US Leadership Aff

7/31/2019 US Leadership Aff

1/48

2011 Experienced Core Filesp.Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. L EADERSHIP AFFIRMATIVE

Inherency

Currently, Americas space program is stalled. Budget pressures have forced President Obama toradically redesign NASA and focus it on more modest goals. The budget for the organization is flat or declining over the next five years. While there are strong pockets of support in Congress for thespace program, namely from space towns like Orlando, FL and Houston, TX, there is no broadwillingness in Congress for increasing the space program. Congress has insisted on funding a rocketprogram for a project that is canceled. The President has proposed to eliminate or delay manyimportant space programs, such as his cancellation of Constellation, a project designed to return

America to the Moon.

One alternative to NASA that is often mentioned is the private space sector. Indeed, there are manycompanies that are invested in developing space launch technology. President Obamas plan hopes

to use private space launches for American missions into outer space. Many experts believe thatprivate companies are nowhere near ready to take on such a complex project. It also runs the riskthat a catastrophic accident, as we have seen before in the government space program, wouldcompletely undercut the private sector programs as investors fled the failure.

As a result of these choices, American leadership in human space flight may not continue. Today, theU.S. capability remains ahead of the Chinese by all measures of experience, technology, industry andpartnerships. But the continuation of that is uncertain. Major American programs such as the shuttleand International Space Station are winding down. We have abandoned plans to send humans to theMoon or Mars.

Meanwhile, China has been ramping up its human space flight capabilities. The Department of Defense has reported that China is expanding its space-based intelligence, surveillance, navigationand communication power. Chinas military leadership, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) hasincreased its involvement in its space program and put to use those intelligence and communicationcapabilities.

Harm/Advantages

United States space leadership prevents wars. The U.S. relies on space for its military hegemonybecause satellites can provide fast, accurate information on enemy strengths and deploymentpatterns. This type of intelligence is crucial for modern war strategy and targeting.

China is working to neutralize that advantage through its own space program. They are developingspace weapons that can shoot down or disable American satellites. This capability is referred to as

Anti-Satellite weapons, or ASATs. China is aware of the U.S. superiority of ground forces and seesthe ability to neutralize them as fundamental to challenging American forces in Asia and around theglobe.

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12- 1 -

1


2/48

2011 Experienced Core Filesp.Space Leadership Affirmative

Americas leadership in ground force capability has enabled the U.S. to keep the peace and advanceU.S. interests around the world. This preeminence has produced many benefits for America includingreducing the risk of direct attack. Our ability to project our power wherever and whenever we need tohas prevented major wars from developing and escalating. Were the U.S. to lose that capability, not

only would American interests be in jeopardy, but conflicts in regions like South Asia, Korea and theMiddle East might flare up and get out of control with no power available to decisively resolve them.

Further, Chinese advances in space put the two nations on a collision course for a space war.Whoever dominates space will dominate the international system on earth. American spacecapabilities are needed to match that threat and deter Chinese space aggression.

If China successfully develops a Moon base, it could harvest resources and the strategic high groundthere to challenge American supremacy. Those who believe Chinas space program is intendedsolely for economic advancement, not strategic superiority ignore many warning signs, especiallyPLA involvement in those programs. China is seizing on the opportunity created by Americas pause

to engage in a successful space race. If anything, we underestimate their goals.

Solvency

The United States should increase its exploration and development of outer space by greatlyincreasing Americas space program, including new goals such as human flight to the Moon or Mars.Capabilities in space have always been the crucial measure for American leadership. If we want toretain our leadership in space we must maintain our edge in capabilities and use that strength toenhance our international prestige and influence.

Increasing our unilateral power in space would stop the space arms race. If we seize the initiative

while we still have the dominant space infrastructure, we could deny any attempt by other nations,such as China, to place assets in space. Our strength in space would make space war less likely, notmore. If we as a nation demonstrated commitment to space leadership, why would any other nationspend the resources to challenge us when that would ultimately prove to be futile?


2


3/48

2011 Experienced Core Files p. of 48Space Leadership Affirmative

S PACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

I. INHERENCY

DESPITE PRESIDENT OBAMAS EARLY PROMISES, AMERICAN SPACE EXPLORATIONEFFORTS HAVE BEEN GUTTED

Lou Friedman, former Executive Director, The Planetary Society, March 7, 2011[The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1795/1]

Eleven months ago fans of space exploration cheered as President Obama, for the first time sinceJohn Kennedy, went on the road to support a program for a new venture of human exploration: Wellstart by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe wecan send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow.Then Congress went to work and, today, we have no coherent human space exploration goals,objectives, or program. We instead have a weak jobs program, spending money on a cancelledproject and ordering a new rocket-to-nowhere project. In that same speech the president said, Wewill ramp up robotic exploration of the solar system and We will increase Earth-based observation toimprove our understanding of our climate and our world. In his very next budget submission lastmonth, with still no budget passed by Congress for the current fiscal year, he proposed elimination of robotic precursor missions, a decrease in planetary science funding, and delays of vitally neededEarth science missions (a need which just increased as a result of the loss of Glory). All of theproposed increases that were submitted to Congress last year (and which they failed to act upon) areeliminated. In addition, the budget submission ignored the James Webb Space Telescope and thefuture Mars programkicking the can of their consideration down the road. NASA is now not justparalyzed, but its vital signs are weakening.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS NOT READY TO TAKE OVER FOR GOVERNMENT SPACEPROGRAMS

David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010[Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6]

What, then, could the Obama administration have been thinking when it announced this pastFebruary that NASA should essentially get out of the manned-spaceship business and turn it over toprivate industry? Under the plan, NASA will write off most of the $9 billion invested so far inConstellation, the program to develop a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle capable of ferryingastronauts and supplies to the space station and, eventually, to the moon. Instead the agency will

provide seed money to start-ups such as SpaceX, then agree to buy tickets to the space station ontheir rockets. It is a naive and reckless plan, a chorus of voices charged. Among the loudest was thatof former astronaut and space icon Neil Armstrong, who was quick to scoff at the notion that theprivate sector is ready to take over from NASA. "It will require many years and substantial investmentto reach the necessary level of safety and reliability," he stated. Leaving orbital ferrying in the handsof private companies, Armstrong and others insisted, would at best be setting the clock back onmanned space exploration. And were private enterprise to drop the ball, perhaps evencatastrophically, as many believe it would, the entire grand enterprise of sending people into space


1


4/48


might come to a long-term or even permanent halt. Once NASA's massive manned-spaceflightmachine is dismantled, rebuilding it might take far more time and money than anyone would want tospend. Yet despite these concerns, Congress reluctantly agreed to the plan this fall.


2


5/48



THE U.S. LEAD IN HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT MAY NOT CONTINUE

Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, GWU, May 11, 2011[Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

On balance, Chinese civil space capabilities can be expected to increase in the future. China will beable t o undertake unilateral and international space projects of increasing complexity that will in turnincrease commercial, military, and diplomatic opportunities at times and places of Chinas choosing.Today, U.S. human space flight capabilities remain considerably ahead of China by all measures or experience, technology, industrial base, and partnerships. Unfortunately, the continuation of thecurrent balance is uncertain. The United States has failed to develop an assured means for U.S.Government human access to space, the International Space Station is reliant on the Russian Soyuzand unproven commercial providers wit h a consequent risk of loss of the Station should there be amajor accident onorbit, and finally, the United States has failed t o engage its existing internationalpartners in a program of exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Plans for a human return to the Moon areon hold and no other human exploration missions are in work. All of these factors increase t he oddsthat the United States will not be a global leader in human spaceflight after the end of theInternational Space Station sometime in the next ten years or so.

CHINA IS ACCELERATING ITS MILITARY POWER IN SPACE

Michael Chase, The Jamestown Foundation, March 25, 2011[http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37699&tx_ttnews[backPid]=25&cHash=e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244]

In keeping with this emphasis on the importance of space systems in contemporary militaryoperations, China is making major strides in improving its own space capabilities. According to the2010 DoD report, "China is expanding its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,navigation, and communications satellite constellations". As China places more satellites into orbit,the PLAs reliance on space systems is growing. Chinas military is becoming more dependent onspace capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation and positioning, as wellas communications.


3


6/48



II. US LEADERSHIP PREVENTS WARS

CHINAS INTEREST IN SPACE IS TO NEUTRALIZE AMERICAN GROUND SUPERIORITY

Baohui Zhang, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Lingnan Univ, Feb. 2011[Asian Survey, vol. 51, number 2, p.312]

Richard J. Adams and Martin E. France, U.S. Air Force officers, contend that Chinese interests inspace weapons do not hinge on winning a potential U.S.-Chinese ASAT battle or participating in aspace arms race. Instead, they argue, Chinas military space program is driven by a desire tocounter the space-enabled advantage of U.S. conventional forces. This perspective implies thatgiven the predicted U.S. superiority in conventional warfare, China feels compelled to continue itsoffensive military space program. Inevitably, this perspective sees China as the main instigator of apossible space arms race, whether implicitly or explicitly.

THE U.S. RELIES ON SPACE FOR ITS MILITARY HEGEMONY AND CHINA IS WORKING TOCHALLENGE THAT

Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010[The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 29]

This is the context in which the world now exists. The relatively stable global hegemony of USdominance since 1945, punctuated by limited wars and shifting balances of opposition, has relied ontechnology-dominant global power projection. Today, that technology is wholly integrated andinextricable from space support, and no state relies more on space power for its economic andsecurity 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 leadershipposition. To be sure, Chinas increasing space emphasis and its cultural antipathy to militarytransparency suggests that a serious attempt at seizing control of space is in the works. A lingeringfear is the sudden introduction of an unknown capability (call it Technology X) that would allow ahostile state to place multiple weapons into orbit quickly and cheaply. The advantages gained fromcontrolling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any other state, and theconcomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to Americas already-dependent militaryforces could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the UnitedStates dithers on its military responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize low-earth orbit before America is able to respond.


4


7/48



PREEMINENCE HAS GAINED MUCH FOR THE U.S.

Richard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011[ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p. 59 ]

To say that the end of unquestioned preeminence may be good for the United States iscounterintuitive. Power matters in international politics, and preeminence has produced a number of benefits for the United States (and its allies): security, especially from attack by other states, and theabsence of power competition more generally; relative order and stability, particularly the decreasingfrequency of inter-state war; prosperity and unparalleled wealth creation, and greater freedom of action and influence over events. Preeminence, by definition, entails few constraints to the projectionof power and influence abroad. By virtue of its position, other countries naturally look to the UnitedStates for leadership, on everything from Middle East peace to climate change. All other things beingequal, preeminence clearly is preferable to a position of subservience, lack of agency, and weakness.

U.S. WITHDRAWAL INCREASES THE RISK OF REGIONAL WARS THAT ESCALATE INTOGREAT WARS

Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007[Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136]

The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflictsinvolving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in boththe United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United Statesand its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian

victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran andIsrael or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including theUnited States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues.But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.

THE U.S. AND CHINA ARE ON A COLLISION COURSE FOR A SPACE WAR


The coming war with China will be fought for control of outer space. The stakes are high. The side

that prevails will have a clear path to domination of the international system. Although its effects willbe far-reaching, the conflict itself will not be visible to those looking up into the night sky. It will not betelevised. Most will not even be aware that it is occurring. It may already have begun. And yet, thisnew kind of remotely-controlled proxy war will not be so different that it is unrecognizable. Theprinciples of war and the logic of competition remain as they always have. Only the context haschanged. When perceived through this mind-set, via the tenets of traditional realist and geopoliticaltheories that have survived millennia in their basic forms, the unavoidable conclusion is that theUnited States and the Peoples Republic of China are on a collision course for war.


5


8/48



AFFIRMATIVE PLAN


6


9/48



III. SOLVENCY

CAPABILITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP THAN ISINTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Christopher Stone, space policy analyst and strategist, Space Review, March 14, 2011[The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1]

Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important internationalcollaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancingUnited States space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping theinternational environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States goal should beleadership through spacefaring capabilities , in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadershipthrough capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and for America tolead the international space community by both technological and political example.

EXPLORATION CAPABILITY IS NECESSARY FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP


If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as theadvancement of its national security, prestige and wealth by maintaining its edge in spaceflightcapabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in thespace community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international spacecoalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will

require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world intospace with programs and objectives worthy of a great nation.

INCREASED U.S. UNILATERAL POWER IN SPACE WOULD STOP THE SPACE ARMS RACE


Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is dominant in spaceinfrastructure, 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 toreadily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scalespace war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort tocompete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely thehighest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacityand a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence asneeded to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space isremote.


7


10/48


U.S. S PACE P ROGRAM IS DEAD

AMERICAN SPACE EXPLORATION HEADED FOR OBLIVION

Lou Friedman, former Executive Director, The Planetary Society, March 7, 2011[The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1795/1]

We will not search nearby worlds for signs of extraterrestrial life, and well accept a new era withfewer missions and less science. Human space exploration was torpedoed last year. This year therobots are being fired upon. It is my view that without space explorationnew adventures to newworlds and scientific discovery about our universethere will be little reason for NASAs existenceand the space agency will wither as its public support diminishes. I am not sure about the Europeanreaction to the diminishing of plans for the joint Mars lander program and Outer Planets Flagship, butI am not optimistic about Europes independent ability to take over space exploration. Interfaxreported this week that Russia has developed a space strategy that includes the exploration anddevelopment of the moon, Mars, and beyond. (Was this a reaction to my criticism of last week? I wishI had that power.) Maybe the tide will turn againfor as I said, things change quickly. Right now itseems that America is headed for exploration oblivion.

RISING LAUNCH COSTS COULD LIMIT NASA MISSIONS

Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, April 4, 2011[http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/]

Already faced with a potentially flat budget over the next half-decade, scientists and managersoverseeing NASA's robotic science probes worry rising and volatile rocket launch prices could further

limit the agency's ability to explore the solar system and maintain crucial climate research. Risinglaunch costs could claim a larger slice of a mission's budget, increasing the price of projects gearedfor planetary science, astrophysics and Earth observations, according to senior NASA officials. Withthe federal government's spotlight on spending cuts, it isn't likely NASA will get a budget boost tooffset the launch costs, which experts say are triggered by inefficient rocket buying practices, aneroding commercial market, and uncertainty about the future of the space program. That leavesNASA with just one option: fly fewer missions.

PRESIDENT OBAMAS BUDGET ELIMINATES THE CONSTELLATION PROJECT

John Matson, Scientific American, February 1, 2011[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cancel]President Obama delivered his budget request for fiscal year 2011 to Congress on Monday,proposing sweeping changes to NASA's spaceflight program while increasing the agency's overallbudget. As had been rumored for days , Obama's blueprint for NASA would cancel the Constellationprogram , the family of rockets and hardware now in development to replace the aging space shuttle,and would call instead on commercial vendors to fly astronauts to orbit.


8
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=speculation-about-nasas-future-swir-2010-01-29http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=speculation-about-nasas-future-swir-2010-01-29


11/48


U.S. S PACE P ROGRAM IS DEAD

U.S. FUTURE SPACE EXPLORATION IN GREAT DOUBT

Marcia Smith, Space Policy Online, February 1, 2011[SpacePolicyOnline.com, Commentary, Eight Years After Columbia, Nation Still LacksConsensus on Vision for Future Human Spaceflight, p.2]

Today, the program spawned by that speech, Constellation, is on its way to being terminated and thefuture of the U.S. human spaceflight program is considerably in doubt. Government efforts to build asuccessor to the shuttle over the past three decades -- the National Aerospace Plane, X-33/Venturestar, the Space Launch Initiative, the Orbital Space Plane -- all failed. The 2010 NASAauthorization act directs NASA to try again. The agency is to build a new space transportationsystem and crew vehicle while at the same time funding the commercial sector to do the same thing.The policy is in place, but the funding is not and with the country's economic situation in turmoil,human spaceflight advocates worry that NASA will continue to be expected to do too much with toolittle and fail to reach the goal line yet again.

THE U.S. IS GIVING UP ITS SPACE CAPABILITIES

The Economist May 19, 2011[http://www.economist.com/node/18712369?story_id=18712369&fsrc=rss]

What the shuttles did provide, however, was a way for America to carry people into low-earth orbit.Once the fleet is grounded, America will for a while have no means of its own to deliver men andwomen to any part of space. After the usual energetic lobbying by aerospace companies and other

vested interests, Congress has ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)to build a mighty new rocket, bigger than Apollos Saturn V, capable of lifting a manned vehicle intodeep space. But Mr Obama has cancelled plans to revisit the moon, no other destination has beenspecified, and this rocket to nowhere will not be ready until 2016 at the very earliest. In themeantime, American spacefarers bound even for low-earth orbit will have to hitch a ride on a Russiancraft or one of the as yet unproven vehicles under development by the private sector.


9


12/48


P RIVATE S ECTOR S PACE WILL FAIL

FREE-MARKET SPACE IS UNREALISTIC

Gregg Easterbrook, Reuters columnist, Aril 15, 2010[http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/04/15/get-over-the-moon-we-need-nasa-to-save-the-earth/]

Obamas plan to encourage free-enterprise rocketry sounds great, but is extremely unrealistic. Onlyone company, Sea Launch, has ever succeeded in placing a large, privately funded rocket into orbit,and right now Sea Launch is in Chapter 11. The capital requirement for reaching space is very high,the customer base modest.

PRIVATE ENTITIES DONT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR AN EFFECTIVE SPACE PROGRAM

Gregg Easterbrook, Reuters columnist, Aril 15, 2010[http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/04/15/get-over-the-moon-we-need-nasa-to-save-the-earth/]

The White House would provide $6 billion over five years to encourage development of privaterockets, but this is a drop in the bucket. The new Boeing 787 and its engines cost about $13 billion todevelop, and the 787, while beautiful, is just an airplane. A new human-rated multiple redundantsystems rocket capable of carrying significant payloads to orbit could easily require $25 billion or more for development. No private company will be able to raise such a sum without a long-termguaranteed NASA contract, at which point you might as well just have NASA develop the next rocket.(Private flight to orbit will happen someday, but absent a major breakthrough, perhaps not for decades. The winged spaceship being developed by Richard Branson is not a spaceship; it will fly

higher than conventional aircraft, but not reach orbit.)

PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IS VERY UNCERTAIN AND UNPROVEN


SpaceX's successful rocket tests are encouraging, but they are really the only hard evidence so far that private industry might succeed. The only other new player gearing up now to produce an orbitalvehicle is Orbital Sciences in Dulles, Va., although at present it has little to demonstrate. Both arehiring some of the space industry's most highly regarded managers and engineers, but it is

impossible to know if either company will ultimately be able to come up with a good vehicle under reduced budgets and without hordes of NASA engineers providing detailed design specs.


10


13/48



PRIVATE SPACE ENTERPRISES ARE UNRELIABLE LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN NASAPROGRAMS


Hopes are high. In theory, early government support of daring entrepreneurs could jump-start avibrant economy centered on space travel, with competition pushing prices ever lower. Risks are, too.Yet no one knows if start-up companies will be able to deliver safe, affordable, reliable spacecraft. If they fail, human exploration of space could be set back by decades. TWO YEARS AGO DECEASEDSTAR TREK ACTOR JAMES "SCOTTY" DOOHAN WAS GRANTED one last adventure, courtesy of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. SpaceX, a privately funded company based inHawthorne, Calif., had been formed in 2002 with the mission of going where no start-up had gonebefore: Earth orbit. In August 2008 SpaceX loaded Doohan's cremated remains onto the third testflight of its Falcon 1, a liquid oxygen- and kerosene-fueled rocket bound for orbit. Yet about twominutes into the flight Doohan's final voyage ended prematurely when the rocket's first stage crashedinto the second stage during separation. It was SpaceX's third failure in three attempts. Well, what didyou expect? sneered old NASA hands, aerospace executives and the many others who hew to theconventional wisdom that safely ushering payloads and especially people hundreds of kilometersabove Earth is a job for no less than armies of engineers, technicians and managers backed bybillions in funding and decades-long development cycles. Space, after all, is hard. A small, privateoperation might be able to send a little stunt ship wobbling up tens of kilometers, as entrepreneur-engineer Burt Rutan did in 2004 to win the X-Prize. But that was a parlor trick compared with thekinds of operations NASA has been running over the years with the space shuttle and InternationalSpace Station. When you're going orbital, 100 kilometers is merely the length of the driveway, at the

end of which you'd better be accelerating hard toward the seven kilometers a second needed to keepa payload falling around Earth 300 kilometers up.


11


14/48



PROFIT MOTIVE CANT DRIVE EFFECTIVE PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE


The prospects for a thriving orbital economy would rise considerably if zero-gravity manufacturinglooked as if it could be profitable. Today, though, the signs are not encouraging. The near absence of gravity--well, there is plenty of gravity, but objects in orbit are in free fall and don't "feel" it--enablesthe production of unusually large and pure crystals, perfect ball bearings and other sphericalproducts, and perfectly heterogeneous mixtures of chemicals. Regardless of the price premium suchunusual products and substances might command, the cost of setting up and operating a plant in thesky and of getting supplies up and finished products back down, would wipe out that premiumthousands of times over, at least for anything discovered so far. "Even if there were an asteroid madeout of diamond somewhere nearby, the cost of getting to it, mining it and bringing the pieces backprobably wouldn't be justified as a business," says Lon Levin, co-founder of XM Satellite Radio andpresident of SkySevenVentures, a Washington, D.C., venture capital fund that invests in space-related and other start-ups.

SPACE TOURISM IS EXTREMELY RISKY, ONE FAILURE WOULD DOOM THE INDUSTRY


Levin and other observers also point out a darker roulette wheel at play: the chance that a buddingorbital-tourism industry will suffer a mishap at some point and kill one or more of its customers.

Should that happen, the space tourism business would instantly evaporate, asserts ShermanMcCorkle, CEO of the investment consulting firm Technology Ventures in Albuquerque--just 150miles north of where the state of New Mexico is building a $300-million "spaceport" in anticipation of abustling spaceflight industry. "If the seventh tourist flight to orbit fails, there's a high probability therewill not be an eighth one for many, many years," McCorkle says. "Entrepreneurs are used to dealingwith failure by tenaciously fixing the problems after they come up, but that won't work with spacetourism the way it works with satellite communications."


12


15/48


U.S. S PACE LEADERSHIP IS BEING THREATENED

U.S. PRIMACY IN SPACE IS BEING THREATENED

Yasuhito Fukushima, National Institute for Defense Studies, January 2011[Space Policy, volume 27 pp. 3-6]

The current US primacy in space is, however, no longer secure and is challenged by budgetpressures and growing competition. The push for more budget cuts is especially apparent in thenational security space sector. In June 2010 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced hisintention to save over $100 billion of the defense budget over a five-year period starting from fiscalyear 2012 and this is where the space-related budget is expected to suffer.6 In addition, theproliferation of space activities has intensified heated competition in space. For example, the USGlobal Positioning System (GPS) has been widely used as the gold standard for space-basedpositioning, navigation and timing (PNT) and generated huge positive economic effects.7Nevertheless, other countries have recently been preparing their own global navigation satellitesystems (GNSS). Russia is rebuilding its Glonass constellation, which aims to be fully operational bythe end of 2010.8 European countries are funding the Galileo system, which is scheduled to bepartially operational in 2014.9 China is also constructing the Beidou/Compass system, which isintended to achieve global coverage by around 2020.10 These systems are designed to be dual-useand are sure to have great impact on related markets.

U.S. MAY GET LEFT OUT IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF SPACE

Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010

[http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html] All in all, China's space accomplishments are gaining worldwide notice. "To the rest of the world,China's working very eagerly and aggressively," Johnson-Freese said. "Canada, Europe and Russiaare all banging on the door for China to work with them. I certainly have a concern that the U.S. isgoing to end up the odd man out in terms of the globalization of space."


13


16/48


U.S. S PACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO O VERALL DOMINANCE

SATELLITES ARE THE KEY TO AMERICAN MILITARY DOMINANCE

Megan Ansdell, Space Policy Institute, GWU, Spring 2010[Journal of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, vol 21, p8]

Furthermore, satellite-enabled military capabilities such as GPS precision-guided munitions arecritical enablers of current U.S. military strategies and tactics. They allow the United States to not onlyremain a globally dominant military power, but also wage war in accordance with its political andethical values by enabling faster, less costly war-fighting with minimal collateral damage (Sheldon2005; Dolman 2006, 163-165). Given the U.S. militarys increasing reliance on satellite-enabledcapabilities in recent conflicts, in particular Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom,some have argued that losing access to space would seriously impede the ability of the United Statesto be successful in future conflicts (Dolman 2006, 165).

AMERICAN POWER DEPENDS ON DOMINATING SPACE

Gabriele Garibaldi, Association for Asian Research, 2006[The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Part II, December 5, 2006http://asianresearch.org/articles/2979.html]

The relation between the space dimension and the imperialistic dimension (with Manifest Destinyechos) of the USA, is sealed by the conclusions of a book written in 1996 by arms experts Georgeand Meredith Friedman: Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European experience of power would be its domination of the global seas, it does not take much to see that the Americanexperience of power will rest on the domination of space. Just as Europe expanded war and its power

to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war and its power into space and to the planets.Just as Europe shaped the world for a half a millennium [by dominating the oceans by its fleets] sotoo the United States will shape the world for at least that length of time - by dominating Space.

THE U.S. HEAVILY RELIES ON SPACE FOR MILITARY POWER


No state relies on space power and space support more than the US. Since at least the mid- 1980s,its armed forces have undergone a radical transformation. Space intelligence and observations, high

bandwidth communications, and navigation support have created the most deadly combat force inhistory. America can engage targets anywhere in the world, in all weather, day or night, withextraordinary precision and lethality, and with a minimum of collateral damage. The progress of thistransformation has been stymied with the continuing emphasis on ground forces occupation duties inIraq and Afghanistan, but the American military is operating more effectively and efficiently today withthe smallest percentage of its population actively engaged in military service since the post-WWIIdemobilization.


14


17/48


U.S. S PACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO O VERALL DOMINANCE

SPACE OFFERS NUMEROUS CRUCIAL MILITARY ADVANTAGES

Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011[Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

Increasingly sophisticated spacebased systems expand PLA battlespace awareness and supportextended range convent ional precision strike systems. Space assets enable the monitoring of navalactivities in surrounding waters and the tracking of air force deployments into the region. The PLA isinvesting in a diverse set of increasingly sophisticated electrooptical (EO), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and electronic reconnaissance assets. Spacebased remote sensing systems also provide theimagery necessary for mission planning functions, including automated target recognition technologythat correlates preloaded optical, radar, or infrared images on a missile systems computer with realtime images acquired in flight. A constellation of small electronic reconnaissance satellites, operatingin tandem with SAR satellites, could provide commanders with precise and timely geolocation data onmobile targets. Satellite communications also offer a survivable means of linking sensors to strikesystems, and will become particularly relevant as PLA interests expand further from PRC borders.

Authors publishing in authoritative journals have advocated accelerating and expanding Chinasspacebased surveillance system to cover targets operating out to a range of 3000 kilometers from theshoreline.

CONTROL OF SPACE PROVIDES THE U.S. CRUCIAL MILITARY ADVANTAGES

Bruce MacDonald, United States Institute of Peace, May 11, 2011[Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Committee,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

PLA officers have noted the great U.S. dependence upon space assets and capabilities and the waythey multiply U.S. force effectiveness. Just recently, they saw how U.S. special forces, and themilitary and civilian leadership that commanded them, heavily depended upon satellite photographs,spacederived weather and electronic intelligence, GPS, other spaceenabled information, and satellitecommunications in executing the strike against Osama bin Ladens compound in Pakistan. Thisbrilliantly successful operation was built on a firm foundation of information in which space played avital role in creating.. Is it any wonder that the PLA would want the capability to interrupt these riversof information and services that our space assets provide? This information allows our military

decision-making, our weapons, and especially our warfighters to be far more effective than in thepast, vital advantages across the spectrum of potential conflict. These spaceenabled information ser vices lie at the heart of U.S. military superiority. The PLA certainly wants to be able to greatlyweaken U.S. military power in wartime, and I believe t he PLA could do so within a decade using itskinetic kill and other ASAT weapons if it chose t o deploy them in large numbers, and thus pose aserious threat to U.S. space assets. China is also pursuing ot her programs that have important ASATimplications, and other nations are interested in ASAT as well, such as India and Russia.


15


18/48


C HINAS S PACE P ROGRAM IS S UCCESSFUL

CHINA IS MOVING FORWARD WITH A MANNED SPACE STATION AND TRAVEL TO THEMOON

Christopher Mims, Journalist, Washington DC, Fast Company, April 27, 2011[http://www.fastcompany.com/1750093/what-chinas-new-space-station-means-for-china-and-the-world]

Human space exploration requires mastery of a succession of tasks: getting a human home fromspace safely. Spacewalks. Docking in orbit. Living in space for extended periods. The Chinese spaceprogram has accomplished all of these goals except the last; the space station completes thecountry's maturation as the world's current leading space power. The step beyond this programprogram would be the most public and visible demonstration imaginable of the country's ascendancy:it would mean reproducing the United States' most singular moment of scientific and military triumph,a boot-print on lunar soil.

CHINAS SPACE STATION HAS OVERCOME OBSTACLES AND IS ON TRACK

David Cyranoski, Nature News, Nature Magazine, May 4, 2011 p. 14-15[http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110504/full/473014a.html]

The International Space Station (ISS) is just one space-shuttle flight away from completion, but theconstruction boom in low-Earth orbit looks set to continue for at least another decade. Last week,China offered the most revealing glimpse yet of its plans to deploy its own station by 2020. Theproject seems to be overcoming delays and internal resistance and is emerging as a key part of the

nation's fledgling human space-flight programme. At a press briefing in Beijing, officials with theChina Manned Space Engineering Office even announced a contest to name the station, a public-relations gesture more characteristic of space programmes in the United States, Europe and Japan.


16


19/48


C HINESE MOON BASE THREAT

CHINA COULD USE A MOON BASE TO DOMINATE THE U.S. UNLESS WE MATCH THEM

Mark Whittington, Houston-based writer and author, October 28, 2010[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5946740/chinas_militarization_of_space_a_long

_pg2.html?cat=15]Further in time, George Friedman, who runs the national security website Stratfor , suggests a chillingscenario in a recent book, "The Next Hundred Years." A war breaks out in the middle of this century.

An enemy launches space weapons from a base on the far side of the Moon, disguised as space junkand/or meteors. The weapons proceed to targets in low Earth orbit by eccentric orbits, timed to takeout those targets, which would include American reconnaissance, communications, and navigationsatellites, and also whatever commercial space facilities might exist a few decades from now,effectively blinding and immobilizing American military assets on Earth. A Pearl Harbor strike from theMoon around the year 2050 could spell the end of America as a super power and the rise of China inher place. That history-changing disaster could happen unless America as well as China occupies thecelestial high ground of the Moon. That means reversing Barack Obama's decision to abandon theMoon and make Earth's nearest neighbor once again the focus of America's initial return to spaceexploration.


17
http://www.stratfor.com/http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767923057?ie=UTF8&tag=stratfor03-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0767923057%22http://www.stratfor.com/http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767923057?ie=UTF8&tag=stratfor03-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0767923057%22


20/48


CHINAS S PACE P ROGRAM IS A THREAT TO THE U.S.

CHINAS AMBITIOUS SPACE PROGRAM MAY SURPASS THE U.S.

Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010[http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html]

China is shifting its space program into high gear, with recently announced goals to build a mannedspace station by 2020 and send a spacecraft to Mars by 2013 ? all on the heels of its second roboticmoon mission this year. Yet some space analysts worry that China's ascendancy in space means thewaning of American superiority in spaceflight. The United States is retiring its storied space shuttlefleet in 2011 and plans to rely on commercial spaceships for orbital flights, once they're available,while planning future deep-space missions. "Certainly [the Chinese] see it as an opportunity togarner prestige at a time when the U.S. space program is in what some people call turmoil, and whatothers call regrouping," said Joan Johnson-Freese, chairwoman of the department of national securitystudies at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and an expert on China's space program. Among

Americans, she said, "there is the perception that China is somehow getting ahead, that the U.S. issliding behind."


18


21/48


CHINAS S PACE P ROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: O NLY ECONOMIC

CHINAS MAIN GOAL FOR SPACE PROGRAM IS NOT ECONOMIC

Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2011[Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

Proponents of the space program since many decades emphasize its potential contribution toeconomic development. Taking a systemic view of the economy, they argue that space-sector development can pull along other sectors. Political elites see the economic, security, and prestigebenefits of space activities as inter-related and mutually reinforcing. However, even though the spaceprogram has had these economic goals and impacts, concrete development benefits, as we usuallythink of them, have not provided the main rationale for the program itself or for decisions within it.

THE GOAL OF CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS PRESTIGE, NOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


The governments allocation of resources in civil space has not been consistent with developmentalpriorities since 1992, when the human spaceflight program formally began. The areas of spacetechnology known to generate the most direct and reliable contributions to economic development arethose with concrete applications, such as telecommunications satellites and remote-sensing satellitesfor resource management and weather monitoring. The Japanese and Indian space programs,especially in earlier periods, were designed to serve these developmental priorities. In China, over

the past two decades, resources devoted to civil space have been concentrated not in these relativelyproductive areas, but in a costly human spaceflight engineering program of no evident direct benefitto the national economy. The symbolism of human spaceflight has been an important driver of thiseffort.

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM NOT TIED TO CONDITION OF ITS ECONOMY


Because of the space sectors special status, macroeconomic and other aggregate national-levelindicators are weak predictors of Chinas space performance. Prospects for the space sector cannotbe directly inferred from the growth of Chinas gross domestic product or gross national income. Nor can they be read off demographic data, such as characterizations of the workforces age structure or estimates of the numbers of new scientific and technical university degree holders. Each of thesefactors will matter, but the relationships between these factors and space-sector outcomes are likelyto be non-linear.


19


22/48


CHINAS S PACE P ROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: E XAGGERATED

CHINA IS ENGAGED IN A SPACE RACE

The Telegraph (UK) April 27, 2011[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8475779/China-to-build-its-own-space-station.html]

More than half-a-century after the space race between the United States and the former SovietUnion, China has poured billions into its own space programme in competition with India. If everything goes according to plan, China will send a man to the moon by 2025 according to Ye Peijin,the commander in chief of the Chang'e (lunar landing) programme. Plans are also afoot to sendprobes to both Mars and Venus. The plan for a 60-ton, three-module space station is the third andfinal phase of Project 921, a project that began in 1992 and which has already seen China becomethe third country to launch a man into space. In 2008, China carried out its first space walk, whichwas broadcast live to a huge audience on national television.

CHINAS SPACE GOALS ARE UNDERESTIMATED

Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010[http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html]

Although the country has not officially announced plans to send people to the moon, many expertssay that's where they're heading, and that the space station project, lunar surveyors and roboticlanders are merely the setup for that goal. "They're very conservative about laying out their goals,"Johnson-Freese told SPACE.com. "They have not announced an official manned lunar program.They want to have all the building blocks in place for success before that's announced." In addition to

its moon programs, China has also drawn up a technical plan for a spacecraft to orbit Mars, Xinhuareported. That mission would build upon the technology developed for the two moon missions. Theearliest possible launch date for the Mars orbiter is 2013. Meanwhile, the country has launched arecord total of 14 rockets in 2010 so far, beating the record for most Chinese space missions in asingle year. A number of these payloads were Chinese Beidou navigation satellites and Yaoganmilitary spacecraft.


20
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/chinahttp://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.htmlhttp://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.htmlhttp://www.space.com/9466-china-reaches-high-space-missions-year.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/chinahttp://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.htmlhttp://www.space.com/9466-china-reaches-high-space-missions-year.html


23/48


CHINAS S PACE P ROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: N OT HOSTILE

CHINA IS STRONGLY COMMITTED TO MILITARY ADVANTAGES IN SPACE


Indeed, in the wake of Chinas January 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test, many U.S. experts haveattempted to identify Chinas motives. One driver of Chinas military space program is its perceptionof a forthcoming revolutionin military affairs. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) sees space as anew and critical dimension of future warfare. The comment by the commander of the Chinese Air Force captures this perception of the PLA. In addition, Chinas military space program is seen as partof a broad asymmetric strategy designed to offset conventional U.S. military advantages. For example, as observed by Ashley J. Tellis in 2007, Chinas pursuit of counterspace capabilities is notdriven fundamentally by a desire to protest American space policies, and those of the George W.Bush administration in particular, but is part of a considered strategy designed to counter the overallmilitary capabilities of the United States.

MILITARY AMBITION IS AT THE CENTER OF CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM


While political and economic considerations contribute to Chinas ambit ions in space, the PeoplesLiberation Army (PLA) plays a prominent if not central role. Aerospace power the strategic and

operational application of military force via or aided by platforms operating in or passing through air and space is emerging as a key instrument of Chinese statecraft. The PRC understands the potentialrole that aerospace power can play in pursuing military goals. Control over the skies over a particular region is a critical enabler for dominance on the surface. Effective application of spacebasedsystems, and denying a potential adversarys effective use of space assets, offers the PLA greater flexibility in conducting operations around the countrysperiphery and greater confidence in it snuclear deterrent. An ability to hold at risk adversarial space systems also may deter attacks onChinese space systems, or complicate the ability of regional powers to operate in the AsiaPacificregion should deterrence fail.


21


24/48



CHINAS REAL AIMS IN SPACE ARE HOSTILE, DESPITE THEIR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS


As the situation currently stands, it is clear that the expression to assure our continued access tospace and deny the space to others if necessary - recurrent, with little variations, in the US militaryplans - is specifically directed towards China. The Pentagon believes that China has the sameintention towards the ousting the United States from Space, and considers its polemic declarationsabout the rumoured US plans of space weaponization - expressed in front of the UN Committee onthe Peaceful Uses of Outer Space - as the weapon to diplomatically damage and slow down theaction of the USA, while actively working in secret towards the same objective. According to LarryWortzel, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, the introduction by theChinese of a draft treaty devised to act against the US's intent to develop space weapons ismisleading (because theyre developing their own space-based weapons...), having no other purpose than to diplomatically damage the USA and thus delay their Theater Missile Defense plan,while China continues with its own plans. According to Richard Fisher of The Jamestown Foundation,the People's Liberation Army is aware that the control of space concept - as theorized by the USmilitary - is an objective that China must achieve: China needs to be able to deny to the UnitedStates access and use of space, as they themselves exploit space to support their own forces.


22


25/48


26/48



THE U.S. MUST TAKE CHINAS SPACE THREAT SERIOUSLY


According to Robert Walker, former president of the Commission on the future of the Americanaerospace industry, China is engaged in an aggressive space program focused on a Moon landing,followed by establishing a permanent base within a decade (according to Japanese experts, Chinawill be able to reach the Moon within three to four years) and eventually aiming for Mars. It will besufficient for it to spend 1% of its GDP over the next few years in order to provide the financing for asignificantly competitive space program. The USA, on the other hand, at least according to Walker, isno longer able to repeat the Moon mission of thirty-five years ago. This inability to compete in a newMoon race is more than an issue of national pride: it also raises serious strategical questions over China's rising potential as a lunar power. China, if it succeeded in its goal, would acquire enormousinternational prestige. However, most significantly, by establishing permanent bases on the Moon,China would gain the ability to exploit lunar resources and therefore gain important technologicaladvantages over other nations (including nuclear fusion, using the helium 3 isotope), with concreteconsequences on Earth's activities. Walker's conclusion is that the Chinese space program has yet tobe taken seriously by American politicians. Nevertheless, it represents a serious challenge to the USleadership in Space. The US must answer such a challenge by developing new technologies (for instance, the nuclear plasma propulsion system) in order to reach the Moon and Mars faster thancurrently possible, and to travel more frequently and thriftily into Earth's low orbit.


24


27/48


AT: C HINESE LEADERSHIP TURN

SPACE ACHIEVEMENTS STRENGTHEN THE CURRENT CHINESE LEADERSHIP


Chinese leaders and policymakers stress that domestic political stability is a precondition for sustainable economic development. Both proponents and critics of the space program say that itserves an increasingly important domestic political function by bolstering the legitimacy of the regimewhich created it and by serving as a national achievement in which Chinese, often divided on other issues, can share pride.

CHINAS SUCCESSFUL SPACE PROGRAM LEGITIMIZES THEIR SOCIETY


Chinas current space program is readily imagined as a New Age Great Wall. Competing with theWest in the highest technological endeavors, and doing so despite significant capital disparities,enhances the legitimacy of the communist party. Chinas domestic population rationalizes lower per capita income as the state completes its rise among nations to superpower status. Internationalaudiences are awed by the accomplishments, conveying further legitimacy to the state. Theyacknowledge Chinas domestic right to self-determination, but more importantly give credence to thecapacity of Chinese manufacturing to produce quality high technology goods. This perception helps to

increase the sale of advanced Chinese- made products abroad.

SPACE IS A BIG SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE IN CHINA

Washington Post January 23, 2011[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203747.html]

There is also the matter of prestige. As with other grandiose projects - high-speed rail, the world'sbiggest airport in Beijing, staging the 2008 Olympics - China's Communist leaders view the spaceprogram as a way to show citizens that they can produce successes, thus fostering patriotism andsupport for the party's continued rule. "National pride will increase," Xu said. "It's a selling point used

by leading scientists."


25


28/48


29/48


AT: C HINESE INSECURITY

THE PLA IS USING SPACE FOR PROJECTING POWER NOW


The PLA is expanding it s ability to project military power vertically into space and horizontally beyondits immediate periphery in order to defend against perceived threats to national sovereignty andterritorial integrity. Over time, the PRCs defense establishment may gain a limited ability to conductnew historic missions to enforce a broader set of security interests beyond Chinas immediateperiphery. PLA observers view air and space as merging into a single operational medium of thefuture, with the English term aerospace best describing the linkage between the two domains.

SPACE PROGRAM ASSETS ARE LINKED INTO CHINESE TARGETING SYSTEMS NOW


As its persistent sensor, data fusion, and command and control architecture increases insophistication and range, the PLAs ability to hold at risk an expanding number of targets throughoutthe western Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and elsewhere around its periphery is expected togrow. In line wit h the PLAs informationization goals, precision guidance enjoys a high R&D priority.For high altitude target acquisition of moving targets at sea, Chinas defense R&D community

appears to be investing significant resources into developing a missile born SAR capability that wouldbe integrated with satellite positioning and inertial navigation systems. Existing and future data relaysatellites and other beyond line of sight communications systems could transmit targeting data to andfrom theater command elements. Developments underway suggest that the PLA is improving it sability to quickly download, process, and disseminate information obtained from space systems.Spacebased assets have been integrated into Blue Force ballistic and ground launched cruisemissile operational training exercises.

THE PLA PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM NOW

Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2001

[Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]Critical space infrastructure, including existing launch facilities, and the day-to-day management of civil space operations, especially in the human spaceflight program, are the responsibility of PLAorgans. Within the PLA, the General Armaments Department (GAD) plays the most important role inspace activities. In civil space, the GAD acts mainly in and through the Manned Space EngineeringOffice, the entity responsible for the human spaceflight program. The PLA Air Force plays a role inastronaut training and medicine.


27


30/48



THE PLA HAS ENORMOUS INFLUENCE OVER CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM


Within a broad and fragmented part y and government policy framework, the PLA plays a central rolein coordinating, defining, and managing national space requirements. Functional offices within theGeneral Staff Department (GSD) shape operational requirements for militarily relevant spacebasedsensors, aerospace surveillance systems, and communications satellites. The GSD, as well as theChinese Air Force, Navy, and Second Artillery Force, also are primary customers of spacebasedsystems. For example, the GSD Operations Department appears to manage reference stations andat least one laser ranging system supporting the countrys expanding navigation satellite network.Other GSD departments operate sites for processing and distributing downlinked imagery andelectronic reconnaissance information.

CHINESE STRATEGISTS SEE SPACE AS THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLEFIELD IN THEFUTURE

Michael Chase, The Jamestown Foundation, March 25, 2011[http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37699&tx_ttnews[backPid]=25&cHash=e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244]

Chinese strategists regard space as a crucial battlefield in future wars. Chinese military publications

characterize space as the high ground that both sides will strive to control in informatized local warsbecause of its influence on information superiority and its importance in seizing the initiative in aconflict. Chinese analysts write that space systems serve as key enablers by providing support inareas such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), early warning, communications,navigation and positioning, targeting for precision weapons, surveying and mapping, andmeteorological support. Chinese analysts also portray space systems as force multipliers that support

joint operations and enhance the effectiveness of ground, air, and naval forces.

CHINA IS MODERNIZING ITS WEAPONS SYSTEMS NOW

Christopher Twomey, Asst Prof National Security, Naval Postgraduate School, 2011[Asia Policy, Number 11, January 2011 p. 59] Additionally, it is important to highlight that Asian states are modernizing weapon delivery systemsacross the board. Some modernizations will likely stabilize power dyads, but most will not (asdiscussed in the next section). China has begun to develop a secure second-strike force. ThePeoples Liberation Army (PLA) already has fielded long-range solid fueled missiles that can belaunched in minutes rather than hours. These DF-31A systems are also deployed on mobilelaunchers, further enhancing their immunity from a potential first strike to disarm them by Russia, the


28


31/48


United States, or, potentially, India. The PLA Navy is also in the process of deploying new ballisticmissilelaunching submarines (Chinas boomers are the Type-94 Jin-class boats). At some point,these will be equipped with a modern missile, the JL-2, which has long been in development.


29


32/48



SPACE MISSIONS WILL PROVIDE CHINA CRUCIAL MILITARY CAPABILITY TO COUNTER THEU.S. EVEN IF WE DONT INCREASE OUR SPACE PROGRAM


The PLA is investing in aerospace capabilities that may offset shortcomings in the face of a moretechnologically advanced adversary. Long range precision strike assets could offer the PLA adecisive advantage in resolving conflicts on terms favorable to PRC interests. Extended rangeconvent ional precision strike assets, supported by sensor architecture that is inclusive of spacebased surveillance assets, could facilitate attainment of air superiority in the event of disputes over territorial or sovereignty claims around China's periphery. In a future contingency requiring U.S.intervention, spaceenabled long range precision strike assets could seek to suppress U.S. operationsfrom forward bases in Japan, from U.S. aircraft battle groups operating in the Western Pacific, andperhaps over the next five to 10 years from U.S. bases on Guam. PRC interests may expand beyondits immediate periphery.


30


33/48


S OLVENCY EXTENSIONS

HISTORY SHOWS THAT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP BEFORETHE U.S. CAN GAIN INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP


The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technologicaladvancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets,and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders inastronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs withno firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national leveldecision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmannedspaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership inspace exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the globalspace community.


31


34/48



IF THE U.S. GETS TO SPACE FIRST, IT WILL DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM TRYING

Everett Dolman, Prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010[The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 31]

Moreover, if the United States were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintainedeffective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non- arbitrary, andefficient, such an action would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems.It could also set the stage for a new space regime, one that encourages space commerce anddevelopment. Should the United States use its advantage to police the heavens and allow unhinderedpeaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time itscontrol of LEO could be viewed as a global public good. In much the same way the British maintainedcontrol of the high seas in the nineteenth century, enforcing international norms of innocent passageand property rights, and against slavery, the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burstof economic expansion.


32


35/48



DEPLOYMENT OF SPACE WEAPONS WOULD GREATLY ENHANCE U.S. MILITARY POWER


There is little reason to believe the United States will forego the capacity to influence decisions andevents beyond its borders, with military force if necessary. Whether that capacity comes from spaceas well as the other military domains is undetermined. But, the operational deployment of spaceweapons would increase that capacity by providing for nearly instantaneous force projectionworldwide. This force would be precise, unstoppable, and deadly.

SPACE WEAPONIZATION WOULD COST SO MUCH IT WOULD CONSTRAIN OUR GROUND

FORCES, MAKING THE U.S. LESS OF AN IMPERIAL THREAT REDUCING FEAR OF US


At the same time, the United States would forgo some of its ability to intervene directly in other statesbecause the necessary budget tradeoffs would diminish its capacity to do so. A space-heavy

American military would structurally limit potential American imperial ambitions while simultaneouslyextending its global leadership role. The need to limit collateral damage, the requirement for precisionto allay the low volume of fire, and the tremendous cost of space weapons will ensure they are usedfor high-value, time-sensitive targets. An opposing states calculation of survival no longer woulddepend on interpreting whether or not the United States desires to be a good neighbor; whether it will

invade and occupy its territory. Without sovereignty at risk, fear of a space-dominant Americanmilitary will subside. The United States will maintain its position of hegemony as well as its security,and the world will not be threatened by the specter of a future American empire.


33


36/48


CHINESE S OFT P OWER S CENARIO

CHINA IS USING ITS ADVANCED SPACE PROGRAM TO WIN GLOBAL INFLUENCE THROUGHSOFT POWER

Radhakrisha Rao, Space Technology and Soft Power, December 10, 2009[Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies, http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/space-technology-and-soft-power-3025.html]

Economically resurgent and technologically vibrant China is steadily and quietly expanding itsinfluence over a large part of the developing world by making available its expertise, services andhardware for building and launching satellites. Chinas spreading influence - courtesy of spacetechnology is quite evident in many third world countries. Nearer home, China, which has all alongbeen assisting Pakistan in developing its space programme, has signed an agreement with Pakistan,granting US$ 200 million for a satellite project. On its part, the oil rich Nigeria has signed a US$157-million agreement with China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), the primary marketing arm of Chinese aerospace industry, for replacing its NIGCOMSAT-1 domestic satellite. China, which is goinggreat guns in Latin America, has assured Bolivia of its assistance in developing an indigenous spaceprogramme and also getting its first satellite off the ground. Media reports also suggest that China isbuilding and launching a communications spacecraft for Laos. With a view to attract more customersto its commercial launch service, China is now building its fourth launch complex in Hainan island. Allthe three currently operational Chinese launch bases are landlocked and have no access to sea.

Against this backdrop, Ajay Lele, Research Fellow at the New Delhi based Institute for DefenceStudies and Analysis (IDSA) has suggested that India should take a leaf out of Chinese experience toexpand its soft power by using space technology as a tool.

CHINAS INFLUENCE IS BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR GROWING ECONOMIC POWER

Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February 2011[The Soft Notion of Chinas Soft Power, Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/]

This brings us to the final form of Chinas non-hard power. Even after three decades of reform, it isstill not so much what China has become that is the focus of attention, as what it will become in thefuture. The word will is deliberately used instead of might, as Chinas future rise has been taken for granted by many. As a result, there has long been a tendency to develop policies towards Chinatoday based on the power that it is expected to have in the future. Thus China has been empowered

by the way in which others think about it; perceptions have altered realities. But these externalperceptions of China are not based on the supposed soft-power attraction of culture and values.Rather, Chinas imagined power is typically built on assessments of growing material power and clout

particularly Chinas future economic power.


34


37/48



THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF FUTURE CHINESE ECONOMIC POWER GIVES THEM INFLUENCETHAT OVERCOMES THE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February 2011[The Soft Notion of Chinas Soft Power, Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/]

But the main intention of this paper was not to evaluate the extent of Chinese soft power, but toquestion the efficacy of deploying ill-thought-out and catch- all definitions. Quite simply, if we want tounderstand the potential sources of why other countries act in relation to China, making a simpledivision between hard and soft power is a very blunt instrument. In particular, while there are indeedideational and normative drivers for the way in which others treat China, to think that this is areflection of a growing admiration of (and attraction to) the current Chinese political and social order might be going too far in many cases. Attraction to the Chinese economic record (and a desire toemulate the positive elements of it) is another matter altogether. And the desire to become tied toChinas inevitable economic future is even more important. In short, it is easy to infer soft power, asa number of studies and policy analyses seem to have done, when harder material sources of influence have arguably been more important.

SUCCESS IN SPACE BOOSTS CHINAS PRESTIGE AND SOFT POWER


Chinese scholars and policymakers believe it helpful to cultivate Chinas soft power, especiallyamong developing countries. Highly visible civil space activities, such as human spaceflight, servethis goal, though they have at times also alarmed Chinas neighbors and cost it some soft power.Success in space brings China international prestige. Achievements in space are an implicitendorsement of Chinas political and economic model. Space capability is a marker of modernity andtechnological progress, signalling that China has overcome a legacy of colonialism and what many inChina regard as historical weakness.


35


38/48



CHINAS INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM EARNS IT POLITICAL BENEFITS

Dr. James Clay Moltz, Naval Postgraduate School, May 11, 2011[Testimony for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

In recent years, China has also begun to engage in considerable commercial space exports. It hassold satellite laserranging equipment to Argentina and ground stations and satellites to Venezuela,Pakistan, and Nigeria, among others. While Chinas space enterprises are seeking profits abroad,China also uses space exports for politicalpurposes. Its space deals wit h Nigeria and Venezuela, for example, were motivated by Chinese interests in longterm energy security. In both cases, these dealsfor Chinese built and launched geostationary communications satellites were officially commercial,but on very favorable credit terms to the purchasing countries, with China providing some costs andoffering low or zerointerest rates on its loans. China also provided technical training to each countrysspace scientists, as well as building ground stations on their territories. This strategy offers politicalbenefits but imposes costs on the Chinese government and the space industry.

SPACE COULD HELP CHINA ADVANCE ITS FOREIGN POLICY GOALS

Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, GWU, May 11, 2011[Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission,http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php]

One possible use for Chinese human space flight would be to advance Chinese foreign policyobjectives. The Soviet Union and the United States both used flights of foreign astronauts as

symbolic means of aiding allies and creating good will. China could do the same as well as usingsuch flights to support economic growth by securing supplies of raw materials and access to markets.Chinese space cooperation agreements in Africa (e.g., Nigeria) and Lat in America (e.g., Brazil,Venezuela) have reportedly included offers of technology, training, loan guarantees, and other inducements to trade.


36


39/48


40/48



A MOON LANDING WOULD GIVE CHINA A HUGE AMOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE

Mark Whittington, Houston-based writer and author, October 28, 2010[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5946740/chinas_militarization_of_space_a_long

_pg2.html?cat=15]China has made no secret of its desire to attempt a manned lunar landing around 2020. WithPresident Obama's abandonment of the Moon as a goal for American explorers, a Chinese lunar landing would have immense propaganda value for the People's Republic of China. While Americawould be too much in decline to explore the Moon, China would forge ahead. The message would beunmistakable. The 21 st Century would not be an American Century, but rather a Chinese one.


38


41/48


AT: C OOPERATION CP

KNOWING THE OTHER SIDES INTENTIONS DOESNT DEFUSE THE DILEMMA


According to Robert Jervis, The heart of the security dilemma argument is that an increase in onestates security can make others less secure, not because of misperceptions or imagined hostility, butbecause of the anarchic context of international relations. In this context, Even if they can be certainthat the current intentions of other states are benign, they can neither neglect the possibility that theothers will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves will remainpeaceful. Inevita

US Leadership Aff

Documents

Transcript of US Leadership Aff