Space Debris 2NC --- Link Extension

Space mill could kill environment space debris and other aspects

[Weaponizing space would further exacerbate current problems with space debris.17 Even worse, some scientists warn that if a number of satellites are destroyed in the course of a war, the Earth would be encased in a cloud of debris that would prevent future satellite stationing and space access.18 Given concerns over the space debris issue, senior scientists in China have emphasized that preventing environmental pollution should not only apply on Earth, but should also apply in outer space. As Xiangwan recently noted, "prevention of pollution in space should be put on an agenda and as time goes by, this problem will become increasingly obvious." He further states: "In preventing space pollution, the following two issues are worth noticing: space garbage and weaponization of space." "[W]eaponization of space is more dangerous than ordinary space garbage," since "it will seriously pollute space" and "it will threaten peace and stability on the Earth."19 ]

Space wep bad causes environment and space debris

Krepon 4 - Michael Krepon, 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 co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs., Safeguarding Space for All: Security and Peaceful Uses—Conference Report, 25–26 March 2004, SPACE ASSURANCE OR SPACE WEAPONS
The weaponization of space is an environmental as well as a national security issue. The environmental degradation of space created by spacefaring nations constitutes a danger to space exploration, the space shuttle and other peaceful uses of space. Space litter also poses difficulties for the military uses of space. The weaponization of space, particularly with respect to the flight-testing of ASAT weapons, would greatly compound existing concerns over safe passage. In the event of a resumption of ASAT tests, the Pentagon would attempt to mitigate space debris, as it does with respect to missile defence tests. Other states that test ASATs might not be as conscientious about debris mitigation. The actual use of ASATs would compound these dangers exponentially. Debris fields in the upper reaches of space could be more long lasting than environmental degradation on Earth. Traffic management and debris mitigation efforts are essential components of space assurance.

Space Debris 2NC --- Turns Case

Space weaponization creates space debris that stops further exploration

Johnson 3 – Dr Rebecca Johnson is the Executive Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, based in London, and has written widely on nonproliferation, arms control and space security policy. 2003, "Security Without Weapons in Space: Challenges and Options," www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art1990.pdf
As noted by Joel Primack, one of the premier experts on the problems of space debris, “Weaponization of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes”. 23 Such a scenario would cause the Earth to be effectively entombed, jeopardizing the possibility of further space exploration and greatly complicating civilian uses. In addition, Joel Primack speculates that even a small number of “hits” in space could create sufficient debris to cause a cascade of further fragmentation (a kind of chain reaction). This, in turn, could potentially damage the Earth’s environment and, as the sun’s rays reflect off the dust, cause permanent light pollution, condemning us to a “lingering twilight”. 24

Space weapons bad causes space debris and hurts future space development

Moltz 2- James Moltz, Department of National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Protecting safe access to space: Lessons from the first 50 years of space security, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd63/63op1.htm
[A major problem in past and current arguments supporting testing and deployment of constellations of weapons in space has been the threat of possible—and indeed predictable—“collateral” damage to other space assets. China's 2007 test is a case in point since the USA has already had to move a NASA satellite to avoid a deadly collision, but there are corollaries in the 1962 US and Soviet nuclear ABM tests in space, in the 1968–1982 Soviet ASAT test program, and in the 1985 US ASAT test. The main risks to date have been EMP radiation from nuclear tests and orbital debris from kinetic weapons. Both of these threats are significant, and there is no currently available means to remediate them artificially. For this reason, any space-faring country considering the deployment of any significant constellation of space weapons faces the dangerous consequence of likely damage to its own space assets and those of others in the testing and deployment stages (as well as in any possible use scenarios). Such concerns clearly affected US and Soviet government plans regarding nuclear testing in space, as they do current global attitudes regarding the testing of debris-producing, kinetic-kill weapons against space-based objects. Unlike other environments of international activity, space competition is affected in unique ways by orbital physics. Compared to the collective “good” of safe access to orbital space, we can consider space radiation and debris as collective “bads.”⁹ This does not keep states from periodically attempting to overcome these limitations, as seen in China's 2007 test. But it does create significant operational obstacles to continuing such harmful behavior, as well as stimulating widespread international pressure to prevent it. These constraints are increasing over time, not decreasing, as space becomes more crowded. Thus, critics of space arms control miss the point when they discount the possibility of unique military restraint in space as a “fallacy.”¹⁰ Instead, it is a far worse “fallacy” to believe that states can overcome the laws of orbital physics. Put simply, orbital warfare on any scale cannot occur without ruining critical regions of space (such as low-Earth orbit) for other purposes. As few as a dozen explosions—capable of releasing some 420,000 fragments of dangerous space debris—could effectively shut down this region for decades. Thus, to expect that countries will act against their own interests by using space in this way is counterintuitive. To date, we have seen a powerful logic of “environmental security” at work in space. When countries have crossed the line in terms of damage to space, they have retreated (or been pushed) backwards by the risk of a loss of access.]

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 1.17 Mb.

Share with your friends: