David J. Williams

“With . . . warfare [evolving] toward a fourth-generation, why would you bother militarizing space?”

That’s the latest question/comment in response to my guest-post on John Scalzi’s blog (and it may be the last one as we’re several days past the original posting now). But I have to admit, this is the kind of question I was expecting to get in the first place, and it’s a much better question than stuff like “what are you smoking to make you think that Russia’s going to be a superpower?” In fact, I’m still amazed at how many people bought (or just skipped over) my fundamental argument about the direction in which warfare is heading and proceeded to dive straight into the details of the geopolitical backdrop I’d constructed. Thereby potentially missing the wood for the trees.

Something that no one can accuse this question of. In many ways, it’s the key one, and it’s natural to ask it given that all we’ve got on the news is an endless war in Iraq and all we can see the world over is the U.S. struggling against guerilla/insurgent movements. What’s the point of weaponizing space when we can’t even dig our way out of all these endless ground quagmires?

The answer, of course, is there isn’t.

Right now.

Because right now there isn’t much more we can do in space. After all, we’ve got the most advanced hardware deployed up there that we can build. In fact, our domination of space is one of the reasons that the only folks challenging us are resorting to insurgent warfare in order to do so. Nor should my original essay be construed as offering a plan to deal with such insurgents in the here-and-now.

The problem for those kind of insurgencies, though, is a more long-term one. Technology doesn’t stand still. We’re starting to see inklings of the shape of things to come even now: anti-U.S. guerillas have to be real careful about what U.S. satellites can see even on a street-by-street level, and are acutely aware that being suddenly nailed by an unseen Predator UAV is a constant possibility. But our cameras are going to get better and ever more extensive. And once we start to deploy directed energy weaponry in orbit alongside those cameras, and harness that to ever-increasing computational power—and start deploying unmanned drones throughout the atmosphere—all bets are off. Put simply, within the next several decades we are going to have (a) the ability to monitor every single square inch of the Earth’s surface in real-time and (b) the ability to target anything on that surface at the speed of light. And THAT, folks, is why space weaponization matters.

Will that mean the end for insurgencies? Absolutely not. It’ll just make their lives a hell of a lot more difficult. In THE MIRRORED HEAVENS, the worst guerilla movements are situated in the sprawling Third World megacities (to which you can regard Baghdad as a precursor), where the emissions/pollutants provide partial protection from being seen, as do the sheer scale of the buildings. But irrespective of the exact nature of such cities, the basic point that many of 4G warfare’s proponents fails to take into account is that we will, ultimately, see the rise of fifth-generation warfare (and yeah, I’m calling it here first): the supremacy of nation-states conferred by mature space weaponization capabilities. Even if no other nation-state emerges to challenge the United States, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the technological determinants now propelling us in the direction of 5G warfare will hit as-yet-unanticipated roadblocks. Those determinants are in their infancy now. They won’t be for long.

And if another nation-state DOES challenge the U.S. (as happens in my book), then make no mistake about it, the center of gravity of that stand-off would be in orbit. If the two sides came to blows, the nation that could disrupt/disable/destroy the other side’s space assets would win.

Meaning that space weaponization may not be a choice we get to make. It might yet be made for us.

There’s no better way to pick a fight than to try and pick the future, and my predictions of what nations are going to be Top Dogs in a hundred years are, apparently, no exception. In particular, my depiction in THE MIRRORED HEAVENS of an Eastern superpower composed of a rising China and a resurgent Russia has stirred up some debate about the feasibility of such a construct. Particularly vis-a-vis the Russian part of the equation.

And with good reason. We crushed Russia in the Cold War: suborned its satellites to revolt, and deprived the Soviet Union of large sections of its outlying territory. Leaving only the Russian core, which across the 1990s became an economic basketcase.

But Russia has a way of coming back off the mat, and that’s what they’ve been doing. Here are some of the reasons why—despite the fact that Russia remains in serious trouble—it’s unwise to count them out. And why I contend that great power status for Russia a century from now is eminently plausible:

#1: Rising energy prices: Russia is one of the world’s largest energy producers, and they’ve been ruthless in using the onset of peak oil for military/foreign policy advantage. You think that oil at $130 a barrel gives them leverage? Try oil at $200.

#2: Location, location, location: MacKinder’s geopolitical theses have needed revising since he first proposed them in 1904. But his core contention—regarding the advantages conferred on the nation that occupies the Eurasian heartland—is one we ignore at our peril.

#3: Several thousand nuclear warheads: Nukes don’t translate automatically into power, but they sure as hell make you difficult to ignore. And Russia’s military remains formidable, though a far cry from the old Red Army days.

#4: National psyche: This is always a difficult one to invoke, but the fact remains that the Russians as a people are very dangerous to underestimate. As the Nazis found out.

No one’s going to argue that Russia isn’t beset with problems. But here’s the thing: anyone can come up with Giant Challenges a nation faces in the here and now, and cite those as Absolute Proof that it’s bound to face decline. But if you’re going to argue convincingly for decline, you not only have to show that those factors are accelerating, but that no action that nation is likely to take will reverse those factors. Alternatively, you have to show that whatever advantages a nation has are certain to erode, no matter what that nation does. (Case in point: Britain’s world power across the 19th century was based to a large degree on the fact that she was first to industrialize. As the larger land powers followed suit, they surpassed her, virtually inevitably.) I have yet to see anyone do that convincingly with Russia, though I will fully admit that Russia may very well fail to rise to its current challenge.

Indeed, my personal view is that Russia’s trajectory across the next century will be a function of its leadership. Again and again throughout history, a strong tyrant has rallied Russia and pushed it forward, albeit often at a terrible price. History may or may not repeat itself, but as to one scenario in that regard: in the world of THE MIRRORED HEAVENS, a man embodying all the (best?) qualities of Peter the Great, Lenin and Stalin comes to power in the 2030s; under his leadership, Russia institutes full-scale “super-modernization” schemes, with an emphasis on space-based systems and information technology—and is then able to formulate an alliance with China that both keeps them out of Siberia and redirects Chinese expansive impulses south.

But you know what? I really thought the thing that would cause all the controversy was my prediction that the UNITED STATES would still be a superpower. To be continued.

So, this time I did a reading and NO ONE fell asleep! It was a jam-packed venue—though in the spirit of full-disclosure it must be said that my friends were out in force, ‘cos they rule. Including the infamous Brian De Groodt, who flew in all the way from the west coast unannounced, causing me to doubt my own sanity before realizing his total lack thereof. I gave a brief talk on ideas behind the book, drawing on the essay I’d sent to John Scalzi for the Big Idea that he was kind enough to publish yesterday (which you can read HERE, I’ll have some thoughts on the debate it seems to have triggered later), and then delivered the Infamous Spaceplane Hijack Scene, as promised. I made two aesthetic compromises to accomodate the family friendly Borders environment: (1) semi-sanitizing some of the language (funny how the F-word is beyond the pale, but “Christ” is just fine), and (2) removing all signs that the two lead characters were caught in a state of coitus interruptus at the outset of the scene. (though really that was because it would have just been too much to explain on top of everything else).And then I signed some copies of a book that I’d actually written. Weird.At any rate, here are some photos of the event for your amusement.  

I’ll be reading/launching the book/going nuts tonight, at Borders, Baileys Crossroads. 7:30. It begins.

And yes, the rumors are true: I’ll be reading from the infamous spaceplane hijack scene. Come on out if you dare.

Or you can just join us at the Black Cat afterward, where is where a bunch of us are gonna head after I’m done going off mine.

Some of you might recall that Graeme’s Fantasy Book Review was kind enough to post a very complimentary review of THE MIRRORED HEAVENS last week. Well, Graeme has gone one better, and is holding a contest in which he’s giving away two copies of the book! Check it out here.

That’s the good news; the bad news is you’ve only got until this Saturday, the 24th of May. Don’t let this golden opportunity to acquire free content pass you by!

By the way, I can’t help but notice that on his site, Graeme claims to have “found himself working some of the most disgusting jobs known to man.” I’m not exactly sure what jobs he’s referring to, but I just want to state for the record here that I’ve done time at Toys R Us, being bombarded by Geoffrey the Giraffe’s propaganda, and listening to the same goddamn forty minute tape loop of early 80s songs for months on end. (Before that, there actually was a time I quite liked Mandolin Rain.)

Yes, I know. There are jobs that far, far worse. Doesn’t mean I don’t have my scars.

But enough about me. What are you still doing here? Head on over to Graeme’s site and get busy.

Well, it’s out there. In bookstores. The thing that sat on my computer and grew for all those years has finally gone forth into the world. My thanks to everybody who made Day 1 such a success: everyone who went and bought the book, everybody who’s planning on coming to the reading next Tuesday (Baileys Crossroads Borders, if you’re in the area), everybody who’s given their support. Special thanks to veteran scribes David Louis Edelman and Jeri Smith-Ready for advice and counsel on What This Would Be Like (they were right), and to John Joseph Adams (aka Slush God) for this awesome piece in SCIFI.com.

And so we’re off to the races. The book seems to be doing fine on Amazon (did I mention you can buy it there right NOW? Just checking)–and just as important, it’s been sighted at numerous bookstores. The next few weeks will be critical in getting off to a strong start. And hey, Memorial Day weekend’s coming up. Like my high school English teacher used to say, there’s nothing that makes for better beach reading than guys in powered armor kicking the shit out of each other (though my memory may be a little hazy here). The plot thickens . . .