1ac heg Advantage Scenario 1 is Leadership
Download 1.32 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- SMD k2 Tech
SMD k2 HegSpace weapons strengthen all pillars of hegemony Dolman 6—Everett Dolman, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space” 2006, Pg 21-22 Weapons in Space and Hegemonic War And America would respond ... finally. But would another state? I have already pointed out that if America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter it in kind. The fact is that should the US develop and deploy weapons in outer space it would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity that would assist in extending the period of American hegemony well into the future. This would clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is still less threatening than any other state doing so, for two essential reasons. First, no other state can currently compete with the US in military space. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would therefore opt not to counter US deployments in kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the US deploy weapons there -at least for the next few years—is extremely remote. Second, placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived as an attempt at continuing its current military dominance on land, at sea, and in the air. It would enhance military power across the board, and would extend the current period of American hegemony beyond what it would be without space weaponization. Although there is clear opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily (and I have argued that space weapons are structurally far less likely to be used in such a manner, and is at least less threatening, than an increase in current capabilities), the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would rightly be perceived as an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order. The action would be a challenge to the status quo, not a perpetuation of it. Such an event would be disconcerting to the nations that accept the current international order (including the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within it) and intolerable to the US. As leader of the current system, the US would enact an immediate counter-space effort. As current hegemon, the US could do no less, save graciously decide to step aside. Because all states are not equal in power or interest, no state other than the US would, or could, publicly proclaim its intent to dominate space without setting off an immediate scramble ... at least for the time being. SMD k2 TechSpace weapons enhance US tech superiority in the short term Ruyssenaars 10—Hank Ruyssenaars, AP journalist and space correspondent, “U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARIZING: SPACE 'PEARL HARBOR' NEXT?” online: http://forpressfound.livejournal.com/37871.html The implications of space militarization are enormous, and its consequences can't be predicted. It is certain that - in the short term - U.S. financial and technological superiority would increase the already prominent gap in military power between Washington and the rest of the world. In addition, some of the new weapons could give the White House new effective tools to fight against symmetrical (states) and asymmetrical (terror networks) threats. However, in the long run, a military colonization of outer space could very well be started by other powers - which would hardly tolerate Washington's quasi-private use of space. Weapons check Chinese attacks—maintains tech dominance Lague 8—David, space correspondent for the International Herald Tribune, “China warns U.S. on plan to destroy a satellite; Beijing sees threat to security in space” February 19, 2008, pg 1 For the Chinese military, the capacity to destroy U.S. navigation and communications satellites could undermine the overwhelming technological dominance that U.S. forces have enjoyed in recent conflicts, according to U.S. and Chinese security experts. They say that space weapons including antimissile satellites could contribute to Beijing's ''area denial'' strategies, which are intended to keep U.S. forces at bay in a war over Taiwan. In academic papers, books and magazine articles, Chinese strategic thinkers have identified U.S. dependence on satellites for battlefield communications, guiding smart weapons, reconnaissance and weather forecasting as a potential weakness that could be exploited. Weapons stimulate the space industry—maintains economic well-being Loomer et al 8—Scott, PhD and senior member of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces—Space, Spring 2008, “Space Industry: Final Report” pg 17 Protecting Vital U.S. Interests The U.S. is dependent on the unhindered use of space for its economic well-being and security. The U.S. National Space Policy states unequivocally that the United States considers space capabilities vital to its national interests.11 Beyond military applications and security, space technology is used for many important purposes such as meteorology, environmental monitoring, disaster prevention, communications, entertainment, and observation. The loss or impairment of space capabilities could substantially harm the U.S. economically, militarily, and politically.113 The main arguments for pursuing a weapons capability in space center on deterring and defending against any disruption of our Nation's continued peaceful use of space. The following list the supporting rationale. Threat Threats to U.S. space assets, both from the ground and in space, are real and growing. A number of states are developing capabilities that could place U.S. space systems at risk.114 A dozen countries can now launch satellites, and potentially weapons, to space.11" For example, China demonstrated an anti-satellite capability in January 2007 by shooting down one of its own weather satellites.116 Although nascent, these developments are nonetheless troubling. The U.S. must be prepared to protect its own space assets and interests. Defensive Usage. The U.S. is committed to the exploration and use of space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity." Advocates for a space weapons capability emphasize that the purpose of those weapons is mainly defensive in nature, providing "big stick"" deterrence. However, in cases where deterrence fails, the U.S. requires a 118 capability to deny freedom of action to adversaries in order to protect its own. Impracticality of Verification. Current policy rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the U.S. to operate in and acquire data from space.11 Besides the agreement not to deploy nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction in space,1 0 the U.S. has refrained from signing any obligations that would further restrict available weapon options. Proponents of weaponizing space argue that arms control agreements are unverifiable and unenforceable and would unacceptably disadvantage the U.S. Protecting Investments. Developing a capability to control or dominate space is not a new venture for the U.S.121 From the first days of space flight, military and scientific exploration efforts have been intricately linked. In the last several decades, commercial developments have also become intertwined with other U.S. efforts. The viability and health of the U.S. space industry depends on continued cooperative engagement. Decreasing military efforts excessively could have considerable negative impact in other sectors of the industry. Space weapons stimulate private sector development Pfatlzgraff 9—Robert Pfaltzgraff, PhD and president of the Institute for Foreign Policy, January 2009, “Space and US Security- A Net Assessment” Last but not least, there is a close relationship between the military and commercial uses of space. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to delineate clearly between space as an indispensable military arena and space as essential to economic wellbeing. Without space the phenomenon of globalization would not be possible. Global information and communications, including the Internet, wireless communications, data transmission, and electronic commerce, are based on space assets that have transformed how we transmit and receive the information that shapes twenty-first-century interaction. New industries have emerged as a result of space technologies. The private-sector commercialization of space is generating new products, services, and nongovernmental participation. A global private-sector space industry will grow extensively in the decades ahead. Therefore, such activity and its implications for the military space sector must be factored into projections about the future for reasons that are set forth in the net assessment. Military space assets will strengthen the space technology base Pfatlzgraff 9—Robert Pfaltzgraff, PhD and president of the Institute for Foreign Policy, January 2009, “Space and US Security- A Net Assessment” As the leading space power, the greater dependence of the United States on space than any other nation leads inevitably both to vulnerabilities and opportunities. The U.S. position in space is the result of numerous strengths developed over more than five decades. They fall into two broad, overlapping categories: (I) military force enhancement; and (2) commercial utilization of space. We turn first to military force enhancement, setting forth in brief fashion the major technologies on which the United States has become increasingly dependent in recent decades, together with systems that are currently projected to be deployed in the next several years. Because of the dual-use nature of these technologies, it is not easy to separate them from the commercial sector. Therefore, the failure of the United States to remain in the forefront of space technologies would have both military and commercial implications. Advances in the military or civilian sectors will over lap, intersect, and reinforce each other. Consequently, the development in the United States of a dynamic innovative private-sector space industry will be indispensable to future U.S. space leadership. Nevertheless, the ability of the U.S. military both to contribute to, and benefit from, such a space technology base will depend on its focus and priorities. The availability of technologies does not lead inevitably to their exploitation. We may fail to move forward to exploit technological opportunities and breakthroughs. Such choices may be based on political or other considerations, whether well founded or the product of mistaken assumptions about what competitors or adversaries will or will not do. Government funding is key—strengthens the commercial sector Pfatlzgraff 9—Robert Pfaltzgraff, PhD and president of the Institute for Foreign Policy, January 2009, “Space and US Security- A Net Assessment” Space has become an essential part of daily life. This includes satellites that transmit television images, provide weather forecasting data, emergency response, the infrastructure for the Internet, the mapping of the Karth's surface, and global positioning information. Space technologies are transforming the process by which we conduct business and undertake research. The net result is greater productivity with important implications for economic growth, prosperity, and innovation. Access to space-based assets is essential for a broad range of private-sector activities, which will increase both in scope and intensity as a result of the emergence of technologies including smaller satellites and cheaper boosters, miniaturization, and greater economies of scale. The space infrastructure originally established with governmental funding has furnished the basis for both military and commercial applications. In the years ahead, the commercial sector is likely to provide innovative impetus that spills over into the military arena. Space weapons boost technological superiority and deters challengers McLaughlin 2—Kevin McLaughlin, Vice Commander at U.S. Air Force Warfare Center and senior fellow at CSIS, Summer 2002, “Would Space-Based Defenses Improve Security?” pg 185 Observers have not yet fully understood or analyzed another possible reality. The current striking disparity between the United States and all other countries in economic, technological, and military endeavors places extreme limits on most countries’ abilities to respond meaningfully. Old concerns that U.S. advances in missile defense or space would spawn undesirable arms races may no longer be valid.3 For example, the United States is the only nation capable of implementing and sustaining decisive military force on a global basis. The war in Afghanistan provided a snapshot of this ability. The nation’s development and use of many capabilities—modern airpower; long-range precision weapons; command, control, and communications and intelligence; and highly skilled soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen—have drastically outpaced all other countries. No other country could carry out the mission that the United States is executing in Afghanistan. Any other country or alliance, such as the proposed 60,000-person European Rapid Reaction Force, performing a similar mission in the near term or in the midterm is equally doubtful. Even more significantly, in the current global war on terrorism, the United States is working to increase the scope of its capabilities to operate simultaneously in several spots around the world. Primarily, U.S. wealth, global responsibilities, and national security needs drive this reality. The administration’s FY 2003 defense budget request of $379 billion is more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second-largest spender, and more than the combined spending of the next 25 nations.4 This disparity creates its own dynamic with unique qualities, one of which may be the elimination of the incentive for many nations even to try to compete, decreasing the likelihood that U.S. developments will face traditional countermeasures. For example, the B-2 stealth bomber provides the United States with an unchallenged military capability that other nations would have viewed as destabilizing only a few years ago. The airplane can fly anywhere in the world undetected and can attack targets through defenses that officials previously thought were impenetrable. Yet, this revolutionary capability has not given rise to a race to build stealth bombers, nor has it resulted in a huge defensive investment by the Chinese, the Russians, or the Europeans to develop technology to counter it. Other nations have not cried out in indignation—an indication that the United States can use such overwhelming capabilities without threatening the world’s strategic stability. Other than the B-2, any number of U.S. technological advances, such as unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), information dominance capabilities, and the previously mentioned SBIRS system, serve as examples of advanced U.S. warfighting capabilities revolutionizing the nation’s military capabilities and further increasing the disparity between the United States and the rest of the world, but that have not seemed to produce arms races or other traditional responses. For these reasons, U.S. development of spacebased missile defenses will arguably contribute to U.S. security and possibly in a way neither destabilizing nor likely to spawn an arms race in space. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.32 Mb. Share with your friends:
|