President Dwight D. Eisenhower established an outer-space-for-peaceful-purposes policy more than a half century ago. That policy eventually inspired the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, in which space was declared to be the "province of all mankind" that must be used for peaceful purposes.
From the first flight of Sputnik on, men and women acting with the best of motives – protecting our national security – have attempted to overturn the peaceful-purposes policy. Conflict in space is inevitable, goes the argument; developing and deploying the military capability to control space in the event of a conflict is the surest way to protect America's interests in space, including satellites upon which America's way of precision war depend.

Military control of space "should be the goal of all Americans," said the Air Force chief of staff in 1958; control of space, says a leading 21st century "space warrior," would place "as guardian of space the most benign state that has ever attempted hegemony over the greater part of the world."

While many talked about space control during the Cold War, little was done. The Soviet Union was simply too powerful; triggering a space arms race was widely perceived as dangerous, as putting too much extra pressure on the nuclear hair trigger.
In contrast, the notion that the United States should develop and deploy space-control weapons and even insert weapons into orbit has gained great traction since the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States no longer has a peer competitor. Now is the time for boldness; extending full spectrum dominance into space, space warriors say, would make the United States more secure.

Moore disagrees. Space dominance would be a bridge too far – it would trigger a space arms race and perhaps a new cold war. It would likely make Americans less safe, not safer.
The four-decades-old Outer Space Treaty barred nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from space. At the time it was negotiated space-related precision weapons were the stuff of science fantasy, not of a foreseeable future.

Today, space control and weapons in space are finally conceivable. A new tough and fully verifiable treaty is needed to cope with this new reality. All of the major nations of the world, save the United States and Israel, say they favor the negotiation of a new treaty. And yet, for more than twenty years, the United States has blocked any serious work on such a treaty.
The classic anti-treaty argument was summed up last October by former New York Governor George Pataki, speaking as a "public delegate" to the U.N. General Assembly. Pataki said the United States remains fully committed to the "peaceful uses of space." Nonetheless, he added, "discussions regarding the merits of treaties to prevent the so-called 'weaponization' of outer space would be a pointless exercise."

Military space dominance is not yet official U.S. policy. But it is drifting rapidly in that direction. Space-dominance theory and doctrine have been building in many venues since the 1980s, particularly at Air Force Space Command, and preliminary work on space-dominance hardware is moving ahead, especially in the area of robotic small satellites that could search out and damage, disable, or even destroy the satellites of other nations without creating significant space debris.

Meanwhile, strike-from-space weapons are still a favorite dream in some quarters. "Our vision calls for prompt global strike space systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets," says Air Force Space Command Master Plan FY06 and Beyond.

Much space-warrior rhetoric is sheer hyperbole, to be sure. But even rhetoric has consequences. Would a declaratory policy of space dominance enhance national security? Probably not. It would more likely trigger a space-related arms race, and – possibly – a new cold war.
Whether or not the United States ought to unilaterally deploy a space-dominance capability or push for a new space treaty are issues too important to be left solely to the president, any president, or to the Congress. The Constitution does not vest ultimate sovereignty in the national legislature or the president. It vests it in "We, the people."

Finally, any discussion that explores the passion for space dominance has to reckon with the tradition of American exceptionalism, the belief that the United States is entitled by providential right -- or because of its extraordinary civic virtue -- to do virtually anything it wants to on the world's stage.

Every major state says it wants a new space treaty. The United States says no; such a treaty would be impossible to draft, and – if drafted – impossible to verify. Is that reality speaking? Or is it yet another expression of the old exceptionalist paradigm?

Top

"Sixty years ago I wrote 'We will take no frontiers into space.' Twilight War presents riveting and disturbing evidence that some nations are attempting just that -- making the heavens unsafe for us all.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Author of 2001: A Space Odyssey

The United States could show decisive leadership and commitment to multilateral solutions to security challenges. Twilight War provides clear insight as to what we should expect – and demand – from our political leadership to ensure that outer space remains a resource for all and security threat to none.
Jeffrey Boutwell
Executive Director
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

If you were just getting used to cell phone service anywhere, to ATM withdrawals everywhere, to GPS directions in your car and to satellite images from the remotest spots on Earth, get ready to lose it all. These marvels depend on the open, safe use of space by all nations. Moore warns of the dire consequences of the U.S. drive toward the military dominance of space. Twilight War is an indispensable resource for anyone looking to get smart on a possible new cold war -- in space. Wide-ranging research and an elegant writing style make for an easy tutorial. This is a marvelous book.
Joseph Cirincione
Vice President for National Security
Center for American Progress

Twilight War is an exceptional work. It describes in clear and readable fashion a position that is intellectually honest and refreshing. The research is solid and the inferences made from it are fully supportable. Twilight War will quickly become a must-read in the field; credible future works of space policy will have to reckon with it. It is a great book.
Everett C. Dolman
Professor of Comparative Military Studies
Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Author of Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age

This superb study is a well-balanced, comprehensive and clearly written analysis that examines the critical issue of space policy in the context of international security and fundamental American values. Concerned citizens as well as responsible governmental officials will gain insight.
Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.)
Senior Military Fellow
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Twilight War is an excellent and thorough work many years in the making. It is a significant addition to the literature of the important issue of space security as well as the role of the United States in the twenty-first century world community."
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.
Chairman of the Cypress Fund
Diplomat who helped negotiate every major international arms-control and non-proliferation agreement from 1970 to 1997.

Twilight War is a tour de force. It easily and informatively intertwines the historical, technological, military, political, and philosophical aspects of America’s fundamentally conflicted relationship regarding its ambitions in outer space. The no-nonsense prose ensures that non-expert readers will be intrigued; experts will be impressed with the depth of research. Given the importance of space to the future of mankind, Twilight War is a must read for concerned citizens in the United States and around the world.
Theresa Hitchens,
Director, Center for Defense Information
Author of Future Security in Space: Charting a Cooperative Course.

Mike Moore does a wonderful job describing the forces that are pushing the United States to further militarize space and dominate it. He does an equally good job of demonstrating that an arms race in space might very well have regrettable consequences for America and the world.
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago
Author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

It should come as no surprise that the reigning superpower is seeking to dominate space; but is it wise? The attempt by the United States to make itself the world’s "space cop," Moore argues, is likely to invite imitation and bring anarchy to space. There exists another path, which corresponds to U.S. thinking of an earlier time -- preserve the final common of space as "the province of all mankind." We are at a fork in the road. Moore’s gripping and masterful account of war and law in space should be required reading.
John C. Polanyi
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
University of Toronto

Top