Case Neg Masterfile Non-inherent



Download 212.96 Kb.
Page5/5
Date28.01.2017
Size212.96 Kb.
#9672
1   2   3   4   5

Containment DA Links

Perception link

Plan signals a shift away from US military space power and towards arms control- failure is inevitable


Bill Gertz, special security reporter, January 16, 2012, “New space-arms control initiative draws concern”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/new-space-arms-control-initiative-draws-concern/

Reaction John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador who held Ms. Tauscher’s post during the George W. Bush administration, said the initiative is symptomatic of the Obama administration’s ideological commitment to arms talks. “This is mindless,” Mr. Bolton said in an email. “The last thing the United States needs is a space code of conduct. The ideology of arms control has already failed in the Russian ‘reset’ policy, and it is sure to fail here as well.” Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney also expressed concerns about the arms-control plan. “U.S. military activities in space are a key strategic advantage for the United States,” Gen. McInerney said. “Any agreements that limit or constrain military space activities must be approached with extreme caution.” Two U.S. national security officials said the new talks are part of the administration’s arms-control-oriented national security policies, which place a priority on international agreements instead of developing military capabilities. Whether Strategic Command is concerned about the arms initiative was not certain. A State Department official confirmed that the administration will pursue an international code of conduct for space. An announcement is expected soon, the official said. Congress has not been briefed on the space-arms initiative. Hard questions Several House and Senate members are expected to ask the administration hard questions about the initiative in the coming weeks. Critics in Congress are likely to view the initiative as a way to circumvent the Senate’s treaty-making powers by concluding executive agreements that do not require ratification by the Senate.



US must work to maintain unilateral military power in space- other countries perceive vulnerabilities and will strike

Lamothe in 2016[Dan; national security reporter for the Washington Post; “Space warfare with Russia and China? Pentagon urged to prepare for it.”; Washington Post; 1/27/16; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/space-warfare-with-russia-and-china-pentagon-urged-to-prepare-for-it/]

Picture this: A Chinese fighter jet accidentally crashes into a Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane while attempting to buzz it over the South China Sea, killing all on board both aircraft. Fearing U.S. retaliation, China goes a relatively unexpected route: It uses surface-to-air missiles to shoot numerous U.S. satellites out of the heavens in quick succession. Very quickly, the Navy is forced to navigate the Pacific with little use of GPS and degraded communications, causing chaos and uncertainty. The Chinese strikes also have knocked out some of the Pentagon’s ability to control its arsenal of precision-guided weapons. None of this has happened. But the hypothetical scenario points out the reliance the Pentagon has on space and the military technology it keeps in it. Satellites have soared over the earth’s atmosphere for decades, providing the United States with a huge advantage militarily, even at a time when the conventional weapons U.S. rivals have are formidable. A new report released on Wednesday by the Center for a New American Security highlights the vulnerabilities the Pentagon has in space, and calls for a shift in strategy to safeguard it and prepare for conflict there. It’s written by senior fellow Elbridge Colby, a former member of the presidential campaign staff of Gov. W. Mitt Romney (R.-Mass.), and argues that potential adversaries like China and Russia have noticed the degree to which the United States is reliant on its “space architecture,” and begun to seek ways to threaten it. “Indeed, many observers have noted that these potential opponents judge the U.S. space architecture to be the Achilles’ heel’ of U.S. military power, in light of the depth of American reliance on theses systems and the vulnerability of the U.S. military satellite architecture,” the report said. Threats to satellites include not only missiles, but also cyber and electronic attacks that could disable them. In effect, Colby argues, “space is becoming a domain like any other — air, sea, land, and electromagnetic — in which the United States will have to compete and fight the ability to access and exploit the domain rather assume safe and uncontested passage within and use of it.”

Military Flex link

Code of conduct undermines US military power- we need flexibility in action to maintain superiority in space


Spring and Dodge in 2012 (Baker, F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy; Michaela, Senior Policy Analyst, Defense and Strategic Policy Center for National Defense; “More Limits on U.S. Space Systems Unacceptable;” The Heritage Foundation; January 24, 2012; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/us-space-policy-more-limits-on-space-systems-unacceptable

Section 2573 of Title 22 of the U.S. Code prohibits the Administration from taking any action, including entering into non-treaty agreements, that limit the armed forces of the U.S. in a militarily significant manner other than through treaty agreements or a specific congressional authorization. Since there is no specific authorization by Congress to limit U.S. military options in ways that will necessarily be a part of the Code of Conduct, the Obama Administration is legally required to negotiate the Code as a treaty document and make it subject to the advice and consent process. Despite this clear legal requirement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement commits the Administration to negotiate the Code of Conduct as a document that is not legally binding and not subject to any level of congressional review or approval. Congress, and the Senate in particular, should make it clear to the Administration that it is unacceptable for the Administration to pursue the kinds of limitations imposed by the Code of Conduct unless it takes the form of a treaty. Previously, the focus on using arms control to restrict space capabilities and activities was rooted in a treaty proposed by the governments of China and Russia for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), which would severely restrict U.S. military options and capabilities in space. This item was put on the agenda of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (CD). On June 4, 2011, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller told the CD that the U.S. had accepted this agenda.[2] Implicit in this announcement was that the U.S. would accept the PAROS Treaty proposed by China and Russia if the conference would conclude the negotiations on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which is also on the CD’s agenda. The FMCT purports to ban the future production of fissile material used in the production of nuclear weapons, but it is not verifiable. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration considers the conclusion of the FMCT to be an essential step on the path toward its goal of nuclear disarmament. Since May 2009, the CD’s agenda has not advanced.[3] The Secretary of State’s announcement regarding the Code of Conduct says nothing about whether the U.S., as a result, has also withdrawn its support for CD’s agenda and, by extension, the PAROS Treaty. In the absence of a clear statement by the Administration regarding the CD’s agenda, it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the negotiations on the Code of Conduct are designed to serve as a stalking horse for U.S. acceptance of the Chinese and Russian PAROS Treaty. In essence, the Administration’s acceptance of the CD’s agenda was to trade U.S. military superiority in space, giving states like China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia an advantage over the U.S. and its allies in the nuclear arena. Congress should make it clear to the Administration that dressing up this ill-considered trade in the guise of a negotiation on a space Code of Conduct does not make it acceptable. By accepting the code, the Administration would threaten the dominant U.S position in military and intelligence space capabilities, which provides the U.S. with enormous advantages over the enemy in the conduct, training, and support of military operations. In addition, the Administration is trying to circumvent the Senate’s advice and consent role. Congress should make it clear to the Administration that it will not tolerate an agreement that blurs the distinction between an arms control treaty and a law of war treaty. By extension, if the U.S. enters into international negotiations on a space Code of Conduct, it should mean that the U.S. is withdrawing its support for the agenda at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. Congress should vigorously defend its advice and consent role and demand the submission of the Code of Conduct as a treaty, rather than accepting the Administration’s fiction that it is anything else.

Download 212.96 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
white house office
american side