China’s accelerated space militarisation reflects systemic US-China tech rivalry, Cold War 2.0 dynamics, and the geopolitical race to weaponise orbital infrastructure
Original framing: “US warns China is expanding its space toolkit with spaceplane and energy weapons” — South China Morning Post
The current US-China space rivalry mirrors the Cold War’s ‘space race,’ where mutual escalation was driven by strategic insecurity rather than technological superiority. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s ambiguity on weaponisation enabled both superpowers to develop anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons while framing them as ‘defensive.’ The Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated how miscalculations in orbital infrastructure could lead to catastrophic escalation. China’s spaceplane program echoes the Soviet’s *Buran* shuttle and US’s X-37B, all of which were developed under the guise of ‘civilian’ exploration but with clear military applications. The historical pattern shows that arms races in space are not about innovation but about signalling resolve in an era of declining deterrence.
The US-China space rivalry is not merely a technological competition but a systemic manifestation of Cold War 2.
0 dynamics, where mutual escalation is driven by strategic insecurity and the absence of diplomatic frameworks. The framing of China’s spaceplane and energy weapons as isolated threats obscures how both nations are weaponising orbital infrastructure as part of broader civilian-military fusion strategies, enabled by historical precedents like the Outer Space Treaty’s ambiguities. The exclusion of Indigenous and global South perspectives—who view space as a domain of stewardship rather than conflict—reinforces a Western-centric narrative that treats space as a battleground rather than a shared resource. Future modelling warns that this arms race risks destabilising low-Earth orbit, creating a *space Dust Bowl* where debris and weaponised interference make the domain unusable for all. Solutions must therefore combine demilitarisation treaties (like the *Antarctic Treaty*), civilian-military fusion for shared benefits (e.g., BRICS Space Agency), orbital sustainability protocols (modelled after the *Montreal Protocol*), and the centering of marginalised voices in governance. The trickster lens reveals that the US’s ‘warning’ is itself a weapon of narrative control, diverting attention from its own role in escalation while normalising militarisation as inevitable. Without addressing these systemic mechanisms—historical, economic, and cultural—the space race will continue to spiral, with orbital infrastructure becoming a liability rather than a legacy.