Dolman

1. Bibliographic Entry. Astropolitik
2.  Author : Dolman – SAASS professor, half lunatic, but pure genius.  The Mitchell of space theory, and grateful to have taken his class
3.  Context: Post-space race space policy
4.  Scope:  Post-cold war era 
5.  Evidence/credibility:  historical analysis, military and strategic theory, astrophysics, and space law/treaties
6.  Central Proposition/Thesis:   · The ultimate goal of astropolitics and Astropolitik is not the militarization of space. Rather, the militarization of space is a means to an end, part of a longer-term strategy. (182)
7.  Sub-themes:
·   A case will be made here that the reality of confrontation in space politics pervades the reality of the ideal of true cooperation and political unity in space which has never been genuine, and in the near term seems unlikely. (2)
·   (8) Who controls low-Earth orbit controls near-Earth space. Who controls near-Earth space dominates Terra. Who · dominates Terra determines the destiny of humankind 
·   The state that most efficiently occupies or controls these positions can ensure for itself domination of space com fierce and, ultimately, terrestrial politics. (37)
·   51 · A common perception of humanity's reach for the stars is that it is simply the next logical advance of the evolution of species.
·   70 Earth space, like eastern Europe in Mackinder's design, is the most critical arena for astropolitics. Control of Earth space not only guarantees long-term control of the outer reaches of space, it provides a near term advantage on the terrestrial battlefield. 
·   Domination of space will come through efficient control of specific outer space strategic narrows or chokepoints along these lanes. The primary and first readily identifiable strategic narrow is low-Earth orbit itself.  At the edge of Earth space, beyond low-Earth orbit, lies the most obvious and discussed strategic narrow - the geostationary belt. (74)
·   136 · No, it is not a lack of appropriate technology that has stifled the exploration and exploitation of space. Instead, much of the blame can be found in political motivation, or more precisely, in its absence. The reality is that political decision makers in the United States and the other states with space-launch capacity have little or no pressing political or economic interest in the further opening of this frontier.
·   Astropolitik declares that the lack of a hostile space power at the present is more damaging to US space interests than having aggressive, competing military space programs with which to cope (156)
·   157 The lack of an enemy in space is most assuredly causing complacency in the United States, stunting the expansion of its space capabilities, and further causing our allies (in Europe and Japan specifically, but in Israel most notoriously) to develop their own potentially conflicting military space capaci ties because they cannot be sure of US commitments in the future. 
·   
Notes:
2 Gray asserts that strategy is 'the use that is made of force and the threats of force for the ends of POlicy'.5 Threats maybe implicit or explicit but the connection between violence and policy is vital to an understanding of grand strategy. 
A case will be made here that the reality of confrontation in space politics pervades the reality of the ideal of true cooperation and political unity in space which has never been genuine, and in the near term seems unlikely. 
3 · In the short term, despite our best intentions, we may be relegated to a harsh, discordant, entirely realist paradigm in space. .
7  This is to be the ultimate contribution of astro politics and Astropolitik: a full and heuristic understanding of the geopolitical determinants of space, an application of the assumptions of realism to the astropolitical model, and, in the end, an economically robust and peaceful exploration of the cosmos by humanity. 
'. Throughout, five primary propositions are explored. First, many classical geopolitical theories of national military development are fully compatible with, and will prove readily adaptable to, the realm . of outer space. Second, the most applicable of these theories will be military power assessments of geographical position in light of new technologies. Such assessments have been made for sea, rail, and air power, and can be viewed with analytic perspicacity as segments of an evolutionary process. Space power is their logical and apparent heir. Third, the special terrain of solar space dictates specific tactics and strategies for efficient exploitation of space resources. These strategies impact on political development, highlighting the geo/astrodeterminist political relationship. Fourth, the concept of space as a power base in classical, especially German, geopolitical thought will require some modification, but will easily conform to the exploitation and . · use of outer space as an ultimate national power base. Finally, a thorough understanding of the astromechanical and physical demarcations of outer  space can prove useful to political planners, and will prove absolutely critical to military strategists. An optimum deployment of space. asset for victory on the current terrestrial and future space-based battlefields.
(8) Who controls low-Earth orbit controls near-Earth space. Who controls near-Earth space dominates Terra. Who · dominates Terra determines the destiny of humankind 
13 . · Ideally, geostrategists attempt to gain a global advantage over competing states. If they are unable to accomplish dominance for themselves, they invoke geostrategy to deny the geographically advantaged state's potential domination through their own maximization of scarce geopositional resources.
15 ,. Astrostrategy, following the pattern already established, is the identification of critical terrestrial and outer space locations, the control of which can provide military and political dominance of outer space, or at a minimum can insure against the same dominance by a potential opponent state. . Astropolitik, a term specifically chosen for its negative connotations, is identified as a determinist political theory that manipulates the relationship between state power and outerspace control for the purpose of extending the · dominance of a single state over the whole of the Earth.
37 The creation and maintenance of global space-based communications and navigation systems, clearly a modern parallel to artificial technological chokepoints as the world becomes increasingly reliant on these assets, has brought the interests of other states 'close along' our (astropolitical) shores. The United States must be ready and prepared, in Mahanian scrutiny, to commit to the defense and maintenance of these assets, or relinquish its power to a state willing and able to do so. · In space there are specific orbits and transit routes that because of their advantages in fuel efficiency create natural corridors of movement and commerce. Space, like the sea, can potentially be traversed in any direction, but because of gravity wells and the forbidding cost of getting fuel to orbit, over time spacefaring nations will develop specific pathways of heaviest traffic. Each of these pathways, identified later in the astropolitical model as Hohmann transfer orbits, can be shown to have or to be in themselves critical chokepoints. The state that most efficiently occupies or controls these positions can ensure for itself domination of space com fierce and, ultimately, terrestrial politics.
41 Crucial to Mackinder's strategy for Britain was the notion that if a state desired control of global affairs but could not physically occupy the critical keys to geodetermined power, then it must deny control of those areas to its adversaries. To the astrostrategist the parallel is all too obvious. The vast potential resource base of outer space is presumably so enormous, effectively inexhaustible, that any state that can control it will ultimately dominate the earth.
51 · A common perception of humanity's reach for the stars is that it is simply the next logical advance of the evolution of species.
69 Terra" or Earth space, from the lowest viable orbit to just beyond geostationary altitude (about 36,000 km). Earth space is the operating medium for the military's most advanced reconnaissance and navigation satellites, and all current and planned space-based weaponry.6 At its lower limit, Earth space is the region of post-thrust medium and long-range ballistic missile flight, also called low-Earth orbit. At its opposite end, Earth space includes the tremendously valuable geostationary belt, populated mostly by communications and weather satellites.
70 Earth space, like eastern Europe in Mackinder's design, is the most critical arena for astropolitics. Control of Earth space not only guarantees long-term control of the outer reaches of space, it provides a near term advantage on the terrestrial battlefield. 
71 The unseen undulations of outer space terrain, the hills and valleys of space, are more properly referred to as gravity wells. Depiction of this terrain is difficult, but a two-dimensional portrayal is that of a weight sinking into a tightly stretched sheet of rubber (see Figure 3.8). The more massive the body, the deeper the well. Travel or practical distance in space is less a function of linear distance than of effort or work expended to get from point A to point B. 
73 . . Given the vital necessity to conserve fuel and increase the productive lives of spacecraft, the future lanes of commerce and military lines of communications in space will be the Hohmann transfer orbits between stable spaceports.
The Hohmann transfer establishes the equivalent of the lane of commerce for space. Domination of space will come through efficient control of specific outer space strategic narrows or chokepoints along these lanes. The primary and first readily identifiable strategic narrow is low-Earth orbit itself. 
74 At the edge of Earth space, beyond low-Earth orbit, lies the most obvious and discussed strategic narrow - the geostationary belt.
75 [he first, energy advantage, is a firepower benefit because weapons placed higher in the gravity well gain the downward momentum - velocity in the power equation, velocity times mass - while kinetic energy weapons firing up the gravity well lose momentum, thus power. The maneuver advantage comes because spacecraft higher up in the gravity well have more time to observe and react to attacks than those at lower positions. Stine argued that true tactical and operational advantage in space would go to those who could dominate the top of the gravity wells, and the best positions were those that because of counterbalancing gravitational forces had no down well pull in any direction.
· Lagrange calculated that there were five specific points in space where the gravitational effects of the Earth and Moon would cancel each other out (see Figure 3.10). An object fixed at ' one of these points (or more accurately stated, in tight orbit around one of these points) would remain permanently stable, with no expenditure of fuel.
, only two of the Lagrange points are effectively stable - L4 and L5. 
91 It was this pattern of perceived military necessity shouldered for fear of the growing power of a potential enemy that ultimately drove the development of space programs. 
115 The two most prevalent approaches for defining outer space have been spatial and functional. The spatial approach explains that space begins just below the lowest point at which an object can be maintained in orbit. This has also been called the 'Karman primary jurisdiction line', the point at which aerodynamic flight ends and centrifugal forces take over, about 52 miles
136 · No, it is not a lack of appropriate technology that has stifled the exploration and exploitation of space. Instead, much of the blame can be found in political motivation, or more precisely, in its absence. The reality is that political decision makers in the United States and the other states with space-launch capacity have little or no pressing political or economic interest in the further opening of this frontier.
146 Astropolitics requires that at least six dimensions are considered and accounted for when forming and applying policy:
·   ( I) Society and culture: The astropolitical society must be farsighted and enthusiastic for space exploration and conquest. 
·   (2) Political environment: The astropolitical state must be efficiently organized for massive public technology projects (e.g., self-sustaining space station). Perhaps counterintuitively, this means liberal democratic and capitalist in character. The centrally planned economies of the twentieth century showed a fearsome ability to marshal resources and to coerce their populations into the sacrifices necessary to construct national space programs, but they were unable to sustain them at the highest levels. ;. A free people committed to space exploration will generate the wealth necessary to sustain a long-term vision for space dominance.
·   (3) Physical environment: '. The state should be large enough in physical terms to incorporate a broad natural and industrial resource base and have the sites needed for terrestrial space support. It should also be large enough in terms of population so as to support the extreme expense, through taxes, of space domination efforts, and to continually renew the large number of inventive and high-technology positions required in support of space operations.
·   (4) Military and technology. Because of the risk involved, military personnel have always been at the forefront of space exploration. 
·   (5) Economic base: The industry of the state must be robust, high-tech, and adaptive to ongoing innovation. · Entrepreneurship is as vital to the state wishing to dominate space as it was to the early domination of the seas by Britain.
·   ( 6) Theory and doctrine:  
156 Only a brief attempt will be made to argue that, in this case, might does make right. 
Astropolitik declares that the lack of a hostile space power at the present is more damaging to US space interests than having aggressive, competing military space programs with which to cope
157 The lack of an enemy in space is most assuredly causing complacency in the United States, stunting the expansion of its space capabilities, and further causing our allies (in Europe and Japan specifically, but in Israel most notoriously) to develop their own potentially conflicting military space capaci ties because they cannot be sure of US commitments in the future. 
The United States should seize control of outer space and become the shepherd (or perhaps watchdog) for all who would venture there, for if any one state must do so, it is the most likely to establish a benign hegemony.
The Astropolitik plan could be emplaced quickly and easily, with just three critical steps. First, the United States should declare that it is withdrawing from the current space regime and announce that it is establishing a principle of free-market sovereignty in space. Second. by using its current and near-term capacities. the United States should endeavor at once to seize military control of low-Earth orbit. From that high ground vantage, near the top of the Earth's gravity well, space-based laser or kinetic energy weapons could prevent any other state from deploying assets there, and could most effectively engage and destroy terrestrial enemy ASAT facilities. Third, a national space coordination agency should be established to define,  separate, and coordinate the efforts of commercial, civilian, and military space  projects.