Space Weaponization – 4 Week
a2: Self fulfilling prophency
Download 0.53 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2: Space Mil --> Arms Race
a2: Self fulfilling prophencyWeaponization is not a self-fulfilling prophecy Dolman 06 Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) (Everett C., “ A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html) To make the case fully, a brief discussion of operational warfare is necessary. I begin by defining the purpose of military strategy, which is “to manipulate the context of military conflict in order to maximize the advantages of one’s force structure.”4 Note that it is not to win wars, nor is the purpose of military force “to be used” for this or that effect. Such definitions are absurd. It would mean that at any moment an armed force is not actively engaged in battle, it is not fulfilling its purpose. Any moment that a B-1 is not dropping bombs, for example, it is wasted. Wars so construed would be waged solely for the purpose of making war, complying with Clausewitz’s under-appreciated dictum that “war may have its own grammar, but not its own logic.”5 The purpose of aircraft is thus not to bomb. The purpose of space weapons will not be to lase or in any other manner engage a target. These are effects that may support the strategist’s true purposes, as are freedom of movement in and maximization of support from air and space. Military force may not be the only means for obtaining such effects, but for the military planner, it is the only means available. This is where criticism leveled at military planners preparing for the use of space weapons continues to astonish. It is not the business of military strategists to dictate when and where military means should be employed. That responsibility lies with the political leadership. The military planner’s duty is to be prepared to use military means when and where instructed. Thus the Air Force’s duty is to plan for and prepare to use the military means in its control to most effectively accomplish its assigned tasks, within the limits placed upon it—including efforts to minimize collateral damage and loss of life. Therefore, we should not be discussing the correctness of the military’s planning to use weapons to engage in operations it has been assigned. If we decide we do not want weapons in space, then the military should not be given the responsibility of protecting our interests there. To do otherwise is absurd. Imagine relying on the U.S. Navy to guarantee freedom of the seas for American interests, but ordering it to so without the use of warships or any other form of martial force—even the latent threat of such force in reserve. We would be asking the Navy to guarantee a vital national interest without employing the only means at its disposal to do so. Thus, the Navy is equipped with the most modern weaponry, with which it trains incessantly, so that it may be available to perform the functions assigned to it A2: Space Mil --> Arms RaceOther states wouldn’t try to counter-balance – too costly Dolman 06 Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) (Everett C., “ A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html) In such circumstances, America certainly would respond eventually. Conversely, if America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the necessary infrastructure is too high—hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment needed to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the United States to entrench itself in space and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter U.S. deployments in kind. They might oppose U.S. interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the United States deploy weapons there—at least for the next few years—is extremely remote. Even if other countries initially dislike US space weapons, they’ll come to support its pacifying effects Dolman 06 Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) (Everett C., “ A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html) Moreover, if the United States were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient, such an action [End Page 171] would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems. Should the United States use its advantage to police the heavens and allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of low-Earth orbit could be viewed as a global asset and a public good. In much the same way the British maintained control of the high seas, enforcing international norms of innocent passage and property rights, the United States could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst of economic expansion. There is reasonable historic support for the notion that the most peaceful and prosperous periods in modern history coincide with the appearance of a strong, liberal hegemon. America has been essentially unchallenged in its naval dominance over the last 60 years, and in global air supremacy for the last 15 or more. Today, there is more international commerce on the oceans and in the air than ever. Ships and aircraft of all nations worry more about running into bad weather than about being commandeered by a military vessel or set upon by pirates. Search and rescue is a far more common task than forced embargo, and the transfer of humanitarian aid is a regular mission. Lest one think this era of cooperation is predicated on intentions rather than military stability, recall that the policy of open skies advocated by every president since Eisenhower did not take effect until after the fall of the Soviet Union and the singular rise of American power to the fore of international politics. The legacy of American military domination of the sea and air has been positive, and the same should be expected for 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 0.53 Mb. Share with your friends:
|