with Russia and the countries of the world. Ultimately, the SDI never cumulated to a full-on arms race to space, but it was yet another sign showing how viable this all was becoming. As is evident above, the idea of global reach and power, goes hand in hand with the theory of deterrence. Many advocate space weaponry as a mitigation of war, a sort of deterrence theory within itself, similar to that idea which was the cornerstone of President Reagan’s advocacy for the SDI. As was the case in World War II after the United States showed the world the devastating power of the atomic bomb, often times the threat of retaliation is enough of a deterrent. However, similar to the MAD doctrine for deterrence, the race for the armament of space often
…show more content…
The first concerns the ethics of vulnerability, and idea in stark contrast to the concept of the morality of an asymmetric advantage presented earlier. Aristotle stressed the necessity for the “Golden Mean,” the ideal balance between deficiency and excess, through habituation. This notion can be applied to the current dilemma, where deficiency would mean complete defenselessness of a country, and excess akin to invincibility. At face value, it may seem ridiculous to assert that an indomitable defense system put in place for a country could have any downsides. However, “[a]n invincible defense allows the protected nation to be unconcerned with diplomacy because negotiations are not necessary for survival. The protected nation can also easily use its defensive system for offensive purposes… [or] overestimate a threat or miscalculate the appropriate response.” As was the case during the Cold War, with MAD the only real deterrence between war, vulnerability encourages cooperation. “Mutual vulnerability or mutual invulnerability” seem to be the only real ways to deter nuclear-equipped countries from destroying each other, because once Nash equilibrium is destroyed, it is irrational to believe that the disadvantaged country would not be at significantly higher risk. Thus is the case with the weaponization of space. If, for example, the United States were to place a ICBM-intercepting defense system in place, the balance would
The first concerns the ethics of vulnerability, and idea in stark contrast to the concept of the morality of an asymmetric advantage presented earlier. Aristotle stressed the necessity for the “Golden Mean,” the ideal balance between deficiency and excess, through habituation. This notion can be applied to the current dilemma, where deficiency would mean complete defenselessness of a country, and excess akin to invincibility. At face value, it may seem ridiculous to assert that an indomitable defense system put in place for a country could have any downsides. However, “[a]n invincible defense allows the protected nation to be unconcerned with diplomacy because negotiations are not necessary for survival. The protected nation can also easily use its defensive system for offensive purposes… [or] overestimate a threat or miscalculate the appropriate response.” As was the case during the Cold War, with MAD the only real deterrence between war, vulnerability encourages cooperation. “Mutual vulnerability or mutual invulnerability” seem to be the only real ways to deter nuclear-equipped countries from destroying each other, because once Nash equilibrium is destroyed, it is irrational to believe that the disadvantaged country would not be at significantly higher risk. Thus is the case with the weaponization of space. If, for example, the United States were to place a ICBM-intercepting defense system in place, the balance would