There is a rapidly growing arms race among global superpowers in weaponizing earth’s orbit, and this militarization of space could unequivocally become detrimental to international peace and security. For example, Unmanned Space Vehicles (USVs) for surveillance and reconnaissance will not only be used as ‘guardsmen’ of space commercialization or as ‘stormtroopers’ of space industrialization, but even weaponized, eventually, to operate as any other traditional weapons system, and with expansive reach.
There is a latin quote that states; ‘sivis pacem, para bellum’, or in other words; ‘if you want peace, you must prepare for war’. It is therefore seemingly opportune that numerous international superpowers have embraced this analogy as a pretext to commission the research, development, and deployment of spatial weapons systems, serving as a nuance of ‘great deterrence’ for national security.
Many wars or armed conflicts on the planet over the last decades or so have occurred for two main reasons (according to my understanding):
- The first is lack of ‘vacuum’ for emerging nations to assert pride over their sovereign spaces, and an emergence of ‘power vacuums’ leading to insurgencies by armed militia groups, and
- Of the second is due to lack of (adequate) intra-governmental coordination on major global issues that affect security interests of various nations; as seen lately, for example, with the Covid-19 global pandemic response.
Such geo-politico dimensions are continuous and never ending. But, in addition to weapons manufacturing designed for space militarization, there are also changes in the field of ‘war-making’, along with greater use of the language. The ever changing modus operandi of foreign policy or ‘war of words’ has consequently incentivized a rapid R&D commissioning for space weapons.
According to international law, a country can not engage in an armed conflict over the possession of outer space, including earth’s orbital sphere. But it is the unregulated development of space weaponry by powerful states that brings outer space into the same domain as that of the nuclear arms race, and as is projected to happen in the near future with the deployment of spatial weapons.
These weapons could unfortunately be used to initiate a vicious cycle of ‘tit-for-tat’, threatening the future survival of humanity.
The danger associated with the weaponization of space is certainly manifest, given the inadequacy of ‘rules of engagement’ for potentially emerging space related conflicts. However, here too, international law is clearly proving to be inadequate in dealing with the coming proliferation of spatial weapons and the potential use of space for military purposes.
The threat to international peace and security in outer space is obviously a global issue. Deployed space-based missiles will greatly affect the abilities of countries to deter and protect themselves from (top-down) spatial strikes. The current and prospective threats and challenges in outer space are therefore so diverse that the world may not be able to address them or manage the subsequent risks effectively. It is clear that the security implications of war on and within the boundaries of earth’s orbit are so significant, as is its coming negative impact on the future of mankind.
This is (perhaps) why Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, is so adamant in exporting human civilization beyond earth(’s orbit).
However, and in addition to the above insight, a complex inter-dimensional war involving numerous superpowers from around the world looking to conquer space could, from Elon’s Musk point of view, be another serious and upcoming lethal threat as well. He suggests, in my interpretation, that this spatial battle could be a ‘harbinger’ of the end of the world, and as such, various ‘god rays’ emanating from the last days of revelations could be turning this ‘actual truth’ into a global conspiratorial myth of all time.
So, let’s break down these possible soon-to-come conspiratorial myths of all time shall we…
‘Resurrection of the dead’ conspiracy -
‘Resurrection of the dead or revival of the dead’ conspiracies via ‘astral projection or out-of-body experience (OBE)’ that are being circulated by various conspiracy theorists suggest that such may become a reality in the near future, where an intelligent life form from the future may act as humanity’s ‘supreme guide’.
For reference, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is a collective scientific (or astronomic) consensus to engage in the search of any such signs of super intelligence emanating from outer space and even beyond earth’s solar system, and to subsequently make contact (if possible).
‘Global control’ conspiracy -
At the current stage of development, it is noticeable that many international superpowers are exercising more diplomacy to prevent controlling the world with their soon-to-come spatial military capabilities alone.
This suggests, according to conspiracy theorists, an intention to unite nations in some sort of a self proclaimed ‘super-state’ with multiple ‘supranational’ offspring, subsequently giving international superpowers significantly stronger military might to exert substantial control over the world under the banner of a one-world government. If there is to be a planned one-world government, conspiracies also suggest that it is highly probable that it may be an extra-terrestrial who becomes the ‘chosen one’.
These conspiracy theories symbolize another pretext for space militarization among global superpowers, not only through a proliferation of spatial weapons on the nuanced basis of ‘great deterrence’, but also as a geopolitical chessboard gamified to see who conquers the space arms race and ultimately be on the driver’s seat to lead ‘what’s to come’.
The bottom line is — how do we nonetheless ensure an actual and foreseeable ‘zero-war’ scenario in outer space in order to prevent a sort of (mass) exodus of human civilization beyond earth? I believe there exists possible remedies that could mitigate the risk. One option, according to some theorists, however, is to first abandon the ‘naïve’ assumption that there will be a ‘zero-war’.
I beg to differ on the presumption of naivety.