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:
- Japan BMD Add-On
India China Add-On[ ] India takes Chinese ASAT test as a threat – they will take steps to increase their own ASATs against China Hitchens 2007 – Director of World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information [Thersea, U.S.-Sino Relations in Space: From “War of Words” to Cold War in Space?, cs5_chapter2.pdf, Accessed June 21, 2011] And the most worrisome question of all – beside the potential for sparking a Sino-U.S. ASAT race – is whether China’s other rival nations, most specifically, India, will seek to react in kind. India’s media, predictably, has been harshly denouncing the Chinese test as a threat to India. “It threatens our own expanding civilian space assets, undermines the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, and exposes New Delhi's lack of a military space strategy,” the Indian Express newspaper said in an editorial on Jan. 20.41 M. Natarajan, science advisor to India’s Defense Ministry, said the government would be especially concerned if such Chinese missiles could “disable” satellites with military and/or navigation capabilities and told reporters that the Indian government is assessing “steps we need to initiate in this direction.”42 Unfortunately, the Chinese test comes amid a renewed push by the Indian Air Force to establish a military hold on Indian space policy and funding; a push that has been underpinned by Air Force lobbying regarding the “China threat.”43 There has been a steady drum-beat for a number of years regarding India’s need to compete in military space, including the development of ASAT weaponry. In April 2005, Chief Air Marshall S. P. Tyagi told reporters in New Delhi that India intends to set up a Strategic Air Command, in part to lay the groundwork for counter-space capabilities.44 His remarks echoed those of his predecessor, Srinivaspuram Krishnaswamy, made in October 2003, telling reporters that work on the command was aimed at deploying weapons in space: “Any country on the fringe of space technology like India has to work towards such a command as advanced countries are already moving towards laser weapon platforms in space and killer satellites.”45 While up to now, the Indian government has largely turned a deaf ear to Air Force advocacy, the Chinese ASAT test may turn the tide in its favor. When asked about India’s anti-satellite capabilities, Natarajan refused comment, but noted: “Maybe we need to talk to ISRO [Indian Space Research Organisation].”46 Japan BMD Add-On[ ] Chinese ASATs will cause Japanese support for BMD Hitchens 2007 – Director of World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information [Thersea, U.S.-Sino Relations in Space: From “War of Words” to Cold War in Space?, cs5_chapter2.pdf, Accessed June 21, 2011] Likewise, the Chinese action may spur Japan not only to speed its efforts at developing missile defenses but possibly to develop military space capabilities. “It may fuel the argument that Japan should develop space technology for national defense, especially as it came in the midst of the North Korean nuclear crisis,” said Yasunori Matogawa, a professor of space engineering at the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, part of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.47 Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Tokyo had demanded an explanation from the Chinese government; while Foreign Minister Taro Aso criticized Beijing for failing to give advance notice of the test which he doubted was for “peaceful use” of space.48 Japanese officials have continued to charge that the Chinese government has yet to give a full and credible account of the test and future plans.49 ****MISC****Lunar Mining Links[ ] Lunar mining motivates militarization to maintain a monopoly over the resources Wolf 2004 [Jim, staffwriter for Reuters, U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/world-review/35659-u-s-eyes-space-possible-battleground.html accessed June 24, 2011] Theresa Hitchens of the private Center for Defense Information said the capabilities to conduct space warfare would move out of the realm of science fiction and into reality over the next 20 years or so. "At the end of the day it will be political choices by governments, not technology, that determines if the nearly 50- year taboo against arming the heavens remains in place," she concluded in a recent study. Outlining his election-year vision for space exploration last week, Bush called for a permanent base on the moon by 2020 as a launch pad for piloted missions to Mars and beyond. One unspoken motivation may have been China's milestone launch in October of its first piloted spaceflight in earth orbit and its announced plan to go to the moon. "I think the new initiative is driven by a desire to beat the Chinese to the moon," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense and space policy research group. Among companies that could cash in on Bush's space plans are Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., which do big business with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well as with the Pentagon. The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor. "And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike. Gerald Kulcinski of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison estimated the moon's helium 3 would have a cash value of perhaps $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil. Scientists reckon there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the earth for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 30 tons could meet all U.S. electric power needs for a year, Kulcinski said by e-mail. Bush's schedule for a U.S. return to the moon matches what experts say may be a dramatic militarization of space over the next two decades, even if the current ban on weapons holds. [ ] Moon mining will cause militarization of space to back up competing territorial and resource claims Heinburg 2010 - American journalist and educator [Richard, who has written extensively on ecological issues DIVIDING THE PIE IN THE SKY: THE NEED FOR A NEW LUNAR RESOURCES REGIME: http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/24/24.1/Hatch.pdf: Accessed 6-24-11] There are two crucial points, however, that differentiate Antarctica from the Moon and that predict the failure of the OST regime once the Moon becomes a resource base that is readily accessible. First, Antarctica is not a true res communes. The Antarctic Treaty did not require states parties to disavow their territorial claims.210 Rather, it only barred the modification of the claims that were in existence in 1959.211 States not only still maintain their claims on Antarctic territory,212 but some have gone as far as to issue postage stamps in the name of their Antarctic territories to reassert the vitality of those claims.213 The impact of this perpetuation of territorial claims has been mitigated by other arrangements in the Antarctic Treaty System that severely limit the profitability of states exploiting their claims, such as the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty,214 which has barred extraction of Antarctic resources until 2048.215 Additionally, Antarctica does not have the mineral or resource wealth of the Moon.216 For these reasons, Antarctica has not been worth developing, much less fighting over. Contrast this with the current dispute over the resource-rich Arctic—where states are trying to maintain assertions of territorial control to horde the energy resources beneath the seabed—and it is clear that where resources and profits are accessible, conflict surely follows. The historical conflicts over imperialist regimes and colonialism tend to suggest that when powerful states have an interest in amassing something that exists in large, previously un-owned quantities in one location, they will inevitably come into conflict with one another. States have a limited economic interest in the Antarctic,218 and so they are unlikely to invest military assets and the necessary financing to vindicate or broaden their claim to something that is not generating them any wealth. In contrast, states seem to believe that they have potentially great economic interests in the Moon and, accordingly may have a correspondingly large motivation to have conflicts over it. states will soon be converging on the Moon to reap the benefits that it may provide. Given the recent actions by the United States and China, and the spirit of conquest and competition that seems to be informing the current Moon rush, the vague and generic OST will not be able to sufficiently stop state conflict over the greatest economic opportunity in history. 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:
|