The space race as a Cold War conflict: individual, state, and systemic analysis

The Space Race: Cosmic Cold War

One of the defining situations of the Cold War, the space race represents the collision—and occasional strategic collusion between two world superpowers. The space race epitomizes the cold war, which should be analyzed from multiple perspectives including the individual, the state, and the system. Individual level analysis reveals the psychological and sociological variables influencing leadership styles, behaviors, and decisions made by core Cold War actors including American presidents like Eisenhower and Kennedy, Soviet leaders like Khrushchev, and also scientists and astronauts whose input, knowledge, and work became major forces in the space race. State level analysis focuses on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union within the framework of traditional realism. Viewed from the state view, the space race was about protecting and promoting state interests in securing and maintaining maximum power. The international or global systems level of analysis is more complex, taking into account numerous sociological and historical variables as well as the systemic relationships between actors during the space race.
Individual Level of Analysis
From the individual point of view, key players such as leaders of nation-states are symbols or repositories of their society’s principles, values, and ideals (Webber, n.d.). The individual perspective hones attention on American presidents and Soviet leaders to show how their roles, leadership style, and communications all impacted the evolution of the space race. When sending satellites into space first became a reality, the United States seemed to lag behind their Soviet counterparts significantly, with the latter launching the first successful satellite, the first unmanned lunar mission, and the first manned orbit of the Earth by 1961 (Marlin, 1987). Media coverage of the early years of the space race would have promoted the message that the Soviets were indeed technologically superior than their American counterparts: an ego-crushing blow not just to the American public as a whole but especially to the reputation of its leaders. Starting with Eisenhower, the Presidents that contributed to the space race in the United States spanned several generations, culminating in the Reagan era. Each American president was uniquely responsible for making decisions related to the space race, allocating federal funding to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and making space technology a national priority and a matter of national security embedded as much in military policy as in scientific aims.
The individual perspective allows both historians and political analysts to uncover the reasons and repercussions of the space race through the actions of individual actors. Responding to challenges to his leadership, Eisenhower signed NASA into existence in 1958, changing the course of world history forever and also indelibly altering the structure of the American government. Concurrent with the Army launch of Explorer I, Eisenhower also created two separate military space programs that would work in conjunction with NASA: one headed by the United States Air Force and the other by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (“The Space Race,” n.d.). The latter showcased the importance of intelligence gathering during the space race, as Eisenhower set a precedent for future presidents.
In the meantime, individuals were making global headlines during the space race. Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human being ever to orbit the earth in 1961, and that same year American astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American to enter space (“The Space Race,” n.d.). Through individuals like these, the global community observed the ongoing space race as a proxy for United States-Soviet foreign relations. The tenuous balance of power between communist and capitalist forces in the world was being held precariously by just a handful of individuals: those with the power to make decisions related to the allocation of public funding, and those with the technical prowess to manufacture and use space and aeronautics technology. In the 1960s, President Kennedy became an ideal spokesperson for American interests in the space race, dispelling fears that may have lodged deep in the psyche of the public related to Soviet technological advancements. When Kennedy promised the American public that a person would land on the moon by the end of the decade, he was only able to keep that promise by increasing the NASA budget by five hundred percent (“The Space Race,” n.d.). The Soviets suffered setbacks simultaneously, due to the suspicious deaths of individuals like Chief Engineer Sergey Korolyov (“The Space Race,” n.d.). Thus, individual levels of analysis show how scientists, strategists, policymakers, leaders, and members of the media all contribute to the construction of the space race and how the space race would proceed throughout the next several decades.
State Level of Analysis
The state level of analysis is commonly used in international relations, particularly when analyzing Cold War-era phenomena. Focusing on nation-states as the primary actors in an inherently chaotic world, the state perspective shows how entities like the Soviet Union and the United States pursue policies and programs that promote their own best interests. Those best interests always have something to do with power: either gaining more power, wielding already existing power, or altering a balance of power on the global stage. The space race can easily be viewed via the state perspective because it showcases how science, technology, and military action converged as instruments of global power.
From the state perspective, the space race is “a result of the hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union,” in which “both countries gave primary emphasis in their space efforts to a combination of national security and foreign policy objectives,” (Sagdeev & Eisenhower, 2008, p. 1). Investments into their respective space programs were primarily motivated by a thirst for power, particularly during the Cold War. The United States responded to initial Soviet gains by taking a long-range perspective, investing not just in NASA but also in educational programs designed to ensure future generations could outwit their Soviet counterparts in the ongoing space race (“The Start of the Space Race,” n.d.). Soviets were equally as dedicated to devoting public funds to the space race to maintain their early edge, “making rockets their most important military asset,” (Sagdeev & Eisenhower, 2008). Space technology was less about the childlike fascination with outer space, with moon landing and extraterrestrial contact, and much more about military might. For more than thirty years, the space race was a media darling, the means by which to garner public attention as if watching a prizefight. State-based levels of analysis emphasize power, and the space race was nothing but the showiest means of displaying military power on the global stage, in order to gain the edge in political power and public opinion.
On a symbolic level as well as a practical, realist on, the space race was fueled by intense competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. The goal of the space race was to prove which nation-state and which corresponding ideology was superior. Space technology presented “ larger implications for space and technology development and policy,” (Erickson, 2018). For example, the Space Race can be understood as a proxy for proving to the rest of the world whether communism or capitalism led to the most effective advancements in human technology (Hardesty & Eisman, 2007). The state level of analysis also shows how the space race impacted foreign policy on both sides. For instance, space technology was indistinguishable from military technology. Space programs were linked with military and intelligence programs in both the United States and the Soviet Union (Hardesty & Eisman, 2007). Finally, the space race epitomizes the bipolar nature of the Cold War: a balance of power between two states. Although both the United States and the Soviet Union had allies, the state level of analysis shows how those allies participated only out of their own self-interest.
System Level of Analysis
The system level of analysis presumes that states respond to the nature or characteristics of the international system (Newmann, n.d.). Viewed from a system perspective, the cold war became the central feature of the international system, precipitating the space race as a natural response. However, system perspectives are even more complex, taking into account historical contingencies too. As Buzan & Little (1994) point out, “international relations theory and history need each other. Without a more comprehensive understanding of the historical record, theories are...stunted in their construction,” (p. 231). Systems theory analyzes the relationships between actors, agents, or stakeholders: typically nation-states. Also, systems theory aligns the connections between states and the most relevant structures, such as the military or the military-industrial complex. Systems theory is also related to balance of power theory, because according to systems theory, there is no power without subordination: necessitating relationship, hierarchy, and ongoing dynamics (Braumoeller, 2016). From the systems perspective, the space race is interconnected with other elements of both domestic and foreign policy. The space race is also linked to social, cultural, and historical variables.
In fact, the system perspective shows how the space race became a node for finance, education, and military policy. Taking precedence over other concerns due to the prevalence of the Cold War as the de facto international system, the space race necessitated investments into education reform, as with the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). NDEA was more than just placing trust in America’s future through a bolstered education system; it was about public education being a “key component of national security,” (“The Start of the Space Race,” n.d.). According to a system level of analysis, space technology, education, the federal budget, and national security functioned in tandem with one another. As Marlin (1987) also points out, the military must also be recognized as a tool or instrument in the international Cold War system. Media propaganda by both Soviets and Americans helped to propel the space race, manipulating the minds of the public to sustain their point of view and support their nation. Because the space race was also a show for the rest of the world, under the Cold War rubric, media messages became critical for gaining strategic allies on both sides.
The system level of analysis shows how the space race began directly as a result of Cold War politics, and came to an end precisely because of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and subsequent end to the Cold War. By the time of the Reagan administration, the space race had effectively ended between the United States and the Soviet Union (Stares, 1985). The system changed from a bipolar Cold War to a unipolar hegemony with the United States at the helm. As a result of the change in the system, individual actors and stakeholders around the world also shifted their alliances to usher in a new world order.
Conclusions
Current and future ramifications of the space race include the ongoing use of weapons testing as a means of showcasing national power, as if the age of realism had never ended. With chaos and uncertainty as the naturally anarchic state of affairs, a neorealist system perspective has taken root in global politics (Webber, n.d.). The state level of analysis remains the primary lens through which to view current attempts at maintaining American hegemony and preventing multilateral international relations. Individual levels of analysis also remain salient, particularly as personas like Trump Putin, and Kim vie for whatever power they can amass using the tools they have at their disposal. The space race has yielded tremendous advancements in science and technology, but has had a more meaningful effect on political affairs.



References
Braumoeller, B.F. (2016). Systemic theories of international politics. Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756223-0173
Buzan, B. & Little, R. (1994). The idea of ‘international system”: theory meets history. International Political Science Review 15(3): 231-255.
Erickson, A.S. (2018). Revisiting the U.S.-Soviet space race: Comparing two systems in their competition to land a man on the moon. Acta Astronautica 148(2018): 376-384.
Hardesty, V. & Eisman, G. (2007). Epic rivalry. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
Marlin, C.L. (1987). Space race propaganda. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 64(2-3): 544-559.
Newmann, B. (n.d.). A brief introduction to theories on international relations and foreign policy. http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/468theory.htm
Sagdeev, R. & Eisenhower, S. (2008). United States-Soviet space cooperation during the Cold War. NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Stares, P.B. (1985). The militarization of space. United States Department of Energy. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5642072
“The Space Race,” (n.d.). History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/space-race
“The Start of the Space Race,” (n.d.). Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1950s-america/a/the-start-of-the-space-race
Webber, P. (n.d.). Levels of analysis in international relations. http://my.ilstu.edu/~jawebbe/Levels%20of%20Analysis%20in%20International%20Relations%5B1%5D.htm