US space dominance wouldn’t create a anarchic world of first strikes and arms races, the US wants to pursue stable space development.
Lambakis 2 (Steven. “"Putting Military Uses of Space in Context." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs” Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1632/)KM
Second, enhanced military power in the hands of states that uphold the rule of international law can work to improve peace and stability in the world. Treaties dealing with the space environment are written to establish stability and order on the space frontier. And this is good. Washington has never considered space to be a domain of anarchy. Indeed, it is in the U.S. interest to develop proper laws and exercise force in a restrained and responsible manner to prevent space from devolving into a lawless, disorderly realm.
Impact Turn – Space Good: Diplomacy
Space capabilities solve diplomacy – gives the US more options when dealing diplomatically with threats.
Lambakis 2 (Steven. “"Putting Military Uses of Space in Context." Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs” Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://spacedebate.org/argument/1466)KM
There are sound political and strategic justifications for looking to space. First, a weapon that exploits Earth's orbit may increase the number of foreign policy and military options available to our leaders and commanders. More options mean that a leader may not be forced to take a more destructive or weaker course of action, that he has choices on how his country should act in a dynamic, complex, and often dangerous world. Effective military options, in other words, can work to improve deterrence and stability and help leaders deal more intelligently, even more diplomatically, with surprises.
Space control is key to diplomatic power – a globalized economy depends on communications tech in space.
Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM
From its initial emphasis in the late 1950s as a means of superpower competition, through today’s use of space assets to enable terrestrial military forces, space power has conferred diplomatic advantages to those nations able to employ it. Even so, its potential remains underdeveloped. Since space is the newest medium in which military forces operate, it is to be expected that policy makers have not used space assets as tools of diplomacy to the same degree they have used other, more traditional means. Yet, their lack of focus on this particular tool or means is perplexing. Such esteemed space theorists as James Oberg have misunderstood the power of space assets to affect diplomatic objectives. He states, “Space power, alone, is insufficient to...ensure the attainment of terrestrial political objectives.”159 As affirmed in Colin Gray’s statement above, space professionals have given insufficient thought to (among other strategic implications of space assets) codifying precisely how, when, and where to use space assets for diplomatic purposes short of combat. The analysis that follows seeks to fill part of this void by classifying the diplomatic uses of space assets.160 While the model presented is holistic in its applicability across the spectrum of conflict, its rudimentary nature is evidence that future theorists and strategists still need to accomplish much work. Exploiting space systems to directly achieve diplomatic objectives is a capacity available now, and this opportunity is due to a confluence of trends. First, an increasingly important characteristic of the post-Cold War world is the escalating impact of globalization and interdependency among states. Particularly among the most developed states, those participating heavily in the information age, the development and distribution of knowledge is replacing the manufacturing and distribution of goods as society’s central source of wealth, prestige, and power.161 The linkages connecting these states to the outside world and to elements within their own societies are becoming indispensable, as these are the conduits for information exchange. Especially for states with global trade and military interests, and despite the enormous growth of fiber optics technology for data transmission and communications, space assets are a critical component for these information transactions. The same holds for lesser-developed states, particularly if their internal communications infrastructures are rudimentary or fragmented. For the United States, DoD Directive 3100.10, Space Policy, states the case flatly: “The globally interdependent information- and knowledge-based economy as well as information-based military operations make the information lines of communication to, in, through, and from space essential to the exercise of United States power.”162
Impact Turn – Space Good: Diplomacy
Space allows for diplomatic power through tech partnerships.
Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM
The second component of space assets’ diplomatic power is the ability to induce international actors toward desired behaviors, or away from undesirable behaviors, through the granting or termination of technology partnerships. Although this power is fundamentally coercive in nature, it is generally perceived as a relatively benevolent form relying on the promise of benefits to the target state rather than threatening punishment. Called “persuasive influence” by Lt Col Gregory M. Billman, he defines it as “action taken…to benefit another side in some way. Noteworthy is the lack of threatening force to effect a change in an entity’s behavior.”181 Interestingly, “Cooperative uses of the armed forces have occurred far less frequently than have coercive uses.”182 As such, this is an area ripe for investigation. Since, by its very nature, the ability to negotiate and carry out technology partnerships occurs over long time periods (measured in years and decades rather than weeks and months), this facet of space assets’ diplomatic power is normally only effective during peacetime. Further, since the nature of a partnership implies an ability by both parties to contribute to their mutual goals (although the contributions may not be equal), space technology partnerships are most effective among first and second world countries with some industrial or scientific capacity capable of being oriented toward space technologies.
Space-based tech partnerships are effective tools to shape the behaviors of other states.
Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM
While the ISS offers a useful case study in understanding how technology partnerships have been used to influence Russian behavior, the ISS and Space Shuttle have also been used to shape the behavior of American allies such as Canada, Japan, and the European Space Agency. Canada’s contribution of its Robotic Arm to both projects, the Japanese Experimental Module, and the European Space Lab flown on Shuttle missions are all efforts at lowering the cost of space exploration for the American taxpayer while supporting the space ambitions of American allies. Through such partnerships, trade, technological, and military relationships are strengthened, while also increasing the interdependency of these states on the American space effort. Space technology partnerships offer a powerful inducement to promote or dissuade nations from specific behaviors. By offering other states the opportunity to more easily access space, and thereby receive the concomitant prestige associated with space programs, or to partner with other spacefaring states to lower the cost of a specific space function, the United States can achieve both economic savings in its space programs and shape the behavior of other states.
Space dominance provides the opportunity to provide space services as a new form of foreign aid diplomacy.
Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM
The third aspect of space assets’ inherent diplomatic power is the ability to provide no-cost, or low-cost, access to space services to states who do not otherwise have access to such services. Similar to technology partnerships in that access to space services is a form of constructive coercion through persuasive influence, three factors make this component distinct. First, rather than collaborate with another state toward some common goal, access to space services resembles traditional foreign aid in that the country granting the access to its space services does not expect a significant monetary or technological payback for the services it provides. Second, providing access to space services does not require the state receiving the services to be industrially or technologically advanced. In fact, some of the best opportunities for achieving diplomatic leverage in this area may very well be among third world states. The third unique factor of access to space services is that it offers the opportunity to achieve diplomatic advantage in a quicker timeframe than technology partnerships. Since providing access to space services can theoretically occur very quickly, depending on the training and hardware that must be provided to the target state, diplomatic effects can be readily realized.
Share with your friends: |