3.5 stars. Very long, very detailed, recommend if you love both political science and astrophysics

Incredibly weirdly put-together book, with tons of fairly dry historical detail interspersed every now and then with a more NdT-esque essay. I was expecting A) more about the present-day state of the space-military complex and/or the details of our current abilities or B) more in-depth explanations of the technologies that enable these capabilities. In both aspects this book fell flat.

What the book did do was spend a very, very, VERY long time going through just about every historical application of space/time science. It went through every incremental advance in timekeeping, optics, guidance, detection, etc. It went into exhaustive detail of how we managed to define longitude and latitude. I found myself skipping many pages because I couldn't bear to read about yet another hundred years' advancements in spyglasses. The major point, that all of these things were generally developed because there were military applications of them, was made very early, and everything else was just example after example, like a history book or a term paper, with little insight or analysis.

In the end, its self-described scope and "story arc" was so poorly defined that it ended incredibly abruptly, leaving me staring at the page dumbly for a long moment. Then I was just relieved it was over.

Not a riveting read by any measure, but still an interesting history of the intertwining relationship between the military and scientists, and worth your time.

I was really excited to read this book. I read his book from last year ('Astrophysics for People in a Hurry") and thoroughly enjoyed it. So when I saw that he was going to tie in Astrophysics to modern day war and tactics, I thought it would be a wonderful extension of the last book I read. Eh... not so much.

Reading the book was painfully slow and repetitive. For more than 150 pages, the most intricate device that tied war and astrophysics together was the telescope (and before that it was relaying signals across a battlefield by climbing tall trees). Then, we can fast forward to something more modern and talk about how space was to be the next tactical vantage point for countries, but we need 25 seemingly identical examples of how everyone needed to agree that space should really be kept neutral. I really had a hard time figuring out if I was just re-reading the same pages over and over again (good thing there are numbers at the top of each page to easily verify I wasn't... it just seemed that way).

There were a few interesting parts of the book, but in the end it just read like a series of newspaper articles strung together about the same topics. Needless to say, I was unimpressed and really struggled to get through this one. Perhaps his next book will mimic more of the approach of the first book I read by Tyson... but I'm much more skeptical now.

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!

Holy crap. This book was like a fire hose of information. I didn't realize how big this book was going to be and how much was going to be in it. I would read one section and forget what I read becusee so much was packed in. He went on to explaining almost every freaking conflict and how it connects to this and this and this budget here helped with this and it catalyzed this. Now their research is impeccable as a third of their book is references, notes, index, etc. They knew what they were talking about and made sure to have all the facts straight. But to me it's kind of easy to get that the military and astrophysics are connected because they need the scientists to create the weapons they have in space. I don't know it was just way too much information and a major let down for me.

3.5 Stars!!

It was a good read and quite interesting but, and this may be my own fault, I was expecting MORE. More of historical information and less of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s view on the current standings of geopolitical issues

Just because you're a famous physicist does automatically mean you are a good historian. Where to begin on this disjointed, often bouncing back and forth through time, meandering account of how scientists and the great war machine meet.
I have to get it off my chest first - CE and BCE have been used in common practice for more than 2 decades with historians and having finished school 5 years ago where I was told in no uncertain terms that if I used AD and BC I would lose marks. I was incredibly irritated by it's usage in this book. Get with the times Dr. Tyson or should I blame the publisher/editors for this?

I found the jumping back and forth in different time frames very jarring and put a larger disconnect on when certain advancements in science were made and when they were adopted by the military. I felt that for a majority of the book it lacked a distinct narrative on showing how the military relies on scientific advancement seeking out specific scientists or companies to accomplish their objectives.
It was also disappointing that Operation Paperclip was barely mentioned and it's ramifications to the modern development of jets and rockets, focusing more on spending budgets and policy rather than the advancements themselves and the scientists who accomplished those amazing advancements.
If you've never read a military or scientific history book before you may find it interesting but for me it was extremely disappointing.