Given the complex nature of this question and the number of countries covered, the body of this summary response has been organized by country. Looking across all these countries, however, several themes and patterns emerge, and these are presented in Table 1 below. While Iran, Russia, the PRC, and North Korea have historically seen space as integral to national security and defense, the expert responses suggest this attitude is spreading. Motivated by the perception that regional instability is increasing, many other states, which previously conceived of their space operations as primarily civil in nature, are beginning to regard space as essential to their national security and defense. This, in turn, has led to a greater focus on dual-use technologies. Many, not just Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, also view space as a source of national pride and international prestige. Finally, while the specific organization of the space sectors in these countries may differ, all have fewer institutional barriers to military use of civil (government and/or commercial) capabilities than we see in the US. Furthermore, there are institutional and financial incentives for government and commercial entities to work together. These findings are consistent with the analysis of the experts who contributed to Question 7.

Thirty-four subject matter expert (SME) contributors, the majority from the commercial space industry, responded to this question. They provided details on the commercial space activities of 17 countries and the European Space Agency (ESA). As discussed in detail in other ViTTa reports,4 it is important to recognize that the division between public and private organizations and activities is rarely clear-cut. Furthermore, as contributors have noted in their responses both to this question5 and others,6 much of the space activity outside the US is concentrated on dual-use technologies and applications. For these reasons, we define the “commercial space industry” as capabilities and activities undertaken for commercial purposes, rather than capabilities and activities undertaken by a purely commercial space actor.

This work was situated within the broader Strategic Multilayer Assessment Strategic Deterrence Frameworks (SDF) study, which incorporated four lines of effort (LOEs) and was initiated at the request of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) does not currently constitute a strategic threat via inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to German-Speaking and East Central Europe (GS-ECE), to the States of the European Union (EU), or to non-EU European States. Proven and potential cyber threats do exist, however, as does the proven threat of traditional espionage.

Minerals are crucial components of advanced weapons systems, playing a pivotal role in military capability and power projection. They are increasingly integrated into new attack platforms, including Virginia-class attack submarines and long-range missiles.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Christopher Paul (RAND) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. Dr. Paul spoke about how technological advances and threat use patterns have brought tremendous changes to the information environment (IE). He stated that the US Army must invest in new capabilities and practices in order to remain competitive, and we can learn from prior examples to better our future operations conducted in the IE. He reviewed his key findings, emphasizing that most gaps between the US Army baseline and “effective others” are conceptual and capacity gaps. He also presented a comparative analysis that displayed the degrees of capability of multiple states and non-state actors in various areas, in addition to common concepts and principles across the entities. To conclude, Dr. Paul provided recommendations and key takeaways for the US Army and outlined his observations of Russian efforts in and through the IE.