Debris would burn up and countries will be more careful
Dolman 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
Weaponization of space will create conditions that will make space travel risky if not impossible. Having extended the illogic of opposing space weapons to the limit, opponents then take on the mechanics of war and the evils of the military. As for the first argument, orbital debris is the challenge, which the recent Chinese antisatellite (ASAT) test confirms. The destruction of its own dying satellite in 2007 created thousands of bits of debris that are now floating at orbital velocity, an expanding cloud that poses a lasting navigational hazard to legitimate space flight. True, the Chinese test was criminal, especially since it could have engaged with almost no debris remnants if it had altered its engagement path. In over a dozen antisatellite tests that the Soviet Union held in the 1970s and 1980s, only the first left appreciable debris. After that, the massive co-orbital ASAT engaged in a kinetic direction toward the Earth, down the gravity well, causing all of the detritus of the ASAT and target to burn up in the atmosphere. Indeed, in a scenario where the United States is controlling space, most engagements would occur in launch phase, before the weapons even reach orbit. Any debris that is not burned up or destroyed will fall onto the launching state. Because tested weapons systems have maximized destruction to validate capabilities does not mean that future engagements must create long-lasting debris fields. Satellites are very fragile, and a bump or a push in the wrong direction is all that is necessary to send them spinning off into a useless or uncontrollable orbit—if you get to space first. Space war does not have to be dirty war, and in fact spacefaring nations will go out of their way to ensure that it is not (an argument that non-spacefaring powers may wish to fight dirty, and the only reliable defense against them would be in space, occurs below).
**SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD**
No weaponization now and it’s not inevitable
Smith 11 – Colonel M.V. Smith, USAF, is Director of the Air Force Space and Cyber Center at Air University, 2011, "Spacepower and Warfare," Institute for National Strategic Studies, Spacepower Theory Project, http://www.ndu.edu/press/spacepower-and-warfare.html
A discussion of the nexus of spacepower and warfare is controversial because space has yet to be overtly weaponized or generally recognized as an arena of open combat. Many, if not most, nations want to keep space a weapons-free peaceful sanctuary, particularly the suprastate actors. Just because all other media are weaponized and used as arenas of combat does not mean that space will automatically follow suit.1 Perhaps this generation will figure out how to keep the beast of war in chains short enough to prevent it from going to space. But the next (and each succeeding) generation must also keep the chains short. Unfortunately, the constant march of technology is making space more important to states at the same time it is making it easier to build space weapons.
Space weaponization not inevitable – no weapons now
Stimson 10 – Founded in 1989, the Henry L. Stimson Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to enhancing international peace and security through a unique combination of rigorous analysis and outreach. September 21, 2010, "Key Elements of Space Assurance," http://www.stimson.org/research-pages/key-elements-of-space-assurance-/
Other nations are similarly also engaged in research and development programs relating to space warfare. There is no compelling need, however, to engage in the flight testing and deployment of dedicated space weapons, in part because the United States and many other nations already possess military capabilities designed for other missions that could, in extreme circumstances, serve as a response to the first use of space weapons by another state. Such "residual" space warfare capabilities have paradoxically served as a brake against the flight testing and deployment of space weapons in the past. The weaponization of space is not inevitable. If it were, this would have occurred during the Cold War. Rather than to engage in such a competition now, a far wiser course would be to strengthen efforts to promote space assurance.
Space is not being weaponized now
Washington Times 1/27 – Eli Lake, January 1 2011, “U.S., EU eye anti-satellite weapons pact,” Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/27/us-eu-eye-anti-satellite-weapons-pact/?page=1
The Obama administration is negotiating with the European Union on an agreement limiting the use of anti-satellite weapons, a move that some critics say could curb U.S. development of space weapons in general. Three congressional staffers told The Washington Times that Pentagon and intelligence analysts said in a briefing Monday that the administration is looking to sign on to the European Union’s Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. The briefing followed the completion of an interagency review that recommends the United States sign on to the document with only a few minor changes to its language, according to two administration officials familiar with the review. That recommendation is awaiting final approval from the National Security Council. “The United States is continuing to consult with the European Union on its initiative to develop a comprehensive set of multilateral TCBMs, also known as the Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities,” Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, said Thursday at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. TCBM stands for “transparency and confidence-building measures.”
No space weaponization now – both the US and China are committed to peace
Zhang 11 – Baohui Zhang is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies at Lingnan University, Hong Kong, March/April 2011, "The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship: The Prospects for Arms Control,” Asian Survey, Volume 51, No. 2, pp. 313-314
Perhaps reflecting this new context of space security, when meeting with the heads of foreign air force delegations in November 2009, President Hu Jintao promised that China would “unswervingly uphold the principle of peaceful use of space and actively participate in international cooperation on space security.” 7 Li Daguang, a leading PLA space war expert known for his pessimistic views on international space cooperation, recently argued that “ensuring the peaceful use of outer space and preventing its weaponization represent a consensus of the international community.” 8 These messages show that China has perhaps modified its previous assessment of the feasibility of arms control in outer space. This shift, together with President Obama’s new space policies could dilute the security dilemma between China and the U.S. and pave the way for arms control.
No space weaponization now – the US is key
Krepon 5 – Michael Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs. Prior to co-founding Stimson, he worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Carter administration, and in the US House of Representatives, assisting Congressman Norm Dicks. Krepon received an MA from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and a BA from Franklin & Marshall College. He also studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. 2005, "Space Security or Space Weapons?" www.gsinstitute.org/docs/Stimson_Space_brief.pdf
The United States has a very important choice to make between space security and space weapons. Space security means that the satellites we depend on every day to save lives, grow our economy, and support national security will remain available when needed. No nation benefits more from space or has more to lose if space becomes a shooting gallery than the United States. Space is now mercifully free of weapons. The last Cold War test of a satellite-killing weapon occurred twenty years ago. This moratorium is now being challenged. The US Air Force has published and seeks to implement a new doctrine calling for space weapons. If the US tests and deploys these weapons, other nations will surely follow suit, and then everyone’s satellites will be endangered. Satellites are expensive and extremely hard to defend. Space weapons don’t cost very much and are easy to build. Debris in space kills indiscriminately. Space warfare would risk the loss of live-saving satellites. We can also expect far greater casualties in war. US leadership, global commerce, and US alliances will suffer. Space weapons undercut national and international security.
UX- space mill now, but not weaponization – there’s a key distinction
DeBlois 02(“Outer Space and Global Security, Militarization, Weaponization and Space Sanctuary: Past Dialogues, Current Discourse, Important Distinctions”, United States Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Abolish/OuterSpaceConfGeneva02/DeBloisConf2002.htm)
[To be clear on what is meant by space “weaponization,”……….. the current state of affairs reflects that space is currently militarized - but not weaponized. Globally, we are postured with communications and intelligence gathering capabilities that offer the possibility of everyone watching everyone – nurturing global stability. These capabilities are used in military force enhancement roles and are accurately referred to as “space militarization,” but few would argue that these force enhancement capabilities constitute “space weapons”. There may be latent terrestrial-to-space capable systems such as Airborne Lasers, but they are not dedicated ASAT systems, nor has their use as “space weapons” been exercised to any great extent. In fact, both Russia and the United States have opted in favor of restraint on ASAT deployment. So in these terms, the issue becomes clear: Given that space is currently militarized - but not weaponized….. should we allow space weaponization (either explicitly by collaborative and coordinated action, or implicitly by inaction)? At this juncture, I would simply like to frame the debate, by making several propositions, and several counter-propositions, as to the advent of space weapons. I will not attempt to support or attack these here, but I contend that they are credible, they are supportable, and they are at odds with each other – hence the debate]
No space weaponization now – Cold War weapons were destroyed
Krepon 5 – Michael Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs. Prior to co-founding Stimson, he worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Carter administration, and in the US House of Representatives, assisting Congressman Norm Dicks. Krepon received an MA from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and a BA from Franklin & Marshall College. He also studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. 2005, "Space Security or Space Weapons?" www.gsinstitute.org/docs/Stimson_Space_brief.pdf
SPACE IS NOW A SANCTUARY While satellites in space have long been used to assist military operations, space has remained a sanctuary free of weapons. No weapons have ever been deployed or used in space. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear testing above ground, and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans all weapons of mass destruction in space. Weapons in space can be particularly deadly. Low levels of radiation from nuclear tests in the atmosphere before 1963 linger to this day. Radiation from the Pentagon’s 1962 STARFISH nuclear test damaged or destroyed five US satellites and one British satellite. Ground-based, anti-satellite weapons were tested occasionally during the Cold War, and rudimentary satellite-killing weapons were considered ready for use during brief periods. These weapons were mothballed or destroyed. The sanctuary of space was protected during the Cold War. With wise leadership, it can remain protected today
Share with your friends: |
