Space war exists in several ways including via the involvement of non-governmental actors, such as private companies and terrorist organizations. The rapid pace of technological change, particularly in cyber warfare, raises concerns about escalating conflicts and potential apocalyptic consequences. As we can decipher from post-WWII Europe, international norms, institutions, and language are all important aspects of promoting peace in the face of war in space. We also need to prioritize human security and create conditions conducive to global well-being and sustainable development for lasting peace. 

When I picture war, it’s essentially World War 2 -- heavy artillery, tanks and trenches, aircraft overhead.  The classic definition of war is offered to us by Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote that war is “simply the expression of politics by other means.”  That’s the imagery Star Wars is pulling from.  However, modern warfare, especially any war in Space, differs from that image significantly.

First, there’s the idea of war as a step function -- where we’re either at war or we’re not -- is not helpful for understanding a space war.  That’s not to say that space technologies don’t factor into modern warfare.  They certainly do.  In the current Russo-Ukrainian War, both sides are relying heavily on satellite imagery, communications, and electronic signaling.   

But war in space is more complicated.  Right now, when we talk about Space, that pretty much means satellites --  imagery, communications, and navigation.  Attacks or threats in that sense are perhaps more akin to cyber warfare – hacking, satellite jamming, and then of course ground-to-space anti-satellite weapons.  Cyber warfare is a threat that we deal with every day.  Satellite jamming is done outside of armed conflict war, and not usually taken as an act of war.  Given this, it’s more accurate when dealing with space to think not of war, but a continuum of different levels of conflict or risks to security – conflict continuum, a framework that is actually more useful for describing all modern conflict. 

Another factor in Space is the prevalence of non-governmental actors.  Private companies are already becoming major players. SpaceX has been criticized by foreign countries such as China for their vast Starlink satellite constellation, which occasionally fail, get off course, and become dangerous space debris.  SpaceX is again an example from the Russo-Ukrainian War, where they set up a communications platform for Ukraine.  Terrorist organizations too have already shown the ability to hack and control satellites, and there’s no reason that a compromised satellite could not be turned into a weapon. 

And then there’s risks posed by technological change. Society tends to adapt to new technologies slowly, and Cyber warfare has essentially increased the rate of attacks to lightning speed. A big fear, especially since the Atomic bombs ending World War 2, has been the threat of rapid military escalation.  Thinking of war as a gradient of these conflict levels, the final and worst stage of conflict is often envisioned as nuclear annihilation. Now imagine a maleficent actor taking out key communication systems for an entire country instantly.  This is not like a missile attack that takes time and is limited geographically; escalation in the context of Space could happen extremely rapidly, and with several countries having nuclear capabilities, this threatens us all with apocalyptic consequences. 

That apocalyptic vision was the visible and visceral end to World War 2, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prompted significant reflection into how our global society could move away from World War, and towards World Peace.  

If you think about the continent of Europe right up to World War 2, it was a region of constant warfare, spanning hundreds of years.  For many of these nations, war was a widely accepted and acceptable method for national prestige, resource procurement, or resolving inter-state conflicts.  Europe today was unimaginable a hundred years ago: a German citizen can freely travel and work all across the EU, spending a common currency, and the major European powers are not bombing each other.  The current Russo-Ukrainian conflict is a glaring exception to what has largely been a peaceful eight decades on the European continent.   

While Space is a domain that is highly technical and difficult to access, that’s changing, and there is much to glean from post-WWII Europe that might be instructive towards Space Peace.  Especially with the creation of the United Nations, you start to see norms, regulations, and institutions built to provide laws for the interactions between nation-states.  You start to see irenology (Peace Studies) emerge as an actual area of academic research, and the idea that there are steps we can take towards de-escalation, thereby preventing potential wars and finding peaceful solutions, has contributed towards the subsequent “relative peace,” ie. no World War 3, or direct conflict between major powers. 

One of the key developments is not just these institutions and policy tools, but even the language we use to talk about war has changed.  The Nuremberg trials, where members of the Nazi regime were prosecuted, actually introduced the crime of aggression (or a “Crime against Peace”).  This would establish a president for international criminal law.  From here, we get the idea of an aggressive war.  While enforcement is difficult, this still changes our common understanding and really the global language around war. 

Because in the end, war sucks.  It exacts a devastating toll economically, socially, and in human lives.  And that’s perhaps one of the central aspects to peace studies -- keeping humans and humanity centered.  Nearly all wars have strong ethnic, cultural, or religious dimensions, but there are also usually underlying economic or social inequalities present.  All of these factors contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.  And this leads us to an expanded understanding of not just military security of a nation, but human security.  This framework of human security means that we want the well being and flourishing of all humanity -- in terms of economics, food availability, good health, natural environment, etc.  This is why development studies are so important and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are so important, they foster a world where the underlying conditions are predisposed towards peace. 

And that’s what peace is, right?  Not just the absence of tanks and bombs, but humanity happy and flourishing within our one common space.