SDI 11File Title

1NC Shell

SDI 11File Title

ShellDespite earlier tension, US-China space cooperation is increasing nowFoust 11 (Jeff, “Resetting US-China space cooperation”, January 20, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/20/resetting-us-china-space-cooperation/, BS)sIn November NASA administration Charles Bolden suggested any US-China space cooperation would proceed at a slow pace after his visit to China in October. That meeting, set up after a meeting of Presidents Hu and Obama in China in 2009, was also to feature a visit to the US by “the appropriate Chinese counterpart” to Bolden in 2010. That visit didn’t come, though, as Aviation Week suggested that Bolden was trying not to “alienate” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a leading critic of China and the new chairman of the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA. In a joint statement yesterday during Hu’s visit to Washington, the issue of space again appeared, with a new offer by the US for hosting a Chinese space meeting: The United States and China agreed to take specific actions to deepen dialogue and exchanges in the field of space. The United States invited a Chinese delegation to visit NASA headquarters and other appropriate NASA facilities in 2011 to reciprocate for the productive visit of the U.S. NASA Administrator to China in 2010. The two sides agreed to continue discussions on opportunities for practical future cooperation in the space arena, based on principles of transparency, reciprocity, and mutual benefit . The statement this time refers to a “Chinese delegation” instead of the “appropriate Chinese counterpart” to the NASA administrator, perhaps getting around one issue Chinese space experts like Dean Cheng have observed: China has apparently never designated who the counterpart to the NASA administrator is in the Chinese space program.

(Insert Specific Link)

US-China space race will turn military and snowball out of control to full US-Sino warSolomone, 06Stacey, Ph.D. in Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii, “China's Space Program: the great leap upward,” Journal of Contemporary China, rmg

PLA control of the space program may very likely lead to a space race between China and the United States. Without more civilian-based space cooperation between the two nations, the Chinese and US militaries will feed off one another’s paranoias and pursue militarization of space in order to always have an upper hand over the opposing military. This will have a snowball effect on militarization of space . While the United States will remain technologically advanced over China, the US C4ISR system will remain vulnerable to the PLA’s advancements in counterspace weapons systems. There also exists the potential for an accidental start of a space war. The same outcome from the Cold War can be applied to a Sino– US military contest in space. Did neither the PLA nor the US military learn anything from the Cold War? If the PLA continues to focus on militarization of space, then this may hurt the Chinese economy by allocating funds into the military space program which could effectively be used in peaceful space or Earthbound projects. PLA control over the space program could also end up hurting Asian regional stability and the Taiwan situation. It also lends potential to further illegal exportation of WMD from China.

China-Taiwan war goes nuclear—MAD doesn’t applySolomone, 06Stacey, Ph.D. in Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii, “China's Space Program: the great leap upward,” Journal of Contemporary China, rmg

First, the PLA is suspected of making great strides in counterspace weapons systems. The PLA is believed to have made efforts in ASAT weapons such as groundbased lasers and other directed energy weapons, small-sized missiles designed to target foreign satellites, parasite satellites, micro- and nano-satellites, nuclear and non-nuclear EMP weapons, EMP satellite shielding, and stealthy satellites. As long as the PLA is successfully making progress in developing these weapons, it will continue to do so. A Taiwan crisis, the foremost threatening issue toward destabilizing peace in the region, could spark a terrible event. During the Cold War, the United States and the former Soviet Union used mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to dissuade the use of nuclear weapons in space which would destroy all satellites and, with them, all satellite command, control, and communications. 41 However, should the United States become engaged in a struggle over Taiwan independence, it is regrettably feasible that China could use such a horrible means to prevent Taiwan from gaining independence . In the case of China, nuclear weapons in space are not just a means of deterrence or a means of merely producing fear; it simply is a last-effort strategy that is at China’s disposal. 42

SDI 11File Title

Uniqueness

SDI 11File Title

Space Cooperation High NowCooperation increasing now – New announcement at U.N. meeting signals Chinese commitment Gang 6/6 [Liu Gang started his career as a journalist with Xinhua News Agency. In 2003-2005, he worked as a correspondent for Xinhua in London. In 2007, as a Chevening scholar, LIU Gang graduated from LSE with a MSc in Media and Communication Regulation & Policy. He then joined CITIC Trust and worked at the office of the Board of Directors dealing with the investor relations, information disclosure and media affairs for the company.” China favours "harmonious" use of outer space – diplomat” June 6 2011 lexis]China hopes all countries would continue to strengthen open and inclusive international cooperation characterized by equality and mutual benefit and further improve related laws in outer space explorations, a Chinese diplomat told Xinhua. Huang Huikang, director of the Department of Treaty and Law in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke about China's space policy as head of the Chinese delegation in Vienna attending the 54th session of United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) on June 1-10. At the meeting, marking the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the COPUOS, China called for building a harmonious outer space to achieve inclusive development. The notion of achieving the inclusive development of outer space has multiple connotations, Huang said. First, it implies tolerance for space environment, stressing the need to harmonize the exploration and use of outer space with space environment with an eye toward the sustainable development of outer space. Second, it denotes tolerance for all countries. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, have equal rights to use the outer space in a peaceful manner. Third, it contains tolerance for the entire mankind. Outer space exploration broadens people's vision and deepens mankind's self-understanding. Speaking of current challenges, Huang said that as outer space explorations in the 21st century become increasingly commercialized and as outer space explorers diversify, China holds that in the next 50 years, the international community should be jointly dedicated to the inclusive development of outer space to benefit all, especially those countries and people that do not yet have space capabilities. International cooperation is not only a product of the successful experience of human exploration and use of outer space, but also a basic guideline for directing the space activities of all countries, Huang said. As outer space explorers diversify and the realm of outer space explorations expands, "we should involve more countries that do not yet have space capabilities in outer space development, so as to achieve sustainable and inclusive development of outer space," Huang said. On the peaceful use of outer space, Huang said outer space law is an important instrument for safeguarding the harmonious development of the outer space, preventing its weaponization and realizing its sustainable development. "All treaties, principles, and declarations established by the COPUOS have played an important role in regulating space activities, maintaining space order and promoting space cooperation, and they should guide all countries' outer space activities," Huang said. Meanwhile, the commercialization of outer space activities and the risk of militarization of outer space require us to stipulate new space laws, improve the existing space law system so as to ensure the inclusive development of outer space, Huang said. In the future, China will continue to uphold the notion of harmonious outer space and work with the international community to realize the inclusive development of outer space and "achieve peace, development, cooperation and rule of law in outer space.

Cooperation increasing – Obama working with China and changing disliked strategies. Zhang 11 [Dr. Baohui Zhang received his undergraduate education in China and his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Texas in Austin. Before joining the faculty of Lingnan, he taught for ten years in the United States. His research interests include Chinese politics, international relations of East Asia, and democratization. “The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship” March/April 2011 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/AS.2011.51.2.311?origin=JSTOR-pdf]Thus, the strategic landscape between China and the U.S., as seen by Chinese experts from both civilian and military backgrounds, has shifted because of changes in American grand strategy and military strategy. This change in perception has relaxed Chinese concerns about national security. It marks a significant turnaround from China’s view of the American threat from the mid-1990s to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the American pursuit of hegemony was seen as the greatest threat in China’s strategic environment. After U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced major changes in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget, including cancelling the procurement of F-22 fighters and key missile defense programs, one PLA strategist characterized these adjustments as “a comprehensive rethinking about U.S. geopolitical strategies.” As the analysis emphasizes, “Gates’s and Obama’s thinking no longer shows aggressiveness. Instead, they seek a new security framework through accommodation. These significant adjustments in U.S. military strategies, especially the decisions to cut missile defense and stop procurement of F-22 fighters, which are directed mainly against China and Russia, should be welcomed. They are conducive for relaxing relations among great powers and reducing their strategic misunderstanding.”44 Moreover, Chinese experts have taken keen notice of the new space policy of the Obama administration, which opposes deployment of weapons in space and is willing to explore international agreements on the issue. As observed by a recent PLA analysis, “Obama’s willingness to reach an international

SDI 11File Title

treaty banning space-based weapons and to establish a global cooperative mechanism will have positive impacts on the world’s efforts for space arms control and prevention of an arms race.”

US – Sino cooperation high now – Experts proveMartina 2011 (Michael Martina, April 29th 2011. “China astronaut calls for U.S. cooperation” Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/us-china-space-idUSTRE73S4BS20110429. SH)

China's most renowned astronaut said on Friday his country and the United States should make good on their presidents' promises to cooperate in space."I think the two countries should proactively implement the intent expressed in the joint communique to eliminate obstacles and promote exchange and cooperation in our space programs," Yang Liwei, now the vice director of the country's Manned Space Engineering Office, said. Efforts at U.S.-China cooperation in space have failed in the past decade, stymied by economic, diplomatic and security tensions, despite a 2009 attempt by President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, to launch collaboration. Obama and Hu, in a statement in November 2009, called for "the initiation of a joint dialogue on human spaceflight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit." U.S. fears over national defense and inadvertent technology transfer have proven to be major roadblocks, particularly after Beijing carried out an anti-satellite test in January 2007, using a ground-based missile to destroy one of its inactive weather satellites. Yang, considered a hero of China's ambitious space program and the first from his country to enter space, made the statement during a carefully controlled media visit to China's astronaut training facility in the western suburbs of Beijing. There, journalists were ushered through an echoing hall housing three new space flight training simulators, none in use by China's 24 astronauts. But China is pushing forward without the United States, its funding in the face of NASA scale-backs and its cooperative efforts with Russia and other countries possibly constituting the next best hope for the future of space exploration. Yang noted potential joint space research programs with France and efforts to launch the Mars probe Firefly 1 with Russia "in the near future." He said the Chinese government has spent more than 20 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) in the first phase of its space planning, but has no specific target to put a man on the moon. Chinese scientists have talked about the possibility after 2020. Over 13 years, starting in August 1996, China ran up 75 consecutive successful Long March rocket launches after overcoming technical glitches with the help of U.S. companies. In 2003, it became the third country, after the United States and Russia, to send a man, Yang, into space aboard its own rocket. China launched its first moon orbiter, the Chang'e-1, in October 2007, accompanied by a blaze of patriotic propaganda celebrating the country's technological prowess. Yang said China's space program was intended to benefit humanity and promote scientific and cultural developments. "For myself, I hope to one day set foot on the moon, like the beautiful Chinese legend of Chang'e," Yang said, referencing the namesake of China's moon orbiter, a mythical Chinese goddess who was banished to Earth and later flew to the moon only to regret abandoning her husband. Yang then gave more down-to-earth reasoning for China's space ambitions. "Of course, it also has an important value for the nation's image and prestige," he said.

SDI 11File Title

AT: Congressional Rule Non-UniqueRegardless of Congressional rules Obama still pushing cooperation in status quoCheng 11 [Dean Cheng specializes in China's military and foreign policy, in particular its relationship with the rest of Asia and with the United States. Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center. He previously worked for 13 years as a senior analyst, first with Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), the Fortune 500 specialist in defense and homeland security, and then with the China Studies division of the Center for Naval Analyses, the federally funded research institute.” May 9th 2011 Lost in Space: The Administration’s Rush for Sino–U.S. Space Cooperation” http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/09/lost-in-space-the-administration%E2%80%99s-rush-for-sino%E2%80%93u-s-space-cooperation/] The Obama Administration appears absolutely intent on engaging the PRC in space cooperation. How else to explain the claim by White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren that the congressional restriction banning U.S.–Chinese space cooperation under just about any circumstances was not, in fact, a ban? According to Holdren, the White House has concluded that the provision doesn’t extend to “prohibiting interactions that are part of the president’s constitutional authority to conduct negotiations.” That includes, he said, a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation between the two countries that dates back to 1979. One doesn’t need a presidential signing statement to see that the White House is near-desperate to engage the PRC in space cooperation. The problem is that, if the answer is “cooperation,” what is the question? Moreover, the Administration has never satisfactorily answered just what it is that it seeks to cooperate with the Chinese on. Is it still intent on negotiating a space arms control treaty? Is it hankering for a joint manned mission to the moon, Mars, or Pluto? At this time, it’s useful to note that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had proposed a Strategic Security Dialogue with the Chinese to cover space issues (along with nuclear, cyber, and missile defense), yet the Chinese politely refused during his visit. Maybe that will change by the Strategic and Economic Dialogue talks later this month—but don’t bet on it. Meanwhile, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has yet to give a public accounting of what happened during his October visit to China. Perhaps this is the reason for the unseemly slipperiness of the Administration on cooperation? Just what was promised? Just what have we committed ourselves to?

Wolf Clause will be gone in September—it is just a short term blipYoung 7/10/11 (Connie, CBS News Correspondent. “Can U.S. Afford to Snub China in Space Quest?” CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20077462-503543.html MJT)Gregory Kulacki, a Beijing-based global security analyst and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in the journal "Nature" that the restrictions placed on NASA may, in part, be partisan U.S. politics threatening to further exacerbate a relationship already fraught with distrust. The scientist tells CBS News that Wolf's amendment was "prompted by efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to the Chinese (on space cooperation) even though the Bush Administration had been doing the same thing for years." "The ban should be lifted," wrote Kulacki bluntly. "The progress of Chinese space activity during the previous US administration suggests that the prohibitions that have stifled Sino-American scientific cooperation for decades have not achieved their aims, and have arguably been counterproductive. China has shown that it has the talent and resources to go it alone. The sanctions have only severed links between the countries and made a new generation of Chinese intellectuals resentful and suspicious of the United States. And they stand in contrast to the tradition of scientists strengthening diplomatic relations." Other experts agree that cooperation between the two countries, particularly on space and science projects, is mutually beneficial. Mitigating space debris and collecting data for weather and natural disasters around the globe, once spearheaded by former Secretary of State Collin Powell, are a few examples of common interests. Joan Johnson-Freese, Chairman of the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, an expert on China's space program, agrees with Kulacki's assessment. "I think (the bill) is fool-hearted," she told CBS News in a telephone interview. "We ought to be working with them on things like space debris and we also should be working with them so that we can learn more about their program." "There are a number of members of Congress who are adamant we will not work with China," said Johnson-Freese. "Meanwhile, China is reaching out and working with many, many countries." Beijing now has cooperative agreements with Russia, Canada, Europe, Venezuela as well as neighboring countries. Collaborations include joint satellite projects, aerospace university exchanges, export of communication satellites and the sharing of some of its satellite imaging data for natural resources. "About the only country that has said 'no thank you' to cooperation with China, is the United States," noted Johnson-Freese. The "Wolf Clause" expires with the rest of the emergency budget in Sept. 2011. It's not clear how much support his stance has in Congress, and thus how likely it is NASA's ban on cooperation a longer-term ban on NASA's cooperation with China is when a longer-term budget bill is considered in the late summer and early autumn. "I don't doubt the intentions of Congressman Wolf, or the sincerity of his views. I think he honestly believes he's doing the right thing here," Kulacki told CBS News. "I just wish he would take some time to reconsider his position."

Wolf Clause won’t affect space cooperationChina Daily 11 (China’s English Speaking Newspaper, “Wolf Clause Betrays U.S.-China Relations” Xinhua. China Daily. 5/18/11 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-05/18/content_12530550.htm MJT)Obviously, the "Wolf Clause" runs counter to the trend that both China and the United States are trying to push ahead their exchanges and cooperation in science and technology. During the third round of the China-US Strategic and Economic

SDI 11File Title

Dialogue (S&ED) held in Washington earlier this month, the two sides published accomplishments of the dialogue, which includes the cooperation in science and technology. Moreover, China and the US this year renewed their bilateral agreements on scientific and technological cooperation. The Obama administration also attached importance to the current development and trend of scientific and technological cooperation between China and the US and realized the nature of mutual benefit brought about by such cooperation. John P.Holdren, director of the Science and Technology Policy Office of the White House, has told Xinhua that the cooperation on science and technology was one of the most dynamic fields in bilateral relations between China and the United States. The "Wolf Clause" exposed the anxiety of hawkish politicians in the United States over China's peaceful development in recent years, and it also demonstrated their shortsightedness to the whole world. The "Wolf Clause" was a result of compromise made by Obama to Republicans to avoid possible bankruptcy of the US government. It is also a concession between US Republicans and Democrats, but the "clause" will not in any way change the trend of the increasingly closer scientific and technological cooperation between China and the US. In fact, the "Wolf Clause" has incurred criticism, even from some US scientists.

SDI 11File Title

Links

SDI 11File Title

Asteroid DetectionAsteroid detection and deflection causes a race for prestige in space with ChinaEasterbrook 08 (Gregg. Contributing Editor of The Atlantic and the New Republic, fellow at Brookings Institute. “The Sky is Falling” June 2008, The Atlantic. http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/223086067/13081FE2EEB5FDEDBC5/4?accountid=12598 MJT)

For NASA, a decades-long project to build a moon base would ensure a continuing flow of money to its favorite contractors and to the congressional districts where manned-space-program centers are located. So NASA signed on to the proposal, which Congress approved the following year. It is instructive, in this context, to consider the agency's rhetoric about China. The Chinese manned space program has been improving and is now about where the U.S. program was in the mid-1960s. Stung by criticism that the moon-base project has no real justification37 years ago, President Richard Nixon cancelled the final planned Apollo moon missions because the program was accomplishing little at great expense; as early as 1964, the communitarian theorist Amitai Etzioni was calling lunar obsession a "moondoggle"-NASA is selling the new plan as a second moon race, this time against Beijing. "I'll be surprised if the Chinese don't reach the moon before we return," Griffin said. "China is now a strategic peer competitor to the United States in space. China is drawing national prestige from achievements in space, and there will be a tremendous shift in national prestige toward Beijing if the Chinese are operating on the moon and we are not. Great nations have always operated on the frontiers of their era. The moon is the frontier of our era, and we must outperform the Chinese there." Wouldn't shifting NASA's focus away from wasting money on the moon and toward something of clear benefit for the entire world-identifying and deflecting dangerous space objects-be a surer route to enhancing national prestige? But NASA's institutional instinct is not to ask, "What can we do in space that makes sense?" Rather, it is to ask, "What can we do in space that requires lots of astronauts?" That finding and stopping space rocks would be an expensive mission with little role for the astronaut corps is, in all likelihood, the principal reason NASA doesn't want to talk about the asteroid threat. NASA's lack of interest in defending against space objects leaves a void the Air Force seems eager to fill. The Air Force has the worlds second-largest space program, with a budget of about $11 billion-$6 billion less than NASA's. The tension between the two entities is longstanding. Many in the Air Force believe the service could achieve U.S. space objectives faster and more effectively than NASA. And the Air Force simply wants flyboys in orbit: several times in the past, it has asked Congress to fund its own space station, its own space plane, and its own space-shuttle program. Now, with NASA all but ignoring the space-object threat, the Air Force appears to be seizing an opportunity. All known space rocks have been discovered using telescopes designed for traditional "soda straw" astronomythat is, focusing on a small patch of sky. Now the Air Force is funding the first research installation designed to conduct panoramic scans of the sky, a telescope complex called Pan-STARRS, being built by the University of Hawaii. By continuously panning the entire sky, Pan-STARRS should be able to spot many near-Earth objects that so far have gone undetected. The telescope also will have substantially better resolving power and sensitivity than existing survey instruments, enabling it to find small space rocks that have gone undetected because of their faintness. The Pan-STARRS project has no military utility, so why is the Air Force the sponsor? One speculation is that PanSTARRS is the Air Force's foot in the door for the Earthdefense mission. If the Air Force won funding to build high-tech devices to fire at asteroids, this would be a major milestone in its goal of an expanded space presence. But space rocks are a natural hazard, not a military threat, and an Air Force Earth-protection initiative, however gallant, would probably cause intense international opposition. Imagine how other governments would react if the Pentagon announced, "Don't worry about those explosions in space-we're protecting you." Thus, the task of defending Earth from objects falling from the skies seems most fitting for NASA, or perhaps for a multinational civilian agency that might be created. Which raises the question: What could NASA, or anyone else, actually do to provide a defense? Russell Schweickart, the former Apollo astronaut, runs the B6I2 Foundation (B612 is the asteroid home of Saint-Exupery's Little Prince). The foundation's goal is to get NASA officials, Congress, and ultimately the international community to take the spacerock threat seriously; it advocates testing a means of precise asteroid tracking, then trying to change the course of a near-Earth object. Current telescopes cannot track asteroids or comets accurately enough for researchers to be sure of their courses. When 99942 Apophis was spotted, for example, some calculations suggested it would strike Earth in April 2029, but further study indicates it won't-instead, Apophis should pass between Earth and the moon, during which time it may be visible to the naked eye. The PanSTARRS telescope complex will greatly improve astronomers' ability to find and track space rocks, and it may be joined by the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which would similarly scan the entire sky. Earlier this year, the software billionaires Bill Gates and Charles Simonyi pledged $30 million for work on the LSST, which proponents hope to erect in the mountains of Chile. If it is built, it will be the first major telescope to broadcast its data live over the Web, allowing countless professional and amateur astronomers to look for undiscovered asteroids. Schweickart thinks, however, that even these instruments will not be able to plot the courses of space rocks with absolute precision. NASA has said that an infrared telescope launched into an orbit near Venus could provide detailed information on the exact courses of space rocks. Such a telescope would look outward from the inner solar system toward Earth, detect the slight warmth of asteroids and comets against the cold background of the cosmos, and track their movements with precision. Congress would need to fund a near-Venus telescope, though, and NASA would need to build it-neither of which is happening. Another means of gathering data about a potentially threatening near-Earth object would be to launch a space probe toward it and attach a transponder, similar to the transponders used by civilian airliners to report their exact locations and speed; this could give researchers extremely precise information on the object's course. There is no doubt that a probe can rendezvous with a space rock: in 2005, NASA smashed a probe called Deep Impact into the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel in order to vaporize some of the material on the comet's surface and make a detailed analysis of it. Schweickart estimates that a mission to attach a transponder to an impact-risk asteroid could be staged for about $400 million-far less than the $11.7 billion cost to NASA of the 2003 Columbia disaster. Then what? In the movies, nuclear bombs are used to destroy space

rocks. In NASA's 2007 report to Congress, the agency suggested a similar approach. But nukes are a brute-force solution, and because an international treaty bans nuclear warheads in space, any proposal to use them against an asteroid would require complex diplomatic agreements . Fortunately, it's likely that just causing a slight change in course would avert a strike. The reason is the mechanics of orbits. Many people think of a planet as a vacuum cleaner whose gravity sucks in everything in its vicinity. It's true that a free-falling body will plummet toward the nearest source of gravity-but in space, freefalling bodies are rare. Earth does not plummet into the sun, because the angular momentum of Earth's orbit is in equilibrium with the sun's gravity. And asteroids and comets swirl around the sun with tremendous angular momentum, which prevents them from falling toward most of the bodies they pass, including Earth.

Asteroid detection and deflection will be perceived as in engaging in a space race with ChinaLerner 09 ( Edward, physicist, computer scientist, and author. “Rock! Bye, Bye, Baby!” November 2009. Penny Publications. http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/215341462/13081FE2EEB5FDEDBC5/6?accountid=12598 MJT)

SDI 11File Title

For years, NASA has had a fairly stable budget (well below that of its Apollo heyday), and existing programs have their constituencies. Synergizing with current NASA initiatives may be more a realistic goal than competing for funds. Crewed spaceflight programs are among NASA's biggest efforts, and can contribute. A near-Earth-asteroid mission is in some ways - notably the fuel payload needed for target rendezvous and return to Earth - easier than a moon mission. Announcing a NEO destination for the Constellation program (NASA's latest human-spaceflight initiative)20 rather than a lunar return mission might spare the U.S. from an embarrassing space-race loss to China. A mission to Phobos or Deimos, both likely asteroids captured by Mars, would be easier than a mission to Mars itself. From a base on either Martian moon astronauts could prove most of the technology necessary for a Mars base. They could also teleoperate robot explorers21 without contaminating the pre-biotic conditions - or perhaps, even, alien life on Mars itself. And trying to be positive, in 2008 Congress tasked NASA to recommend "the optimal approach to developing a deflection capability." Now if Congress would only increase the $4 million NASA spends annually on asteroid surveys and deflection studies. Asteroids are potential resources, too. A few near-Earth objects of suitable composition, nudged into safe and convenient orbits, could revolutionize the economics of spaceflight and space colonization. Water, of course, from comets. Oxygen from the water. Metals refined in space using plentiful solar power. Silicon processed in space to build mass quantities of solar cells. Cheaper spaceflight and in-space resources could also revolutionize our terrestrial energy infrastructure. Earth's atmosphere blocks most sunlight but is almost transparent to microwaves. Solar-power satellites beaming microwaves to antenna farms on the ground will be much more efficient than surface-based solar-power generation. To study, reach, and change the orbit of a NEO will take a significant investment. Perhaps the fortunes to be made will make a more compelling case for that investment than fear of an unlikely - but devastating if it happens - collision. Of course, NEO exploitation, like NEO deflection, raises issues of trust. Whom do you trust to aim an asteroid toward Earth? Fear and greed are great motivators. Here's hoping at least one of them motivates humanity enough to avoid the dinosaurs' fate.

SDI 11File Title

Asteroid MiningProfits found in asteroids will create a superpower conflict with ChinaChin, 7/6/5Larry, “"Deep Impact" and the Militarization of Space” Global Reseach, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=645 rmg

"A second aspect of the mission that needs attention is developing the technology to hit a planetary body that NASA suspects might contain precious mineral or resources that could be mined in the future. This mission will gauge a crater and in NASA’s words ‘reveal pristine material beneath’. NASA is doing major work these days developing technologies and locating possible places to mine the sky. "NASA scientist John Lewis lays all this out in his book Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroid, Comet, and Planets. In a Congressional study called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years, author John Collins talks about the need to develop the military space technology that will allow the US to control the shipping lanes on and off the Earth in the coming period, so the aerospace industry can control who is able to mine the sky." Space is not only the ultimate military "high ground"; it is the frontier for pillage and colonization, and the battleground for coming superpower conflicts with China and other rivals. "The prospects for eventual profit and control of the new space frontier are too high to be left to chance", observed Gagnon. "Clearly, since the end of World War II, the US military has been planning and is now vigorously developing space technologies that will give them control of the pathways on an off the planet Earth. Just as the Spanish Armada and the British Navy were created to protect their ‘interests and investments’ in the new world, space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit."

China hates the plan—would view it as economic destructionLamb 10 (Robert, Discovery News, “The Ethics of Planetary Exploration and Colonization”, Feb 17, http://news.discovery.com/space/the-ethics-of-planetary-exploration-and-colonization.html, BS)Can you put a price tag on an asteroid? Sure you can. We know of roughly 750 S-class asteroids with a diameter of at least 1 kilometer. Many of these pass as near to the Earth as our own moon -- close enough to reach via spacecraft. As a typical asteroid is 10 percent metal, Brother Consolmango estimates that such an asteroid would contain 1 billion metric tons of iron. That's as much as we mine out of the globe every year, a supply worth trillions and trillions of dollars. Subtract the tens of billions it would cost to exploit such a rock, and you still have a serious profit on your hands. But is this ethical? Brother Consolmango asked us to ponder whether such an asteroid harvest would drastically disrupt the economies of resource-exporting nations. What would happen to most of Africa? What would it do to the cost of iron ore? And what about refining and manufacturing? If we spend the money to harvest iron in space, why not outsource the other related processes as well? Imagine a future in which solar-powered robots toil in lunar or orbital factories. "On the one hand, it's great," Brother Consolmango said. "You've now taken all of this dirty industry off the surface of the Earth. On the other hand, you've put a whole lot of people out of work. If you've got a robot doing the mining, why not another robot doing the manufacturing? And now you've just put all of China out of work. What are the ethical implications of this kind of major shift?" Brother Consolmango also stressed that we have the technology to begin such a shift today; we'd just need the economic and political will to do it. Will our priorities change as Earth-bound resources become more and more scarce?

Empirically proven China will backlash on rare-earth metal issuesFiveplanets.com 10 (“Asteroid Mining” October 28, Google Scholars, http://fiveplanets.com/space/?p=2195, BS)

In light of the recent changes that have been taking place in the political landscape, I thought I would revisit the idea of gathering rare earth metals from near-Earth asteroids. As you probably know, China has cut off supplies of certain rare earth metals to Japan because of a diplomatic incident, and then did the same to the United States when the U.S. Said it was interested in discussion over intellectual property protection. China can use this as a weapon, because it has no incentive to rein in IP theft. After all, the national government sponsors much of it, in the form of mandating that international companies must enter in joint ventures with Chinese companies. These Chinese companies then ‘acquire’ the technology of their more advanced partners, and copy it, without regard for IP laws or otherwise. This is why the semiconductor industry will only send machines four generations out of date to the mainland. Thus, the current sticky situation. China produces 95% of most rare earth metals. The U.S. and Canada are beginning to ramp up production again, but that means re-opening or discovering mines either in bitterly cold climates (Canada’s Northwest Territories), or in areas difficult to access (certain rare earth metals are primarily found with radioactive counterparts). Lest you think these metals are unimportant, here is a brief list of items where

SDI 11File Title

they can be found: batteries, laptops, wind turbines, hybrid cars, circuitry, and many other aspects involving chemistry and electronics. So they’re highly desired from all across the industrial spectrum. This, combined with their scarcity and the uncertain supply from China, has resulted in prices soaring as demand has outstripped production.

Asteroid mining will give space militaries asymmetric advantagesLele, 8Ajey, Indian Defense Review, “Militarization of Space,” http://www.indiandefencereview.com/military-&-space/Militarization-of-Space-.htmlThe politico-military events during the last two or three decades indicates that the world is witnessing a new paradigm of security. The end of the Cold War, environmental degradation, increasing menace of terrorism, and rise in fundamentalism have raised new threats to global security which are asymmetric in nature. At the same time, technology is playing a major role for the modernisation of the armed forces across the world. This has highlighted the revolution in military affairs (RMA) for the modern day defence discourse. There is an increasing awareness that in the years to come the world will witness another transformation in the conduct of war; its scope will be decided by the emerging RMA, which is significantly governed by space technologies. At the same time space technologies, which essentially covers a wide spectrum of technologies ranging from asteroid mining to rocket science to satellite operations to navigation to telemetry to reentry to artificial intelligence is a specialized field and very few nations possess it. Naturally, those possessing it have an asymmetric advantage over others in these capabilities.

SDI 11File Title

ConstellationEnding constellation stopped a space race between the US and China—starting it back would reverse itHSU 1/17/11 A senior writer for space.com with a M.A. in science journalism and a B.A. in Science (Jeremy, 1/17/11, “Nations and Companies Vie in New Moon Race”, http://www.space.com/10633-moon-race-private-companies.html, CG)Stirrings of a new manned lunar race between the U.S. and Chinese space programs died with the cancellation of NASA's Constellation program at the end of last year. China now looks like the "clear front- runner for reaching the moon," despite not yet officially announcing a human lunar program, according to Joan Johnson-Freese, a space policy analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "Since the political will was clearly not evident in the U.S. to fund our lunar program to the extent necessary for success, it put the U.S. in a position of racing back to a place we had been, in a race we had won triumphantly before, with the very real risk of coming in second this time," Johnson-Freese said in an e-mail. "While very disappointing, I think reality dictated the cancellation." NASA has not completely given up on the moon and lunar science despite redirecting human mission plans toward the asteroids and Mars, according to officials. But its present path seems unlikely to follow the Apollo moon program's footsteps as closely as the Constellation plan did.

The Constellation program undermined China, ending gave it the upper handZak 10 – Reporter BBC and the Air & Space Smithsonian (for, 2 4 10, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sei_end.html) (Anthony, //, End of Constellation: It’s not all Gloom and Doom, , CG)

Even before the White House made a proposal on Feb. 1, 2010, to eliminate funding for the Constellation program, a political hurricane had started brewing in Washington, D.C. Critics alleged that the end of the project, which aimed to return the American astronauts to the Moon, would undermine US space efforts and would even mark the end of the nation’s leadership in space, giving the upper hand to evil powers like China and Russia. The criticism is probably leveled by the same people, who six years ago were blindly cheerleading the Bush administration’s shortsighted decision to start this project in the first place, without any solid fiscal or technical foundation. With a minimum foresight and the knowledge of space exploration history, it was clear from the get go that the Bush plan was underfunded, poorly designed and would have to be scrapped sooner or later. It is just unfortunate that it took six years, nine billion dollars and the change of occupant in the Oval Office to come to this realization. Obviously, for every space enthusiast around the world, it would be sad to see any major space exploration effort to be axed in a budget crunch. The frustration of legislators representing congressional districts with heavy involvement into a discontinued federal project is also understandable. However there is a silver lining. Every failure presents a new opportunity and even more so does the inevitable demise of the Constellation program. NASA still can make it right, make it big, and remain a leader in space, if it chooses to do so.

SDI 11File Title

Debris or Junk1. Space debris causes competition with chinaA. NASA will use lasers to clear space debrisKenyon 11 (Henry, Government Computer News, “NASA Plans Laser Method For Clearing Space Junk,” March 14th, Defense Systems, www.defensesystems.com/articles/2011/03/14/nasa-laser-zap-space-junk.aspx, HL)

Space junk is cluttering the high frontier. The growing cloud of debris in Earth orbit has been worrying space-faring nations for some time, but nothing in particular has been done to clean it up. A team of scientists from NASA and Cornell University has proposed a laser-based method to remove objects from orbit. Instead of blasting pieces of debris (which would only create more flying junk), the group’s plan calls for using a medium-powered ground-based laser combined with a terrestrial telescope to illuminate the objects, which will slow them down and cause them to reenter the atmosphere and burn up. The Technology Review blog noted that this process isn’t as outlandish as it seems. In fact, in the 1990’s, the Air Force studied the idea, but never acted on it. The Air Force had intended to use a powerful laser, but such a system could also be used as a weapon, which would have raised concerns from other spacefaring nations, the blog said. The NASA/Cornell system would rely on the photons of the laser itself to decelerate an object. By illuminating a targeted piece of debris for a couple of hours per day, the researchers estimated that a 5-kilowatt laser would be sufficient for the job and that such a device could zap up to 10 objects a day.

B. China would respond to space laser—empirically provenTelegraph 11 – (Tim Ross, and Holly Watt – 2/2/11, “WikiLeaks: US vs China in battle of the anti-satellite space weapons”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299491/WikiLeaks-US-vs-China-in-battle-of-the-anti-satellite-space-weapons.html, CG)

The two nuclear superpowers both shot down their own satellites using sophisticated missiles in separate show of strength, the files suggest. The American Government was so incensed by Chinese actions in space that it privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist. The Chinese carried out further tests as recently as last year, however, leading to further protests from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, secret documents show. Beijing justified its actions by accusing the Americans of developing a’n “offensive” laser weapon system that would have the capability of destroying missiles before they left enemy territory. The disclosures are contained in the latest documents obtained by the Wikileaks website, which have been released to The Telegraph. They detail the private fears of both superpowers as they sought mastery of the new military frontier.

SDI 11File Title

GenericAny advanced space technology spurs an escalatory space race because all tech is dual useWeeden 08 (Brian, a technical consultant for the Secure World Foundation and former US Air Force officer with a background in space surveillance and ICBM operations. “China’s BX-1 microsatellite: a litmus test for space weaponization” Monday, October 20, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1235/1, BS)

In the wake of China’s recent successful spacewalk and safe return of their three taikonauts, there have been concerns floating around the Internet over the microsatellite that was released at the end of this mission. Called the BX-1 in the official satellite catalog, and also referred to as CompanionSat, it was a very small cube approximately 40 centimeters on a side (16 inches) and weighing around 40 kilograms (90 pounds). According to official reports by the Chinese media and interviews with Chinese officials, the purpose of the BX-1 was to provide images of the Shenzhou-7 (SH-7) capsule and demonstrate the ability to inspect the orbital module and conduct some limited proximity operations. It also carried out a data relay experiment. However, some observers have concluded that the BX-1 was actually a test of some of the capabilities required for a co-orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) attack. The direct ascent ASATs which were used to destroy the Fengyun 1C weather satellite in January 2007 and the USA 193 spy satellite in February 2008 were fired from the surface of the Earth, travelled on a ballistic arc toward their target, and intercepted it at high speed. Total flight time from launch to impact for these types of weapons is usually less than 15 minutes when attacking low orbits. By contrast a co-orbital ASAT is actually put into orbit like any other satellite. After a certain period of time, the ASAT conducts a series of maneuvers to put it on a collision course with its target. A version of this developed and tested by the Soviet Union fired a cloud of small pellets at its target like a shotgun blast. The facts behind the BX-1 mission are still coming to light, but here is a summary of what is known at this point. About two and half hours after the spacewalk, the BX-1 microsatellite was released from it resting position on top of the Shenzhou 7 module. This release was done via a spring, which is a very common method of deploying microsatellites due to its reliability and simplicity. At this point the BX-1 was not under active control and drifted away from the SH-7 to a maximum distance of around 100 to 200 kilometers after a few days. Approximately four hours after its release, the BX-1 made its closest approach to the International Space Station (ISS) of around 25 kilometers. The SH-7 itself made its own close approach shortly thereafter coming within 36 kilometers of the ISS. In both of these cases, it is important to understand the difference in orbits between the vehicles. The lowest point (perigee) of the ISS was 347 kilometers and the highest point (apogee) of the SH-7 orbit was 336 kilometers. The SH-7/BX-1 and ISS were also in different inclinations: 42.4 degrees and 51.6 degrees, respectively. This means that not only were they at different altitudes but also their orbits intersected at about a 10-degree angle. There was no danger of collision. The BX-1 was released a few minutes after the ISS passed in front of the SH-7. Two and a half orbits later, when the BX-1 was at its closest point to the ISS, it was still fairly close to the SH-7 and within view of China’s limited space surveillance network. It makes sense that the Chinese, just like NASA and the Russians, plan important events to occur over tracking stations. But some analysts have observed that if it was indeed a simulated co-orbital ASAT test, having the target in observation by the mother ship before launch is beneficial for last-minute targeting. It will be almost impossible to determine whether or not the positioning of the SH-7 and ISS at the launch of the BX-1 and close approach were coincidence or pre-planned, but there may be other explanations. Chinese TV indicated that it was timed to obtain the best lighting conditions for the optical camera on the BX-1 to be able to observe the SH-7 as it drifted away. After the taikonauts had returned to Earth, the BX-1 was placed under active control and commanded to maneuver back towards the orbital module, which had been left in orbit. This period of drift followed by active control was part of the mission plan all along, as indicated by an interview with Shen Xuemin, the head of the institute that designed the BX-1, on CCTV during the 29th orbit. The misquoting and slight changes during translation of this prompted some to conclude that there had been a problem with the mission and the BX-1 was somehow out of control or malfunctioning. Not only was this not true, but unguided spring release is a standard method of deployment for microsatellites used by many countries. The similar altitudes of both the ISS and SH-7 arise from some of the peculiars of orbital missions. Following a series of maneuvers, the BX-1 was in an orbit where it could observe the SH-7 orbital module and take images from a fairly short distance. Some reports have indicated that it was in a 4 kilometer by 8 kilometer “orbit” around the module. This is simply not possible within the laws of physics. In reality, both the BX-1 and SH-7 module were in almost exactly the same orbit around the Earth, with a slight difference in eccentricity. From the point of view of the SH-7 module, this resulted in the BX-1 appearing to orbit around the module with between four and eight kilometers of separation. The similar altitudes of both the ISS and SH-7 arise from some of the peculiars of orbital missions. As you go higher in orbital altitude, the atmosphere exerts less drag on your spacecraft. This means you need to do fewer fuel-expensive maneuvers to re-boost. At 400 kilometers, orbital lifetimes are usually measured in a few months without re-boost. At 200 kilometers this drops to a few weeks. But while higher is better from a fuel conservation perspective, there is an upper limit on how high it is safe to orbit humans for long periods. No manned missions are designed to orbit above 400 to 500 kilometers for long periods of time due to the health risk posed by the Van Allen radiation belts, and in particular the South Atlantic Anomaly. The inclinations of the two objects have similar constraints. The latitude of the launch site plays the biggest factor in determining this. The most efficient launch trajectory is due east from a launch site, which places the satellite into an orbital inclination equal to the latitude of the launch site. It is fairly easy to launch objects into inclinations higher than the launch site latitude, but it is very difficult to launch directly into lower inclinations. The 51.6-degree inclination of the ISS was determined by the latitude of Baikonur Cosmodrome (also called Tyuratam), of 46 degrees. This

SDI 11File Title

is where the first module, Zarya, was launched from in 1998. Because Cape Canaveral is at a lower latitude than Baikonur at 28.8 degrees, it is possible for both the Americans and Russians to easily reach the ISS. Similarly, the 42.4 degree inclination of the Shenzhou-7 was largely determined by its launch site, Jiuquan Space Launch Center, at 40.6 degrees latitude in northern China. And yes, if necessary, the Chinese could easily launch into the same inclination as the ISS. There are a few elements of the BX-1 launch and operations that do not correlate to what would be expected from a co-orbital ASAT test. As seen from the live footage and photographs, the cameras on board the BX-1 were focused on the SH-7 for much of its separation time. If it was indeed supposedly tracking the ISS for a simulated attack run, why were they not pointed at the ISS? Also, it is unclear what sort of data links were between the BX-1 and SH-7. The BX-1 was sending its imagery and communicating with the Shanghai Microsat Center, a different ground station than what the SH-7 was communicating with. In addition to concerns over being a possible co-orbital ASAT, other observers noted that the BX-1 was a precursor to a satellite inspection craft. The best example of this type of satellite is the XSS-11, a small satellite the size of a dishwasher developed by the US Air Force Research Laboratory and launched in 2005. The XSS-11 was designed to be able to autonomously rendezvous with another satellite and observe it at close range with a variety of sensors, including high resolution LIDAR mapping. The Air Force insisted the mission was a “technology demonstration” and noted that it had applications for determining satellite malfunctions and performing on-orbit servicing. But the similarities between XSS-11 and Project SAINT are palpable. SAINT (short for SAtellite INTerceptor) was a highly classified program in the 1950’s designed to rendezvous with enemy satellites, inspect them with video cameras, and possibly disable or destroy them. This gets to the heart of the matter for space weapons: the basic technologies that can be used for peaceful and beneficial purposes can also be used for harm. Another US satellite that was designed to perform autonomous rendezvous was the Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART). DART was also launched in 2005 and was intended to maneuver close to and conduct proximity operations around the defunct US Navy MUBLCOM satellite. A navigation error when DART and MUBLCOM were about 200 meters apart resulted in the two objects bumping into each other at a speed of around 1.5 meters per second, slow enough that neither object generated debris nor was destroyed, but fast enough to change the orbit of MUBLCOM significantly. Was the BX-1 a technology demonstrator for satellite inspection? Was it a test run for a future Chinese rendezvous and docking mission with the ISS? Was it a test run of a co-orbital ASAT? Is XSS-11 the reincarnation of a Cold War-era ASAT program? Was DART a failed proximity operations mission or a successful co-orbital intercept? All of these questions ultimately are both true and false, depending on the respondent’s point of view. And this gets to the heart of the matter for space weapons: the basic technologies that can be used for peaceful and beneficial purposes can also be used for harm. The same technology that allows the Russian Progress or European ATV to automatically rendezvous and dock with the ISS could also be used in a co-orbital ASAT. The same technology that is used for ground or sea-based ballistic missile defense can also be used as a direct ascent ASAT. These events are a litmus test that reveals what the observer wants to see. This is the argument that many make against the feasibility of space arms control: because of the dual-use nature of so many space technologies, any arms control regime or space weapons ban is inherently unverifiable. But the flip side of that assertion is that any advanced space technology development is also a potential weapons program. And that has potential to lead to a space arms race as each state attempts to develop the capabilities to counter perceived capabilities in its potential adversaries. The official position of the US State Department is “that there is no—I repeat, no—on-going arms race in space,” according to Paula DeSutter, the Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation. In the strictest sense of the definition, this is correct. No state currently has placed objects in space that are solely intended as weapons for attacking either other satellites or targets on the ground. But this official position deliberately ignores the research and development that is ongoing into the technologies crucial for such attacks. This is done because it is currently the policy of the United States to not deploy space weapons while “hedging” against an adversary deploying space weapons by continuing the research and development of space weapons. This policy is a compromise between those on the political right who see space weapons as necessary to continued American dominance and those on the left who wish to use space for only peaceful purposes. Part of the justification for this policy is that the US sees other nations, specifically China, developing capabilities that could be used to attack US space assets. But China also sees the United States developing capabilities to counter its national interests along with military doctrine for space dominance with clear guidelines for offensive counterspace and national policy indicating that the US can and will deny adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests. And so China seeks to develop technologies and doctrine to counter the perceived capabilities of the United States. These capabilities-based assessments of potential adversaries and development of counter-tactics are an essential element of sound military planning for any state, and completely within the legitimate rights of any state to conduct. But when left unchecked by policy and oversight, they will, and historically have, resulted in arms races and increased the potential for armed conflict. These events are a litmus test that reveals what the observer wants to see. Both the United States and China recognize the immense socioeconomic value and benefit that peaceful uses of space can provide. Both recognize the benefits to military power and international influence space can provide. Both are developing the technologies to counter each other’s military power and international influence. Both accuse each other of hiding space weaponization behind a veneer of peaceful uses. Both deny there is an arms race. Unless there is a change of policy on this issue towards transparency and cooperation, both states will remain on this untenable collision course in space. And the end result could negatively affect space security and sustainability for not only both nations but all of humanity’s as well.

All space programs will be used in a competitive manner with ChinaChambers, 09

SDI 11File Title

Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

Viewing the Chinese space program as hostile and Beijing a future rival in space seems to be the predominant line of thinking amongst U.S. politicians and many think tanks. The Chinese ASAT test still rings loudly in their ears, tainting each judgment that is made on China’s aspirations in space The 1997 Loral scandal in which missile technology was allegedly transferred to China against standing U.S. satellite export policy is another black mark against any mention Chinese space cooperation. More vitriolic statements were issued during the March 2006 House Appropriations Committee subcommittee hearing on “Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies” when Rep. Tom DeLay quipped, “We have a space race [with China] going on right now and the American people are totally unaware of this”.268 Frank Wolf, representative from Virginia and subcommittee chairman, added, “If China beats us there [to the Moon], we will have lost the space program. They are basically, fundamentally in competition with us”. 269 This is further evidenced in Senator Kyl’s January 29, 2007 speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he claimed that China’s rhetoric and insistence on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) was merely a ruse to prevent “further progress by the United States in space while allowing it to covertly catch up”. 270 Despite repeated remarks by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao that the test was not directed at anyone nor did it change China’s position on the peaceful use of space, many remain skeptical of the test’s true intent. While this may have been an attempt to drum up the China threat in order to secure more funding for NASA’s lunar programs, it may also reflect a more general trend of regarding any Chinese effort in space with the utmost suspicion.

US is only cooperating with China because of cutbacks—increased space funding would reverse this trendTkacik Jr 10 (John J., John J. Tkacik, a retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration. “China eyes high ground; Obama talks of cooperation, not competition on space exploration” January 8, Lexis, BS)

In November, Chinese air force commander Gen. Xu Qiliang observed that "competition between military forces is now turning toward the realm of space, [and] military modernization is ceaselessly expanding into space." But during his visit to Beijing a few days later, President Obama talked about "cooperation" rather than competition. In a joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao, the two leaders called for "a dialogue on human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit." China's aerospace industry firms - which for decades have supplied dangerous missile technologies and equipment to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, and which have been sanctioned ceaselessly by four successive U.S. presidents for their transgressions - will find the United States in a new suppliant posture. The atrophying U.S. space program suggests that America will be forced to cooperate with China in space, or else cede the high frontier of space to China altogether.

Plan confirms Chinese views of competition Tkacik Jr 10 (John J., John J. Tkacik, a retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration. “China eyes high ground; Obama talks of cooperation, not competition on space exploration” January 8, Lexis, BS)

Beijing's political and military leaders alike foresee "competition" in space with the United States. They certainly plan to seize the high ground of low-Earth orbit and then will likely move to the even higher ground of moon landings perhaps before this decade is out. Judging from the past behavior of China's state-owned aerospace firms especially in their unseemly eagerness to proliferate ballistic missile technology to rogue states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama can count on much "cooperation" with China in space - except on China's terms.

SDI 11File Title

Generic—ExplorationSpace Exploration leads to militarizationEt al Duvall 06 (Raymond Duvall and Jonathan Havercroft, University of Minnesota + University of Victoria Professors, March 22, “Taking Sovereignty Out of This World: Space Weaponization and the Production of Late-Modern Political Subjects,” International Studies Association. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/8/6/8/pages98680/p98680-1.php, HL)

The weaponization of space—the act of placing weapons in outer space—has an intimate relationship to space exploration, in that the history of the former is embedded in the latter, while the impetus for space exploration, in turn, is embedded in histories of military development. Since the launch of Sputnik, states that have ability to access— and hence to explore—outer space have sought ways in which that access could improve their military capabilities. Consequently, militaries in general and the U.S. military in particular have had a strong interest in the military uses of space for the last half century. Early on, the military interest in space had two direct expressions: enhancing surveillance; and developing rocketry technologies that could be put to use for earthbased weapons, such as missiles. Militaries also have a vested interest in the “dual-use” technologies that are often developed in space exploration missions. While NASA goes to great lengths in its public relations to stress the benefits to science and the (American) public of its space explorations, it is noteworthy that many of the technologies developed for those missions also have potential military use.

SDI 11File Title

Helium 3Unilateral He3 mining cements a US China Space RaceKazen 08 (Casey, “Is Helium 3 Exploitation China's Hidden Lunar Agenda?”, July 02, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/07/is-helium-3-exp.html, BS)

Earlier this year, shortly after Russia claimed a vast portion of the Arctic sea floor, accelerating an international race for the natural resources as global warming opens polar access, China has announced plans to map "every inch" of the surface of the Moon and exploit the vast quantities of Helium-3 thought to lie buried in lunar rocks as part of its ambitious space-exploration program. Ouyang Ziyuan, head of the first phase of lunar exploration, was quoted on government-sanctioned news site ChinaNews.com describing plans to collect three dimensional images of the Moon for future mining of Helium 3: "There are altogether 15 tons of helium-3 on Earth, while on the Moon, the total amount of Helium-3 can reach one to five million tons." "Helium-3 is considered as a long-term, stable, safe, clean and cheap material for human beings to get nuclear energy through controllable nuclear fusion experiments," Ziyuan added. "If we human beings can finally use such energy material to generate electricity, then China might need 10 tons of helium-3 every year and in the world, about 100 tons of helium-3 will be needed every year." Helium 3 fusion energy - classic Buck Rogers propulsion system- may be the key to future space exploration and settlement, requiring less radioactive shielding, lightening the load. Scientists estimate there are about one million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year. Thermonuclear reactors capable of processing Helium-3 would have to be built, along with major transport system to get various equipment to the Moon to process huge amounts of lunar soil and get the minerals back to Earth. With China's announcement, a new Moon-focused Space Race seems locked in place. China made its first steps in space just a few years ago, and is in the process of establishing a lunar base by 2024. NASA is currently working on a new space vehicle, Orion, which is destined to fly the U.S. astronauts to the moon in 13 years, to deploy a permanent base. Russia, the first to put a probe on the moon, plans to deploy a lunar base in 2015. A new, reusable spacecraft, called Kliper, has been earmarked for lunar flights, with the International Space Station being an essential galactic pit stop. The harvesting of Helium-3 on the could start by 2025. Our lunar mining could be but a jumping off point for Helium 3 extraction from the atmospheres of our Solar System gas giants, Saturn and Jupiter. UN Treaties in place state that the moon and its minerals are the common heritage of mankind, so the quest to use Helium-3 as an energy source would likely demand joint international co-operation. Hopefully, exploitation of the moon's resources will be viewed as a solution for thw world, rather than an out-moded nation-state solution.

SDI 11File Title

ISSChina wants to compete with ISS they won’t cooperateDinerman, 7/7/11Taylor, “China's Continuing Drive For Space Power,” http://www.hudson-ny.org/2242/china-space-powerMany Americans imagined that China would be eager to join the International Space Station partnership, along with Russia, Japan and Europe. Leaders at NASA and elsewhere imagined that China would see its role in the ISS partnership as a way of certifying its status as one of the world's primary spacefaring nations. Instead, China has chosen to build its own space program, on its own schedule.If China is using its space programs to bolster the political legitimacy of the ruling party, then it is certainly not the first, or the last, government to do so. What is more important than any propaganda dividend is the way China's overall technological level is enhanced by its successes in space.

SDI 11File Title

ISS—ChinaAny Chinese work on ISS would be used for militarizationChambers, 09Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

If the United States truly wants to engage China in a positive and productive manner regarding space, this perspective argues that Washington needs to see China as a potential partner and not just as “rival” or “competitor.” As Nicolas Peter notes, “…few if any countries in the world today can stand alone in space activities, demonstrating therefore the importance of cooperation”. 286 Although Washington continues to snub Beijing’s request to serve as a partner on the ISS, there may be some actual merit to allowing China to participate in the program. One obvious benefit would be China’s ability to participate financially and allow for some cost-sharing. With its large foreign reserves and sovereign wealth fund, China is in a better position than other ISS participants (e.g., Brazil, Italy) to help offset some of the continual development and sustainment costs. Another potential benefit in Chinese collaboration would be greater insight and transparency into China’s own space program and technical capabilities. Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, offered a slightly puzzling, pessimistic argument in favor of denying Chinese participation in the ISS, as follows:

“When we look to our own potential future cooperation, dialogue, space dialogue with China, we have to keep this [potential for military dual-use purposes] in mind. That when we invite—if we were to invite—a Chinese astronaut onto the space shuttle, that the information technology that that single individual might pick up could be turned into a potential Chinese military space platform. 287”

SDI 11File Title

LasersChina would respond to space laser—empirically provenTelegraph 11 – (Tim Ross, and Holly Watt – 2/2/11, “WikiLeaks: US vs China in battle of the anti-satellite space weapons”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299491/WikiLeaks-US-vs-China-in-battle-of-the-anti-satellite-space-weapons.html, CG)

The two nuclear superpowers both shot down their own satellites using sophisticated missiles in separate show of strength, the files suggest. The American Government was so incensed by Chinese actions in space that it privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist. The Chinese carried out further tests as recently as last year, however, leading to further protests from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, secret documents show. Beijing justified its actions by accusing the Americans of developing an “offensive” laser weapon system that would have the capability of destroying missiles before they left enemy territory. The disclosures are contained in the latest documents obtained by the Wikileaks website, which have been released to The Telegraph. They detail the private fears of both superpowers as they sought mastery of the new military frontier.

SDI 11File Title

Lunar ExplorationUnilateral moon mission sparks a space race with ChinaFreese 04 , Chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the United States Naval War College (Joan Johnson, 1/13/04, “Chinese Chess in Space”, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinese-chess-space, CG)

Alternatively, the United States can declare a space race, unilaterally announcing a long-awaited manned program to return to the Moon and/or a manned Mars mission. However, the International Space Station (ISS) partners, especially Russia and Europe, are unlikely to support a program developed without their input or one that excludes the Chinese. Further, the continuing financial and technical problems with the still-incomplete ISS make it unlikely that they would be anxious to commit, even if invited, to an expanded manned program. So if the US were to start another space race, it would likely be going it alone. Domestically, a competitive approach would accrue benefits to the US like those enjoyed during the Apollo program, including prestige, technology development, and jobs. Strategically, at the risk of otherwise losing face and allowing the technology gap to grow, China would be pushed toward increased spending on its manned program and at a faster pace than they would otherwise choose. That would divert funds from Chinese military programs and potentially cause China substantial economic hardship, similar to what happened when the Soviet Union felt compelled to spend money countering Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) technology. But there are three critical uncertainties that would make initiating a space race an unwise move - whether the US can afford an independent program and maintain the requisite political will to fund it through completion; whether it is really the best long-term strategy for long-term US-China relations; and whether the US can afford to reinforce further the view that it prefers unilateralism to multilateralism - in any realm of international relations. It can be argued the United States does not really need to stay the course and bring a new space race to a conclusion, as the unfinished SDI program still significantly impacted the Soviet Union. But to start with anything less than a full commitment sets a new program up for failure. US history is replete with space visions and programs set forth from podiums and later forgotten. Although wrapping a manned space program within a larger strategic vision is important and useful, political competition has far more short-term motivational impetus then long-term staying power. Additionally, Americans' desire and ability to carry the economic burden alone must be considered. Public support for paying the entire bill for a new manned space program is doubtful. Manned space exploration has been consistently viewed by the public as a good thing to do, but low on its list of funding priorities. Equally important is whether a competitive race with China is in the best interests of the United States. While spending the Soviets into bankruptcy unquestionably played a role in the eventual fall of communism in the Soviet Union, dealing with Russia as a near failed state in the subsequent years is not a model to deliberately set up in China.

Ending lunar mission stopped a space race between the US and China—starting it back would reverse itHSU 1/17/11 A senior writer for space.com with a M.A. in science journalism and a B.A. in Science (Jeremy, 1/17/11, “Nations and Companies Vie in New Moon Race”, http://www.space.com/10633-moon-race-private-companies.html, CG)Stirrings of a new manned lunar race between the U.S. and Chinese space programs died with the cancellation of NASA's Constellation program at the end of last year. China now looks like the "clear front- runner for reaching the moon," despite not yet officially announcing a human lunar program, according to Joan Johnson-Freese, a space policy analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "Since the political will was clearly not evident in the U.S. to fund our lunar program to the extent necessary for success, it put the U.S. in a position of racing back to a place we had been, in a race we had won triumphantly before, with the very real risk of coming in second this time," Johnson-Freese said in an e-mail. "While very disappointing, I think reality dictated the cancellation." NASA has not completely given up on the moon and lunar science despite redirecting human mission plans toward the asteroids and Mars, according to officials. But its present path seems unlikely to follow the Apollo moon program's footsteps as closely as the Constellation plan did.

SDI 11File Title

MarsUnilateral mars mission sparks a space race with ChinaFreese 04 , Chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the United States Naval War College (Joan Johnson, 1/13/04, “Chinese Chess in Space”, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinese-chess-space, CG)

Alternatively, the United States can declare a space race, unilaterally announcing a long-awaited manned program to return to the Moon and/or a manned Mars mission. However, the International Space Station (ISS) partners, especially Russia and Europe, are unlikely to support a program developed without their input or one that excludes the Chinese. Further, the continuing financial and technical problems with the still-incomplete ISS make it unlikely that they would be anxious to commit, even if invited, to an expanded manned program. So if the US were to start another space race, it would likely be going it alone. Domestically, a competitive approach would accrue benefits to the US like those enjoyed during the Apollo program, including prestige, technology development, and jobs. Strategically, at the risk of otherwise losing face and allowing the technology gap to grow, China would be pushed toward increased spending on its manned program and at a faster pace than they would otherwise choose. That would divert funds from Chinese military programs and potentially cause China substantial economic hardship, similar to what happened when the Soviet Union felt compelled to spend money countering Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) technology. But there are three critical uncertainties that would make initiating a space race an unwise move - whether the US can afford an independent program and maintain the requisite political will to fund it through completion; whether it is really the best long-term strategy for long-term US-China relations; and whether the US can afford to reinforce further the view that it prefers unilateralism to multilateralism - in any realm of international relations. It can be argued the United States does not really need to stay the course and bring a new space race to a conclusion, as the unfinished SDI program still significantly impacted the Soviet Union. But to start with anything less than a full commitment sets a new program up for failure. US history is replete with space visions and programs set forth from podiums and later forgotten. Although wrapping a manned space program within a larger strategic vision is important and useful, political competition has far more short-term motivational impetus then long-term staying power. Additionally, Americans' desire and ability to carry the economic burden alone must be considered. Public support for paying the entire bill for a new manned space program is doubtful. Manned space exploration has been consistently viewed by the public as a good thing to do, but low on its list of funding priorities. Equally important is whether a competitive race with China is in the best interests of the United States. While spending the Soviets into bankruptcy unquestionably played a role in the eventual fall of communism in the Soviet Union, dealing with Russia as a near failed state in the subsequent years is not a model to deliberately set up in China.

SDI 11File Title

Nano-SatellitesNano satellites will spur a space arms raceSmith 04 (Charles, “Losing the Next War – Chinese Space War Heats Up” Thursday, Apr. 22, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/22/141829.shtml, BS)

The space race is heating up into a new global arms race. Unfortunately, America stands to lose the next war because of politics. China successfully launched two new satellites early Monday using a Long March II C rocket. The rocket roared off the pad at 11:59 p.m. Sunday from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in southwest China's Sichuan Province. One of the two new Chinese satellites is described as "Nano-satellite I". The Chinese Army-run Qinghua University and Aerospace Qinghua Satellite Technologies Co. Ltd developed the miniature satellite. The tiny Chinese Nano-satellite weighs in at 55 pounds and according to the official PRC press "is designed for high-tech experiments." However, U.S. defense analysts feel the new PRC mini-satellite is a prototype for war. According to Richard Fisher, a noted expert on Chinese military technology, the nano-satellite is part of a Chinese Army space program. "China will use micro and nano-sats for a range of missions, surveillance, reconnaissance, communication and for destroying enemy satellites. These are missions that the United States also envisions for very small satellites. Their size makes them difficult to impossible to detect, and thus, to either avoid or shoot down," stated Fisher, a defense analyst for the Center for Security Policy.

China is already developing militarized nanosats – any further shift in the military balance would trigger Chinese MilitarizationWilson 01 (Tom, Space Commission Staff Member, “Threats to United States Space Capabilities”, Google Scholars, http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.pdf, BS)

Advances in miniaturization and the proliferation of space technologies enable many countries to enter space with small, lightweight, inexpensive and highly capable systems that can perform a variety of missions. Included in this list of missions is counterspace operations, such as long-duration-orbital inspection and intercept. Microsatellites and nanosatellites, weighing from 100 kilograms to 10 kilograms respectively, are examples of the advances in miniaturized space system technologies that have enabled increasingly complex missions to be performed via smaller and smaller platforms. Microsatellites can perform satellite inspection, imaging and other functions and could be adapted as weapons. Placed on an interception course and programmed to hone-in on a satellite, a microsatellite could fly alongside a target until commanded to disrupt, and then disable or destroy the target. Detection of and defense against such an attack would be difficult. Microsats are typically characterized by: rapid development timelines (typically from 6 to 36 months); low cost; incorporation of leading edge technology; and manageable portions. It is these characteristics that make microsats attractive to universities and emerging space nations, as well as to governments. Continued advances in microsat bus and electronics technologies (Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), high-power solar, and high density/high-performance systems) will enable smaller, high-G enabled, and rad-hardened microsats and nanosats. Continued miniaturization of sensor technology will enable new mission scenarios such as the potential for on-orbit autonomous integration and deintegration and formation flying, which will in turn enable things such as robotic integration, array production, large space aperture production, satellite servicing, and commodity delivery in space. Surrey Space Technologies, Ltd. (SSTL), in England, is considered to be the market leader in microsatellite technology. SSTL is a commercial, majority owned subsidiary of the University of Surrey. SSTL has conducted technology transfer and training programs with a goal of enabling emerging space nations to master microsatellite technology as a step in facilitating the development and deployment of an increasingly capable national space infrastructure. To date SSTL has conducted technology transfer and training programs with: China (Tsinghua-1), South Korea (KITSat-1/2), Portugal (PoSat-1), Pakistan (BADR-1), Chile (FASat-Alfa/Bravo), South Africa (UoSAT-3/4/5), Thailand (TMSAT-1), Singapore (Merlion payload), and Malaysia (TiungSAT-1). Recently, SSTL conducted a satellite inspection mission with the Russians and Chinese using the 6.5 kg SNAP-1 nanosat. In addition to SSTL, other countries involved in maturing microsat technology include: Russia, Israel, Canada, Sweden, and Australia.48 48 Surrey Space Center Press Announcement, “Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) celebrates 15 years in business,” 12 June 2000, p. 2. There are examples of plans to use microsatellite technology to develop and deploy long-duration orbital ASAT interceptors. The Sing Tao newspaper recently quoted Chinese sources as indicating that China is secretly developing a nanosatellite ASAT weapon called “parasitic satellite.” The sources claim this ASAT recently completed ground testing and that planning was underway to conduct testing in space. The Chinese ASAT system is covertly deployed and attached to the enemy’s satellite. During a conflict, commands are sent to the ASAT that will interfere or destroy the host satellite in less than one minute.49 The same sources discuss the three components of the “parasitic satellite” system as: a carrier (“mother”) satellite, a launcher and a ground control system. Because the “parasitic satellites” reside with their hosts and are only activated during a conflict, their volumes must be very small to conceal their existence and avoid interfering with the normal operation of the host satellites. The sources also claim the cost of building the satellite to be between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of a typical satellite.50 The reason behind the development of the “parasitic satellite” system is strategic balance between China and the U.S. According to the sources: Beijing’s decision to develop and deploy the ASAT system has both long-term and short-term strategic objectives. The long-term objectives are to establish a strategic balance among the larger nations, and to break up the monopoly on utilization of space that large space systems of the superpowers are holding; thus weakening their capabilities in information warfare. In the short-term China would strengthen its capabilities in controlling the usage of space globally, and change drastically the Chinese-American military balance so that the U.S. would not intervene easily in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait and at the Chinese perimeter.51

SDI 11File Title

Nano-satellites are will be viewed as offensive space systemsSolomone, 06Stacey, Ph.D. in Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii, “China's Space Program: the great leap upward,” Journal of Contemporary China,

Some offensive counterspace systems are easier to identify. Currently, the PLA is suspected of researching and developing ground-based lasers, or similar anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, which would adversely affect the optical lens of a targeted foreign satellite. The PLA is also accused of working on small-size missiles which could target satellites in space, and parasite satellites which would be launched into space, attached to foreign satellites, and detonated on command at a later time. 22 The PLA has come under some criticism for its work with England’s Surrey Space Center to develop a microsatellite. 23 To date, China has already launched several types of micro-satellites. 24 Some suspect this work on miniaturization of satellites could be applicable to China’s work on parasite satellites and even future nano-satellites. 25 China already has a launcher specifically designed for small satellite launches called the Explorer (Kaituozhe) launch vehicle. 26 Finally, China is also suspected of researching and developing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon to disable satellites. 27

Micro-satellites would cause arms races with ChinaChambers, 09Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

Beyond a direct-ascent KKV, there have been additional writings on other aspects of a potential Chinese anti-space program, including ground-based lasers, micro-satellites or parasite satellites, as well as nuclear warhead-generated high-altitude electromagnetic pulses to disable enemy satellites. 15 In general, the defense industry-related articles tend to paint any Chinese progress in space as a menacing threat. Even China’s wellpublicized Shenzhou human space program has come under scrutiny as actually serving as a cover for reconnaissance purposes.16

SDI 11File Title

Nuclear PropulsionNuclear propulsion will cause space race with ChinaSmith 2003 (Wayne Smith, January 28th 2003. “Will there be a Nuclear Space Race between America and China?” Space Daily. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03d.html. SH)

The latest announcement places nuclear power at the forefront of future space development. Spacefaring nations such as the European Union and Russia cannot ignore this challenge. In particular the newest emerging superpower, China, will closely watch how events unfurl. In just over three years, China has gone from Satellite launches to planning a human spaceflight in October of this year. This remarkably rapid advancement was spurred by the realization of the strategic importance of space. Space will be central to tomorrow's world order and national security dictates that a space presence is a sign of strength. Huang Chunping, commander-in-chief of the Chinese Shenxhou space launch program has said , "Just imagine, there are outer space facilities of another country at the place very, very high above your head, and so others clearly see what you are doing, and what you are feeling. That's why we also need to develop space technology." Clearly the Chinese have more on their minds than national prestige in attempting to become the third nation to ever have launched a man into space. Manned aerospace is the epitome of space technology. National prestige is clearly an important consideration, and one which westerners can easily relate to as they fondly reminisce about the moon landings. However, the military implications are just as important, if not greater, a consideration. China has already invested too much money into developing a space launch capability to consider pulling back now. In past interviews, they have announced the intention to build space stations, reach the moon and build bases there, and even boasted they will beat the United States with a manned mission to Mars .

SDI 11File Title

SETIRadio telescopes will be perceived as military operationsSchiller 05 (Dane, journalist for the Houston Chronicle, “Telescope has military uses”, December 11, 2005, http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?69564-Telescope-has-military-uses-(-Mexico-USA, GM)A joint Mexico-U.S. effort to build a monster telescope atop a dormant volcano southeast of Mexico City largely is funded by a U.S. Defense Department project aimed at developing technology for space defense systems. While the Large Millimeter Telescope´s primary mission is to use radio waves to probe the origins of the universe, some Mexicans believe its military link teeters on the edge of unacceptable territory for a nation that prides itself on staying non-aggressive on the world stage. Supporters said links between science and the military are nothing new and emphasized the telescope being assembled on the 15,000-foot Sierra Negra in the state of Puebla won´t be some kind of Star Wars defense outpost. Philip Coyle, who as U.S. assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration was director of operational testing and evaluation at the Pentagon, said officials wouldn´t fund a project unless it had strong potential military value, in this case against hostile satellites or missiles. "It is a very high-powered, focused radar beam that could be used to find an enemy object out in space and, having found it, zero in on it," Coyle said. The radio telescope, designed to be the largest of its kind in the world, has faced a host of construction challenges. But it appears closer to completion after an antenna dish as big as a baseball infield was successfully hoisted and welded to the 17-story structure last month. The telescope´s new profile can be seen for miles and likely will increase the chances the public will wonder about its purpose. Up to now, Mexican media attention has focused solely on the scientific capacity of the telescope. Rosa María Aviléz Nájera, a federal congresswoman for the leftist Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) and a native of Puebla state, said the Pentagon funding tie was news to her. "There is a line, an imaginary line, and we have to be careful not to cross that line," she said of the proximity of science to military purposes. Aviléz said she planned to learn more about the funding and any obligations that come with it. She acknowledged that science is expensive, but said the telescope-funding source may itself be too high a price. ´VIOLATING TRADITIONS´ "It seems to be violating the traditions we have in this country, that the research we produce is for the good of humanity, not to combat a few groups or sectors of the world population," she said. "If we know they are using this to benefit humanity, we have no worries," Aviléz said. "But due to history, we know that for many U.S. governments, democracy means doing exactly as they say."

SETI telescopes will be used for dual military purposesSeti, PhD astronomy, 10August 14, “Is The Military Taking Over SETI?” http://www.setileague.org/askdr/military.htm rmg

That said, one of the most visible organizations involved in SETI research is the SETI Institute in Mountain View CA. In collaboration with the UC Berkeley radio astronomy lab and several prominent private investors, they have been developing an advanced radio telescope array at Hat Creek in Northern CA. The Allen Telescope Array is being used mostly for SETI research. In addition, to raise funding to support the instrument, SETI Institute and UC Berkeley have received grants to provide telescope observing time to a number of different organizations.

One of these grants is to the US Navy, which pays for the occasional use of the instrument for their own purposes. So yes, to at least that extent, some SETI facilities are being used by the Government for non-SETI purposes (for a price). Whether this constitutes being "overrun" I leave to your own interpretation, but my opinion is that the Navy has no interest whatever in SETI science, and certainly knows no "secrets" in which I would be interested.

SDI 11File Title

Space ElevatorsNASA and China’s Space Agency are eager to launch the Space Elevator- this changes political and economic structuresGeorgia Flight, 3/17/06 CNN; “The 62,000-Mile Elevator Ride” <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/03/01/8370588/index.htm> TM

(Business 2.0) - Every world-changing wonder has to begin somewhere. But it would be hard for the space elevator to have a less auspicious start than it got last October in a foggy office parking lot in Mountain View, Calif. This was the setting for the first Space Elevator Games, sponsored by NASA, which offered a $200,000 prize to the first team that could make a machine climb up a 164-foot tether, powered by nothing but a mirror and a beam of light from a 10,000-watt bulb. In fact, none of the home-brewed contraptions on display could reach higher than 40 feet. The device that got the most attention was built by Vince Lopresti, a wheelchair-bound Texan, and that's because he made it from an old wheelchair frame. Ask him why he did it, and he gazes skyward. "I'm doing it to get off this rock," he says with a smile. The theory behind the elevator is simple. First proposed 111 years ago by a Russian scientist, it was popularized by Arthur C.

Clarke in his award-winning 1978 novel, The Fountains of Paradise, and goes like this: Earth is constantly spinning. So if you attach a counterweight to it with a cable, and put it far enough away--62,000 miles--the cable will be held taut by the force of the planet's rotation, just as if you spun around while holding a ball on a string. And if you've got a taut cable, you've got the makings of an elevator. As strange as that sounds--push the "Up" button, climb in, and soar off into weightless bliss--don't be surprised if it happens. The space elevator is where the PC was in the 1960s: The theory is solid, the materials exist, and people in garages are starting to tinker with the next step. Two Seattle startups are competing to build the elevator. Both believe they can do it within 15 years at a cost of $10 billion. NASA and China's space agency are eager to help make it happen. And no wonder: A working elevator would reduce the cost of launching anything into space by roughly 98 percent. The $500 million it takes to launch the average satellite (insurance not included) would be a thing of the past. Business won't have seen anything like it since the railroad. "All of a sudden," says Brad Edwards, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory astrophysicist who founded Sedco, one of the startups, "space will be open for real activity." The cable, known to elevator scientists as a ribbon, would be dropped in stages from space and hooked up to a floating platform similar to an offshore oil rig. An elevator car roughly the size of a Boeing 747, able to carry hundreds of people or 200 tons of cargo, could climb and descend the ribbon at a speed of 120 mph. That means the first trip to geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) would take seven days, but scientists say that could be reduced to four days by the time the first passengers make the journey. (Still, bring a good book for when the view of Earth gets dull.) Not only would an elevator slash launch costs, but it would increase the amount of cargo capacity for orbital trips. More than 90 percent of the space shuttle's weight is fuel, with cargo making up less than 5 percent. On the elevator, no fuel is necessary, because the car would be electric, with power cells energized by a ground-based laser beam. So why hasn't anyone tried to build one yet? Because the material needed for the ribbon didn't exist. Until 1991, no substance came close to being strong, lightweight, and durable enough to do the job. Then a Japanese scientist stumbled on an arrangement of carbon atoms that became the strongest material ever tested: carbon nanotubes. Nanotubes are as much as 100 times stronger than steel, yet weigh only a fifth as much. A carbon nanotube string the width of sewing thread could easily lift a large car. A nanotube elevator ribbon would need to be no thicker than plastic food wrap. Nanotubes would also make the elevator car light, though large. "This material is applicable to everything," says Ken Dividian, former director of operations for the X Prize Foundation and the current NASA contractor overseeing the Centennial Challenges program, which helped coordinate the Space Elevator Games. "NASA is very interested in this technology." A handful of companies worldwide, like Carbon Nanotechnologies in Texas, Mitsui in Japan, and Nanoledge in France, are already producing purified nanotubes. The longest nanotubes yet produced measure only a few inches, but that doesn't prevent them from being ribbon-ready. "The nanotubes themselves don't need to be 62,000 miles long," Edwards says. "Cotton fibers aren't long enough to make your shirt--you bond them together." The real problem is that, at $500 per gram, nanotubes are currently too expensive, and worldwide production is estimated to be less than 100 pounds per day. That's why Michael Laine believes commercializing nanotubes is the key to building the elevator. Laine is a former Marine instructor and CEO of three Seattle tech startups. He was approached by Edwards in 2000, and together they started a company called HighLift. They split after three years, when Laine wanted to have an IPO sooner rather than later. He founded the LiftPort Group; Edwards founded Sedco. Now the two are pursuing the same goal on opposite sides of Puget Sound. LiftPort is focused on the short-term earning power of nanotubes. Laine recently set up a 15,000-square-foot nanotube facility in Millville, N.J., with plans to mass-produce the "longest, strongest" nanotubes possible. He's chasing the success of carbon fiber, a similar material that has blossomed into a $2 billion market--enhancing the strength of golf clubs, race cars, and Boeing 777s. "Long before you see an elevator climbing into the sky, you're going to see bridges, buildings, cars, and boats designed in a fundamentally different way," Laine says. "Every industrial process we've got, we're going to throw out the window." Not that Laine believes nanotube sales alone will score him $10 billion, but it's a model that will attract money from VCs and angel investors who have shied away from the unconventional idea of the space elevator itself. So far, Edwards's companies are funded by small grants from NASA and other research institutions; Laine's are funded by a dozen or so individual investors. "We're not under the illusion that we could bankroll this," Laine says. "We'd have to be the size of GE to pay for it out of cash flow." Instead, he plans to follow "the standard for infrastructure development"--40 percent government financing, 30 percent private equity, and 30 percent private debt. Who will bite first? The Chinese government has made no secret of its ambitious space program and carbon nanotube research. Nor has Japan. "Whoever builds the first elevator will have a virtual monopoly on all future ones," Edwards says. "The political and economic structure of the world could be completely different 50 years from now." Risk to the infrastructure would be minimal. The floating platform will ideally be anchored on the equator, Earth's calmest area with the fewest lightning strikes and storms. The ribbon will have the highest melting point of any material ever produced and be flexible enough to withstand high winds. Would the space elevator be a giant cargo freighter to the stars, or would tourists enjoy the ride too? Laine and Edwards are skeptical about the commercial viability of space tourism. Still, Edwards estimates that for about $20,000 per person, a group of as many as 30 could go up in the elevator for eight hours, reach reduced gravity, see the curvature of Earth and the sky darken in the daytime, have a picnic, and come down. It might not be the thrill ride that U.S. businessman Gregory Olsen took in a Russian shuttle last year, but he paid $20 million. This would be for the price of a Toyota Camry. In the meantime, NASA's Centennial Challenges are focused on the power-beaming and tether-climbing aspects of the elevator. Competition, the agency believes, is the best way to drive applications for technology that already exists. The next Space Elevator Games, in June, will be a far cry from the homemade robots struggling up a few feet of tether. NASA has upped the prize money to $400,000, and 45 teams have already signed up. "These are reputable teams," Edwards says. "The question this time isn't going to be who gets up the ribbon, but how fast they're going and how much weight they are carrying." Lopresti and his team will be back, with precise diode lasers and a crash-test dummy to prove that their climber can handle humans. "We're going to show NASA we mean business," Lopresti says. "Space business.

China and US would race over space elevatorsEdwards 06 (Bradley Edwards, 2006. Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator, p. 130. SH)

The most obvious candidate country must be China. It already has a launch capability and has put men into orbit. China has hinted at ambitions to land on the Moon -and maybe even beat the USA in returning people to the Moon . The construction of a Space Elevator would be a logical progression for China, and put it far ahead of the USA in its ability to conquer space. The United States government with its complacency and current commitments will likely not begin construction on the Space Elevator until 2020. On the other hand, in the next couple years a 'wild card' country could conceivably face the political challenges and step up to build the first Space Elevator.

SDI 11File Title

Space MilitarizationUS space militarization will spur countermeasures and start a nuclear arms race with China.Zhang 11 (Baohui, Ph.D. in political science from the University of Texas in Austin , “The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship, : Asian Survey, Vol. 51, No. 2 (March/April 2011), pp. 311-332”, April 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/AS.2011.51.2.311 , GM)

China’s military space program and its strategies for space warfare have caused rising concerns in the United States. In fact, China’s military intentions in outer space have emerged as one of the central security issues between the two countries. In November 2009, after the commander of the Chinese Air Force called the militarization of space “a historical inevitability,” General Kevin Chilton, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, urged China to explain the objectives of its rapidly advancing military space program.1 Indeed, in the wake of China’s January 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test, many U.S. experts have attempted to identify China’s motives. One driver of China’s military space program is its perception of a forthcoming revolution in military affairs. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sees space as a new and critical dimension of future warfare. The comment by the commander of the Chinese Air Force captures this perception of the PLA.2 In addition, China’s military space program is seen as part of a broad asymmetric strategy designed to offset conventional U.S. military advantages. For example, as observed by Ashley J. Tellis in 2007, “China’s pursuit of counterspace capabilities is not driven 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 overall military capabilities of the United States.”3 Richard J. Adams and Martin E. France, U.S. Air Force officers, contend that “Chinese interests in space weapons do not hinge on winning a potential U.S.-Chinese ASAT battle or participating in a space arms race.” Instead, they argue, China’s military space program is driven by a desire to “counter the space-enabled advantage of U.S. conventional forces.”4 This perspective implies that given the predicted U.S. superiority in conventional warfare, China feels compelled to continue its offensive military space program. Inevitably, this perspective sees China as the main instigator of a possible space arms race, whether implicitly or explicitly. China’s interpretation of the revolution in military affairs and its quest for asymmetric warfare capabilities are important for understanding the 2007 ASAT test. This article suggests that the Chinese military space program is also influenced by the security dilemma in international relations. Due to the anarchic nature of the world order, “the search for security on the part of state A leads to insecurity for state B which therefore takes steps to increase its security leading in its turn to increased insecurity for state A and so on.”5 The military space relationship between China and the U.S. clearly embodies the tragedy of a security dilemma. In many ways, the current Chinese thinking on space warfare reflects China’s response to the perceived U.S. threat to its national security. This response, in turn, has triggered American suspicion about China’s military intentions in outer space. Thus, the security dilemma in the U.S.-China space relationship has inevitably led to measures and countermeasures. As Joan Johnson-Freese, a scholar at the Naval War College, observed after the January 2007 ASAT test, China and the U.S. “have been engaged in a dangerous spiral of action-reaction space planning and/or activity.”6 This article, citing firsthand Chinese military sources, identifies the major factors contributing to the security dilemma that is driving China’s military space program. The first is China’s attempt to respond to perceived U.S. military strategies to dominate outer space. Chinese strategists are keenly aware of the U.S. military’s plan to achieve so-called full-spectrum dominance, and the Chinese military feels compelled to deny that dominance. The second factor is China’s concern about U.S. missile defense, which could potentially weaken Chinese strategic nuclear deterrence. Many PLA analysts believe that a multilayered ballistic missile defense system will inevitably compromise China’s offensive nuclear forces. China’s response is to attempt to weaken the U.S. space-based sensor

SDI 11File Title

system that serves as the eyes and brains of missile defense. Thus, U.S. missile defense has forced China to contemplate the integration of nuclear war and space warfare capabilities.

Space militarization drives Chinese space weaponizationChambers, 09Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

Steven Lambakis sees China’s growing commercial space capabilities as having an important role to play militarily as well. He highlights Chinese recognition of space as a “new arena for competition” and a “strategic frontier” that needs to be defended. 6 Citing a number of Chinese Army generals, defense professionals, and numerous FBIS translations from Chinese military journals dating mostly from the mid-1990s, he draws the conclusion that that China fully understands and appreciates the wide array of military advantages that space offers, especially in a Taiwan Strait scenario. He asserts that “military satellites are now legitimate targets in war…and thus ASATs are legitimate weapons”.7Further US development of space intelligence and defense system threats “War with China”Morgan et al’08 (Forrest, Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, “Dangerous thresholds: Managing Escalation in the 21st Century,” RAND Corporation, http://books.google.com/books?id=CxyeVCgtRT8C&dq=Safeguarding+Our+Space+Assets.&source=gbs_navlinks_s, MH)The PLA sees the US military’s use of space as a threat. The author of a Liberation Army Daily article writes that the United States “maintains that a space war is inevitable” and that through the use of space, the “United States can occupy a commanding height in issuing a threatening signal to opponents to make them stop their threat of armed force, and this reach its goal of ‘forcing the enemy to surrender without a fight.” The author concludes, “Space fighting is not far off. National security has already exceeded territory and territorial waters and airspace and territorial space should also be added. The modes of defense will no longer be to fight on our own territory and fight for marine rights and interest. We must also engage in space defense as well as air defense. The increasing importance of space to Chinese strategies and the threat posed by US forces enabled by space assets has led some Chinese strategists and the threat posed by US forces enabled by space assets has led some Chinese military writers to advocate the development of space weapons.” According to a book published by the prestigious Military Science Press, Based on the needs of national security and our nation’s space development, the planning of space weapon development can be divided into two stages, with the first stage covering from new until 2010 and the second stage from 2010 to 2025. In the first stage, we must strive to make our space weapon systems possess support and safeguard capabilities as well as a basic space combat capability. In addition, they can complement our operations on the ground, sea, and air and, at the same time, provide effective surveillance, monitoring, early warning, communication, navigation, and positioning support to our combat units. They should also have a certain combat capability in space, particularly with regard to defensive capability. In the second stage, we should build on the foundation of the first stage by further improving the offensive and defensive capability of space weapon systems. In particular, the offense capability in space should, if necessary, be capable of destroying or temporarily incapacity all enemy space vehicles that fly in above our sovereign territory. Other authors echo these recommendations, writing, a war may break out on our periphery that directly uses military space systems, including space support, attack, and defense spacecraft. To meet this threat, we must intensify research into ground-based and space-based (concentrating on ground-based) antisatellite systems and, as soon as possible, develop one or two antisatellite weapons that can threaten enemy space systems and allow the initiative to be taken in space. China’s relative inferiority to the United States in both space and general operations in space in an effort to counter the United States’ comparative advantages. According to an article in a leading Chinese military journal, “The party with inferior military space forces will be enable to organize a comprehensive and effective defense. It should therefore concentrate its limited military space forces on the offensive.” The relative balance in Chinese and US reliance on space assests will affect escalation dynamics. China’s current limited reliance on space capabilities (for either civilian or military tasks) may present difficulties in deterring Beijing from engaging in space warfare. China’s large economy and growing technological prowess will almost certainly enable it to develop weapons capable of attacking US space systems. At the same time, its focus on participating in conflicts on its periphery, most notably Taiwan, reduces Beijing’s dependence on space. In such a conflict, it could rely on terrestrial-based communication equipment for command and control and on airborne platforms for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. This might give China the freedom to attack US orbital assets, while the United States would be hard pressed to find comparable Chinese targets that it could threaten in the credible, proportionate way needed to deter initial Chinese attacks or subsequent without escalating the conflict. This possible limitation in the United States’ deterrent leverage, combined with the Chinese belief that controlling space is a prerequisite for gaining initiative and the

SDI 11File Title

emphasis on surprise and preemptive strikes, may provide China an incentive to strike first in space in a conflict against the United States.

Militarization of space will lead to space arms racesMartel and Yoshihara 03 – Professor of International Security Studies and  an affiliate member of the China Maritime Studies Institute ( William and Toshi- , Autumn 03, Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf CG)

In the case of national security, China’s space program is shrouded in extreme secrecy, effectively shielding Chinese intentions and capabilities from outside observers. The PRC ’ s official policy is to support the exploitation of space for economic, scientific, and cultural benefits while firmly opposing any militarization of space. 9 China has consistently warned that any testing, deployment, and use of space-based weapons will undermine global security and lead to a destabilizing arms race in space. 10 These public pronouncements have been primarily directed at the United States, especially after President George W. Bush declared in December 2001 that the United States was officially withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and accelerating U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense system. Some Chinese observers point to U.S. efforts to militarize space as evidence of the U.S. ambition to establish unilateral hegemony. For example, in 2001, Ye Zhenzhen, a correspondent for a major daily newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, stated that, “[a]fter the Cold War, even though the United States already possessed the sole strategic advantage over the entire planet, and held most advanced space technology and the most satellites, they still want to bring outer space totally under their own armed control to facilitate their smooth ascension a s the world hegemon of the 21 st century .” 11 Diplomatically, China has urged the use of multilateral and bilateral legal instruments to regulate space activities, and Beijing and Moscow jointly oppose the development of space weapons or the militarization of space. 12 The Chinese leadership’s opposition to weaponizing space provides evidence o f China’ s g r owing concern that the United St a t e s will dominate space. The United States’ avowed intention to ensure unrivaled superiority in space, as exemplified by the Rumsfeld Commission report, increasingly defines China’s interests in space. Chinese anxieties about U.S. space power began with the 1991 Gulf War, when the PRC leadership watched with awe and dismay and the United States defeated Iraq with astonishing speed. Beijing recognized that the lopsided U.S. victory was based on superior command and control, intelligence, and communications systems, which relied heavily on satellite networks. Demonstrations of the United States’ undisputed conventional military power in Bosnia ; Kosovo ; Afghanistan; and, most recently, Iraq further highlighted for Chinese officials the value of information superiority and space dominance in modern warfare

SDI 11File Title

Space WeaponizationSpace weaponization sparks Chinese ResponseHui 06 - a research associate at the Project on Managing the Atom of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Space (Zhang, Spring 06 ,”Weaponization And Space Security: A Chinese Perspective”, http://www.wsichina.org/attach/CS2_3.pdf, CG)

China has seen much evidence to suggest the movement by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush toward space weaponization is real. A number of U.S. military planning documents issued in recent years reveal the intention to control space by military means. In practice, the United States is pursuing a number of research programs to enable the development of space weapons, which could be used not only to attack ballistic missiles in flight but also to attack satellites and targets anywhere on Earth. Chinese officials have expressed a growing concern that U.S. plans would stimulate a costly and destabilizing arms race in space and on Earth, with disastrous effects on international security and the peaceful use of outer space. This would not benefit any country’s security interests. Beijing believes the most effective way to secure space assets would be to agree on an international ban on weapons in space. In what follows, I first examine briefly why China says NO to U.S. space weaponization. I then explore in detail preventative measures that can be taken. Why China Says NO to U.S. Space Weaponization China has a number of major concerns about the current direction of U.S. military space efforts. For example, China is worried about how U.S. space weaponization plans might affect Chinese national security, international security, and protection of the space environment.

China wants to preserve its asymmetric threat – If the US moves forward, then China moves backwardsBlazejewski 08 (Kenneth Blazejewski is a JD/MPA joint degree student at NYU School of Law and the Woodrow Wilson School. Over the course of his graduate education, he has worked at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, and the Democratic staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. Kenneth also served as the President of Law Students for Human Rights (LSHR) at NYU from 2004-2005. , “Space Weaponization and US-China Relations”, spring, Strategic Studies Quarterly, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf, BS)

First, if the United States proceeds with space weaponization China will respond by bolstering its own military capabilities.37 China’s response will seek to preserve the asymmetric threat it poses to US space assets and maintain its nuclear deterrent. Under each of the interpretations considered, China is not willing to allow the United States to build up its space weapons program unchallenged. In the least, China would develop additional ASAT weapons to which the United States would seek to develop effective countermeasures.38 Alternatively or in addition, China could invest in more ICBMs and nuclear warheads,39 acquiring the capacity to overwhelm a BMD shield. An option less likely in the near future, China could counter US space weaponization by deploying its own space weapons. Other potential Chinese responses include adopting a “launch on warning” policy or abandoning its no-first-use pledge.40 Each of these strategies would seek to counter the effectiveness of US space weapons. The United States, of course, could always respond to China’s response, but such tit-for-tat policy making risks devolving into an arms race. Chinese officials claim that an arms race would “likely emerge” unless a negotiated solution can be reached on PAROS.41 It is noteworthy, however, that under at least two interpretations, this is not China’s preferred outcome. Under the first and second interpretations, China will only proceed with further developing ASAT technology and acquiring additional weapons if it cannot be assured that the United States does not plan to weaponize outer space. Second, China has developed the means to attack some US satellites, and there is no guarantee that China does not ultimately seek to develop a robust space weapons program. China’s ASAT test demonstrates that the Chinese have been working assiduously at developing their space weapons program. Although China made a decision in the early 1990s to focus its space resources on civilian programs, an annual official budget of $2.5 billion for space programs and a growing number of dual-use technology programs suggest that China’s military space capacity is growing.42 For instance, China has long conducted research on the development of beam weapons that can be incorporated into ASAT weapons systems.43 China is known to have tested high-power microwave weapons for jamming satellite communication.44 If China is indeed pursuing a full-blown space weapons program, a space arms race may be inevitable despite a US decision not to launch the first space weapons program.

US militarization ensure US-Sino Space raceBlazejewski 08 (Kenneth Blazejewski is a JD/MPA joint degree student at NYU School of Law and the Woodrow Wilson School. Over the course of his graduate education, he has worked at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, and the Democratic staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. Kenneth also served as the President of Law Students for Human Rights (LSHR) at NYU from 2004-2005. , “Space Weaponization and US-China Relations”, spring, Strategic Studies Quarterly, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf, BS)

SDI 11File Title

This article explores the range of possible interpretations of US policy and Chinese policy on space weaponization. I argue that although the United States cannot have full certainty about China’s space weapons program, it should proceed against the background of certain basic facts about China’s position. First, I argue that if the United States proceeds with space weaponization, China will respond with some form of its own military buildup. The extent of such a response is not certain, but a new arms race revolving around space warfare is not unthinkable. Second, China has already developed the means to attack some US satellites, and there is no guarantee that China does not seek to develop the means to launch a more robust space weapons or ASAT program.

Weaponization will lead to a space raceKrepon and Hyman 05 - Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs. Michael Katz-Hyman is a Research Assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center (Michael and Michael, 7/2/05, “Space Weapons and Proliferation”, http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Space_Weapons_and_Proliferation.pdf, CG)

Will flight-testing or deploying space weapons prompt arms races? 1 This assertion figures prominently in the writings of both critics and boosters of space warfare initiatives. Critics Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath argue that “placing weapons in space inevitably would provoke an arms race there. Such a race eventually would consume hundreds of billions of dollars.” 2 Similarly, Mike Moore contends that, “If the United States chooses to go the route of space dominance, other countries will look at ways to make sure it doesn't happen, and we'll be back in another arms race.” 3 Supporters of space warfare initiatives also base their advocacy, at least in part, on preempting an arms race. Everett Dolman argues that, “The time to weaponize and administer space for the good of global commerce is now, when the United States could do so without fear of an arms race there.” 4 Baker Spring agrees: “If the US military squanders its lead in military space capabilities, it will invite the arms race that arms control advocates say they wish to avoid.” 5 We contend that the arms race argument is weak and beside the point, since arms racing is not needed to negate the space weapons of a potential adversary. Advanced space-faring nations like Russia and China could, if they felt it necessary, compete in making low earth orbit inhospitable to satellites with modest investments and unsophisticated techniques. Simply put, asymmetric warfare can be waged in space as well as on the ground. Any nation that possesses medium-range ballistic missiles, space tracking capabilities, and the means to precisely insert a satellite into orbit also has the ability to destroy a satellite. Satellites are expensive and vulnerable; they don’t need to be attacked by large numbers of highly sophisticated weapons in order to be placed in jeopardy. Rather than engaging in an expensive arms race, states threatened by US space warfare initiatives are likely to respond in cost-effective ways to negate US efforts to dominate space.

China will challenge any US space weaponization Eyal '07 (Jonathan, Senior Fellow of International Studies/Director at RUSI, China takes the arms race into space; It may be testing technology it has acquired but there is a political price. Strait Times Europe Bureau. TA)

WESTERN governments have known about Beijing's space efforts for years. The challenge for intelligence services now is to guess what is China's military ultimately seeking to achieve with its reported Jan 11 anti-satellite missile test. China's successful use of what military experts call a 'kinetic kill vehicle' - a missile which destroys a target by hitting it at high speed - may look spectacular, but the technology is well-known; both the United States and the Soviet Union tested it two decades ago. Contrary to received opinion, the Russians and the Americans abandoned their tests not so much because they were worried about the impact on the environment from the large amount of debris, but more because the use of such weapons could have been misinterpreted by an opponent then as the start of a nuclear war. But the world has changed since then. The world's most advanced militaries and much of the global economy rely on satellites. America's predominance in this field is overwhelming: out of about 850 active spacecraft now orbiting the Earth, over half are US-owned. For anyone seriously interested in standing up to the US, the ability to make such satellite vulnerable is not a luxury, but a necessity. And the Chinese military has further incentives to excel in this field. For, unlike

the Soviet Union, China never sought to match the Americans weapon-for-weapon but, rather, to develop 'killer' technologies which can wipe out US technological advantages. The Chinese space programme fits perfectly into such strategy. Beijing must have been aware that, by testing its missile capabilities now, it will pay a heavy political price. The chorus of condemnation is extensive, and it includes not only the US, Japan and the European Union, but also Russia, whose military edge is equally threatened. The test also sits awkwardly with repeated Chinese claims of peaceful intentions. And it undermines China's own diplomacy, which has long called for an international treaty to prevent the military use of space. So the most plausible explanation for China's test: it has acquired a technology which it has sought for more than a decade, and was keen to test it. Beijing may have calculated that the political backlash will not matter, since the Americans are already engaged in similar projects. After all, the latest US space policy, outlined in a paper released last October, declared Washington's intention to 'preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests'. The main Chinese objective may not be a direct confrontation

with America, but just to raise the price which the US has to pay in defending Taiwan. The name of the game is what military experts call 'access denial', forcing the US to keep its distance from what Beijing considers as its

SDI 11File Title

regional interests. In the short-term, some of America's most important space assets are not threatened, since they fly at much higher

altitudes. But the US will have to respond, in a variety of ways. These could include the launch of many smaller satellites, coupled with decoys which can fool Chinese defences. American anti- missile technology will also be improved, in order to deprive Beijing of its advantage. Hardliners in Washington are now gearing up for a new arms race. The Heritage Foundation has already suggested spending 'billions or tens of billions of dollars a year, pretty much year in and year out'. The US Administration may resist such demands for the moment. Yet there is no question that

the world has just experienced a historic event. A military race has now moved into space. And America now identifies China as the only country able and willing to challenge its technological supremacy. The future looks rosy for military industries. But not for Asian st ability.

SDI 11File Title

SPSSPS would be perceived as militarization of spaceNational Space Society 07 (“Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” National Space Security Office. 10 October 2007. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm. MJT)

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries. SBSP (Space Based Solar Power) could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long-endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground-based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

The DoD Concluded SPS would appear as Space WeaponizationNational Space Society 07 (“Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” National Space Security Office. 10 October 2007. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm. MJT)

The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically and internationally, that a SBSP system could be used as a “weapon in space,” which will be amplified because of the interest shown by the DoD in SBSP.

SDI 11File Title

Brink

SDI 11File Title

Tensions Near Breaking PointTensions with China are high and could spill over to all areas of geopoliticsTrivedi, June 11Sahiba, research analyst strategic foresight group, “SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER OF SINO-US RIVALRY?” http://sustainablesecurity.org/article/space-final-frontier-sino-us-rivalry

China's development of a space programme threatens to increase Sino-US tension as the latter's dominance of space, with all its military and commercial potential, is undermined. China’s sky-high space ambitions have the potential to upset the current world order. Within the coming decade, China may become capable of challenging America’s dominance over space and its monopoly over global navigational systems. Over the past few years, China has engaged in completing high-profile, grand projects like high-speed rail, the world’s biggest airport terminal (since overtaken by Dubai) and the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Its space programme, like all else, is a matter of Chinese prestige. On successful completion, it will be yet another grand feather in China’s cap signalling its ambition of becoming a world power. China’s ambitious space programme has three tracks. Track one is the setting up of China’s own space station. The Chinese were successful in launching their first astronaut or taikonaut into space in 2003. Since then, China’s space programme has witnessed major breakthroughs. By summer 2011, it plans to launch its first unmanned space module called ‘Tiangong – 1’. The ‘Shenzhou – 8’, scheduled for later this year (2011), will attempt to dock with the ‘Tiangong – 1’. Both these launches are the initial stages of Chinese plans for setting up a space station by 2015. Once its space station is completed, China will become the third country in the world, after Russia and the US to do so with indigenous technology. The second track is China’s lunar ambitions, scheduled to be carried out over three phases. The first phase of this was successfully completed in October 2010 with the launch of the “Chang’e – 2” lunar orbiter. By 2020, China could actually land its first astronaut on the moon. The third track of its space programme involves the development of a Chinese global navigational system called ‘Beidou’. Until now, the US has had a monopoly over navigation systems with its global positioning system (GPS). China aims to make ‘Beidou’ available to Asia-Pacific by 2012, which will go global by 2020. China’s programme could have repercussions for the Sino-US relationship. Chinese President Hu Jintao’s recent US visit resulted in a number of trade and investment deals being inked between the two countries. However, space was not one of them even though according to Washington, the 4 main areas of potential cooperation with China include space alongside cyber-security, missile defense and nuclear weapons. But since mutual trust is important for any kind of cooperation between the two nations, space is a ‘no-go’.

Tensions are on the edge – recent BMD, ASAT, and Laser tests means that the next push send the arms race over the edgeRoss, Wyatt, and Hope 11(Tim, Holly, and Christopher, “WikiLeaks: US and China in military standoff over space missiles”, The Telegraph, February 2, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html, BS)

The two nuclear superpowers both shot down their own satellites using sophisticated missiles in separate show of strength, the files suggest. The American Government was so incensed by Chinese actions in space that it privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist. The Chinese carried out further tests as recently as last year, however, leading to further protests from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, secret documents show. Beijing justified its actions by accusing the Americans of developing an “ offensive” laser weapon system that would have the capability of destroying missiles before they left enemy territory. The disclosures are contained in the latest documents obtained by the Wikileaks website, which have been released to The Telegraph. They detail the private fears of both superpowers as they sought mastery of the new military frontier.

SDI 11File Title

Internal Links

SDI 11File Title

2NC MUST READANY form of a space race will snowball into full on militarizationMoss 08 (Trefor, “The Asian space race”, October 24, http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?id=1065928148, BS)Furthermore, Asia's assertive space ambitions are coinciding with an uncharacteristic period of self-doubt in the once pioneering US. The space shuttle, limping towards retirement in 2010, will not be replaced until 2015 at the earliest by the Ares I rocket and the Orion spacecraft, both of which NASA is still developing, prompting fears that the hiatus will give the likes of China - never mind Russia or the Europeans - a window of opportunity in which to overhaul the US dominance of space. Apart from issues of prestige, this fear centres on the fact that the world's militaries, if not yet positioning weapons in space, have come to rely on space as an enabler for many of their core capabilities. The fear carries with it a question: does competition among the rising Asian powers and, perhaps more importantly, with an insecure US threaten a new space race that could snowball into space's militarisation ? In his book Failed States, Noam Chomsky portrays a military space race that has already begun, warning that "China and others may develop low-cost space weapons in reaction" to the US deploying its own space-based weaponry. While not going quite so far, Brigadier General John Hyten, director of requirements for the US Air Force's Space Command, impressed upon an audience at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in September that "space is a contested environment - though many people still don't believe this".

SDI 11File Title

China Will Escalate Space CompetitionChina will oppose any attempts at US domination in space- any new attempts will be perceived as an attempt at domination in space Hagt '07 (Eric  is the director of the China Program at the World Security Institute in Washington, DC China’s ASAT Test: Strategic Response, http://www.chinasecurity.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187&Itemid=8. TA )

Finally, to focus only on the impact on the future security in space by this ASAT weapon test would be to miss the larger strategic undercurrent that it represents. While its purpose may have been only a specific challenge to U.S. intentions to dominate space, China has lucidly demonstrated a willingness to challenge U.S. policies and strategies that are inherently threatening to China.78   America’s unipolar moment probably died with its decision to go into Iraq. Now, its ability to act without consideration of others’ security interests is being challenged. The Chinese call this “hegemony” and they are now opposing it openly. As this article began, China was not challenging U.S. power in space; it was challenging the U.S. self-described right to dominate it. With America’s vulnerability in space, this test is in fact the easier way to challenge the United States (to do so conventionally would be suicidal). If the United States continues to pursue its own strategic and security interests at the exclusion of China (or others), it should be prepared for more confrontation, especially if that impinges on China’s core national interests. Conceding this is not about surrendering strategic ground to a potential or future adversary, it’s about reaching accommodation and common ground that is not only equitable but inevitable.

China is locked in a space race mentality—and they will use a space race as cover for weaponizationRitter, 08 (Peter, Journalist for Time World, “The New Space Race: China vs. US” 2-13, Time World, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1712812,00.html, KM)

Both the U.S. and China have announced intentions of returning humans to the moon by 2020 at the earliest. And the two countries are already in the early stages of a new space race that appears to have some of the heat and skullduggery of the one between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War, when space was a proxy battleground for geopolitical dominance. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment of a former Boeing engineer for passing sensitive information about the U.S. space program to the Chinese government. According to the indictment, Dongfan Chung, a 72-year-old California man who worked for Boeing until September 2006, gave China documents relating to military aircraft and rocket technology, as well as technical information about the U.S. Space Shuttle. U.S. officials say the Chung case is part of a pattern of escalating espionage by China. "We're seeing this on all fronts," says Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department's National Security Division. Since October 2006, the Justice Department has prosecuted more than a dozen high-profile cases involving China, including industrial espionage and the illegal export of military technology. In an unrelated case also announced Monday, a Defense Department employee was arrested in Virginia for passing classified information about the sale of U.S. military technology to Taiwan to alleged Chinese agents. The scale of Chung's alleged espionage is startling. According to the Justice Department, Chung may have been providing trade secrets to Chinese aerospace companies and government agents since 1979, when he was an engineer at Rockwell International, a company acquired by Boeing in 1996. He worked for Boeing until his retirement in March 2003, and continued to work as a contractor for the company until September 2006. The indictment alleges that Chung gave China documents relating to the B-1 bomber and the Delta IV rocket, which is used to lift heavy payloads into space, as well as information on an advanced antenna array intended for the Space Shuttle. According to the indictment, Chinese officials gave Chung a shopping list of information to acquire for them. In one instance, Chung said that he would send documents through an official in China's San Francisco consulate. In another, a Chinese contact suggested he route information through a man named Chi Mak, a naturalized U.S. citizen who also worked as an engineer in California and who was convicted last year of attempting to provide China with information on an advanced naval propulsion system. The indictment charges that Chung was a willing participant. "Having been a Chinese compatriot for over 30 years and being proud of the achievements by the people's efforts for the motherland, I am regretful for not contributing anything," Chung allegedly wrote in an undated letter to one of his mainland contacts. (Chung's lawyer has maintained his client's innocence.) China's manned space program, codenamed Project 921, is indeed a matter of considerable national pride for a country that sees space exploration as confirmation of superpower status. China is pouring substantial resources into space research, according to Dean Cheng, an Asian affairs specialist at the U.S.-based Center for Naval Analysis. With a budget estimated at up to $2 billion a year, China's space program is roughly comparable to Japan's. Later this year, China plans to launch its third manned space mission — a prelude to a possible lunar foray by 2024. With President George W. Bush vowing to return American astronauts to the moon by 2020, some competition is perhaps inevitable. China's space program lags far behind that of the U.S., of course. "They're basically recreating the Apollo missions 50 years on," says Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Studies Department at the U.S. Naval War College and an expert on China's space development. "It's a tortoise-and-hare race . They're happy plodding along slowly and creating this perception of a space race." But there may be more at stake than national honor. Some analysts say that China's attempts to access American space technology are less about boosting its space program than upgrading its military. China is already focusing on space as a potential battlefield. A recent Pentagon estimate

SDI 11File Title

of China's military capabilities said that China is investing heavily in anti-satellite weaponry. In January 2007, China demonstrated that it was able to destroy orbiting satellites when it brought down one of its own weather satellites with a missile. China clearly recognizes the significance of this capability. In 2005, a Chinese military officer wrote in the book Joint Space War Campaigns, put out by the National Defense University, that a "shock and awe strike" on satellites "will shake the structure of the opponent's operations system of organization and will create huge psychological impact on the opponent's policymakers." Such a strike could hypothetically allow China to counterbalance technologically superior U.S. forces, which rely heavily on satellites for battlefield data. China is still decades away from challenging the U.S. in space. But U.S. officials worry espionage may be bringing China a little closer to doing so here on Earth.

Mutual distrust causes both countries to militarize over even the smallest threatMartel and Yoshihara 03 (William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts., “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Washington Quarterly, Autumn, http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf, BS)

This prevailing indifference, however, risks overlooking the longer-term consequences of China’s growing space power and, more dangerously, the potential collision of U.S. and Chinese interests in space. From China’s perspective, the United States’ self- appointed guardianship of space is presumptuous and represents a genuine challenge to China’s national security concerns. For the United States, China’s extension into space symbolizes its ambitions to challenge U.S. national security . Deeply seated, mutual suspicions are evident in both countries ’ strategic assessments as the contours of potential strategic competition between Washington and Beijing emerge. In essence, both sides agree that the other represents a challenge. Although this potential clash of interests is not yet sufficiently severe to be visible to casual observers, the United States and China are on the threshold of a space race that could radically influence international security .

Any space technology is a cover for increased weaponizationRitter 2008 (Peter Ritter, February 13th 2008. “The new space race: China vs. US” Time. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1712812,00.html)

Some analysts say that China's attempts to access American space technology are less about boosting its space program than upgrading its military. China is already focusing on space as a potential battlefield. A recent Pentagon estimate of China's military capabilities said that China is investing heavily in anti-satellite weaponry. In January 2007, China demonstrated that it was able to destroy orbiting satellites when it brought down one of its own weather satellites with a missile. China clearly recognizes the significance of this capability. In 2005, a Chinese military officer wrote in the book Joint Space War Campaigns, put out by the National Defense University, that a "shock and awe strike" on satellites "will shake the structure of the opponent's operations system of organization and will create huge psychological impact on the opponent's policymakers." Such a strike could hypothetically allow China to counterbalance technologically superior U.S. forces, which rely heavily on satellites for battlefield data. China is still decades away from challenging the U.S. in space. But U.S. officials worry espionage may be bringing China a little closer to doing so here on Earth.

Space race with China would escalate until one side winsWhittington, 3 (Mark R, writer and space policy analyst, “The coming space race with China”, June 23, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/28/1, KM)

The second part of the criticism is that a space race between the United States and China would be undesirable and even disastrous. Jeff Foust expressed that view eloquently in The Space Review recently, suggesting that a space race with China would end pretty much as the one with the Soviet Union. That race was arguably another battle, albeit a peaceful, nondestructive one, in the Cold War. Less than twelve years after the first shot of that battle, Sputnik, was fired, the US could claim victory by landing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. However, both the Soviet Union and the United States lost interest in manned lunar exploration shortly thereafter, and Apollo coasted to an end as both countries focused resources on other efforts.

SDI 11File Title

Tensions are on the edge – recent BMD, ASAT, and Laser tests means that the next push send the arms race over the edgeRoss, Wyatt, and Hope 11(Tim, Holly, and Christopher, “WikiLeaks: US and China in military standoff over space missiles”, The Telegraph, February 2, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html, BS)

The two nuclear superpowers both shot down their own satellites using sophisticated missiles in separate show of strength, the files suggest. The American Government was so incensed by Chinese actions in space that it privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist. The Chinese carried out further tests as recently as last year, however, leading to further protests from Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, secret documents show. Beijing justified its actions by accusing the Americans of developing an “ offensive” laser weapon system that would have the capability of destroying missiles before they left enemy territory. The disclosures are contained in the latest documents obtained by the Wikileaks website, which have been released to The Telegraph. They detail the private fears of both superpowers as they sought mastery of the new military frontier.

SDI 11File Title

Space is Zero-SumIt’s Zero-Sum – If the US wins, China loses, means the aff triggers an uncontrollable arms raceMartel and Yoshihara 03 (William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts., “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Washington Quarterly, Autumn, http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf, BS)

At the same time that the United States views space dominance as a fundamental tenet of its national security , China evidently views U.S. space dominance as a major threat to its geostrategic interests . These views inevitably breed a zero- sum competition , in which one side perceives any loss as a gain for the other, and could ultimately prove destabilizing for Sino-U.S. relations.

Space competition is zero sum Pollpeter 08 (Kevin Pollpeter is China Program Manager at Defense Group Inc.’s Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, “Building for the future: China’s progress in space. Technology during the tenth 5 year plan and US response”, March, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA478502&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, BS)China’s rise as a space power will present military, economic, and political challenges to the United States. Uncertainty over China’s pathway to potential major power status, the possibility of a conflict over Taiwan, and the inherent dual-use nature of space technologies means that China’s improving space capabilities could be used against the U.S. military. China’s efforts to develop its space program to transform itself into an economically and technologically powerful country may also come at the expense of U.S. leadership in both absolute and relative terms. China has also been able to use its space program to further its diplomatic objectives and to increase its influence in the developing world and among second-tier space powers. China’s increasingly capable space program will have a net negative-sum effect on the United States and requires both domestic and international responses by the United States. Domestically, the U.S. Government and industry must improve the health of its space industry through better program management, attracting and retaining a competent workforce, and increasing funding to develop cutting edge technologies. Internationally, the United States must take into account China’s growing presence in world affairs, including space activities.

China thinks weaponization is inevitable – every step forward for the US is a step backwards for themModinger 08 (John Hodgson, Lt Col John H. Modinger, PhD, USAF, “Hegemony over the heavens: The Chinese and American struggle in space”, University of Calgary, BS)

In the years leading up to the test, Chinese leaders have heard, read, and seen many manifestations of the Bush Administration’s goals in space, and reached certain conclusions which affect its strategy. Like the rest of the world, China was amazed at the speed, precision, and lethality which United States forces demonstrated in their rapid victory over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991. Though the opponent was militarily inferior and strategically foolish, the event showed the extraordinary gap which had emerged between American power and that of any other country; that gap has only widened with time. Technologies in their infancy during the Gulf War had matured by the time American forces entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The United States’ ability to use space assets for reconnaissance, navigation, and communication allowed it to bring incredible force to bear with heretofore unimaginable swiftness and precision. However, the Chinese took away more from these events than did commentators who were simply dazzled by them and confident that America held an unassailable advantage. Upon close analysis, it became apparent to Chinese leaders, and to more than a few in the Pentagon, that the United States was dangerously over-dependant upon space as an enabler of terrestrial victory and might.58 Alongside American advances aimed at tightening the “feedback loop” between sensor and shooter, policy directives and supporting documents advocated control, even dominance, of space. When coupled with the Bush Administration’s rejection of efforts to craft any treaty against the weaponization of space,59 Beijing became convinced that Washington was intent on dominating the space environment. Whether or not this is Washington’s true intention is irrelevant, but many Chinese leaders believe it is, not unreasonably. This expectation, not surprisingly, led them to conclude that the weaponization of space is inevitable , and the sooner they act on that reality, the further ahead they will be.

SDI 11File Title

Impacts

SDI 11File Title

China WarChina space weapons causes World War IIIRobb 99Senator Charles S. Robb, Senate committees on armed services, foreign relations and intelligence, Washington Quarterly, 1999 WinterIn a second, more likely scenario, the United States deploys the same capabilities, but other nations do not simply

acquiesce. Understanding the tremendous advantages of military space operations, China deploys nuclear weapons into space that can either be detonated near U.S. satellites or delivered to the earth in just minutes. Russia fields ground-based lasers for disabling and destroying our satellites, then deploys satellites with kinetic-kill munitions for eradicating ground targets. It also reneges on the START treaties, knowing that, rather than trying to replicate America's costly

defensive systems, its incremental defense dollar is better spent on offensive warheads for overwhelming American defenses. Other rogue nations, realizing

that their limited missile attack capabilities are now useless against our new defense screen, focus on commercially available cruise missiles, which they load with chemical and biological warheads and plan to deploy from commercial ships and aircraft. Still others bring to fruition the long-expected threat of a nuclear weapon in a suitcase . If history has taught us anything, it is that a future more like the second scenario will prevail. It defies reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in weaponizing space, leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage. This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. The first is that Americans would, in a relative sense, lose the most from a space-based arms race. The United States is currently the preeminent world military power, and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. A large percentage of our military communications now passes through space. Our troops rely on weather satellites, our targeteers on satellite photos, and virtually all of our new generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point accuracy. By encouraging potential adversaries to deploy weapons into space that could quickly destroy many of these systems, a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to attack than they are today. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force, they could still position deadly satellites disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most vital military satellites. And even if we could sustain our space advantage, the costs would be extraordinary. Why pursue this option when there is no compelling reason to do so at this time? Why make a battlefield out of an arena upon which we depend so heavily? The second consequence would be that a space-based arms race would be essentially irreversible -- we would face the difficulty, if not impossibility, of assessing what is being put into space. Under the START regime, signatories currently cooperate in inspecting and monitoring each other's intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, and submarines, all of which operate within a narrow band above and below sea level. Most space payloads, however, are built and launched with great secrecy and can operate at any distance from the earth, even on celestial bodies such as the moon. Most satellites would operate up to geostationary orbit, or about 22,000 miles from the earth's surface, yielding a total operational volume millions of times greater than that now occupied by missiles, bombers, and submarines. Attempting to monitor weapons in this vast volume of space would be daunting. We would no longer be counting with reasonable confidence the number of concrete silos at missile wings or submarine missile tubes at piers or bombers on airfields. In many cases we would have no idea what is out there. Military planners, conservative by nature, would assume the worst and try to meet enemy deployments in space with an equal or greater capability. Of course, for about $ 400 million per launch, we could use the space shuttle to make closer inspections, assuming that other nations would be willing to tolerate our presence near their critical space assets. Due to orbital constraints, however, the shuttle could reach only a fraction of the total number of satellites in orbit. Another option would be to expand and improve our space monitoring assets -- but only at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Once this genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back in. We could never afford to bring all these systems back to earth, and destroying them would be equally unfeasible, because the billions of pieces of space debris would jeopardize commercial satellites and manned missions. The third consequence of U.S. space weaponization would be the heightened probability of strategic conflict. Anyone familiar with the destabilizing impact of MIRVs will understand that weapons in space will bring a new meaning to the expression "hair trigger." Lasers can engage targets in seconds. Munitions fired from satellites in low-earth orbit can reach the earth's surface in minutes. As in the MIRV scenario, the side to strike first would be able to destroy much of its opponent's space weaponry before the opponent had a chance to respond. The temptation to strike first during a crisis would be overwhelming ; much of the decisionmaking would have to be automated. Imagine that during a crisis one of our key military satellites stops functioning and we cannot determine why. We -- or a computer controlling our weapons for us -- must then decide whether or not to treat this as an act of war and respond accordingly. The fog of war would reach an entirely new density, with our situational awareness of the course of battle in space

limited and our decision cycles too slow to properly command engagements. Events would occur so quickly that we could not even be sure which nation had initiated a strike. We would be repeating history, but this time with far graver consequences. In the absence of explicit evidence that another nation with the economic and technical means is developing weapons for space, we should forgo our advanced prototyping and testing of space weapons. We should seek to expand the 1967 Treaty on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space to prohibit not just weapons of mass destruction in space, but all space-based weapons capable of destroying space, ground, air, or sea targets. We should also explore a verification regime that would allow inspection of space-bound payloads. During the Reagan years advocates of the Strategic Defense Initiative ran an effective television spot featuring children being saved from nuclear attack by a shield represented by a rainbow. If we weaponize space, we will face a very different image -- the image of hundreds of weapons-laden satellites orbiting directly over our homes and our families 24 hours a day, ready to fire within seconds. If fired, they would destroy thousands of ground, air and space targets within minutes, before there is even a chance of knowing what has happened, or why. This would be a dark future, a future we should avoid at all costs.

US-China war bad- it would go nuclear, devastating US counter-intelligence failures ensure US loss, and China would use EMPs devastating the USSantoli, Asia America Initiative director, 11-6-2005 Al, "Japanese Official: US Would "Certainly Lose" War vs. China," China in Focus, http://www.asiaamerica.org/publications/cif/cif-08-2005.htm

Japanese officials have warned the US of a potential future nuclear war launched by Chinese military leaders. They warn that based on China's growing military prowess and determination for international supremacy, the Chinese

SDI 11File Title

Generals would disregard massive casualties resulting from a nuclear exchange. Japanese officals believe it is a war that America would "certainly lose."The shifting balance in military capabilities is exemplified by a recent FBI revelation. US counter-intelligence uncovered a devastating Chinese spy ring working in the US Defense industry in California. The cell compromised the most sensitive US naval weapons and warships by transferring volumes of secret information over a 15 year period to Chinese military intelligence. The stolen materials include sensitive data on Aegis battle management systems -- the nerve center of US naval destroyers and cruisers that protect aircraft carrier groups. Significantly, it is also the core radar and strike management system for seaborne and some space-based missile defense systems.The FBI's information on the spy ring - called the most damaging spy case since the Walker Family sold sensitive naval codes to the Soviet Union. Reported by William Gertz in the November 5, 2005 Washington Times, the ring also passed information to Beijing that will help the People's Liberation Army [PLA] perfect Electromagnetic Pulse weapons [EMP]. EMP weapons that can sever the American "Achilles Heel" by destroying all electronic communications systems across broad areas of the United States or in an international war zone.The knowledge of these sensitive US systems, combined with anti-Aegis missiles and other sophisticated weapons obtained from Moscow, can enable Beijing to deliver what the PLA calls an "Assassin's Mace" surprise attack against US forces in the Taiwan Strait, the Sea of Japan, Hawaii and the entire Trans-Pacific region.

SDI 11File Title

EconomyDisabling even 1 system in space would devastate the US and global economyWeeden 08 (Brian, Technical Advisor for Secure World Foundation, has over a decade of professional technical and operations experience in the national and international space security arena, leader for providing critical analysis that supports development of space policy on a global scale, former officer in the United States Air Force working in space and ICBM operations, “How China “Wins” a Potential Space War”, winter, China Security, http://www.wsichina.org/cs9_9.pdf BS)

While it is true that space power is an important foundation of overall U.S. military power, it is also true that U.S. prowess in power is closely linked to America’s economic power and, in turn, the world’s economy as a whole. Any permanent degradation or damage to critical space systems, such as GPS or commercial communications satellites, would have a devastating impact on the American economy, the global economy, and thus the economy of the very nation that brought conflict to outer space.

Space races would escalate out of controlMac’Donald 09 - Senior Director of the Nonproliferation and Arms Control Program with the USIP Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention (Bruce, 3/28/09 Testimony of Bruce W. MacDonald-Before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, http://www.usip.org/experts/bruce-w-macdonald CG)

This dimension of U.S. space policy is contradictory: why would we want to threaten actions that would invite retaliation against “vital national interests,” and where we have more at stake than our adversaries? This contradiction was never explained. Such a policy contradiction could make sense if: The governing U.S. space force doctrine is deterrence -- that we would have offensive capability strictly to deter attacks on our assets, and we would not initiate them – but there is no indication that this is the case; or the U.S. could maintain space dominance, which the policy tacitly implies, but such a posture would not be sustainable; or such attacks were limited and localized, i.e., tactical, not strategic, though there would be serious risks of escalation. There is an inherent risk of strategic instability when relatively modest defense efforts create disproportionate danger to an adversary, as with space offense. And there is a serious risk of crisis instability in space when “going first” pays off – destroying an adversary’s satellites before he destroys yours. We don’t know what would happen in a crisis, but the potential for space instability seems high and likely to grow. But our policy is silent on this.

That leads to economic collapse, industrial stagnation, preemptive nuclear war, and extinctionModinger 08 (John Hodgson, Lt Col John H. Modinger, PhD, USAF, “Hegemony over the heavens: The Chinese and American struggle in space”, University of Calgary, CG)

Losing these space-based capabilities would have a great impact on United States military power. Its dependence on computers, information sources, and other technologies enabled by space is staggering; insidiously, these devices have become vital to many processes now taken for granted. The insights gained from space operations inform political decisions, help identify trends, provide enhanced transparency, and help to avoid Armageddon. TV signals, the Internet, telephone traffic, tracking devices, inventory programs, weather forecasting, intelligence gathering, and deterrence-oriented confidence-building measures, are a few of the functions which rely on satellites to leverage their power and reach. Though users could muddle through following the loss of these capabilities, the latter would be more than inconvenient; it would be catastrophic. Given the current global addiction to these services, economies would shudder, productivity would crash, the capabilities and intentions of rival states would become harder to discern. This would increase global instability and the possibility of pre-emptive strikes by one state against another as a hedge against the unknown. Chaos would ensue.

SDI 11File Title

HegemonyA space race will disrupt the balance of stable hegemony and one side will preemptively strikeHitchens 08 an editor for the center for defense information (Theresa, 2/18/08, “Space Wars coming to a sky near you” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=space-wars-coming-to-the-sky-near-you, CG)

Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of global conflict. In such headlong competition—whether in space or elsewhere—equilibrium among the adversaries would be virtually impossible to maintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no guarantee that both sides would perceive it to be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the first side would be strongly tempted to launch a preemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained an advantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons race would ratchet up the chances that a mere technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliably distinguishing an intentional act from an accidental one would be highly problematic.

SDI 11File Title

Space Wars GenericSpace races lead to pre-emptive warsMartel 03 (William C., Professor of National Security Affairs @ the Naval War College in Rhode Island “Averting a Sino-U.S. Space Race”, The Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2003)Strategists in the United States and in China are clearly monitoring the other's developments in space. How the United States judges Chinese intentions and capabilities will determine Washington's response; of course, the reverse is equally true. As each side eyes the other, the potential for mutual misperceptions can have serious and destabilizing consequences in the long term. In particular, both countries' exaggerated views of each other could lead unnecessarily to competitive action-reaction cycles. What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility , one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example, Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa. In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space . Although attacks against space assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic.

Any space war would go nuclearWeeden 08 (Brian, consultant for the Secure World Foundation, “How China ‘Wins’ A Space War” January 10, 2008. China Security. http://www.chinasecurity.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=8 MJT)

There is no reason to think that China would rely solely on its demonstrated direct ascent ASAT as the only weapon in its counterspace arsenal. Indeed, it is only logical that China would employ a full spectrum of capabilities – and it has shown hints at what some of those are. The same concept of jamming for GPS can be applied to communication satellites as demonstrated by the jamming of a Thuraya satellite in 2006 and the (likely) unintentional recent jamming of satellite TV over Lebanon.14 Lasing satellites to either blind optics or overload the satellite’s thermal control system are also feasible. There is also the alleged 2006 dazzling of a U.S. spy satellite by China.15 But the real doomsday weapon in counterspace warfare is the electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) – a side effect of certain nuclear detonations. The effects of EMP were first widely noticed following the STARFISH PRIME high-altitude nuclear detonation (NUDET) over a Pacific island.16 Simply put, a nuclear detonation can generate a pulse which can damage, and in some cases destroy, sensitive satellite electronics. While these electronic components can be hardened against EMP, it requires significant additional costs and added weight. If China really wanted to remove the U.S. communication ability in a conflict over Taiwan, a relatively small nuclear weapon lofted into geosynchronous orbit, maneuvered to position over Asia and then detonated would have devastating consequences. The only known geosynchronous communications satellites designed with survivability in a nuclear environment are the U.S. Milstar satellites. Theoretically, they could withstand such a blast but would be of little benefit. Six Milstar satellites were designed and built but one failed to achieve orbit.17 As they are intended to provide global secure satellite coverage, it can be assumed that the five remaining satellites are spread out along the equator, meaning that at most only two or three are positioned in the area of Asia. With maximum data rates of 2,400 bps (satellites 1 and 2) or 4.8 kbps (satellites 4 thru 6) there is no way for these to possibly handle the gigabits of bandwidth needed.18

SDI 11File Title

MiscalculationSpace war causes miscalc and intentional nuclear warShachtman, 08 (Noah and Geoffrey Forden. “How China loses the coming space war.” Wired.com, January 10, 2008, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-thechin.html, BS)

Throughout the history of the Cold War, the US has had a policy of only launching a “retaliatory” nuclear strike if an incoming attack is detected by both early warning satellites and radars. Without the space leg of the early warning system, the odds of the US misinterpreting some missile launch that it detected with radar as a nuclear attack would be greatly increased even if the US did view the satellite destruction as a sufficiently threatening attack all by themselves. Such a misinterpretation is not without precedent. In 1995, Russia’s early warning radars viewed a NASA sounding rocket launch off the coast of Norway and flagged it as a possible Trident missile launch. Many analysts believe that Russia was able to not respond only because it had a constellation of functioning early warning satellites. Any Chinese attacks on US early warning satellites would risk both intentional and mistaken escalation of the conflict into a nuclear war without a clear military goal.

SDI 11File Title

Case Turn—GenericSpace arms races will lead to all space activity being interrupted—turning casePodvig and Zhang 08 Pavel Podvig is a Research Associate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Hui Zhang is a Research Associate in the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. – (Pavel, Hui, 08, Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/militarySpace.pdf, CG)

Chinese officials have expressed a growing concern that U.S. missile defense and “space control” plans, particularly the development of space weapons, will stimulate a costly and destabilizing arms race. In April of 2002, Vice Foreign Minister Qiao Zonghuai summarized the official Chinese view of U.S. plans: Considerable progress has been made in outer space-related weapons research and military technology. It will not take long before drawings of space weapons and weapon systems [are] turned into lethal combat instruments in outer space.Meanwhile, military doctrines and [concepts] such as “control of space” and “ensuring space superiority” have been unveiled successively, and space operation [command] headquarters and combatant troops are in the making. If we should remain indifferent to the above-mentioned developments, an arms race would very likely emerge in outer space in the foreseeable future. Outer space would eventually become the fourth battlefield besides land, sea and air. If such a scenario should become reality it would be virtually impossible for mankind to continue their anticipated exploration, development and utilization of outer space, and all economic, cultural and social activities in connection with the utilization of outer space would be severely interrupted. 1

SDI 11File Title

AT: AFF Arguments

SDI 11File Title

AT: Transparency SolvesNo transparency – The US is too far ahead and too dependent on space tech to risk it, Comparative EvMartel and Yoshihara 03 (William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts., “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Washington Quarterly, Autumn, http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf, BS)

Detractors may argue that, because the gulf between the two powers is too great, no talk shops will avert the competition. The difficulty of getting the United States to the negotiating table on space with any country must initially be acknowledged. With its tremendous technological lead and overwhelming dependence on satellites for military operations and commerce, U.S. policymakers will ask whether Washington has the most to lose in any efforts to improve transparency . As one military official warned, “We don’t want to tell the world what our capabilities and limitations are, because that would help the enemy.”30 True negotiation rests on sides moving toward the middle, not one side bargaining away its advantages. Clearly, the incentives for the United States to maintain technological superiority as a policy priority far outweigh the prospects of an uncertain payoff in the future from confidence building with China.

Transparency doesn’t solve – China wont reciprocate and it would be open to misinterpretationMartel and Yoshihara 03 (William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts., “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Washington Quarterly, Autumn, http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf, BS)

For all these reasons, Washington and Beijing lack the incentives needed to lead to information exchange . With the possible exceptions of vague unilateral declarations and bilateral exchanges , both sides are not at the stage where they are likely to pursue transparency in their space programs. Furthermore, as long as the United States maintains its technological lead while China accelerates its efforts to achieve some degree of parity in space, the elements of transparency will not exist for some time to come.

SDI 11File Title

AT: China Won’t Start War in SpaceChinese writers agree China is prepared for a space war and will attacked if threatenedChase 11 - an Associate Research Professor and Director of the Mahan Scholars Program at the U.S. Naval War College (Michael, March,25,2011, Defense and Deterrence in China’s Military Space Strategy, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37699&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=25&cHash=e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244, CG)

Some Chinese writers discussed what they characterize as a long history of ASAT research, development, and testing in the United States and Russia dating back to the Cold War [10]. Like their Western counterparts, Chinese writers divide these potential threats into two major categories: "soft kill" and "hard kill" [11]. Soft kill threats can cause temporary loss of the effectiveness of space systems, causing them to be unable to carry out operational functions. According to Chinese military researchers, the main methods of soft kill anti-satellite attack include electronic warfare and computer network attacks [12]. In contrast to soft kill threats such as jamming, hard kill capabilities are intended to cause permanent damage to spacecraft. Chinese writers identify kinetic energy weapons and directed energy weapons such as high-energy lasers as the main hard kill ASAT threats. Other Chinese writings offer more detailed discussions of perceived threats from a wide range of systems, such as kinetic energy interceptors, laser ASAT systems, nuclear ASAT systems, microwave weapons, and space planes that could be used to disable or destroy an adversary’s satellites [13]. In addition, some Chinese authors assert that U.S. missile defense interceptors provide the United States with an inherent ASAT capability [14]. In all, according to Chinese analysts, as a result of the actions of the world’s major space powers, space war is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Indeed, they argue that it is already more a reality than a myth. Consequently, they conclude that China must be prepared not only to degrade an adversary’s ability to use space, but also to protect its own space capabilities. Chinese writings suggest that Beijing would consider doing so through a combination of defensive measures and deterrence.

SDI 11File Title

AT: China Will Cooperate Over our AFFDistrust amongst USA and China will impede meaningful cooperationYi Zhou Center for Space Science and Applied Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, George Washington University “Perspectives on Sino-US cooperation in civil space programs” 14 July 2008<http://za2uf4ps7f.search.serialssolutions.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/directLink?atitle=Perspectives%20on%20Sino-US%20cooperation%20in%20civil%20space%20programs&author=Zhou,%20Yi&issn=0265-9646&title=Space%20Policy&volume=24&issue=3&date=2008-08-01&spage=132&id=doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2008.06.002&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article> TM

Visible political signals have not been received: Although China and the USA have been increasingly dependent on each other economically and on the global stage, it is difficult for most Americans to understand or relate to China's centrally controlled government system and developing socialist democracy. Because of their different political systems, both countries have difficulty building trust with each other. They face many barriers to collaboration, so highly visible political signals are important in achieving the goal of space cooperation. We may recall that, in the past, the USA and the USSR had radically different political systems. Their top leadership supported cooperation on a strategic basis [12]. On 17 July 1975 three US astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts docked Soyuz 19 with an Apollo spacecraft that was carrying a jointly developed docking module [13]. It was the first time that the two superpowers had substantively cooperated on space. These cooperative activities promoted the two countries’ future collaboration. To date, there have been no high-level political signals supporting space cooperation between China and USA, which makes both countries’ space administrations, NASA and CNSA, very cautious about bilateral cooperation. Strict US policies on non-proliferation, export controls, technology transfer and arms control, especially the US regime for technology transfer, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR): The USA has a strong regulatory regime to prevent the illegal transfer and theft of sensitive technologies, such as space systems, that can be used in the development of military assets by governments, entities and persons that may be hostile to US interests. These restrictions affect cooperation between the USA and other countries, including China, in different space areas. In addition to high-level-cooperative space projects, ITAR affects normal science exchanges and visits. For example, in October 2002, a Chinese delegation could not obtain US visas to attend the 34th Committee of Space Research assembly, which is an international space science meeting open to space research professionals world-wide. In space commerce, US space firms have to face licensing requirements and contend with export controls, which have led to a decline in their market share As an example, in 2003 Boeing received large fines because the US government thought the company had directly helped China improve its launch technology through a contract with Chinese space manufacturers a few years previously. Yet between 1998, when all US space firms had to leave China's space market, and the present day, China's space development has been far from stagnating. On the contrary, China's space capabilities continue to improve and have made clear progress in the past few years. Now, inside the USA, many companies are arguing that ITAR is a significant trade barrier which acts as a substantial negative subsidy, weakening US industries’ ability to compete. Research agencies and institutions argue that ITAR prevents cooperation on international scientific projects. ITAR even affects cooperation between the USA and its allies [15]. It is time for US policy makers and Congress to consider adjusting these overly strict control policies if Americans wish to retain their important role in space cooperation around the world and the benefits this brings. On 11 January 2007 (US time), China terminated an aging weather satellite, Fengyun-1: Observers believed that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had used technology to shoot down the satellite which could also be used as a space weapon. This event startled the USA and Europe because it apparently provided evidence of a Chinese space weapons capability. Many claims were made, such as, “China's weapon test is a wake-up call to the space arms race” NASA administrator Mike Griffin said in an informal meeting: “Some space cooperative proposals with China have been put on hold for the moment.” This event negatively affected the potential for space cooperation between China and Western countries, although the Chinese government has declared that it was no threat to any nation [17]. The incident was certainly not a good thing for international space security, since it created a lot of space debris. Right now, two points should be urgently considered. First, it is time for the international players to sit down together and start to discuss a future agreement, such as an international law restricting space debris, which would prevent a recurrence in any country (something the USA did not consider necessary before China's test). Second, if the USA continues to refuse collaboration with China in space, how can it accurately assess that country's motivations in the future? The USA would only be able to infer and debate internally about what China's intentions might be. China has no unique advanced capabilities: No single country or region has a monopoly on the ideas or technical capabilities to enable humans to live and work safely in space. The USA certainly knows that. It has been more than 30 years since Americans began to cooperate with the USSR. When such cooperation began, the USSR had strong space capabilities and experience. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the Russian economy and space industry were severely short of funds. The USSR's experienced engineers and professionals, and their capabilities, could have been transferred to other countries, potentially to countries not allied with the USA. Such a development might have brought danger to the USA and the world. The USA helped Russia and helped itself at the same time by engaging in cooperation with that country, taking advantage of its rich experiences. Another example is that of Canada, which, while not in the same league as the USA (or Russia), possesses the unique technology of the robot arm that has become an important section of ISS. Today, although China has developed many technologies and capabilities, there is still no other country whose technology is more advanced than that of the USA, which is one reason why the latter lacks a compelling motivation to engage in cooperation with China. Management and cultural differences: Compared to the geopolitical and space policy problems, this is not a major obstacle. Because of cultural differences, Americans sometimes find it difficult to understand Chinese thinking. The same problem arose with cooperation between the USA and the USSR/Russia, and with Europe. There are many tools for

SDI 11File Title

resolving this. Detailed negotiating and trust building will be very helpful. In some cases the two countries should seek common points while putting aside differences for the sake of cooperation. Sino-US economic and political relations provide good examples of this. China does not yet have a completely modern management system, but management efficiency has improved in the past 20 years since China's reform and opening. China's management level will be enhanced in the near future. The above negative factors regarding Sino-US space cooperation appear difficult to remove right now. Any international relationship should be based on understanding and trust. That is a key for the two countries to begin space cooperation. The Chinese have an old story: thousands of years ago, China often had disastrous floods. The government did not know how to solve the problem, and paid huge sums of money for people to build levees to stop the water. A man named Dayu was appointed to control it. He thought of a completely novel way to control the water. Instead of building levees, he dug canals and off-shoot streams to divert some of the flow. After that, the area no longer flooded, and it became rich. This story is perhaps relevant to space relations between China and the USA. The USA continues to wall up the route to cooperation with China or places strict limitations on cooperative space activities. But, regardless, China will continue to develop its own space technology and other capabilities, and will undoubtedly achieve its goals in this field. Lacking the channels to understand and talk to it, the USA will over-emphasize the “China threat” and pay an unnecessary price for it. Negative attitudes toward space cooperation will also affect other relations between the two countries, potentially including the realms of global space security, economics and politics.

ITAR restrictions and Chinese planners will confuse new cooperation effortsDinerman July 7, 2011 (Taylor, Senior editor of the Hudson NY and part-time consult to the DoD, “China’s Continuing Drive for Space Power”, July 7, 2011, http://www.hudson-ny.org/2242/china-space-power, GM) Between now and the end of this year, China plans to launch the first module of its new space station, confirming that China is determined to become a full-fledged, independent, comprehensive, world class power in outer space . China's methodical strategy of pursing mutually-supporting civil,

commercial and military space activities is beginning to pay off. Space launch rockets can lift both civilian and military satellites; sensor technology can be adapted for both science and spying; communications systems are equally able to transmit orders to go to war or orders for children's toys. China's civil space projects include not only the space station and the manned Shenzhou capsules that will carry its Taikonauts to it and back, but also deep space probes such as the Chang'e 2 probe, which has now been dispatched from lunar orbit to a point almost a million miles from Earth. Its commercial activities until now have been limited to communications satellites and occasionally selling low-cost space launch

services. US ITAR (International Trade in Armaments Regulations) technology export rules have, effectively prevented China from becoming a major player in the commercial space field. This has occurred in spite of efforts by some European aerospace firms to circumvent US restrictions by building so-called "ITAR Free" satellites. China's new comprehensive military space activities include intelligence gathering and early warning satellites, military communications satellites, a new space based navigation system similar to America's GPS. Last but not least, they have developed and tested a kinetic anti-satellite weapon that they used to blow up one of their old weather satellites in January 2007. Although in 1971, the devastating effects of Mao's Cultural Revolution were still all too evident, over the last 40 years China has changed out of all recognition. The country was impoverished, and its principal export a form of violent revolutionary ideology absorbed principally by gullible Western students, hippies and Intellectuals. In the late 1970s, China began slowly to dump most of Mao's ideology, and substitute Deng Xiaoping's concept: "To get rich is glorious." Today China exports, among other things; computers, solar panels, car parts, toys and a comprehensive array of semi-sophisticated weapons. It is the second-largest economy in the world, and has just overtaken

the US as the world's largest energy user. There is, however, one policy from the Mao era that has not changed: China insists on maximizing its strategic independence. In his new book, "On China," Henry Kissinger explains that "The Chinese almost obsessive self-reliance was not always fully understood on the American side." This explains, in part, why US efforts to engage China in a mutually cooperative space exploration relationship, has been so frustrating and has lead nowhere . * * * Many Americans imagined that China would be eager to join the International Space Station partnership, along with Russia, Japan and Europe. Leaders at NASA and elsewhere imagined that China would see its role in the ISS partnership as a way of certifying its status

as one of the world's primary spacefaring nations.

SDI 11File Title

AT: Militarization/Weaponization InevitableSpace weaponization is not inevitableLowery 11 - Systems Engineer at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (Scott, 1/13/11, Why Weaponization Should Be Pursued, http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSciences/PWR/occasions/articles/Lowery_Why%20the%20Weaponization%20of%20Space%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Pursued.pdf, CG)

It is clear that the weaponization of space is not inevitable. However, does the concern of foreign weaponization justify the pursuit of space weapons anyway? The answer is an emphatic no. Although doing so would seem to increase the asymmetric space advantage the US has, it would actually have a destabilizing effect and result in a decreased advantage. The idea of space weapons brings to mind visions of military omnipotence, with the US able to easily strike down any adversary without fear of retaliation. Such an ability would deter many conflicts. A similar rationale developed in the 1940s with the creation of the atom bomb. It too seemed to provide infinite power that would cause the rest of the world to kneel before the US or suffer unimaginable retaliation. This idea worked once, ending World War II. Once the atom bomb became public, it sparked a massive arms race as other nations developed nuclear power. The stockpiling of nuclear arms led to the Cold War, an era defined by a world on the brink of destruction and rapidly shifting political climates. It is not a large leap in logic to conclude that since space weapons offer advantages of similar magnitude to nuclear weapons, their development will cause a similar situation. Other nations will not stand idle as the US weaponizes space—they will follow suit. In the end, space will become a volatile political liability and the medium for a new Cold War–style weapons spiral.

Space races are not inevitable—BUT competition will let hawks take controlKrepon 8 [Michael Krepon is co-founder of Stimson, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs. He has championed confidence-building and nuclear risk-reduction measures between India and Pakistan, several of which have subsequently been implemented. He has mentored more than seventy visiting fellows from the region, and has worked on the general outlines of a Kashmir settlement. Krepon is the author or editor of thirteen books, and more than 350 articles. Prior to co-founding Stimson, he worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Carter administration, and in the US House of Representatives, assisting Congressman Norm Dicks. Krepon's current research focus is on nuclear stability and crisis management in South Asia. His work on space security centers around the promotion of a code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations, which has subsequently been endorsed by the European Union and the Obama administration. “China's Military Space Strategy: An Exchange” 25 Mar 2008 Survival http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396330801899512]Krepon received an MA from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and a BA from Franklin & Marshall College. He also studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo, Egypt.There are several aspects of this logic train that are especially worthy of comment. First, this progression is, indeed, logical and internally consistent. Secondly, this logic train actualises itself: if US leaders were to accept Tellis’s argument, they would implement his recommendations, including developing ‘offensive counterspace capabilities’ (a euphemism for ASATs) which, he asserts, ‘will almost certainly be required, if for no other reason than to deter Beijing’s use of anti-satellite weaponry and to hold at risk’ Chinese satellites. Implementing Tellis’s recommendations would, in turn, ensure the threatening behaviour elsewhere that requires Tellis’s proposed remedies. Here Tellis would no doubt point us back to his first proposition – that Beijing will follow the dictates of national security, regardless of US actions. His logic is impeccably circular and self-reinforcing. National security calculations, however, tend to be more complex than circular. China’s national interests could prompt a wide range of actions, since Beijing’s equities in space and its dealings with the United States are multi-dimensional. When these factors are rolled into the equation, Tellis’s logic train breaks down. Given the opaqueness of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Tellis necessarily draws many inferences to assemble his argument. Because the Pentagon is far more transparent than the PLA, fewer inferences are required for Chinese (and Russian) analysts to arrive at Tellis’s same exact conclusions when evaluating US military space policy. For example, the ‘U.S. Air Force Space Command’s Strategic Master Plan for Fiscal Year 2006 and Beyond’ states that: Our charter is to rapidly obtain and maintain space superiority and the space, nuclear, and conventional strike capabilities that produce desired warfighting effects. This requires a fundamental shift in our thinking. Instead of focusing on the force enhancement role of our space systems and the deterrence role of our nuclear and conventional forces, we must also pursue the ability to apply conventional combat in, from, and through space. This guidance is entirely consistent with the Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld, which called for US ‘power projection in, from and through space’. If the PLA and its Second Artillery Corps are on the same wavelength as space-warfighting advocates in the US Air Force and Donald Rumsfeld, does this mean that power projection in space will evolve as Tellis regrettably suggests? The experience of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War points to a very different conclusion. Back then, many serious military strategists in Moscow and Washington accepted without question Tellis’s logic train. Many citations from Soviet military doctrine could be found to support this hard-bitten analysis, which perhaps reached its apotheosis in the annual series of Pentagon publications, Soviet Military Power, issued during the Reagan administration. The 1987 edition estimated that the Kremlin spent almost $80 billion on military space programmes over the previous decade. These and other dire warnings of space warfare were highly exaggerated, but they weren’t made up out of thin air. The Soviet Union, like the United States, had the means to seriously damage

SDI 11File Title

or destroy satellites. The Kremlin carried out 20 ASAT tests during the Cold War, nine of which were believed to be successful. Each of the nuclear-tipped missile-defence interceptors around Moscow could (and still can) be used as an indiscriminate satellite killer, as could the many hundreds of medium-, intermediate- and intercontinentalrange ballistic missiles possessed by the Soviet Union. The USSR possessed a space-related infrastructure that dwarfs that of China today, including the hit-to-kill (albeit a different method than the one utilised by the PLA), electronic, and directed-energy warfare capabilities that China possesses. Oddly, Tellis asserts that, on the basis of what he describes as three failed and one successful test, ‘Chinese space denial programmes exceed those pursued by Moscow at the height of the Cold War in diversity, depth and comprehensiveness’. This assertion seems rather exaggerated. Joan JohnsonFreese estimates Chinese space spending at between $1.4–2.2bn annually. Tellis even suggests, citing one exegesis of Chinese military doctrine, that Beijing may be seeking space dominance. If so many influential US and Soviet military and strategic analysts subscribed to Tellis’s logic train, why did the superpowers exercise such uncommon restraint in pursuing anti-satellite weapons? Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the USSR tested ASATs a grand total of 53 times. To some, this may seem like a large number, but it pales in comparison to over 1,700 nuclear tests (on average, one per week from the Cuban missile crisis to the fall of the Berlin Wall), and the tens of ballistic missile flight tests conducted annually during these harrowing years. When many hundreds, and then thousands of nuclear weapons were deployed and ready for prompt launch, only a very few, rudimentary ASATs were considered deployed, and only then for brief periods. Tellis, who agrees that the heightened superpower competition did not extend into space, explains this as a natural consequence of a bipolar competition between two states whose huge nuclear arsenals were intimately connected to satellites. To attack satellites upon which both relied for intelligence, targeting, communication, early warning and military-related weather forecasting would invite uncontrolled escalation across the nuclear threshold. For just this reason, and to assist treaty monitoring, Washington and Moscow pledged not to interfere with each other’s ‘national technical means’ of monitoring compliance – agreements that one or both capitals have tossed, or are now threatening to toss, overboard.

SDI 11File Title

AT: Space Deterrence WorksSpace Deterrence FailsSheldon, 08 (John B. PhD. George Marshall Institute Fellow and Visiting Professor. “Space Power and Deterrence: Are We Serious?” Marshall Institute Policy Outlook. November 2008. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/616.pdf MJT)

Deterrence is the attempt to persuade an adversary by the threat of force (and other measures) not to pursue an undesirable course of action. As a result, to be deterred is a state of mind, something that is not easily quantifiable for measuring success in attempts to deter. Given that deterrence is essentially an exercise in psychological manipulation in order to modify, or prevent, modes of behavior, it is fraught with uncertainty. Deterrence fails — and throughout strategic history, has failed often — because the object of deterring measures fails to notice them, does not find the measures credible, or is pursuing an agenda sufficiently important enough to its interests that it is prepared to ignore the deterrence attempt. Because deterrence fails it has been much maligned in recent times. The task of deterring apocalyptic terrorism and WMD-armed rogue states certainly pose significant challenges for deterrence. Instead, preemptive and preventive force has been identified as a means of dealing with these threats. The problem, as Colin S. Gray points out, is that the use of preemptive and preventive force is similarly encumbered with uncertainty, and entails much risk of military failure and damaged reputation. Similarly, diplomatic inducements — such as offers of arms control negotiations — are equally uncertain in their prospect for success.2 The problem for U.S. policy makers immersed in a distinctive American strategic culture is that whatever approach to security is adopted, it carries a significant risk of failure. The military historian John Shy argues convincingly that American strategic culture has become accustomed to a large degree of certainty in its security affairs, thanks in part to the unique geographical position of the United States and a large measure of fortune.3 The United States is unique in enjoying this degree of certainty in its defense arrangements. As a result, the inherent uncertainties of strategy continue to be a source of profound discomfiture for an American strategic culture that strives for certainty beyond doubt.

Space Deterrence UnreliableMorgan 10 (Forrest E. Correspondent for the RAND Corporation. “Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space” RAND: Project Air Force. 2010. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG916.pdf MJT)

Threats of punishment for attacks on space systems face unique challenges in terms of potency and credibility. The punishment-based approach that most readily comes to mind for deterring attacks on U.S. satellites entails threats of retribution against the opponent’s satellites—the old “if you shoot ours, we’ll shoot yours” model. Such a threat sounds reasonable and balanced; however, given the disproportionate degree to which U.S. forces depend on space support as compared to potential adversaries, it would probably lack sufficient potency to deter a serious opponent. Future enemies of the United States will probably be fighting in their own neighborhoods and employing operational concepts that rely less on space-based ISR and communication assets than do U.S. forces, so enemy leaders might even welcome a game of satellite tit-for-tat, as the benefits of denying space support to U.S. forces would likely outweigh the costs of losing their own assets in return.

Impossible to Deter in SpaceMorgan 10 (Forrest E. Correspondent for the RAND Corporation. “Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space” RAND: Project Air Force. 2010. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG916.pdf MJT)Efforts to deter would-be aggressors by persuading them that the United States can deny them the benefits of attacking its space capabilities also face serious challenges. While the United States should always emphasize the resilience of its space systems in order to discourage potential adversaries from attacking them, several factors may make this difficult. First, it is necessary to assume that potential adversaries are well aware that the transformational capabilities that give U.S. military forces their qualitative advantage are significantly enhanced by space support. They are likely to believe that attacking U.S. space systems offers a high payoff, because even limited success in attacks on some high-value, low-density assets might provide substantial warfighting benefits. Second, future enemies will also understand how difficult it is to defend space assets. Satellites possess inherent vulnerabilities, and all claims to the contrary are unlikely to be believed until proven. That presents a problem. There are passive defenses that the United States can employ to make satellites somewhat more resilient, but unlike visible forces and fortifications in the terrestrial environment, passive defenses on satellites are not observable in ways that deter attack. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) shielding, radio frequency (RF) filters, and shuttered optics are not visible to the naked eye or even observable in the data collected by space surveillance systems. In fact, some defenses may need to be concealed in order to remain viable, thus eliminating the deterrent value of their existence. Consequently, the challenge will be to find ways to reduce the prospective benefits of attacking U.S. space systems that are demonstrable to potential enemies without undermining their effectiveness.

SDI 11File Title

Non-Unique

SDI 11File Title

Space Cooperation Low NowSpace relations low now—US just passed anti-China space legislationYoung July 7th , 2011 (Connie, c bs news correspondent, “Can US afford to snub China in space quest?”, July 7th, 2011, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20077462-503543.html, GM)The fast-approaching end of the U.S. space shuttle program is about to leave America entirely dependent on its international partners to carry astronauts to and from space for the foreseeable future, just as a tenuous relationship with China - whose space program is advancing rapidly - hits an all-time low in the area of space exploration. Beijing was deeply offended when two journalists from China's state-run Xinhua news agency were barred from covering the historic launch of the shuttle Endeavour in May, the second-to-last mission for the U.S. shuttle program. Endeavour blasted off from Florida's Kennedy Space Center on May 16, carrying an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2

particle detector - a $1.5 billion apparatus developed, in part, by Chinese scientists. It became a source of national pride in China. Banned from covering the launch, the government mouthpiece lashed out in a report two days blasting "discriminative" new U.S. legislation which bans any of NASA's government-apportioned funding being used in partnership with, to support or host any entity of the Chinese government . The Xinhua article refers to a clause added by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House committee which oversees NASA's budget - and a fierce critic of China's human rights record, to an emergency national budget bill passed in April to keep the U.S. government running for six months. Xinhua's article claimed "even Americans themselves" viewed the so-called "Wolf Clause" as discriminatory. The emergency budget averted a government-wide shutdown, and it was passed in spite of vocal objections by members of both parties to many of the restrictions included. However, there has been little talk in Washington specifically about the clause on space cooperation with China, and no U.S. lawmakers have publicly labeled it "discriminative," as Xinhua suggested. "Obviously, the 'Wolf Clause' runs counter to the trend that both China and the United States are trying to push ahead their exchanges and cooperation in science and technology," said the Xinhua article. In remarks to the House Appropriations subcommittee explaining his stance, Wolf made it clear China's dismal record on human rights was behind the legislation blocking any NASA interaction with China's military-run space program. "Consider our differing worldviews," said Wolf. "The U.S. was founded on the premise that liberty is a birthright, that individual human life is sacred, that the freedom to worship according to the dictates of your conscience is paramount. The Chinese government operates antithetically to these beliefs." "There is no clearer indication of the gulf that exists between our two countries than the Chinese government's treatment of its own people." But experts in U.S.-China relations accuse Wolf of seeking to "ram through a potentially unconstitutional assault on the president's ability to conduct scientific diplomacy." Gregory Kulacki, a Beijing-based global security analyst and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in the journal "Nature" that the restrictions placed on NASA may, in part, be partisan U.S. politics threatening to further exacerbate a relationship already fraught with distrust. The scientist tells CBS News that Wolf's amendment was "prompted by efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to the Chinese (on space cooperation) even though the Bush Administration had been doing the same thing for years." "The ban should be lifted,"

wrote Kulacki bluntly. "The progress of Chinese space activity during the previous US administration suggests that the prohibitions that have stifled Sino-American scientific cooperation for decades have not achieved their aims, and have arguably been counterproductive. China has shown that it has the talent and resources to go it alone. The sanctions have only severed links between the countries and made a new generation of Chinese intellectuals resentful and suspicious of the United States. And they stand in contrast to the tradition of scientists strengthening diplomatic relations." U.S. and China not cooperating now – China’s secretive military controls space programRichburg 7/5 [Keith B. Richburg is a foreign correspondent for The Post and author of Out of America “Space programs in other nations” 5/7/11 lexis]In December, China broke ground on what will be a 3,000-acre space launch center and theme park on southern Hainan Island, directly modeled on the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. When the center opens in 2014, members of the public will be able to watch launches live from a viewing platform. After struggling in space for several years, experts said China this year appears poised for several significant breakthroughs that could cement its place as a leader in space exploration. Last October, China launched a robotic probe, the Chang'e 2 lunar orbiter, which completed its six months' worth of tasks this spring. Because it still had fuel in reserve, the craft left its moon orbit last month for further exploration in space. This summer, China is scheduled to launch an unmanned space module, called Tiangong 1, or Heavenly Palace, and later this year will send up another unmanned vehicle, Shenzhou, which will try to dock with it. These will be crucial first steps in China's goal to develop a manned space station. The Obama administration. has often expressed a desire to cooperate with China in space, but the idea has found little traction Much of China's space program falls under the control of the military; details - including its funding - are kept secret, and China has shown little sign of wanting to open up. Also, U.S. restrictions on some sensitive high-technology exports to China make space cooperation difficult.

SDI 11File Title

Low cooperation now – American suspicion and Chinese quest for powerMann 7/10 [ Simon Mann is Washington correspondent for The Age. Simon has been a journalist for more than 20 years, spending most of that time at The Age in a variety of roles including news reporter, features writer, business editor, national news editor and associate editor. From 1998-2003 he was Europe correspondent for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. “Up, up and away” July 10 2011 lexis]"Now that the space shuttle is gone, where does America stand in space exploration?" tweeted an inquirer to the President's historic Twitter session at the White House. Obama first offered plaudits for the shuttle - "It was an extraordinary accomplishment and we're very proud of the work that it did" - and then a promise: "We've set a goal to let's ultimately get to Mars. A good pit-stop is an asteroid . . . Let's start stretching the boundaries so we're not doing the same thing over and over again, but rather let's start thinking about what's the next horizon, what's the next frontier out there." Then, he offered a more sobering reality: "In order to do that, we're actually going to need some technological breakthroughs that we don't have yet." Obama's longer-term vision mirrors that of Kennedy, who floated the possibility of international co-operation in September 1963. Whether through a genuine desire for closer contact or fearing his moon-bid was over-reaching, Kennedy told the United Nations General Assembly that "in the field of space - there is room for new co-operation" with the Soviets. "I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon." Obama speaks a similar language. Within a framework of international law and amid robust competition, his redrafted space policy talks of international partnerships for "mutually beneficial space activities". But America's obvious partner, China, remains more a focus of US suspicion and derision than a prospective collaborator, with disagreements on terra firma over economic policy an impediment to a union made in the heavens. The ambiguous drivers of Beijing's space program have long alarmed Washington, with Congress recently enacting laws prohibiting exports of high technology to China, despite Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreeing earlier this year to "deepen dialogue and exchanges" in the field of space. The White House believes, however, that it has constitutional authority to sidestep the Congressional restraints, with Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, elaborating on the administration's thinking before a House appropriations subcommittee in May. When it came to sending humans to Mars, for example, would it really make sense trying to go it alone, he asked. "Many of us, including the President, including myself, including [NASA Administrator Charles] Bolden, believe that it's not too soon to have preliminary conversations about what involving China in that sort of co-operation might entail," Holdren told the committee. "If China is going to be, by 2030, the biggest economy in the world . . . it could certainly be to our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others." But the Republican-dominated committee, which characterised Beijing as a "fundamentally evil" regime, warned that any collaboration would violate US law. "What concerns me most about the Chinese space program is that, unlike the US, it is being led by the People's Liberation Army," responded Virginia Republican Frank Wolf. "There is no reason to believe that the PLA's space program will be any more benign than the PLA's recent military posture." Though well behind the US, Beijing is pushing an aggressive program to put an unmanned craft on the moon by 2013 and humans by 2020. It also aims to have its own space station orbiting Earth by as early as 2020. More immediately, China is launching a global navigational system for the Asia-Pacific region as a forerunner to delivering the satellite service globally in a direct challenge to America's global positioning system, technologies as vital for waging war as much as they are for managing traffic. Though Beijing's vaulting ambition rankles with some in Congress, Alanna Krolikowski, of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, told the May hearing: "As China invests in and derives greater benefit from space, it will acquire the same stake in creating a predictable, stable, safe and sustainable space environment that the US . . . and other countries already share." China's space ambitions "are about prestige and about security and having a voice on the international stage", says Ben Baseley-Walker, of the Secure World Foundation, which advocates for the peaceful development of space. He says the interest among many nations is opening myriad partnership possibilities. "The US is no longer the one-stop shop if you want to get into space.

SDI 11File Title

Cooperation Low—Wolf ClauseCooperation with China is at an all time low due to Wolf Clause and new budget Young 11 [Connie Young is news producer for CBS “Can U.S. afford to snub China in space quest?” July 7 2011 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20077462-503543.html]The fast-approaching end of the U.S. space shuttle program is about to leave America entirely dependent on its international partners to carry astronauts to and from space for the foreseeable future , just as a tenuous relationship with China - whose space program is advancing rapidly - hits an all-time low in the area of space exploration . Beijing was deeply offended when two journalists from China's state-run Xinhua news agency were barred from covering the historic launch of the shuttle Endeavour in May , the second-to-last mission for the U.S. shuttle program. Endeavour blasted off from Florida's Kennedy Space Center on May 16, carrying an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 particle detector - a $1.5 billion apparatus developed, in part, by Chinese scientists. It became a source of national pride in China . Banned from covering the launch, the government mouthpiece lashed out in a report two days blasting "discriminative" new U.S. legislation which bans any of NASA's government-apportioned funding being used in partnership with, to support or host any entity of the Chinese government. The Xinhua article refers to a clause added by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House committee which oversees NASA's budget - and a fierce critic of China's human rights record , to an emergency national budget bill passed in April to keep the U.S. government running for six months. Xinhua's article claimed "even Americans themselves" viewed the so-called " Wolf Clause" as discriminatory . The emergency budget averted a government-wide shutdown, and it was passed in spite of vocal objections by members of both parties to many of the restrictions included. However , there has been little talk in Washington specifically about the clause on space cooperation with China, and no U.S. lawmakers have publicly labeled it "discriminative, " as Xinhua suggested. "Obviously, the 'Wolf Clause' runs counter to the trend that both China and the United States are trying to push ahead their exchanges and cooperation in science and technology, " said the Xinhua article. In remarks to the House Appropriations subcommittee explaining his stance, Wolf made it clear China's dismal record on human rights was behind the legislation blocking any NASA interaction with China's military-run space program. "Consider our differing worldviews," said Wolf. "The U.S. was founded on the premise that liberty is a birthright, that individual human life is sacred, that the freedom to worship according to the dictates of your conscience is paramount. The Chinese government operates antithetically to these beliefs." "There is no clearer indication of the gulf that exists between our two countries than the Chinese government's treatment of its own people." But experts in U.S.-China relations accuse Wolf of seeking to "ram through a potentially unconstitutional assault on the president's ability to conduct scientific diplomacy." Gregory Kulacki, a Beijing-based global security analyst and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in the journal "Nature" that the restrictions placed on NASA may, in part, be partisan U.S. politics threatening to further exacerbate a relationship already fraught with distrust. The scientist tells CBS News that Wolf's amendment was "prompted by efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to the Chinese (on space cooperation) even though the Bush Administration had been doing the same thing for years." "The ban should be lifted," wrote Kulacki bluntly. "The progress of Chinese space activity during the previous US administration suggests that the prohibitions that have stifled Sino-American scientific cooperation for decades have not achieved their aims, and have arguably been counterproductive. China has shown that it has the talent and resources to go it alone. The sanctions have only severed links between the countries and made a new generation of Chinese intellectuals resentful and suspicious of the United States. And they stand in contrast to the tradition of scientists strengthening diplomatic relations." Other experts agree that cooperation between the two countries, particularly on space and science projects, is mutually beneficial. Mitigating space debris and collecting data for weather and natural disasters around the globe, once spearheaded by former Secretary of State Collin Powell, are a few examples of common interests. Joan Johnson-Freese, Chairman of the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, an expert on China's space program, agrees with Kulacki's assessment. "I think (the bill) is fool-hearted," she told CBS News in a telephone interview. "We ought to be working with them on things like space debris and we also should be working with them so that we can learn more about their program." "There are a number of members of Congress who are adamant we will not work with China," said Johnson-Freese. "Meanwhile, China is reaching out and working with many, many countries ." Beijing now has cooperative agreements with Russia, Canada, Europe, Venezuela as well as neighboring countries. Collaborations include joint satellite projects, aerospace university exchanges, export of communication satellites and the sharing of some of its satellite imaging data for natural resources. " About the only country that has said 'no thank you' to cooperation with China, is the United States , " noted Johnson-Freese

Wolf clause destroys US-China space cooperationWard 7/6/11 (Kenric, Politics Analyst for Florida News. “U.S. Law Restricts Chinese Access at NASA” State Sunshine News. http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/us-law-restricts-chinese-access-nasa MJT)

Congress's newly enacted "Wolf Clause" bars NASA from hosting "official Chinese visitors" and restricts space agencies from working with that country. Specifically, agencies are not allowed to "develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company.” Enforcing the clause during the launch of Endeavor last month, NASA turned away two reporters from the official Chinese news agency Xinhua. "I think the Chinese are shocked,” said a staffer for Rep. Frank Wolf, chairman of the House Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee and author of the clause. U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R- Va.Hide “[The Chinese] are so used to the [Obama] administration caving to them and bending over backward. I think they’re truly taken aback that this policy was put in place," the aide to the Virginia Republican told Epoch Times. Ironically, the Xinhua reporters were at KSC to write about the Alpha Magnetic

SDI 11File Title

Spectrometer-2 particle detector, a component developed by Chinese scientist Samuel Ting. Wolf, concerned about the sharing and co-mingling of space technology going forward, authored his eponymous security clause after the Obama administration began cozying up to Beijing in 2009. Discussion of space partnerships extended to “hands-on, bilateral, human space flight technology sharing, training sharing, and critical national secrets or expertise,” Wolf’s office said. Security and defense experts maintain that there is no real difference between China’s military and civil space programs, and Wolf says, “There is no reason to believe that the [People's Liberation Army's] space program will be any more benign than the PLA’s recent military posture.” U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center, agrees with Wolf. “The restriction makes good sense from a national security perspective,” said Posey, R-Rockledge. “Many forget that Communist China’s military and civilian industrial sectors are all one and the same. "I have strong objections to sharing U.S. military and technological secrets with a communist regime that often has goals and aims that differ sharply with ours.” The Wolf Clause, approved as part of the budget negotiations in April, will have to pass both the House and Senate again to remain in force into 2012. While that's no sure bet -- and President Obama could veto the legislation -- a security expert said prudence is warranted. “Congress exercising its power of the purse over technology transfers to countries they see as despicable is legitimate. We used to have such a policy to the Soviet Union; I don’t think it’s unprecedented," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

Wolf Clause harms U.S.-China space relationsYoung 7/10/11 (Connie, CBS News Correspondent. “Can U.S. Afford to Snub China in Space Quest?” CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20077462-503543.html MJT)

The fast-approaching end of the U.S. space shuttle program is about to leave America entirely dependent on its international partners to carry astronauts to and from space for the foreseeable future, just as a tenuous relationship with China - whose space program is advancing rapidly - hits an all-time low in the area of space exploration. Beijing was deeply offended when two journalists from China's state-run Xinhua news agency were barred from covering the historic launch of the shuttle Endeavour in May, the second-to-last mission for the U.S. shuttle program. Endeavour blasted off from Florida's Kennedy Space Center on May 16, carrying an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 particle detector - a $1.5 billion apparatus developed, in part, by Chinese scientists. It became a source of national pride in China. Banned from covering the launch, the government mouthpiece lashed out in a report two days blasting "discriminative" new U.S. legislation which bans any of NASA's government-apportioned funding being used in partnership with, to support or host any entity of the Chinese government. The Xinhua article refers to a clause added by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House committee which oversees NASA's budget - and a fierce critic of China's human rights record, to an emergency national budget bill passed in April to keep the U.S. government running for six months. Xinhua's article claimed "even Americans themselves" viewed the so-called "Wolf Clause" as discriminatory. The emergency budget averted a government-wide shutdown, and it was passed in spite of vocal objections by members of both parties to many of the restrictions included. However, there has been little talk in Washington specifically about the clause on space cooperation with China, and no U.S. lawmakers have publicly labeled it "discriminative," as Xinhua suggested. "Obviously, the 'Wolf Clause' runs counter to the trend that both China and the United States are trying to push ahead their exchanges and cooperation in science and technology," said the Xinhua article. In remarks to the House Appropriations subcommittee explaining his stance, Wolf made it clear China's dismal record on human rights was behind the legislation blocking any NASA interaction with China's military-run space program.

SDI 11File Title

Link Defense

SDI 11File Title

MarsChina is a potential partner to help the US reach Mars Svitak, 11 (Amy, Author for Space News, “White House: China is Potential Partner in Future Mars Exploration” 5-6, Space News, http://www.space.com/11582-mars-exploration-white-house-china.html, f)

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama views China as a potential partner for an eventual human mission to Mars that would be difficult for any single nation to undertake, a senior White House official told lawmakers. Testifying May 4 before the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee, White House science adviser John Holdren said near-term engagement with China in civil space will help lay the groundwork for any such future endeavor. He prefaced his remarks with the assertion that human exploration of Mars is a long-term proposition and that any discussion of cooperating with Beijing on such an effort is speculative. "[What] the president has deemed worth discussing with the Chinese and others is that when the time comes for humans to visit Mars, it's going to be an extremely expensive proposition and the question is whether it will really make sense — at the time that we're ready to do that — to do it as one nation rather than to do it in concert," Holdren said in response to a question from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a staunch China critic who chairs the powerful subcommittee that oversees NASA spending. Holdren, who said NASA could also benefit from cooperating with China on detection and tracking of orbital debris, stressed that any U.S. collaboration with Beijing in manned spaceflight would depend on future Sino-U.S. relations. "But many of us, including the president, including myself, including [NASA Administrator Charles] Bolden believe that it's not too soon to have preliminary conversations about what involving China in that sort of cooperation might entail," Holdren said. "If China is going to be, by 2030, the biggest economy in the world … it could certainly be to our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others." Wolf, who characterizes China's government as "fundamentally evil," said it is outrageous that the Obama administration would have close ties with Beijing's space program, which is believed to be run primarily by the People's Liberation Army, or PLA. "When you say you want to work in concert, it's almost like you're talking about Norway or England or something like that," an irate Wolf told Holdren, repeatedly pounding a hand against the table top in front of him. "As long as I have breath in me, we will talk about this, we will deal with this issue, whether it be a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, it is fundamentally immoral." Holdren said he admired Wolf's leadership in calling attention to China's human-rights record, but noted that even when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan referred to the former Soviet Union as "the evil empire" in the late 1980s, he continued to cooperate with the communist bloc in science and technology if doing so was deemed in the U.S. national interest. "The efforts we are undertaking to do things together with China in science and technology are very carefully crafted to be efforts that are in our own national interest," Holdren said. "That does not mean that we admire the Chinese government; that does not mean we are blind to the human rights abuses." Holdren said that as White House science adviser, his capacity to influence the president's diplomatic approach to Beijing is limited. "I am not the person who's going to be whispering in the president's ear on what our stance toward China should be, government to government, except in the domain where I have the responsibility for helping the president judge whether particular activities in science and technology are in our national interest or not," Holdren said. Recently enacted legislation prohibits U.S. government collaboration with the Chinese in areas funded by Wolf's subcommittee, whose jurisdiction also includes the U.S. Commerce and Justice departments, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. When asked how he interpreted the new law, part of a continuing resolution approved in April that funds federal agencies through Sept. 30, Holdren said the administration will live within the terms of the prohibition. "I am instructed, after consultation with counsel, who in turn consulted with appropriate people in the Department of Justice, that that language should not be read as prohibiting actions that are part of the president's constitutional authority to conduct negotiations," Holdren said. "At the same time there are obviously a variety of aspects of that prohibition that very much apply and we'll be looking at that on a case by case basis in [the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] to be sure we are compliant." Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), who joined Wolf last fall in opposing an official visit to Beijing by Bolden, accused Holdren and the White House of plotting to circumvent the law. "It's not ambiguous, it's not confusing, but you just stated to the chairman of this committee that you and the administration have already embarked on a policy to evade and avoid this very specific and unambiguous requirement of law if in your opinion it is in furtherance of negotiation of a treaty," Culberson said. "That's exactly what you just said. I don't want to hear about you not being a lawyer." Holdren said a variety of opinions and legal documents indicate the president has exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope and objectives of international negotiations and discussions, as well as the authority to determine the preferred agents who will represent the United States in those exchanges. Culberson reminded Holdren that the administration's civil research and development funding flows through Wolf's subcommittee, and that funding could be choked off if the White House fails to comply with the law. "Your office cannot participate, nor can NASA, in any way, in any type of policy, program, order or contract of any kind with China or any Chinese-owned company," Culberson said. "If you or anyone in your office, or anyone at NASA participates, collaborates or coordinates in any way with China or a Chinese-owned company … you're in violation of this statute, and frankly you're endangering your funding. You've got a huge problem on your hands. Huge."

SDI 11File Title

Solar SailsNo link uniqueness – Already sent one into space, no reaction from ChinaPhillips 11 [Dr. Tony Phillips works at NASA “Solar Sail Stunner” Jan 25 2011 http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Solar_Sail_Stunner_999.html]In an unexpected reversal of fortune, NASA's NanoSail-D spacecraft has unfurled a gleaming sheet of space-age fabric 650 km above Earth, becoming the first-ever solar sail to circle our planet. "We're solar sailing!" says NanoSail-D principal investigator Dean Alhorn of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. "This is a momentous achievement." NanoSail-D spent the previous month and a half stuck inside its mothership, the Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology SATellite (FASTSAT). FASTSAT was launched in November 2010 with NanoSail-D and five other experiments onboard. High above Earth, a spring was supposed to push the breadbox-sized probe into an orbit of its own with room to unfurl a sail. But when the big moment arrived, NanoSail-D got stuck. "We couldn't get out of FASTSAT," says Alhorn. "It was heart-wrenching-yet another failure in the long and troubled history of solar sails." Team members began to give up hope as weeks went by and NanoSail-D remained stubbornly and inexplicably onboard. The mission seemed to be over before it even began. And then came Jan. 17th. For reasons engineers still don't fully understand, NanoSail-D spontaneously ejected itself. When Alhorn walked into the control room and saw the telemetry on the screen, he says "I couldn't believe my eyes. Our spacecraft was flying free!" The team quickly enlisted amateur radio enthusiasts Alan Sieg and Stan Sims at the Marshal Space Flight Center to try to pick up NanoSail-D's radio beacon. "The timing could not have been better," says Sieg. "NanoSail-D was going to track right over Huntsville, and the chance to be the first ones to hear and decode the signal was irresistible." Right before 5pm CST, they heard a faint signal. As the spacecraft soared overhead, the signal grew stronger and the operators were able to decode the first packet. NanoSail-D was alive and well. "You could have scraped Dean off the ceiling. He was bouncing around like a new father," says Sieg. The biggest moment, however, was still to come. NanoSail-D had to actually unfurl its sail. This happened on Jan. 20th at 9 pm CST. Activated by an onboard timer, a wire burner cut the 50lb fishing line holding the spacecraft's panels closed; a second wire burner released the booms. Within seconds they unrolled, spreading a thin polymer sheet of reflective material into a 10 meter-square sail. Only one spacecraft has done anything like this before: Japan's IKAROS probe deployed a solar sail in interplanetary space and used it to fly by Venus in 2010. IKAROS is using the pressure of sunlight as its primary means of propulsion-a landmark achievement, which has encouraged JAXA to plan a follow-up solar sail mission to Jupiter later this decade. NanoSail-D will remain closer to home. "Our mission is to circle Earth and investigate the possibility of using solar sails as a tool to de-orbit old satellites and space junk," explains Alhorn. "As the sail orbits our planet, it skims the top of our atmosphere and experiences aerodynamic drag. Eventually, this brings it down."

SDI 11File Title

Lunar ExplorationChina won’t compete with the US in a moon raceChambers, 09Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

China is not just resting on its laurels of becoming only the third nation in history to successfully send someone to space, but also has plans for lunar exploration, research on Mars, as well as establishing a permanent presence in space. Luan Enjie, director of Chinese counterpart to NASA, the China National Space Administration (CNSA), said, “Exploring the Moon is the first step in exploring deep space”. 89 But it is important to note that China is not on a “Moon or bust” trajectory and is moving at a measured pace towards fulfillment of its lofty space ambitions. Hu Shixiang, deputy in charge of China’s manned space flight program, said “I think about 10 to 15 years later, we will have the ability to build our own space station and carry out a manned Moon landing”. 90 Hu also added that, “China is developing its space program at its own pace, not competing with the U.S. It’s not the competition of the Cold War era”.91

China’s moon program doesn’t compete with the USLee 05 (Min, Foreign Policy writer for CNN, “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020” CNN. 12/8/2005. http://www.gunco.net/forums/f113/chinese-want-put-man-moon-19067/ MJT)

HONG KONG (AP) - Fresh from its second manned space mission, China's space program wants to be able to put a man on the moon and build a space station in 15 years, an official said Sunday. ``I think in about 10 to 15 years, we will have the ability to build our own space station and to carry out a manned moon landing,'' said Hu Shixiang, deputy commander of China's manned space flight program. But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country's overall development. Hu was in Hong Kong with the two astronauts who conducted China's second successful manned space mission in October. He spoke during a televised question-and-answer session with executives from various television stations and newspapers. Nie Haisheng and Fei Junlong circled Earth for five days aboard the Shenzhou 6 capsule, traveling 2 million miles in 115 hours, 32 minutes. China's first manned mission was in 2003, when astronaut Yang Liwei orbited for 21 1/2 hours. China wants to master the technology for a space walk and docking in space by 2012, Hu said. He said China was developing its space program at its own pace, not in competition with the United States. ``It's not the competition of the Cold War era,'' he said. Hu stressed China's intention to use space exploration for peaceful ends, saying the government ``is willing to work hard with people around the world for the peaceful use of space.'' He said Chinese space officials want to study the possibility of making rockets with the capacity to carry spacecraft weighing 27.5 tons - three times the capacity of their existing rockets - but the government hasn't approved the funding. Hu dismissed suggestions the space program is too costly for a country that, despite rapid economic growth, is still struggling to eradicate rural poverty. He noted the recent space mission cost $111.4 million, compared to the $23.5 billion that China spent on combating pollution last year.

SDI 11File Title

Satellite HardeningChina’s response to satellite hardening is distinctly defensiveBruce Blair Publisher and Chen Yali Associate Editor “China Security: China’s Space Ambitions” 2006 Issue No 2 pg. 10-11 < http://www.wsichina.org/attach/china_security2.pdf> TM

Drawing on an extensive set of Chinese- as well as English-language sources, Eric Hagt of the World Security Institute delves deeply into all of the story strands appearing in this journal’s collection of articles and weaves the strands into a persuasive tale of two powerhouse nations on a collision course in space. Hagt provides a comprehensive account of China’s heady commercial expansion and ambitions in space, and its growing reliance on dual-use space assets for its economic development and military strength. This growing dependency creates a growing vulnerability. As commercial space assets and operations are becoming indispensable to China’s economic and military security, they will need to be protected with no less diligence than how America pursues its own space security. China views a ban on space weapons as one partial answer to the growing vulnerability that attends China’s growing dependence on space, but the political feasibility of such a treaty appears strongly in doubt given the U.S. rejection of this option. In Hagt’s view, U.S. opposition to a space weapons ban, (eds. note – already strong because of American desire to preserve its options for space-based missile defense), may indeed stiffen as the opaque dual-use Chinese space program continues to expand and seek its own guarantees of protection. Apart from an official policy of advocating a ban on space weapons, China has not revealed how it will respond to space weaponization if the United States indeed takes that historic step. Hagt distills the thinking found in the literature written by serious military scholars on space and concludes that the Chinese response to the threat posed by the United States in space features a distinctly defensive orientation that emphasizes protecting Chinese space platforms from U.S. offensive attack – for example, past or anticipated efforts to improve satellite hardening, encryption, anti-jamming, maneuverability, redundancy, and rapid replacement.

SDI 11File Title

Link Turns

SDI 11File Title

Debris or JunkUS will cooperate with China over junkKlotz 10 Space reporter for Discovery News. [Irene. June 30, 2010. “ U.S. Opens Space Doors to China.” Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-space-china.html Accessed on June 26]

The next time the United States decides to venture into space, it won't be going alone. Future missions beyond Earth will include Russian, European, Japanese, Canadian and possibly Chinese partners, under a new national space policy unveiled by the Obama administration this week. The ventures will start with projects to build confidence, gain trust and find common ground, such as cleaning up orbital debris, sharing climate information about the planet and collaborating on science missions. The International Space Station could even be tapped for trial runs, though obstacles remain. "I think it's a little premature to talk about China and the space station," said Jim Kohlenberger, chief of staff of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. "It's obviously a very complex policy issue." China carries considerable baggage, including its development, sales and use of military technologies, but also a key asset: a proven space transportation system, something the United States will soon be without. Two space shuttle missions remain before the fleet is retired after 30 years of service, primarily because of high operating costs. Obama wants to buy astronauts rides on commercial carriers, but none currently exist. That leaves the United States dependent on Russia to fly astronauts to the station. "We're rather thin in launch capabilities right now," said Joan Johnson-Freese, who oversees the Naval War College's department of National Security Studies. China's human space program made its debut in 2003 with the launching of its first astronaut into orbit aboard a capsule known as Shenzhou. Five more Chinese astronauts flew during follow-on missions in 2005 and 2008, the latter of which included a spacewalk. China has announced plans to build a space station, the first piece of which is scheduled for launch next year. Under the new U.S. space policy, "at least we're going to stop pretending that the Chinese don't exist in terms of space exploration," Johnson-Freese told Discovery News. "Now the doors are open." The biggest stumbling block is going to be the fact that technologies developed for space can be used for military applications. "It's going to be politically difficult," said Johnson-Freese. "If we were to be doing a manned mission (with China), there will be many people anxious to point out what the technology can do in a nefarious state. The list will be long and endless since we already have these people who are making a career out of portraying the Chinese manned space program as a military program." Preliminary steps to space partnerships could include Chinese involvement in tracking and cleaning up space debris. China intentionally destroyed one of its weather satellites in orbit to test a missile, creating more than 2,300 pieces of debris large enough to be tracked by ground radars and millions of smaller pieces. The debris is a collision threat to operational spacecraft orbiting Earth. Chinese and U.S. scientists already have been collaborators on a few research projects, including an exchange of Earth environmental data. "Initially, we'll start out with science, just like what we did with Japan and Russia," said Johnson-Freese. "Then we'll see what it is that the Chinese can contribute beyond launch capability."

Debris removal promotes cooperation with ChinaChambers, 09Rob, Naval Postgraduate School Graduate, “CHINA’S SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC “SOFT POWER” IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497039&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf rmg

One oddly positive result from the largely negative Chinese ASAT test was a new focus on space debris. This event served as a catalyst that galvanized more support and serious efforts to address this issue. More people are now aware that an “F-BOM” (Fratricide By Orbital Mechanics)306 can be nearly as dangerous than an “H-bomb” in space. The recent collision of a U.S.-built Iridium communications satellite and an old Russian Cosmos relay satellite added more fuel to these concerns.307 In light of this new awareness of and concern about space debris, the U.S. should continue to proactively lead and guide full implementation of the Inter-Agency Debris Coordinating Committee (IADC) Debris Mitigation Guidelines to ensure they do not remain a passive, non-legally binding “voluntary” commitment as they are currently, but a true international standard for all future space launches and operations, including those from China.308

SDI 11File Title

ISSSaving ISS prevents the collapse of future space cooperationAviation Week and Space Technology 08 (“Space Relations at Crossroads”, 11/3/2008, Aviation Week and Space Technology, SP)These are perilous times for international space cooperation , and the capability of NASA to meet its objectives for the International Space Station (ISS) depends on other nations, including an energy-rich Russia. Yet the chill from the Russian-Georgian conflict has congressional leaders calling for a suspension on our reliance on Russia for manned space services and keeping the space shuttle flying for another five years. At the same time, the U.S. seeks greater transparency from the Chinese on their space program plans and objectives. It has become politically expedient for some to call for pulling out of cooperation with Russia and continuing to bar China from cooperation in ISS . This is wrong . International space cooperation is often difficult, but it remains fundamentally beneficial. NASA has been working with Russian industry for more than 15 years—long enough to require that certain conditions be met before binding NASA to international cooperation on manned programs. Most importantly, such cooperation must increase the safety of our astronauts, and it must lower program costs or expand capabilities for the same funding. These are operational requirements, not political goals and if they cannot be met, there is no justification for taking into account any political objectives. Having helped bridge the gap between the Russians and NASA during the initial ISS discussions, I can summarize two political considerations necessary when working with nations such asChina and Russia, versus members of NATO or the European Union. First, cooperation must result in greater transparency for the structure of their program. On multiple occasions, Russians participating in ISS discussions also were involved in meetings on broader strategic issues. Because of ISS cooperation, we developed a good understanding of the key principals and their objectives. Then there is the pure political objective. This must be the caboose of the entire train, otherwise it puts at risk NASA programs and the lives of the astronauts. To justify or terminate a program on vague political considerations is simply unacceptable. With Russia, the political objective was to stop the flow of missile know-how to rogue nations. In addition, we learned, albeit slowly and painfully, how to work together. Indeed, cooperation with Russia on ISS has been a success, most importantly in terms of the program itself. Russian space services literally saved the ISS after the Columbia disaster and have resulted in enhanced operational capabilities that otherwise would have been unattainable. Use of Russian services will continue to be critical for ISS, but future cooperation will take even more work. By the time the next administration takes office, in the best of situations Russia will be a space partner fully able to meet contractual terms. But Moscow will be stinging from what it perceives to be the double-standard on issues such as the West’s handling of Bosnia versus Moscow’s handling of Georgia and other breakaway republics. A delicate political balance will be required to maintain ISS and build new international programs. The alternative of a collapsed ISS would be fodder for those in both countries wanting to shut down future cooperation, not to mention forcing the European Union into a closer relationship with both Russia and China to meet their own space objectives. Moving forward, the U.S. needs to meaningfully engage with the Chinese so they provide key space goods and services, while we apply the same litmus test that we give to Russia on possiblecooperation: Will it reduce the cost of future programs? Will safety be improved by having additional manned capability? Will it increase the transparency of China’s space program? Will it reduce our dependency on Russian manned transportation? Only time will tell. We are faced with these unpalatable issues because hard decisions were not made a decade ago on the optimal hardware for future manned programs. Let’s not compound this error by delaying even further our break with the temperamental and expensive shuttle system. Space cooperation with Russia and China benefits our own program, and once engaged, must be continued through good times and bad.

SDI 11File Title

ITARLifting ITAR causes cooperation with ChinaSelding 11 [ Peter B . de Selding Staff Writer. Space.com “Chinese Government Official Urges U.S.-Chinese Space Cooperation” 14 April 2011 http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110414-chinese-official-space-cooperation.html]A top Chinese government space official on April 14 appealed to the U.S. government to lift its decade-long ban on most forms of U.S.-Chinese space cooperation, saying both nations would benefit from closer government and commercial space interaction. He specifically called for cooperation on manned spaceflight, in which China has made massive investment in recent years. Lei Fanpei, vice president of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CASC), which oversees much of China’s launch vehicle and satellite manufacturing industry, said China purchased more than $1 billion in U.S.-built satellites in the 1990s before the de facto ban went into effect in 1999. Since then, the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have made it impossible to export most satellite components, or full satellites, to China for launch on China’s now successful line of Long March rockets. The ITAR regulations that tightened the U.S. technology export regime were put into place to punish China for its missile exports, and to slow development of China’s rocket industry by reducing its customer base. Most commercial telecommunications satellites carry at least some U.S. parts, which is why ITAR has all but locked China out of the global commercial launch market. The U.S. government is reviewing the current ITAR regime, which U.S. industry says has had the unintended effect of making it difficult to sell satellites and satellite components just about anywhere in the world. At the same time, China’s domestic demand for launches of its own telecommunications, navigation, Earth observation and science satellites — and its manned space program — has given the Long March vehicle sufficient business to earn it a record of reliability. The global insurance underwriting community now ranks the Long March vehicle alongside Russian and European rockets for reliability when it sets insurance premiums. Addressing the National Space Symposium here, Lei said Chinese vehicles launched more than 20 U.S.-built satellites in the 1990s. While cooperation with the United States has been shut down, he said, China has maintained relations with the 18-nation European Space Agency, Brazil, France, Russia and others. China also has developed a telecommunications satellite product line that has been bundled with a Chinese Long March vehicle to offer in-orbit delivery of telecommunications spacecraft to a half-dozen nations that in many cases can offer China access to their crude oil reserves. Lei said he sees three areas in which U.S.-Chinese cooperation would be in both nations’ interests. The first, he said, is an open commercial access of each nation to the other’s capabilities in satellites and launch vehicles. The second, he said, is manned spaceflight and space science, particularly in deep space exploration. The third is in satellite applications including disaster monitoring and management.

Lifting ITAR, boosting manned space missions, expanding satellites and market access boosts cooperation with ChinaSelding 11 – A department chair and professor at pace university (Peter 4/14/11 , Chinese Government Urges US-China Space Cooperation, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110414-chinese-official-space-cooperation.html, CG)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — A top Chinese government space official on April 14 appealed to the U.S. government to lift its decade-long ban on most forms of U.S.-Chinese space cooperation, saying both nations would benefit from closer government and commercial space interaction. He specifically called for cooperation on manned spaceflight, in which China has made massive investment in recent years. Lei Fanpei, vice president of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CASC), which oversees much of China’s launch vehicle and satellite manufacturing industry, said China purchased more than $1 billion in U.S.-built satellites in the 1990s before the de facto ban went into effect in 1999. Since then, the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have made it impossible to export most satellite components, or full satellites, to China for launch on China’s now successful line of Long March rockets. The ITAR regulations that tightened the U.S. technology export regime were put into place to punish China for its missile exports, and to slow development of China’s rocket industry by reducing its customer base. Most commercial telecommunications satellites carry at least some U.S. parts, which is why ITAR has all but locked China out of the global commercial launch market. The U.S. government is reviewing the current ITAR regime, which U.S. industry says has had the unintended effect of making it difficult to sell satellites and satellite components just about anywhere in the world. At the same time, China’s domestic demand for launches of its own telecommunications, navigation, Earth observation and science satellites — and its manned space program — has given the Long March vehicle sufficient business to earn it a record of reliability. The global insurance underwriting community now ranks the Long March vehicle alongside Russian and European rockets for reliability when it sets insurance premiums. Addressing the National Space Symposium here, Lei said Chinese vehicles launched more than 20 U.S.-built satellites in the 1990s. While cooperation with the United States has been shut down, he said, China has maintained relations with the 18-nation European Space Agency, Brazil, France, Russia and others. China also has developed a telecommunications satellite product line that has been bundled with a Chinese Long March vehicle to offer in-orbit delivery of telecommunications spacecraft to a half-dozen nations that in many cases can offer China access to their crude oil reserves. Lei said he sees three areas in which U.S.-Chinese cooperation would be in both nations’ interests. The first, he said, is an open commercial access of each nation to the other’s capabilities in satellites and launch vehicles. The second, he said, is manned spaceflight and space science, particularly in deep space exploration. The third is in satellite applications including disaster monitoring and management.

SDI 11File Title

ITAR has caused tensions between US and China Space RelationsZhou 08, Yi Zhou Center for Space Science and Applied Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, George Washington University “Perspectives on Sino-US cooperation in civil space programs” 14 July 2008<http://za2uf4ps7f.search.serialssolutions.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/directLink?atitle=Perspectives%20on%20Sino-US%20cooperation%20in%20civil%20space%20programs&author=Zhou,%20Yi&issn=0265-9646&title=Space%20Policy&volume=24&issue=3&date=2008-08-01&spage=132&id=doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2008.06.002&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article> TMVisible political signals have not been received: Although China and the USA have been increasingly dependent on each other economically and on the global stage, it is difficult for most Americans to understand or relate to China's centrally controlled government system and developing socialist

democracy. Because of their different political systems, both countries have difficulty building trust with each other. They face many barriers to collaboration, so highly visible political signals are important in achieving the goal of space cooperation. We may recall that, in the past, the USA and the USSR had radically different political systems. Their top leadership supported cooperation on a strategic basis [12]. On 17 July 1975 three US astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts docked Soyuz 19 with an Apollo spacecraft that was carrying a jointly developed docking module [13]. It was the first time that the two superpowers had substantively cooperated on space. These cooperative activities promoted the two countries’ future collaboration. To date, there have been no high-level political signals supporting space cooperation between China and USA, which makes both countries’ space administrations, NASA and CNSA, very cautious about bilateral cooperation. Strict US policies on non-proliferation, export controls, technology transfer and arms control, especially the US regime for technology transfer, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR): The USA has a strong regulatory regime to prevent the illegal transfer and theft of sensitive technologies, such as space systems, that can be used in the development of military assets by governments, entities and persons that may be hostile to US interests. These restrictions affect cooperation between the USA and other countries, including China, in different space areas. In addition to high-level-cooperative space projects, ITAR affects normal science exchanges and visits. For example, in October 2002, a Chinese delegation could not obtain US visas to attend the 34th Committee of Space Research assembly, which is an international space science meeting open to space research professionals world-wide. In space commerce, US space firms have to face licensing requirements and contend with export controls, which have led to a decline in their market share As an example, in 2003 Boeing received large fines because the US government thought the company had directly helped China improve its launch technology through a contract with Chinese space manufacturers a few years previously. Yet between 1998, when all US space firms had to leave China's space market, and the present

day, China's space development has been far from stagnating. On the contrary, China's space capabilities continue to improve and have made clear progress in the past few years. Now, inside the USA, many companies are arguing that ITAR is a significant trade barrier which acts as a substantial negative subsidy, weakening US industries’ ability to compete. Research agencies and institutions argue that ITAR prevents cooperation on international scientific projects. ITAR even affects cooperation between the USA and its allies [15]. It is time for US policy makers and Congress to consider adjusting these overly strict control policies if Americans wish to retain their important role in space cooperation around the world and the benefits this brings. On 11 January 2007 (US time), China terminated an aging weather satellite, Fengyun-1: Observers believed that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had used technology to shoot down the satellite which could also be used as a space weapon. This event startled the USA and Europe because it apparently provided evidence of a Chinese space weapons capability. Many claims were made, such as, “China's weapon test is a wake-up call to the space arms race” NASA administrator Mike Griffin said in an informal meeting: “Some space cooperative proposals with China have been put on hold for the moment.” This event negatively affected the potential for space cooperation between China and Western countries, although the Chinese government has declared that it was no threat to any nation [17]. The incident was certainly not a good thing for international space security, since it created a lot of space debris. Right now, two points should be urgently considered. First, it is time for the international players to sit down together and start to discuss a future agreement, such as an international law restricting space debris, which would prevent a recurrence in any country (something the USA did not consider necessary before China's test). Second, if the USA continues to refuse collaboration with China in space, how can it accurately assess that country's motivations in the future? The USA would only be able to infer and debate internally about what China's intentions might be. China has no unique advanced capabilities: No single country or region has a monopoly on the ideas or technical capabilities to enable humans to live and work safely in space. The USA certainly knows that. It has been more than 30 years since Americans began to cooperate with the USSR. When such cooperation began, the USSR had strong space capabilities and experience. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the Russian economy and space industry were severely short of funds. The USSR's experienced engineers and professionals, and their capabilities, could have been transferred to other countries, potentially to countries not allied with the USA. Such a development might have brought danger to the USA and the world. The USA helped Russia and helped itself at the same time by engaging in cooperation with that country, taking advantage of its rich experiences. Another example is that of Canada, which, while not in the same league as the USA (or Russia), possesses the unique technology of the robot arm that has become an important section of ISS. Today, although China has developed many technologies and capabilities, there is still no other country whose technology is more advanced than that of the USA, which is one reason why the latter lacks a compelling motivation to engage in cooperation with China. Management and cultural differences: Compared to the geopolitical and space policy problems, this is not a major obstacle. Because of cultural differences, Americans sometimes find it difficult to understand Chinese thinking. The same problem arose with cooperation between the USA and the USSR/Russia, and with Europe. There are many tools for resolving this. Detailed negotiating and trust building will be very helpful. In some cases the two countries should seek common points while putting aside differences for the sake of cooperation. Sino-US economic and political relations provide good examples of this. China does not yet have a completely modern management system, but management efficiency has improved in the past 20 years since China's reform and opening. China's management level will be enhanced in the near future. The above negative factors regarding Sino-US space cooperation appear difficult to remove right now. Any international relationship should be based on understanding and trust. That is a key for the two countries to begin space cooperation. The Chinese have an old story: thousands of years ago, China often had disastrous floods. The government did not know how to solve the problem, and paid huge sums of money for people to build levees to stop the water. A man named Dayu was appointed to control it. He thought of a completely novel way to control the water. Instead of building levees, he dug canals and off-shoot streams to divert some of the flow. After that, the area no longer flooded, and it became rich. This story is perhaps relevant to space relations between China and the USA. The USA continues to wall up the route to cooperation with China or places strict limitations on cooperative space activities. But, regardless, China will continue to develop its own space technology and other capabilities, and will undoubtedly achieve its goals in this field. Lacking the channels to understand and talk to it, the USA will over-emphasize the “China threat” and pay an unnecessary price for it. Negative attitudes toward space cooperation will also affect other relations between the two countries, potentially including the realms of global space security, economics and politics.

SDI 11File Title

SDI 11File Title

SPSSPS power would be sold to China it is the most likely buyerSpace Energy, 4/12/10“Special Report: Space Energy Delegation returns from successful high-level International Clean Energy Summit in China” http://spaceenergy.com/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=View&KID=84001&VID=4709805 rmgThere are numerous reasons why many regard China as an ideal adopter of Space Based Solar Power. As one of the world’s leading economies and carbon emitters, China has also positioned itself as the current world leader in renewable energy. The country is known to have the largest power construction program in human history, substantial cash reserves and has successfully demonstrated its ability to construct mega projects like the Three Gorges Dam. Adding a small number of high output SBSP satellites will produce approximately the same amount of energy as the Three Gorges Dam while adding to their renewable energy repertoire, thus sustaining China’s drive to remain the world leader in large scale renewable energy projects. A collaboration where China is purchasing energy from a US based SBSP provider such as Space Energy would have tremendous advantages for both parties . Not only would it greatly support the US aerospace market by providing a platform for large scale job creation, but it would help reduce China’s use of (and emissions from) coal, provide the ability to supply emergency power in disaster struck regions, and position the country as a world leader in the proactive use of clean energy technology. Additionally, by purchasing significant quantities of Space Based Solar Power from a company such as Space Energy, the U.S. would significantly improve its trade balance with China.U.S. will sell Power to China leading to cooperationBuisnessline 06 (Space Island Group, “US co plans 24/7 solar power using satellite” October 11, 2009. http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/221971081/13081AFE7B562425C1B/5?accountid=12598. MJT)From BUSINESS LINE, October 11, 2006 Mumbai, Oct. 10 - Electricity from a satellite orbiting above the Earth can help you cook your delicacies. Sounds like fiction? But this could become a reality, if the California-based company Space Island Group Inc gets funds to launch two geo-stationary satellites by 2012. These satellites will produce power using solar cells and transmit the energy back to Earth as a microwave, that can be converted to electricity, says Mr Pranav Mehta, Space Island Group's Director in India. Space Island has plans to sell power to India and China at 10 cents (US) per kilowatt hour without a hike in price till 2030. Mr Mehta told Business Line that the proposed solar power satellite would use microwave power transmission to beam solar power to a very large antenna on Earth, where it can be used in the place of conventional power sources. The advantage of placing solar panels in space is the unobstructed view of the Sun, unaffected by the day/ night cycle, weather and seasons, he explained He pointed out that, on Earth, the efficiency of solar power systems is 15 to 20 per cent but in space it will be around 50 per cent. NASA has developed the technology nearly 30 years ago, but today the challenge is to put the satellite and the solar panels at an affordable cost, he said. The company looks to work with American aero-space firms. At today's launch costs of $5,000 per pound, the cost of Solar Sat energy is prohibitive.

China is most logical market for space solar powerCordeiro, 10José Luis, “Energy 2020: A vision of the future,” http://lifeboat.com/ex/energy.2020#notesHowever, there will be plenty of energy opportunities for everybody in a continuously globalizing world, including abundance of solar energy in North Africa and the Middle East, bioenergy in the USA and India, and space solar power satellites in China, Japan and Russia, for example. Yergin argued again that the world will never really run out of oil, but that it will be substituted by other cleaner, cheaper and more abundant energy sources. China is most likely market for SPS—we will cooperateO’Neill, 8Ian, “Harvesting Solar Power from Space,” http://www.universetoday.com/14646/harvesting-solar-power-from-space/It sounds like the perfect plan: build a vast array of solar panels in space. This avoids many of the practical problems we have when building them on Earth such as land availability, poor light conditions and night time, but sending a sunlight farm into space will be expensive to set up. In the 1970′s a plan was drawn up by NASA for the possibility of orbital sunlight “harvesting”, but it was deemed too expensive with a hefty price tag of at least $1 trillion. There was no country in the world that could commit to such a plan. But as we slowly approach an era of cheaper space travel, this cost has been slashed, and the orbital solar energy case file has been re-opened. Surprisingly, it isn’t the most developed nations in the world that are pushing for this ultimate renewable energy source. India and China, with their ballooning populations are reaching a critical point for energy consumption and they are beginning to realise their energy crisis may be answered by pushing into space. “A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.” – Pentagon’s National Security Space Office 2007 report.

SDI 11File Title

Internal Link Defense

SDI 11File Title

AT: Space Races EscalateChina won’t start a space race- working on a treaty to stop oneXinhua 11 [3-31-11“China opposes arms race in outer space: white paper” The Xinhua News Agency is the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/31/c_13806954.htm]The Chinese government advocates the peaceful use of outer space, and opposes any weaponization of outer space and any arms race in outer space, says a white paper on the country's national defense. "China believes that the best way for the international community to prevent any weaponization of or arms race in outer space is to negotiate and conclude a relevant international legally-binding instrument," says the white paper, issued by the Information Office of the State Council Thursday. According to the document, in February 2008, China and Russia jointly submitted to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT). In August 2009, China and Russia jointly submitted their working paper responding to the questions and comments raised by the CD members on the draft treaty. China is looking forward to starting negotiations on the draft treaty at the earliest possible date, in order to conclude a new outer space treaty, says the white paper.

Space race won’t lead to a US-China arms race.Ayson 07 (Robert, director of studies at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defense Studies Centre, “Hopes for Sanity not yet Lost in Space”, January 25, 2007, Lexis Nexis, GM)

Despite China's anti-satellite test, a new arms race isn't inevitable, argues Robert Ayson CHINA'S surprising anti-satellite test has raised fears of an arms race in space. The unofficial moratorium on such tests is over. This alone means that China has acted provocatively and the military implications are only part of the story. If the satellites supporting the global transmission of data, images and funds became too vulnerable to be viable, much of life as we know it would grind to a halt. That is in nobody's interests. The 22-year taboo against anti-satellite tests supported the myth that space is not militarised. But space has long been used for military applications. The American way of war -- from the Gulf War in 1990 to Shock and Awe in Iraq in 2003 -- would be impossible without the military use of satellites. Washington's plans for missile defence have included space-based systems as essential components. Ballistic missiles leave the earth's atmosphere en route to their target. And space is central in Australia's own record of defence co-operation with Washington. The US is the world's dominant space power. Having beaten the Soviet space challenge by prevailing in the Cold War, the Pentagon guards this dominance jealously. Above all, it allows the US freedom of manoeuvre in conducting military operations. Washington's concerns about China's test may be less to do with the breaking of a gentlemen's agreement and more to do with the protection of the US's space hegemony. China could throw some stones back at the main critic. Beijing could argue that the US has been even quicker to break old understandings. The Bush administration tore up its Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia to develop missile defence. This program may one day target China's anti-satellite capabilities. Missile defence certainly reduces China's confidence in the balance of strategic power, and in its ability to hold sway in any conflict over Taiwan. Its anti-satellite test sends a clear signal that any space-based systems involved in the defence of Taiwan would not go unchallenged. Yet China would be unwise to get into a war of words with the US and its allies. The test challenges China's insistence at the stalled Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that it will only discuss a fissile material cut-off treaty if the US agrees to negotiate a treaty on avoiding an arms race in space. More importantly, the test, and Beijing's fumbling and belated acknowledgement of its existence, flies in the face of the reputation China has been carefully building as a responsible and peaceful rising power. Thanks in no small part to its increasingly nuanced diplomacy, Beijing's reputation in the Asia-Pacific region is better than it has been in living memory. But this could be at risk if there are more signs of sabre-rattling. So far the test will only really concern those who were already slightly suspicious about China's intentions. But if Beijing pushes further, the balance of opinion may really start to change. And that may well provide an opening for the US. This would not be in keeping with Beijing's plans. In 1957 the launch of the Sputnik satellite showed the West that the Soviet Union was a serious competitor in the space race. This accelerated the Cold War nuclear arms race. The US spent billions of dollars responding to a non-existent ''missile gap'', and both sides ended up with far more nuclear weapons than they would ever need. It is by no means inevitable that China's test will have a similar effect. An arms race is like the tango: it takes two. This means that the next step is crucial. Robert Ayson is director of studies at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

Space race would remain peacefulBuckley, 07 (Chris, writer for the Sun Herald, “China plays down fears of space race” 1-21, The Sun Herald, Lexis Nexis, KM)BEIJING has insisted it was opposed to an arms race in space after Japan and Britain joined a chorus of concern over a satellite-destroying missile test by China - the first known experiment of its type in more than 20 years.

The United States says China used a ground-based ballistic missile to shoot apart an ageing weather satellite on January 11, scattering debris that could damage other satellites and raising the risk of escalating military rivalry in space. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman refused to confirm or deny the incident, but said Beijing wanted no arms race in space. "I can't say anything about the reports. I really don't know; I've only seen the foreign reports," Liu Jianchao told Reuters. "What I can say is that, as a matter of principle, China advocates the peaceful use of space and opposes the weaponisation of space, and also opposes any form of arms race," he said. US concerns have been echoed by Australia and Canada, and on Friday by Japan, which has become increasingly concerned about its giant neighbour's

SDI 11File Title

rising military strength. "We are concerned about it firstly from the point of view of peaceful use of space and secondly from the safety perspective," Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki, told a news conference. Tokyo is trying to mend fences broken by disputes with China over their wartime history, competition for resources and regional influence. But it has also called for more transparency from Beijing on its defence spending, which China announced last March would rise by 14.7 per cent to $US35.3 billion ($44.8 billion). Britain added its voice to the chorus of alarm over China's reported move, with Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman telling reporters: "We have concerns about the impact of debris in space and we've expressed that concern." The last US anti-satellite test took place in 1985. Washington then halted such Cold War-era testing, worried debris could harm civilian and military satellite operations. Mr Blair's spokesman said Britain did not believe China's test had contravened international law, but it was concerned by the lack of consultation. The test was "inconsistent with the spirit of China's statement to the United Nations and other bodies on the military use of space", he said. Tokyo has asked the Chinese Government for confirmation the satellite-destroying missile test took place

and for an explanation of what China's intentions were, Mr Shiozaki said. "When we passed on the message, the Chinese side said they would take Japan's concerns into account and that they want to maintain the peaceful use of space," a Japanese foreign ministry official said. David Wright, of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said the satellite pulverised by China could have broken into nearly 40,000 fragments from one to 10 centimetres wide - about half of which would stay in orbit for more than a decade. The US has been researching satellite destroyers of its own, experimenting with lasers on the ground that could disable, disrupt and destroy spacecraft. Marco Caceres, a space expert at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia, said China's test could bolster a host of costly military space programs, almost all of which are over budget and behind schedule.

Space development won’t cause a space race, it will prevent it.Oberg 03 (James, spent 22 years at NASA Mission Control in Houston, is writing a book on the national security uses of space, “Chinese Space Advances Benefit Everyone”, October 15, 2003, Lexis Nexis, GM)

Shenzhou 5 blasted off Tuesday night, it was carrying one astronaut and a sack of seeds for science experiments. It also was carrying a load of the world's high hopes -- and anxieties. Some are certain to worry about China's real intentions in space. But alongside that worrisome baggage is hopeful cargo: Simply by taking place, China's mission will energize the existing space activities of other countries by making old patterns of space partnerships obsolete. It's about time. Space programs in the United States, Europe and even Japan need a good kick into gear. China's emergence adds a full-fledged third partner to what has been mainly a U.S.-Russian alliance dictated by long-extinct diplomatic considerations. China provides new options for projects during a crisis, such as moving crews and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) and back. Fears about China in space should not sidetrack people. This isn't the Cold War of U.S.-Soviet confrontation, so a new high-budget "space race" isn't in the cards . China is not racing us to establish a manned military station on the moon. Nor is it assembling an orbiting battle fleet to neutralize American space-based military tools. To imagine such threats is to fear shadows. To respond as if they were real would be folly. What really is about to happen is much more momentous: For the first time since 1961, and only the third time in world history, a new nation will have achieved independent human-spaceflight capability. China has expended a great deal of its rare resources of talent and time, and has taken enormous risks, to carry out this project. In the most basic sense, this is a case of brave young men facing daunting psychological and technical challenges and risking their lives to help mankind stretch its abilities. A Chinese human space program will have practical short- and long-term benefits. It will enhance the commercial attractiveness of its high-tech exports as well as the credibility of its aerospace military hardware. Chinese science projects will get a lot more respect across the board. And the prestige of the Beijing government will be enhanced both externally and internally, as it receives a 21st century version of the classic "Mandate of Heaven" needed by all previous Chinese rulers. In the next few years, China plans to: * Fly many more orbits in space, including experiments involving docking small space labs together and visiting them periodically. * Demonstrate that its Shenzhou vehicles are more sophisticated than Russia's Soyuz spaceship and will be able to compete with NASA's redesigned crew-transfer vehicle to carry astronauts and cargo between Earth and space stations. * Explore the moon with robot craft, including surface rovers. * Have its own Mir-class space station by the end of the decade. Because China's space vehicles use docking mechanisms that appear modeled after Russia's, they should be compatible with the ISS. So China could provide emergency support to the ISS, and symbolic visits are feasible. Just the possibility of this is enough to energize the international partnerships behind the space station. While Beijing officials say China is opposed to the "weaponization" of space, there are probably some military applications for Shenzhou. But these would be mainly in the areas of observing other countries, both with telescope cameras (to see structures on the ground) and with electronic eavesdropping antennas (to locate radars and communications sites). Other nations, the United States included, already have similar space-reconnaissance activities underway. Adding another may be a positive step: As the number of countries keeping an eye on each other increases, the chances of military surprises are reduced, thus enhancing international stability. If there is a challenge involved, it is for the United States and other space-faring nations to live up to their ideals and potentials in space. Loss of focus leads to losses of lives and treasure, as we have been bitterly reminded. Shenzhou's charge to other nations is to take space seriously again. As this brave team begins its fantastic voyages, we all can celebrate, just as we hailed the feats of Yuri Gagarin, Neil Armstrong, Arnaldo Tamayo-Mendez, Julie Payette and other pioneering earthlings. Beyond the boundaries of Earth, the accomplishments of all earthlings benefit everyone.

SDI 11File Title

AT: Space Is Zero-SumChina and US will cooperate, no zero-sum competition in space.Yardley and Broad 04 ( Jim, Pulitzer Prize winner, And William, Senior writer, The New York Times, “China Courted by U.S. to Avert New Space Race; Cooperation is the Byword as Exploration Goals are Set”, January 24, 2004, Lexis Nexis, GM)

In the last year, China succeeded in becoming only the third nation to put an astronaut into orbit, definitively signaling that it intends to break into the front rank of space explorers. The Chinese plan to send more astronauts into space next year, to launch a Moon probe within three years, and aim to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon by 2010, a half-decade before the deadline Bush set for the next Americans to arrive there. The United States and China now stand at a critical point, between cooperation or competition, in what could be a costly and dangerous new space race that extends beyond China. Bush was deliberately reaching out to the Chinese, a senior administration official in Washington said. "The reference to international cooperation was not a throwaway line," said the official, referring to a speech by the president on Jan. 14. "It was an invitation. The president drew a day-night contrast. This is not the cold war." But it could be. And the Chinese are not alone in this new push to harness the power and prestige of space, which is fast becoming a necessary stop, like mastery of the atom, for aspiring global powers. Nations like Brazil and India are taking ever wider steps to make sure they are not left behind in a new space race, intensifying the pace of exploration by the developing world. Joan Johnson-Freese, an expert on the Chinese space program at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said the Bush administration had no choice but to respond to China's recent advances in a space initiative. "The success allowed China to reach out to other countries and they've been responding favorably, so we could not do nothing," she said in an interview. "While a space race is not a foregone conclusion, it is a possibility." She added that the United States now had a window of opportunity for concord that might not last long. "Cooperation is the best position for the U.S. and the future," she said. "An inclusive vision will give the U.S. an opportunity to assume the mantle of leadership on a mission that could inspire the world." The greatest concern is the militarization of space, using space-based weapons and satellites to extend the reach of nations or potential terrorists, and allowing more extensive and widespread intelligence gathering than ever before. Such concerns are central to the mistrust between the United States and China. Many American analysts note that China's manned space program falls under a wing of the People's Liberation Army, and suspect that China's primary ambitions in space are military. Some analysts contend that China's manned space vehicle is specifically designed for potential military uses. Faced with the technological prowess displayed by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, Chinese leaders have emphasized the importance of "information warfare," with the need for a presence in space. In October, People's Liberation Army Daily said outer space would become a "sphere of warfare" because space-based satellite technologies are essential for a swift, modern military. "It's clear that the Chinese are worried about the U.S. domination of space, and that the U.S. considers China as a potential competitor," said Adam Segal, a senior China expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "It's probably a good time to try to talk about these things since we haven't moved very far along in any of these plans." Bush never mentioned China by name in his address, but the administration official said that by not limiting his call to Europe and Russia he was implicitly reaching out to Beijing. Asked to comment on playing a possible role in Bush's Moon-Mars endeavor, China's Foreign Ministry answered in broad terms, noting that China was committed to collaborating with other space-faring nations, including the United States. But the Foreign Ministry also hinted at past frustrations, noting that the Chinese space program had already sought -- without success -- a stronger relationship with NASA. Since 2002, the ministry noted, the two sides have been talking about a meeting between the heads of the two space agencies. "We hope the realization of this meeting will present an opportunity for developing Chinese-American cooperation in the space sphere,"

SDI 11File Title

Transparency SolvesOpenness will avoid an escalation in the China-US space raceSouth China Morning Post, 07 (“Openness can head off a new space race” 3-29, South China Morning Post, Lexis Nexis, KM)

The announcement of a Sino-Russian mission to Mars in 2009 is further proof of China's burgeoning technological prowess. But while such an achievement is something to be proud of, Beijing must temper such developments with caution to avoid a space race with the US and other competitors exploring the solar system. Venturing into space is a multi-faceted enterprise, after all; apart from instilling national pride and being for the purposes of peaceful inquiry, it also is costly and has an unavoidable military dimension. Rockets and satellites serve dual purposes in this regard and arouse suspicion, just as they did when they were central to the cold war space race between the US and the Soviet Union. While the two superpowers drove one another to ever greater heights in exploring space for a quarter-century, they also came ever closer to war as their technological breakthroughs translated into military developments. China must tread carefully to avoid a recurrence of this fearful period in world history. This does not mean that China's scientists should refrain from building upon their already momentous achievements. In 2003, China became only the third nation - after the US and Soviet Union - to put a person in space and the feat was repeated the following year. There are now plans to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon and develop and launch a space station. The deal President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed in Moscow on Monday to co-operate on the mission to Mars and its moon Phobos will cement China's membership of the exclusive club of space-exploring nations. But the deal also will spur rivalries in space. As proof of this, in January 2004 US President George W. Bush launched a new vision for his country's space programme, with plans to put an astronaut on Mars and to return to the moon - just three months after Yang Liwei became the first Chinese person in space. Japan and the European Union also have been stepping up their space research, budgeting billions of dollars for new rocket and equipment designs. India says it will launch an unmanned mission to the moon next year. A major driving force of the cold war space race was a lack of openness between the Americans and Soviets. There were shades of a return to that era in January when Beijing secretly tested a ballistic missile by blowing up an old satellite, scattering debris that had the potential to damage other satellites. The central government was roundly condemned by the US, Japan and others for carrying out the test. It initially remained silent, but after two weeks admitted carrying it out - behaviour that has to be avoided for the sake of global stability. The US, however, stands accused of hypocrisy because - unlike China and Russia - it refuses to support an international agreement banning the deployment of weapons in space. China's achievements, although they follow in the footsteps of the US and Russia, are significant. It is among the space elite and this is a reason for pride. Each new step into space will boost the country's international standing. But China must not fall into the trap of putting competition and accolades ahead of those on the ground. Each yuan budgeted for spending in space has to be weighed against how it might be used to alleviate poverty and provide essential infrastructure. Nor should China's space ventures be anything other than peaceful. Keeping technological developments transparent and ensuring openness is essential to preventing another space race.

SDI 11File Title

Internal Link Turn—Human Space Races GoodChinese human space exploration should be encouraged by US—directly trades off with militarization racesDay, 04 (Dwayne A, a Washington, DC based space policy analyst “The benefits of a new space race” 4-26, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/137/1, KM)

In October 2003 China became only the third nation to launch a human into space aboard its own rocket. Colonel Yang Liwei, China’s first taikonaut, orbited the Earth for barely a day before returning, slightly shaken, to a landing in Mongolia. It was a significant technical achievement for a country that has been struggling to modernize its economy and its technology, and the Chinese government trumpeted it to its people and the world. Although Yang’s flight received considerable attention around the globe, what was almost ignored is the fact that after his feet were firmly on the ground, the orbital module from his Shenzhou 5 spacecraft continued to circle the earth, carrying several military payloads. The module is apparently equipped both with a reconnaissance camera capable of spotting objects on the ground about a yard long, and an array of antennas for intercepting radar and other signals from hundreds of miles away. Despite this, Shenzhou is not something the United States should be concerned about, but should actually encourage. China is pursuing a human space program for three primary reasons: international prestige, domestic pacification, and industrial policy. A human space program enhances China’s status as a major power, at least within the Pacific region. It also feeds nationalist hunger among the populace, making them proud of the achievements of their country even while they realize that they live under an authoritarian and corrupt government—bread and circuses for the masses. Finally, a Chinese “white paper” about space makes clear that the Chinese anticipate numerous technological developments to flow from their space program. Building a space capability requires improvements in manufacturing, computers and materials that the Chinese hope to use in other areas of their economy. Because China is a rival to the United States, it is not in American interests to see them gain international prestige, pacify an oppressed population, or improve their technology. But now that China has entered the human spaceflight arena, and President Bush has proposed a new exploration plan, America’s best move might be to engage the Chinese in future cooperation in human spaceflight, such as dangling the possibility of sending future missions to the International Space Station, and possibly even future competition in this realm as well. For several years the Western science press has been filled with articles about China’s space ambitious. Reporters have claimed that China has bold plans for a large human space flight program, including everything from space stations to Moon landings. Many of these reports, however, have confused bad translations of articles originally published in Chinese, or handwaved away the laws of physics. China’s space ambitions are in reality much less dramatic and the requirements to achieve some of these goals much higher than the press has implied. Although most of these stories are false, it would be in America’s best interest if they are true, and a shrewd strategy to encourage China’s peaceful exploration of space, with humans, is called for. Human spaceflight is enormously expensive, even in places where labor is cheap. Despite the slow and deliberate pace of the Chinese human spaceflight program so far, it is clear that China has spent a considerable amount of money to acquire this new capability—nearly $2 billion. In addition to developing a spacecraft and launching four previous unmanned missions, China has also built a new rocket, a new launch pad, and a large assembly building for integrating all of the equipment, as well as various other support facilities, such as a tracking station in Namibia and several tracking ships. Recovery forces such as helicopters and aircraft cost additional money. The only demonstrated payoff of human spaceflight is prestige. There is nothing that a human can do in low Earth orbit, other than the study of other humans, that a robot cannot do better. China may also demonstrate the value of spaceflight at diverting domestic attention from government oppression and corruption. But the Chinese government is going to do this anyway with other events, such as the 2008 Olympics. As for China’s industrial policy, the United States long ago learned that the spin-off argument is a weak one; although developing spacecraft does produce some useful technologies, it is generally inefficient. If you want a faster computer chip, then develop one; there is no need to go to the Moon to do so. Ultimately, the expensive Shenzhou program is not buying the Chinese much other than newspaper headlines. In the meantime, all of that money has to come from somewhere, and it is most likely coming out of their ballistic missile budget. The more money China spends on human spaceflight, the less money it has to spend on missiles pointed at the United States or Taiwan. In fact, the military aspects of the Shenzhou program demonstrate this point. The Chinese president wanted a human spacecraft for prestige purposes, but in order to get it he had to compromise with the military and allow it to be used for missions such as photoreconnaissance and signals intelligence. The military seems to have learned a lesson from the United States and Soviet Union, who discovered decades ago that humans have no military utility in space, so the taikonaut deploys the orbital module with its military payloads in orbit and then departs, leaving the other spacecraft to operate on its own. However, this is not only a bureaucratic compromise, but a mission compromise for the military as well. Due to requirements to bring the manned capsule back to China, Shenzhou does not fly in an orbit that swings very far north or south, so the amount of territory it can photograph or snoop electronically is limited. An ideal military spacecraft would also take advantage of all the extra mass and volume that is currently devoted to keeping the human passenger alive. Linking their military space program to their human space program is simply an expensive kludge that wastes money. It is in America’s interest to encourage such Chinese wastefulness and have them spend more money in non-military space operations. The last thing the United States wants is for China to close down its human space program and put that money back into armaments. So a logical move is for the United States to engage and encourage the Chinese in this new realm. The docking port on the Shenzhou spacecraft is perfectly suited to hooking up to the International Space Station if China is willing to launch the vehicle into a different orbit. President Bush could propose allowing China to visit the ISS in perhaps five years, after they have demonstrated a significant amount of flight experience. The genius of such a proposal is that it would require the Chinese to build new facilities, such as a tracking station to cover the ISS orbit, and work hard at gaining experience necessary for such a rendezvous. In addition, China would have to open up its program to Western experts to demonstrate its safety. From a Chinese perspective such a mission would have benefits as well. It would symbolize that China has achieved a certain level of parity with the other space powers and is being taken seriously. The United States could certainly live with this, if the result is to siphon money out of China’s missile and military space programs. There is an opportunity for a first step in a related area. China is planning on launching a robotic lunar spacecraft in 2006. The United States is also planning on launching a lunar spacecraft a few years later. So far there has been no effort by either nation to link these two projects. In fact, a Chinese scientist who wanted to travel to a conference in Hawaii to discuss their work

SDI 11File Title

was restricted from entry due to visa problems. But instead of ignoring or shunning the Chinese scientific effort, the U.S. could propose closer cooperation with the Chinese to share data from their mission in return for the United States doing the same. Once again, encouraging China to spend its money on non-military space serves American interests. In the past, many in Congress felt that allowing China to launch American commercial satellites resulted in China gaining access to important American technology. While some of these concerns were overblown, there is a legitimate American interest in not helping Chinese missile programs. But there is no reason that cooperation with China, carefully structured, would result in technology transfer. Furthermore, this is a subject that the U.S. has dealt with before. In the mid-1970s when America and the Soviet Union cooperated on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, a detailed review determined that there was no significant technology transfer from the United States to the USSR. Sharing lunar probe data, or asking China to fly a manned mission to the International Space Station, will not compromise any sensitive technology. Beyond these cooperative efforts, there may be an opportunity to spur healthy competition with China in human spaceflight. When President Bush unveiled his new space vision in January he was careful to note that this is a “journey, not a race” to the Moon and elsewhere. But it may actually be in America’s interest to encourage the Chinese to think they are in a race to the Moon—and to spend accordingly. So far most of China’s human spaceflight ambitions are focused on developing low earth orbit capabilities such as rendezvous. They achieved the Shenzhou feat through incremental advances in existing technology. But the next step, to a manned lunar flyby or orbit, is a much bigger leap than China has taken before. The Chinese will have to build a new large rocket in the Ariane 5 class, and the extensive ground infrastructure to support it and further manned spacecraft ambitions. All of this requires large amounts of money and will not be easy. If the United States can encourage China to spend this money on peaceful competition rather than sabers to rattle at Taiwan and Los Angeles, then a new space race could have positive results for world stability and American self-interest.

SDI 11File Title

ASAT Don’t Threaten ChinaNo escalation – Chinese satellites unthreatened by US activityThompson and Morris 1 (Colonel David J. Thompson; Navigator and Specialist in Space Operations, and Lieutenant Colonel William R. Morris; “China in Space” , http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp24.pdf; SP)China has not developed the reliance on communications satellites to the same degree as the United States. Perhaps partly as a result, current Chinese communications satellites lack much of the design and techni-cal performance capability of western satellites. While this leaves Chinese communications satellites somewhat vulnerable to jamming, interference, and interception efforts, China’s lesser dependence on space communication systems also means they would be less impacted by an adversary’s hostile space activities. Additionally, China’s secu-rity involves mostly internal lines of communications where fiber op-tics and other reasonably robust legacy forms of communications links are very viable.

SDI 11File Title

Impact Defense

SDI 11File Title

China Won’t Fight Space WarChina committed to peaceful use of space –won’t start a warXinhua 11 [“China abides by all outer space treaties” http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/08/content_12290678.htm 2011-04-08 Xinhua News Agency is the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC)]China committed itself to stick to all basic principles provided in outer space treaties, conduct all explorations and use of outer space for the benefits of the whole mankind, said a Chinese envoy to the United Nations here on Thursday. Li Baodong, the Chinese permanent representative to the UN made the remarks at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly 65th session, in which a resolution was adopted to designate April 12 as the International Day of Human Space Flight. On April 12, 1961, astronaut Yuri Gagarin from the former Soviet Union made the first space flight on Vostok 1 opening the new chapter in human's exploration of the outer space. Li told the meeting that over the past 50 years, with the efforts of the space scientists of all countries, great progress has been made in manned space cause. "So far nearly 40 countries sent astronauts into the outer space. We are very happy to see that China is making its contribution to the development," he said. Since the year of 1999, the Chinese manned space project has successfully completed seven flights, sent six astronauts at three times into the outer space and executed spacewalk, Li said, adding that this year China would conduct the first rendezvous and docking flight and has begun building the space station. "With utmost confidence and courage, China would explore the unknown and further promote manned space program so as to make contributions to human space flight cause," Li said. China reiterated that it will always stick to all basic principles provided by conventions on outer space, conduct all explorations and use of outer space for the benefit of the mankind, and enhance international cooperation in exploring and making use of outer space making the progress of space science and technology benefit all countries, particularly the developing countries. "We hope that the international community would make joint efforts to build a harmonious outer space conducive to peace, development, cooperation and rule of law ," Li said. China appreciated the leading role of Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in promoting the peaceful use of the outer space, improving outer space legislation and deepening the international cooperation, the ambassador said.

China won’t start an arms race – outlined in national defense paperListner 11 [Michael Listner is a member of the New Hampshire Bar and was admitted in 2003. He has published several articles on the subject of international space law and has consulted on matters relating to space law and policy. Michael is a graduate of Regent University School of Law where he earned his JD in 2001 “Is China committed to the prevention of an arms race in outer space?” April 2 2011 http://www.examiner.com/space-policy-in-national/is-china-committed-to-the-prevention-of-an-arms-race-outer-space]Several China news agencies reported on March 31, 2011 that the Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China issued a white paper on national defense entitled China's National Defense in 2010. The paper is a comprehensive report of China's stance on matters relating to its national defense. Included in Chapter X of the report, Arms Control and Disarmament, is a section dealing with the prevention of an arms race in space. Specifically, the section states that: "[t]he Chinese government has advocated from the outset the peaceful use of outer space, and opposes any weaponization of outer space and any arms race in outer space. China believes that the best way for the international community to prevent any weaponization of or arms race in outer space is to negotiate and conclude a relevant international legally-binding instrument. In February 2008, China and Russia jointly submitted to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT). In August 2009, China and Russia jointly submitted their working paper responding to the questions and comments raised by the CD members on the draft treaty. China is looking forward to starting negotiations on the draft treaty at the earliest possible date, in order to conclude a new outer space treaty." The PPWT has been rejected by the United States as unverifiable, yet the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China continue to press for its adoption. However, is the true goal of the People's Republic of China to prevent an arms race in outer space, or do they have some other endgame in mind?

More evidenceThe Information Office of China's State Council 5 [The State Council is the supreme administrative organ of state power in China Thursday September 1, 2005 “China's Endeavors for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/armscontrol.html#I]China has been vigorously calling for attention and efforts by the international community to prevent an arms race in and the weaponization of outer space. China stands for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS by the CD in Geneva to negotiate an international legal instrument on PAROS. As a first step, the CD should set out to conduct substantive work on the issue of PAROS at an early date. In 2000, China submitted to the CD a working paper entitled "China's Position on and Suggestions for Ways to Address the Issue of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space at the Conference on Disarmament," pointing out that PAROS should be one of the top priorities on the CD's agenda, and proposing the reestablishment of the Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate an international legal instrument in this regard. In June 2002, China, Russia, Belarus, Indonesia, Syria, Vietnam and Zimbabwe submitted to the CD a joint working paper entitled "Possible Elements for a Future International Agreement on the Prevention of Deployment of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against

SDI 11File Title

Outer Space Objects," putting forward specific proposals on the major elements for the future international legal instrument, which has gained wide support from many countries. In August 2004, China and Russia jointly distributed two thematic papers at the CD, entitled "Existing International Legal Instruments and the Prevention of the Weaponization of Outer Space" and "Verification Aspects of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space." In March 2005, China and Russia, together with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the Simons Foundation of Canada, success-fully hosted an international conference in Geneva on "Safeguarding Outer Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space". In June 2005, China and Russia jointly distributed a thematic paper at the CD, entitled "Definition Issues Regarding Legal Instruments on the Prevention of Weaponization of Outer Space."

China’s national defense paper indicates that they will only commit to peaceful use of space and prevention of weaponizationThe Information Office of China's State Council 5 [The State Council is the supreme administrative organ of state power in China Thursday September 1, 2005 “China's Endeavors for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/armscontrol.html#I]Peace, development and cooperation have become the trend of the times in the current world. World multi-polarization and economic globalization are developing in depth, and science and technology are advancing by leaps and bounds. Countries and regions have constantly strengthened their exchanges and cooperation as they are increasingly interdependent in security. World peace and development are facing rare opportunities as factors for maintaining peace and restraining war are increasing. It has become the consensus of the international community to enhance cooperation and jointly meet global challenges. However, the world is far from tranquil as traditional security issues persist, local wars and violent conflicts crop up time and again and hot-spot issues keep emerging. Non-traditional security threats such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), transnational crimes and infectious diseases are on the rise. The intertwined traditional and non-traditional threats pose severe challenges to inter-national security. International arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation are closely linked with international security. Given more diversified threats to international security and larger numbers of unstable and unpredictable factors, the dimensions of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation have been constantly expanded with increasing importance. Opportunities and challenges develop side by side while hopes and potential risks coexist. On the one hand, as an integral part of the global security order, the international arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation regime is still playing an important role in safeguarding world peace and stability. Since the 1990s, fresh achievements have been scored in arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. A number of important treaties have been concluded in such areas as the prohibition of chemical weapons and nuclear tests. The international consensus has been constantly strengthened on preventing the proliferation of WMD. The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 on nonproliferation. Political and diplomatic efforts have been continuously pursued to settle proliferation issues through dialogue and cooperation. Initiatives on strengthening the nonproliferation regime have been introduced. Security dialogues have been intensified among countries and regional security cooperation has been expanded. The aforementioned progress has enhanced mutual trust among countries, boosted the relaxation of the security situation and maintained international strategic stability. On the other hand, there is still a long way to go in multilateral arms control and disarmament. The process of nuclear disarmament has been long and arduous. The nuclear deterrence strategy based on the first use of nuclear weapons has yet to be abandoned. The trend toward lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and developing new nuclear weapons is worrisome. There has been greater danger of weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. The universality of international treaties on arms control is still inadequate and negative examples of scrapping important arms control treaties occur from time to time. The multilateral arms control and disarmament regime is faced with difficulty. As the single multilateral disarmament negotiating body, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva has for years been unable to carry out substantive work. The international nonproliferation process is facing challenges. The prospect for settling regional nuclear issues is still blurry and the risks of terrorist organizations and other non-state entities acquiring WMD are growing. Currently, the international process of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation is at a crucial crossroad. It is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of international peace, security and stability to seize fresh opportunities, meet new challenges and consolidate and constantly strengthen the existing international regime on arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. This also conforms to the people's will. The international community is in favor of maintaining multilateralism, pushing forward the international process of arms control and disarmament, constantly improving the international nonproliferation regime, stepping up international cooperation and coping with security challenges. To promote a fair, rational, comprehensive and sound develop-ment of the international cause of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, the international community should follow the pur-poses and principles of the UN Charter and other universally recognized norms governing international relations, foster a new security concept featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination, en-hance mutual trust through dialogue and promote common security through cooperation. The right of all countries to equal participation in international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation affairs should be guaranteed and the international process of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation promoted on the basis of no dero-gation of the security of all countries. The issue of non-proliferation should be dealt with by political and diplomatic means within the framework of international law. The existing international legal system on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation should be main-tained, further strengthened and improved. The legitimate rights and interests of all countries as regards the peaceful use of science and technology should be guaranteed and the role of the UN and other multilateral organizations be brought into full play. II. China's Basic Policy and Position China pursues an independent foreign policy of peace, follows the road of peaceful development, works hard to integrate the efforts to safeguard its own national interests and promote common interests of all countries, and strives for a constructive role in international affairs. In the field of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation, China follows the new security concept featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination, and commits itself to creating a favorable international and regional security environment, maintaining world peace and promoting common development. In handling affairs related to international arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation, the Chinese Government always bases its policy-making

SDI 11File Title

on the judgment whether it serves to safeguard national sovereignty and security, whether it serves to maintain global strategic stability and whether it serves to promote security for all and mutual trust among countries. Complete Prohibition and Thorough Destruction of WMD It is the shared aspiration of the international community as well as the goal of China to thoroughly destroy nuclear weapons and free the world from such weapons. The end of the Cold War and the new security situation have made possible the substantial reduction of nuclear weapons, and then complete prohibition and thorough destruction of such weapons. Pushing forward nuclear disarmament process is of great significance to reducing the danger of nuclear proliferation, improving international security environment and promoting world peace and development. China maintains that nuclear-weapon states should take the following measures to further promote nuclear disarmament process. -- An international legal instrument on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons should be concluded at an early date. -- Nuclear disarmament should be a just and reasonable process of gradual reduction toward a downward balance. The two countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals bear special and primary responsi-bilities for nuclear disarmament. They should earnestly comply with the treaties already concluded on reduction of nuclear weapons and further reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner so as to create conditions for achieving the ultimate goal of complete and thorough nuclear disarmament. -- Before the goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons is achieved, nuclear-weapon states should commit themselves to no first use of nuclear weapons and undertake unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones. -- Nuclear-weapon states should abandon the policies of nuclear deterrence based on the first use of nuclear weapons and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security. -- Nuclear disarmament measures, including intermediate measures, should follow the guidelines of maintaining global strategic balance and stability and undiminished security for all. -- The CD should reach an agreement on program of work soon so as to begin at an early date negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and to establish Ad Hoc Committees and start substantive work on such issues as nuclear disarmament and security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon states. China stands for complete prohibition and thorough destruction of biological and chemical weapons and firmly opposes proliferation of such weapons. Against the backdrop of increased threat of bio-terrorism and prominence of bio-security issue, it is of great realistic significance to continue to explore and formulate measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) under the framework of this Convention. China holds that the international community should take the following actions. -- Encourage more countries to accede to the BWC and urge all its States Parties to fulfill their obligations in a comprehensive and faithful manner. -- Maintain and facilitate the multilateral process aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the BWC and explore and formulate concrete measures through full consultations. -- Encourage more countries to submit to the UN declarations on confidence-building measures regarding the BWC. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the first international legal instrument for complete prohibition and thorough destruction of a whole category of WMD with strict verification mechanism. It has set a successful example for multilateral arms control and nonproliferation efforts. To ensure full implementation of the CWC, China maintains: -- Chemical weapon possessors should double their efforts to complete the destruction of their chemical weapons at an early date in strict accordance with the CWC and subject themselves to effective supervision by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). -- It is imperative to further improve and optimize verification measures, allocate inspection resources in a fair and equitable manner and improve its cost-effectiveness. -- Continuously promote the universality of the CWC. -- The country concerned should fulfill its obligations under the Convention and honor its commitments, start at an early date the substantive destruction process for the chemical weapons it abandoned in China so as to destroy those weapons completely and thoroughly as soon as possible. Preventing the Proliferation of WMD and Their Means of Delivery Proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery is conducive neither to world peace and stability nor to China's security. China firmly opposes proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery. China believes that proliferation of WMD has complicated root causes. In order to prevent their proliferation, an integrated approach must be adopted to address both the symptoms and the root causes. -- All states should devote themselves to building a global security environment of cooperation and mutual trust, seeking universal im-provement of international relations and achieving security for all. This is the best way to eliminate the danger of proliferation as well as the prerequisite for a smooth nonproliferation process. -- All states should resort to political and diplomatic means to solve the proliferation problem. Non-proliferation means should help maintain and promote international security. Proper solutions to proliferation issues should be sought out through dialogue instead of confrontation, and through cooperation instead of pressuring. -- Full scope should be given to the central role of the UN and other international organizations. The existing nonproliferation mechanism should be strengthened and improved under the framework of international law and on the basis of equal and universal participation of all countries and democratic decision-making. -- A balance should be struck between nonproliferation and peaceful uses. The legitimate rights of each state to peaceful uses should be guaranteed while proliferation activities under the pretext of peaceful uses be prevented. Missile Defense China views and handles missile defense issues from the perspective of maintaining global strategic balance and stability and safeguarding regional peace and security. China understands the security concerns of relevant countries about the proliferation of ballistic missiles and their technology and stands for political and diplomatic solution to this matter. Research, development and deployment of missile defense systems are by no means an effective way to solve the problem. China does not wish to see a missile defense system produce negative impact on global strategic stability, bring new unstable factors to international and regional peace and security, erode trust among big powers, or undermine legitimate security interests of other countries. China is even more reluctant to see some countries cooperate in the missile defense field to further proliferate ballistic missile technology. China believes that relevant countries should increase transparency in their missile defense program for the purpose of deepening trust and dispelling misgivings. As the Taiwan question involves its core interests, China opposes the attempt by any country to provide help or protection to the Taiwan region of China in the field of missile defense by any means. Preventing Weaponization of and an Arms Race in Outer Space Outer space is the common wealth of mankind. At present, the danger of weaponization of outer space is increasing with each passing day. Taking weapons into outer space will lead to an arms race there and make it a new arena for military confrontation. Such a prospect is not in the interest of any country. China has all along stood for peaceful use of outer space. The existing international legal instruments on outer space cannot effectively prevent weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. The inter-national community should take effective preventive measures, negotiate and conclude relevant international legal instrument to prohibit deployment of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against objects in outer space so as to ensure that outer space is used purely for peaceful purposes.

SDI 11File Title

US Space Weapons Solve the ImpactUS space dominance solves all warsMiller 2002 (John Miller, July 15th 2002. “US dominance of space would spread peace and stability” National Review. http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1246/. SH)

Imagine that the United States currently maintained a battery of space-based lasers. India and Pakistan could inch toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast from outer space. Without taking sides, the United States would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds. Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China, and Japan and South Korea from the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The United States would be covered as well, able not merely to deter aggression, but also to defend against it.

SDI 11File Title

Economic and Politics ChecksEconomic interdependence and political costs checks space warsMacdonald 08(Bruce W. is a Senior Director, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Program and  former assistant director for national security in the White House , China, Space Weapons, and U.S. Security - Council on Foreign Relations, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o0GkabrNftIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=%22space+weaponization%22++AND+%22china+relations%22&ots=OTlekH3uD_&sig=qtRdCLUcGsqBshHEzTgzXv6xka0#v=onepage&q=relations&f=false)

That is, the United States could threaten to attack not just Chinese space assets, but also ground-based, including ASAT command-and-control centers and other military capabilities. But such actions, which would involve attacking Chinese soil and likely causing substantial direct casualties, would politically weigh much heavier than the U.S. loss of space hardware, and thus might climb the escalatory ladder to a more damaging war both sides would probably want to avoid. War between China and the United States seems unlikely, given their increasing economic interdependence and ongoing efforts in both countries to improve relations.

No war- Chinese policy institutions ensure no risk of nuclear escalation even if war happenedMoore, CNS (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) East Asia research assistant, 10-18-2006 [Scott, Monterey Institute for International Studies; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Nuclear Conflict in the 21st Century: Reviewing the Chinese Nuclear Threat," NTI, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_80.html]

Even with projected improvements and the introduction of a new long-range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the DF-31A China's nuclear posture is likely to remain one of "minimum deterrence."[6] Similarly, despite concern to the contrary, there is every indication that China is extremely unlikely to abandon its No First Use (NFU) pledge.[7] The Chinese government has continued to deny any change to the NFU policy, a claim substantiated by many Chinese academic observers.[8] In sum, then, fears over China's current nuclear posture seem somewhat exaggerated. This document, therefore, does not attempt to discuss whether China's nuclear posture poses a probable, general threat to the United States; most signs indicate that even in the longer term, it does not. Rather, it seeks to analyze the most likely scenarios for nuclear conflict. Two such possible scenarios are identified in particular: a declaration of independence by Taiwan that is supported by the United States, and the acquisition by Japan of a nuclear weapons capability. Use of nuclear weapons by China would require a dramatic policy reversal within the policymaking apparatus, and it is with an analysis of this potential that this brief begins. Such a reversal would also likely require crises as catalysts, and it is to such scenarios, involving Taiwan and Japan, that this brief progresses. It closes with a discussion of the future of Sino-American nuclear relations. The Chinese Policymaking Apparatus and the Nuclear Option China's leadership has today achieved broad consensus that the nation's interests are best served by a stable and peaceful international environment.[9] This has given rise to the strategy of "peaceful development" (heping fazhan) often emphasized by Chinese officials. Given the consensus towards moderation in foreign and security policy, and its embodiment in overarching national policy, there is much to suggest that the use of nuclear weapons against the United States, in whatever situation , would be anathema to China's decision makers. The new generation of Chinese leaders, which has risen to power in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident (liu si), has tended to consist of moderate technocrats,[10] who are unlikely to support radical policy reversals, such as the use of nuclear weapons. Chinese politics in general have also evolved into a "more pragmatic, risk-adverse" form.[11] This process was initiated by the rise of "interest group politics" during the tenure of President Jiang Zemin.[12] This new structure of decision-making involves the specialization of bureaucratic institutions, which have become more assertive, and occasionally resisted high-level decisions they believed to be ill conceived.[13] It is probable that certain institutions, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would strongly resist the actual or threatened use of nuclear weapons against the United States in almost any situation. In a risk-adverse policy environment that seeks consensus, this kind of strong opposition may well prevail.

SDI 11File Title

No TimeframeThe Chinese threat from space weaponization is slow-developing—China’s budget has put them far behind the US, and co-operation is the best strategy to avoid the threatSantini, Agence France-Presse, October 11, 2005(Jean-Luis, “China’s Space Ambitions Potential Threat to US: Analysts,” Agence France-Presse, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05zzzzzzzzr.html)

But China is far behind the United States in the space race, Hitchens said. "I think it is possible that China becomes a threat in the future and to avoid that, it's better to cooperate now," she said. "Like the cooperation with the Russians, you understand what they are up to by cooperating with them," said Hitchens, an expert on the militarization of space. China's space budget is estimated to be 2.2 billion dollars annually, while NASA, the US space agency, has 16 billion dollars to spend a year.

China space weaponization is not a threat--China is two decades behind the US in space technology Stenger, CNN, October 13, 2003(Richard, “China will not overtake US in space,” http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/16/launch.china/)

The Shenzhou flight, while good for Chinese morale, does not mean that China will overtake the United States in space, Johnson-Freese said. She cites a Council on Foreign Relations report from March that said China is at least two decades behind the United States in related technologies. "I hope what doesn't happen is that the jubilation in China will be taken in the U.S. as threatening nationalism," she said. "The only race that is occurring is for second place in space -- we are so far ahead."