Here’s a reality; space, it’s physical environs, the benefits it brings to a nation, and the movement free of political boundaries it allows has been militarised since October 1957. From the moment the Politburo of the USSR pondered the best way to release word of the successful launch of Sputnik, the intent to use space for advancement of national objective has been the norm, not the exception. It may be comforting and stress-free for us to look back and bask in an aura of warmth that comes from appreciating humankind’s unadulterated quest for the stars; assuming that it has been for the province of all mankind. But the value of space to nations was proven by the USSR, and as sure as night follows day, other nations wanted that value for themselves. A contest had begun, and information was the first weapon. A cursory examination of space activity from that time to this would indicate that any suggestion that the militarisation of space by China, Russia or the US is a relatively recent thing, would simply not be true. Here’s another interesting titbit for the casual observer; Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty doesn’t prohibit militarisation of space. Instead, it proscribes the moon and other celestial bodies to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit. In fact, when considered in isolation from the Outer Space Treaty preamble, Article IV doesn’t prohibit much at all! One may suggest that even nuclear-armed ICBMs are good to go due to their non-orbital, transitory nature. And don’t forget, the Outer Space Treaty, as all treaties alike, was drafted in a particular political environment with particular impetus. One need not do any further homework than track the number of countries that have ratified the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (110) and compare to that the number of countries that have ratified the International Telecommunication Constitution and Convention of 1992 (193), the convention that allows a country to claim somewhat of a stake (however fleeting that stake may be) in a slice of the geostationary belt, to see where nation-state priorities have changed over the years. There has been and will continue to be concerns raised that the militarisation of space sets conditions of inevitability for war in space. But surely believing that militarisation of space sets inevitable conditions for war in space ignores precedent and practice of the last 70 years of nation-state activity. Activity, it could be argued, that proves military capability can absolutely be positioned in space without leading to war. Ignoring this evidence for a moment, wouldn’t holding this belief set its adherents to be in opposition to every tenant of military deterrence that currently exists in strategic thought? Was the Cold War not a manifestation of this? Close run thing to be sure, but a non-warlike contest involving space between nation-states, including their respective armed forces, it was! But to be fair there is valid conjecture about what Article IV (and indeed the Outer Space Treat preamble and it’s other articles) does and does not explicitly allow or prohibit. There could be arguments made, nuance accounted for and precedents found for what a ‘space weapon’ is and is not. Where for example does Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, the article that allows for the right of collective self-defence, enter the discussion? In an age of on-orbit servicing, cyber-connectiveness, non-kinetic effects proliferation, as well as anti-satellite missile development and testing, we’d suggest that all opportunities for considered and expansive thought should be utilised to guide strategy and national intent, regardless of how distasteful possible outcomes may be. Poorly defined, ill-conceived and historically ignorant application of a broad definition, and the reliance on ideals as a sole arbiter of action helps no cause in such a complex physical and geo-political environment. Australia should treat any situation of un-checked and un-balanced militarisation of space with pragmatism, realism and with all of the well-informed and considered care that can be gathered from across a wide spectrum of ideals. We suggest careful engagement with the problem, the domain, allies, competitors and Whole of Government diplomatic, information, economic and military efforts to achieve what is necessary; a space environment free to be used for the benefit of humankind for generations to come.