Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 Mercury China Coop Aff
Security/Pan K Link Turn (2/3)
Download 0.99 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Security/Pan K Link Turn (3/3)
Security/Pan K Link Turn (2/3)US cooperation in multilateral arms control prevents the securitization of space Coyle, senior advisor to the president of the World Security Institute, 7 (Phillip E – Center for Defense Information Senior advisor and defense analyst, The Chinese Satellite Destruction: What’s next, http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=3835&from_page=../program/document.cfm, Access: 6/30/11) AC However, an arms race in space does not need to follow from this Chinese test. China, one of three countries to have successfully launched astronauts into orbit, has consistently called for arms control in space. Since its ASAT test, China has restated officially that it wants the United States, Russia and other nations to develop a new global treaty to govern the use of outer space. “Space is the common property for humanity,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said at a recent press briefing in Beijing. “China is opposed to an arms race in space and we want to work toward having a treaty to govern the peaceful use of space.” In late January, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for a “weapons free outer space.” A Putin spokesman explained, “The fundamental position of the Russian Federation is that outer space should be absolutely weapons free.” On the other hand, U.S. officials seem to talk only of conflict and in the updated National Space Policy, released in October 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush asserted the right to use force against countries that disrupt American satellites. The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union completed the 1967 UN Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space -- the Outer Space Treaty, one which has been signed and ratified by 98 countries, including China. That treaty prohibits any nation from putting nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction into space or stationing them on any celestial body. Two years ago, the Canadian government announced that Canada would not participate in the kind of space warfare program that Kyl and Hunter now advocate. While expressing its continuing commitment to NORAD, the Canadian government said it would not join the Pentagon's missile defense program, the precursor to war in space. Why? Why did one of our closest partners, and neighbors, take this strong step? In part it was because Canadian citizens are justifiably skeptical of U.S. missile defense plans. Canadian citizens question that the United States can develop missile defenses that will be effective against enemy missiles under realistic operational conditions. And Canadians also question the costs, both the money and the consequences. But that was only part of their concern. Canada also did not want to be part of creating a new arms race in space. They understand that U.S. missile defense is the first wave in which the United States could introduce attack weapons into space, that is, weapons with strike capability, and Canada did not want to contribute to that. The Pentagon wants a layered missile defense system, with interceptors launched from land, sea, air, and space -- one that would be capable of shooting down enemy missiles in all phases of their flight. The idea is that if one layer misses, the next layer won't, and so forth. Pentagon briefings picture giant glass domes covering the United States, and we are to imagine that enemy missiles will bounce off these glass domes like hail off a windshield. And one of those glass domes is to be in space. But this debate is not just about missile defenses in space, it is also about deploying new strike weapons in space to attack the space assets of other countries. The terms the Pentagon and the Air Force use for this are space control and counter space -- that is, like “Star Wars,” the movie. Some observers may wish that space was pure and pristine with no military systems poised there for war -- like Antarctica. But the militarization of space is already a fact of life. Our military relies on space satellites for military communications, for reconnaissance and sensing, for weather, and for targeting. However, the weaponization of space hasn’t happened. There are no strike weapons deployed in space. So deciding not to deploy strike weapons in space -- or a “space-based test bed” -- is a practical place to draw the line, exactly what Canada did. In the United Nations, Canada, Russia and China have been urging this for years. But the United States has blocked these efforts. Reportedly, the U.S. Defense Department has even considered whether or not the United States should continue to participate in the Outer Space Treaty. Reporters could ask, “Why has the United States been blocking arms control in space? Doesn’t the United States with its heavy dependence on space satellites, have the most to lose? And why would President Bush, or those running for the presidency in 2008, consider abandoning an existing space treaty?” The United States has much more to lose from war in space than any other country. We Security/Pan K Link Turn (3/3)depend on space for both military and civil, commercial applications. For commerce, for communications, for weather, for banking, for global positioning and mapping, for scores of uses, commercial satellites in space now affect our daily lives. The 2008 Summer Olympics to be held in Beijing, and broadcast on television by satellite, will give Americans a new appreciation for the vast sweep of China. We can decide to continue sword rattling, poking that immense bear of a nation with a stick, or we can get down to cases with them, and work for arms control in space. Not since the development of the atomic bomb has the United States had an equivalent opportunity and incentive to show leadership for restraint in the development of a new class of weapons, namely weapons in space. 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:
|