Garretson, Peter A. and Richard M. Harrison (2025) Space Shock: 18 Space Threats That Will Define Space Power. American Foreign Policy Council.
Précis
Space Shock: 18 Space Threats That Will Define Space Power is in some ways a wargame after action report. More precisely, Space Shock is the report of findings from six “simulation workshops” held beginning in 2023 by the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) Space Policy Initiative (SPI). The workshops were designed, “to examine near-term scenarios that could have significant strategic/psychological impact on public perceptions of space, and thus on resourcing and policy decision-making” (p. 7, emphasis in original). Each workshop assembled players to represent the National Space Council (NSpC) and faced different scenarios focused on answering two key questions:
- “How do we anticipate the situation being framed in the public media, and what sort of action is likely to be demanded from public officials?”
- “What options exist for the United States, and which option should be selected and why?” (p. 7)
As the authors of Space Shock write:
Our aim was for these discussions to help policymakers make better decisions. By anticipating what political pressures will be felt by U.S. government policymakers—including how the public, the press, Congress, allies, and adversaries may respond—and examining potential responses for the U.S. (in new policies, executive orders, dedicated strategies, national-level guidance), we believe that U.S. policymakers can prepare for what might lie ahead—before those events occur—and arm them with foresight and policy options needed to steer the wisest course.
p. 8, emphasis in original
Each of the 18 scenarios in Space Shock is presented in generally the same format: A “Scenario Rationale” is followed by “The Scenario” presented as a news event and an ask by the Chief Executive for advice. A brief recap of the “Simulated National Space Council Discussion” is then followed by “Assessment and Recommendations” broadly divided into “Immediate Actions (0-90 Days),” “Short-Term Actions (6-18 Months),” and “Long Term Strategy (2-5+ Years).”
Ponderings
AFPC. In policy advocacy documents, it is very important to understand who the advocate is. I asked Duck.ai using the GPT-4o mini model, “What is the political leaning of AFPC? Progressive or Conservative?” The response given follows:
Political Leaning of the American Foreign Policy Council
The American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) is generally considered to have a conservative political leaning. It aligns more closely with traditional conservative values regarding foreign policy, emphasizing national security, strong defense, and a proactive stance in international affairs.
Key Characteristics of Its Political Leaning
- National Security Focus: AFPC advocates for a robust national defense and often supports military interventions when deemed necessary to safeguard U.S. interests.
- Support for Allies: The council emphasizes strong alliances, particularly with traditional allies such as NATO countries and Israel, reflecting a commitment to collective security.
- Skepticism of Multilateralism: AFPC tends to approach multilateral agreements and organizations with caution, advocating for U.S. sovereignty and interests to be prioritized.
- Promotion of Democracy: The organization often promotes the spread of democratic values, particularly in regions considered critical to U.S. strategic interests.
In summary, AFPC’s perspectives and policy recommendations are largely in line with conservative principles, particularly in relation to foreign policy strategies and national security matters.
In an effort to minimize political bias, the co-directors designed workshops so that half of the days scenarios were played assuming a Democratic administration and the other half with a Republican administration. In every case the scenario assumed a divided U.S. House of Representatives. Without a Red Team playing, an “External Press Agitator” represented by the the White House Press Secretary player was directed to challenge and question the group’s decision-making in an effort to draw out discussion of possible consequences (pp. 8-9).
Gaming Connection
If you are a wargamer a few of the scenarios presented may be useful for scenario design. Even boardgamers may find the scenarios inspirational for a game design. None of the scenarios were intended to wargame a kinetic conflict though several of the policy recommendations may eventually demand to be modeled as such. More than a few scenarios touch on economic and global competition that could make good foundations for a strategy game design.
Recommended.
Feature image courtesy RMN
The opinions and views expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and are presented in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Navy or any other U.S. government Department, Service, Agency, Office, or employer.
RockyMountainNavy.com © 2007-2025 by Ian B is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Rocky Mountain Navy Gamer 