Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff
Impact Turn – Space Weaponization Solves Conflict
Download 2.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Impact Turn – Weaponziation Solves India-Pakistan War
- AT: Space Weapons Cause Miscalculation
Impact Turn – Space Weaponization Solves Conflict[____] [____] Space weaponization could prevent a nuclear war from starting. Dennis P. Tucker, Lieutenant Colonel, commander of the 336th Recruiting Squadron at Moody Air Force Base, June 2008, “PRESERVING UNITED STATES DOMINANCE: THE BENEFITS OF WEAPONIZING THE HIGH GROUND,” School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod.../display.aspx?... Finally, the most radical of the US pro-space weaponization advocates are the space hegemonists. This school of thought has roots in Lupton’s high-ground school, whose believers were focused on dominating space with space-based ballistic missile defenses so that a nuclear war could be deterred and or won by winning the war in space. Today the United States places less emphasis on deterring and winning a nuclear war than it did in the bipolar Cold War era, and the space hegemonists have branched out to cover the rest of the spectrum with their beliefs. They assert that space hegemony should be the goal—and that space is the critical battlefield where wars must be fought and won. In the words of Dr. Everett Dolman, “An optimum deployment of space assets is essential for victory on the current terrestrial and future space-based battlefields….In accordance with the examples set by Sir Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman, the formulation of a neoclassical astropolitical dictum is established: Who controls low-Earth orbit controls near-space. Who controls near-Earth space dominates Terra. Who dominates Terra determines the destiny of humankind.”16 In 1999, then-Senator Bob Smith, the most prominent spokesman for this perspective, clearly articulated the value of space weapons: American development of space weapons will buy generations of security that all the ships, tanks, and airplanes in the world will not provide…With credible offensive and defensive space control, we will deter and dissuade our adversaries, reassure our allies, and guard our nation’s growing reliance on global commerce. Without it, we will become vulnerable beyond our wildest dreams.17 Unlike space controllers who believe space weapons should be deployed as soon as they are militarily useful, the hegemonists are much more aggressive. They consider space weapons essential, and advocate their deployment as soon as possible. They believe these weapons will one day dominate terrestrial as well as outer space battlefields, and eventually will replace the need for most terrestrial weapons. Hegemonists believe that controlling space will truly lead to controlling the world.18 Impact Turn – Weaponziation Solves India-Pakistan War[_____] Effective militarization deters Indo-Pak war and aggression against the U.S. John J. Miller, national political reporter for the National Review and a Bradley fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 2002 “Our 'Next Manifest Destiny': America should move to control space -- now, and decisively” With the right mix of intellectual firepower and political muscle, the United States could achieve what Dolman calls "hegemonic control" of space. The goal would be to make the heavens safe for capitalism and science while also protecting the national security of the United States. "Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of their mission and flight plan would be permitted in space," writes Dolman. Anything else would be shot down. That may sound like 21st-century imperialism, which, in essence, it would be. But is that so bad? Imagine that the United States currently maintained a battery of space-based lasers. India and Pakistan could inch toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast from outer space. Without taking sides, the United States would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds. Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China, and Japan and South Korea from the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The United States would be covered as well, able not merely to deter aggression, but also to defend against it. Another open war between India and Pakistan would cause global nuclear war. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, WASHINGTON TIMES, September 8, 2001, p. 1 The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. AT: Space Weapons Cause Miscalculation[____] [____]Multiple historical examples prove that miscalculation or single strikes won’t escalate. Steven Lambakis, senior defense analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, 2001. Policy Review 105, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6612 Those who believe we run extraordinary risks stemming from clouded perceptions and misunderstandings in an age of computerized space warfare might want to take a look at some real-world situations of high volatility in which potentially provocative actions took place. Take, for example, the tragedies involving the USS Stark and USS Vincennes. In May 1987, an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet fighter attacked the Stark on patrol to protect neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 sailors. Iraq, a "near-ally" of the United States at the time, had never before attacked a U.S. ship. Analysts concluded that misperception and faulty assumptions led to Iraq’s errant attack. The memory of the USS Stark no doubt preoccupied the crew of the USS Vincennes, which little over a year later, in July 1988, was also on patrol in hostile Persian Gulf waters. The Vincennes crew was involved in a "half war" against Iran, and at the time was fending off surface attacks from small Iranian gunboats. Operating sophisticated technical systems under high stress and rules of engagement that allowed for anticipatory self-defense, the advanced Aegis cruiser fired anti-aircraft missiles at what it believed to be an Iranian military aircraft set on an attack course. The aircraft turned out to be a commercial Iran Air flight, and 290 people perished owing to mistakes in identification and communications. To these examples we may add a long list of tactical blunders growing out of ambiguous circumstances and faulty intelligence, including the U.S. bombing in 1999 of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during Kosovo operations. Yet though these tragic actions occurred in near-war or tinderbox situations, they did not escalate or exacerbate local instability. The world also survived U.S.-Soviet "near encounters" during the 1948 Berlin crisis, the 1961 Cuban missile crisis, and the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars. Guarded diplomacy won the day in all cases. Why would disputes affecting space be any different? Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> The harmony society Download 2.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|