Inevitable – State Rivalry

Inevitable – State Rivalry

The core of this inevitability argument is that even (or especially) if the United States chooses not to build space weapons, other countries will certainly do so, in large part because of the great and still growing degree to which U.S. military operations depend upon what has traditionally been known as “space force enhancement”: the use of satellites to provide a vast array of services including communications, reconnaissance, navigation, and missile launch warning, without which American military power would be crippled.  This parallels the argument that the importance of satellites to the U.S. economy will make them an irresistible target, except that military satellites are far more indispensable, and successful attacks against a relatively small number of them could have a considerable military impact, for example by concealing preparations for an invasion or by disrupting U.S. operations at a critical juncture.^[34]  Rivals of the United States might also find space-to-earth weapons to be a very attractive way to counter U.S. advantages in military power projection.

Inevitable – Human Nature

Space Militarization is Inevitable – it’s human nature

Smith 01’ – researcher at the School of Advanced Air Power Studies

M.V. SMITH, TEN PROPOSITIONS REGARDING SPACEPOWER, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/smith.pdf

Humanity has attempted to prevent or delay the proliferation of weapons for centuries, but history suggests that mankind is driven to develop new weapons.¹⁹⁶ For example, in 1139, at the Second Lateran Council, the Church banned the crossbow for being too lethal.¹⁹⁷ However, within a millennium, humans built nuclear weapons and used them in war. Competition is part of the human condition, and war is a natural expression of this condition. If this were not so, states would likely have forgone their military establishments and preparations for war a long time ago. We are not at the end of history, states still vie for power in anarchic international system and will compete in every medium of human endeavor. Former Secretary of the Air Force, Sheila E. Widnall states, .We have a lot of history that tells us that warfare migrates where it can that nations engaged in a conflict do what they can, wherever they must. Space is already militarized by virtue of the force enhancements derived from current systems on orbit. Going one step further and weaponizing space is only a matter of time. Barry Watts believes weaponizing space may come about in one of two ways. First, there may be a dramatic trigger event, such as the use of nuclear weapons to attack orbital or terrestrial assets, which compels states to place weapons in space. Second, there may be a slippery slope wherein a series of small, seemingly innocuous developments in orbital capabilities over several years that would, in hindsight, be recognized as having crossed the boundary of weaponizing space. There is a growing national debate on the issue of weaponizing space, initially sparked by President Reagan.s Strategic Defense Initiative and now reinvigorated by President George W. Bush.s advocacy for a missile defense system. Although President Bush never mentioned placing weapons in space as part of his plan, his critics, such as Senate Majority Leader, the Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, claim this is implicit in his argument because space is the ideal place to station a small number of assets that can provide a global capability.

Not Inevitable

Space weaponization is not certain – superpowers already abandoned their weapons

Hardesty 05 – President of West Virginia University, J.D. from Harvard Law School, and a B.A./M.A. from Oxford University, former Tax Commissioner of West Virginia (David C. Hardesty “Space-Based Weapons: Long-Term Strategic Implications and Alternatives,” Spring 2005, http://www.usnwc.edu/press/review/documents/NWCRSP05.pdf) MH
As for the inevitability argument, Dr. Karl P. Mueller concludes that arguments based on human nature or historical analogies to the air and sea are “thought-provoking but ultimately weak.” They do not account for the fact that though some nations continue to possess banned chemical and biological weapons, there is no clamor in the United States to deploy such weapons in such large numbers on the ground that their further spread is inevitable. “Perhaps most strikingly of all, even among space weapons advocates one does not find voices arguing that the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit is inevitable based on the rule that weapons always spread.” The analogy to the medium of air also has significant holes. Less than fifteen years after the first powered flight, mili- tary aircraft were carrying out reconnaissance, offensive and defensive counterair, and strategic and tactical bombing missions. In contrast, over forty-five years after Sputnik, space-based counterspace and terrestrial bombardment is not being conducted, long after the technical capability emerged. “In fact, both superpowers did develop anti-satellite interceptors, but then abandoned their ASAT programs, something utterly without precedent in the history of air power that casts further doubt on the soundness of the analogy.”
Weaponization not inevitable – no other country has the capability

Park 6 – J.D. Candidate 2006, University of Houston Law Center; M.A., New York University; B.A., Columbia University. received the 2005 Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. Award for Outstanding Comment in International Law. (Andrew T. Park “INCREMENTAL STEPS FOR ACHIEVING SPACE SECURITY: THE NEED FOR A NEWWAY OF THINKING TO ENHANCE THE LEGAL REGIME FOR SPACE,” 2006, http://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdf) MH
The fallacy of the inevitability argument is that, in the short run at least, the United States is the only country that possesses the resources and capabilities necessary to deploy space weapons. This has never been the case in American history. As one historian notes, from the "development of ironclad warships in the 1860s, Dreadnought battleships after 1900, or atomic weapons in the 1940s," different nations were simultaneously developing the same technology. This left a choice to the different governments to either take the lead in the arms race or get passed by. In the space weapons debate, in contrast, "the United States can unilaterally [for the time being] choose whether space will be weaponized." Consequently, the United States controls the inevitability of space weaponization. This conviction is dangerously close to evolving into a self-fulfilling prophecy that simply cannot be refuted.
Even if it is inevitable – we should do everything we can to avoid it

Mueller 6 (Karl P,  Senior Political Scientist at RAND, “Toward a U.S. Grand Strategy in Space,” 3-10, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/408.pdf)
Pete has talked a bit about the argument that weapons in space are inevitable. Somebody will do it eventually and it is probably better to do it first than to play catch-up so we might as well go ahead and do it. You often see statements by people saying that, “I really wish there weren’t weapons in space, but since they are coming, I think we ought to go first.” There are many arguments about why space weapons may not actually be inevitable, but the inevitability is not really the question. Someday somebody will put a weapon in space, but assuming that is true, what really matters is when it is going to happen if we don’t do anything and what form it is going to take and, given the various policy options you might pursue, what impact those will have on when it happens, whether it happens, and what form it takes. Death is inevitable, but if you want to live a long time, you do things to affect when it happens to you and how it happens. This also applies to space policy. It is also important to keep in mind, of course, that what we do with national space security is not going to determine the answer to whether space gets weaponized, except to the extent that if we do it, that answers the question. But it is likely to affect how it happens, even though we are not completely masters of our own fate here.

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: