File Title space weaponization good 2
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Space weapons hurt relations with China and Russia
- US space wep development would hurt US China and US Russian relations
- MIL Bad --- Space Arms Race 1NC
SMIL Bad – RelationsWeaponization kills relations with China and Russia and causes global proliferationKrepon 4 – Michael Krepon, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center, November 2004, “Weapons in the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon#Lewis2 Weaponizing space would poison relations with China and Russia, whose help is essential to stop and reverse proliferation. ASAT weapon tests and deployments would surely reinforce Russia’s hair-trigger nuclear posture, and China would likely feel compelled to alter its relaxed nuclear posture, which would then have negative repercussions on India and Pakistan. The Bush administration’s plans would also further alienate America’s friends and allies, which, with the possible exception of Israel, strongly oppose the weaponization of space. The fabric of international controls over weapons of mass destruction, which is being severely challenged by Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, could rip apart if the Bush administration’s interest in testing space and nuclear weapons is realized. Space weapons hurt relations with China and RussiaKrepon 4 – Michael Krepon, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center, November 2004, “Weapons in the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon#Lewis2 Even if space weapons are not used, their flight-testing or presence overhead, capable of impairing a country’s ability to see, hear, navigate, detect impending danger, and fight, would have profound implications for international relations. The medium of space is not country-specific. The placement of space weapons in low-Earth orbit will be of concern to any country over which the space weapon passes or could pass with orbital adjustments. Washington policymakers do not talk often or publicly about space warfare, and China and Russia continue to seek improved ties to the United States. There is, however, considerable awareness in Moscow and Beijing about the Pentagon’s plans and deep skepticism that the Pentagon’s interest in space warfare is directed solely at states such as North Korea and Iran. Instead, the Air Force’s new counterspace doctrine is widely viewed in the broader context of the Bush administration’s endorsement of pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars, open-ended national missile defense deployments, and the integration of improved broad-area surveillance and conventional deep-strike capabilities alongside U.S. nuclear forces, which remain on high states of alert. US space wep development would hurt US China and US Russian relationsKrepon and Clary 03- Michael Krepon with Christopher Clary, Michael Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs Krepon received an MA from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and a BA from Franklin & Marshall College., Clary is currently a PhD student in the Department of Political Science of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology., Space Assurance or Space Dominance? The likely consequences of a dynamic, but uneven, space warfare competition are not hard to envision. Potential adversaries are likely to perceive American initiatives to weaponize space as adjuncts to a U.S. military doctrine of preemption and preventive war. Depending on the scope and nature of U.S. space warfare preparations, they could also add to Chinese and Russian concerns over the viability of their nuclear deterrents. U.S. initiatives to extend military dominance into space are therefore likely to raise tensions and impact negatively on U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations at a time when bilateral relations have some promising, but tenuous, elements. Cooperative relations with both countries will be needed to successfully combat proliferation, but Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to tender such cooperation if they perceive that U.S. strategic objectives include the negation of their deterrents. Under these circumstances, proliferation of weapons in space would be accompanied by terrestrial proliferation. MIL Bad --- Space Arms Race 1NCSpace militarization leads to an arms raceMaogoto & Freeland 8 – Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Newcastle, **AND Steven Freeland, Associate Professor in International Law, University of Western Sydney (Australia); Visiting Professor of International Law, University of Copenhagen, (Denmark); Member of the Space Law Committee of the International Law Association; Member of the International Institute of Space Law. "From Star Wars to Space Wars - the next strategic frontier: paradigms to anchor space security," January 1st, 2008, Journal of Air and Space Law, Volume 33, pp. 11-12 One of the most profound events at the start of the 21st century in relation to international peace and security was the devastating terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.38 While these attacks marked what many have regarded as the ‘maturation’ of global terrorism, their ramifications were far wider. They pointed to the fact that drastic events beyond the contemplation of the drafters of the United Nations Charter would irrevocably change the international security environment. This was exemplified in the speech by President George W Bush in June 2002, when he asserted that: [t]he gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak States and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations.39 Though the speech was largely directed towards the growth of global terrorism, another theme was also present — the dangers of proliferation of technology. While President Bush focused on the dangers of advanced technology in the hands of terrorists, it is equally important that States themselves avoid developing space weaponization technology, which will otherwise lead the international community towards greater insecurity and an arms race. In this regard, several factors are relevant. First, States have proven to be just as irresponsible as non-State entities in the use of armaments. Secondly, new weapons technology has often only served to open new avenues for efficient killing, whether through the use of atomic devices, landmines or cluster bombs. Lastly, the nature of State hegemonic competition has always been dominated by a belief that economic and political power is underwritten by military might. In the international arena, any threat to global security is a problem shared by all members of the United Nations, particularly when new technology points to development of deadly, devastating space weaponry. In this respect, it is important to recall that the security system established under the United Nations structure addresses both form and substance. Indeed, the United Nations Charter does not absolutely prohibit the use of force in all circumstances, but it does seek to regulate its use. As the use of military force becomes more sophisticated and complicated, the United Nations must contribute to both the practice and scope of the disarmament agenda with regard to space. If space were weaponized, war strategy dictates pre-emptive strikes against possible threats – this causes global nuclear warKrepon 4 – Michael Krepon, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center, November 2004, “Weapons in the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon#Lewis2 To prevent adversaries from shooting back, the United States would need to know exactly where all threatening space objects are located, to neutralize them without producing debris that can damage U.S. or allied space objects, and to target and defeat all ground-based military activities that could join the fight in space. In other words, successful space warfare mandates pre-emptive strikes and a preventive war in space as well as on the ground. War plans and execution often go awry here on Earth. It takes enormous hubris to believe that space warfare would be any different. If ASAT and space-based, ground-attack weapons are flight-tested and deployed, space warriors will have succeeded in the dubious achievement of replicating the hair-trigger nuclear postures that plagued humankind during the Cold War. Armageddon nuclear postures continue to this day, with thousands of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons ready to be launched in minutes to incinerate opposing forces, command and control nodes, and other targets, some of which happen to be located within large metropolitan areas. If the heavens were weaponized, these nuclear postures would be reinforced and elevated into space. U.S. space warriors now have a doctrine and plans for counterspace operations, but they do not have a credible plan to stop inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation once the shooting starts. Like U.S. war-fighting scenarios, there is a huge chasm between plans and consequences, in which requirements for escalation dominance make uncontrolled escalation far more likely. A pre-emptive strike in space on a nation that possesses nuclear weapons would invite the gravest possible consequences. Attacks on satellites that provide early warning and other critical military support functions would most likely be viewed either as a surrogate or as a prelude to attacks on nuclear forces. 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:
|