Space policy expert Greg Autry believes the Chinese communist regime may be looking at targeting Taiwan with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon attack. What would such an attack look like, and why might an EMP be the weapon of choice for the Chinese regime?
Autry is the director of space leadership, policy, and business at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and a professor at Arizona State University. He’s also the co-author of “Red Moon Rising: How America Will Beat China on the Final Frontier.”
“Space is the ultimate high ground,” but America is at risk of losing its superiority in space, the policy expert says.
Watch the video:
What would losing the second space race mean for America and its allies?
Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:
Greg Autry, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Greg Autry:
I’m glad to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Jekielek:
In your book, “Red Moon Rising,” you strongly advocate for getting Americans back into space, starting with the moon and then moving beyond. On the other hand, some people argue that we have numerous problems here on Earth that need to be fixed before we focus on space. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Autry:
If you look at our country and the world today, there’s a huge list of big problems. They are very rarely solved inside the box. It’s important to get another perspective. It’s also usually important to bring in extra resources to address the issues that you face. Historically, you'll find out that’s often the case.
I’ve always been fascinated by the age of exploration, specifically the 15th and 16th centuries when Europe gradually took over the entire planet. By the beginning of the 20th century, countries like Britain had control over a significant portion of the Earth’s population and resources. How did this happen? It all began with government-funded expeditions that aimed for economic development in the regions they encountered.
In contrast, there’s the story of China during the early 15th century, between 1405 and 1420. During this time, China embarked on a series of bold exploratory voyages that surpassed the achievements of Columbus and Magellan. These expeditions involved huge vessels that sailed from China to the Indian mainland, the Middle East, and even the shores of Africa.
China had the potential to become the dominant power in the world if they had continued their exploratory efforts. Unfortunately, due to internal unrest and the decisions made by the third Ming Emperor, China canceled these expeditions and turned inward to focus on their domestic issues. As a result, Spain, France, and the UK took advantage of the world’s resources and eventually subjugated China with their superior technology, leading China to endure a prolonged period of humiliation.
Now, we find ourselves at a similar moment in history. We have three choices. One, we can explore and uncover resources beyond our planet and gain a new perspective to solve our problems. Two, we can remain stagnant and risk further challenges here on Earth. Three, we can just turn inward and then find out somebody else is going to do that. The reason why we’ve written the book is because it appears that China is going to do that, having learned its lesson from the 15th century very well.
Mr. Jekielek:
In your book, you specifically highlight two threats from communist China. One of them is the military threat in space. The other one is the propaganda message that China has conquered this next frontier, not America, which would be a very powerful tool for the regime.
Mr. Autry:
Yes, indeed. First of all, on the military side, space is the ultimate high ground. Sun Tzu tells us this very clearly. If you can capture the superior position, you want to do that because then you can force your enemy to capitulate without fighting back. This is the most important part of the idea. Whoever controls Earth’s orbit and the Moon will be telling the people on Earth what they’re going to do. There will be no point in fighting.
The U.S. has essentially controlled space since the collapse of the Soviet Union and used it to incredible advantage to project force around the world. We were able to take out the huge army in Iraq with very little loss on the American side. We also spent many years, fruitless perhaps, in Afghanistan, without a lot of losses compared to previous wars. Much of that has to do with America’s superiority in space and our ability to know where everything on the battlefield is at any time and communicate that to people on the battlefield. Not having that superiority would be a huge loss.
On the geopolitical credibility stage, it makes a huge difference. We talk a lot in the book about Space Race 1.0 with the Soviet Union back in the 1960s, which was part of Cold War 1.0. Kennedy laid down the Apollo program very clearly as a challenge to the Soviet Union, because he wanted to demonstrate to the entire world the superiority of the United States in technology and economic development. He wanted to show our ability to execute a very difficult task that didn’t involve going to war, which was the Soviet Union’s way of killing millions of people. We won that race.
From that moment on, the Soviet Union was in decline in its global credibility. Until that point, they were on the rise and highly respected around the world as the future of humanity. But their failure to execute on the moon program was a national shame. It demoralized people inside the Soviet Union and gave everybody else in the world respect for the amazing capabilities of the U.S. and, by extension, our free market system.
We’re at that same point again. In 2016, I served on the presidential transition team and helped set the agenda that President Trump put in place to return Americans to the moon, this time permanently. As well as other space-related decisions, we understood that we were throwing down the gauntlet. We had assumed that by the end of the year, we would be back on the moon, and by 2024, we would already be there.
That was eight years ago now. It took eight years for Kennedy to get us to the moon the first time. You would think that 60 years later, with everything we’ve learned, we could do it again. But we haven’t done it in eight years. We are at risk of being eclipsed by China, who has a very effective space program in place. Even Bill Nelson, President Biden’s NASA administrator, has expressed concern about this.
Mr. Jekielek:
What is China’s current space capability? What have they developed, and what is the threat? You discuss significant military threats in the book.
Mr. Autry:
China has a very credible space program, clearly ranking second in the world. They have surpassed Russia’s former Soviet program. The United States is a clear leader in civil space, human space flight, space science, commercial space, and military space. However, that doesn’t mean we can be complacent. It’s not about where you are in the race, but how fast the person behind you is catching up.
This should be a significant concern because China’s trajectory is remarkable. They are making progress in every category. For example, they recently landed near the south pole of the moon, on the dark side, and successfully conducted a sample return mission called Chang-e 6. In contrast, our attempts to land a robotic lander on the moon this year have failed twice, and NASA has even canceled one of our major moon rover programs, VIPER. Despite leading the race, we are not performing well.
This should concern us. Similarly, in the military realm, China is also catching up quickly. While our equipment may be better, they are moving at a faster pace. They excel at copying, stealing, and acquiring what they need from us and the Russians, and then improving and manufacturing more due to their extensive workshop capabilities and supply chain.
Mr. Jekielek:
What does this mean in terms of military capabilities? Space weapons are not often a topic of discussion when we talk about the military. We typically focus on conventional forces and conflicts like those between Israel and Palestine, or Russia and Ukraine. We also talk about information warfare and the regime’s use of asymmetrical warfare tactics. But we don’t talk much about space warfare, what it entails, and the weapons already developed and ready to be deployed.
Mr. Autry:
We open the first chapter of the book with a discussion of an electromagnetic pulse [EMP] weapon. In the event that space weapons are used on targets on Earth, I believe EMP weapons are highly likely to be deployed. An EMP weapon is a large nuclear explosion that is detonated at a high altitude outside Earth’s atmosphere, approximately 400 or 500 miles up.
When this explosion occurs, an area underneath it is exposed to radiation. The radiation excites the molecules in Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in the generation of an electromagnetic wave or pulse that traverses the affected area. The primary impact of this pulse is its ability to overwhelm and permanently destroy any electronic systems that are exposed to it. This occurs because the pulse induces an electrical field within the wires and circuits of devices such as iPads, phones, laptops, hospital equipment, and other similar technologies.
Imagine if one of these weapons were detonated over Taipei. Instantly, all electronic devices in the city, including phones, laptops, iPads, hospital equipment, and even cars, would cease to function. In fact, cars with computerized ignition and fuel control systems may even experience explosions and fires, while other vehicles would become immobile.
The repercussions extend beyond personal devices and transportation. The city’s entire infrastructure would grind to a halt. Communication systems would be non-existent, both military and civilian aircraft would be grounded, and the electrical grid, including the transformers supplying power to homes and businesses, would be disrupted. Even more concerning is the fact that most of the supply chain for fixing this catastrophe is now located in Asia, particularly China. If an incident like this were to happen in the United States, our access to vital resources for recovery would be cut off within hours.
China, as well as Russia, has classified these nuclear blasts in space not as strategic nuclear weapons, but rather as cyber weapons. They consider them as cyber attacks rather than nuclear assaults on cities. We are well aware of their daily use of cyber attacks against Western countries, including the United States and our allies in Europe and Asia. They believe cyber attacks are legitimate methods of open warfare, regularly employing them. The categorization of EMP weapons as cyber weapons instead of nuclear weapons is alarming. These weapons have the potential to be one of the primary tools used in an attack on Taiwan, Korea, Japan, or any other target.
Mr. Jekielek:
Thus far, the Chinese regime has been employing various gray zone methods, actions for which they can maintain plausible deniability. For instance, in the fentanyl supply chain, they are involved at every step, but they can easily claim, “No, it’s not us. It’s the Mexican cartels who are responsible for the fentanyl.” Moreover, considering the ongoing situation in the South China Sea with the Philippines, there appears to be a growing aggression, although it is primarily a dispute over land—not a military confrontation necessitating a forceful response.
Additionally, cyber attacks are constantly taking place. We, at The Epoch Times, are acutely aware of China’s cyber attack capabilities and must constantly defend against them. However, once again, we can question whether it is truly the Chinese state behind these attacks, or simply hackers based in China. There is always room for doubt when it comes to these methods of attack. Nonetheless, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack would undoubtedly be an entirely different matter.
Mr. Autry:
You are absolutely correct. The Chinese regime has been meticulously causing economic, military, social, and political disruption in our country, as well as in the countries of our allies, while continuously pushing the boundaries to avoid a full-fledged war. It’s a brilliant strategy that has worked in their favor.
Regarding fentanyl, I recall my experiences in Shanghai many years ago when I was working on the book, “Death by China.” Back then, every street corner in Shanghai had vendors selling bootleg copies of Hollywood films. There was even a counterfeit mall housed beneath the Science Museum, where one could find fake watches, DVDs, iPads, and every other imaginable item.
When I confronted a Communist Party official about this blatant violation of intellectual property, their response was that they couldn’t control it, claiming it was impossible. However, I challenged their stance, asking if they would allow videos of the Tiananmen Square massacre to be sold on the streets. Unsurprisingly, my discussion and interview ended abruptly. The reality is that they do have the capability to control the fentanyl supply, but they choose not to. Their intention is to see Americans dead and to inflict chaos, suffering, and economic decline upon our nation.
You’re absolutely right—they are getting away with these actions. However, an EMP attack would take their tactics to a whole new level. If they were to directly engage in military action, it may not garner the same level of global condemnation as killing a large number of people would. They could effectively cripple a country like Taiwan without causing significant casualties. It would be like using tear gas on a rioting crowd, a non-lethal means, and then claiming they were invited in.
In fact, it’s highly probable that Taiwan would eventually plead for their assistance once they began running out of food. I hope they wouldn’t do that, but I think it’s more likely than an actual invasion. I believe that the Chinese, following Sun Tzu, the last thing they want to do is actually fight a traditional war that we’re preparing for.
That’s not what they’re going to do because every Chinese soldier is important to their culture. He represents the male lineage that is highly revered in their society. It’s highly unlikely they want to see a bunch of body bags coming back from landing on the beaches and engaging in small arms combat. I don’t think that scenario will ever happen. Furthermore, launching rockets and causing mass casualties would not bode well for their goal of controlling the economy they desire. Therefore, the potential use of an EMP is a scary solution.
Mr. Jekielek:
They would act as the saviors of society after having created the problem in the first place. There isn’t a lot of infrastructure that could withstand this type of attack.
Mr. Autry:
I hope this scenario doesn’t become a reality, but it highlights the power of space weaponry. Just knowing that this option exists alters every diplomatic discussion that takes place between the U.S. and China or any other power and China. The Chinese are skilled at using asymmetric threats as leverage while engaging in low-level activities that they can get away with. This has been evident in their handling of issues like the distribution of fentanyl and cyber attacks.
Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s discuss the U.S. supply chain, which relies heavily on China and Chinese manufacturing. The Chinese have been deliberate in their efforts to attract U.S. companies to ship their manufacturing to China. In this regard, we are at a disadvantage. However, in the field of space, we have a strong manufacturing and tech innovation sector. Elon Musk frequently showcases videos of rockets successfully landing on their own after being deployed to space. We are launching satellites and have projects like Starlink. There is a lot of activity happening on the U.S. side.
Mr. Autry:
It has truly been a remarkable manufacturing revolution in a country where we struggle with manufacturing on a large scale. Despite previous attempts, we have not been able to fully establish a thriving manufacturing industry in the U.S. Outside of the space industry, our success has been limited. There have been struggles in trying to persuade Foxconn to establish a factory in Wisconsin or convince Taiwan Semiconductor to build chip factories in Arizona. However, when it comes to space, we are taking matters into our own hands.
We are tackling it with passion, speed, and on a scale that surpasses anything previously achieved in the industry. If you visit SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California, you will find thousands of blue-collar workers engaged in welding, bending metal, and installing wiring harnesses. Additionally, there are professionals involved in software development, rocket engine testing, and other crucial activities required for successful vehicle manufacturing. Furthermore, SpaceX also has a sizable facility in south Texas dedicated to building their Starship rocket, as well as a testing facility in Texas.
On the other hand, Jeff Bezos has established a vast factory spanning hundreds of thousands of square feet in Florida, just outside the gates of the Kennedy Space Center. This facility employs thousands of people. These initiatives are creating a manufacturing industry with jobs that have the potential to positively impact people’s lives, enabling them to support their families without accumulating extensive college debts.
Fortunately, these efforts are paying off. In 2012, when SpaceX first started launching commercial payloads, the United States held essentially no share in the commercial space launch business. If an Israeli communications company, a Malaysian TV station, or anyone in Africa needed to launch an agricultural satellite, they would turn to China, Russia, or Europe. No one came to America.
Today, almost every satellite seeking launch services worldwide solicits a U.S. launch company to fulfill their needs. The only reason some still seek alternatives in other countries is because they cannot secure a spot with SpaceX or one of the emerging competitors. As a result, the U.S. now dominates more than 80 percent of the global launch market.
Moreover, in 2010, there were approximately 1,000 operational satellites globally. The number has since skyrocketed to more than 10,000. This tenfold increase is largely due to the fact that most of these satellites are manufactured in the United States. It has been a complete revolution. One of the contributing factors to this remarkable shift is the existence of laws that restricted American companies from outsourcing manufacturing to China or transferring technology, licensing, and know-how to the country. Consequently, they were compelled to engage in manufacturing within the U.S. And the results have been astounding.
Mr. Jekielek:
You brought attention to the Wolf Amendment, which played a significant role in facilitating this revolution.
Mr. Autry:
Indeed, the Wolf Amendment prohibits NASA from collaborating with China. Despite some individuals’ complaints about this restriction, as they see the potential short-term gains of utilizing China’s extensive supply chain and labor force, the outcome has shown that there are alternatives and successes available within the United States. Senator Frank Wolf understood that. He understood who we were dealing with in the CCP.
This isn’t like working with the Japanese government or the British government, or even the Saudi Arabian government. We’re dealing with somebody who really wants to see our downfall and is treating their own people and their own environment in the most horrendous ways, and I agree. Hats off to him.
There is also a body of laws called ITAR, the International Traffic and Arms Regulations, that restricts the transfer of many of these technologies out of the country. Again, many people in my industry complain about these laws because they want to do business with foreign countries. But we’re very concerned about foreign countries like Canada becoming a conduit for secondary transfer to China, because they’re really good at that and they don’t manage their own security well enough.
You’ve got to keep those rocket businesses in the U.S. When Richard Branson wanted to start a couple of space companies, he started them in the United States. There was a Ukrainian gentleman who started a company called Firefly here in the United States decades ago. It’s now an American owned company. Rocket Lab, one of SpaceX’s biggest and most successful competitors, was founded by Peter Beck from New Zealand, who brought his company to the United States. He had to do that in order to get what he needed to get done because the Wolf Amendment and ITAR made sure that you had to.
It’s a really successful example of creating a barrier around an industry and having it work and not only prosper in the United States, but also bring in net positive trade flows. Every time we launch one of those satellites from a foreign country, that’s an upside for our trade balance. It totally contradicts the academic theory that you can’t do that, that you can’t put barriers up and have a successful industry, and that they'll become weak and noncompetitive. That doesn’t have to be the case.
Mr. Jekielek:
You bring up an important point. If we were doing this with Japan, it would be a completely different situation because you assume there are good intentions, and that we would play by the same rules, both looking for the best outcome. But with the Chinese regime, that’s not the case. It would be fantastic to have a Wolf Amendment about AI. That would be a great use of legislative power.
Mr. Autry:
That’s something we need to look at seriously. I want to be clear, it’s not about China—it’s about the CCP. I am very impressed with what the Chinese scientists and engineers have done in space. There’s nothing I'd like more than for our two countries to be able to work together and bring about a free and prosperous future for humanity and space. It is crucial that we address the issue of governments dedicated to exploration, but who are also supporting repression and misery. If we continue to support such governments, our goals will be hindered.
Moreover, it is important to consider implementing similar restrictions on AI and other technology categories. Unfortunately, our companies are driven by the need to report quarterly profits. Their boards of directors are solely focused on these profits, while Wall Street financiers, who lack morality, support their endeavors. Their main concern is doing whatever it takes to maximize profits, even if it means lowering labor costs by outsourcing to China or disregarding the environment. They thrive on these practices.
However, when it comes to space, they will face limitations. The constraints they encounter in the space industry could serve as an indicator of what could be achieved in other industries as well.
Mr. Jekielek:
Could you please share your background with us and explain how you became so knowledgeable in this sector?
Mr. Autry:
Like many people my age, I was six years old in 1969 when I witnessed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepping on the moon. It was a time of turmoil in our country, with protests and riots taking place over issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and women’s rights. Even in my own household, things were far from harmonious.
Despite being just a child at the time, I somehow felt drawn to the Apollo program. I realized that the people involved in it were passionately dedicated to their work, and they were not only doing it with excellence but also inspiring the entire world. It was a stark contrast to the disorder and lack of purpose I saw around me. That connection has stayed with me ever since.
When I started my career, I dreamt of working in the aerospace industry, but unfortunately, the sector in the United States has always experienced cycles of growth and decline. By the time I reached adulthood, the Cold War was winding down, and the civil space program had been significantly scaled back after the Apollo program. Accordingly, there were very few job opportunities available.
Consequently, like many of my peers, I pursued a career in computing and embarked on various technology-related endeavors. I also started teaching as an adjunct professor at the University of California, Irvine, following the completion of my MBA there. Interestingly, Peter Navarro, who is now famous as an economist and advisor to President Trump, was my economics professor in 2001. I still remember collaborating with him soon after returning from China, where we had done our overseas study program in Hong Kong and visited other cities on the mainland.
As an adjunct professor, I wanted to focus on an area of the American economy that was intriguing and write case studies about it. That’s when I noticed the emergence of a new commercial and entrepreneurial space industry. At the time, my fellow professors dismissed the idea, claiming that entrepreneurship and the aerospace sector didn’t go hand in hand since it was predominantly government-driven, and the few non-government players were essentially part of the military industrial complex, virtually indistinguishable from the government.
However, I had met a man named Elon, whom I believed would make waves in this industry. Through him, I had the incredible opportunity to enter this relatively unexplored field as a serious scholar. I crossed paths with Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, and countless other fascinating individuals who shared the vision of shaping a better future for humanity in space while also ensuring profitability. Their passion was truly inspiring.
Fast forward to 2013, when I completed my PhD, writing the first-ever management dissertation centered around the context of the commercial space industry. In 2016, President Trump invited me to join NASA’s transition team and help establish the administration’s space goals. I was excited to do that, and of course, we decided to return to the moon. We recommended standing at the National Space Council again, which brings all the cabinet secretaries together.
Eventually, I made recommendations, as did other people, to create a space force. All those things happened and it was great. Then I went back to teaching. However, I had hoped that we would be further along than we are right now, and I have a sense that it’s time to dig in again. Regardless of who the next president is, we need to approach this with a greater sense of alacrity than we have.
Mr. Jekielek:
The space program under Kennedy was largely a government operation. The space program today really seems to be commercial entrepreneurship, especially SpaceX, with others coming up alongside. How do these two sectors work in conjunction with each other?
Mr. Autry:
The 1960s program was all government and all American, and we were spending nearly 5 percent of the U.S. federal budget at the height of the Apollo program. That’s an absurd amount that would never happen today. Today, NASA’s budget is one-third of 1 percent of the federal budget, but we’re trying to do a much bigger return to the moon. We’re doing that by leveraging the capabilities of our commercial companies, both the traditional ones that have been doing good work for many years and the new entrepreneurial ones that are very often represented by Musk.
But there are also hundreds and hundreds of space entrepreneurs making rockets, satellites, and components of all sorts that can contribute to this. It’s also an international vision this time around. Therefore, we’re bringing our partners along from Japan, from the European Space Agency, and from the UK. Additionally, NASA wisely created a program called the Artemis Accords. They are a series of bilateral agreements with 43 different countries around the world that have agreed to participate in setting standards and modes of behavior on the moon that will allow us to work together in exploiting the resources of the moon for the benefit of people here on Earth.
Mr. Jekielek:
How does this future governance of the moon look different in a situation where China makes it there first? How does that work?
Mr. Autry:
Yes, that’s a really great question and one that keeps us up at night, as we say in the book. We believe that humanity is at this tipping point, very similar to the age of exploration I discussed earlier. We’re going to have an opportunity to expand to the moon and through the solar system to Mars and beyond. There are many great resources out there in many places for humans to utilize and to finally make ourselves a multi-planetary species, which from my point of view seems to be our destiny. Like Carl Sagan said,”If there’s a god, why would he have created billions and billions of stars, if nobody was ever to use them?”
It’s either going to be the United States bringing the traditions of the enlightenment, of tolerance and diversity and respect for religion, and all peoples, or it’s going to be this monolithic, Borg mindset of the Communist Party, who are bringing in a twisted version of a crazy German’s philosophical rants from the 19th century, fed through Mao and Xi Jinping thought.
I don’t want to see a future where we have gulags on the moon, where people who are, not of correct thinking, who are of the wrong religious persuasion, are being persecuted through the solar system, or prevented even from being able to leave the planet and carry their visions and their faith and their viewpoints with them. I believe this is of utmost importance.
This may be the most pivotal moment in human history, where we must do things right, allowing freedom to flourish. However, governing the moon according to the rule of law is a complex matter, as it is regulated by a treaty from the 1960s. This will pose significant challenges for commercial companies trying to accomplish what they need to succeed there.
Mr. Jekielek:
You have a comprehensive set of policy ideas for the United States to achieve success, along with the necessary requirements to be the first to accomplish them.
Mr. Autry:
Absolutely. In December, I testified to the U.S. Congress, specifically to the House Natural Resources Committee, on this topic. The moon is approximately the same size as Africa, and the exciting aspect is that no one lives there. If our intention is to exploit, settle, and develop the moon and its resources, we won’t be taking anything away from anyone. No one will be enslaved or lose their lives.
I’m aware that in the first age of exploration, such incidents did occur. I am not glorifying everything that happened in the 16th century, as there were certainly some horrific events. However, the bottom line is that those who invested in technology and exploration shaped the thinking, lifestyles, and success of future generations.
When we reach the moon, the first party to arrive will have the ability to establish operational zones. The moon is governed by an international treaty known as the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits claims of national sovereignty. However, it does allow the creation of working areas where due regard must be given to ongoing scientific or engineering activities, and interference is prohibited.Considering how the Chinese like to demarcate territories and assertively define their ownership, I believe they are likely to target areas with the most resources.
The reason they’re in the South China Sea isn’t because it’s called the South China Sea, it’s because there’s a lot of natural gas there. On the moon, they know where the metals are, the water, and the other things you have to have to develop and survive on the moon. I would expect them to put scientific outposts, robotic operating systems, and radio telescopes, and then say, “You can’t come into this zone.” This could happen in the next five to ten years.
We may not be actually mining those elements and developing products and returning them to Earth for ten or fifteen years, but that might not make a difference. They can draw that dotted line, and they’re very patient at doing it, and very strategic at doing it. The U.S. has to understand that. It’s why we need to move quickly to make sure that we get access for ourselves and our international partners to the best materials that are up there.
Mr. Jekielek:
It’s not just dotted lines on a map. In the South China Sea there are giant dredgers that have come in and built reefs which then have landing strips put on them. Later, they will say, “This is our territory. We’ve been here all along.” The U.S. doesn’t know how to deal with this.
Mr. Autry:
No, we haven’t dealt with it very well at all. We’ve just accepted it. We said “Stop that and don’t militarize those islands,” and they, of course, promised not to militarize the islands. Then they just went ahead and did it right under our noses. But again, they never crossed a threshold where we were going to send in a cruise missile or send in the Seventh Fleet and stop them. Now we’re at a point where sending in the Seventh Fleet is a little bit risky for us, and we need to back off a step maybe, and that’s exactly what they wanted.
I assume they will behave the same way in space. They’ve got a great history of pretending that they’re always the victim and that everybody’s picking on them. They are never the aggressor. But tell that to the Tibetans or the Mongolians or the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or even the Manchurians.
Anytime they’re attacked, they’ve been very good at taking over their attacker and controlling that territory. Anytime they have a resource like the water of the Himalayas or the minerals of Tibet that they want, they will say, “That has always been ours.” Then they move in and they get the world to accept. They just keep repeating that lie over and over, “That’s always been ours.” The world eventually tires of arguing about it and moves on.
Mr. Jekielek:
You set up a whole bunch of new structures during the Trump administration which have remained in place. The Space Force is still in play. There’s a whole bunch of new initiatives. What does the next administration have to do to achieve the timeframe you’ve been describing?
Mr. Autry:
I want to be clear—the Biden administration has maintained significant continuity in space policy from the Trump administration. In fact, it’s one area where there has been very little change. The Space Force, the Artemis program to the moon, and the National Space Council, along with other organizational structures, have all continued. Additionally, most of the individuals appointed by the current White House are excellent people who are doing good work. However, what we lack is a sense of urgency from the White House to confront the competition we’re facing with China. As a result, our program has fallen behind.
Furthermore, we have a major supply chain problem. While our space industry remains strong, other industries that are closely connected to it have been outsourcing their operations for decades. This poses significant challenges in terms of acquiring raw materials and accessing basic assemblies and computer chips, essential for any advanced industry.
Addressing this supply chain issue is crucial, and it requires a greater sense of urgency. We need to commit to reaching the moon before China does, and we need to make the necessary changes to achieve that goal. Importantly, we need the support and backing from the White House.
With that said, I hope to see a renewed sense of urgency on this matter post-election, regardless of who is elected. We must be realistic about China’s behavior based on their past actions. When they violate treaties, international norms, or act against the best interests of our planet and people, we need to stand up and say no. There must be consequences for their actions, rather than turning a blind eye and hoping for compliance.
Mr. Jekielek:
The issue of the medical precursor supply chain is a significant national security concern. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much action taken to address it. What will it take to fix the supply chain problem in the space sector?
Mr. Autry:
The space supply chain is closely linked to the technology and heavy manufacturing supply chain, which has been causing problems in industries like aviation. Boeing has numerous 787s sitting on runways due to component shortages. Car companies have also faced delays as they wait for microprocessors from their just-in-time supply chain. This supply chain issue extends to basic raw materials needed for space, such as titanium and rare earth elements.
We have allowed aggressor states not only to outproduce us in those materials, but we have also allowed them to take control of practically every mine in Africa and South America that they can get their hands on. As a result, they now control the global supply chain and dictate the global prices to us. Meanwhile, with the best intentions, we have heavily restricted extractive industries right here in the United States. We claim that we’re doing this to save the global environment, but what we’re essentially doing is offshoring our pollution.
For example, the rare earth elements in the iPad that you’re holding,, are mined in Inner Mongolia under abysmal conditions. Similarly, parts of the batteries in my electric cars are mined by children in Africa and China, causing severe damage to the global environment. Unfortunately, we don’t see this because we are more concerned about the appearance of our own country.
However, this approach makes us noncompetitive and puts us at significant risk of being cut off from these essential raw materials at any time. These raw materials are used in fundamental components such as metal alloys and wires, which form subcomponents and assemblies for many products, most of which are manufactured in China. If not, they are made in countries that China could easily deny us access to at any moment. This threat looms over us constantly and poses a real danger.
It is one of those asymmetric weapons that the Chinese can casually hint at, without explicitly stating it. Whenever an American diplomat meets with the Chinese, they are well aware that we might lose access to rare earth elements or pharmaceutical precursors, which could result in job losses and even the loss of American lives. We must address this problem urgently. While this issue extends beyond just space, being involved in the space industry has given me a clear understanding of its impact. It is a problem that causes real harm.
That is one of the reasons why going to the moon is crucial. There, we have access to resources that are not controlled or monopolized by the Chinese Communist Party. We can mine, strip mine, and process these resources without affecting any biosphere because there is no biosphere on the moon. Utilizing these resources can improve life on Earth without any negative impact on the environment. We don’t have to destroy the Brazilian rainforest to obtain lithium, for example.
Mr. Jekielek:
During the pandemic, the Chinese regime restricted the supply of medical precursors. The Trump administration expressed interest in reshoring some of these precursors. What needs to happen for this to become a reality?
Mr. Autry:
Making this a reality requires a constant and daily sense of urgency, along with individuals in key positions who are willing to roll up their sleeves and work as hard as Elon Musk does—putting in 80 to 100 hours a week. On behalf of the American people, I insist that these problems are solved. Recently, I examined the cancellation of NASA’s VIPER program. The reason given was that supply chain problems led to increased costs and delays, ultimately resulting in its cancellation. This made me wonder about the supply chain and why someone at NASA headquarters didn’t reach out to the person experiencing the supply chain problem and ask for the specific company responsible for the delay.
There should have been a call to the CEO of that company, demanding an explanation for their failure to deliver product X. If they couldn’t provide an answer, I would have held a press conference to hold them accountable for jeopardizing the program and the associated jobs. This is the kind of action we need to take. If the CEO points to a supply chain issue further down the line, we should investigate and involve the White House, and even the State Department for international matters, to ensure a resolution.
We have the tools to make things happen. If we can’t procure a product from China, we could explore other countries for alternatives. We need their assistance to make it possible. We must have this determination. Instead of entering a room with uncertainty, we should be proactive, like Elon Musk and his team who always manage to get what they need. They accomplish production without accepting excuses related to the supply chain.
Mr. Jekielek:
Elon Musk certainly has a grand vision of populating the stars with the human race. Let’s discuss the opportunities that exist in space for humanity.
Mr. Autry:
I’m happy to talk about the incredible potential of space, which captivated my interest from the start. First, there are valuable resources in space that we can access. We can extract and process these materials without causing harm to our planet. However, this doesn’t mean we'll be mining materials and transporting them back to Earth in space trucks within a few years.
What it does mean is that as we establish a human presence in space, we will be able to conduct heavy manufacturing without having to rely on lifting everything from Earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, there are unique possibilities in the microgravity environment of space that simply cannot be realized on Earth.
Consider a pharmaceutical factory, for example. What comes to mind? Probably large vats of chemicals being stirred by machines and fluids flowing through tubes. All of this is influenced by gravity. The stirring occurs because the heavier elements in the vats settle at the bottom, making it difficult for them to effectively mix with other desired molecules.
In zero gravity, chemical compounds form ideal bonds much more quickly, sometimes even achieving results that are impossible to replicate on Earth. We have identified drugs that can be manufactured in space, as well as potential improvements to drugs currently made on Earth. By crystallizing these drugs in microgravity, their lifespan can be extended, allowing them to be used in the treatment of a range of conditions, from diabetes to cancer.
Additionally, in space, we can produce metal alloys that are impossible to create on Earth. This is because, on Earth, when the alloy cools, the heavier elements tend to sink to the bottom, resulting in imperfections in the final product. In microgravity, we can also produce fiber optic cables that perform significantly better.
Furthermore, biomedical devices and biological materials can be produced more effectively in this environment. For example, stem cells grow much faster in zero-g compared to a two-dimensional petri dish. This has potential implications for organ transplantation, as we can grow organs from a patient’s own stem cells in microgravity.
The advantages of growing organs in space are two-fold. Firstly, we eliminate the need for organ donors, which can be a scarce resource. Secondly, the organs grown from the patient’s own stem cells will be a perfect match to their DNA, reducing the need for immunosuppressant drugs and the associated risks and expenses. If we attempted to grow organs on Earth, the influence of gravity would cause them to flatten, resulting in a “liver pancake” rather than a functional organ. There are many exciting developments in microgravity research that have the potential to transform lives.
Another notable example is the development of artificial retinas, which could potentially restore vision to individuals with macular degeneration or other types of retinal degeneration. These retinas can only be created effectively in microgravity, as the precise placement of chemicals on a film substrate is challenging to achieve in the presence of gravity.
Mr. Jekielek:
You mentioned the forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong members. Currently, the Falun Gong Protection Act has passed the House by unanimous voice vote, and there is now a companion bill in the Senate. It seems that there is a real possibility that the first federal U.S. legislation to combat this barbaric practice may be enacted in the future. For more information on this issue, I encourage listeners to refer to other episodes of American Thought Leaders that have addressed this subject.
The opportunities available in space truly represent the final frontier, as famously stated in Star Trek. I look forward to what the future holds.
Mr. Autry:
I share in your excitement. I look forward to seeing you there.
Mr. Jekielek:
Greg Autry, such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Mr. Autry:
Thank you. This has been a great conversation. I appreciate it.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Comments