Is there a potential for non-weaponised mil space systems to be a source of tension or conflict? ASATs are worthless if there is no satellite that is useful to target. The ASAT is the source of tension, not the satellite
Space follows or dovetails terrestrial Military and strategic concerns, they are not at the source. On the other hand, non-weaponised satellite can be regarded as threat to terrestrial systems. This was the driver of the original space age
Space systems are threats to some people, and an extension of power to others. The tech is not the issue. Who owns it and why is more important. Not all mil space systems are a threat, it depends on context, including moment in time
Nuclear space dependence makes a nation vulnerable in space. What a mil space system is used for determines threat and vulnerability
Need to move away from "preventing arms race in Outer Space" and think more about preventing conflict and ensuring peaceful uses. Unclear at what point routine weapons development becomes "arms race". Better to focus on preventing conflict
Technocratic institutionalist approaches cannot solve a fundamental political problem. We don't talk about preventing arms race in other domains, need to move away from this in space
Space has always been militarised (I agree!) and supports terrestrial warfare so we can't prevent mil space technology. Focus on behaviour is the only way to go
Focus more on leading by example unilaterally through increased transparency, better registration of space activities, safe distance zones, low hanging fruit of specific aspects of space mil activities
Space warfare is the continuation of terrestrial politics by other means
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
