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:
- [ ] Public debate on space military policy is essential – it pushes us past outdated ideas and refocuses the debate
- [ ] US hegemony is the best option to lead humanity into space – Americans are less likely to abuse hegemonic power due to a systemic angst
Astropolitik Responses[ ] Offering concrete policy options for space militarization is critical to clarifying the public discourse – this avoids misperceptions and communication Lambakis 2007, Senior Analyst for the National Institute for Public Policy [Steven Lambakis. and Managing Editor, Comparative Strategy “Missile Defense from Space: A More Effective Shield.” Policy Review no. 141. February 1, 2007. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6124. Accessed June 22, 2011.] Congress should push the Bush Administration to begin studying the feasibility of integrating a space-based layer into the missile defense system. Experiments must be conducted if we are to determine whether space basing makes sense from an overall system point of view. Perhaps we will not get as much out of a space-based layer as we thought, or perhaps the cost will be too great. We need to settle these questions. We also need to take some of the technical challenges off the table. Can we do proper command and control? Can space-based sensors provide the data needed to discriminate target objects? How long can we keep interceptors loaded with solid propellant on-station in space? There are strong arguments for going to space, but we need to find out where truth lies. Once the technical questions are answered, it will be up to the critics of expanding military uses of space to explain why it is that the Earth’s orbits ought to be exempted from the logic of war and military competition that otherwise govern military behavior on land, at sea, and in the air. No nation has a right to deny our access to space to defend this country or promote economic prosperity. This has been understood for over 45 years, but I believe that the consequences of this statement have yet to be fully comprehended. With a debate in Congress over space-based missile defense interceptors, I believe we will finally be able to bring some clarity to the discussion of weapons in space. The positions we take in this argument will have consequences for space control and offensive strike weapons. The nation’s leaders should welcome this opportunity to grapple with an issue that is certain to affect the influence and power of the United States for the remainder of this century and beyond. There will be ambiguity and vacillation in our public discourse and lawmaking until we define a clear vision for the use of space and have established the right policies to support it. There is a strong case to be made for clarifying the options before us and for determining whether it makes sense to invest more in space defenses. Evolving the ballistic missile defense system to incorporate a layer that will allow us to better protect ourselves is logical. Should it become clear that space defenses would deliver an improved missile defense system, pursuing this course of action would also be a strategically prudent and morally desirable step to take. [ ] Public debate on space military policy is essential – it pushes us past outdated ideas and refocuses the debate Hyten 2001 Director, Space Programs, Office of the Ass Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, [4 January 01. Air & Space Power Journal . A Sea of Peace or a Theater of War: Dealing with the Inevitable Conflict in Space. Lt Col John E. Hyten. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Hyten.html Accessed June 21, 2011.] The future of the United States is, in many ways, tied to the future development of space. One would think that, given the serious issues facing this development and the potential for conflict, the debate over this future would be widespread and vigorous. This is not the case. Even though a debate is occurring within limited political and military circles, it is not being addressed in any real depth on a national level. In the 1970s and 1980s, in the midst of an active Soviet space threat, the debate was loud, vigorous, and involved not only leading military officers, presidents, and congressmen, but many from the scientific and academic community as well. Significantly, it was also extremely well covered by the mainstream national media. The debate today lacks this national attention and committed involvement as evidenced by the lack of response to a major speech given at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy in November of 1998 by Senator Bob Smith, Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In this speech, he proposed, in very strong terms, the need for space weapons and perhaps even the need for a separate space force to develop and operate these weapons. Media response to these radical and bold proposals was almost non-existent. For many weeks, the only media coverage to be found was in primarily defense-related periodicals such as Inside the Air Force.5 The first mainstream American newspaper to even mention this speech was the Washington Times when it published an editorial by James Hackett on January 11, 1999 (nearly two months after the speech).6 Even though Congress subsequently passed legislation, included in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Bill, which established a special commission7 to evaluate these proposals, the national media has still largely ignored the issue. But at least the debate is beginning. Unfortunately, the discourse thus far seems to focus on two very strong, opposing positions: the need for space weapons vs. the need to maintain space as a sanctuary. This should not be the focus. The focus should be on choices—choices that can help define the future of this nation, and the world, in space. Many aspects of conflict, certainly in the near term, can be assuaged without requiring the controversial development and use of space weapons—without military intervention in space. To do so, however, requires the aggressive implementation of other instruments of national power, specifically economic and political. This also has not occurred. General Richard B. Myers, Commander in Chief of the United States Space Command (CINCSPACE), said in a speech in early 1999, "Just as we can’t expect to successfully fight the next war with the equipment of the last war, we surely won’t see victory in the next war using the policies of the last war. To best prepare for the future, we have to energize our thinking too. We need that national debate on the existing policies and open questions affecting future military capabilities and possibilities in space. And we need resolution of that debate sooner rather than later."8 We are at the dawn of a new century. Now is the moment to be farsighted as we chart a path into the new millennium. [ ] US hegemony is the best option to lead humanity into space – Americans are less likely to abuse hegemonic power due to a systemic angst Dolman 2005, Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies [Everett C. Dolman. “US Military Transformation and Weapons.” September 14, 2005. http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2011.] Conclusions: Space weaponization is a critical and necessary component in the process of transformation well under way, a process that cannot be reversed. Once America demonstrated the capacity to strike precisely, it could only go back to the kind of indiscriminant targeting and heavy collateral damage that characterized pre-space warfare if it were engaged in a war of national survival. And if there are future technological, economic, and perhaps social benefits to -be derived from developing and deploying weapons, they will certainly not come from increasing the stock of current systems. They will only come, if at all, from the development of new, highly complex and scientifically heuristic space, stealth, precision, and information systems. As leader of the international community, the United States finds itself in the unenviable position that it must make decisions for the good of all. On the issue of space weaponization, there appears no one best option. No matter the choice selected, there are those who will benefit and those who will suffer. The tragedy of American power is that it must make a choice, and the worst choice is to do nothing. And yet, in the process of choosing, it has a great advantage—the moral ambiguity of its people regarding the use of power. There is no question that corrupted power is a dangerous thing, but perhaps only Americans are so concerned with the possibility that they themselves will be corrupted. They fear what they could become. No other state has such potential for self restraint. It is this introspection, this self-angst that makes America the best choice to lead the world today and tomorrow. It is not perfect, but perhaps it is perfectible. Perhaps the most important insight to come from a discussion of transformation in war is the notion that space weapons, along with the parallel development of information, precision, and stealth capabilities, presents in our era a true revolution in military affairs. As such, these technologies and capabilities will propel the world into an uncertain New Age. For better or worse, the future can be denied only by a spasm of nuclear nihilism. The states that move forward against the fears of the many, and harness these new technologies to a forward-looking strategy of cooperative advantage for all, have the potential to initiate humanities’ first global golden age. The very nature of space requires that the ultimate use of it must be both encompassing and incorporating, but the nature of international relations and the lessons of history dictate that it begin with the vision and will of a few acting in the benefit of all. 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:
|