Space, once a realm primarily associated with scientific discovery and peaceful exploration, has undeniably transitioned into a critical arena of geopolitical competition and strategic confrontation. This celestial expanse, fundamental to the functioning of modern terrestrial societies and military operations, is witnessing an accelerating militarization and weaponization by major global powers. The intricate web of digital networks, global supply chains, and the capacity for nations to anticipate and respond to crises with precision are all profoundly reliant on the uninterrupted operation of space-based assets, rendering them indispensable enablers of contemporary life and warfare.
The geopolitical environment in space has become inherently unpredictable, necessitating agile responses and expanded strategic options for nations seeking to safeguard their interests. Leading powers, including the United States, Russia, China, and India, are making substantial investments in space defense, harnessing advanced satellite technology, electronic warfare, and anti-satellite or ASAT weapons to secure strategic advantages. The sheer scale of this arms race is evident in the global military space budget, which reached an estimated $57 billion in 2023. The United States alone allocated $29.4 billion for space defense in 2024, while China's military space budget stands at approximately $10 billion annually.
The Escalating Threat Landscape in Orbit
The assertive development of counterspace capabilities by key adversaries essentially drives the current trajectory of space militarization.
China's Expanding Anti-Satellite Arsenal
China is rapidly advancing its counterspace arsenal, presenting a significant challenge to global stability and particularly to U.S. interests in space. Its capabilities span a broad spectrum, including ground-based lasers designed to disrupt, degrade, or damage satellite sensors, with projections indicating the deployment of systems powerful enough to damage satellite structures by the mid to late 2020s. Beijing also employs sophisticated jammers capable of targeting space-based communications, radars, and navigation systems, including the Pentagon's extremely high frequency systems.
A particularly concerning development is China's exploration of the fractional orbital bombardment system, or FOBS. This Cold War era technology could potentially deliver weapons, including nuclear payloads, from orbit onto terrestrial targets with minimal warning, operating without range limitations, and from any direction. Such a capability would fundamentally alter strategic calculus, providing a significant first strike advantage and complicating defensive measures. China's military doctrine explicitly recognizes space as a critical warfighting domain, integral to achieving "informatized warfare" and leveraging perceived U.S. dependence on space assets as a vulnerability. The People's Liberation Army is observed practicing "dogfighting" maneuvers in space with co-orbital satellites, which are designed to physically maneuver close to and potentially pull other satellites out of orbit. The destructive potential of these capabilities was starkly demonstrated by China's 2007 ASAT test, which destroyed an old weather satellite and generated vast quantities of orbital debris, posing a long-term threat not only to military assets but also to commercial and civilian space infrastructure worldwide.
Russia's Nuclear Capable Orbital Platforms
Russia, building upon its extensive Soviet space heritage, continues to bolster its military space program. Moscow has conducted development tests of its direct ascent ASATs, such as the Nudol missile, and has been accused of positioning suspicious maneuver-capable satellites near Western space assets. In 2020, the U.S. Space Command publicly accused Russia of firing a projectile from one of its satellites, suggesting a test of an on-orbit weapon.
Even more alarming are credible reports indicating Russia's potential plans to launch a nuclear weapon into orbit. Such a weapon would be designed to generate a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, capable of indiscriminately disabling or destroying a multitude of satellites, including its own, and posing a direct danger to human spaceflight platforms like the International Space Station. This potential deployment, while reportedly not yet tested or deployed, would constitute a clear violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which explicitly prohibits placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit. The indiscriminate nature of an EMP attack in space, affecting a wide swath of orbital assets regardless of ownership, means that even a limited strike could trigger widespread collateral damage and potentially lead to rapid, uncontrolled escalation, possibly culminating in unintended nuclear conflict on Earth. This inherent lack of precision in such a weapon underscores the extreme risks associated with its development and potential use.
The Critical Vulnerability of Space-Based Systems
The implications of these advanced adversarial capabilities are profound and far-reaching. Anti-satellite weapons, whether kinetic or non-kinetic, possess the capacity to incapacitate or destroy vital GPS, communications, and intelligence systems. These systems are not merely military enablers; they are foundational to modern civilian infrastructure, supporting everything from global navigation and financial transactions to weather forecasting and disaster response. The increasing reliance of contemporary militaries on satellite-based technologies for navigation, communication, surveillance, and guiding precision munitions makes these systems exceptionally enticing targets in any future conflict. The destructive consequences extend beyond immediate operational disruption: the deliberate destruction of satellites generates vast amounts of space debris. This critical concern could lead to a cascading multiplication of debris known as Kessler syndrome, rendering significant portions of Earth's orbit unusable for generations. This environmental hazard represents a shared threat to all spacefaring nations, irrespective of their strategic alignments.
The current geopolitical environment in space presents a paradox regarding strategic depth. Traditionally, strategic depth offered geographical distance and time as buffers against terrestrial threats. However, in the space domain, adversaries can "reach inside U.S. systems" through digital networks and satellites, effectively bypassing traditional borders. This redefines strategic depth: it is no longer about physical distance from an adversary but rather about the inherent resilience, redundancy, and defensibility of a nation's space architecture. This shift necessitates a redefinition of national security strategy, extending beyond geographical defense to encompass the robust protection of orbital assets as critical national infrastructure. This new understanding implies that a nation's defensive and offensive capabilities must now extend into the space domain to maintain strategic flexibility and options.
Furthermore, the dual-use nature of many space technologies presents a significant strategic challenge. A substantial number of space technologies serve both civilian and military applications. For example, a satellite designed for earth observation or communications can be readily adapted for military surveillance or jamming. This inherent ambiguity blurs the lines between legitimate peaceful activities and acts of aggression, making attribution difficult and legal consequences minimal in the "gray zone" of operations. This dual functionality also complicates arms control efforts, as precisely defining what constitutes a "space weapon" becomes an almost insurmountable task. While this dual-use nature can provide a strategic advantage for nations developing these capabilities, allowing for covert military advancements under the guise of civilian programs, it simultaneously acts as a profound impediment to international law and arms control, making it exceedingly difficult to establish clear rules of engagement or prevent an escalating arms race. This suggests that future space security frameworks must prioritize regulating behaviors and effects, rather than solely focusing on the technologies themselves.
The increasing involvement of private space firms further complicates the strategic landscape. Thousands of commercial satellites are being deployed by private entities, with some being leased to governments or integrated directly into national security missions. Elon Musk's Starlink, for instance, proved to be a critical asset for Ukraine's military operations. The Department of Defense's Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve, or CASR, aims to integrate with the private sector for space-based operations, signaling a growing reliance on commercial entities for military capabilities. This trend means that future space conflicts will not be confined to state actors. Non-state actors, including private companies, will play an increasingly vital role, complicating issues of liability, attribution, and the application of international law in armed conflict. This also raises critical questions about the protection of commercial assets in a contested environment and the potential for these assets to become legitimate military targets.
The Limitations of Existing International Frameworks
The current international legal landscape governing outer space, primarily anchored by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, proves increasingly inadequate in addressing the complexities of contemporary space militarization. The Outer Space Treaty, while foundational, prohibits only the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit and military activities on celestial bodies. It does not explicitly ban conventional weapons in orbit, nor does it provide precise mechanisms for enforcement or addressing the dual-use nature of many space technologies. This legal ambiguity creates a "gray area" that powerful states exploit to their advantage. Attempts to define "peaceful purposes" have been contentious, with some interpretations allowing for military systems used in "peacekeeping roles" as long as they are "non-aggressive".
The Artemis Accords, while aiming to establish principles for responsible civil space exploration and resource utilization, are primarily bilateral agreements and are not legally binding in the same way as a treaty. They reinforce commitment to the Outer Space Treaty and promote principles like transparency, interoperability, and orbital debris mitigation. However, critics point to their U.S.-centric nature and lack of precise mechanisms for designating territory for resource extraction, potentially exacerbating international tensions and resembling terrestrial conflicts over land and resources. The Accords also face challenges in holding private corporations accountable for their actions in space, creating a scenario where non-state actors could violate terms without severe consequences. This further highlights the gap in international law regarding the evolving role of commercial entities in space activities.
The Imperative for an Allied Space Forces Coalition
Given the escalating threats and the limitations of existing international frameworks, there is a growing momentum behind forming a U.S.-led "Artemis Alliance" or "Allied Space Forces." This proposed coalition of treaty allies, including nations like the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and Canada, represents a strategic shift from reliance on soft norms to a more robust hard power posture in space. The core rationale is to coordinate shared doctrines, ensure interoperable command and control, develop joint resilience capabilities, and establish clear escalation ladders, ranging from sanctions to military responses. This collaborative approach aims to pool deterrent capacity, signal a unified defense of shared space assets, credibly enforce space norms, raise the cost of aggression, and ultimately preserve a secure and sustainable space environment for allied interests.
Coordinating Shared Doctrines
Harmonizing military doctrines among allies in the space domain is a complex yet crucial undertaking. It involves not only overcoming literal language barriers but also establishing a common lexicon and shared understanding of space warfare, from tactical vernacular to strategic policy frameworks. The U.S. Space Force, recognizing the necessity of this, released its inaugural International Partnership Strategy in July 2025, outlining a comprehensive vision for deepening collaboration with allies. This strategy emphasizes that space power is "the ultimate team sport" and aims to integrate allies across the full spectrum of force design, force development, and force employment.
NATO, for its part, has declared space an operational domain and established an Overarching Space Policy to guide its approach, ensuring space-based support for Alliance operations. The NATO Space Operations Centre, established in 2024 in Ramstein, Germany, serves as a focal point for coordinating allied efforts and sharing information on space-related issues. Furthermore, the NATO Space Centre of Excellence in Toulouse, France, is actively involved in developing space doctrine and standards, accelerating Alliance work on space-related matters, and deepening the integration of space concepts and technologies. These efforts aim to build a shared understanding of evolving threats and vulnerabilities, thereby enhancing the Alliance's strategic anticipation and resilience. The goal is to ensure that allies operate seamlessly as a coalition, maximizing opportunities for participation in force employment and integrating allied capabilities to increase the risk calculus for potential adversaries.
Interoperable Command and Control
Effective command and control in a contested space environment demands seamless interoperability among allied forces. This means ensuring that diverse systems and capabilities can communicate and operate together cohesively. The U.S. Space Force's International Partnership Strategy highlights the need to "communicate to ensure interoperable data, capabilities, and activities while maximizing information sharing across all classification levels". This is critical for enabling coalition warfighting in this domain.
NATO initiatives directly contribute to this objective. The NATO Space Operations Centre, for instance, streamlines requests for space products through a single entity, enhancing responsiveness and supporting timely decision-making for commanders. Projects like the NATO SATCOM Services 6th Generation, or NSS6G, are investing over EUR 1 billion to procure resilient and flexible satellite communications services, essential for robust command and control globally. The Strategic Space Situational Awareness System, or 3SAS, is being developed to enhance the Alliance's understanding of the space environment and events, crucial for effective command and control. Additionally, the Alliance Persistent Surveillance from Space, or APSS, program will foster cooperation on space-based surveillance, creating a virtual constellation of national and commercial satellites to provide a clear picture of terrestrial activities, vital for planning and decision-making. These efforts collectively aim to bridge the gap between diverse national systems and foster a unified operational picture.
Joint Resilience Capabilities
Building resilience in space defense is paramount to denying adversaries the ability to achieve their objectives through attacks on space assets. The United States is actively transforming its space architecture to be more resilient, proliferated, and integrated to counter growing threats. This involves a strategic shift away from a small number of highly capable but vulnerable large satellites towards a more proliferated and resilient constellation.
Key strategies for enhancing resilience include:
- Disaggregation: This involves allocating different missions, functions, or sensors across separate, smaller subsystems, both in space and on the ground. This approach ensures that targeting a single element only partially affects the overall capability, making reconstitution faster and more cost-effective. It increases the effort required for an attacker to turn off the entire system, thereby improving deterrence.
- Proliferation: This strategy distributes multiple units of the same system or component to provide technical redundancy. By having numerous redundant elements, it becomes significantly harder for an opponent to disrupt the entire system. The U.S. Space Force is actively pursuing a proliferated, resilient Missile Warning and Missile Tracking architecture in low Earth orbit and medium Earth orbit.
- Diversification: This entails contributing to the same mission or function through multiple means, leveraging commercial, civil, or international partners, and utilizing different platforms, orbits, or systems. An example is obtaining positioning, navigation, and timing services from various sources like GPS, Galileo, or GLONASS. Diversification also includes exploring alternative domain solutions, such as High Altitude Platform Systems that can quickly substitute for space-based services.
- Rapid Reconstitution: This capability involves the swift launch of additional satellites or activation of ground stations to restore damaged space-based services. The U.S. Space Force's "exploit, buy, build" model prioritizes rapid capability delivery, leveraging existing commercial solutions and off-the-shelf technologies for faster response when augmentation or replacement is needed.
The U.S. Space Force has established the Resilient Mission Support Operations Center, or MSOC, which serves as the operational backbone for resilient missile warning and tracking. This center, co-located with the Boulder Ground Innovation Facility, or BGIF, enables rapid, data-driven decisions and seamless monitoring of space-based sensors, enhancing missile warning and threat responses for the joint force and allies. The MSOC functions as a 24/7 hub, processing and disseminating data from resilient Medium Earth Orbit constellations to keep the U.S. and its allies ahead of evolving missile threats, including hypersonic missiles. This integrated approach, combining government, commercial, and allied capabilities, is crucial for enhancing resilience and deterring potential adversaries.
Escalation Ladders and Deterrence
The proposed Allied Space Forces would establish clear escalation ladders to manage and control conflict in space, aiming to deter aggression by raising the costs for potential adversaries. Deterrence in space involves a spectrum of responses, from pre-conflict shaping activities like overt weapons testing and diplomatic signaling to trans-conflict actions such as cyberattacks, satellite maneuvers, and ultimately, kinetic or non-kinetic strikes. The objective is to demonstrate the capability to deny adversary objectives and impose costs upon them.
NATO's deterrence and defense posture is already comprehensive, spanning land, air, maritime, cyber, and space domains, and relies on a mix of nuclear, conventional, missile defense, space, and cyber capabilities. The Alliance has committed to significant measures to enhance its deterrence and defense, including increased defense spending, with allies agreeing to invest 5% of GDP annually on defense by 2035. This collective strength is designed to deter aggression from potential adversaries.
Effective deterrence in space requires a clear understanding of escalation thresholds and the ability to respond proportionally and decisively. The U.S. Space Force's strategic planning emphasizes the need for a resilient architecture that can mitigate attacks, assure capabilities, and rapidly reconstitute in the mid to long term. This includes developing offensive and defensive options in the near term to counter modern anti-satellite capabilities. The principle is that any harmful interference or attack on critical space infrastructure will be met with a deliberate response at a time, place, manner, and domain of the U.S.'s choosing, recognizing that space attacks can have effects beyond the orbital domain.
The concept of "escalation lattices" is more appropriate for space conflicts than simple "ladders," as it accounts for horizontal spillover into other domains and increased intensity. This means that a space conflict could quickly extend to terrestrial, cyber, or other domains, complicating de-escalation efforts. Therefore, the Alliance's strategy must encompass not only direct space responses but also cross-domain retaliation to raise the stakes for adversaries. By presenting a unified, multinational response, the Alliance aims to make aggressive actions politically and strategically costly for adversaries, reinforcing deterrence by both denial and punishment.
Enforcing Space Norms and Preserving the Space Environment
A central aim of the Allied Space Forces is to credibly enforce space norms and preserve a secure and sustainable space environment. The Artemis Accords, despite their limitations as non-binding agreements, lay down principles such as peaceful purposes, transparency, interoperability, and the mitigation of orbital debris. These principles are intended to enhance the governance of civil space exploration and use, aligning with the broader goal of responsible behavior in space. Norway, for example, became the 55th nation to sign the Accords in May 2025, indicating growing international support for these principles.
However, norms alone are insufficient for ensuring space security; credible enforcement mechanisms must back them. The proposed Alliance seeks to provide this enforcement power, moving beyond the "permissive and open-ended language" of existing space laws. By integrating allied capabilities and presenting a unified front, the Alliance aims to shape adversary behavior and reinforce international stability. This involves openly disseminating national space policies and exploration plans to promote transparency. It also includes a commitment to coordinate activities to avoid harmful interference, potentially through the establishment of "safety zones" for lunar operations, which would be temporary and based on scientific and engineering principles.
Preserving a safe and sustainable environment in space is critical for both public and private activities. The Artemis Accords signatories commit to planning for the mitigation of orbital debris, including the safe, timely, and efficient disposal of spacecraft at the end of their missions. This is a direct response to the threat of Kessler syndrome, where cascading collisions of debris could render parts of orbit unusable. The Space4Ocean Alliance, while focused on terrestrial oceans, exemplifies a collaborative governance model that integrates space technologies for environmental preservation, offering a parallel for how international cooperation can address complex global commons issues with space-based solutions. The underlying principle is that a collective approach to space domain awareness, coupled with clear rules of engagement and the capacity for decisive response, will deter aggressive actions and promote responsible behavior, ensuring the long-term usability of space for all.
Geopolitical Implications and Challenges
The formation of an Allied Space Forces coalition carries significant geopolitical implications, reshaping global power dynamics and potentially influencing the trajectory of the space arms race. The United States currently holds a leading position in global space power. However, China's rapidly advancing space program is projected to erode American influence across military, economic, and diplomatic spheres by 2030. Russia, meanwhile, is intensifying its focus on offensive counterspace capabilities. The proposed Alliance is a direct response to this evolving power balance, aiming to maintain a competitive advantage and deter potential adversaries.
However, establishing such a coalition is not without challenges. Critics and academic analyses highlight several potential obstacles:
- Arms Race Acceleration: While intended to deter, the formation of a military alliance in space could paradoxically accelerate the space arms race, prompting non-aligned nations or adversaries to develop their own counterspace capabilities in response, further escalating the situation. The focus on hard power might be perceived as a provocative step, leading to a tit for tat escalation rather than de-escalation.
- Legal Ambiguities and Enforcement: The existing international legal framework, notably the Outer Space Treaty, is seen as insufficient to prevent an arms race or protect against its undesirable consequences. The treaty's ambiguous definitions, especially regarding "peaceful use" and the lack of explicit prohibitions on conventional weapons in orbit, create loopholes that states exploit. An alliance seeking to enforce norms would need to navigate these ambiguities, potentially leading to disputes over what constitutes a legitimate defensive action versus an act of aggression. The absence of an international "police force" to enforce liability or rulings further complicates credible deterrence and accountability.
- Interoperability and Information Sharing Barriers: Despite the strategic emphasis on interoperability, practical challenges persist. Incompatible systems, varying data standards, and difficulties in declassifying information fast enough for allies to participate meaningfully in joint exercises hinder operational integration. Even close allies like Australia, France, and Canada have expressed concerns about information sharing barriers and the complexity of the U.S. military space enterprise.
- Overlapping Roles and Understaffing: The rapid growth of space organizations within the U.S. Department of Defense since the establishment of Space Command and Space Force in 2019 has led to overlapping roles and responsibilities, causing confusion and inefficiencies for allies seeking to coordinate. Furthermore, the U.S. Space Force reportedly faces limitations in trained personnel for security cooperation and has not adequately addressed the risk of unfilled key liaison positions, which are crucial for effective international collaboration.
- Commercial Sector Integration: While the integration of commercial capabilities is seen as a strength, it also introduces complexities regarding liability, attribution, and the application of international law, especially concerning non-state actors. The Artemis Accords, for example, do not prohibit military action on the Moon, and the lack of enforcement mechanisms for private entities could further complicate international space conflict.
The geopolitical landscape of space is increasingly characterized by "astro geopolitics," where governments prioritize sovereignty and link space power directly to offensive counterspace capabilities. The formation of alliances around programs like the Artemis Accords and the Sino-Russian lunar initiatives signals not merely a race for technological advancement but a broader struggle for geopolitical supremacy. This shift from a liberal internationalist view of space as a common heritage to one of strategic competition underscores the urgency for robust, yet carefully managed, international cooperation to prevent conflict and ensure the long-term stability of the orbital domain.
Conclusions
The evolving strategic environment in space, marked by the proliferation of advanced counterspace capabilities from nations like China and Russia, necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of international space policy. The traditional reliance on soft norms, as embodied by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and even the more recent Artemis Accords, is proving insufficient to manage the growing risks of conflict and ensure the security of vital space-based infrastructure. The inherent dual-use nature of space technology, the increasing commercialization of space activities, and the potential for indiscriminate weapons to cause widespread orbital damage all contribute to a complex and volatile domain.
The proposed U.S.-led "Artemis Alliance" or "Allied Space Forces" represents a strategic imperative to shift towards a rigid power posture in space. By coordinating shared doctrines, fostering interoperable command and control systems, developing joint resilience capabilities, and establishing clear escalation ladders, this coalition aims to create a credible deterrent against aggression. The objective is to raise the cost of hostile actions in space, enforce responsible behavior, and preserve a secure and sustainable orbital environment for all allied interests. This involves a comprehensive approach to space defense, encompassing disaggregation, proliferation, diversification, and rapid reconstitution of space assets, alongside enhanced space domain awareness and robust cross-domain response options.
However, the path to a secure allied space future is fraught with challenges. Overcoming barriers to interoperability, streamlining information sharing, addressing bureaucratic overlaps, and ensuring adequate personnel are critical operational hurdles. From a broader geopolitical perspective, the formation of such an alliance must carefully navigate the risk of accelerating an arms race, while simultaneously working to strengthen international legal frameworks and norms that apply to the unique characteristics of space warfare. The future stability of the global order will increasingly depend on the ability of leading spacefaring nations to forge effective alliances that can deter aggression, manage escalation, and collectively safeguard the indispensable domain of outer space.
References
Council on Geostrategy. "The Role of Space Power in Geopolitical Competition." January 30, 2024. https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/research/the-role-of-space-power-in-geopolitical-competition/.
Defense One. "Allies Struggle to Work with US Military in Space Operations, GAO Finds." July 10, 2025. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/07/allies-struggle-work-us-military-space-operations-gao-finds/406653/.
Defense One. "How China Is Expanding Its Anti Satellite Arsenal." April 25, 2025. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2025/04/how-china-expanding-its-anti-satellite-arsenal/404283/.
Diplomacy and Law. "International Law and the Regulation of Outer Space." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/international-law-and-the-regulation-of-outer-space.
Diplomacy.edu. "Militarisation of Space." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/militarisation-of-space/.
Engelsberg Ideas. "The Importance of Strategic Depth." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/the-importance-of-strategic-depth/.
ExecutiveGov. "Space Force Publishes International Strategy to Strengthen Partnerships, Deter Conflict in Orbit." July 9, 2025. https://executivegov.com/articles/space-force-international-partnership-strategy-chance-saltzman/.
GSDN.live. "Weaponizing Space: Militarization Trends and Global Security Implications." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://gsdn.live/weaponizing-space-militarization-trends-and-global-security-implications/.
Harvard International Review. "Anti Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.
Harvard International Review. "The Artemis Accords." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://hir.harvard.edu/the-artemis-accords/.
Heritage Foundation. "Golden Dome: America's Answer to China's Space Weapons." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/golden-dome-americas-answer-chinas-space-weapons.
IJIRL. "Weaponizing Space: Militarization of Outer Space Legal Challenges." March 2025. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/WEAPONIZING-SPACE-MILITARIZATION-OF-OUTER-SPACE-LEGAL-CHALLENGES.pdf.
JAPCC. "Space Resilience: Why and How." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.japcc.org/articles/space-resilience-why-and-how/.
Lieber Institute. "The US Space Force at 3: Growing Dangers for a Growing Branch." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/us-space-force-3-growing-dangers-growing-branch/.
Maastricht Student Law Review. "Reaching for the Stars: The Role of the Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty in Man's Quest for Space." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.maastrichtstudentlawreview.com/post/reaching-for-the-stars-the-role-of-the-artemis-accords-and-the-outer-space-treaty-in-man-s-quest-fo.
Modern Diplomacy. "Strategic Alliances in Space Exploration and Militarization: The New Frontier of Geopolitics." August 30, 2024. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/08/30/strategic-alliances-in-space-exploration-and-militarization-the-new-frontier-of-geopolitics/.
NASA. "Artemis Accords." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/.
National Defense Magazine. "As Space Cooperation Efforts Ramp Up, Pentagon Must Better Address Challenges, GAO Says." July 10, 2025. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/7/10/as-space-cooperation-efforts-ramp-up-pentagon-must-better-address-challenges-gao-says.
National Defense Magazine. "A Growing Network: US Leads Allies, Partners as Space Cooperation Expands." May 23, 2025. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/5/23/a-growing-network-us-leads-allies-partners-as-space-cooperation-expands.
NATO. "NATO's Approach to Space." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_175419.htm.
NATO. "Topic: Deterrence and Defence." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm.
News.Satnews.com. "Insight FAQ: What We Know About Russia's Alleged Nuclear Anti Satellite Weapon." June 13, 2024. https://news.satnews.com/2024/06/13/insight-faq-what-we-know-about-russias-alleged-nuclear-anti-satellite-weapon/.
Outer Space Treaty. "Outer Space Treaty." Wikipedia. Accessed July 15, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty.
Pacforum.org. "PacNet #49: The Evolution of Japan's Space Strategy and the Japan US Alliance." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://pacforum.org/publications/pacnet-49-the-evolution-of-japans-space-strategy-and-the-japan-us-alliance/.
RAND Corporation. "Allied Space Cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1739-1.html.
Scholarship.law.georgetown.edu. "The World is on the Precipice of a New Arms Race in Outer Space." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3101&context=facpub.
Spaceflight Now. "NASA Leaders, Artemis Contractors Argue Importance of Architecture Continuity for Returning to the Moon." February 7, 2025. https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/02/07/nasa-leaders-artemis-contractors-argue-importance-of-architecture-continuity-for-returning-to-the-moon/.
Space Force. "Space Force Publishes 2025 Data, AI Strategic Action Plan." March 19, 2025. https://www.spaceforce.mil/news/article-display/article/4124351/space-force-publishes-2025-data-ai-strategic-action-plan/.
Space Force. "Space Force Stands Up Resilient Mission Support Operations Center, Strengthens Missile Warning, Tracking Capabilities Through Partnerships." July 7, 2025. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4236009/space-force-stands-up-resilient-mission-support-operations-center-strengthens-m/.
Space Force. "US Space Force Unveils International Partnership Strategy to Strengthen Space Security." July 8, 2025. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4236539/us-space-force-unveils-international-partnership-strategy-to-strengthen-space-s/.
SSC.Spaceforce.mil. "Race to Resilience." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/about-us/race-to-resilience.
Tandfonline.com. "China's Space Ambitions: Fading Asymmetry." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658.
UNIDIR. "Norms for Outer Space." April 2022. https://unidir.org/files/2022-04/UNIDIR-Space_Dossier_7.pdf.
UNIDIR. "Outer Space and the Use of Force." September 2024. https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/UNIDIR_Outer_Space_and_Use_of_Force.pdf.
United States Space Force. "International Partnership Strategy." July 8, 2025. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4234434/us-space-force-unveils-international-partnership-strategy-to-strengthen-space-s/.
Wikipedia. "Anti satellite Weapon." Accessed July 15, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon.
Add comment
Comments