Uniqueness- Militarization

Uniqueness- Militarization

STRASBOURG, France - The United States is not developing space weapons and could not afford to do so even if it wanted to, an official with the Pentagon's National Security Space Office said Thursday.

Pete Hays, a senior policy analyst at the space office who is also associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said U.S. policy on space weaponry has remained pretty much the same over the last 30 years despite the occasionally heated debate on the subject during the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

"There has not been one minute spent on this issue as far as I know," Hays said of U.S. Defense Department policy on using weapons in space. "There are no space weaponization programs. It's an issue that academics like to flog now and then, but in terms of funded programs, there aren't any. I can tell you that categorically."

This mix imbues space security discourse with a questionable logic reminiscent of the US posture on nuclear weapons and its emphasis on deterrence. Perhaps most disconcertingly the NSSS appears to validate the findings of a 2001 commission chaired by then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which concluded that "every medium--air, land and sea--has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different" (Report of the Commission 2001, p. 10). The message conveyed by the NSSS seems clear: US space policy will be driven by this assumption, and the country will ready itself--unapologctically--for potential war in space. 
The NSSS, which completes the Congress-mandated Space Posture Review, outlines how the National Space Policy released in June 2010 will be carried out and sets forth US strategic objectives for the space environment. Among its goals is to "ensure national security access to space and use of space capabilities in peace, crisis or conflict" (p. 4). For political analysts the NSSS also constitutes a concrete reference point on how space policy under President Barack Obama differs from the hawkish stand adopted by George W. Bush. 
Overall, a positive change in tone, approaches and aspirations is evident. Whereas the 2006 National Space Policy (US DoD 2006, p. 2) stated that "the United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space," the newly released NSSS declares that the United States "will support development of data standards, best practices, transparency and confidence-building measures Confidence-building measures (CBMs) are certain techniques which are designed to lower tensions and make it less likely that a conflict would break out through a misunderstanding, mistake, or misreading of the actions of a potential adversary. , and norms of behaviour for responsible space operations" (p. 5). 
But the 2011 policy is far from advocating the adoption of a legally binding policy instrument to prohibit hostile actions against an adversary's space assets. Recent developments suggest that the United States may consider endorsing the European Union's Code of Conduct proposal. Despite being a step in the right direction, the EU proposal is non-binding and, for the most part, skirts the thorny issue of space weaponization.

Link- Generic

US blocking out China causes retaliation

Hagt 2007 (Eric, China’s ASAT Test: Strategic Response, China Security, Winter 2007, pp. 31 – 51 Eric Hagt is the director of the China Program at the World Security Institute, in Washington, D.C. and Beijing. His research interests include Sino-U.S. relations in the field of space, energy and a range of non-traditional security issues.)

Finally, to focus only on the impact on the future security in space by this ASAT weapon test would be to miss the larger strategic undercurrent that it represents. While its purpose may have been only a specific challenge to U.S. intentions to dominate space, China has lucidly demonstrated a willing­ness to challenge U.S. policies and strategies that are inherently threatening to China⁷⁸ America's unipolar moment probably died with its decision to go into Iraq. Now, its ability to act without consideration of others' security interests is being challenged. The Chinese call this "hegemony" and they are now opposing it openly As mis article began, China was not challenging U.S. power in space, it was challenging the U.S. self-described right to dominate it With America's vulnerability in space, this test is in fact the easier way to challenge the United States (to do so conventionally would be suicidal). If the United States continues to pursue its own strategic and security interests at the exclusion of China (or others), it should be prepared for more confrontation, especially if mat impinges on China's core national interests. Conceding this is not about surrendering strategic ground to a potential or future adversary, it's about reaching accommodation and common ground that is not only equitable but inevitable

Unique Link---China is exploiting US funding gap for gains in space

Tkacik 10 (c John J., a retired Foreign Service officer, was chiefof China analysis in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration, “Chin space program shoots for moon,” The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/08/china-eyes-high-ground/?page=1)

In contrast, NASA has resigned itself to the realities that America’s space shuttles will be decommissioned by 2010 and, while the test-launch of the Ares 1-X heavy lift booster was successful, the follow-on Constellation manned program does not have a budget that will get it off the blueprint tables. Nor is NASA staffed with the scientists needed to support it. The median age of NASA’s manned space engineers is now over 55. Over a quarter are past retirement age. Meanwhile, China’s average lunar probe engineer is about 33 years old and the Shenzhou manned-space program engineers average about 36.

China’s space program also seems to have all the funding and resources it needs, partially due to the fact that seven of China’s nine most senior leaders - the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo - are themselves engineers. China may already be the second-largest manufacturing power on Earth and possesses a highly advanced industrial infrastructure. It now has more than $2.3 trillion in excess foreign exchange holdings - adding another $300 billion just in the past nine months, equal the entire gross product of Argentina. And China’s top universities are rolling in research money, possess the latest laboratory equipment, and have their pick of the most brilliant students.
Need an a, but card that says backing down makes China look weak

Chambers 09 (Rob, Naval Postgraduate school, revised by Moltz, Dr. James Clay, Naval Postgraduate School, “China’s Space Prgoram: A New Tool For PRC “Soft Power” In International Relations?” http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Mar/09Mar_Chambers.pdf)

Quoting the old Chinese idiom of, “When riding a tiger, it is difficult to get off” (qihu nanxia), Stacey Solomone notes that:

The CCP, and subsequently, the PLA would lose face should they decide to back off from developing the space program. It would appear to as if the CCP and PLA were conceding to the Chinese people that they were not advanced as the United States or Russia. The CCP and PLA would risk losing face in the international community and popular support at home. The Chinese space program provides an ample amount of legitimacy to the CCP which so often totes how the space program is aiding the national economy and security.83

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 207.65 Kb.

Share with your friends: