Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 Mercury China Coop Aff
Coop Good – AT – Containment Good
Download 0.99 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Coop Good – Cost
Coop Good – AT – Containment GoodEven if containment is good only cooperation makes it effective Quigley, Maj, USAF, 9 (Erik N., “GEO-POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO CHINA‘S RISE IN SPACE POWER” AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY, April, pg 25-26 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539644&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, accessed July 1, 2011, EJONES) Once a solid revised national strategy, robust space acquisition funding levels, and GCC contingency plans are in place, US decision makers and warfighters need to know when and how to best employ them. To help dictate the execution of a solid national strategy and application of US space power, US leadership must gain and maintain a constant sight picture into China‘s true military space ambitions. In a similar light with current US national strategy‘s predominant theme of economic cooperation and partnering with China, US leadership should also push for open and honest international dialogue on space capability. Interaction between US-China military space development and employment activities should have a purpose to find mutual benefits for both countries‘ military space programs. For example, sharing information on heat shielding or hyper-sonic technologies could extend benefits into each country‘s civil space program and economy as well. In turn, cooperative efforts in space R&D may lead China scientists to be more open with their military space applications. It is short-sighted to believe that Chinese transparency will improve simply by establishing a strong economic partner since each country has realist intentions to first consider. Pursuing a confrontational policy with China backfires – plan comparatively better for relations and coop Jinnette, Lieutenant Colonel, 9 (James G., Strategy Research Project, “US China Policy: Time for Robust Engagement”, p. 7, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA497538) PG Policy Option B. An alternate, yet confrontational China policy option might be to pursue an aggressive, protectionist posture which assumes a hard-line against China, especially in the areas of trade policy, Taiwan, space, and resources. If the Obama administration were to choose to work towards this unlikely option, it might select aggressive actions to counter China’s efforts towards global engagement at perceived American expense. Within a hard-hit US economy, this might be perceived by some to be part of an immediate solution to economic turmoil, especiall y for labor unions and industry currently affected by low-cost Chinese labor, currency manipulation, and trade deficits. Congress currently has many staunch advocates for aggressive measures, such as ‘human-rights’ preconditions designed to moderate labor costs in US favor. Furthermore, China is clearly engaged around the world as it expands its military, and probes deeply into African and Latin markets to secure resources. Over the long term, an aggressive counter strategy may be seen as an effective policy to counter China’s global reach. China has demonstrated that it respects assertive US actions in the Pacific, and today’s China appears to have a live-and-let-live policy as it inwardly pursues a vibrant internal economy. Unfortunately, although aggressive economic protectionism coupled with a provocative military policy may be one method to steer Chinese actions over the short term, this sort of aggressive posture against China would likely damage the relationship severely over the coming decades. Most importantly, this approach could neutralize US efforts to encourage Chinese diplomatic support for US interests, such as the Korea-focused six-party talks. Ultimately, an increasingly confrontational China policy would become a self-defeating strategy for America, and therefore should be a non-starter in the policy debate.
(Aaron R., Advancing Sino-U.S. Space Cooperation, April 2009, p. 15, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA539619, accessed 6/29/11) EK Another benefit mentioned earlier is cost savings, which would be attractive for both nations. For most countries, budgets for space are insufficient or limited to the point where they depend on international space cooperation to meet their goals.85 Exceptions to this in some degree are Russia, the U.S. and China, as all have achieved their own manned space programs. President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” announcement in 2004 called for “redirecting NASA’s human exploration program from low Earth orbit to the Moon, Mars, and worlds beyond.”86 The timeframe specified in this announcement for the return to the moon was between 2015-2020, carrying a price tag of $104 billion.87 China too has ambitions for manned missions to moon, so spreading the cost could prove beneficial to both nations. Coop in space reduces costs for the US Broniatowski, Faith, and. Sabathier, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2006 [D. A., G. Ryan, Vincent G, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Human Space Exploration Initiative “The Case for Managed International Cooperation in Space Exploration” , 2006, Pages 1-2 http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060918_managed_international_cooperation.pdf , accessed 7/8/11, HK] It is common knowledge that international cooperation in space exploration has the potential to reduce a partner’s costs by spreading the burden to other nations. Although additional overhead costs increase the overall cost of any international cooperative endeavor, these costs are spread among partners. As per-partner cost decreases, per-partner utility increases. Space exploration has proven to be an expensive activity. Indeed, the more that any given admini-stration and Congress must spend to maintain and/or expand the functionality of a program like the ISS, the less util-ity will be derived. Therefore, a nation will have an incentive to engage in international cooperation when doing so can reduce that nation’s costs. This is particularly true for nations whose space exploration budget is insufficient to execute their space exploration goals. Aside from the United States, and possibly China, international cooperation is necessary for all other space-faring nations simply due to the large costs involved. 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 0.99 Mb. Share with your friends:
|