Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance Hardcover – March 3, 2008
Featured Women's History Titles from Springer Nature
Celebrate women's history with these titles from Springer
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
First place winner, Ben Franklin Awards, sponsored by the Independent Book Publishers Association, in the category of Politics/Current Events
About the Author
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
The first elephant Mr. Moore ignores is that any treaty against "weaponizing space," no matter how loftily worded, isn't simply unverifiable, it completely ignores reality. An object in Low Earth Orbit travels at five miles per second. At that velocity, anything is going to become a lethal impactor. Banning space weapons would require banning any and all activity in space.
The second elephant Mr. Moore glosses over is that arms races do not cause wars, hot or cold. It's fashionable in some quarters to say this, but fashionable ideas frequently do not comport to reality. An arms race is an expression of national strategy writ out in acquisition & procurement policy.
And that brings us to the next elephant: the notion that every other nation outside the US is sincerely committed to not weaponizing space. There is absolutely no evidence for this notion, aside from statements made by nations with a radically different view of diplomacy's means and ends than those of the United States. As for the issue of cost, being too broke to afford space weapons is not a commitment to rejecting space weapons, and being too broke to afford space weapons may be a temporary state of affairs.
Another elephant is Mr. Moore's overall tone--the US is a crazy cowboy, and China's ASAT test had nothing at all to do with their perception of their national security requirements; it happened solely because of those crazy American cowboys not setting a proper example for the wogs, who are utterly incapable of having their own opinion and must therefore be shown how to properly ape their betters. (Offensive language chosen deliberately; offensive ideas should be expressed in offensive language, and not sugar-coated with political correctness.)
Yet another elephant is that space denial--at least on a limited scale--will be within the capability of sub-national groups in the not-distant future (assuming it isn't already). Mr. Moore's world is one where only nation-states matter in international affairs. I'll take that argument seriously when international banks stop enjoying an effective state of sovereign immunity from fraud charges after causing the 2008 financial meltdown.
The final elephant I'm going to point out: space is already militarized. As more and more economic value is generated in space, it will be more and more militarized in an absolute sense (although the amount of militarized space assets as a proportion of total space assets will likely decline). Noble words, even when they're written on high-quality paper with some political hacks' signatures on it, isn't going to change that. Willie Sutton famously remarked that he robbed banks because, "That's where the money is." The US Navy patrols the world ocean today in part to prevent piracy, because so many goods move on the world ocean. A future space force--of SOME nationality--will patrol space. That's because economic assets, wherever they may be, will always require protection. The question is who will control that force--and how it will be used.