systems confrontation requires that “comprehensive dominance” be achieved in all domains or battlefields.”

Part of this new strategy also relies on the use of asymmetric warfare and the “Assassin’s Mace”, a term from the Warring States period. This concept refers to a hidden weapon or strategy that would allow a smaller, seemingly weaker party to overcome a more powerful adversary. The idea embodies strategic surprise and the use of cunning tactics to achieve victory against the odds.

While the US currently leads the space race, there is no guarantee of maintaining it. In the 1960s, the Soviets were pioneering celestial adventurism until the point of the moon landing. While China’s domestic structural struggles do put it at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the US, it would be foolish for Washington to rest on its laurels.

History shows there is a steep price to pay for complacency, and who wants to be remembered for losing the mantle of heaven?