The United States federal government should pursue a defensive space control strategy that emphasizes satellite hardening, replacement, redundancy and situational awareness
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Defensive space measures preserve US satellite security – situational awareness, hardening and relaunch deter Chinese attacks and secures satellites in case of accidents
- Defending space is the best way to head off an arms race – raising the ante convinces other countries that the race is not worth the cost
- Shifting our focus to defensive counterspace capabilities would increase space security – it deters China and avoids accidents and misperceptions
- A defensive space policy enhances deterrence and recovery Putnam, 2009 Maj. United States Air Force - Marine Corps Command and Staff College
1AC - SolvencyBuilding defensive weapons under a deterrence based doctrine will prevent a conflict with China. This prevents a destabilizing arms race with China. MacDonald 2008 – Council on Foreign Relations [Bruce, Council Special Report No. 38 September China, Space Weapons, date accessed : June 24th, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/china/china-space-weapons-us-security/p16707] The United States faces challenging choices in responding to this new space environment and must respond wisely as well as vigorously to protect the security interests of itself and its allies. Imprudent choices could create a self-fulfilling prophecy, spurring China, for reasons of security or national pride—or both—to accelerate its counterspace efforts in such a way that both the United States and China would be worse off. With so many different ways to attack space assets, it is much easier and less costly to attack spacecraft than defend them. Thus, a U.S. or Chinese doctrine of space dominance seems likely to fail. Provocative military postures can result in more adversarial efforts than nonprovocative postures. The United States would never accept Chinese hegemony in space, and as their ASAT test strongly implies, China seems unlikely to accept U.S. hegemony or dominance. Developing defensive and offensive capabilities to defend U.S. space assets from attack is a legitimate act of self-defense, though it will be best accomplished at reasonable cost if integrated into an overall doctrine of space deterrence. Current U.S. space policy contains a potential problem when it states that the United States will “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.” This creates a possible conflict with the same policy’s statement that U.S. space capabilities are “vital to its national interests,” given that U.S. attacks on the space capabilities of others run a high risk of sparking counterattacks, and the costs of hardening U.S. systems against similar attacks are so high. This tension has remained largely unaddressed for nearly two years. Washington needs to consider the costs and benefits of such attacks and address them in policy and force doctrines. The implication of current policy is that others, not the United States, must make trade-offs in space, yet it is highly unlikely that China and other spacefaring nations will accept substantially subordinate status, or that the United States would make the substantial investments required to enforce such a dominant position. If the United States can resist the urge to overreach, it may be able to achieve a more stable, less costly military space posture and doctrine that could maintain a measure of U.S. space superiority, based on the strategic nuclear balance precedent. The United States could preserve space superiority relative to China, deriving more benefit from space than China does and retaining more offensive capability, though China would still keep its ability to deter the United States from attacking China’s growing space capability. Such a capability appears well within China’s reach, in spite of Washington’s wishes otherwise. Over the long term, deterrence-based superiority would be grounded in the reality of the difficulty of maintaining dominance in space, and the fundamental vulnerability of space-based weapons both to other space-based weapons as well as to ground-based counterspace weapons, especially directed-energy weapons. Deterrence-based superiority would be less costly to maintain than dominance and could be substantially more stable under the proper conditions, though neither achievement nor maintenance would be simple. At a minimum, it will require the anchoring of offensive counterspace capabilities within deterrence doctrine, healthy U.S.-China relations that avoid provocative rhetoric, continued dialogue, and confidence-building measures (CBM). Such a deterrence posture would also require the weapons systems to support it. Their precise characteristics are beyond the scope of this paper, but they should embody the criteria listed on page twenty. Jammers, lasers, and other forms of reversible electronic and electrooptical offense should be considered. Given the demonstrated counterspace capability of minimally modified missile-defense interceptors, some inherent kinetic energy antisatellite (KE-ASAT) capability is inevitable; however, bans on testing against satellites could limit its effect. A vigorous, defensive counterspace program should accompany these steps. Defensive space measures preserve US satellite security – situational awareness, hardening and relaunch deter Chinese attacks and secures satellites in case of accidents Putnam, 2009 Maj. United States Air Force - Marine Corps Command and Staff College [Christopher, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA510842&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Countering the chinese threat to low earth orbit satellites: Building a defensive space strategyOMB No. 0704-0188 China demonstrated their ability to employ an anti-satellite weapon when it destroyed one of its own weather satellites in 2007. While it does not publish a public national military strategy, several Chinese military authors advocate the use of anti-satellite technologies as an asymmetric weapon to counter the superior conventional capabilities of the United States. Towards this aim, China has developed both kinetic and non-kinetic weapons along with associated supporting infrastructure to target United States low Earth orbit satellites. The United States currently has little capability to defend against an attack on its satellites. As an initial step, the Department of Defense established the Operationally Responsive Space program to address emerging threats. The United States should use current, primarily commercial, technologies to increase its Space Situational Awareness, develop flexible and rapid launch platforms, field small satellites, decrease its dependence on space systems, defend against high-altitude nuclear explosions, and execute institutional changes. Done with transparency, these changes should deter China from employing its. anti-satellite weapons. If deterrence fails, these same changes will also enable the United States to rapidly reconstitute its space systems. As a long-term effort to counter the Chinese threat, the United States must work with China to make it an active stakeholder in space activities; collateral damage from anti-satellite weapons would then threaten China and deter them from using anti-satellite weapons. These recommendations will also help protect United States satellites from other adversaries, accidents, and natural phenomena. Conclusion: The United States can use currently available technologies to quickly build deterrence to China's anti-satellite threat to low Earth orbit satellites. These recommendations will also enable the United States to operate its satellites through an attack and rapidly reconstitute its constellations. Defending space is the best way to head off an arms race – raising the ante convinces other countries that the race is not worth the cost Kyl 2007 – US senator and Attorney. [Jon Kyl. Published on February 1, 2007. Delivered on January 29, 2007. China's Anti-Satellite Weapons and American National Security. The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Chinas-Anti-Satellite-Weapons-and-American-National-Security. Accessed June 21] EDWARD ROUTER, SUNSHINE PRESS: Given the asymmetrical nature of offense versus defense in space, are you concerned about the costs that would be involved in a space arms race, both to defend our satellites and to develop offensive capabilities against a Chinese economy that's booming? SENATOR KYL: That's a very interesting question, because your mind immediately goes back to the Reykjavik Summit and the Reagan decision to move forward with then-called SDI and the subsequent Soviet belief that it would be very difficult to beat us in that particular arms race. I think that the same thing is true here. Clearly, the United States has such an edge on this technology and such a robust capability financially to engage in this kind of effort that countries like China, for example, would rather not have to engage in the arms race in the sense that we leave the field to them. If they could somehow figure out a way to bind us through some kind of a treaty, I think that would be their dream. Knowing that they might have to actually compete with us in such a race would pose serious problems for them. I don't mean just the Chinese here. I mean anybody else as well. Your question assumed the asymmetric nature of this, and there is an asymmetric quality to it which might favor, just hypothetically speaking, a country like Iran, for example, only having to use a medium-range missile, and certainly with some kind of a crude nuclear warhead, an electromagnetic pulse, to do the job. Otherwise, the Chinese technology of the kinetic impact would be required. I would suggest that, even though there is an asymmetric aspect to this--namely, that it might be easier to take out the satellite than it is to defend against it--that's not as easy as it seems in terms of our capability for both passive and active measures and things that we could do if we really got serious about it. In any event, even if there is an asymmetry to the problem, given the challenge that we have, the importance of maintaining our ability to defend our assets, we have no choice but to ensure that we have the technology to do that. Shifting our focus to defensive counterspace capabilities would increase space security – it deters China and avoids accidents and misperceptions Putnam, 2009 Maj. United States Air Force - Marine Corps Command and Staff College [Christopher, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA510842&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Countering the chinese threat to low earth orbit satellites: Building a defensive space strategyOMB No. 0704-0188 The September 2008 Council on Foreign Relations Report China, Space Weapons, and Us. Security argues that US policy does not provide a framework to address counterspace matters. The high cost of maintaining space dominance compared to the relatively low cost to attack that dominance favors a deterrence-based strategy. The Council endorses a comprehensive approach to dealing with the Chinese counter space threat: policies that focus on stability, deterrence, escalation control; an in-depth layer approach; reduce incentives to and capability of adversary to attach space systems; and increased warning time to enable defensive actions. In developing capabilities, the United States should consider their contribution to stability and deterrence while incorporating a wide spectrum of defensive capabilities. Commander John Klein proposes that the United States develop a comprehensive defensive strategy to ensure access to "celestial lines of communication."3 He argues that past space strategies were overly focused on the offensive due to the influence of strategists like Mahan, Douhet, and Mitchell. 32 Recognizing that defensive measures assure access to and use of space, the United States through policy and action must focus on defensive strategies. Properly developed space strategies should provide "a measure of self-defense against a surprise attack, control over the escalation of a conflict, and minimize the most devastating enemy counterattacks.,,33 The aforementioned reasons support a focused defensive strategy that will deter a Chinese attack and recover capability if deterrence fails. A defensive space policy enhances deterrence and recovery Putnam, 2009 Maj. United States Air Force - Marine Corps Command and Staff College [Christopher, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA510842&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Countering the chinese threat to low earth orbit satellites: Building a defensive space strategyOMB No. 0704-0188 Although exposed to both offensive and defensive counterspace activities throughout my career as an Air Force space operator, I have observed a disproportionate focus on the offensive. Defensive efforts have generally been reactive rather than proactive, potentially leaving the United States vulnerable to an opportunistic adversary or natural event. Recent events have highlighted the need to protect the United States' space capabilities: Iraq's use of GPS jammers, China's destruction of an aging weather satellite, the collision between a Russian military satellite and iridium commercial satellite, and the resumption of the Russian anti-satellite program. The United States must develop a defensive strategy that proactively employs capabilities that will deter adversaries and, if necessary, enable rapid recovery. Developing a strategy to counter China's low Earth orbit anti-satellite weapons is merely a starting point. Threats, man-made and natural, will continue to grow and so must our ability to protect our space assets. 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:
|