The Revolutionary Socialist Network, Workers
Space dev is polluted by Capitalistic rhetoric, any action will end up greasing the wheels of capitalism
Download 2.09 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC -- Ext: Space Cyber Assets Rehighlights ↓
- Adversarial intent is certain ; it’s only a question of NATO resolve .
- Chinese ASAT attacks create an open window for invasion of Taiwan--- extinction .
Space dev is polluted by Capitalistic rhetoric, any action will end up greasing the wheels of capitalism.Shammas et Hollen 19 (Dr. Victor Lund Shammas is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of Agder, Norway, Tomas B Hollen is an independent scholar and journalist, , 1-29-2019, "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9) - EM It is not humankind but capitalistkind that ventures forth. In early 2018, NASA was set to request $150 million in its 2019 budget to ‘enable the development and maturation of commercial entities and capabilities which will ensure that commercial successors to the ISS…are operational when they are needed', only one of many signs that space is becoming a space for capitalism. According to one estimate, the value of just one single asteroid would be more than $20 trillion in rare earth and platinum-group metals (Lewis, 1996), a precious prize indeed for profit-hungry corporations.Footnote10 Even the UNOOSA spoke vociferously in favor of the commercialization of space, appealing variously to the ‘industry and private sector' and elevating the ‘space economy' to a central pillar in its Space2030 Agenda (including the ‘use of resources that create and provide value and benefits to the world population in the course of exploring, understanding and utilizing space'), even as the UN agency falls back on a humanistic, almost social-democratic vision of the equitable distribution of benefits (and profits) from space mining, exploration, and colonization (UNOOSA, 2018). 2NC -- Ext: Space Cyber Assets Rehighlights ↓ASATs AdvantagePresent NATO commitments in space have fostered strategic ambiguity AND capability gaps for Russia and China to exploit---effectively opening grey zones for China and Russia to test NATO resolve. Only the plan creates united NATO capabilities to deter adversaries.Aurel Sari & Hitoshi Nasu 21. Associate Professor of International Law and Director of the Exeter Centre for International Law, University of Exeter; Fellow, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. The views expressed are those of the author in a personal capacity; Professor of International Law, University of Exeter; Senior Fellow, Stockton Center for International Law, United States (US) Naval War College. The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the US Government, the US Department of the Navy, or the US Naval War College. “NATO and Collective Defense in Space: Same Mission, New Domain”, ECIL Working Paper 2021/2 (forthcoming in Turkish Policy Quarterly, Summer 2021, Vol 20, No 2, https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/collegeofsocialsciencesandinternationalstudies/lawimages/research/Sari_and_Nasu_-_NATO_and_Collective_Defence_in_Space_-_ECIL_WP_2021-2.pdf //EM Strategic Ambiguity: How Much is too Much? Overall, the Brussels Communiqué sends a strong signal that the Allies are prepared to defend their interests in space, including through the use of force if necessary. However, the clarity of this message is diluted by the uncertainty surrounding the exact conditions which may prompt the Allies to invoke Article 5 in response to an armed attack. This ambiguity may be seen as an asset: leaving hostile powers guessing the exact conditions that could trigger a forceful military response by the Alliance may prompt those powers to proceed with greater caution.25 Strategic ambiguity thus has its benefits. However, hostile actors may also read it as a lack of resolve. In the present case, at least two factors may encourage such a reading. The first relates to the uncertain parameters of the right of self-defense itself and the ambiguities that surround its application in space.26 For example, could non-kinetic interference against space-based assets or services, such as signal jamming, rise to the level of an armed attack? If so, under what circumstances does such interference satisfy the gravity threshold required to constitute an armed attack?27 Is it lawful to declare a space exclusion zone or to deploy “bodyguard” satellites to defend critical space-based assets in anticipation of an attack in the exercise of the right of self-defense? Having recognized the applicability of Article 5 to space attacks, NATO nations need to develop a shared approach to these and related questions in order to demonstrate unity and resolve. The second factor relates to the geographical limits that Article 6 of the NAT imposes on the operation of Article 5 of the NAT. The first sub-paragraph of Article 6 deals with attacks on Allied territory. It is clear from the language of this sub-paragraph that armed attacks launched into the territory or islands of NATO members from or through space fall squarely within the ambit of Article 5. Armed attacks launched against their assets in space are caught by the second sub-paragraph of Article 6, which deals with attacks against the “forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the Parties.” While neither the notion of a vessel,28 nor that of an aircraft, 29 extends to objects primarily designed for operation in outer space, the concept of ‘forces’ is broad enough to cover spacecraft and their personnel. There is a catch, however. The second sub-paragraph of Article 6 of the NAT refers to attacks taking place “in or over” Allied territories. This means that, at best, attacks against Allied forces in space are covered by Article 5 only whilst in orbit “over” such territories and above their airspace. Accordingly, the destruction of an Allied satellite may engage Article 5 if the satellite was orbiting over the territory of a NATO nation, but not if it was orbiting over the South China Sea, for instance.30 NATO nations thus face a dilemma. The geographical limitations imposed by Article 6 of the NAT on the operation of their mutual assistance commitment increases the vulnerability of their space assets to hostile maneuvers by potential adversaries, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where the Alliance has the fewest Space Surveillance Network (SSN) assets. To address this vulnerability, the Allies may consider Article 5 to be applicable to attacks against their space assets wherever they may operate, that is without any geographical restrictions. However, extending the scope of Article 5 to cover all around Earth may expose NATO to accusations that it seeks to militarize this domain. Also, such a move would lack credibility unless it is underwritten by capabilities necessary to defend Western space assets and the services they provide. Ignoring the matter is not an option. China and Russia are known for exploiting legal “grey zone” situations by conducting hostile operations below the traditional threshold of physical violence amounting to an armed attack.31 They are likely to test NATO’s legal readiness and political resolve in the space domain, for example, by using blind spots to undertake nefarious activities such as co-orbital jamming or RPOs. Strategic ambiguity on the geographical scope of application of Article 5 is likely to invite, rather than deter, such hostile probing. Specifically, the recent ban on ASAT testing signals US weakness in space deterrence, incentivizing adversaries to proliferate space capabilities.Kevin Chilton 4-29. Retired, U.S. Air Force Gen, explorer chair for space warfighting studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He previously led U.S. Strategic Command and Air Force Space Command, and he served as a NASA astronaut. “The anti-satellite test ban must not undermine deterrence.” Defense News. 4-29-2022. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/04/29/the-anti-satellite-test-ban-must-not-undermine-deterrence/ //EM While the U.S. would like to prevent conflict from escalating to space, many of our adversaries do not share this goal. Instead, they see developing and fielding capabilities to hold our systems on orbit at risk as an opportunity to gain decisive advantages. Our space enterprise is the super glue that empowers a broad range of military functions. It is exceedingly difficult to project modern American combat power without a range of crucial, space-based systems. This includes our communication, weather, intelligence, navigation and missile-warning satellites. It may even be impossible for us to project effective combat power if we lose our space-based capabilities, and our adversaries retain theirs. Our adversaries know this, and it is exactly why they have pressed so hard to hold our satellites at risk by demonstrating and fielding known terrestrial and, likely, space-based anti-satellite weapons. Given this reality, it is important to present our leaders with a broad range of options that will deter adversaries from attacking U.S. space-based assets. We must convince our adversaries they cannot destroy our critical satellites, while retaining theirs. Several of our opponents are equally dependent on their constellations. A nightmare scenario for the U.S. would see us send our terrestrial forces into combat without the support of our space capabilities, while our enemy retains all of theirs. A far better outcome would see us deter hostile actions in space altogether through holding their assets similarly at risk, thereby empowering deterrence. Should an opponent miscalculate, and deterrence fails, it is crucial our leaders have options, including direct-ascent, anti-satellite missiles, to level the playing field. This is why the administration’s admirable announcement to unilaterally ban the testing of direct-ascent, anti-satellite missiles must not constrain the development and fielding of U.S. offensive space capabilities. This approach mirrors the policies and posture of our nuclear deterrent forces: Our voluntary compliance with the nuclear test ban treaty does not impede our fielding of a credible triad to deter adversarial strategic attacks on the U.S. or our allies. We understand these realities here on Earth, and we must ensure we apply the same calculus to space. It is why the nuclear triad was so important to check the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and why it remains essential today. We did not invest in nuclear weapons because we wanted to launch them. Quite the contrary: It was so we would never have to employ them or be subject to them. “Using” our strategic deterrent force means developing the enterprise, fielding the various components and ensuring our adversaries understand the credibility of our commitment. The same will hold true for keeping the peace in space. However, for a set of capabilities to be persuasive, we must ensure our commitment to use is credible. This means we must speak with care and ensure our actions reflect our resolve. Adversarial intent is certain; it’s only a question of NATO resolve.Courtney Albon 4-14. C4ISRNET's space and emerging technology reporter. She previously covered the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force for Inside Defense. “Defense Intelligence Agency cites 70% growth in Russia and China’s combined space assets since 2019.” C4ISRNet. 4-14-2022. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2022/04/13/defense-intelligence-agency-cites-70-growth-in-russia-and-chinas-combined-space-assets-since-2019/ //EM WASHINGTON — A new report from the Defense Intelligence Agency links China and Russia’s increased operational space capabilities in recent years to their growing intent to extend future conflict into space. The unclassified “Challenges to Security in Space” report follows a 2019 DIA report that surveyed space and counterspace programs being pursued by adversary nations, including Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. The 2022 report highlights growth in Russian and Chinese on-orbit systems as well as efforts to better organize their military space capabilities “Evidence of both nations’ intent to undercut the United States and allied leadership in the space domain can be seen in the growth of combined on-orbit assets of China and Russia, which grew approximately 70% in just two years,” DIA Intelligence Officer for Space and Counterspace John Huth said during a Tuesday press briefing. That expansion of capability follows a 200% combined increase between 2015 and 2018 and reflects a recognition by the two countries of the United States’ reliance on space assets and its role as a leader in the domain. “As the number of spacefaring nations grow and counterspace capabilities become more integrated into military operations, the U.S. space posture will be increasingly challenged and on-orbit assets will face new risks,” Huth said. “A secure, stable and accessible space domain is crucial as challenges to the United States and our allies’ space capabilities continue to increase.” Chinese ASAT attacks create an open window for invasion of Taiwan---extinction.Brian G. Chow & Brandon Kelley 21. Independent policy analyst with over 160 publications; Director of Debate at Georgetown University <3 and a graduate student in the Security Studies Program. “China’s Anti-Satellite Weapons Could Conquer Taiwan—Or Start a War.” National Interest. 8-21-2021. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china%E2%80%99s-anti-satellite-weapons-could-conquer-taiwan%E2%80%94or-start-war-192135 //EM thx Marsh <3 On July 1, 2021—the one-hundredth birthday of the Chinese Communist Party—President Xi Jinping declared that China will “advance peaceful national reunification” with Taiwan. It would be easy to dismiss such statements as mere political rhetoric: certainly, Taiwan would never willingly accede to Chinese demands to rejoin the fold. But China’s rapidly advancing anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities could open up another avenue: deterring United States intervention on Taiwan’s behalf in order to coerce reunification without firing a shot. If current trends hold, then China’s Strategic Support Force will be capable by the late 2020s of holding key U.S. space assets at risk. Chinese military doctrine, statements by senior officials, and past behavior all suggest that China may well believe threatening such assets to be an effective means of deterring U.S. intervention. If so, then the United States would face a type of “Sophie’s Choice”: decline to intervene, potentially leading allies to follow suit and Taiwan to succumb without a fight, thereby enabling Xi to achieve his goal of “peacefully” snuffing out Taiwanese independence; or start a war that would at best be long and bloody and might well even cross the nuclear threshold. This emerging crisis has been three decades in the making. In 1991, China watched from afar as the United States used space-enabled capabilities to obliterate the Iraqi military from a distance in the first Gulf War. The People’s Liberation Army quickly set to work developing capabilities targeted at a perceived Achilles’ heel of this new American way of war: reliance on vulnerable space systems. This project came to fruition with a direct ascent ASAT weapons test in 2007, but the test was limited in two key respects. First, it only reached low Earth orbit. Second, it generated thousands of pieces of long-lasting space junk, provoking immense international ire. This backlash appears to have taken China by surprise, driving it to seek new, more usable ASAT types with minimal debris production. Now, one such ASAT is nearing operational status: spacecraft capable of rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOs). Such spacecraft are inevitable and cannot realistically be limited. The United States, European Union, China, and others are developing them to provide a range of satellite services essential to the new space economy, such as in situ repairs and refueling of satellites and active removal of space debris. But RPO capabilities are dual-use: if a satellite can grapple space objects for servicing, then it might well be capable of grappling an adversary’s satellite to move it out of its servicing orbit. Perhaps it could degrade or This is a serious threat, primarily because no international rules presently exist to limit close approaches in space. Left unaddressed, this lacuna in international law and space policy could enable a prospective attacker to pre-position, during peacetime, as many spacecraft as they wish as close as they wish to as many high-value targets as they wish. The result would be an ever-present possibility of sudden, bolt-from-the-blue attacks on vital space assets—and worse, on many of them at once. China has conducted at least half a dozen tests of RPO capabilities in space since 2008, two of which went on for years. Influential space experts have noted that these tests have plausible peaceful purposes and are in many cases similar to those conducted by the United States. This, however, does not make it any less important to establish effective legal, policy, and technical counters to their offensive use. Even if it were certain that these capabilities are intended purely for peaceful applications—and it is not at all clear that that is the case—China (or any other country) could at any time decide to repurpose these capabilities for ASAT use. There is still time to get out ahead of this threat, but likely not for much longer. China’s RPO capabilities have, thus far, lagged about five years behind those of the United States. There are reasons to believe this gap may close, but even assuming that it holds, we should expect to see China demonstrate an operational dual-use rendezvous spacecraft by around 2025. (The first instance of a U.S. commercial satellite docking with another satellite to change its orbit occurred in February 2020.) At the same time, China is expanding its capacity for rapid spacecraft manufacturing. The Global Times reported in January that China’s first intelligent mass production line is set to produce 240 small satellites per year. In April, Andrew Jones at SpaceNews reported that China is developing plans to quickly produce and loft a thirteen thousand-satellite national internet megaconstellation. It is not unreasonable to assume that China could manufacture two hundred small rendezvous ASAT spacecraft by 2029, possibly more. If this happens, and Beijing was to decide in 2029 to launch these two hundred small RPO spacecraft and position them in close proximity to strategically vital assets, then China would be able to simultaneously threaten disablement of the entire constellations of U.S. satellites for missile early warning (about a dozen satellites with spares included); communications in a nuclear-disrupted environment (about a dozen); and positioning, navigation, and timing (about three dozen); along with several dozen key communications, imagery, and meteorology satellites. Losing these assets would severely degrade U.S. deterrence and warfighting capabilities, yet once close pre-positioning has occurred such losses become almost impossible to prevent. For this reason, such pre-positioning could conceivably deter the United States from coming to Taiwan’s aid due to the prospect that intervention would spur China to disable these critical space systems. Without their support, the war would be much bloodier and costlier—a daunting proposition for any president. Should the United States fail to intervene, the consequences would be disastrous for both Washington and its allies in East Asia, and potentially the credibility of U.S. defense commitments around the globe. Worse yet, however, might be what could happen if China believes that such a threat will succeed but proves to be wrong. History is rife with examples of major wars arising from miscalculations such as this, and there are many pathways by which such a situation could easily escalate out of control to a full-scale conventional conflict or even to nuclear use. This Catch-22 of so-called “peaceful reunification” on the one hand and catastrophic miscalculation on the other is entirely preventable. To do so, however, the United States must act now. To deter such pre-positioning and provide a clear framework for how to handle it if it does occur, the United States should immediately begin coordinating with its allies to establish shared understandings for the rules and operations of warning/self-defense zones in orbit. Additionally, the United States should develop and deploy bodyguard spacecraft to monitor and enforce such rules. The United States cannot afford to wait; once the potential threat arrives, it will already be too late. A lack of a cooperative framework leaves NATO uncertain on how to respond, undermining deterrence while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of escalation.Liselotte Odgaard 22. Professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies in Oslo and a non-resident senior fellow at the Hudson Institute focusing on US-China-Europe relations. “NATO’s China Role: Defending Cyber and Outer Space,” The Washington Quarterly Volume 45, 2022 - Issue 1, 45:1, pp. 167-177, T&F, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2022.2059145. //EM *thx Marsh <3 NATO in Cyber and Outer Space Cyber and space is a promising arena for NATO to address China challenges by building member state resilience. Like the air and sea domains, as areas that belong to no one state and which provide access to much of the globe, they form part of the global commons. Command of the commons has been the key enabler of the US global position of power for many decades.26 However, China wields a sufficient range of sea, air, cyber, and space capabilities such that the global commons is now a contested zone. In contrast to the sea and air domains, cyber and space are sparsely regulated. This lack of international norms enhances the risk of conflict based on misperception, making NATO cooperation pertinent. Adversarial activities toward the US and Europe in the cyber and space domain threaten transatlantic security. These come not just from China, but also from other adversaries such as Russia and Iran. Mechanisms for addressing these challenges in the military sector are essentially generic and not, at least in their basic design, established with a particular country in mind. Thus, cyber and space provide an avenue for NATO to contribute significantly to deterrence of China without having to combat major internal resistance. NATO would also benefit from long-standing US-EU cooperation on cyber and space issues.27 Cyber and space provide an avenue for NATO to contribute without major internal resistance NATO has vowed to clarify Article Five’s collective defense commitment to encompass threats to satellites in space and coordinated cyberattacks. NATO can design this effort to include adversarial behavior from China. The alliance already has an array of instruments to deal with cyber and space challenges from adversaries. These can be extended to encompass China without pronouncing it a threat.28 This approach allows the US and Europe time to adjust their cooperation to take into account the fact that China poses military threats to them both without explicitly using the language of threat at a time when NATO members do not agree if China should be defined as a challenge that can trigger Article Five responses. Since the late 1990s, the vulnerability of shared space assets to cyberattacks has been a concern for both the US and Europe. For example, in 1998 a US-German satellite, used for peering into deep space, was rendered useless after it turned suddenly toward the sun, damaging its High Resolution Imager by exposure. NASA later determined that the accident was linked to a cyber-intrusion at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Coordinated cyberattacks have emerged as a major threat to both the US and Europe since the late 1990s. For example, for about eighteen minutes on April 8, 2010, China Telecom advertised erroneous network traffic routes that instructed US and other foreign internet traffic to travel through Chinese servers. Other servers around the world quickly adopted these paths, routing all traffic, including government and military traffic, to about 15 percent of the internet’s destinations through servers located in China.29 In the future, the need to enhance situational awareness in space is likely to lead to further integration of space assets between the US and its allies. Civilian entry points are likely to provide a growing opportunity for infiltration. The weak state of cybersecurity in civilian agencies should also be considered. Chinese military doctrine prioritizes weaponry that targets vulnerabilities in the deployment of US and allied power, such as the use of cyberattacks to disrupt surveillance assets, intelligence networks, and command-and-control systems.30 These threats are significant, since next generation systems, including fighter aircraft, destroyers, and special forces, will not function without access to space communication and space-derived data. Although European and US allies have indigenous space programs outside the NATO framework, cyber security and outer space would be a useful field for joint explorations of how to divert and manage attacks and identify an agency which can coordinate transatlantic responses to attacks. Allies are embedded in a range of information networks which may be disrupted, giving rise to alliance management concerns emerging from attacks. The lack of red lines regarding behavior in cyber and outer space between the US and its allies on one hand, and adversaries such as China on the other, adds to the risk of misperception and escalation, and hence also highlights the need for allied coordination to avoid starting a war by mistake. An improved NATO dialogue on safeguards and alliance consultation could also assist communication with China on arms control and conflict prevention in cyber and outer space, which is not currently taking place. Looking to the future, NATO’s success in establishing transatlantic mechanisms for cyber and outer space safeguards and consultation will be crucial to allow NATO a key role in taking on the China challenge in ways that help restore faith in NATO’s credibility as a provider of collective defense in all domains. It will also assist NATO in straddling the chasm between member states prioritizing threats from either China, Russia, the Middle East, or North Africa, since cyber and space threats potentially stem from all of them, and the effectiveness of cyber and space defense mechanisms do not necessarily depend on geographical origin. Cyber and space would allow NATO a key role in the China challenge without prioritizing China. 3. INTEGRATION---interoperability with NATO is key for the signal of deterrence against ASATs AND solves network capabilities to solidify space redundancy.Sam Wilson & Colleen Stover 21. Senior policy analyst for the Center for Space Policy and Strategy at The Aerospace Corporation; Project manager and researcher at The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy. “Defense Space Partnerships: A Strategic Priority.” Aerospace Center for Space Policy and Strategy. 09-17-2020. https://csps.aerospace.org/papers/defense-space-partnerships-strategic-priority //EM Unlike during the Cold War, when space was dominated by a few major powers, space has become increasingly democratized. As of 2019, over 60 countries have a national space budget, over 70 countries own or operate satellites in orbit, and nine countries—plus the European Space Agency—can independently launch into orbit.4 This growing international engagement in space presents enormous opportunities for defense space partnerships. This new era also presents serious risks. Space is becoming increasingly contested. In April 2020, Russia tested a direct ascent anti-satellite missile.5 A few months earlier, U.S. officials called out Russian satellites for trailing a U.S. national security satellite.6 Also in April 2020, Chris Ford, a senior official in the State Department, said that China was exploring capabilities to attack U.S. satellites, including in high orbits such as those of U.S. nuclear command, control, and communications satellites.7 The seriousness of the threat underlines the importance of defense space partnerships—the United States should not try to manage these threats purely on its own. To enable more international defense space partnerships, U.S. leadership will need to treat such partnerships as a strategic priority, not as an afterthought or add on. This chapter looks at advantages, challenges, and mitigations for broadening and deepening security space partnerships that could prompt key decision points during the next presidential term. Advantages of Partnerships Defense space partnerships offer considerable advantages. These include allowing the United States to expand and improve its network and capabilities with fewer resources, deter adversaries from attacking its systems, and coalesce allied and partner thinking on space security concepts.8 A look at some common space maturity metrics suggests that many of the most mature space nations in the world are partners of the United States. Specifically: The United States and its close partners make up 11 out of the top 15 countries with the biggest national space budgets.9 Of the roughly 2,700 active satellites in orbit, over 500 are operated by international partners and over 1,300 are operated by the United States.10 Among the world’s 22 active space launch centers, six are operated by partners and five by the United States.11 Many allies are also taking steps to emphasize the seriousness of space security. In the past year, France and Japan have established their own military units dedicated to space.12 The United Kingdom officially recognized space as an operational domain in 2018.13 And NATO, which historically has said little on space, came out with a space policy in 2019.14 Given the space maturity of many of its allies and partners, and the shared recognition of the importance of the domain, the time is advantageous for the United States to place more priority on establishing and deepening space partnerships for defense. Expand and Improve Networks and Capabilities. Download 2.09 Mb. Share with your friends:
|