Description
As Vannevar Bush understood science is an important part of national defence and an important part of both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power. Space is an exemplar of this, fusing hard and soft power in a manner unrivalled by any other domain. The original space race of the 1960s was conceived as a demonstration of US national power as Kennedy made clear. An era of renewed great power competition is seeing a revival of interest in space as an instrument of national power – both space science – NASA and the Artemis Accords – and military space - US Space Force. US soft and hard power once again intertwined. However, as Vannevar Bush understood there is much danger here, particularly for democracy. Therefore, it is important to question the role, and place, of science in the national defence, particularly the mobilization of ‘civilian science.’ How do we reconcile the soft power promise of science for humanity with the hard power reality of science for the national interest? These questions garner extra significance in the context of ‘Big Tech’ and its counterpart ‘New Space’ which profess both a quasi-internationalism and a hyper-neoliberal variant of American exceptionalism. As Bush understood, science, particularly applied science, is shaped by its context and how it is applied shapes that context. Thus in an age of renewed great power competition it is important to understand the role of science in the national defence as more than the production of the gadgets and gizmos that will win the next war, particularly when furtherance of ‘science’ is used to advance new governance mechanism such as the Artemis Accords. This paper will explore these issues through the lens of US space activities, civilian and military.
