Description
This paper focuses on how space war itself structures the prevention of an arms race through the specific and enduring problem of space-based strike weapons. It asks why and how does the looming presence of orbital battle stations persists as an ordering force in PAROS despite remaining technological unfeasible and unactualized? It argues that the space-strike debate ultimately revolves around nuclear legitimacy with questions of space war actually questions of nuclear war. To do so, the paper shows how political mobilizations and epistemological battle to "know" and bound the space-strike - materialized through distinct legal frameworks, strategic doctrines, and technical standards - co-produce and sustain the space strike territory as a nuclearized geography of conflict.
The paper argues that space-strike functions as a martial assemblage, constructed not only through strategic designs but also through projected fears, strategic anxieties, and existential nuclear risks. The discussions on the "relativistic weapons effect" and the notion of "pre-crisis rationality" are used to show how the mere potential for space-based conflict amplifies anxieties and tensions within the global security framework. This performative dimension—where perception becomes reality—demonstrates the ways space-strike functions less as a physical capability and more as an escalatory threat that permeates PAROS discourse.
Ultimately, the space-strike assemblage does not just build on the legacy of nuclear deterrence – it reorders the conditions under which war is anticipated, planned and resisted. Space is a domain of existential spillover; space war is an expression of nuclear war.
