The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assuming the Inevitable? Overcoming the Inevitability of Outer Space Weaponization and Conflict
Abstract
Is armed conflict in and from space inevitable? In recent years a consensus has emerged that space has become increasingly militarized – in the sense that technologies placed in outer space are increasingly used to facilitate and augment traditional military activities. But actual use of weapons in or from outer space remains highly controversial. The aim of this article is to assess the attitudes of major space-faring powers towards space weaponization. Central here, the article argues, is the question of whether the weaponization of space and/or conflict in space (taken here to mean the occurrence of military conflict in outer space itself, or from the Earth directed at any systems deployed in outer space) is inevitable, and the extent to which the major space powers espouse this proposition. This article shows that the idea of inevitability retains a prominent place (although for subtly differing reasons) in American, Chinese, and Russian perspectives on space weaponization. What it is that is inevitable frequently varies, based on assumed but underspecified technological developments. This risks creating a discursively constructed security dilemma that increases the likelihood of actual space weaponization. It leads to the conclusion that renewed negotiations between the major space powers and international cooperative agreements are essential to combat the fatalism of the inevitability thesis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rubicon Theory of War holds good for understanding the status quo and stalemate with regard to operationalizing space weapons.
“The research argument of the article pivots around “Rubicon Theory of War” 6 also hold good for understanding the status quo and stalemate with 4 Ibid, 692-693.regard to operationalizing space weapons.”
From Analytical Appraisal of Space Weapons' Probability: Imminent Detriment to the Multi-Lateral Non-Proliferation Regime and Strategic Stability (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Minhas, A. S., Shujahi, F. K., & Saeed, S. (2024) · BTTN Journal · doi:10.61732/bj.v3i2.139
Metadata
- Authors
- Peoples, C.
- Corresponding author
- Peoples, Columba
- ORCID
- Peoples, Columba
- Venue
- Contemporary Security Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 502-520
- ISSN
- 1352-3260 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-8764
- OpenAlex
- W1978786492
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Contemporary Security Policy (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Space exploration and regulation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Satellite Systems and Control
- Keywords
- weaponization of space, space militarization, space conflict, security dilemma, space power, US space policy, Russian space policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review