Not Inevitable – a2: Human Nature

Not Inevitable – a2: Human Nature

The pro-weaponization adherents’ arguments of inevitability focus on the notion that the United States must have an early lead in space weapons or suffer the consequences. They have several reasons for believing in inevitability; however, each argument contains logical fallacies that preclude it from representing a rational policy. Karl Mueller of the International Studies Association best sums up the deficiency of their arguments, which are “based on a smattering of evidence and logic, extrapolated into facile overgeneralizations that are well-suited for television talk-show punditry but which provide a poor basis for national policymaking (Mueller).” Their first argument is that inevitability is a consequence of human nature. This is blatant pessimism as there are 5 many weapons such as chemical missiles and radiation bombs that provide tactical advantages but have been shied away from. Agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention banned the use of these weapons, because it is difficult to control their effects and they create hazardous environmental conditions. The signature of 182 states (Status) on this agreement signifies that logic can override baser instincts towards violence.

Not Inevitable – a2: Rivalry

Empirically denied – other ways to attack the US

Mueller 2 – Senior Political Scientist at RAND [Karl, “Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable?,” 3-27, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/mueller.html#_ftn34]
These are all reasonable arguments, but to conclude from them that space weaponization is inevitable, rather than merely possible or even likely, is unwarranted, for several reasons.  There is no question that space systems are a key center of gravity (or perhaps several) for U.S. military capabilities. An enemy that attacked them might be able to impair U.S. military operations very seriously, and this ranks high among threats that concern U.S. strategists. It need not follow from this that the enemies of the United States will do so, or invest in the weapons required to do so, however. The U.S. armed forces possess many important vulnerabilities that adversaries have often, even consistently, opted not to attack in past conflicts. To cite but one widely-discussed example, during Operation Allied Force in 1999, Serbia apparently did not attempt to mount special forces attacks against key NATO airbases in Italy or to use manportable missiles to shoot down aircraft operating from them during take-off or landing, although such an action could have profoundly disrupted the Alliance’s bombing campaign.^[35] Moreover, it is quite possible that if a potential enemy did want to develop the ability to attack U.S. space systems, it would choose to do so in ways—such as investing in ground-based ASAT lasers or computer network attack capabilities—that would not involve weaponizing space, and against which the logical defensive countermeasures would not involve placing U.S. weapons in orbit either. For military as well as commercial satellites, “bodyguard” weapons in space would offer protection only from certain sorts of attacks, while the terrestrial links in satellite systems would remain inviting targets. Again it is the transition to larger networks of smaller satellites that will do the most to reduce vulnerability, perhaps together with supplementing satellite platforms for some military functions with new types of terrestrial systems, such as high endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),^[36] and improving terrestrial weapons with which to attack ground-based ASATs and satellite launch and control facilities. Conversely, if the United States decides that it must have the ability to deny an enemy the use of its satellites, it is quite possible that the most attractive means for doing this will prove to involve non-space weapons and, to an even greater extent, tools that are not weapons in the conventional sense at all. Space-to-earth weapons are likely to prove to be less attractive than ASATs for the United States, which already possesses considerable ability to project military force around the world on short notice. Because orbital weapons offer only limited advantages over their terrestrial counterparts under most circumstances,^[37] it is not difficult to imagine the U.S. Government deciding not to deploy them, and instead choosing to invest in terrestrial systems for rapidly attacking distant and well-protected targets, such as conventionally armed ICBMs and hypersonic stand-off missiles. For their part, potential enemies of the United States may see space weapons as one of the few ways in which they could threaten to mount a substantial non-nuclear military attack against targets in the U.S. homeland, and yet still not opt to build them, since effective STEW will not be inexpensive, and as years of experience have shown, states at war with the United States have usually been inclined to pursue victory by means other than directly attacking North America. Boost-phase long-range ballistic missile defense against large enemy states is the single existing military mission for which space-based weapons present the only viable option. However, in spite of current U.S. enthusiasm for BMD, this is a mission in which the United States can afford not to invest for a variety or reasons^[38] (and if it isn’t, to say that space weaponization is inevitable because we are determined to build space weapons would be an intolerably circular argument). Rivals of the United States seem unlikely to build space-based BMD systems to protect themselves from missile attack either by the United States or regional adversaries in light of the alternatives.

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: