|
This disadvantage explores a potential underside of the exploration of space. Currently, there is a debate about what the uses of space should be in the future. Many believe that space should be treated and thought of essentially as another large ocean – meaning that it should be free for all to use as they please for trade and growth. Another key component of this view is that space should remain free of weapons that could disrupt peaceful activities and trade. Another view of space resembles modern day colonialism – that space represents property for the taking, and that countries that reach it have the right to place weapons in space to defend their new resources. Space is seen as “the ultimate high ground,” and control of it will make a country safer.
President George W. Bush held the latter view of space. His statements warned other countries that the U.S. had the right to place weapons in space and would do so when they became sufficiently advanced. This concerned many countries who wanted to use space for their own purposes and who were uneasy with the idea of America dominating space, a position they could easily use to harm other countries. Many felt that before President Bush, a custom had been established to use space peacefully. President Obama reversed America’s policy towards space: he has recently endorsed a peaceful vision for cooperation in space, claiming that it should be free of weapons. As a result, the uniqueness evidence claims that space will remain free of weapons for the future.
The problem is that new attempts at space exploration have the potential to upset this agreement. Developing new technology for space is almost always “dual use,” which means it can be used for both peaceful and militaristic objectives. The disadvantage claims that the technology that would come about as a result of the plan would eventually be used to develop better space weapons, which could ultimately upset the fragile international balance and result in conflict in space.
Glossary
Militarization – the act of assembling and putting into readiness for war or other emergencies. Space is currently militarized because there are many things in space that aid the U.S.’s ability to win wars, such as GPS and communications satellites.
Weaponization – the act of placing offensive weapons into space. Space is currently not weaponized because these do not exist. Even though there are satellites in space that aid the U.S. military, they cannot themselves function easily as weapons. Instead, they support other weapons.
Arms control – international agreements that limits the number or types of weapons that countries may possess. Bans on biological weapons are examples of arms control.
Isolationist – a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interest of other countries, receding from international relations.
Dual use – Technology that is dual use can be used for more than one purpose. In this context, dual use technologies can be used for both peaceful and military means.
Interceptor – a fast aircraft for repelling hostile aircraft.
Challenger disaster – Refers to the Space Shuttle Challenger, which crashed in 1986, killing every crew member aboard.
Military industrial complex – A country’s military and the companies that supply it with arms and technology.
Transparency – refers to behavior characterized by openness, communication, and accountability with other countries
Hair trigger – a firearm set to go off at the slightest disturbance or signal
Insidious - Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects
Moratorium – a ban.
Nexus – the intersection
Hegemony – Leadership or dominance in a particular area by a country.
Unilateral – an action taken unilaterally is taken on one’s own, without asking others permission beforehand.
HLV – heavy lift vehicle. The largest class of space ship.
ICBM – Intercontinental Ballistic missiles. ICBMs are large missiles that hold several nuclear weapons that can travel thousands of miles across the globe to reach their target.
NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
ASAT – Anti Satellite weapons
TCBM – transparency and confidence building measures
Space Weaponization 1NC Shell [1/3]
A. Uniqueness. Obama’s new space policy is moving away from space weaponization – putting weapons into space. However, the future of weapons in space will depend on future U.S. policies.
Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of the Space Review, editor and publisher of The Space Review, 6/27/11, “The national space policy, one year later,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1873/1
One major difference widely cited between the current administration’s space policy and the one released by the George W. Bush Administration in 2006 has been its tone. The Obama Administration’s policy has been more open to international cooperation on various issues, although it retains language from previous policies that puts strict guidance on when the US should sign onto space arms control measures. Previous US views on space issues, including space arms control, “was not received well by the international community,” said Ben Baseley-Walker, advisor on security policy and international law for the Secure World Foundation. “It was seen as inconsistent, it was seen as antagonistic, and it was seen as isolationist.” That view can’t be immediately changed, he said, but the new space policy takes steps in that direction. “What the national space policy has done is to start to rebuild trust, start to rebuild consistency, and start to rebuild the reliability of the US as an internationally-engaged partner.” Just how willing the US is to be a better international partner will depend on not just the words in the policy, but other forces, notably funding, that force the US to engage more with other nations. “The US has not been put into a situation financially, or on specific limitations on the goals it wants to achieve, to have to deal with international partners,” he said. That could change down the road, he noted, such as when—at some time after 2020—the International Space Station is retired, at which time it’s possible the only space station in orbit is Chinese.
B. Space exploration paves the way for increased weaponization. All technology developed for exploration is “dual use” and can be used to develop weapons to put in space.
Raymond D. Duvall, and Jonathan Havercroft , Professor at the University of Minnesota & Professor at the University of Victoria, March 22-25,2006, “Taking Sovereignty Out of This World: Space Weaponization and the Production of Late-Modern Political Subjects,” http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/8/6/8/pages98680/p98680-1.php
The weaponization of space—the act of placing weapons in outer space—has an intimate relationship to space exploration, in that the history of the former is embedded in the latter, while the impetus for space exploration, in turn, is embedded in histories of military development. Since the launch of Sputnik, states that have ability to access— and hence to explore—outer space have sought ways in which that access could improve their military capabilities. Consequently, militaries in general and the U.S. military in particular have had a strong interest in the military uses of space for the last half century. Early on, the military interest in space had two direct expressions: enhancing surveillance; and developing rocketry technologies that could be put to use for earth based weapons, such as missiles. Militaries also have a vested interest in the “dual-use” technologies that are often developed in space exploration missions. While NASA goes to great lengths in its public relations to stress the benefits to science and the (American) public of its space explorations, it is noteworthy that many of the technologies developed for those missions also have potential military use.
Share with your friends: |
