The Case for Space Dominance

For nearly two weeks in 480 B.C., a massive Persian army numbering as many as 300,000 troops was prevented from invading Greece by a small band of dedicated Greek warriors, heroically led by the Spartan King Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae. Despite being numerically superior, the Persian force was hemmed in by unfavorable geography (which the Spartans used decisively to their advantage) and were therefore unable to dislodge the Greek defenders from August 20 until September 10 of that year. That is, until a Persian force managed to make it to higher ground and rain down death upon the Greek defenders.

The capture of the high ground was the coup de grace that the Persians needed to defeat the tiny, but unflappable contingent of Greek defenders at Thermopylae. Since the dawn of history, the military force that came to dominate the strategic high ground usually won the battle. Today, space is the ultimate strategic high ground. As such, he who controls the strategic high ground of space controls the world.

Right now, the United States controls space. But rivals such as China and Russia are attempting to change that reality. They are now closer to achieving this goal than at any other point in history.

The American military is currently the dominant force on the planet. Why? Because the United States dominates the strategic high ground. First, America came to dominate the air. Then, with the advent of space travel, the U.S. military came to dominate space—the ultimate high ground.

Today, the U.S. military is the smallest it has been in decades at a time when it is being challenged by more diverse threats globally than it ever has. This is an untenable situation, especially in the face of growing challenges from increasingly competent forces in Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Space is the linchpin to America’s global dominance.

Despite this fact, space is the one strategic area that has largely been ignored by American policymakers—and our enemies know this. With the advent of the Trump Administration, the U.S. military needs to reassert its unequivocal command of the strategic high ground by embracing space dominance as its preferred strategy in that domain.

Space dominance calls for the complete weaponization of space coupled with the willingness to aggressively use space forces to ensure America’s continued supremacy on land and in the sea and air. The strategy not only calls for American forces to be so overwhelmingly powerful in space that they can prevent other powers gaining access, but also insists that U.S. forces be able to exert their will from space as well. It is a hegemonic policy.

Most Americans are totally unaware of just how dependent we are on space for military and civilian operations alike. Satellites make it possible, for instance, for our forces on the Korean Peninsula to operate effectively by linking these far-off forces with their combatant commands thousands of miles away. Satellites made possible the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden. Satellites also make it possible for you to go to your local ATM and pull out some money.

The signals that we all rely on are relayed through space using satellites. These satellites are all vulnerable to disruption and attack from the ground. What’s more, rival states, such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are all keenly aware that they cannot challenge the American military directly without removing its ability to act as one, cohesive entity. By eliminating America’s satellites in orbit, rivals like China seek to prevent our forces from coordinating an effective defense of, say, Taiwan. Russia would hope to delink NATO’s abilities to muster an effective defense of Ukraine.

Also, given how dependent our society is on civilian satellites, rivals would seek to debilitate non-military satellites, so as to sow confusion and discord at home. States like Russia and China believe that such confusion on America’s home front would give them a freer hand to attack their neighbors. American rivals believe that if they remove the capacity for American civil society to function normally, then America would demur from responding adequately to aggression abroad in order to restore peace and stability at home. To some extent, these adversaries might be correct.

But our national security space policy incorporates more than just satellites.

Rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are believed to possess rudimentary nuclear arsenals and are rapidly working on ways of expanding their capabilities. These states have expressed their hostility to the United States and its allies. What’s more, these states have been pernicious state sponsors of global terror and criminality. Former CIA Director James Woolsey wrote an op-ed earlier this year positing his suspicion with nascent nuclear capabilities coupled with a drive to launch satellites in orbit, the North Koreans might be attempting to place Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) devices in orbit.

Earlier this year, the North Koreans managed to place a satellite in orbit that most observers believe to be unorthodox—in that it’s not behaving as most communications or traditional military satellites would. Yet, it remains in a controlled orbit. An EMP device detonated high enough above the continental United States could wipe out all advanced technology instantly, reducing America to an 18th century-level of development and potentially killing 90 percent of the population within two years.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are poised to acquire nuclear arms. Wedded to an apocalyptic worldview of Shia Islam and espousing hateful rhetoric about their neighbors—Sunni Arabs and Jews alike—what’s stopping the Iranians from launching a devastating attack on allied states (many of whom have significant numbers of Americans living on military bases)? What do we do about these threats?

We’ve tried negotiation. In both cases it only induces these rogues toward greater levels of aggression. Do we invade? Imagine the Iraq War but with our people facing nuclear reprisals. Launch airstrikes? Most believe that striking either country from the air would be ineffective.

The solution is for the United States to weaponize space. We must develop methods to better protect our critical assets in orbit. Building smaller, cheaper, and more easily replaceable satellites is a good start. Placing a true space-based missile defense system in orbit would also mitigate the threat from rogue states. What’s more, fielding non-nuclear offensive weapons in orbit—such as large tungsten rods (or, “Rods From God,” as the military dubs them)—will be essential in deterring future aggression from our strategic rivals.

For several years, America’s space capabilities have been allowed to wither on the vine at the same time that it has increased its reliance on space technology for even the most basic societal functions. The arrival of the Trump Administration is heralding historic reappraisals in U.S. foreign policy. National security space policy deserves to be reassessed as well. Russia has committed itself to fielding space weapons. China is currently developing methods to debilitate U.S. satellites. Both North Korea and Iran are seeking to upend global stability with nuclear arms. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to ignore space at its own peril.

The world is less safe and America’s military is more vulnerable to strategic defeat than at any other time. There has rarely been a situation in history where a force that didn’t command the strategic high ground won any war. Space is the ultimate strategic high ground. Therefore, the United States must dominate it at all costs. The Trump Administration must embrace the space dominance model if the U.S. is to retain its global hegemony.

About Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert is a geopolitical analyst who manages The Weichert Report. He is a contributing editor at American Greatness and a contributor at Asia Times . He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers). His second book, The Shadow War: Iran's Quest for Supremacy (Republic Book Publishers) is due in Fall of 2022. Weichert is an educator who travels the country speaking to military and business audiences about space, geopolitics, technology, and the future of war. He can be followed via Twitter: @WeTheBrandon.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

8 responses to “The Case for Space Dominance”

  1. A wonderful article that should open a serious discussion on how the United States must be ready for technological warfare. Cyber and space warfare will over-shadow obsolete “boots on the ground” strategic planning. President Trump has assembled a great team to advance this discussion.

    • Very kind. Thank you. I, too, hope this will start a more serious conversation. This is why I cannot wait for my book on the subject to be released in 2017. Yes, I am very enthusiastic about what Trump is doing with his space policy. Truly revolutionary. The real trick will be whether or not he can keep momentum in this area going as he will be forced to deal with revisionist China, irredentist Russia, loony Iran and North Korea, and the litany of Wahhābīst threats that are out there–to say nothing about the domestic concerns. But, I have faith that he can. Space is the spoke around which the wheel of American society spins. Without it, we are nothing. As for boots on the ground: I see what you’re saying, but nothing will overshadow the human factor. The technical services augment the traditional services. It is easy to forget that. Going into the new millennium everyone assumed that the next conflict would be a great one between a traditional nation-state such as China. They believed it would be a technological war, utilizing the technical services (plus the Marines).Yet, 9/11 happened and we found ourselves fighting an old-school counterinsurgency on the ground against an enemy straight out of the 7th century. We must realize the synergy that exists between the technical and conventional “boots on the ground.” We must develop space to better serve the needs of the other, more conventional forces. But, you are correct about the need to try and push as much of the conflicts up to space, since our dominance there would assure that we won those conflicts and protected American lives. Thank you for reading it and the great comment! Happy New Year’s!

    • Obsolete “boots on the ground.” Some people just don’t learn. The fact that our politicians have wasted so much treasure on foolish pursuits in the ME does not mean that traditional means of fighting America’s enemies are obsolete. What I find renewing is that PE Trump means to have other countries who have benefited from our largess and freedom and financial excesses at our expense means to have them pay for more of their share.

      Space tech and cyber warfare need constant investment and innovation but a one dimensional approach to offense or defense is not smart. Take EMP’s. Where will all that glorious capability be if even a few EMP’s are strategically successful at being activated? There are some achille’s heels that our enemies will be sure to try to breach. Boots on the ground is just one way to do that. Thanks for Obozo, our military is very weak and needs to be rebuilt, both materially, personal-wise and morale/discipline/doctrine-wise. This is one of Obozo’s legacy’s … a neutered America. One of his “fundamental transformations.”

  2. “Today, the U.S. military is the smallest it has been in decades at a time when it is being challenged by more diverse threats globally than it ever has.”

    Unfortunately, this is because “politicians”, those folks who believe (as in ‘yea, hosanah’ believe), that they know what is best for everyone, have decided to intervene in situations that meet any of a hundred different conditions of political correctness.

    And until THAT situation is corrected, no amount of money or blood can change the threat level.

  3. The test of an anti satellite weapon by the Chinese created millions of tiny pieces of rubble, traveling at high speeds, in orbit, that are now a threat everyone’s satellites.
    My concern is that, by weaponising space, we would create a situation where even a minor conflict would result in many more destroyed satellites, causing such a debris field that earth orbit becomes an environment where it is impossible for any satellites to survive. This would be catastrophic for both America and humanity in general.

    • Another person brought this up to me. Indeed, whenever I give my lectures in Washington, D.C. on this policy option, this is an oft-cited concern. You are not wrong to worry about the Kessler Syndrome. However, NASA has already developed a simple way of clearing space debris: it’s a laser system that they want to install onto the International Space Station. They just need the money to put it up there. I suspect, given the resurgence of interest in space policy on the part of the Trump Administration that this will be a top priority. However, that’s responsive. In terms of preventative measures: there are no real preventative measures. Space war will happen. At the very least, I’d like to be able to better protect our stuff and threaten our enemies. Thomas D. Tavarney has written an excellent piece on how building smaller, cheaper, more easily replaceable satellites is the key to making it more difficult for the bad guys to harm our satellites (either directly or indirectly). But, make no mistake: space warfare is upon us. I propose that we take the usual American course and move to dominate that high ground. Thank you for your comment and taking the time to read my article, though. It’s an important topic that just needs to be generally discussed more. Have a nice day, sir.

  4. Back in 2003, a far-left columnist for the Boston Globe named James Carroll argued that we must not militarize space. I wrote a letter to the Editor, which I don’t think they ran. So this is a good time to repeat it; forgive the self-indulgence:

    To the Editor of the Boston Globe:

    Arguing that the US should keep the military out of space, James Carroll (“Bush’s battle to dominate in space”, Oct. 28) neglects to mention that the military is already deeply committed to, and dependent upon, space operations. Satellites have become the eyes and ears of modern warfare, making possible instant communications worldwide, GPS-targeted munitions, detailed reconnaissance, and much more.

    The inescapable conclusion is that the satellites must be defended. The corollary is that we must have the means to attack an enemy’s satellites, if need be. The genii is already out of the bottle.

    Mr. Carroll also neglects to mention that the ‘peaceful’ Chinese space program is run by the Chinese military, and that China has poorly-concealed ambitions to drive the USA out of Asia and the Pacific. A side benefit of our defense operations in near-Earth orbit will be the ability to defend our forces–and our cities–against short-and long-range guided missiles.

    Space is already the high battleground. As of now, the United States dominates it, and it will be far better for the world if we continue to do so, especially when you consider the array of nasty ideologies and brutal state tyrannies the past century conjured up. A Pax Americana will be an era of prosperity, democracy, and, most importantly, respect for the individual.

    What Mr. Carroll forgets is that we are the good guys.

    /Mr Lynn