Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower

by Brandon J. Weichert

When President Donald J. Trump announced the creation of America’s sixth branch of the military, the United States Space Force, many in Washington scoffed. But, U.S. rivals in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea took notice. Since the end of the Cold War, these American foes have chafed under the full-spectrum dominance that the American superpower has enjoyed globally. They have identified space as a key strategic domain where they can challenge—and possibly defeat—the United States military. And, depriving the U.S. military and/or its economy of access to space during an international crisis could spell doom for the United States in other strategic domains (land, sea, air, and cyberspace). After all, space is critical for America’s vaunted information dominance. Satellites overhead are the backbone of America’s global military. Remove them from orbit and U.S. forces worldwide are rendered deaf, dumb, and blind.
What’s more, space is a more than $1 trillion economy just waiting to be developed. Whichever country gets there first will have considerable economic and geopolitical power on Earth. Despite President Trump’s creation of the Space Force, Swamp Dwellers in Washington continue resisting his reforms to U.S. space and technology policy. Winning Space tracks the increasing competition the United States is facing in the technology sector and depicts how the United States has been engaged in a Second Space Race—and how it has been losing. Author Brandon Weichert warns how the United States is at risk for a Pearl Harbor-type event in space. Weichert advocates for the full embrace of Trump’s reforms for America's flailing space policy, while also calling for a minimum $1 trillion investment in advanced research and development here in the United States, to stay ahead of America’s advancing foes. Contrary to what many Americans may think, the United States has been declining in space and the high-technology development sector. Should it lose its dominance in these areas, it will surely lose its superpower status. The next decade presents U.S. policymakers one last chance to preserve the superpower status that America fought two world wars and the Cold War to build. Time is not on our side. We are on notice, but we have not noticed.

Genres: Space, Nonfiction, Politics

375 pages, Hardcover

Published September 15, 2020

Reviews

[Morty Guggenheim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I purchased this book on Amazon when it was released and blew through it in less than two weeks. Simply amazing work. Weichert lays it all out there and succinctly describes why space is the most important thing our country should be focused on. He calls space "the ultimate strategic high ground" and this evokes certain imagery in my mind's eye that got me thinking about the future: it could be wonderful or terrible. Weichert makes this same case...it is, as he concludes, up to us. The book takes some of the most technical concepts and distills them down so that ANYONE can understand it. He talks about the threat of a "Space Pearl Harbor" (the scariest part of this incredible work). We are so stupid for having igored space! Now we've got China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and as Weichert elaborates even friendly groups like India or Japan all vying for dominance in space. Scary times. Weichert talks about the importance of Space Force and outlines strategies and requirements for the new branch to be successful. I see that he's on the younger side, too. Gives me great hope for the future. So many people today care about the stupidest things. Happy to see someone still has vision. Get this book. You'll learn something and have fun...A LOT OF FUN...reading it. Best book of the year so far in non-fiction that I've read--and I read a bunch of stuff.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was impressed with Weichert's articles in
The National Interest, so three more books on the pile

sampler from his March 2024 assessment on the Ukraine War

The National Interest
Old F-16 Fighters for Ukraine Won't Win the War Against Russia

To be clear: the F-16s will make no difference for multiple reasons. These systems are secondhand warplanes that are at the end of their life cycles. Being old and sent into high-tempo aerial combat is not going to bode well for the Ukrainians.

by Brandon J. Weichert

Can F-16 Fighters Win the War for Ukraine? Ukraine has lost the war with Russia. Whatever happens next—no matter what Western media sources may claim—the Ukrainians will not defeat the Russians, who are entrenched in their positions in Eastern Ukraine and in Crimea. The best Kyiv’s desperate leaders can hope for is to achieve a stalemate via negotiated settlement.

But that is not what Western leaders are advising their Ukrainian clients to seek out from Russia. Instead, Western leaders are filling the Ukrainians’ minds with the siren song of airpower.

After last year’s ode to main battle tanks from NATO nations did little to alter the direction of the war at the strategic level, one would have thought that both NATO and the Ukrainians would have learned their lesson.

No weapons system can save Ukraine from the realities of Russian military and industrial power or from the even more painful realities of geography.

Reason, of course, is the first victim of warfare.

/////

F-16: The Siren Song of Airpower

Even though NATO provided Leopard-2s and Challenger-2 tanks—to say nothing of the fact that America’s much promised Abrams tanks have yet to arrive in any substantial numbers—have done little to sway events in Ukraine’s favor, Kiev is now told that F-16 fighter jets will do the trick.

To be clear: the F-16s will make no difference for multiple reasons.

First, these systems are secondhand warplanes that are at the end of their life cycles. Being old and sent into high-tempo aerial combat is not going to bode well for the Ukrainians.

Second, they are being given a miniscule amount of the aging F-16s meaning these systems will not make a substantial difference.

Third, it will take four-to-five years to fully train Ukrainian pilots to properly fly the warplanes in question. By that time, the war will have fundamentally shifted, and Russia will probably have an even stronger hand.

Further, the older F-16s are not a match against Russia’s next generation warplanes. They might be able to be deployed for ground cover missions but these operations would be limited and hardly worth the headache. As my colleague at the Asia Times wrote a year ago on this subject, “Used F-16s at the end of their life, are not really going the war chessboard.” That was true in 2023. It is truer today in 2024.

/////

Wasted Tanks, Wasted Time for Ukraine

The sad fact is, though, Ukraine has become a dumping ground for old NATO equipment. Just look at the much-ballyhooed tanks that NATO has showered Ukraine with.

The French have poured in lightly armored French-built AMX-10RC. These vehicles are antiques from the 1970s—and the Ukrainian military deemed them to be “unsuitable” for the combat operations that have defined the Ukraine War.

Nevertheless, the French sent them by planeload into Ukraine.

The handful of British Challenger-2 tanks were also older variants. The 14 or so advanced German-built Leopard-2 main battle tanks were insufficient in number to do much more than get in the way on the Ukrainian battlefield (after it took far longer than the Ukrainians expected to get these units into position).

Lastly, the Americans promised an astonishing 31 M1 Abrams tanks…only to admit shortly after they declared that these war machines were being given to the Ukrainians that the bulk of the shipment would be composed of out-of-order and older variants because the US arsenal lacked adequate numbers of more modern variants of the Abrams.

So, there is a pattern to NATO aid in this conflict. The aid is almost always insufficient to the task at hand. Just as with the tanks, the systems being promised are too old to be useful and are never given over in abundance (because the West lacks sufficient numbers of any major weapons platform, thanks in large part to the shabby state the defense industrial base is in). What’s more, they rarely arrive in a timely fashion. All this leads to the same dreadful place: no weapon system given to Ukraine by NATO will turn the tide of the war.

/////

Ukraine Must Negotiate, or It Will Sure Fall to Russia

Rather than cling onto the delusion that Ukraine’s slipshod, underdog army is going to somehow overcome the numerical and technological advantages of the Russian military and liberate the Russian enclaves of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea, Kiev’s leaders should have been feverishly negotiating with their Russian counterparts for a ceasefire before Moscow decides to simply ground down the Ukrainians.

Washington and Brussels should stop overpromising and under-delivering to the Ukrainians. They’re getting innocent Ukrainians killed and needlessly dragging on the war. Negotiate an end to the war and quit trying to find and use a NATO silver bullet. NATO’s arsenal of democracy has run empty and replacements aren’t coming anytime soon.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower

[Robert Theodorson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros:

A compelling look into how bureaucracy is playing tug-of-war with the space defense sector, which many people to not realize is paramount to US national interests despite our reliance on satellites being quite obvious.

Spells out how important the private space sector is to innovation, R&D, expansion, and to an extent investment.

The tone of the book is phenomenal. The author makes no qualms about his partisanship which makes for an interesting read, you can tell Weichert is passionate about space. I have read plenty of space security books that come off as dry and are very slow reads, this is not one of them.

Cons:

Weichert starts and ends his conversation about "doing something" to counter Russian and Chinese aggression in space but does not provide specific details as to what to do other than to increase funding. Tell me exactly what the US should do in the case of cyberspace, physical, or covert attack on our satellites.

Towards the end, the tone which I previously mentioned, tends to go a little off the rails. The author gets into non-space related discussions, and most of these are arguments reiterating things I've already read.

[Alan Meyers · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was critically important, a must read for anyone who wants to live in a free world.

[Jay Lee]

Yes, space is the ultimate high ground as the author clearly points out and America must win the strategic domain to continue to be a Superpower and the No. 1 Hegemon.

However, if recent polls are accurate the US will lose this Space War as most American youths prefer to be YouTuber/Vloggers than to be astronauts. While in China it is the other way - they want to be Astronauts! See https://www.businessinsider.com/ameri...

I think it also explains why most American tech CEOs are both in India as the American education systems don't product them anymore. See https://www.statista.com/chart/26295/...

[Brent · Rating 2 out of 5]

The writing style is annoyingly abrupt with most sentences barely stretching past two lines. This book should have been about 80 pages.

[James Francis McEnanly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written

This book provides a concise view of the state of American, with plentiful citations for further reading. If you are interested in space, this is a book for you

[Leif Paulson · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, hats off to The Bookmonger podcast where I heard about Winning Space. This book presents an important policy discussion of why the USA should remain the leader in a robust space program, for innovation and national security purposes. The author did a great job in diagramming these matters. He lost me a bit with bringing politics into the book.

[Matthew Harris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topic, but a poorly written tabloid affair.