A fair introductory text for newcomers to space security, but for those already experienced in space policy the arguments and controversies will be quite familiar.
Columba Peoples considers why it is that successive US administrations have pursued missile defence and calls for a critical approach to understand the role of technology in security.
Some classical realist and constructivist principles allow us to make sense of the Iraq war, but a neorealist fixation on the distribution of material capabilities does not.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not mark the beginnings of a ‘nuclear revolution’ as it is understood. The strategic environment and technological capabilities for a revolution did not exist in 1945 and not until much later.
The USA is not the only power with key interests in outer space, and will have to pander to other sensitivities in the future. Russia, China, the EU and commercial actors are prevalent in their discussions. We must ask the questions who are we defending from, and to whom are we going to deny the access of space?
Whilst separated by great distances in time, geography and culture, both Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz can be seen to have developed a rather similar outlook on strategy and the application of force. Whilst both are mutually complementary, Clausewitz has the better overall work on strategy. One would do well to read both On War and The Art of War before becoming a statesman
Wæver claims that security is indivisible, that security on the European level equates to security on the state level. Therefore the state-level definition of security must be similar, if not the same, as the European-level definition. This mitigates the validity of his concepts. Europe may not yet be a true, or complete, referent object because state interests have to be satisfied to keep Spaceship Europe in orbit
This essay is concerned with possible Chinese motives for accepting, responding to, and reciprocating American overtures and relatively friendly diplomatic moves in the early 1970s. It suggests that strategic understandings of motives carry the greatest weight and the more persuasive argument.
Nuclear weapons increased the state’s destructive power, particularly after the development of thermonuclear weapons, with effectively no limits. With greater destructive yields and shorter delivery times courtesy of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), it is commonly understood that had the cold war turned hot, it would have been the end of civilisation as we know it. But did nuclear weapons keep it cold?
This essay determines the effect of National Missile Defence (NMD) is primarily destabilising. However this has to be put in the wider context of relations between the US, China and Russia – for the destabilising effect of NMD is very much characterised by how it is used and what kind of policy it is a part of.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
