The United States federal government should pursue a defensive space control strategy that emphasizes satellite hardening, replacement, redundancy and situational awareness
They Say “Treaties prevent Space Race”
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- [ ] International treaty will not stop the US from weaponizing space. Denmark 2010 - Fellow with the Center for a New American Security
- [ ] Space law fails now – treaties are not developed enough to prevent militarization Ramey 2000 - instructor, The Air Force Judge Advocate General School
- [ ] Space conflicts are inevitable – US, Russian and Chinese arms buildups prove that international law won’t prevent a space arms race
They Say “Treaties prevent Space Race”[ ] Combat in space is inevitable; space law is not developed enough to stop it. Ramey 2000 - instructor, The Air Force Judge Advocate General School [International and Operations Law Division,. The Air Force Law Review. : Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space. NAME: Major Robert A. Ramey.Lexis Accessed June 21, 2011 ] Despite nearly forty years of research into space weaponry there is no binding international instrument limiting the use of such weapons. With two isolated examples, such weapons have not been fielded, contributing to State reluctance to foreclose further study into effective deterrents. 656 However there will come a day when a treaty governing means and methods of space warfare will be desirable. In addition to the certainty written law brings to the legal structures governing human conduct, formal agreements most clearly evince the consent of the governed. Of course, any treaty developments for space warfare must strike a pragmatic balance between national security, international legal order, and human rights--a balance for which the jus in bello has striven for at least 100 years. To a certain degree, this review of the law of war and its application to space warfare serves as a call for further analysis of the topic. Though armed conflicts apparently have not occurred in space to date, the rudimentary means for engaging in such conflicts now exist. As each armed conflict since Vietnam makes greater use of space assets, it is undoubtedly only a matter of time before a future conflict witnesses the application of force both from and within the space environment. When it does, and in the absence of specific [*158] international norms restricting the use of means of methods of war in space, State practice will provide the first insights into how the law will be applied. [ ] International treaty will not stop the US from weaponizing space. Denmark 2010 - Fellow with the Center for a New American Security [By Abraham M. and Dr. James Mulvenon CNAS, Jan, Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multipolar World http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Contested %20Commons%20Capstone_0.pdf Accessed Jun 21] Space’s militarization — its use as a medium to support military operations — has existed for more than four decades. Since the height of the Cold War, satellites have monitored nuclear tests and other military activities and facilitated global communications, mapping, and other activities with both military and scientific purposes. Yet space has yet to be weaponized, in that it is not yet a theater for warfare or for the placement of arms, and it remains a global commons open to any actor with the means to access it. 36 To a large degree, this openness can be credited to a robust set of international agreements that effectively codify space as a global commons. When space first became accessible to humanity in the 1950s, the United States proposed an agreement establishing orbits as common spaces beyond traditional conceptions of sovereignty. The Soviet Union initially disagreed, arguing that its sovereign claim over its territorial air space extended to orbit and beyond. Once Moscow saw the benefit of sending satellites into orbit to spy on the West, its conceptions of its sovereign interests changed, and the USSR agreed to establish space as, in effect, a global commons. Although several arms-control agreements helped to solidify space as a commons, the most comprehensive existing international agreement on the use of space is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It defines space as an area beyond claims of state sovereignty, but it has a limited focus on military matters — beyond banning weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on any celestial body, and prohibiting the use of celestial bodies for military bases or the testing of weapons. U.S. policy has consistently embraced space as a global commons “by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humanity.” 37 Yet the United States has also defended space as a legitimate medium for defense and intelligence activities. The 2006 National Space Policy reinforced an American commitment to the “exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity,” rejected claims of national sovereignty, and reaffirmed the “rights of passage through and operations in space without interference.” On the issue of military objectives, it was quite clear, asserting: The United States considers space capabilities — including the ground and space segments and supporting links — vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing the capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests. 38 [ ] Space law fails now – treaties are not developed enough to prevent militarization Ramey 2000 - instructor, The Air Force Judge Advocate General School [International and Operations Law Division,. The Air Force Law Review. : Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space. NAME: Major Robert A. Ramey.Lexis Accessed June 21, 2011 ] Despite nearly forty years of research into space weaponry there is no binding international instrument limiting the use of such weapons. With two isolated examples, such weapons have not been fielded, contributing to State reluctance to foreclose further study into effective deterrents. 656 However there will come a day when a treaty governing means and methods of space warfare will be desirable. In addition to the certainty written law brings to the legal structures governing human conduct, formal agreements most clearly evince the consent of the governed. Of course, any treaty developments for space warfare must strike a pragmatic balance between national security, international legal order, and human rights--a balance for which the jus in bello has striven for at least 100 years. To a certain degree, this review of the law of war and its application to space warfare serves as a call for further analysis of the topic. Though armed conflicts apparently have not occurred in space to date, the rudimentary means for engaging in such conflicts now exist. As each armed conflict since Vietnam makes greater use of space assets, it is undoubtedly only a matter of time before a future conflict witnesses the application of force both from and within the space environment. When it does, and in the absence of specific [*158] international norms restricting the use of means of methods of war in space, State practice will provide the first insights into how the law will be applied. [ ] Space conflicts are inevitable – US, Russian and Chinese arms buildups prove that international law won’t prevent a space arms race Maogoto 2007, Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Newcastle [ Connecticut Journal of International Law. Winter,: the final frontier: the laws of armed conflict and space warfare. Name: Jackson Maogoto and Steven Freeland. Lexis Accessed June 21, 2011] The proposed United States ballistic missile defence shield system would involve the deployment of space-based sensors, including a space and missile tracking system and other space-based sensors which could provide cueing to the ground-based interceptors. 15 The decision to locate interceptor missiles in Poland and associated radar systems and infrastructure in the Czech Republic 16 incensed Russia, leading to a stream of caustic and even inflammatory public comments. Seemingly fearful that the system may eventually lead to neutralization of its own strategic missiles, Russia has indicated that it may consider freezing its commitments to several arms reduction treaties, including the 1988 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE Treaty), setting the stage for a potential arms race. At the same time, China has been rapidly consolidating its status as a space power, racheting up the stakes very significantly with the test of an anti-satellite weapon. In January 2007, the Chinese military launched a KT-1 rocket that successfully destroyed a redundant Chinese Feng Yun 1-C weather satellite, which it had launched in 1999, in Low Earth Orbit approximately 800 kilometers above the earth. This generated a great deal of alarm and unease in Washington and elsewhere, particularly as it indicated quite starkly the increasing technological capabilities of the Chinese military. 17 With China predicted to become the ascendant 'superpower' in the twenty-first century, this space-technology rivalry (particularly its military utility) among the space powers appears to be intensifying. It is to be remembered that in 2000, China unveiled an ambitious ten-year space program. 18 While one of the strongest immediate motivations for this program appears to be political prestige, China's space efforts almost certainly will contribute to the development of improved military space systems. 19 With the United States actively pursuing a national missile defense program, in 2003 a Chinese military official commented that China's army had already introduced the concept of space force strength, 20 in apparent reference to a similar United States military concept. 21 An indication that Chinese space programs are significantly driven by military and security considerations is the fact that the Chinese space program has always been under the command of senior officers of the People's Liberation Army. 22 Each of these developments indicates a rapidly expanding perception among the major powers of the need for space-based systems in support of military operations. This perception is being translated into reality by the very significant resources now devoted by each of them to the development of ever-more effective (and potent) space-related weaponry. Without wishing to appear melodramatic, the prospect of a celestial war can no longer be regarded as mere fantasy. Just as States have already been undertaking what might be termed 'passive' military activities in outer space since the advent of space technology, outer space is increasingly being used as part of active engagement in the conduct of armed conflict. 23 Not only is information gathered from outer space - through, for example, the use of remote satellite technology and communications satellites - used to plan military engagement on earth, space assets are now used to direct military activity and represent an integral part of the military hardware of the major powers. It is now within the realms of reality to imagine outer space as an emerging theatre of warfare. Space warfare is the focus of serious planning as the militaries of major powers brace for new forms of high-tech combat in the twenty-first century. 24 For example, the United States Air Force (USAF) is increasingly focusing on space- "not just on how to operate there, but how to protect operations and attack others in space." 25 USAF has established a "space operations directorate" at Air Force headquarters, and has started a new Space Warfare School and activated two new units: the 76th Space Control Squadron (tasked with fighting in space) and the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron (whose mission is to probe the United States military for new vulnerabilities). 26 As mentioned above, it is not just the United States and Russia (the successor of the Soviet Union) that are currently seeing space warfare as a distinct possibility in the future. 27 The first Gulf War also convinced China's military leadership of the importance of high-tech integrated warfare platforms, and the ability of sophisticated space-based command, control, communications, and intelligence systems to link land, sea and air forces. 28 With the United States' abrogation of its [*170] ABM Treaty commitments and the implications of its ballistic missile defence system, Russia and China are accelerating development of space weaponry to counteract the envisaged capabilities of America's Ballistic Missile Defence program. 29 The straight-line prediction would be that over the next decade or so, we should expect a discernible effort to achieve a 'strike-back assured' destruction posture, which would ensure that Russia and China remain America's peer military competitors. In addition, the advent of China as a major space power - symbolized not only by that country, in 2003, becoming the third country to successfully send a man into space, 30 but also by its ambitious plans for missions both to the Moon 31 and Mars 32 - has given rise to further concerns about the use of outer space for strategic purposes not necessarily in keeping with the underlying co-operative principles of the international law of outer space. Outer space has in recent times been referred to as the "Fourth Territory" (alongside land, sea and airspace) 33 - a notion that clearly flies in the face of both the "common heritage of mankind" and "non-appropriation" principles that form the bedrock of the international law of outer space. 34 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 1.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|