Verbatim Mac

Squo solves—and US won’t cooperate to decrease space mil even if us/china relats good

Download 357.18 Kb. Page 70/146 Date 11.07.2022 Size 357.18 Kb. #59162

Navigate this page:

• US wants space mil—US/China coop won’t yield results

Squo solves—and US won’t cooperate to decrease space mil even if us/china relats good Bodner 15 (Matthew, journalist for The Moscow Times, “UN approves Russia-led proposal to limit militarization of space,” The Moscow Times, 12/8/2015, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/un-approves-russia-led-proposal-to-limit-militarization-of-space/552230.html) KC The United Nations General Assembly has approved a Russian-led resolution calling for nations to refrain from being the first to deploy weapons into outer space, in spite of U.S. resistance and European silence on the proposed measure, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The resolution was first drafted by Russia in 2014, but was rejected by the United States and other nations last year, and then again this year, when the draft resolution was considered by a GA committee focusing on issues of arms control. On Tuesday, 129 nations represented in the General Assembly voted to adopt the measure, which was co-sponsored by 40 nations — including China and Syria — and is known as the “no first placement” initiative. “It is noteworthy that the only government objecting to the substance of our initiative is the United States, which for many years has stood in almost complete isolation trying to block successive efforts of the international community to prevent an arms race in outer space,” the Foreign Ministry said. The initiative calls on nations to refrain from being the first to place military weapons in outer space, thereby preventing a new and potentially devastating arms race between the world's leading space-faring nations — Russia, China and the United States, who are all working on space weapons. Europe, which has an effective multi-national space program of its own, has consistently abstained from ruling on the Russian proposal. US wants space mil—US/China coop won’t yield results Shah 7 (Anup, editor of Global Issues, “Militarization and weaponization of outer space,” Global Issues, 1/21/2007, http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outer-space) KC Some delegations expressed the view that a greater risk of the introduction of weapons into outer space and the adoption of a concept of a use of force in outer space would undermine the basis for and the very logic of developing nonproliferation mechanisms and of the whole system of international security. … The view was expressed that an international agreement should be concluded to prohibit the deployment of weapons in outer space. — Report of the Committee of the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/58/20), 11 to 20 June 2003, pp. 7—8 Similar positions have been reiterated since, too. For example, October 2006 saw a near-unanimous vote at the General Assembly when 166 nations voted for a resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Only one country abstrained, Israel, while only one voted against such a resolution, the United States of America. Whether the Committee can be effective, as the General Assembly desire, depends largely some some of the most powerful nations in the world. Back to top US Seeks Militarization Of Space While various militaries around the world have used Space for years, it has largely been for surveillance satellites etc. However, the Bush Administration in the United States has long made it clear that the US wishes to expand its military capabilities and have weapons in space and therfore also be dominant in this fourth military arena (the other three being sea, land and air). This new “ultimate high ground” would provide further superior military capabilities. While it would provide additional important defense mechanisms, many worry about the other benefit it would bring—capabilities for offensive purposes to push America’s “national interests” even if they are not in the interests of the international community. Furthermore, together with its pursuit of missile defense, (which goes against the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, an important part of global arms control mechanisms), the USA risks starting a wasteful expenditure of an arms race in space. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and the resulting “War on Terror” military-based policies and spending has increased. So too have the policies looking into space-based weapons. The Washington D.C.-based Center for Defence Information (CDI) provides a detailed report suggesting that this should not be a rushed decision: Unlike in Star Trek, the “final frontier” has yet to become a battlefield. But if the current trends continue, that will change—not in the distance future of science fiction, but within the next several decades. Emerging Bush administration plans and policies are clearly aimed at making the United States the first nation to deploy space-based weapons. There are several drivers behind this goal, including the very real concern about the vulnerability of space assets that are increasingly important to how the US military operates, and the administration’s decision to pursue missile defense. Unfortunately, the administration has done little thinking—at least publicly—about the potential for far-reaching military, political and economic ramifications of a US move to break the taboo against weaponizing space. There is reason for concern that doing so could actually undermine, rather than enhance, the national security of the United States, as well as global stability. Thus it behooves the administration, as well as Congress, to undertake an in-depth and public policy review of the pros and cons of weaponizing space. Such a review would look seriously at the threat, both short-term and long-term, as well as measures to prevent, deter or counter any future threat using all the tools in the US policy toolbox: diplomatic, including arms control treaties; economic; and military, including defensive measures short of offensive weapons. There is nothing to be gained, and potentially much to be lost, by rushing such a momentous change in US space policy. — Theresa Hitchens, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?, The Policy Implications of US Pursuit of Space-Based Weapons, Center for Defence Information, April 18, 2002 But because space-based weapons have been on the agenda long before September 11, and the War on Terror, the fight against terrorism is not the sole justification, though it may now add to the reasons. However, long before September 11, the concerns of the US’ motives for pursuing such policies have been questioned. The fear is that by seeking to create a dominant position in space, the US will become more powerful and others may be compelled to join an arms race in space. The above-mentioned CDI report also points out that “The Bush administration’s views were directly reflected in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released Oct. 1, 2001. ‘A key objective … is not only to ensure US ability to exploit space for military purposes, but also as required to deny an adversary’s ability to do so,’ states the QDR.” In this context then, space is no longer seen as the resource available for all of humanity, but another ground from which to fight geopolitical and economic battles. The New York Times reported (May 18, 2005) that there is a further push by the US Air Force for weapons in space. “Any deployment of space weapons would face financial, technological, political and diplomatic hurdles, although no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction,” claims the Times. Yet, this news article appears to ignore the Outer Space Treaty mentioned above, or the Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favor to none against, with 3 abstentions (the US being one of those three). If technically there are no bans on weapons, then certainly such weaponization would go against the spirit of those treaties. What the Times does mention, though, is that There has been little public debate while the “Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons … preparing plans to deploy them;” Air Force doctrine defines space superiority as “freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack” in space; In April 2005, “Gen. James E. Cartwright, who leads the United States Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services nuclear forces subcommittee that the goal of developing space weaponry was to allow the nation to deliver an attack ‘very quickly, with very short time lines on the planning and delivery, any place on the face of the earth.’” Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny…. Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future. — General Lance Lord, head of US Air Force Space Command, quoted from Air Force Seeks Bush’s Approval for Space Weapons Programs, New York Times, May 18, 2005 On August 31, 2006, President Bush authorized a new national space policy, supersedeing the National Space Policy of September 14, 1996. The policy was based on 8 principles. One was about supporting the peaceful use of space by all nations. However, “Consistent with this principle,” claimed the policy, “peaceful purposes” would “allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests.” Two other key principles noted the use of force, if needed to defend US interests: 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 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; Download 357.18 Kb. Share with your friends: