File Title space weaponization good 2
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Also empirically disproven
- New technology already making space weaponization feasible
- MKV program proves deployment is short-term.
A2 No TechnologyScientific arguments are outdatedDolman 6 – Everett C. Dolman, Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, “U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” SAIS Review 26.1, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html We have learned much, it would seem, or else bluntly negative scientific opinion on space weapons has been weeded out over time. Less encompassing arguments are now the rule. As the debate moved completely away from the complete impossibility of weapons and wars in space to more subtle and scientifically sustainable arguments that a particular space weapon is not feasible, mountains of mathematical formulae have been piled high in an effort, one by one, simply to bury the concept. But these limitations on specific systems are less due to theoretical analysis than to assumptions about future funding and available technology.8 The real objection, too often hidden from view, is that a particular weapons system or capability cannot be developed and deployed within the planned budget, or within narrowly specified means. When one relaxes those assumptions, opposition on technical grounds generally falls away. The devil may very well be in the details. But when critics oppose an entire class of weapons based upon analyses that show particular weapons will not work, their arguments fail to consider the inevitable arrival of fresh concepts or new technologies that change all notions of current capabilities. Have we thought out the details enough we can say categorically that no technology will allow for a viable space weapons capability? If so, then the argument is pat; no counter is possible. But if there are technologies or [End Page 168] conditions that could allow for the successful weaponization of space, then ought we not argue the policy details first, lest we be swept away by a course of action that merely chases the technology wherever it may go? Also empirically disprovenDolman and Cooper 11 – Everett C. Dolman, Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Henry F. Cooper, Jr., Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Department of Defense, March 7, 2011, “Toward a Theory of Space Power, Chapter 19: Increasing the Military Uses of Space,” http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/spacepower/space-Ch19.pdf Space Weapons Are Possible Arguments in the first category spill the most ink in opposition, but they are relatively easy to dispatch. Consider first that history is littered with prophesies of technical and scientific inadequacy, such as Lord Kelvin's famous retort, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." Kelvin, a leading physicist and president of the Royal Society, made this boast in 1895, and no less an inventor than Thomas Edison agreed. The possibility of spaceflight prompted even more gloomy pessimism. A New York Times editorial in 1921 excoriated Robert Goddard for his silly notions of rocket-propelled space exploration (an opinion it has since retracted): "Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." Compounding its error in judgment, opining in 1936, the Times stated flatly, "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere."3 Bluntly negative scientific opinion on the possibility of space weapons writ large has been weeded out over time. No credible scientist today makes the claim of impossibility, and so less encompassing arguments are now the rule. The debate has moved to more subtle and scientifically sustainable arguments that a particular space weapon is not feasible. Mountains of mathematical formulae have been piled high in an effort, one by one, simply to bury the concept. But these limitations on specific systems are less due to theoretical analysis than to assumptions about future funding and available technology.4 The real objection, too often hidden from view, is that a particular weapons system or capability cannot be developed and deployed within the planned budget or within narrowly specified means. When one relaxes those assumptions, opposition on technical grounds generally falls away. Furthermore, counterexamples exist—for example, the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor system was the most advanced defense concept to emerge from the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). After a comprehensive series of technical reviews by even the strongest critics in 1989, it achieved major defense acquisition program status in 1990, was curtailed by congressional cuts in 1991 and 1992, and then was canceled by the Clinton administration in 1993. But the cancellation of the most advanced, least expensive, and most cost-effective missile defense system produced by the SDI program was for political, not technical, reasons.5 The devil may very well be in the details. But when critics oppose an entire class of weapons based upon analyses that show particular weapons will not work, their arguments fail to consider the inevitable arrival of fresh concepts or new technologies that change all notions of current capabilities. Have we thought out the details enough to say categorically that no technology will allow for a viable space weapons capability? If so, then the argument is pat; no counter is possible. But if there are technologies or conditions that could allow for the successful weaponization of space, then ought we not argue the policy details first, lest we be swept away by a course of action that merely chases the technology wherever it may go?
In sum, we have three rapidly evolving technologies that will accelerate military space projects and make them more affordable. These are: short-notice launch capabilities; next generation small satellites that significantly reduce launch costs and are capable of direct engagement; and ESPA-ring technologies and similar deployment stages for launch vehicles. Technology forecasting suggests that once fully integrated, these technologies will significantly reduce the cost of the militarization of space process and its transition to weaponization. Programs are in development, the defense and research communities are hard at work, and there is no adequate international legal framework in place to ensure that ASAT systems and weapons will not be placed in space. Weaponization will first be initiated in space asset protection systems, built on small satellite platforms, under the guise of asset protect systems with active defense capabilities. Once such systems are in place, the act of attacking or compromising an enemy space system will be limited only the intention of the user. The road to space being weaponized may also be shortened thanks in part to a space-based missile defense system—should it be developed. MKV program proves deployment is short-term.Hoey 6 – Matthew Hoey, Research Associate at the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies February 27, 2006, “Military space systems: the road ahead,” The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/563/1 I want now to highlight several other military space systems that are in various stages of research and development. Systems under the umbrella of military space systems number in the dozens. There are nearly 50 different technologies in various stages of R&D across multiple programs—not including missile defense technologies that have direct connection to possible space weapons systems. Here I will focus on just four systems that, if successful, could radically alter the future military environment. I have highlighted these systems for various reasons ranging from probability of deployment to sheer entertainments sake. First, there is the Multiple Kill Vehicle platform, or MKV. This best links missile defense technology with potential space weapons systems in the here and now. The MKV program is a product of the space and missile defense test center at Redstone Arsenal, whose stated mission is to manage advances missile defense and space technology research and development for the Army, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and other defense-related government organizations. Technology development areas include radar, optics, interceptors, lasers, information systems, space control, and space applications. The missile defense installation at Fort Greely is the first integration site for MKVs. The current interceptors at Ft. Greely are single-shot interceptors—one interceptor per rocket, meaning one chance to achieve a successful hit to kill against a ballistic missile. With MKVs integrated into the current ground-based midcourse (GMD) systems, that hit-to-kill capability will increase to seven shots per interceptor. The funding has been secured for this project. The systems will be integrated into the current ground based systems at Ft Greely—deployed on up to 7 interceptors—as early as FY07. 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 1.17 Mb. Share with your friends:
|