Reviewed by: Harnessing the Heavens: National Defense through Space Donald R. Baucom Harnessing the Heavens: National Defense through Space. Edited by Paul G. Gillespie and Grant T. Weller. Chicago: Imprint Publications, 2008. ISBN 978-1-879176-45-4. Notes. Index. Pp. xi, 235. $29.95. Harnessing the Heavens is a collection of fourteen papers delivered during the twenty-first military history symposium sponsored by the History Department of the U.S. Air Force Academy. The number of papers and the shortness of this review preclude specific comment on each paper. Therefore, I shall focus on a few of the major themes and issues that emerged from the symposium. Perhaps the most significant theme is the importance of space for the United States. Thus, in "Astropolitics and Astropolitik," Everett Dolman declared: "No nation relies on space more than the United States—none is even close—and its reliance grows daily. For both its civilian welfare and military security, a widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous" (p. 111). This heavy reliance on space systems leads to a major dilemma in America's national space policy. The critical nature of American space assets would seem to justify an aggressive, if not pre-emptive, approach to defense. Since China and Russia have already demonstrated an anti-satellite capability, it may well be impossible to protect American satellites without having space weapons on station and using these weapons to exert at least some control over access to space by other nations. Yet, such a policy would almost surely lead to charges that America is weaponizing space and acting imperiously regarding the rights of other nations. The drawbacks of an aggressive American space policy notwithstanding, Dolman concluded that "it is past time for the United States to realize its responsibilities and to command space." Another challenge, one with which the United States has struggled for fifty years, is developing an organizational structure to ensure efficient development and effective employment of space-based systems. While this issue is touched upon in several papers, its most thorough treatment comes in David Spires's "Recurring Themes in U.S. Air Force Space History." A critical element in the quest for a better organizational structure has been the Air Force's efforts to balance its requirements for space and air forces. Both the Spires paper and the volume introduction by Paul Gillespie and Grant Weller find a parallel between the position of the Air Force's "star warriors" and the earlier struggle of Army aviators for independence from the Army. In the final paper of this volume, Alex Roland challenges one of the fundamental assumptions about the space program—that it is ultimately about man leaving the earth, a vision that dates back as far as the second century CE. In Roland's view, human space flight entails replacing computers with people trained to act like computers while at the same time increasing the weight and complexity of space systems. Yet, without the romantic vision of "human heroics," an expression used by Howard McCurdy in his paper (p. 36), continued popular support for expensive space programs is problematical. [End Page 328] In addition to its coverage of general themes, this volume provides a wealth of information about the programs and hardware of the major space powers. Asif Siddiqi covered Soviet military and space systems in his paper, while Dean Cheng discussed the development and evolution of major Chinese space systems. Finally, Rick Sturdevant traced the emergence and evolution of American communications satellites. While Harnessing the Heavens is a major contribution to military space history, as is always the case, one can find points to criticize. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) served as interim manager of America's space program from February 1958 to October 1958 when the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics became the National Air and Space Administration. Yet, ARPA's role is essentially unnoted. Additionally, the ABM Treaty was not terminated in 2003 as stated on page fifteen. In December 2001, the Bush administration gave the six months notification of America's intent to withdraw from the treaty as required by the treaty itself. The formal ending of the treaty came in...
Read full abstract