Space Mil Affgarrett/ Quinn Lab

Samford Debate Camp

Space Mil AffGarrett/ Quinn Lab

Table of Contents

*****1AC*****

Advantage 1 is Space Supremacy

Advantage 2 is China

Plan

Last is Solvency

*****Addons*****

Econ Addon

Nuk Terror/Bioterrr Addon

Indo-Pak Addon

Israel/Iran Strikes Addon

*****Misc./Solvency*****

AT: Plan -> Arms Race

AT: Plan -> Arms Race (2)

AT: Plan -> Arms Race (3)

Clarification Between Space Wep/Mil

Defense of Lasers

Solves all Conflict

Space Pearl Harbor

Space Weapons k2 Solve Terrestrial Systems

AT: Space Lasers Fail

Satellite Hardening Solves

*****Country Debates*****

***China***

Treaties Can’t Solve CHina

China Will Weaponize Space

AT: No US/China War

AT: China ASAT Test Intended for Arms Control

AT: Plan Increases China Space Weponization

***India***

India is developing ASATs

Arms Control Fails (India)

Arms Control Works (India)

***Russia***

Russia is developing ASATs

TABLE OF CONTENTS (2)

*****OST*****

OST Fails

OST Bad

AT: OST Collapse Bad

OST Collapse Inevitable

*****AT: CP’s*****

AT: International Actor CP

AT: Arms Control CP

AT: Arms Control CP (2)

AT: Arms Control CP (3)

AT: Code of Conduct/Treaty CP

*****AT: DA’s*****

AT: Spending DA

AT: Debris DA

AT: Debris DA (2)

AT: Tourism/ Exploration DA

*****Politics*****

Plan Unpopular

Flip Flop Link

Plan Bipart

Aerospace Lobby Link Turn

*****AT: K’s*****......

*****1AC*****

Advantage 1 is Space Supremacy

The “space sanctuary” idea is an irrational cold war relic - space is already being weaponized and the US must respond

Dolman, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies, and Cooper, Former Deputy of the DOD’s Strategic and Space Systems, 11 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and Recipient of Central Intelligence’s Outstanding Intelligence Analyst Award, and Henry, Former Deputy for the Strategic and Space Systems of the DOD and Chairman of High Frontier, a non-profit organization studying issues of missile defense and space, “Chapter 19: Increasing the Military Uses of Space,” Part of “Toward a Theory of Spacepower,” Edited by Charles Lutes and Peter Hays, National Defense University Press,

In this chapter, we make the case that opposition to increasing the militarization and weaponization of space is a misapplied legacy of the Cold War and that dramatic policy shifts are necessary to free the scientific, academic, and military communities to develop and deploy an optimum array of space capabilities, including weapons in space, eventually under the control of a U.S. Space Force. Creating the Myth of Space Sanctuary During World War II—before the advent of the atomic bomb or intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—the Chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps, General "Hap" Arnold, had a prescient view of the future: Someday, not too distant; there can come streaking out of somewhere (we won't be able to hear it, it will come so fast) some kind of gadget with an explosive so powerful that one projectile will be able to wipe out completely this city of Washington. . . . I think we will meet the attack alright [sic] and, of course, in the air. But I'll tell you one thing, there won't be a goddam pilot in the sky! That attack will be met by machines guided not by human brains, but by devices conjured up by human brains. Within about 15 years of Arnold's comments, Soviet ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads did indeed have the ability to threaten Washington, but over 40 years later, America's ability to reliably defend itself from ICBMs remains minimal—due not to technology limitations but to long-standing policy and political constraints. To understand the passion of the current opposition to space weapons, one must look into the fundamental issue of the Cold War: nuclear weapons deployed at a scale to threaten the existence of all life on the planet. The specter of potential nuclear devastation was so horrendous that a neo-ideal of a world without war became a political imperative. Longstanding realist preference for peace through strength was stymied by the invulnerability of ballistic missiles traveling at suborbital velocities. Thus, America accepted a policy of assured and mutual destruction to deter its opponents in a horrible (if effective) balance of terror. This meant it became politically infeasible even to contemplate shooting down missiles aimed at America or its allies— especially from machines in space that might prove so efficient as to force an opponent to strike while it could, before such a system became operational. With the coupling of space capabilities, including the extremely important roles of force monitoring and treaty verification, to nuclear policy, the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons and warfare became interconnected with military space.This is perhaps understandable, if fundamentally in error, but not only did space weapons become anathema for missile defense, but also weapons in space for the protection of interests there became a forbidden topic. Ironically, elements of the elite scientific community in the 1950s and 1960s created the conditions that frustrated the second half of Arnold's vision, which called upon America's edge in technology to provide for the Nation's defense—because they believed reaching that objective was not achievable and that seeking to achieve it was not desirable. Perhaps because they were motivated by guilt for their complicity in bringing the nuclear bomb to fruition, these individuals preferred to rely solely on diplomacy and arms control and argued against exploiting technology, which they believed would only provoke an arms race. They advocated this point of view at the highest political levels—and they were very successful in meeting their objectives. Whether by design or chance, the civilian leadership 40 to 50 years ago also imposed bureaucratic institutional constraints that limited the ability of the Services to exploit cutting-edge technologies to take advantage of space for traditional military purposes. When combined with arms control constraints and the current lack of vision among the military Services, this same dysfunctional space bureaucracy is simply not responsive to the growing threat from proliferating space technology among our adversaries as well as our friends.

Conflict over space is inevitable - reliance on space for terrestrial warfare guarantees it - 2.5 thousand years of history prove

Smith, Colonel and PhD in IR, 11(M.V., Colonel, PhD in Politics and IR @ University of Reading, Citing Colin Gray, “Chapter 17: Security and Spacepower, Part of “Toward a Theory of Spacepower,” Edited by Charles Lutes and Peter Hays, National Defense University Press,

It is a rule in strategy, one derived empirically from the evidence of two and a half millennia, that anything of great strategic importance to one belligerent, for that reason has to be worth attacking by others. And the greater the importance, the greater has to be the incentive to damage, disable, capture, or destroy it. In the bluntest of statements: space warfare is a certainty in the future because the use of space in war has become vital. . . . Regardless of public sentimental or environmentally shaped attitudes towards space as the pristine final frontier, space warfare is coming.20 The strategic value of space to states is not in question. Advanced spacefaring states are already reliant—and moving toward dependence—on space-derived services for activities across every sector of their societies. Spacepower is becoming critical to their styles of warfighting. Likewise, the injury that can be caused to such states by menacing their space systems can be considerable. Given these incentives, the beast of war will either break its chains all at once or stretch them slowly over time.21

The only option is for the US to weaponize space - this is critical to preserving hegemony. Weaponization by other nations is inevitable - the US needs to get there first to prevent arms race

Dolman 10 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and Recipient of Central Intelligence’s Outstanding Intelligence Analyst Award, “The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment,” September,

This is the context in which the world now exists. The relatively stable global hegemony of US dominance since 1945, punctuated by limited wars and shifting balances of opposition, has relied on technology-dominant global power projection.Today, that technology is wholly integrated and inextricable from space support, and no state relies more on space power for its economic and security well-being than the US. Any effort to deny space capabilities would be a direct challenge to its hegemonic power, and the United States must confront the usurper or abdicate its leadership position. To be sure, China’s increasing space emphasis and its cultural antipathy to military transparency suggests that a serious attempt at seizing control of space is in the works. A lingering fear is the sudden introduction of an unknown capability (call it Technology X) that would allow a hostile state to place multiple weapons into orbit quickly and cheaply. The advantages gained from controlling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any other state, and the concomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to America’s already-dependent military forces could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the United States dithers on its military responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize low-earth orbit before America is able to respond. And in such circumstances, the US certainly would respond. Conversely, if America were to weaponize space, it is not at all sure that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the necessary infrastructure is still too high—hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment needed to achieve a comparable counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the United States to entrench itself in space and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments directly. They might oppose American interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively it uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the United States deploy weapons first—at least for the next few years—is remote. This reasoning does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. Clearly this would be intimidating, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than another, particularly non-liberal authoritarian state doing so, as the necessity of a response in kind is compelling. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the majority of states seem to regard it as at least tolerable. A continuation of the status quo is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working toward its demise. As long as the United States does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. Mirror-imaging does not apply here. An attempt by China to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order. Such an action would challenge the status quo, rather than seek to perpetuate it. This would be disconcerting to nations that accept, no matter how grudgingly, the current international order—including the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within it—and intolerable to the United States. As leader of the current system, the United States could do no less than engage in a perhaps ruinous space arms race, save graciously decide to step aside and accept a diminished world status. Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is dominant in space infrastructure, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote.

Weaponization is key to protect space assets that are vital to terrestrial military dominance

Dolman 5 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and Recipient of Central Intelligence’s Outstanding Intelligence Analyst Award, “ US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” September 14th,

The United States has embarked on a revolutionary military transformation designed to extend its dominance in military engagements. Space capabilities are the lynchpin of this transformation, enabling a level of precision, stealth, command and control, intelligence gathering, speed, maneuverability, flexibility, and lethality heretofore unknown. This twenty-first century way of war promises to give the United States a capacity to use force to influence events around the world in a timely, effective, and sustainable manner. And this is a good thing, a true transformation from conflicts past. That the process of transformation was well underway became evident in 1991, when the world’s fourth largest military was defeated in just ten days of ground combat. Unfathomably complicated battle equipment, sleek new aircraft, and promising new missile interceptors publicly debuted. Arthur C. Clarke went so far as to dub Operation DESERT STORM (ODS) the world’s first space war, as none of the accomplishments of America’s new look military would have been possible without support from space. Twelve years later, in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), assertions as to the central role of space power could no longer be denied. America’s military had transitioned from space supported to a fully space enabled force, with astonishingly positive results. Indeed, most of the nation’s current space power functions were successfully exercised in OIF, including space lift, command and control, intelligence including rapid battle damage assessment, timing and navigation, and meteorological support. The tremendous growth in space reliance from OSD to OIF is evident in the raw numbers. Despite engaging with a 60 percent smaller force (fewer than 200,000 personnel v. over 500,000), satellite communications usage increased four-fold, from 200 to 800 Mbps (Megabits per second) capacity. Newly possible operational concepts such as reach back (intelligence analysts in the United States sending information directly to frontline units) and reach forward (rear-deployed commanders able to direct battlefield operations in real time) reconfigured the tactical concept of war. The value of Predator and Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), completely reliant on satellite communications and navigation for their operation, was confirmed. Special Forces units, paradoxically tethered to satellite support and yet practically unfettered in their silent movements because of them, ranged throughout Iraq in independent operations that were extremely disruptive. But the paramount effect of space-enabled warfare was in the area of combat efficiency. Space assets allowed all weather, day-night precision munitions to provide the bulk of America’s striking power. Strikes from standoff platforms, including Vietnam-Era B-52s, allowed maximum target devastation with extraordinarily low death and collateral devastation. In ODS, 90 percent of munitions used were unguided. Of the ten percent that were guided, none was GPS capable. By OIF, 70 percent were precision guided, more than half of those from GPS satellites. In ODS, fewer than five percent of aircraft were GPS-equipped. By OIF, all were. During ODS, GPS proved so valuable to the army that it procured and rushed into theater over 4,500 commercial receivers to augment the meager 800 military-band ones it could deploy from stockpiles, an average of one per company (about 200 personnel). By OIF, each army squad (6-10 soldiers) had at least one military GPS receiver. With such demonstrated utility and reliance, there is no question the US must guarantee space access if it is to be successful in future conflicts. Its military has stepped well over the threshold of a new way of war. It is simply not possible to go back to the violently spasmodic mode of combat typical of pre-space intervention. The United States is now highly discriminating in the projection of violence, parsimonious in the intended breadth of its destruction. For the positive process of transformation to continue, however, space weapons must enter the combat inventory of the United States.