File Title space weaponization good 2
Uniqueness --- Not Inevitable
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Space weaponization is not inevitable – no US funding now
- Space militarization is not inevitable – it’s a choice
- Weaponization is not inevitable – the US is key
- Space weaponization not inevitable – their arguments are based on faulty logic
- Space weaponization is not inevitable – logic overrides violence
- Space weaponization is not inevitable – there are no motives
- Space weaponization is not inevitable – ground systems will be exploited instead
- Countries are avoiding weaponization if possible
- Space wep not inev- Rumsfeld commission indicte
- Space weponization is not inev
- DEFENSE CARD against space mill inev
Uniqueness --- Not InevitableSaying weaponization is inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecyPark 6 – Andrew T. Park, 2006, "Incremental Steps for Achieving Space Security: The Neec for a New Way of Thinking to Enchance the Legal Regime for Space," Houston Journal of International Law, Volume 28, No. 3, pg 871-911, http://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdf The simplest argument for space weaponization (inevitability) may also be the most reckless because of its self-fulfilling nature. Proponents of the inevitability of space weaponization have proffered multiple theories as to why the realm of space will eventually become weaponized. According to the logic of these inevitability proponents, the United States should lead the way rather than be left in the dust as military technology continues to rapidly develop. However, while the inevitability argument may have some merit, its true danger lies in its unverifiable nature until weaponization actually occurs. Moreover, it is important to note that this premise is driven not only by American insecurities, but also by the need for the United States to control its own future. Since the ideological divide between “space doves” and those who believe space weaponization is inevitable is not likely to be bridged soon, the international community must recognize the need for a legal regime for space with teeth—or, put another way, a legal regime that goes beyond simply establishing a set of norms that have little to no consequences. Space weaponization is not inevitable – no US funding nowWilkerson 8 – Don L. Wilkerson, Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Army, US Army War College, Master of Strategic Studies Degree, 2008, "Space Power Theory, Controlling the Medium Without Weapons in Space," www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA482300 It is difficult to support Oberg’s prognostication that weapons in space are inevitable for the U.S. in the 21st Century. The extensive cost of current space programs like Global Positioning System (GPS), Space-Based Infrared System (SIBIRS), the Rapid Attack Identification Detection Reporting System (RAIDRS) and Space Based Radar (SBR) along with numerous service military programs competing7 within a limited defense budget, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. government will make more funding available for space weapons when the currently perceived threat can be mitigated using existing cost effective capabilities. The August 2006 U.S. National Space Policy states that its primary objective is to ensure that the U.S. maintains and enables free access to and the use of space for peaceful purposes. The policy mandates that the U.S. will pursue programs and capabilities to ensure space assets are protected since they are vital to our national security and economic interests. 13 Space militarization is not inevitable – it’s a choiceChristy 6 – Donald P. Christy, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Force, U.S. Army War College, March 15th, 2006, "UNITED STATES POLICY ON WEAPONS IN SPACE," www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf Space weapons are not inevitable. The decision to place weapons in space is a choice, not certainty. Those who argue otherwise point to human nature, historical analogies, economic vulnerability and military necessity to make their case that space weapons are unavoidable. 28 Each of these arguments has merit but none hold up to scrutiny to make a strong case for the inevitability of space weapons. The human nature argument states that people are warlike and the nation states they run will do whatever is in their national interest, which naturally includes taking weapons wherever they go, including space. 29 The implication is that humans cannot control the tendency to develop and deploy any weapon that could give them an actual or perceived military advantage6 over an adversary. It should be noted however, that for the last forty-five years space has in fact been free from weapons. 30 Humans and nations have resisted the temptation so far. Other weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons and land mines have also fallen into disrepute and though not yet eliminated, they are certainly out of favor. 31 Space militarization is not inevitable – it’s different from sea and air power Christy 6 – Donald P. Christy, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Force, U.S. Army War College, March 15th, 2006, "UNITED STATES POLICY ON WEAPONS IN SPACE," www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf In the case of Sea Power, militarization followed because the sea transported people and commerce and served as a means for armies to invade enemy lands. 33 Unlike the sea, commerce and people do not transit through space, only information does. While information is vital in today’s global economy, it is not solely dependent on space as a medium of transit. The idea of invasion from space is only an issue in Hollywood. As for militarization under the sea, it is important to note that weapons were the first and, for a long time, the only use for subsurface vessels. Their purpose, tied to the surface, was denying the use of the seas for commerce and transport. The case for Air Power seems more promising as argued by Gen Estes above, but further examination finds some significant flaws as well. One significant difference between air and space is that air is territorial and space is not. 34 Though the two mediums evolved similarly initially, they have not continued to do so. 35 Weaponization of the air took only ten years from the development of the first aircraft. As stated earlier, it has been forty-five years now without the weaponization of space. The development of observation aircraft and bombers necessitated the development of fighters to defend against them; therefore, weaponization of the air was inevitable for the defense of a nation’s territory. 36 In contrast, observation and reconnaissance from space has had a stabilizing effect internationally. The freedom of the United States and Russia to see what the other side was doing became so important that it was codified in several arms control treaties. This necessity, in part, led both sides to unilaterally abandoned anti-satellite programs that could threaten the other’s reconnaissance satellites, something without precedence in Air Power history. 37 Weaponization is not inevitable – the US is keyJohnson 3 – Dr Rebecca Johnson is the Executive Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, based in London, and has written widely on nonproliferation, arms control and space security policy. 2003, "Security Without Weapons in Space: Challenges and Options," www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art1990.pdf Placing weapons in space is not the inevitable outcome of the use of space for commercial purposes. Many of the perceived vulnerabilities of space assets can be addressed in other ways. At present, no one but the United States has the capability, intention and resources to pose a significant risk to space-based assets. In addition, no State with the technological potential to pose a future threat to US (or other) space assets (for example, the Russian Federation, China, France/European Union, India) is prioritizing financial or technical resources to developing weapons capable of threatening space assets, and all of these are more interested in building or maintaining cooperative (if sometimes uneasy) alliances with the hyper-Power. If US military developments in space continue their drive towards weaponization, however, other Governments may feel under pressure to devote political, financial and technological resources to counter or offset US space-based superiority. Before such expensive and dangerous military responses become necessary, a number of Governments and NGOs are exploring legal, political and diplomatic ways to address space security and weapons. Space weaponization not inevitable – their arguments are based on faulty logicKrepon and Clary 3 – Michael Krepon, served as the president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center, Christopher Clary, Research Assistant for the Weaponization of Space Project at the Stimson Center, April 2, 2003, “Space Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space,” Henry L. Stimson Center, http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/spacebook.pdf The Rumsfeld Commission’s report did not dwell on, or even mention, these possibilities. Instead, it focused on foreign threats while citing historical examples and future projections. One keen analyst of U.S. space policy, Karl Mueller of the RAND Corporation, argues that the Commission’s conclusion that space warfare was virtually inevitable is “based on a smattering of evidence and logic, extrapolated into facile overgeneralizations that are well-suited for television talk-show punditry but which are a poor basis for national policymaking.” In this view, human nature has not filled every vacuum with weapons or warfare, with some environments and regions escaping this fate entirely. Nor is the postulate that warfare follows commerce correct in all cases. Indeed, air warfare preceded commercial aviation.18 Space weaponization is not inevitable – logic overrides violenceLowery 7 – Scott Lowery, systems engineer at Lockheed Martin, 2007, “Why the Weaponization of Space Should Not Be Pursued,” http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/occasions/articles/Lowery_Why%20the%20Weaponization%20of%20Space%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Pursued.pdf The pro-weaponization adherents’ arguments of inevitability focus on the notion that the United States must have an early lead in space weapons or suffer the consequences. They have several reasons for believing in inevitability; however, each argument contains logical fallacies that preclude it from representing a rational policy. Karl Mueller of the International Studies Association best sums up the deficiency of their arguments, which are “based on a smattering of evidence and logic, extrapolated into facile overgeneralizations that are well-suited for television talk-show punditry but which provide a poor basis for national policymaking (Mueller).” Their first argument is that inevitability is a consequence of human nature. This is blatant pessimism as there are many weapons such as chemical missiles and radiation bombs that provide tactical advantages but have been shied away from. Agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention banned the use of these weapons, because it is difficult to control their effects and they create hazardous environmental conditions. The signature of 182 states (Status) on this agreement signifies that logic can override baser instincts towards violence. Space weaponization is not inevitable – there are no motivesLowery 7 – Scott Lowery, systems engineer at Lockheed Martin, 2007, “Why the Weaponization of Space Should Not Be Pursued,” http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/occasions/articles/Lowery_Why%20the%20Weaponization%20of%20Space%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Pursued.pdf The third argument for inevitability is that the expanding influence space has on the economy will precipitate an attack on space systems. Pro-weaponizers see the economic dependence on space as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited. However, the logic behind such an attack is lacking. It is unreasonable for another nation state to attack US space assets for the sole purpose of economic disruption. Because the US is a superpower, its economy is interlinked with the rest of the world, so that if another nation—for instance, China—damaged US space assets, it would most likely feel the economic effects of the attack itself, namely through the loss of the $200 billion (Trade) of goods it exports to the United States. Similarly, attacking space assets as a terrorist action is also illogical. There are many surface targets whose destruction would also cause widespread havoc such as dams, bridges, refineries, computer systems, and so on. All of them require far less sophistication to destroy than satellites. Space weaponization is not inevitable – ground systems will be exploited insteadLowery 7 – Scott Lowery, systems engineer at Lockheed Martin, 2007, “Why the Weaponization of Space Should Not Be Pursued,” http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/occasions/articles/Lowery_Why%20the%20Weaponization%20of%20Space%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Pursued.pdf The final and most solid case for inevitability rests on the fact that space assets are an excellent military target, and attacking them would be an effective precursor to terrestrial warfare. The argument has some merit, as it has been shown that space plays a key role in the abilities of the US military. The argument states that if the US does not develop space weapons, someone else will, placing the US at a disadvantage. This is reasonable but not conclusive. If an enemy did want to disrupt US space power, it would not necessarily need to weaponize space. The earth-based portions of space systems, such as ground control stations and communication dishes, are equally vulnerable and can be destroyed with existing, far cheaper systems: a few men with bombs can disable a satellite network just as well as a ballistic missile. In summary, the arguments for inevitability fall short of being substantive, relying on little more than the “sky is falling mentality” (Belote).
|