Last week Vice President Mike Pence officially announced the administration’s attempts to create a new space force. This builds upon President Trump’s support for the issue and, if completed, will become the first new branch of the military since the Air Force was conceived. This brings up several interesting possibilities that range from the lessons one might learn from science fiction apocalypses, the national security need to protect satellites, and the rather hypocritical opposition from Democrats to it.
Vice President Pence articulated the basic reason for having a space force. He said that what used to be a peaceful pursuit in wide open space is now “crowded” and “adversarial.” The U.S. uses satellites for everything from GPS to television broadcasts. Most importantly, advanced missile systems are guided by satellites and planes, ships, and the entire military communicates with each other via satellite communication. China and Russia have developed weapon systems that can disable and destroy satellites which call for appropriate counter measures.
But militarizing space should still make us feel uncomfortable. There are strategic necessities that determine the actions of countries, but various science fiction tales offer strong cautions in matters exactly like this. Gene Roddenberry, for example, created Star Trek with an explicitly positive vision of the future where humanity could progress and set aside militarization. The 100 on CWTV has provided 5 seasons of dilemmas regarding life or death decisions and the fate of humanity. The latest season in particular focused on what seemed like a repeating cycle of violence and destruction. I can’t help but look at the arms race before World War I and during the Cold War and think humans are repeating the same destructive cycles. Only this time the cycle is happening in space with more powerful weapons. There is a line of thought that holds that eventually the weapons become so powerful and dangerous that it becomes immoral to use them, regardless of their strategic necessity. A space force that militarizes space seems to be the first step on that path.
There are historical examples of deescalating tension. During the War of 1812, America fought Great Britain along the border with Canada, and even planned several invasions. But by the end of the 19th century, the American- Canadian border was the longest peaceful border in the world. It developed over a long period of time in the 19th century between the countries, through a series of treaties and improvements in relations. A mere generation ago, Europe was the location of the worst dictatorships and bitter conflict the world has seen. Now many European countries, including the one that started the war, are so peaceful their armed forces are disintegrating due to lack of funding. Instead of creating a military specifically devoted to “winning” a space war, the U.S. could take the lead in providing enforceable rules and regulations, with perhaps clearly defined defensive technologies and backup systems that would lessen the tension and lead to peace. So instead of winning a future war with a space force, the parties involved could instead create the conditions for peace and break the cycle.
The final note involves the Democrats. After 9/11, the Democrats wanted to start a new department with a goal of coordinating agencies, but since that time it has turned into a bureaucracy on top of a bureaucracy despite the warning of those opposed to the agency. Now Democrats have taken the exact opposite stance and oppose the Space Force because it seems like yet more bureaucracy. Democrats don’t meet a problem that can’t be solved with more money, except when their newfound fiscal restraint can attack Republicans. Likewise, Democrats haven’t met a problem that can’t be solved with more government programs administered by (union-backed and overpaid) government employees, except when they oppose President Trump.
The Space Force does have some merit considering the reliance of our military and national security on satellites. But the scope of this project runs up against major themes of science fiction and historical arms races that suggest American leaders should find a better way which includes a demilitarized space. Finally, the Democrats continue their futile pursuit of “resistance” by being hypocrites about the size of government and the cost of this agency. Leaving aside the insincere criticisms of Democrats, the proposed Space Force remains a project with merit and problems.
