US weapons causes other countries to weaponize space
Hardesty 5 – Captain David C. Hardesty, U.S. Navy, member of the faculty of theNaval War College’s Strategy and Policy Department, "Space-Based Weapons: Long-Term Strategic Implications and Alternatives," 2005, www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521114&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Here again, the question of enemy reaction is critical. It seems likely that given the U.S. reliance on space assets, once the United States deploys RF space-control weapons, other nations will find it to their advantage to do the same. However, their lack of detailed intelligence on target vulnerabilities may drive them to different space-control solutions. An opponent might fall back on an offensive concept, using large numbers of destructive weapons—again, with a premium on first use. Placing space mines in the immediate vicinity of high-value American satellites would likely be a major component of an opponent’s strategy. These weapons could be fairly lightweight and possess considerable range. “For example, a directional fragmentation warhead similar to that of a Claymore mine could project 100,000 one-gram pellets in a pattern that would cover a 100 x 100 meter area with 10 pellets per square meter at a range of 1 kilometer.” 17 One approach to the space mine is to “design a very small stealth weapon that is moved into position over a long period of time” and in secrecy. 18 However, while a stealthy space mine has definite advantages, it is not clear that an unobserved approach is required. In a fully weaponized space environment, U.S. space-based lasers and mirrors, each capable of attacking satellites thousands of kilometers away, threaten distant satellites as much as would a space mine in close proximity. In any case, until space mines actually damaged or interfered with their victims, it would be difficult to challenge their legitimacy. To attack or disable them as a potential threat would set a precedent for preemptive strikes against U.S. space-based weapons, if not all its satellites. Thus, it is likely that other countries will respond to deployment of space-based weapons by the United States with space-control programs of their own. Lower-technology kinetic weapons may even be seen as attractive deterrents to the sophisticated, reversible effects preferred by the United States. Would we jam a surveillance satellite, however important, if it meant having one of ours destroyed by a space mine? Would we not be deterred by the prospect of seeing the critical low-earth and geosynchronous orbital zones littered with the debris of kinetic weapons? In this area, simplicity may offer advantages to the opposition.
Other countries will build space weapons in response to US
Lewis 4 – Jeffrey Lewis, postdoctoral fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, July 2004, “What if Space Were Weaponized?” Center for Defense Information, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
It is important to understand that there is another, more likely “inevitability” involved if the United States pursues these capabilities, that is: other nations almost assuredly would, too. Although Russia and China have declared a moratorium on ASAT testing, it would be irresponsible for either state not to acquire their own deterrent to potential U.S. ASAT attacks. Russian and Chinese ASATs may, in turn, be a reason (or, perhaps, just an excuse) for states such as India to follow suit. Still other countries – and this includes North Korea and probably Iran – that have the desire, but not yet the skills, would then be able to “draft” in the wake of the big powers through espionage, declassification and, perhaps, the black market. The point is this: once the United States has gone down the ASAT road, there likely won’t be an option of negotiating a ban on ASATs or discouraging the proliferation of legitimate dual-use technologies such as microsatellites. As we have learned with nuclear and missile proliferation, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out for good.
Space weaponization spills over globally
Lewis 4 – Jeffrey Lewis, postdoctoral fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, July 2004, “What if Space Were Weaponized?” Center for Defense Information, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
Space weapons are frightening to potential opponents – this presents both opportunities and dangers. On one hand, proponents of space weapons focus on the ability of such weapons to dissuade potential opponents from developing certain military capabilities and deter them from threatening U.S. interests. Although space weapons may dissuade some states from investing in, for example, ballistic missiles, two states – Russia and China – are unlikely to get out of the business of nuclear deterrence. Both states are the subject of extensive nuclear war planning by the United States, despite political rhetoric from Washington about “moving beyond” the Cold War. Far from leaving behind such concerns, the most recent Nuclear Posture Review recommends sizing the U.S. nuclear forces for “immediate and unexpected contingencies.”30 The NPR identifies China as “a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency” and notes that “a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected.”31
Space mill bad-angers international actors
O'Hanlon 11(senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he specializes in U.S. defense strategy and budgeting, homeland security, Northeast Asian security, and humanitarian intervention. He is also adjunct professor at the public policy school of Columbia University, a visiting lecturer at Princeton University, and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations."[1], Balancing U.S. Security Interests in Space)
Non-American opponents of weaponizing space also worry about a unilateralist America pursuing its own military advantage at the expense of other countries, most of which do not favor putting weapons in space. This dispute has much of its origins and motivation in the history of the ballistic missile defense debate, as well as in the antisatellite weapons debate of the 1980s. But it has taken on a new tone in what many view as an era of American unipolarity or hegemony. In recent years, China and Russia have been consistent in their opposition to the weaponization of space and in their desire for a treaty banning the testing, deployment, and use of weapons in space.3 So have a number of U.S. allies, including Canada, which proposed in 1998 that the United Nations (UN) convene a committee on outer space during its conference on disarmament in Geneva.4 The UN General Assembly passed resolutions for more than 20 straight years opposing the weaponization of space.
Space militarization causes arms race with other international actors
Graham 2-Thomas Graham, Former Ambassador, International Law and the Military Uses of Space, April 2002, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77mkmh.htm
[The realisation of the increasing vulnerability of the United States to attacks against space assets has caused some to encourage Washington to begin to deploy defensive weapon systems to protect those assets from new weapons. While this could appear to make sense on a visceral or superficial level, a thoughtful analysis of the history of military development reveals basic flaws with this notion. Most importantly, history categorically demonstrates that effective defensive weapon systems will inevitably be countered by effective offensive systems, sparking an ever-spiralling arms race that ultimately leaves all sides less secure. For evidence supporting this contention, one need look no further than the second half of the 20th century and the nuclear arms race that dominated it. Until the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972, effectively preventing each side from deploying defensive systems, the world was engaged in a nuclear confrontation constantly threatening to escalate out of control. For this reason, I believe that - as with the Antarctic Treaty and the strategic nuclear arms control accords of the last three decades - the international community of space-faring nations will ultimately recognise the need for restraint and seek to develop some legal regime to preserve outer space as a non-militarised - or at least non-weaponised - realm. It is crucial that this happen as soon as possible.]
Space weaponization causes space race – countries want to counter US weapons
Zhang 5 – Hui Zhang, research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, December 5, 2005, “Action/Reaction: U.S. Space Weaponization and China,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1943
One major Chinese concern about U.S. space weaponization plans, as addressed frequently in statements at the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD), is that the deployment of space weapons “will disrupt strategic balance and stability, undermine international and national security and do harm to the existing arms control instruments, in particular those related to nuclear weapons and missiles, thus triggering new arms races.”[14] Because space weapons are at once threatening and vulnerable, it is reasonable to assume that other countries would attempt to block such a move by political and, if necessary, military means. One possible response, for example, would be the development of anti-satellite weapons to target space-based weapon systems. It is widely believed that space weapons and sensor satellites would themselves become prime high-value targets and the most vulnerable elements for defense suppression attacks.[15] It is reasonable to believe that other countries could resort to a number of low-cost and relatively low-technology anti-satellite devices to counter those critical and vulnerable U.S. space-based weapons. Eventually, China fears that the U.S. space weaponization plan would lead to an arms race in outer space and turn outer space into a battlefield.
Nuclear weapons analogy proves other countries will follow US in space proliferation
Lowery 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
It is clear that the weaponization of space is not inevitable. However, does the concern of foreign weaponization justify the pursuit of space weapons anyway? The answer is an emphatic no. Although doing so would seem to increase the asymmetric space advantage the US has, it would actually have a destabilizing effect and result in a decreased advantage. The idea of space weapons brings to mind visions of military omnipotence, with the US able to easily strike down any adversary without fear of retaliation. Such an ability would deter many conflicts. A similar rationale developed in the 1940s with the creation of the atom bomb. It too seemed to provide infinite power that would cause the rest of the world to kneel before the US or suffer unimaginable retaliation. This idea worked once, ending World War II. Once the atom bomb became public, it sparked a massive arms race as other nations developed nuclear power. The stockpiling of nuclear arms led to the Cold War, an era defined by a world on the brink of destruction and rapidly shifting political climates. It is not a large leap in logic to conclude that since space weapons offer advantages of similar magnitude to nuclear weapons, their development will cause a similar situation. Other nations will not stand idle as the US weaponizes space—they will follow suit. In the end, space will become a volatile political liability and the medium for a new Cold War–style weapons spiral.
Share with your friends: |
