What do you think?
Rate this book
Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best Science & Technology (2018)“Extraordinary.… A feast of history, an expert tour through thousands of years of war and conquest.” ―Jennifer Carson, New York Times Book Review In this far-reaching foray into the millennia-long relationship between science and military power, acclaimed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-author Avis Lang examine how the methods and tools of astrophysics have been enlisted in the service of war. Spanning early celestial navigation to satellite-enabled warfare, Accessory to War is a richly researched and provocative examination of the intersection of science, technology, industry, and power that will introduce Tyson’s millions of fans to yet another dimension of how the universe has shaped our lives and our world.
592 pages, Paperback
First published September 11, 2018
About the author
Neil deGrasse Tyson
84 books284k followersNeil deGrasse Tyson was born and raised in New York City where he was educated in the public schools clear through his graduation from the Bronx High School of Science. Tyson went on to earn his BA in Physics from Harvard and his PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia.
In 2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a twelve-member commission that studied the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. The final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and national security.
In 2004, Tyson was once again appointed by President Bush to serve on a nine-member commission on the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, dubbed the “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” commission. This group navigated a path by which the new space vision can become a successful part of the American agenda. And in 2006, the head of NASA appointed Tyson to serve on its prestigious Advisory Council, which guides NASA through its perennial need to fit ambitious visions into restricted budgets.
In addition to dozens of professional publications, Dr. Tyson has written, and continues to write for the public. From 1995 to 2005, Tyson was a monthly essayist for Natural History magazine under the title Universe. And among Tyson’s fifteen books is his memoir The Sky is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist; and Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, co-written with Donald Goldsmith. Origins is the companion book to the PBS NOVA four-part mini-series Origins, in which Tyson served as on-camera host. The program premiered in September 2004.
Two of Tyson’s other books are the playful and informative Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries, which was a New York Times bestseller, and The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet, chronicling his experience at the center of the controversy over Pluto’s planetary status. The PBS NOVA documentary The Pluto Files, based on the book, premiered in March 2010.
In February 2012, Tyson released his tenth book, containing every thought he has ever had on the past, present, and future of space exploration: Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier.
For five seasons, beginning in the fall of 2006, Tyson appeared as the on-camera host of PBS NOVA’s spinoff program NOVA ScienceNOW, which is an accessible look at the frontier of all the science that shapes the understanding of our place in the universe.
During the summer of 2009 Tyson identified a cadre of professional standup comedians to assist his effort in bringing science to commercial radio with the NSF-funded pilot program StarTalk. Now also a popular Podcast, for three years it enjoyed a limited-run Television Series on the National Geographic Channel. StarTalk combines celebrity guests with informative yet playful banter. The target audience is all those people who never thought they would, or could, like science. In its first year on television and in three successive seasons, it was nominated for a Best Informational Programming Emmy.
Tyson is the recipient of twenty-one honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest award given by NASA to a non-government citizen. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid “13123 Tyson.” And by zoologists, with the naming of Indirani Tysoni, a native species of leaping frog in India. On the lighter side, Tyson was voted “Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive” by People Magazine in 2000.
More recently, Tyson published Astrophysics for People In A Hurry in 2017, which was a domestic and international bestseller. This adorably readable book is an introduction to all that you’ve read and heard about that’s making news in the universe—consummated, in one plac
In 2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a twelve-member commission that studied the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. The final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and national security.
In 2004, Tyson was once again appointed by President Bush to serve on a nine-member commission on the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, dubbed the “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” commission. This group navigated a path by which the new space vision can become a successful part of the American agenda. And in 2006, the head of NASA appointed Tyson to serve on its prestigious Advisory Council, which guides NASA through its perennial need to fit ambitious visions into restricted budgets.
In addition to dozens of professional publications, Dr. Tyson has written, and continues to write for the public. From 1995 to 2005, Tyson was a monthly essayist for Natural History magazine under the title Universe. And among Tyson’s fifteen books is his memoir The Sky is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist; and Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, co-written with Donald Goldsmith. Origins is the companion book to the PBS NOVA four-part mini-series Origins, in which Tyson served as on-camera host. The program premiered in September 2004.
Two of Tyson’s other books are the playful and informative Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries, which was a New York Times bestseller, and The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet, chronicling his experience at the center of the controversy over Pluto’s planetary status. The PBS NOVA documentary The Pluto Files, based on the book, premiered in March 2010.
In February 2012, Tyson released his tenth book, containing every thought he has ever had on the past, present, and future of space exploration: Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier.
For five seasons, beginning in the fall of 2006, Tyson appeared as the on-camera host of PBS NOVA’s spinoff program NOVA ScienceNOW, which is an accessible look at the frontier of all the science that shapes the understanding of our place in the universe.
During the summer of 2009 Tyson identified a cadre of professional standup comedians to assist his effort in bringing science to commercial radio with the NSF-funded pilot program StarTalk. Now also a popular Podcast, for three years it enjoyed a limited-run Television Series on the National Geographic Channel. StarTalk combines celebrity guests with informative yet playful banter. The target audience is all those people who never thought they would, or could, like science. In its first year on television and in three successive seasons, it was nominated for a Best Informational Programming Emmy.
Tyson is the recipient of twenty-one honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest award given by NASA to a non-government citizen. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid “13123 Tyson.” And by zoologists, with the naming of Indirani Tysoni, a native species of leaping frog in India. On the lighter side, Tyson was voted “Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive” by People Magazine in 2000.
More recently, Tyson published Astrophysics for People In A Hurry in 2017, which was a domestic and international bestseller. This adorably readable book is an introduction to all that you’ve read and heard about that’s making news in the universe—consummated, in one plac
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 554 reviews
July 24, 2018
An alternate (and, arguably, better) title for this could be THE HISTORY OF ASTROPHYSICS FOR PEOPLE IN LESS OF A HURRY, and it's just as fascinating and richly observed as Mr. Degrasse Tyson's slimmer volume from last year. Unfortunately, there's also a very long section in the middle that feels like an exhaustive attempt to find every UN declaration ever made about the use of outer space, and it really bogs down what has, up until that point, been a rollicking adventure through the ages. It's a good read, but not one that I think I'll be going back to in the years to come. It is undeniably successful at making you marvel at the universe, though, and there were prolonged sections where I read with wonder at the people and ideas contained within.
December 15, 2018
The dawn of the emergence (the United States Space Force and similar programs of other states) of the scientific military astrophysical complex of the space industry.
Please note that I have put the original German text to the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.
It does not matter if a military doctrine is defensive and deterrent or offensive. Both variants have immense escalation potential.
Economic constraints decide on the research priorities. And the entire annual budget for astrophysics is enough to cover the defense budget for a few days in most states. Given a choice, many researchers will opt for a pact with the military. Better to research with martial focus, than not at all. And the technologies, machines and research priorities are identical to some extent. From there onwards, either telescopes or missile launchers will be installed
It is ambivalent, as military and research live in a millennia-long, very child-rich, marriage of convenience. Before astrophysics, it was alchemy, metallurgy, mechanics, pyrotechnics, etc. On the positive side, many civilian applications only grew out of warlike uses. Conversely, research results can always be perverted. Given the influence that has had and will have on human history, one cannot draw a moral or ethical dividing line. It is more about designing the economic, military and social mechanisms with the lowest possible escalation potential in the future.
A thought experiment: Suppose that without the martial mentality of humankind, less research would have been done. Although fewer people died by other peoples hands, the medical and technological advances were also abducted for millennia. As a result, millions of people more than through all wars together died. Even worse, humanity was not prepared for an external threat of a natural or extraterrestrial kind. Is war technology unquestionably evil or good or is it too complicated for a clear point of view?
Research can and will always be adapted for military purposes. This could sometimes lead to work on military applications instead of basic research. That despite the availability of the technologies, these are primarily used for threatening gestures in the solar system rather than actively exploring space. Like the backlog of the peaceful use of many technologies on earth. Military secrecy and monopolies will keep insights and new devices under lock and key for a long time.
In the longer term, such as millennia or tens of thousands of years, man-made weapons will become less of an issue. Instead, the technical possibilities to directly manipulate space physics become the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. One could distract asteroids and meteors and manipulate magnetic fields and gravity. Open gates to the hearts of the suns and let the resulting beam move over planets as a sterilization laser. Build a black hole bomb in millions of years.
Or, alternatively, beforehand the point will be reached at which humankind will be able to control and generate all energies. That's the crucial question for a new balance of power. If the technology is available to everyone, no one has it because of the MAD doctrine. If, on the other hand, only the manipulation of space physics for war use is the most reliable weapon, the party with the most resources will be the most powerful. Instead of uranium, steel and essential chemicals, the number of available space resources will determine the luck of the war.
At the very least, the miniaturization of some hypothetical weapons stands in the way of the mass boundaries necessary for their functioning. Supernovae, black holes, negative mass or antigravity, for example. By contrast, antimatter, gravitational weapons and consorts may have the same coming future problems as dirty bombs and ABC weapons today. Technology advances. And it has always been one of the first applications for smaller states to adapt them to protect themselves.
Air superiority is one of the critical military factors, if not the key factor par excellence. The dominance over space and the atmosphere goes far beyond that. In conventional aerial combat, the opponent still has an approximate chance on the euphemism of a fair fight with the same technique. On the other hand, if a party has a monopoly on orbital bombardments, nothing can be done against it. They can permanently prevent the deployment of enemy troops in space. Make a restrictive dungeon out of the Earth, or any other colonized the planet, and monopolize the exploration and conquest of space. With only colonial-born citizens who do not even have any attachment to their origins.
Die Morgendämmerung der Weltraumtruppen (United States Space Force und ähnliche Programme anderer Staaten) des wissenschaftlich militärisch astrophyikalischen Komplexes der Weltraumindustrie.
Egal, ob die militärische Doktrin auf Defensive und Abschreckung oder Offensive setzt. Beide Varianten haben immenses Eskalationspotential.
Ökonomische Zwänge entscheiden über die Forschungsschwerpunkte. Und das gesamte Jahresbudget für Astrophysik reicht in den meisten Staaten für ein paar Tage zur Deckung des Verteidigungsbudgets. Vor die Wahl gestellt, werden sich viele Forscher für einen Pakt mit dem Militär entscheiden. Lieber, auch mit kriegerischem Fokus, forschen als gar nicht. Und die Technologien, Maschinen und Forschungsschwerpunkte sind bis zu einem gewissen Punkt identisch. Ab da werden entweder zur Erforschung Teleskope oder zur Vernichtung Raketenabschussvorrichtungen installiert.
Es ist ambivalent, da Militär und Forschung in einer Jahrtausende währenden, sehr kinderreichen, Zweckehe leben. Vor der Astrophysik waren es Alchemie, Metallurgie, Mechanik, Pyrotechnik, etc. Positiv kann man sehen, dass viele zivile Anwendungen erst aus kriegerischen Anwendungen wuchsen. Umgekehrt lassen sich Forschungsergebnisse immer pervertieren. Angesicht der Einflüsse, die das auf die Menschheitsgeschichte hatte und haben wird, kann man keine moralische oder ethische Trennlinie ziehen. Es geht eher darum, die wirtschaftlichen, militärischen und gesellschaftlichen Mechanismen in Zukunft auf möglichst geringes Eskalationspotential hin zu konzipieren.
Ein Gedankenexperiment: Angenommen, ohne die kriegerische Mentalität des Menschen wäre weniger Forschung betrieben worden. Es starben zwar weniger Menschen durch andere Menschen, aber die medizinischen und technologischen Fortschritte wurden auch um Jahrtausende verschleppt. Dadurch starben Millionen Menschen mehr als durch alle Kriege zusammen. Noch schlimmer, die Menschheit war für eine externe Bedrohung natürlicher oder extraterrestrischer Art nicht gerüstet. Ist Kriegstechnik demnach definitiv böse oder gut oder ist es zu kompliziert für einen klaren Standpunkt?
Forschung kann und wird immer für militärische Zwecke adaptiert werden. Was mitunter dazu führen könnte, dass anstatt Grundlagenforschung zu betreiben, an militärischen Anwendungen gearbeitet wird. Dass trotz der zur Verfügung stehenden Technologien diese primär als Drohgebärden im Sonnensystem herum stehen, anstatt aktiv den Weltraum zu erforschen. Etwa so wie der Rückstand der friedlichen Nutzung vieler Technologien auf der Erde. Durch militärische Geheimhaltung und Monopole werden die Erkenntnisse und neuen Geräte lange unter Verschluss bleiben.
Auf noch längere Sicht, wie etwa Jahrtausende oder Zehntausende Jahre, werden die von Menschen gemachten Waffen zum geringeren Problem werden. Stattdessen werden die technischen Möglichkeiten, die Raumphysik direkt zu manipulieren, zu den ultimativen Massenvernichtungswaffen aufsteigen. Man könnte Asteroiden und Meteore ablenken und Magnetfelder und die Gravitation manipulieren. Tore zu den Herzen von Sonnen öffnen und den daraus hervor schießenden Strahl als Sterilisierungslaser über Planeten fahren lassen. In Millionen Jahren eine Schwarze Loch Bombe bauen.
Oder es wird alternativ vorher der Punkt erreicht sein, an dem der Mensch fähig sein wird, alle Energien zu beherrschen und zu erzeugen. Das ist die entscheidende Frage für ein neues Gleichgewicht des Schreckens. Wenn die Technologie allen zur Verfügung steht, besitzt sie keiner. Ist hingegen nur die Manipulation der Raumphysik zur Kriegsnutzung die stärkste Waffe, wird die Partei mit den meisten Ressourcen die mächtigste sein. Statt Uran, Stahl und Schlüsselchemikalien werden die Menge an nutzbaren Raumkörpern über das Kriegsglück entscheiden.
Zumindest steht einer Miniaturisierung von manchen hypothetischen Waffen die für deren Funktionieren nötigen Massengrenzen im Weg. Supernovae, schwarze Löcher, negative Masse beziehungsweise Antigravitation etwa. Bei Antimaterie, Gravitationswaffen und Konsorten hingegen könnte das gleiche Problem auftreten wie heute mit schmutzigen Bomben und ABC Waffen. Technologie schreitet voran. Und es war schon immer einer der ersten Einsatzbereiche für wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sie für den Krieg zu adaptieren.
Luftüberlegenheit ist einer der militärischen Schlüsselfaktoren, wenn nicht der Schlüsselfaktor schlechthin. Die Dominanz über den Weltraum und die Atmosphäre geht noch weit darüber hinaus. Bei konventionellem Luftkampf hat der Gegner bei gleicher Technik noch eine annähernde Chance auf den Euphemismus eines fairen Kampfes. Hat eine Partei hingegen das Monopol auf orbitale Bombardements, ist ihr nichts mehr entgegen zu setzen. Sie kann die Stationierung von feindlichen Truppen im Weltraum permanent verhindern. Aus der Erde, oder einem anderen kolonialisierten Planeten, einen einschränkenden Kerker machen und die Erschließung und Eroberung des Weltraums monopolisieren. Im Endstadium mit nur mehr in Kolonien geborenen Bürgern, die nicht einmal mehr eine Bindung an ihren Ursprung haben.
Please note that I have put the original German text to the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.
It does not matter if a military doctrine is defensive and deterrent or offensive. Both variants have immense escalation potential.
Economic constraints decide on the research priorities. And the entire annual budget for astrophysics is enough to cover the defense budget for a few days in most states. Given a choice, many researchers will opt for a pact with the military. Better to research with martial focus, than not at all. And the technologies, machines and research priorities are identical to some extent. From there onwards, either telescopes or missile launchers will be installed
It is ambivalent, as military and research live in a millennia-long, very child-rich, marriage of convenience. Before astrophysics, it was alchemy, metallurgy, mechanics, pyrotechnics, etc. On the positive side, many civilian applications only grew out of warlike uses. Conversely, research results can always be perverted. Given the influence that has had and will have on human history, one cannot draw a moral or ethical dividing line. It is more about designing the economic, military and social mechanisms with the lowest possible escalation potential in the future.
A thought experiment: Suppose that without the martial mentality of humankind, less research would have been done. Although fewer people died by other peoples hands, the medical and technological advances were also abducted for millennia. As a result, millions of people more than through all wars together died. Even worse, humanity was not prepared for an external threat of a natural or extraterrestrial kind. Is war technology unquestionably evil or good or is it too complicated for a clear point of view?
Research can and will always be adapted for military purposes. This could sometimes lead to work on military applications instead of basic research. That despite the availability of the technologies, these are primarily used for threatening gestures in the solar system rather than actively exploring space. Like the backlog of the peaceful use of many technologies on earth. Military secrecy and monopolies will keep insights and new devices under lock and key for a long time.
In the longer term, such as millennia or tens of thousands of years, man-made weapons will become less of an issue. Instead, the technical possibilities to directly manipulate space physics become the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. One could distract asteroids and meteors and manipulate magnetic fields and gravity. Open gates to the hearts of the suns and let the resulting beam move over planets as a sterilization laser. Build a black hole bomb in millions of years.
Or, alternatively, beforehand the point will be reached at which humankind will be able to control and generate all energies. That's the crucial question for a new balance of power. If the technology is available to everyone, no one has it because of the MAD doctrine. If, on the other hand, only the manipulation of space physics for war use is the most reliable weapon, the party with the most resources will be the most powerful. Instead of uranium, steel and essential chemicals, the number of available space resources will determine the luck of the war.
At the very least, the miniaturization of some hypothetical weapons stands in the way of the mass boundaries necessary for their functioning. Supernovae, black holes, negative mass or antigravity, for example. By contrast, antimatter, gravitational weapons and consorts may have the same coming future problems as dirty bombs and ABC weapons today. Technology advances. And it has always been one of the first applications for smaller states to adapt them to protect themselves.
Air superiority is one of the critical military factors, if not the key factor par excellence. The dominance over space and the atmosphere goes far beyond that. In conventional aerial combat, the opponent still has an approximate chance on the euphemism of a fair fight with the same technique. On the other hand, if a party has a monopoly on orbital bombardments, nothing can be done against it. They can permanently prevent the deployment of enemy troops in space. Make a restrictive dungeon out of the Earth, or any other colonized the planet, and monopolize the exploration and conquest of space. With only colonial-born citizens who do not even have any attachment to their origins.
Die Morgendämmerung der Weltraumtruppen (United States Space Force und ähnliche Programme anderer Staaten) des wissenschaftlich militärisch astrophyikalischen Komplexes der Weltraumindustrie.
Egal, ob die militärische Doktrin auf Defensive und Abschreckung oder Offensive setzt. Beide Varianten haben immenses Eskalationspotential.
Ökonomische Zwänge entscheiden über die Forschungsschwerpunkte. Und das gesamte Jahresbudget für Astrophysik reicht in den meisten Staaten für ein paar Tage zur Deckung des Verteidigungsbudgets. Vor die Wahl gestellt, werden sich viele Forscher für einen Pakt mit dem Militär entscheiden. Lieber, auch mit kriegerischem Fokus, forschen als gar nicht. Und die Technologien, Maschinen und Forschungsschwerpunkte sind bis zu einem gewissen Punkt identisch. Ab da werden entweder zur Erforschung Teleskope oder zur Vernichtung Raketenabschussvorrichtungen installiert.
Es ist ambivalent, da Militär und Forschung in einer Jahrtausende währenden, sehr kinderreichen, Zweckehe leben. Vor der Astrophysik waren es Alchemie, Metallurgie, Mechanik, Pyrotechnik, etc. Positiv kann man sehen, dass viele zivile Anwendungen erst aus kriegerischen Anwendungen wuchsen. Umgekehrt lassen sich Forschungsergebnisse immer pervertieren. Angesicht der Einflüsse, die das auf die Menschheitsgeschichte hatte und haben wird, kann man keine moralische oder ethische Trennlinie ziehen. Es geht eher darum, die wirtschaftlichen, militärischen und gesellschaftlichen Mechanismen in Zukunft auf möglichst geringes Eskalationspotential hin zu konzipieren.
Ein Gedankenexperiment: Angenommen, ohne die kriegerische Mentalität des Menschen wäre weniger Forschung betrieben worden. Es starben zwar weniger Menschen durch andere Menschen, aber die medizinischen und technologischen Fortschritte wurden auch um Jahrtausende verschleppt. Dadurch starben Millionen Menschen mehr als durch alle Kriege zusammen. Noch schlimmer, die Menschheit war für eine externe Bedrohung natürlicher oder extraterrestrischer Art nicht gerüstet. Ist Kriegstechnik demnach definitiv böse oder gut oder ist es zu kompliziert für einen klaren Standpunkt?
Forschung kann und wird immer für militärische Zwecke adaptiert werden. Was mitunter dazu führen könnte, dass anstatt Grundlagenforschung zu betreiben, an militärischen Anwendungen gearbeitet wird. Dass trotz der zur Verfügung stehenden Technologien diese primär als Drohgebärden im Sonnensystem herum stehen, anstatt aktiv den Weltraum zu erforschen. Etwa so wie der Rückstand der friedlichen Nutzung vieler Technologien auf der Erde. Durch militärische Geheimhaltung und Monopole werden die Erkenntnisse und neuen Geräte lange unter Verschluss bleiben.
Auf noch längere Sicht, wie etwa Jahrtausende oder Zehntausende Jahre, werden die von Menschen gemachten Waffen zum geringeren Problem werden. Stattdessen werden die technischen Möglichkeiten, die Raumphysik direkt zu manipulieren, zu den ultimativen Massenvernichtungswaffen aufsteigen. Man könnte Asteroiden und Meteore ablenken und Magnetfelder und die Gravitation manipulieren. Tore zu den Herzen von Sonnen öffnen und den daraus hervor schießenden Strahl als Sterilisierungslaser über Planeten fahren lassen. In Millionen Jahren eine Schwarze Loch Bombe bauen.
Oder es wird alternativ vorher der Punkt erreicht sein, an dem der Mensch fähig sein wird, alle Energien zu beherrschen und zu erzeugen. Das ist die entscheidende Frage für ein neues Gleichgewicht des Schreckens. Wenn die Technologie allen zur Verfügung steht, besitzt sie keiner. Ist hingegen nur die Manipulation der Raumphysik zur Kriegsnutzung die stärkste Waffe, wird die Partei mit den meisten Ressourcen die mächtigste sein. Statt Uran, Stahl und Schlüsselchemikalien werden die Menge an nutzbaren Raumkörpern über das Kriegsglück entscheiden.
Zumindest steht einer Miniaturisierung von manchen hypothetischen Waffen die für deren Funktionieren nötigen Massengrenzen im Weg. Supernovae, schwarze Löcher, negative Masse beziehungsweise Antigravitation etwa. Bei Antimaterie, Gravitationswaffen und Konsorten hingegen könnte das gleiche Problem auftreten wie heute mit schmutzigen Bomben und ABC Waffen. Technologie schreitet voran. Und es war schon immer einer der ersten Einsatzbereiche für wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sie für den Krieg zu adaptieren.
Luftüberlegenheit ist einer der militärischen Schlüsselfaktoren, wenn nicht der Schlüsselfaktor schlechthin. Die Dominanz über den Weltraum und die Atmosphäre geht noch weit darüber hinaus. Bei konventionellem Luftkampf hat der Gegner bei gleicher Technik noch eine annähernde Chance auf den Euphemismus eines fairen Kampfes. Hat eine Partei hingegen das Monopol auf orbitale Bombardements, ist ihr nichts mehr entgegen zu setzen. Sie kann die Stationierung von feindlichen Truppen im Weltraum permanent verhindern. Aus der Erde, oder einem anderen kolonialisierten Planeten, einen einschränkenden Kerker machen und die Erschließung und Eroberung des Weltraums monopolisieren. Im Endstadium mit nur mehr in Kolonien geborenen Bürgern, die nicht einmal mehr eine Bindung an ihren Ursprung haben.
September 21, 2018
"Many significant advances in our understanding of the cosmos are by-products of government investment in the apparatus of warfare, and many innovative instruments of destruction are by-products of advances in astrophysics."Neil deGrasse Tyson expands on this statement by leaps and bounds in his book: Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military. With almost 600 pages and nearly 19 hours via audio, Accessory to War is a mixture of science, history, education, and thought-provoking contradictions and perspective. At times fascinating and at other times dry as a bone, I admit to needing several breaks during my reading experience. However, Tyson has a way of helping the common non-scientist, like me, learn about and understand subjects that may feel otherwise quite intimidating.
Tyson begins this book with emotion and ends on a chapter filled with hope, both which I loved. The lengthy middle may be hit or miss for some but like he says in his first chapter, "It's better to see than not to see. It's better to know than not to know, better to understand than not to understand." Overall, Accessory to War offers an important learning opportunity that should be considered.
My favorite quote:
"Though smitten by the cosmos, we have no choice but to embrace it from multiple degrees of separation: when we want to know the motions of a star, we examine not the star itself, not an image of the star, not even the spectrum derived from the light recorded in an image of the star, but rather shifts in the patterns in the spectrum derived from the light recorded in an image of the star. A convoluted consummation.
So astrophysicists have learned to be lateral thinkers, to come up with indirect solutions. True, scientists in general are skillful problem solvers. Physicists can build a better vacuum chamber or a bigger particle accelerator. Chemists can purify their ingredients, change the temperature, try out a novel catalyst. Biologists can experiment on organisms born and bred in the lab. Physicians can question their patients. Animal behaviorists can spend hours watching clans of their favorite creatures. Geologists can scrutinize a hillside ravine or dig up sample rocks. But astrophysicists need to find another way, never forgetting that we're the passive party in a singularly one-sided relationship."
September 21, 2018
After wading through the pages of medieval history, old rudimentary inventions like longitude, and the CNN opinion-like pages of anger at the American military, you got like five pages on the actual weapons of space and some information about a space war.
The advertising and naming of this book was a smoke screen. It was 50% venting about how terrible we are as humans because we engage in war and spend money on it (which if you look at history, at least 50% of all nations energy went towards fighting whether they were hunter/gathers or nations like Egypt. Once you have something, even if it’s a horse or bread, just look at Gengis Khan’s rise to power, someone else will want it) and the second 50% was describing how lucky we are that we spend money on war so we can advance our scientific research and pour more money towards scientists.
If I wanted to read a book defaming America’s military history, I would. I didn’t want to read that here. I wanted a factual scientific read without snide adjectives and random quotes, sometimes without even names from who said them, siding with the I-hate-America rhetoric.
I hate hypocrisy. Look Tyson and Lang, if you hate what America is doing, leave. It’s that simple. Take a stand.
Instead you go on every talk show possible and use America to line your own pockets.
Its also incredibly naive to think that if we didn’t spend money on our military that we would still be as safe as we are now. There is a reason Americans listen to traffic lights, that the police answer when you call, that you can walk down the street without being bombed. We have never seen war like other countries have.
After the thirty years war a poem called the Widow was popular. It featured a woman, prematurely aged by war who lost her husband and children and home to it and now begged on the side of the road.
We have never experienced that horror. So no, Tyson and Lang, I will not be joining you on your military witch hunt.
The advertising and naming of this book was a smoke screen. It was 50% venting about how terrible we are as humans because we engage in war and spend money on it (which if you look at history, at least 50% of all nations energy went towards fighting whether they were hunter/gathers or nations like Egypt. Once you have something, even if it’s a horse or bread, just look at Gengis Khan’s rise to power, someone else will want it) and the second 50% was describing how lucky we are that we spend money on war so we can advance our scientific research and pour more money towards scientists.
If I wanted to read a book defaming America’s military history, I would. I didn’t want to read that here. I wanted a factual scientific read without snide adjectives and random quotes, sometimes without even names from who said them, siding with the I-hate-America rhetoric.
I hate hypocrisy. Look Tyson and Lang, if you hate what America is doing, leave. It’s that simple. Take a stand.
Instead you go on every talk show possible and use America to line your own pockets.
Its also incredibly naive to think that if we didn’t spend money on our military that we would still be as safe as we are now. There is a reason Americans listen to traffic lights, that the police answer when you call, that you can walk down the street without being bombed. We have never seen war like other countries have.
After the thirty years war a poem called the Widow was popular. It featured a woman, prematurely aged by war who lost her husband and children and home to it and now begged on the side of the road.
We have never experienced that horror. So no, Tyson and Lang, I will not be joining you on your military witch hunt.
September 16, 2018
I received an advanced copy of this book in exchange for an honest review from NetGalley. For anyone interested in the linkage between the missions of science and warfighting, this book is for you. I feel like I can tell the pages written by Dr. Tyson, and those written by Avis Lang. That may sound negative, but it’s not. I think the humor and perspective of Dr. Tyson comes through more with the contrast. Anyone interested in the early days of space (both military and civil) should give this a read for a sort of intro to the subject. That aside, the book doesn’t paint a poignant picture of the military as I expected. It’s not pro-war, and not 100% anti-military either. Unless you are Aunt Melissa, that is. Overall a good read that I felt compelled to read whenever I had time to do so. Will buy this when out in paperback to have at home for sure.
April 21, 2019
Dry, nerdy, and straight up my alley. Not written for those with only a casual interest, this book reads like an academic dissertation ... with classic Neil deGrasse Tyson elan.
Compared to the fluffy, broad strokes of Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Accessory to War is chock full of factoids as well as space, science, and political jargon.
I wrote my MA thesis on international outer space law and the militarization of outer space with a focus on the US, China, and Russia—all topics this book focuses on, as well as the history and development of space use and cooperation between science and the military.
Important reading, the astrostrategic importance of controlling the ultimate high ground is clearly stressed. As the Chinese defence white paper of 2015 notes, "whoever controls space will control the earth."
Accessory to War dovetailed perfectly with The Making of the Atomic Bomb, both sobering in their message: humans have the power to destroy the world, what are we doing to keep that power in check?
We're already making an absolute mess of outer space, it is amazing (/sad) that humans can enter the vast void of space and clog up low earth orbit it with trash. That's right, space trash is a huge problem.
Full review to come.
"Scientists' urge to collaborate transcends religion, culture, and politics, because in space there is no religion, culture, or politics—only the receding boundary of our ignorance and the advancing frontier of our cosmic discovery."
Compared to the fluffy, broad strokes of Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Accessory to War is chock full of factoids as well as space, science, and political jargon.
I wrote my MA thesis on international outer space law and the militarization of outer space with a focus on the US, China, and Russia—all topics this book focuses on, as well as the history and development of space use and cooperation between science and the military.
Important reading, the astrostrategic importance of controlling the ultimate high ground is clearly stressed. As the Chinese defence white paper of 2015 notes, "whoever controls space will control the earth."
Accessory to War dovetailed perfectly with The Making of the Atomic Bomb, both sobering in their message: humans have the power to destroy the world, what are we doing to keep that power in check?
We're already making an absolute mess of outer space, it is amazing (/sad) that humans can enter the vast void of space and clog up low earth orbit it with trash. That's right, space trash is a huge problem.
Full review to come.
"Scientists' urge to collaborate transcends religion, culture, and politics, because in space there is no religion, culture, or politics—only the receding boundary of our ignorance and the advancing frontier of our cosmic discovery."
November 13, 2022
3.5 star
In Accessory to War, Neil deGrasse Tyson laid out two and half millennia of entanglement between astrophysics (and technology in general) and war. The book is a history of astrophysics–from ancient star watchers and the invention of magnetic compass, to the measurement of longitude, atomic bombs, moon landing, GPS and International Space Station–told in tandem with the history of wars, spies and other military efforts.
The need for military conquest has played an outsized role in advancing science and technology. Do I know the Hubble space telescope has not one but two military twins? Regarding space exploration, science is only piggy-backed onto military efforts. In the last chapter, it said, after Russia annexed Crimea, the US-Russia space collaboration continued despite state sanctions. This 2018 book ended with an optimistic note. As we all know, the situation deteriorated after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Fact one: humans are curious animals with an internal drive to explore. Fact two: humans, so far, have not learned how not to fight wars. In a way, we are a sad species. Does it have to be this way?
Overall, the book could have been organized better. The writing is a little dry.
In Accessory to War, Neil deGrasse Tyson laid out two and half millennia of entanglement between astrophysics (and technology in general) and war. The book is a history of astrophysics–from ancient star watchers and the invention of magnetic compass, to the measurement of longitude, atomic bombs, moon landing, GPS and International Space Station–told in tandem with the history of wars, spies and other military efforts.
The need for military conquest has played an outsized role in advancing science and technology. Do I know the Hubble space telescope has not one but two military twins? Regarding space exploration, science is only piggy-backed onto military efforts. In the last chapter, it said, after Russia annexed Crimea, the US-Russia space collaboration continued despite state sanctions. This 2018 book ended with an optimistic note. As we all know, the situation deteriorated after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Fact one: humans are curious animals with an internal drive to explore. Fact two: humans, so far, have not learned how not to fight wars. In a way, we are a sad species. Does it have to be this way?
Overall, the book could have been organized better. The writing is a little dry.
January 18, 2019
Very informative. Somewhat entertaining.
October 16, 2018
More promising in the title than the content delivered. I heard Dr. Tyson talking about his book on Joe Rogan's podcast and decided to read the book. Unfortunately NdGT was more entertaining and informative in those 2 hours of interview than in this book, which focused more on geopolitics than it did on the connections between science, military, and astrophysics. More like an infield hit off the dirt than the double off the wall that I was hoping for.
November 1, 2018
I know I’m not the only one who holds Neil DeGrasse Tyson in high regard. Even though he’s the most visible proponent for science these days (move over Dawkins and Nye), the man has been met with criticism. Most of them stem from people who, honestly, don’t like their bubble being burst. But they do live in a bubble, and they should know not to shoot the messenger. Criticize NDT all you want for how nerdy he is and how dumb his astrophysics vests are, but the man has a wealth of knowledge floating around in his head, and he’s not afraid to share it, no matter how much some people might not want him to. It’s too easy to fall into the romantic habit of fetishizing the magical and unknown, but what NDT is vilified for is for explaining to us that these things we find mysterious and magical, actually are well understood by science. I guess people would prefer to live in their fantasy world. And why wouldn’t they? We live in a time where feelings are more important than facts. But, NDT fights the good fight and is there to make the dark world we live in just that much more brighter. For that, I admire the man.
It’s for this reason that I find his latest book Accessories to War (cowritten with Avis Lang) such a disappointment. Instead of sticking to just science and society, Accessories to War tries to tell the story of how science and the military have played a role in each other’s developments. The society that had the most advanced science in their military tech were the victors, and as long as science could provide that, it would be in a government’s best interest to fund the science so that it would become more powerful. Sounds interesting, but what Accessories to War boils down to is mostly talk about light, telescopes, and astrology. And if that’s all you’re going to talk about, you’re going to lose your readers pretty quickly. And it’s such a bummer because NDT is definitely the person who can take the seemingly mundane and make it exciting. Instead, this book is insistent on dwelling on topics and science that are just plain boring. Not to mention the endless organizations and programs and all their acronyms and everything that they were supposed to do. I just gave up on them.
NDT’s big picture perspective is also a bit of a let-down. Science and the military might have played a role in each other’s development, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The way we get better science shouldn’t be just by causing death and destruction. He claims that there’s been huge advancements in science when the government steps in and pumps a bunch of money into a tech it’s interested in, but no mention how these should all be publicly owned since they are all tax-payer funded. Also, I know this book deals with astrophysics but the opportunities that we missed by neglecting medicine and earthly problems by focusing on space is downplayed quite a bit. I don’t quite buy that landing on the moon was such a great idea considering how much it cost and the challenges we have here on earth.
I still love the man. I’m still interested in what he has to say. This book just left me flummoxed.
It’s for this reason that I find his latest book Accessories to War (cowritten with Avis Lang) such a disappointment. Instead of sticking to just science and society, Accessories to War tries to tell the story of how science and the military have played a role in each other’s developments. The society that had the most advanced science in their military tech were the victors, and as long as science could provide that, it would be in a government’s best interest to fund the science so that it would become more powerful. Sounds interesting, but what Accessories to War boils down to is mostly talk about light, telescopes, and astrology. And if that’s all you’re going to talk about, you’re going to lose your readers pretty quickly. And it’s such a bummer because NDT is definitely the person who can take the seemingly mundane and make it exciting. Instead, this book is insistent on dwelling on topics and science that are just plain boring. Not to mention the endless organizations and programs and all their acronyms and everything that they were supposed to do. I just gave up on them.
NDT’s big picture perspective is also a bit of a let-down. Science and the military might have played a role in each other’s development, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The way we get better science shouldn’t be just by causing death and destruction. He claims that there’s been huge advancements in science when the government steps in and pumps a bunch of money into a tech it’s interested in, but no mention how these should all be publicly owned since they are all tax-payer funded. Also, I know this book deals with astrophysics but the opportunities that we missed by neglecting medicine and earthly problems by focusing on space is downplayed quite a bit. I don’t quite buy that landing on the moon was such a great idea considering how much it cost and the challenges we have here on earth.
I still love the man. I’m still interested in what he has to say. This book just left me flummoxed.
August 31, 2019
This is the most boring book in the world. It feels like Tyson wrote this as an essay for school but wasn't really interested in the subject at all. Reading it felt like an obligation. No fun at all. Sorry, Neil.
November 17, 2018
I was incredibly disappointed by this book, and while some parts of it could be called ‘decent’ it was not what it was advertised to be. I picked this book up primarily due to it having Neil deGrasse Tyson’s name on the cover, having enjoyed most of his other books previously, but also due to my interest in the book’s topic. The book mostly lacked Tyson’s typical optimistic wonder nor did it stick to the topic on the cover. I got the feeling that this book never quite figured out what it wanted to be.
I honestly feel that some (if not most) of the blame for this must be lain on Tyson’s co-author Avis Lang, long-time editor but (from what I could tell) first time author. It is impossible to know how much each contributed to the book and to which parts, but I noticed a distinct difference in the style, tone, and subject matter between different sections of the book that leads me to believe that Tyson mainly contributed the opening chapters and a few other sections while leaving the bulk of the book to Lang. Some parts, the better parts, exhibit Tyson’s optimism and his contagious wonder at the marvels of the universe. These parts left me feeling passionate about space and science as Tyson’s work so often has in the past. These parts also related directly to the book’s topic, detailing past collaborations and how it led to the besting of various technical challenges. Better yet, the challenges are described in sufficient depth to explain the process, solution, impact, and underlying science. The interplay between science and the military, between peace and war, in a mature and nuanced manner which highlights the vast swaths of gray area which exist. Then there are the other sections that make up the bulk of the book. These chapters can’t seem to make up their mind on what they want to be, whether history of the military or opinion piece on contemporary US politics or an extensive analysis of official documents. The tone here is defeatist, pessimistic, and simplistic. Gone are the nuanced gray areas, replaced by absolute statements: this is good, that is bad, these are the good people, those are the bad people. The amount of detail is tedious rather than informative.
Regardless of who wrote what, the fact remains that this book was all over the place. Some sections call for more military funding, others decry the funding as corrupt. Some advocate deterrence while others say deterrence is pointless. There are contradicting predictions and conflicting facts as well. One chapter predicts that space-based weaponry, rather than cyber weapons, will be the primary goal of military space funding over the next decades due to its efficacy and importance while the very next chapter comments how all funding will go towards cyber weapons since space-based weaponry doesn’t work and is largely irrelevant. Then there was Canada. Apparently, Canada was the third country to launch its own satellite, but according to the following page France was the third country and Canada was not even amongst the first five. Sometimes the book advocated for humanity to push further out into space, calling space science the greatest unifying force for humanity, and other times the book flatly seemed to declare ‘why bother, we are just going to muck it up anyways so let’s just not even waste our time on space and just stay home.’ This is not the Tyson I know. One of my favorite quotes by Isaac Asimov continually came to mind during this book: “If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”
There were portions of the book that were just too long. They provided too many, largely repetitive bits of information with minimal commentary and wading through them could charitably be called a slog. The first portion on telescopes comes readily to mind. Another is the chapter towards the middle which must have listed and described some 20+ UN resolutions and international treaties, many of them seemingly interchangeable. Each one received several paragraphs to a couple pages of space, complete with paragraph-length excerpts of legalese and listings of which countries were for and against each one, but lacking much commentary other than to say whether each treaty was ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Even after finishing the chapter I could not have told you what differentiated each one from the rest of them or why they did or did not matter. The book needed less listing and more describing.
Also, something I found fault with was the rather tangential way the book treated its main topic: the crossover between astrophysics and the military industrial complex. I wanted to see nuance and depth here. I wanted to learn about the technical challenges and the discoveries that overcame them. Mostly, I wanted to learn something new. I could count on one hand the number of times the book delivered up anything that I felt meaningfully explored the book’s topic in any depth. Most of the time, passages went something like this: astrophysicists use advanced optics to look at space, the military also uses advanced optics in spy satellites, therefore there is a collaboration. Well I could have told you that. Where are the technical details? Where is the narrative? Or, it would say, the military uses satellites to communicate and satellites go in space which is what astrophysicists study, and then it would get back to the history of the Gulf War or some such as if nothing had ever happened. The military uses technology and technology is advanced by scientific research. This is neither new nor is it unique to astrophysics. This is also not the rigor or depth I was expecting.
I initially liked this book, but as I read further on my opinion soured due to the problems outlined above. I kept hoping it would improve yet it did not. I genuinely wanted to like this book but the truth is that this book is average at best and I would argue below average. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin for me was in the last few pages when the book begins to describe a direct collaboration between nuclear weapons research and supernova research. I grew excited, as this seemed to be what I had hoped for from the book. Then, before offering more than a paragraphs worth of description, the book recommended that if the reader is interested in the topic, they should search for it to find out more. As it happens, I am interested. That’s the reason I bought the book, to learn more about the topic not to be told to go google it because the book couldn’t be bothered to explain it. And then it ended. That was it. That was how the book ended, imploring the reader to google examples of the book’s premise because, apparently, they weren’t worth the space to include in the book itself.
Perhaps that is the best advice in the book: if you are interested in the topic, don’t read the book. Just google it.
I honestly feel that some (if not most) of the blame for this must be lain on Tyson’s co-author Avis Lang, long-time editor but (from what I could tell) first time author. It is impossible to know how much each contributed to the book and to which parts, but I noticed a distinct difference in the style, tone, and subject matter between different sections of the book that leads me to believe that Tyson mainly contributed the opening chapters and a few other sections while leaving the bulk of the book to Lang. Some parts, the better parts, exhibit Tyson’s optimism and his contagious wonder at the marvels of the universe. These parts left me feeling passionate about space and science as Tyson’s work so often has in the past. These parts also related directly to the book’s topic, detailing past collaborations and how it led to the besting of various technical challenges. Better yet, the challenges are described in sufficient depth to explain the process, solution, impact, and underlying science. The interplay between science and the military, between peace and war, in a mature and nuanced manner which highlights the vast swaths of gray area which exist. Then there are the other sections that make up the bulk of the book. These chapters can’t seem to make up their mind on what they want to be, whether history of the military or opinion piece on contemporary US politics or an extensive analysis of official documents. The tone here is defeatist, pessimistic, and simplistic. Gone are the nuanced gray areas, replaced by absolute statements: this is good, that is bad, these are the good people, those are the bad people. The amount of detail is tedious rather than informative.
Regardless of who wrote what, the fact remains that this book was all over the place. Some sections call for more military funding, others decry the funding as corrupt. Some advocate deterrence while others say deterrence is pointless. There are contradicting predictions and conflicting facts as well. One chapter predicts that space-based weaponry, rather than cyber weapons, will be the primary goal of military space funding over the next decades due to its efficacy and importance while the very next chapter comments how all funding will go towards cyber weapons since space-based weaponry doesn’t work and is largely irrelevant. Then there was Canada. Apparently, Canada was the third country to launch its own satellite, but according to the following page France was the third country and Canada was not even amongst the first five. Sometimes the book advocated for humanity to push further out into space, calling space science the greatest unifying force for humanity, and other times the book flatly seemed to declare ‘why bother, we are just going to muck it up anyways so let’s just not even waste our time on space and just stay home.’ This is not the Tyson I know. One of my favorite quotes by Isaac Asimov continually came to mind during this book: “If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”
There were portions of the book that were just too long. They provided too many, largely repetitive bits of information with minimal commentary and wading through them could charitably be called a slog. The first portion on telescopes comes readily to mind. Another is the chapter towards the middle which must have listed and described some 20+ UN resolutions and international treaties, many of them seemingly interchangeable. Each one received several paragraphs to a couple pages of space, complete with paragraph-length excerpts of legalese and listings of which countries were for and against each one, but lacking much commentary other than to say whether each treaty was ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Even after finishing the chapter I could not have told you what differentiated each one from the rest of them or why they did or did not matter. The book needed less listing and more describing.
Also, something I found fault with was the rather tangential way the book treated its main topic: the crossover between astrophysics and the military industrial complex. I wanted to see nuance and depth here. I wanted to learn about the technical challenges and the discoveries that overcame them. Mostly, I wanted to learn something new. I could count on one hand the number of times the book delivered up anything that I felt meaningfully explored the book’s topic in any depth. Most of the time, passages went something like this: astrophysicists use advanced optics to look at space, the military also uses advanced optics in spy satellites, therefore there is a collaboration. Well I could have told you that. Where are the technical details? Where is the narrative? Or, it would say, the military uses satellites to communicate and satellites go in space which is what astrophysicists study, and then it would get back to the history of the Gulf War or some such as if nothing had ever happened. The military uses technology and technology is advanced by scientific research. This is neither new nor is it unique to astrophysics. This is also not the rigor or depth I was expecting.
I initially liked this book, but as I read further on my opinion soured due to the problems outlined above. I kept hoping it would improve yet it did not. I genuinely wanted to like this book but the truth is that this book is average at best and I would argue below average. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin for me was in the last few pages when the book begins to describe a direct collaboration between nuclear weapons research and supernova research. I grew excited, as this seemed to be what I had hoped for from the book. Then, before offering more than a paragraphs worth of description, the book recommended that if the reader is interested in the topic, they should search for it to find out more. As it happens, I am interested. That’s the reason I bought the book, to learn more about the topic not to be told to go google it because the book couldn’t be bothered to explain it. And then it ended. That was it. That was how the book ended, imploring the reader to google examples of the book’s premise because, apparently, they weren’t worth the space to include in the book itself.
Perhaps that is the best advice in the book: if you are interested in the topic, don’t read the book. Just google it.
September 30, 2018
A detailed account of the impact of specific sciences on military advancement and the resulting outcomes. Heavy on the military angle--for those who think this is going to be another popular physics book. This is not a deep dive into the theory of various physics and engineering disciplines, but instead a meshing of where funding comes from, politics, how projects are prioritized, what this prioritization does to science advancement on the global scale, how current events shape the ideals of the next generation of scientists, and how discovery builds overtime.
I'm too young to remember the anti-war sentiments that surrounded Vietnam, which so greatly impacted Neil, but some of my earliest memories of school are also the result of politics at the time. I remember having special drills during the cold war. Filing out into the hallways with my 5 or 6 year old classmates to line against the specially painted marks in the hall with our hands over our heads, or alarms sounding and getting under our desks in the same position.
This is more geared to those readers who enjoy military history and strategy, with a new spin on how the machines of war are developed.
I listened to this as an audiobook and that is definitely a regret. While it was well done in this format, I kept finding myself wanting to look up some of the specific things he mentioned, but laziness and desire to continue the story prevented this from actually occuring. I was particularly interested in the around the end of WWII and Cold War era. Other areas that were less modern or were just less interesting to me in general it would have been nice to skim instead of slogging through for fear of missing something due to media choice.
I plan on purchasing the ebook and rereading the sections that were most interesting to me (mainly for the potential references to other source material).
I'm too young to remember the anti-war sentiments that surrounded Vietnam, which so greatly impacted Neil, but some of my earliest memories of school are also the result of politics at the time. I remember having special drills during the cold war. Filing out into the hallways with my 5 or 6 year old classmates to line against the specially painted marks in the hall with our hands over our heads, or alarms sounding and getting under our desks in the same position.
This is more geared to those readers who enjoy military history and strategy, with a new spin on how the machines of war are developed.
I listened to this as an audiobook and that is definitely a regret. While it was well done in this format, I kept finding myself wanting to look up some of the specific things he mentioned, but laziness and desire to continue the story prevented this from actually occuring. I was particularly interested in the around the end of WWII and Cold War era. Other areas that were less modern or were just less interesting to me in general it would have been nice to skim instead of slogging through for fear of missing something due to media choice.
I plan on purchasing the ebook and rereading the sections that were most interesting to me (mainly for the potential references to other source material).
October 24, 2018
I'm a huge admirer of Tyson so I really hate to report that this book is all over the place. Perhaps a better title would be What Scientists and Others Have Done to End War. He could have even added a few 100 pages on how scientific discoveries found in developing weapons have been converted to civilian applications to improve our lives. In fact, I'm sure just this book has been written many times by many people. Reading this you'll learn a lot about how sailors navigated by the stars over the centuries, about endless weapons systems and their capabilities, and of the many international agreements to limit nuclear weapons. As Tyson himself says elsewhere science is science. GPS can be used to navigate a tank around the desert or your car around a city. The engineers that developed this technology can't be blamed for how it is used. That is for all of us and national policy makers to decide. Soldiers eat, are farmers therefore accessories to war?
October 11, 2018
I enjoyed this book and I'm still confused as to why the title is "The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military" when it was more like "Space and the Military." Overall, I can see the relationship, but specifically, I mostly didn't see the relationship because it felt like astrophysics itself was barely explained. However, I am not an astrophysicist and possess a bare minimum of scientific knowledge and in all honesty I'm operating at about 3% of the brain capacity of Neil deGrasse Tyson, so ...
Otherwise, this was an interesting book, and timely, considering it was released hot on the heels of the whole Space Force farce. However, after reading this book (and before reading it also), I'm not convinced Space Force is a bad idea, per se, it just seems more like a bloated bid forTrump American Superiority rather than a legitimate and respectable enterprise under our current president. The creation of an American Space Force would have to proceed with a sensitivity that Trump simply cannot muster.
As dependent as we are on space (all that stuff floating around up there is important), there needs to be some sort of protection. But to what extent should that protection extend? Should we strive for a peaceful, cooperative space or defensive space? It's hard to say since we--as citizens of Earth and also its countries--rely so heavily societally and militarily on our space assets. Accessory to War doesn't provide the answers to militarized space, but it does offer a lot of thoughts, ideas, and repercussions to digest.
Otherwise, this was an interesting book, and timely, considering it was released hot on the heels of the whole Space Force farce. However, after reading this book (and before reading it also), I'm not convinced Space Force is a bad idea, per se, it just seems more like a bloated bid for
As dependent as we are on space (all that stuff floating around up there is important), there needs to be some sort of protection. But to what extent should that protection extend? Should we strive for a peaceful, cooperative space or defensive space? It's hard to say since we--as citizens of Earth and also its countries--rely so heavily societally and militarily on our space assets. Accessory to War doesn't provide the answers to militarized space, but it does offer a lot of thoughts, ideas, and repercussions to digest.
October 4, 2018
I was very disappointed with this. It reads like a term paper. I doubt that Tyson wrote much of this. The authors fill numerous pages with mundane information, such as how spyglasses were useful in the 18th and 19th centuries.
March 19, 2024
Fascinating concept, but I found the execution lacking. Incredibly dense and surprisingly dry, with connections to the military that often felt tenuous and unclear.
September 12, 2018
This is fantastic look at the history of astrophysics and its intersection with warming, much more thorough and well-sourced than most of Dr. Tyson's writing. It's aimed at an audience that wants to get into the weeds, so not those in a hurry.
The first few chapters were interesting, but mostly in the realm of things I had heard before. The message came across as: "Psst, some technologies developed for war are also useful in science and vice versa". Not exactly earth-shattering. The technologies are telescopes/optics, navigation aids and calendars, and development of technologies using the electromagnetic spectrum. It gives context to the discussion but isn't worth a book in and of itself.
The second half of the book is much more eye-opening. From a detailed look at 20th century technology (the world wars) to present-day issues, it examines the space force we have, its tasks and background, and how the line between military and civilian work is very thin indeed. There are places where I can feel the authors pushing a thesis about how astrophysical work benefits civilization as a whole and national security in general. There is an aspect of addressing some scientists disdain of human space exploration (you can do so much more science on a lower budget with robots) and arguing that humans in space benefits science as a whole. There are warnings about the dangers, as yet unrealized but not unimaginable, of space-based warfare. There are reviews of the space programs of Russia and China, as well as our allies in Europe and elsewhere, and a case for collaboration in science leading to peace in politics. This book is roomy enough for several large messages. I'm particularly interested in the intersection of science (specifically physics) and will recommend this to my students. To borrow a phrase from another book from a few years ago, this could be called Astrophysics for Future Presidents. Or maybe So You Think You Can Space Force.
There are a few faults. A few of the chapters get very weedy and lose the conversational tone that the book begins and ends with. He tries valiantly to separate astrophysicists and physicists, treating them as from entirely different fields with entirely different motivations and foci, and I have trouble buying that -- it comes off as a little strange. But it's a great read and I'll be recommending it for a long time.
I got a copy to review from the publisher through Edelweiss.
The first few chapters were interesting, but mostly in the realm of things I had heard before. The message came across as: "Psst, some technologies developed for war are also useful in science and vice versa". Not exactly earth-shattering. The technologies are telescopes/optics, navigation aids and calendars, and development of technologies using the electromagnetic spectrum. It gives context to the discussion but isn't worth a book in and of itself.
The second half of the book is much more eye-opening. From a detailed look at 20th century technology (the world wars) to present-day issues, it examines the space force we have, its tasks and background, and how the line between military and civilian work is very thin indeed. There are places where I can feel the authors pushing a thesis about how astrophysical work benefits civilization as a whole and national security in general. There is an aspect of addressing some scientists disdain of human space exploration (you can do so much more science on a lower budget with robots) and arguing that humans in space benefits science as a whole. There are warnings about the dangers, as yet unrealized but not unimaginable, of space-based warfare. There are reviews of the space programs of Russia and China, as well as our allies in Europe and elsewhere, and a case for collaboration in science leading to peace in politics. This book is roomy enough for several large messages. I'm particularly interested in the intersection of science (specifically physics) and will recommend this to my students. To borrow a phrase from another book from a few years ago, this could be called Astrophysics for Future Presidents. Or maybe So You Think You Can Space Force.
There are a few faults. A few of the chapters get very weedy and lose the conversational tone that the book begins and ends with. He tries valiantly to separate astrophysicists and physicists, treating them as from entirely different fields with entirely different motivations and foci, and I have trouble buying that -- it comes off as a little strange. But it's a great read and I'll be recommending it for a long time.
I got a copy to review from the publisher through Edelweiss.
September 19, 2018
This book needs to be read by every congressperson and their advisors as well as every college faculty member. At the same time, every college/university physicist should read explain this book to every social science and humanities faculty member.
deGrasse Tyson challenges us — in a very accessible way — to understand how humans have made war increasingly dangerous not just for the combatants but also the rest of us. He tells us how war has also been connected to the tools of physics. He doesn’t preach. He simply reminds us that war and physics have been connected for centuries.
In the Prologue, the author challenges the theme that physicists do much more than simply make a weapon. He challenges all of us to be aware of the power of physics. Early in the book, he challenges the assumption that history must be destiny. He reminds us of what President Eisenhower warning about the “military-industrial��� complex.
He also takes us back in history—all he way back to the Romans and the use of tools of war that were created based on what humans knew about physics. His theme tis that the physics is always getting more powerful. The discoveries of physics led to more dangerous wars.
About one-third of the way through the book, the author pulls out the often used phrase about the use of science: “What separates great scientists from ordinary scientists is not the capacity to answer the right question. It’s the capacity to ask the right question....”. P. 166. It’s clear that deGrasse Tyson is convinced that physicists must be aware of what their discoveries can do to humanity and the planet.
After some more history he reminds us of the famous dictums concerning the nature of war: it is the continuation of policy by other means.” What is most powerful about the book is that the author takes another step: that “war and weapons can also be considered as problems of physics.” P. 240.
deGrasse Tyson challenges us — in a very accessible way — to understand how humans have made war increasingly dangerous not just for the combatants but also the rest of us. He tells us how war has also been connected to the tools of physics. He doesn’t preach. He simply reminds us that war and physics have been connected for centuries.
In the Prologue, the author challenges the theme that physicists do much more than simply make a weapon. He challenges all of us to be aware of the power of physics. Early in the book, he challenges the assumption that history must be destiny. He reminds us of what President Eisenhower warning about the “military-industrial��� complex.
He also takes us back in history—all he way back to the Romans and the use of tools of war that were created based on what humans knew about physics. His theme tis that the physics is always getting more powerful. The discoveries of physics led to more dangerous wars.
About one-third of the way through the book, the author pulls out the often used phrase about the use of science: “What separates great scientists from ordinary scientists is not the capacity to answer the right question. It’s the capacity to ask the right question....”. P. 166. It’s clear that deGrasse Tyson is convinced that physicists must be aware of what their discoveries can do to humanity and the planet.
After some more history he reminds us of the famous dictums concerning the nature of war: it is the continuation of policy by other means.” What is most powerful about the book is that the author takes another step: that “war and weapons can also be considered as problems of physics.” P. 240.
September 16, 2018
Wow, text-book level amount of history about scientific innovations and military advancements. Space, data, and the new "High-ground." I liked how this book had global information and did NOT just focus on American history and American scientific research. It was a bit like learning how sausage is made...… not pleasant to see the political machine at work... but necessary to get the research off the ground. What will be next on the great frontier?
May 4, 2021
Diferenta esentiala dintre telescopul spatial Hubble si seria de telescoape de spionaj KEYHOLE este directia. Hubble este orientat spre spatiul cosmic.Se poate spune ca Hubble este un satelit KEYHOLE.
Asta este doar un singur exemplu de colaborare recenta dintre astrofizica si armata. Legatura este la fel de veche ca civilizatia, daca inlocuim astrofizica cu astronomia.
Asta este doar un singur exemplu de colaborare recenta dintre astrofizica si armata. Legatura este la fel de veche ca civilizatia, daca inlocuim astrofizica cu astronomia.
May 1, 2021
Very HIGHLY recommended!
We pride ourselves on our scientific achievements but fail to realise that SCIENCE has largely been slave to WAR.
Maybe Wars aren't that bad!
Or maybe Science without Wars would be even better!
Also, what would you rather pay for?
WAR or SCIENCE?
BOTH!
The ideas in the book weren't new to me but the examples and elaborate explanations were an eye opener.
Accessory to War indeed!
We pride ourselves on our scientific achievements but fail to realise that SCIENCE has largely been slave to WAR.
Maybe Wars aren't that bad!
Or maybe Science without Wars would be even better!
Also, what would you rather pay for?
WAR or SCIENCE?
BOTH!
The ideas in the book weren't new to me but the examples and elaborate explanations were an eye opener.
Accessory to War indeed!
October 21, 2018
I found this book fascinating! I especially liked the parts towards the beginning that went into the evolution of certain game-changing technologies (such as telescopes).
If you have any interest in the history of technology and science, or in the politics of space, you should definitely pick this book up!
If you have any interest in the history of technology and science, or in the politics of space, you should definitely pick this book up!
October 19, 2018
Some interesting parts but far too long winded and not enough science for my taste. The book could not decide if it was a work on science or the philosophical reasoning for war. Never really found its footing.
September 17, 2018
Needs to be organized a bit better. Too much chronological jumping around. Otherwise an interesting read.
July 1, 2019
I generally enjoy Neil Degrasse Tyson, but this audiobook was long winded and boring. I only made it about 20% of the way through before I lost interest and gave up.
January 17, 2021
Took me 1 billion years to finish. “Science for non science majors” class did not prepare me
July 30, 2022
That science and technology are often advanced by military and political needs seems obvious. So much so, that the words “unspoken alliance” in the subtitle seem sensationalistic and disingenuous. Indeed, there are a lot of things that are of dual applicability. For example, explosives have both military and commercial application, and there is little to no technological difference. The same dual applicability applies to physical science and military science, physics instrumentation and military technology. And yet, in the legacy of the scientific advances that secured victory for the Allies in World War 2, there was a noble attempt to conduct science purely for the sake of knowledge and humanitarianism, rather than for war. The aspirational separation is most exemplified in post-war international law regarding nuclear weapons research and development, and the demilitarization of space including the moon and other celestial bodies. For example, the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Tyson argues that, in spite of those aspirations, and perhaps inevitably, scientific and military astrophysical work have progressed in tight interdependence.
After a fairly tedious catalog review of scientific/military dualism from classical times up to the twentieth century, the text reaches its substance in the second half. That substance is a detailed 20th century walk-through of the cross-pollination between physics and astrophysics developments both from civilian science and once secret and now declassified US and Soviet and other military projects. The amount of historical record here is considerable and difficult to absorb. At the same time, Tyson conveys his values and political analysis as a reference perspective. I see the essence of the political difference to be whether one should trust one’s adversaries to have similar interests as one’s self, or whether to trust no one finding security only in supremacy. The first view may be naïve, but the second leads to a technology race without end, doctrines of mutually assured destruction, and risk of accidentally triggered self-extinction.
The book was published shortly after the 2016 US election of Donald Trump, and Tyson’s comments on that, while trying not to appear partisan, are certainly not supportive. He mentions the popular March for Science of April 22, 2017 as a positive consequence – which heartened me as I was a participant of the Charleston SC satellite march. A number of Trump actions since the time of publication would be relevant to the text – the formation of an explicitly military US “Space Force”, the gifting of recognition to the North Korean regime as a legitimate nuclear power, withdrawing the accord with Iran that was holding them back from becoming a nuclear power, withdrawal from the Paris Accord, to name a few.
Overall, I found the book to range further from science, into history and politics, than I was expecting. I foresee a need for continuous updation of the material in the book, and so this becomes a book of this time without staying power, except as a history of the unveiled military programs from the later twentieth century. The table of contents is as follows -
Situational Awareness
1. A Time to Kill
2. Star Power – calendars, astrology, astronomy
3. Sea Power – navigation, cartography
4. Arming the Eye – telescopes, photography, spectroscopy
The Ultimate High Ground
5. Unseen, Undetected, Unspoken - Radar in WW2, nuclear proliferation in the Cold War.
6. Detection Stories – Parallels between civilian NASA and military NRO work. Hubble/Keyhole.
7. Making War, Seeking Peace – Cold War, civilian and military space race, militarization and weaponization of space
8. Space Power – international legal framework, GPS, Gulf Wars, ISS, survey of each major spacefaring nation, early Trump actions
9. A Time to Heal
I read the first half of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Avis Lang’s science, history, and political tome “Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military” in kindle ebook format during May 2019, and the second half in hardcover during July 2019. This split was due to the library due dates that constrained my access to the book, and the sheer topical size of the work – involving related side investigations by myself. Of the 576 pages of hardcover edition, be aware that 168 are notes, sources, and index.
After a fairly tedious catalog review of scientific/military dualism from classical times up to the twentieth century, the text reaches its substance in the second half. That substance is a detailed 20th century walk-through of the cross-pollination between physics and astrophysics developments both from civilian science and once secret and now declassified US and Soviet and other military projects. The amount of historical record here is considerable and difficult to absorb. At the same time, Tyson conveys his values and political analysis as a reference perspective. I see the essence of the political difference to be whether one should trust one’s adversaries to have similar interests as one’s self, or whether to trust no one finding security only in supremacy. The first view may be naïve, but the second leads to a technology race without end, doctrines of mutually assured destruction, and risk of accidentally triggered self-extinction.
The book was published shortly after the 2016 US election of Donald Trump, and Tyson’s comments on that, while trying not to appear partisan, are certainly not supportive. He mentions the popular March for Science of April 22, 2017 as a positive consequence – which heartened me as I was a participant of the Charleston SC satellite march. A number of Trump actions since the time of publication would be relevant to the text – the formation of an explicitly military US “Space Force”, the gifting of recognition to the North Korean regime as a legitimate nuclear power, withdrawing the accord with Iran that was holding them back from becoming a nuclear power, withdrawal from the Paris Accord, to name a few.
Overall, I found the book to range further from science, into history and politics, than I was expecting. I foresee a need for continuous updation of the material in the book, and so this becomes a book of this time without staying power, except as a history of the unveiled military programs from the later twentieth century. The table of contents is as follows -
Situational Awareness
1. A Time to Kill
2. Star Power – calendars, astrology, astronomy
3. Sea Power – navigation, cartography
4. Arming the Eye – telescopes, photography, spectroscopy
The Ultimate High Ground
5. Unseen, Undetected, Unspoken - Radar in WW2, nuclear proliferation in the Cold War.
6. Detection Stories – Parallels between civilian NASA and military NRO work. Hubble/Keyhole.
7. Making War, Seeking Peace – Cold War, civilian and military space race, militarization and weaponization of space
8. Space Power – international legal framework, GPS, Gulf Wars, ISS, survey of each major spacefaring nation, early Trump actions
9. A Time to Heal
I read the first half of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Avis Lang’s science, history, and political tome “Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military” in kindle ebook format during May 2019, and the second half in hardcover during July 2019. This split was due to the library due dates that constrained my access to the book, and the sheer topical size of the work – involving related side investigations by myself. Of the 576 pages of hardcover edition, be aware that 168 are notes, sources, and index.
July 3, 2019
A lot of history I had already read from previous books so if you are not familiar with the inventions and how telescopes and other astronomy and physics progressed through history than it would be of more interest. A little slow going for me but a good lesson in history.
October 27, 2018
While many will already be familiar with the ties between biology, chemistry, and particle physics and their regrettable uses in military hardware, less explored has been the tie between astronomers/astrophysics and their history with governmental agencies and the military industrial complex. This large work from Neil deGrasse Tyson and Avis Lang is an in-depth exploration of that connection, beginning before astronomy/astrophysics was even a discipline, starting with the earliest tools used to probe the sky and their immediate application in the realm of war. While occasionally the narrative seems to focus a bit too much on particle physics (an area that has already been scrupulously documented in countless works) the final few chapters dealing with the politics of the international space station and the myriad agreements and ties between competing space programs we have at the current moment make for hugely informative reading. Through nearly 600 pages they guide you through the complicit understanding between scientists and military agencies that: "The universe is both the ultimate frontier and the highest of high grounds...Shared by both space scientists and space warriors, it’s a laboratory for one and a battlefield for the other."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 554 reviews