This article is the first of many on the concept of an interplanetary defense initiative and why the U.S. should jump at the chance of initiating such an organization before a nation like China does. It is a very complex subject that I intend to write about in parts for information palatability. 

Star Spangled Universe: U.S. Space Security and what comes after

  It’s no secret (though probably top secret) that the United States has been at the forefront of technological prowess since the beginning of the industrial age. GPS, SIRI, radar, night vision, the microwave oven, and even the internet as we know it are just a few things that were byproducts of the war machine. History has shown a brighter future with public sector R&D and its eventual dissemination to the public. Despite the standard narrative that the private sector is the innovating force in the market, it’s the public sector that does the R&D heavy lifting and takes most of the initial risk when it comes to innovative tech. Acknowledging this fact is essential to understanding how the U.S. can take charge of the changing space front. 

Certain UAP technologies may have already undergone such a trajectory, but at what angle? The ever-looming web of overclassification has proven challenging to analyze even the most critical of data among U.S. allies on the space front. While it’s crucial to open the door to other sectors of the globe to look into collecting data and conducting their R&D, eventually, we must realize that working divided will prove inefficient. Without access to the intellectual and financial heavy lifting done in UAP technology by the world’s governments, we sit in what is arguably the most idiotic stalemate in the history of human development.

It is akin to children sitting on a pile of toys they don’t know how to play with. Afraid the other children will figure out how to play with them first and be the cool kids on the geopolitical playground – when the answer should be looking to one another to unlock its gifts. 

U.S. foreign adversaries have become bolder in their dreams for the future. China has proven to be the most ambitious, vowing to lead the world on multiple fronts.

To quote the economist Marianna Mazzucato, “In 2012, China announced its plan to produce 1,000 GWs of wind power by 2050. That would be approximately equal to replacing the entire existing U.S. electric infrastructure with wind turbines. Are the United States and Europe still able to dream so big? It appears not. In many countries, the State is asked to take a back seat and simply ‘subsidize’ or incentivize investments for the private sector. We thus fail to build visions for the future similar to those that two decades ago resulted in the mass diffusion of the Internet.” (The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths)

When did the United States become so scared to dream?

Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos are just a few of the big names leading the U.S. space-front with the backing of the U.S. government. Where the public sector excels as R&D for innovative projects, the private sector finds ways to bring it to market and make it far more cost-effective. The Department of Defense keenly recognized these strengths and has sought to tap into them. The National Defense Strategy(NDS), a document the Pentagon released this past October, called China a “pacing challenge” and considers them the biggest threat to U.S. security in space and on our mother planet. 

We have in the United States by far the most resilient commercial space enterprise anywhere in the world. The Chinese know that, and we’re going to lean into that,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks said Dec. 8 at an Aspen Security Forum in Washington. “We’re going to make sure we’re working closely with the commercial sector and leveraging all that commercial space capability.”

The DoD even goes so far as to indemnify private sector companies like Starlink as they are considered extended branches of the U.S. military. This belief isn’t entirely untrue, given the concept of some programs such as Starshield

While the classified version of the NDS was briefed to Congress, the declassified version was released to the public. It was the first document of its kind to be released by the Biden administration. 

They astutely pointed out that China is “the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it.”

The U.S. has treated its adversaries from a hyper-competitive lens. While the tried and true sentiment “competition is good” has rung loudly over the last few decades, it has also egged on a rather fearsome beast. 

China leading the cause in BRIC, dominating Africa, and positioning itself for an inevitable war with Taiwan is a thought that has long since been tied to the ancient history of China and its upbringing. To understand China’s complex and impressive history is to know why China is so adamant about dominating the planet. With Xi’s ambitious plan to make China the world leader, the United States prepares. 

With the claims of reverse engineering UAP program eerily seeming more authentic, one must wonder what China would do with such technology. They have no government hurdles, and they have the world’s largest population; they are quickly proving to be quite worthy adversaries. 

It is time the United States looked to declassify the web of overclassified information, stop being overly cautious, and reach out to its allies to pave the way to a global space security force. The U.S. has already set the groundwork by having the world’s only space force and proving itself to be a highly competent innovator. It is a matter of having the right eyes and hands on these technologies – one that not only puts American strategic influence in a higher favor but also considers an interplanetary defense initiative pivotal to American strategic influence. The world of geopolitics is a small playground when considering the treasures and opportunities in space. 

In my paper, I define an interplanetary defense initiative as a unified global space front that relies on funding, scientific brainpower, military innovation used for cross-purpose missions benefiting the space mission, staffing, and intention to lead the world with the most cutting-edge technology, all to take humanity into a new era. It acts to funnel the hundreds of years of geopolitical hatred for other nations into a proactive, positive, hyperfocused force of nature that attracts the best and brightest and the most ambitious to pursue under a unified front. With an overwhelming pool of funds and expertise whose sole focus is to advance the human race into a better tomorrow, a post-scarcity era is waiting to manifest, and humanity can journey into the stars with the intent of colonizing other planets. 

Some speculate on how non-human intelligence may treat such a feat, but that is something I will touch on another time. 

The amount of funding for cutting-edge research is quite literally unknown. The Department of Defense spends about a billion dollars a year on directed energy weaponry – and that is just based on unclassified data. According to Colin Demarest’s article on the Iron Dome, “The DoD requested at least $669 million in fiscal 2023 for unclassified research, testing and evaluation and another $345 million for unclassified procurement, according to the Congressional Research Service.” (Demarest) With such funding for developing these weapons, scientists, entrepreneurs, space enthusiasts, and humanitarians may want to look at other ways to look at this technology for the growing space domain. Just as the standard argument for AI creating new job sectors is clamored online daily, the same sentiment can be said for space. I argue that A.I. will prove incredibly valuable in the space domain, which I will discuss in a future article. 

Banning debris creation from ASATT tests has been a significant step in the fight for space security. Negative consequences from tests leave a danger of destabilizing a secure space domain through unpredictable debris trajectories that affect not just the United States but all space-faring nations. A cost-benefit analysis would quickly show that it benefits nobody in the long term and only serves to cause problems as the debris grows. Thirteen countries have agreed to ban debris creation from their space tests, a bold example of a global defense initiative working in real-time. 

Victoria Samson, Director of Space Security and Stability at the Secure World Foundations, is a leading voice on this issue. 

Ms. Samson is on the record stating, “There’s been an international discussion of norms behavior at the U.N. called ‘an open-ended working group on space threats’ where the idea is the international community is trying to identify what is considered responsible…and irresponsible behavior and how do you promote best practices. And so the idea of not deliberating about creating debris in orbit through anti-satellite tests is a topic brought up there. It’s being increasingly agreed upon by other countries that this is a bad idea.” (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

Victoria also brought up the popularity of this among countries in the U.N. 

“The United Nations General Assembly had a resolution in December of last year where 155 countries voted in support of a resolution that says basically ‘we support not having direct anti-satellite tests that create debris.’ It’s a big deal. That’s a lot of countries.” (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

Examples of such exemplary unified goals on the space front start at home. But as the UAP legislation looms in Washington, it’s a matter of time before nations of the world benefit from uniting on the space front and avoiding a physical war in space with human casualties and untold financial catastrophe. 

To quote an excerpt from my paper “Lighting the Dark Forest.

Protecting valuable assets within space necessitates careful consideration of various factors, such as equipping space stations with proper technology, establishing robust resupply systems, ensuring adequate security measures, and providing logistical support. Decisions regarding the number of personnel to be sent, the need for military escorts, and the establishment of effective communication systems would be crucial.

Space operations present unique challenges that vary depending on the specific local environments within the vast cosmos. Exploring the concept of self-sufficient and potentially self-replicating spacecraft in bases that do not rely heavily on Earth’s resources sparks discussions on sustainability and resource management in space. Additionally, it is imperative to emphasize why engaging in deep space warfare should be avoided at all costs, as the consequences would be catastrophic for all involved parties. 

Comparing space operations to maritime and aerial combat highlights the unpredictability and challenges inherent in space travel and warfare. Issues such as repairs, rescues, provisioning, voyage times, sufficient technology, reliable crews, a strong chain of command, adequate training, and other protocols must all be carefully considered.

To effectively operate in space, a strong emphasis on communication, supply chains, strategically located bases, and travel strategy is paramount. The role of the Supply Corps and naval vessels in managing finances and addressing potential crises cannot be overstated, as space missions are inherently costly and unforgiving of mistakes.

Just consider the possibilities as the space industry becomes more in reach. 

Space tourism, colonization, and the supply chains associated. Data and internet centers are moving to space. A.I. development on space-related tasks such as running spacecraft maneuvers, data collection for scientists, or utilized in cleaning up the LEO litter. The asteroid mining sector, where just one successful mining mission can yield as high as trillions of dollars worth of material. 

Space is not just the final frontier to conquer. It’s the beginning of a new age for the human race. 

Works Cited

Center for Strategic and International Studies. “A Contested Domain: From Space Theory to Practice.” 10 May 2023, Accessed 11 November 2023.

Demarest, Colin. “No, Rafael’s ‘Iron Beam’ laser didn’t blow up missiles over Israel.” 2023, Accessed 6 11 2023.

Erwin, Sandra. “With Starshield, SpaceX readies for battle.” SpaceNews, 19 January 2023, Accessed 6 November 2023.

Hitchens, Theresa. “’On the table’: Hicks says DoD, IC considering indemnifying commercial space providers.” Breaking Defense, 15 September 2022, Accessed 6 November 2023.

“’Pacing challenge’: US defence strategy focuses on China.” Al Jazeera, 27 October 2022, Accessed 6 November 2023.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *