Yeni uzay çağında yenilikçi caydırıcılık stratejileri

Abstract

Son on yılda uzay, artan bir şekilde uydu teknolojisi ve stratejik uzay varlıklarının sağladığı verilere olan artan bağımlılık nedeniyle uluslararası ilişkilerde kritik bir alan haline gelmiş, jeopolitik dinamikleri yeniden şekillendirmiştir. Uzayın küresel olarak tanınan ekonomik ve stratejik avantajları, önde gelen ulusları hem işbirliğine hem de rekabete yöneltmiştir. Uzayın iletişim, navigasyon ve gözetleme için genişleyen kullanımları, modern toplumlarda giderek daha belirgin hale gelmektedir. Keşif için tasarlanan yeni görevlerin dış uzayda insan genişlemesi için yenilikçi ve sürdürülebilir çözümlere yol açtığı inkâr edilemez. Bu görevler sadece insan bilgisinin sınırlarını zorlamakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda teknolojik ilerlemenin ve küresel işbirliğinin fırsatlarını da sunar. Öncelikle özel kuruluşlar tarafından itiş gücüyle ileri taşınan ticari uzay endüstrisi, uzay çabalarını ilerletmede kesinlikle kilit bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu manzarayı yönlendirirken, sağlam uzay güvenlik politikalarının önemini vurgulamak hayati hale gelmektedir. Bu politikalar, uzay faaliyetlerinde sorumlu ve yapıcı katılımın ilkelerini belirleyen rehber çerçeveler olarak hizmet eder. Bir politikanın doğrudan bir güvenlik önlemi olmadığını, ancak amaçları ve prensipleri belirleyen temel bir belge olduğunu kabul etmek esastır, bununla birlikte güvenlik önlemlerini uygulamak ve teknolojik avantajları teşvik etmek için bir sahne oluşturur. Geleneksel olarak, caydırıcılık teorileri nükleer boyutu da içeren yeryüzü alanlarına odaklanmış olsa da, uzayın benzersiz özellikleri bir paradigma değişikliğini gerektirir. Makale, stratejik yeteneklerin, ittifakların ve potansiyel saldırganların nüanslı bir anlayışının vurgulandığı uzay caydırıcılığına yeni bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır. Temel bileşenler arasında inkâr, direnç ve maliyet yükleme stratejileri bulunmaktadır. Askeri güç, ittifaklar ve uzay tabanlı nükleer varlıklar, geleneksel ve nükleer uzay caydırıcılığında roller oynamaktadır. Askeri saldırganlığı caydırmak, operasyonel kavramlar, direnç ve stratejik maliyetler gerektirir. Saldırgan düşünceyi şekillendirmek, algı yönetimi, güven inşası ve normlar gerektirir. İnkâr ve ceza stratejileri oluşturmak, silah kontrolü girişimlerini içerir. Potansiyel saldırganları anlamak, niyetleri değerlendirmek, çıkarları hizalamak ve yörüngesel tırmanmayı değerlendirmek gerektirir. Uzay caydırıcılığının çok boyutlu doğası, saldırganlığı caydırmak için sağlam bir çerçeve oluşturarak istikrarlı ve güvenli bir göksel ortam sağlar.

Keywords

• Uzay caydırıcılığı
• göksel güvenlik
• uzayın jeopolitiği
• uzayda uluslararası ilişkiler
• küresel uzay yönetişimi

Innovating deterrence strategies in the new space age

Abstract

In recent decades, space has become a crucial arena in international relations, reshaping geopolitical dynamics due to the increased reliance on data provided by satellite technology and strategic space assets. Globally recognized economic and strategic advantages of space, leading nations to cooperation and competition at the same time. The expanding uses of space for communication, navigation, and surveillance have become increasingly prominent in modern societies. It's undeniable that new missions designed for exploration lead to innovative and sustainable solutions for human expansion in outer space. These missions not only push the boundaries of human knowledge but also offer opportunities for technological advancement and global collaboration. The commercial space industry, primarily propelled by private entities, undeniably plays a pivotal role in advancing space endeavors. In navigating this landscape, it becomes imperative to underscore the significance of robust space security policies. These policies serve as guiding frameworks, delineating principles for responsible and constructive engagement in space activities. While it's essential to recognize that a policy in itself is not a direct security measure, but rather a foundational document outlining objectives and principles, it sets the stage for implementing security measures and fostering technological advantages. Traditionally, deterrence theories focused on terrestrial domains including the nuclear dimension, but the unique characteristics of space demand a paradigm shift. The article introduces a novel perspective on space deterrence, emphasizing strategic capabilities, alliances, and a nuanced understanding of potential aggressors. Core components include denial, resilience, and cost imposition strategies. Military strength, alliances, and space-based nuclear assets play roles in conventional and nuclear space deterrence. Dissuading military aggression involves operational concepts, resilience, and strategic costs. Shaping aggressor thinking requires perception management, confidence-building, and norms. Crafting denial and punishment strategies involves arms control initiatives. Understanding potential aggressors involves assessing motives, aligning interests, and evaluating orbital escalation. The multidimensional nature of space deterrence converges to create a robust framework for dissuading aggression, ensuring a stable and secure celestial environment.

Keywords

• Space deterrence
• celestial security
• geopolitics of space
• international relations in space
• global space governance

Ethical Statement

This paper meets the research and publication ethics standards.

References

1. Aaron B. (2022). Mutually Assured Surveillance at Risk: Anti-satellite Weapons and Cold War Arms Control. Journal of Strategic Studies, 45 (1), 119-142. doi: 10.1080/01402390.2021.2019022
2. Ashraf, A. (2020). Deterrence and Diplomacy. In: Filippidou, A. (eds), Deterrence. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29367-3_3
3. Boháček, P., Dufek, P., Schmidt, N. (2021). Peaceful Use of Lasers in Space: Context-Based Legitimacy in Global Governance of Large Technical Systems. Alternatives, 46 (3), 63-85.
4. Bourdow, S. P. (2022). Multilateral Deterrence Formation and Future US Space Security Challenges (Doctoral Dissertation). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey.
5. Caplan, R. (2019). Measuring Peace: Principles, Practices, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198810360.001.0001
6. Creedon, M.R. and Kyl, J. (2023). America's Strategic Posture: The Final Report of Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
7. Dall’Agnol, A. C., Duarte, É. E. (2022). Military Power and Conventional Deterrence: A Literature Review. Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia Y Seguridad, 17 (1), 101–118. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/927/92774529007/html/
8. De Spiegeleire, S., Holynska, K., Batoh, Y. and Sweijs, T. (2020). Reimagining Deterrence: Towards Strategic (Dis)Suasion Design. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.

9. European Space Strategy in a Global Context (2020). European Space Policy Institute (ESPI).
10. Faesen, L., Sweijs, T., Klimburg, A. and Tesauro, G. (2022). The Promises and Perils of a Minimum Cyber Deterrence Posture Considerations for Small and Middle Powers. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
11. Grunert, J. (2022). Outer Space Policy and the “Security Dilemma”: Is America Destined for Space Conflict?. In: The United States Space Force and the Future of American Space Policy (pp. 165–240). Brill Publishing.
12. Harrison, T., Cooper, Z., Johnson, K. and Roberts, T. (2017). Escalation & Deterrence in the Second Space Age. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15240.11525
13. Hunt, K., Zhuang, J. (2024). A Review of Attacker-Defender Games: Current State and Paths Forward. European Journal of Operational Research, 313 (2), 401–417.
14. Janeliūnas, T. and Tumkevič, A. (2020). Chapter 6-Avoiding a Cyber World War: Rational Motives for Negative Cooperation among the United States, China and Russia. In: Benson, V. and Mcalaney, J. (Eds.), Emerging Cyber Threats and Cognitive Vulnerabilities (pp. 117–143). Academic Press.
15. Kang, K. M. (2023). Extended Space Deterrence: Providing Security Assurance in Space. Journal of Strategic Security, 16 (2), 2.
16. Kertysova, K., Frinking, E., van den Dool, K., Maričić, A. and Bhattacharyya, K. (2018). Cybersecurity: Ensuring Awareness and Resilience of the Private Sector Across Europe in face of Mounting Cyber Risks. The European Economic and Social Committee.
17. Klein, J.J. and Boensch, N.J. (2019). Role of Space in Deterrence. In: Handbook of Space Security. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22786-9_113-1
18. Kopeć, R. (2019). Space Deterrence: In Search of a “Magical Formula”. Space Policy, 47, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.10.003
19. Koplow, D. A. (2019). Deterrence as the MacGuffin: The Case for Arms Control in Outer Space. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3436311
20. Lambakis, S. (2022). Space as a Warfighting Domain: Reshaping Policy to Execute 21st Century Spacepower. Comparative Strategy, 41 (4), 331-369.
21. Marino, A., Cheney, T. (2023). Centring Environmentalism in Space Governance: Interrogating Dominance and Authority Through a Critical Legal Geography of Outer Space. Space Policy, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2022.101521
22. Mazarr, M. (2018). Understanding Deterrence. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/pe295
23. Mazarr, M., Chan, A., Demus, A., Frederick, B., Nader, A., Pezard, S., Thompson, J. and Treyger, E. (2018). What Deters and Why Exploring Requirements for Effective Deterrence of Interstate Aggression. RAND Corporation.
24. Mcclintock, B., Feistel, A., Ligor, D. and O’Connor, K. (2021). Responsible Space Behavior for the New Space Era Preserving the Province of Humanity. RAND Corporation.
25. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19 (3), 5–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539078
26. Moltz, J. (2011). The Politics of Space Security: Strategic Restraint and the Pursuit of National Interests. Stanford University Press.
27. Morgan, F.E., Mueller, K.P., Medeiros, E.S., Pollpeter, K.L. and Cliff, R. (2008). Dangerous Thresholds: Managing Escalation in the 21st Century. RAND Corporation.
28. Özel, Y. and İnaltekin, E. (Eds.). (2017). Shifting Paradigm of War: Hybrid Warfare. National Defense University.
29. Persoz, G. (2023). Mitigating International Norms Through Contestation: Peaceful Purposes in Space Law and the Security Dilemma. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 83 (1), 65-90.
30. Raju, N. and Erästö, T. (2023). The Role of Space Systems in Nuclear Deterrence. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.55163/NWLC4997
31. Rice, D.M. (2023). Deterrence and Space Strategy: A Framework from the Study of History and Theory. Air University Press.
32. Riddervold, M., Newsome, A. (2021). Introduction: Cooperation, Conflict, and Interaction in the Global Commons. International Relations, 35 (3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211036598
33. Roberts, B. (2020). On Adapting Nuclear Deterrence to Reduce Nuclear Risk. Daedalus, 149 (2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01790
34. Sadeh, E. (Ed.). (2012). Space Strategy in the 21st Century: Theory and Policy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203098288
35. Sagan, S. D., Weiner, A. S. (2021). The Rule of Law and the Role of Strategy in US Nuclear Doctrine. International Security, 45 (4), 126-166.
36. Samson, N., Kazaz, N., Malkowsky, V., Greenbaum, D. (2022). Space Debris: It's Time to Look Up and Do Something. Intellectual Property Journal, 34 (3), 267-316.
37. Sobelman, D. (2016). Learning to Deter: Deterrence Failure and Success in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict, 2006–16. International Security, 41 (3), 151–196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26777793
38. Spence, M. and Leipziger, D. (Eds.). (2010). Globalization and Growth Implications for a Post-Crisis World. The World Bank.
39. Sweijs, T. and Osinga, F. (2021). Conclusion: Insights from Theory and Practice. In: Osinga, F. and Sweijs, T. (eds), NL ARMS Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2020. NL ARMS. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-419-8_26
40. The 2022 National Defense Strategy. (2022). U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
41. The 2022 National Security Strategy. (2022). The White House.
42. Townsend, B. (2020). Security and Stability in the New Space Age: The Orbital Security Dilemma. Routledge.