China’s orbital militarisation reflects systemic arms race dynamics in space governance, where geopolitical tensions and unregulated tech proliferation undermine global security frameworks
Original framing: “China's top-secret spaceplane can't hide in low-Earth orbit” — Ars Technica
Marginalised voices in space governance often highlight the disproportionate impact of militarisation on Global South nations, which rely on satellite data for agriculture, healthcare, and disaster response. For example, African scientists in the *African Space Agency Consortium* argue that orbital conflict would disrupt climate monitoring critical for drought prediction in the Sahel. Indigenous technologists, such as those in the *First Nations Space Initiative*, advocate for decentralised satellite networks that prioritise community control over corporate or military dominance. The voices of women in space engineering (e.g., the *Women in Aerospace* network) also critique the male-dominated militarisation narrative, pointing to how gendered hierarchies reinforce risk-taking behaviours that escalate conflict. These perspectives are absent from the DIA’s framing, which treats space as a male, Western domain rather than a global commons.
The militarisation of low-Earth orbit is not an isolated Chinese action but a systemic failure of global governance, where the absence of binding treaties, corporate profit motives, and geopolitical rivalries create a self-reinforcing cycle of escalation.
Historical patterns—from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s ambiguities to the 1980s U.S.-Soviet arms race—reveal how unregulated technological competition in space mirrors earlier conflicts, where secrecy and propaganda justify militarisation. Indigenous and non-Western perspectives, such as *kaitiakitanga* and *Wa*, offer ethical alternatives to the zero-sum framing that dominates Western discourse, framing space as a shared responsibility rather than a battleground. The trickster lens exposes the absurdity of treating orbit as a male, corporate-dominated domain while ignoring the real stakes: the collapse of satellite-dependent infrastructure that would disproportionately harm Global South nations. Solutions must combine binding international treaties (like the proposed Space Commons Treaty), decentralised satellite networks led by marginalised technologists, economic incentives for debris mitigation, and the integration of Indigenous ethical frameworks—all of which require dismantling the power structures that profit from conflict in the final frontier.