The Burgeoning Space Race and the Anti-Militant

The Burgeoning Space Race and the AntiMilitant

By Luke Finkelstein

In 1969, the U.S. landed on the moon.1 Then there was silence. This is, of course, a poor summary of the Space Race of the Cold War: Russia successfully launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, into low Earth orbit; Yuri Gagarin, a Soviet, became the first person in space. Indeed, the U.S. only “won” the Space Race at the very end, but this is not how Americentrism would report it.2 Still, the Cold War ended, and NASA was reimagined as the scientific body, not a military one, that it can genuinely claim to be today.3 Then, in 2019, the U.S. established the Space Force, creating a branch not interested in science or discovery, but rather in military opportunity.4 The U.S. is not alone in its ambitions. Indeed, space is on the verge of being militarized in a more diverse and complex form than it ever was in the 1960s, but it must be realized as a place of scientific discovery and international collaboration instead. One main reason why the world may be converging upon a new space race is because the United States has convinced itself of the looming inevitability of the race. In 2019, the Trump administration, viewing the lack of U.S. space militarization as a domestic liability, founded the Space Force.5 Its mission statement focuses on a U.S. military presence in space, calling for “acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces.”6 In a speech about the founding of this new military branch, then-Vice President Mike Pence spelled out why these objectives were so necessary: “we’re in a space race today, just as we were in the 1960s, and the stakes are even higher.”7 He may have been referencing a 2019 report produced under the same administration, in which U.S. intelligence highlighted the growing space prowess of China. The research suggests that China’s main goal is to militarize space, and that “it is likely to accomplish in 20 years what took the United States 40 years to complete.”8 The fact that China is communist, echoing the ideological battle between the communist Soviet Union and capitalistic United States, further drills into the Ameri-centric mind that the world is gearing up for another space race.9 And if China can do in 20 years what the U.S. can do in 40, then the U.S. is already behind. While there are psychological elements that raise fears of being left behind, the overall assumption is well-founded: China has meticulously tended to its space aspirations for decades, and the U.S. has done little to respond.10 In 1957, just after Sputnik was launched, Mao Zedong declared to the U.S. and other countries, “we too shall make satellites.”11 Under Xi Jinping, China has been accomplishing far more than that. While NASA, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is one of the first budgets to get cut during a new fiscal year, China has prioritized its space industry with firm resolve.12 According to the same U.S. governmental report, China’s space ambitions are “backed by high levels of funding and political support.”13 While China’s budget is undisclosed, the U.S.’s claims can be confirmed

in real-life observations. Through investment and encouragement by its government, China currently has more than 60 private space companies of which to boast.14 As the U.S. had done all those years ago, China has now planted a flag on lunar soil.15 China soon after became the first country to soft land on the far side of the moon.16 Even though NASA has also accomplished much in the past decades in terms of rovers and probes, it does not share in China’s exponential success, for China prioritizes space, and the U.S. does not.17 It is as simple as that. Further worrying the prospects of a new space race is the emerging discord between the United States and China, especially when it comes to space diplomacy. Already setting up hurdles, NASA is explicitly prohibited by a 2011 U.S. law from sharing data and research with China.18 This law comes from a number of legitimate reasons, ranging from Chinese human rights abuses to fear of Chinese information theft; nevertheless, it does well to undermine space diplomacy between the two countries.19 Moreover, the U.S. and China have participated in a call-and-response dialogue that is reminiscent of the Cold War. When China announced that it would be going to the moon in the 2030s, the U.S., under then-President Donald Trump, shot back that the U.S. would return there by 2024.20 Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) tried to downplay the provocative dialogue, saying, “we won that race a half-century ago.”21 However, when President Joe Biden assumed the presidency, he did not revoke the U.S. objective, a very revealing move: Biden has sought to undo his predecessor’s legacy in nearly every sphere.22 Thus, in order to compete with China’s authoritarian model, one that may thrive behind a competent leader like Xi Jinping, the United States is now focused on continuity of space policy. A modern space race would bring with it many dangers, for the breadth of interests and parties would clash without proper frameworks of collaboration. The United States and China both have goals of establishing lunar bases on the moon for military prowess and the mining of resources, and neither country has shown a willingness to collaborate with the other.23 If this mentality continues, then it is quite possible that a proxy war could emerge in this environment; in addition to potential lives lost, diplomatic relations on Earth would be distinctly affected as well. Interestingly, China and the U.S., in collaboration with other countries, signed an Outer Space Treaty in 1967 that explicitly prohibits these types of military installations on the moon, but international law requires self-enforcement.24 Under President Trump, the United States reevaluated its position and issued the Artemis Plan, a framework it envisions as a fair guide to the “Recovery and Use of Space Resources.”25 This was a unilateral accord, yet it filled a vacuum of modern space agreements. If China and other countries refuse to be signatories to the Artemis Accords, then the world still needs a multilateral agreement describing a means to conduct itself in space. Without a refined treaty, and considering the numerous private space industries in the U.S. and China, leaders may just duck around the existing Outer Space Treaty by proxying private industry instead.26 It would then be a proxy war within another proxy.

Yet the U.S. and China are not the only parties interested in space supremacy. Japan, India, several Middle Eastern countries, and

the European Union have all expressed a desire at some point or another to flex their innovation skills and national prestige.27 Couple those with private industry--SpaceX, a private aerospace company based in the United States, has already launched Americans into orbit--and one finds tens, if not hundreds, of competing interests when it comes to mining resources and establishing footholds in different parts of the solar system.28 Many of these subjects may seem foreign at first, but countries like the U.S. and Luxembourg have already passed laws that regulate the exploitation of resources in space.29 China has yet to pass a similar law, and industry has very rarely self-regulated throughout history. The world has the benefit of hindsight to know that a complete absence of regulation results in inequities, not optimal prosperity. International collaboration is a viable alternative to another space race, and it has the potential to solve global problems and bring mutual prosperity. The ESA (European Space Agency) has been researching space-based solar technology, a very efficient and experimental method of sustainable energy that could power the entire world.30 Interested in the proposition, The California Institute of Technology, a private university in the United States, invented a type of solar panel that could put the ideas into practice.31 Japan’s aerospace industry then created antennas that would be able to beam back the energy to Earth.32 Imagine if these competing agencies, industries, and research institutions collaborated with each other. Now assume that they were given funding on par with that which accompanies militarization: in effect, prioritizing science with a comparable investment to the military. As a reference, the U.S. military in 2020 had well over $700 billion to spend33; NASA was awarded a paltry $22 billion.34 If such research had a greater investment, the world might have 24-hour solar energy production that would power the global grid, free of carbon emissions.35 While the space race of the 1960s produced technology as a secondary result of a military rivalry, the world now has an opportunity to elevate innovation and science in their own capacities, not downplay them as a means to an end of military supremacy. For this reason alone, space offers so much more than national prestige: it offers solutions. But why should anyone care? After all, talks of a new space race and resource mining seem like science fiction. And international collaboration to solve global issues? That sounds ludicrous, naive, insane! But these topics are maybe a mere ten years away, if not already here; and the greatest global strides have come about not through competition, but collaboration (e.g., Allies in World War II; denuclearization; Montreal Protocol). In retrospect, it is remarkable that the space race from the Cold War did not descend into a hot war. Advancements came as a result, of course, but there was always a risk of nuclear holocaust. Remember that, when Sputnik was placed into orbit, there was widespread fear across the world of impending doom.36 So, it is more accurate to say that, at the expense of terror and possible war, some advancements came about as a byproduct. Now the world enters a new era of innovation, and it has the opportunity to prioritize science above militarization; for it is a wonderful place to be where it is psychology, not irreversible military action, that ushers in a new space race--and mindsets can change. They must change, for the space age is coming, and there are two drastically different outlooks for

how that may come to pass: in discord and tension, if not war, where inequities grow and competition brings out the worst in human behavior; or a world that embraces science and discovery with open dialogue, where onceunbeatable giants like climate change can be addressed with just a bit of funding and sharing of knowledge. The world must choose.

1 “1969 Moon Landing,” History, A&E Television Networks, July 17, 2020, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/space-exploration/ moon-landing-1969. 2 History.com Editors, “The Space Race,” HISTORY, A&E Television Networks, February 21, 2020, accessed April 8, 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/coldwar/space-race. 3 Brian Bender, “A new moon race is on. Is China already ahead?,” The Agenda, Politico, June 13, 2019, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.politico. com/agenda/story/2019/06/13/china-nasa-moonrace-000897/. 4 “United States Space Force Mission,” Official United States Air Force Website, United States Government, 2019, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.spaceforce. mil/About-Us/About-Space-Force/. 5 ibid.

6 ibid. 7 Mike Wall, “US Is in a New Space Race with China and Russia, VP Pence Says,” Space.com, March 27, 2019, accessed March 16, 2021, https://www.space.com/ new-space-race-moon-mike-pence-says.html. 8Alexander Bowe, “China’s Pursuit of Space Power Status and Implications for the United States,” U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission, United States Government, April 11, 2019, accessed March 14, 2021, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/ files/Research/USCC_China%27s%20Space%20 Power%20Goals.pdf. 9 Elizabeth Howell, “The New Space Race,” Space Next 50, Britanica.com, 2019, acessed March 16, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/explore/space/the-newspace-race/. 10 Bowe. 11 Ben Westcott and Matt Rivers, “50 years after U.S. moon landing, China is catching up in the space race,” Beyond Earth, CNN, July 19, 2019, acessed April 7, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/asia/chinaapollo-us-space-race-intl-hnk/index.html. 12 Bowe.

13 ibid.

14 Westcott and Rivers. 15 Steffi Paladini, “How Mars became a prize for a new space race -- and why China is hellbent on winning it,” Space.com, February 17, 2021, accessed March 16, 2021, https://www.space.com/new-space-race-moonmike-pence-says.html. 16 ibid.

17 Bender. 18 Christian Davenport, “The Biden administration has set out to dismantle Trump’s legacy, except in one area: Space,” The Washington Post, March 2, 2021, accessed March 16, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/ technology/2021/03/02/biden-space-artemis-moontrump/. 19 ibid. 20 Bender.

21 ibid.

22 Davenport. 23 Bowe. 24 Nahal Toosi, “Who owns the moon?,” POLITICO, June 13, 2019, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.politico.com/agenda/ story/2019/06/13/space-travel-moon-resources000899/#:~:text=The%201967%20treaty%20 prohibits%20placing,%E2%80%9Cexclusively%20 for%20peaceful%20purposes.%E2%80%9D. 25 “The Artemis Plan, NASA, September 2020, accessed April 18, 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/ default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf.