Editing Geostrategy (section)

==History==

===Precursors===
As early as [[Herodotus]], observers saw strategy as heavily influenced by the geographic setting of the actors. In ''[[Histories (Herodotus)|History]]'', Herodotus describes a clash of civilizations between the [[Ancient Egypt|Egyptians]], [[Achaemenid Empire|Persians]], [[Scythia]]ns, and [[Ancient Greece|Greeks]]—all of which he believed were heavily influenced by the physical geographic setting.<ref name="Herodotus">{{cite book|last=Herodotus|author-link=Herodotus|others=trans. David Grene|title=The History|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-1-4165-1697-2|title-link=Histories (Herodotus)|date=2005-11-29}}</ref>

[[Dietrich Heinrich von Bülow]] proposed a geometrical science of strategy in the 1799 ''The Spirit of the Modern System of War.'' His system predicted that the larger states would swallow the smaller ones, resulting in eleven large states. [[Mackubin Thomas Owens]] notes the similarity between von Bülow's predictions and the map of Europe after the [[unification of Germany]] and [[unification of Italy|of Italy]].<ref name="owens">{{cite journal|author=Mackubin Thomas Owens|date=Autumn 1999|title=In Defense of Classical Geopolitics|journal=Naval War College Review|volume=LII|issue=4|url=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1999/autumn/art3-a99.htm|access-date=2004-01-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010306130037/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1999/autumn/art3-a99.htm |archive-date=2001-03-06}}</ref>

===Golden age===
Between 1890 and 1919 the world became a geostrategist's paradise, leading to the formulation of the classical geopolitical theories. The international system featured rising and falling [[great power]]s, many with global reach. There were no new [[frontier]]s for the great powers to [[exploration|explore]] or [[colonization|colonize]]—the entire world was divided between the empires and colonial powers. From this point forward, international politics would feature the struggles of state against state.<ref name="owens" />

Two strains of geopolitical thought gained prominence: an Anglo-American school, and a German school. [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]] and [[Halford J. Mackinder]] outlined the American and British conceptions of geostrategy, respectively, in their works ''The Problem of Asia'' and "''[[The Geographical Pivot of History]]''".<ref>H.J. Mackinder, The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 1904, 23, pp. 421–37; Pascal Venier, "[http://www.pascalvenier.com/venier2004c.pdf The Geographical Pivot of History and Early 20th Century Geopolitical Culture] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215022801/http://www.pascalvenier.com/venier2004c.pdf |date=2007-12-15 }}", ''Geographical Journal'', vol. 170, no 4, December 2004, pp. 330–336.</ref> [[Friedrich Ratzel]] and [[Rudolf Kjellén]] developed an [[organic theory of the state]] which laid the foundation for Germany's unique school of geostrategy.<ref name="owens" />

===World War II===
[[File:Edmund A. Walsh and Gen. MacArthur, Tokyo, 1948.jpg|thumb|Fr. [[Edmund A. Walsh]], SJ]]
The most prominent [[Germany|German]] geopolitician was General [[Karl Haushofer]]. After [[World War II]], during the [[Allied Control Council|Allied occupation of Germany]], the [[United States]] investigated many officials and public figures to determine if they should face charges of [[war crimes]] at the [[Nuremberg trials]]. [[Haushofer]], an academic primarily, was interrogated by Father [[Edmund A. Walsh]], a professor of geopolitics from the [[Georgetown University|Georgetown]] [[Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service|School of Foreign Service]], at the request of the U.S. authorities. Despite his involvement in crafting one of the justifications for Nazi aggression, Fr. Walsh determined that Haushofer ought not stand trial.<ref name="walsh">{{cite book|last=Walsh|first=Edmund A.|author-link=Edmund A. Walsh|year=1949|title=Total Power: A Footnote to History|publisher=Doubleday & Company, Inc.|location=Garden City, New York}}</ref>

===Cold War===
After the [[World War II|Second World War]], the term "geopolitics" fell into disrepute, because of its association with [[Nazism|Nazi]] ''[[geopolitik]]''. Virtually no books published between the end of World War II and the mid-1970s used the word "geopolitics" or "geostrategy" in their titles, and geopoliticians did not label themselves or their works as such. German theories prompted a number of critical examinations of ''geopolitik'' by American geopoliticians such as [[Robert Strausz-Hupé]], Derwent Whittlesey and Andrew Gyorgy.<ref name="owens" />

As the [[Cold War]] began, [[N.J. Spykman]] and [[George F. Kennan]] laid down the foundations for the U.S. policy of [[containment]], which would dominate [[Western world|Western]] geostrategic thought for the next forty years.<ref name="owens" />

<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: [[File:Alexander P. de Seversky.jpg|thumb|Alexander de Seversky]] -->
[[Alexander Procofieff de Seversky|Alexander de Seversky]] would propose that airpower had fundamentally changed geostrategic considerations and thus proposed a "geopolitics of airpower." His ideas had some influence on the administration of President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], but the ideas of Spykman and Kennan would exercise greater weight.<ref name="owens" /> Later during the Cold War, [[Colin S. Gray|Colin Gray]] would decisively reject the idea that airpower changed geostrategic considerations, while [[Saul B. Cohen]] examined the idea of a "shatterbelt", which would eventually inform the [[domino theory]].<ref name="owens" />

===Post-Cold War===

After the Cold War ended, states started preferring management of space at low cost to expansion of it with military force. Use of military force in order to secure space causes not only great burden on countries, but also severe criticism from the [[international society]] as interdependence between countries continuously increases. As a way of new space management, countries either created regional institutions related to the space or make [[regimes]] on specific issues to allow intervention on space.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.dbpia.co.kr.access.ewha.ac.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE06616401 | title=이화여자대학교 도서관}}</ref> Such mechanisms let countries to have indirect control over space. The indirect space management reduces required capital and at the same time provides justification and legitimacy of the management, that the countries involved do not have to face criticism from the international society.