Japan Dump Space is incredibly expensive.

Logan 10 - Former Chief of Medical Operations, NASA (James, Turning Dust to Gold: Building a Future on the Moon and Mars, 2010, 265. Space is too expensive. NASA was supposed to solve the 'cheap, reliable, robust' access to space problem. It failed miserably and continues to fail. The Shuttle is almost three times as expensive on a cost-per-pound basis to LEO as was the Saturn V ($4166 per pound vs. the Shuttle's $12,500 per pound in real dollars). Everything the Shuttle has ever launched into space is worth more than twice its weight in gold -- and that's just the transportation costs!

Japan is in a state of national insecurity – Korea is on the verge of attack; stabilization is key for prevention Gleis 3-18-11, Joshua, political analyst for Huffington Post “ Japan May Have Another Nuclear Crisis to Worry About in North Korea” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japanmay-have-another-nu_b_837801.html NH)
The world is witnessing an unprecedented series of catastrophes taking place in Japan. A massive earthquake and powerful aftershocks, followed by waves of tsunamis and subsequent nuclear calamities have left the entire world in a state of shock. Japan was arguably the best prepared country in the world for such events, yet even it is wholly overwhelmed at the moment. The United States has been the leading country assisting its ally, using naval assets and other military forces from nearby US bases.

Tertrais 1 (Bruno, Lecturer in World Politics at the Institute d‟Etudes Politiques in Paris, works as Special Assistant to the Director of Strategic Affairs at the French Ministry of Defense, “US MISSILE DEFENCE Strategically sound, politically questionable”, April, http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp11.pdf) A regional power (for example, North Korea) would be more likely than a major power to actually fire its ballistic missiles. As two US experts point out, “rogue states with small arsenals would be far more vulnerable to a disarming US pre-emptive strike, giving them a more sensitive

The Chinese side conveyed its concern regarding several issues that may affect bilateral ties with the United States... ties is an important requirement for dialogues and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.The U. it also voiced strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the U.trigger finger than Russia or China”. affairs in Hawaii in June.S.China hopes the United States will respect China's core interests and concerns and cooperate with the Chinese side to promote the sound and stable development of bilateral ties. according to the release.S." referring to issues surrounding Taiwan.htm BEIJING.China and the United States on Tuesday held their second consultation on Asia-Pacific affairs. Oct. during which both sides agreed to jointly maintain regional stability and cooperation.China and the United States .'s "interference in China's domestic affairs and infringement upon China's interests. the press release said.S.S. Embassy of the People‟s Republic of China in the United States of America.A press release issued after the closed-door consultation said the two countries shoulder common responsibilities and share common interests in maintaining regional stability.However. the press release said. once conflict has erupted. promoting economic development. is real China Shift Relations high now—consultations prove Xinhua 10/11—―China. hold consultation on Asia-Pacific affairs”. which was settled by the leaders of both countries during Hu's visit.The Chinese side said that maintaining the sound and stable development of China-U.china-embassy.China values its cooperative partnership with the United States. dealing with security challenges and promoting regional cooperation. the press release said.org/eng/gdxw/t866433.The Chinese side spoke highly of the progress of bilateral relations since President Hu Jintao's U. 4 Regional powers are much more vulnerable to the classic “use them or lose them” dilemma. visit in January. EIJING. Tibet and the valuation of China's currency. a country that faces the risk of being totally destroyed – a real possibility if it became embroiled in a major war with the US – might have nothing to lose by launching one or several missiles on US territory. 11 (Xinhua) -. side said it attaches high importance to its relationship with China and is committed to its sound and stable . http://www.. the risk of such a country deciding to fire its missiles. Oct. 11 (Xinhua) -.S. Therefore. U. Also.

then both parties lose Increased pressure causes China to reciprocate conventionally.S.org/act/2009_0102/china_us_dangerous_dynamism.. Space is eyed in China as an area of resources and possibilities to be acquired before it‟s too late. as amply illustrated in the public media." http://www. U. Strategic Affairs: Dangerous Dynamism. Vol. "Chinese-U.undermines diplomacy and provokes miscalculation Twomey 09--. deployment of highly accurate nuclear warheads is consistent with a first-strike doctrine and seems sized for threats larger than "rogue" nations. These too would undermine stability in an intense crisis. Similar dangers in the Cold War were mitigated. No. If feverish competition for resources in space causes Sino-American relations to deteriorate or leads to the outbreak of war between them. but also applies to energy and other areas.S. China views space as zero-sum. Feb. Yali and Blair 06 (Blair. 2 (2006): 2-15. over a period of decades of development of personnel and technical solutions.China also reiterated its stance regarding the South China Sea issue during the consultation.armscontrol. and Yali is the editor-in-chief of Washington Observer Weekly. Blair is the president of the World Security Institute. It will handle its relationship with China from a strategic point of view and strengthen cooperation with China to properly handle disputes. "The Space Security Dilemma. Chinese SSBN deployment will stress an untested command-and-control system. Bruce and Chen Yali. likens the grabbing of satellite orbits to the “Enclosure Movement” in late 18 th Century England in which the more capability one has. 1.development. according to the press release.” A space war seems to many Chinese to be another form of resource war. China appears to have few such controls in place today.S.) A zero-sum mindset toward space is hardening in China as a result of this apprehension. stability in an intense crisis. side also expressed welcome and support for the peaceful development of crossStrait relations. the more resources one can seize. Further. Shu Xing. Contemporary Conflict Center Co-Director. Regarding space. whose book is reviewed later in this journal. National Security Affairs Dept. although not entirely overcome. however. the dangers of inadvertent escalation have been exacerbated by some of these moves. it may lead to radical space confrontations. Another reviewed author argued that countries scramble into space to fight for the tremendous resources found there and “once this fight for resources causes irreconcilable conflicts. Such urgency in seeking control over resources is not unique to space. Chris." China Security. Assistant Professor. this increases the likelihood of a space war. . Given China‟s population and rapid economic growth. the press release said..The two countries held their first consultation on Asia-Pacific affairs in Hawaii in June.The U. access 9/6/10 EL China and the United States. controlling resources is understandably a paramount concern. a zero-sum („win-lose‟) attitude is narrow-minded and misguided.

Therefore.” http://www.jamestown. Mounting concerns over the security of the Pentagon's .org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=48 22) Indeed. Australian. Professor of Sociology and Peace & Conflict Studies and Director of the Center for Pacific Asia Studies – Stockholm University “Time for Conflict Prevention Across the Taiwan Strait”. which have nearly doubled since 2001. and reconnaissance). however defense spending has been frozen meaning any new spending would have to trade off CFR 2/13 –Council on Foreign Relations. By nature. a cross-Strait conflict cannot be a limited theatre of war. cannot exclude strategic nuclear exchange. DoD Tradeoff The next generation bomber is currently funded. however. in the worst case. (2/13/12. Indian and Singaporean navies in September 2007 might have aimed at such a signaling effect toward China. it would greatly improve conflict prevention if NATO could at a minimum maintain its own version of “strategic ambiguity” to make Beijing’s calculation of using force more difficult. were to make Beijing understand that any armed attack on Taiwan would lead to worldwide criticism and boycotts of Chinese products. expeditionary strengths of the Navy and Air Force. http://www. together with other Western countries. less optimistic. it is understandable that many countries make such a statement of “neutrality” or remain bystanders.org/us-strategy-andpolitics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCP Budgeting broadly reflects a new focus on the Asia-Pacific region and the Pentagon's growing embrace of the adaptable. in which the risk of escalation. Financing is protected for ongoing counterterrorism efforts. The recent large-scale naval exercise conducted by the United States. It will also be constructive if Europe. any level of armed conflict will inevitably envelop an international affair with global consequences.cfr. Funding will be sustained for the Air Force's nextgeneration long-range bomber as well as sixty-five drone patrols. including special operations forces (CNN). a cross-Strait conflict is potentially one of the most dangerous conflicts involving two major nuclear powers. Thus. surveillance. with a capacity to expand to eighty-five. The Navy is set to maintain its current fleet of eleven aircraft carriers and ten air wings. and receive enhancements in the cruise missile capacity of its submarines. Japanese. The location of Taiwan. 8(7). and thereby more prudent [9]. 3-28. Masako. economically. and new unmanned ISR systems (intelligence. China Brief.Taiwan is the biggest impact – most likely scenario for global nuclear escalation Ikegami 8 (Dr. politically and militarily. “A Defense Budget at the Crossroads. in the midst of the vital sea lines of communications (SLOCs).

Ph.” Comparative . Meanwhile. The transition away from troop-intensive counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan will come with commensurate reductions in the Army and Marine Corps. Procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will face delays--the previously scheduled purchase of forty-two aircraft for 2013 will be cut to just twenty-nine.000 in 2010 to 490.000 by 2017. “Like SAC” Air Force Magazine.airforcemagazine. Marine Corps numbers are expected to recede from 202. The so-called nuclear triad--strategic bombers. . Maintaining credible nuclear deterrence prevents the collapse of civilization Schneider.. former senior officer in the DoD in positions relating to arms control and nuclear weapons policy.Senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. 9 – senior editor of Air Force Magazine (Michael. June.digital networks made cyber operations one of the few areas where funding actually increased. but the proposal is likely to face significant opposition in Congress.D in history at the University of Southern California and JD from George Washington University. A next generation bomber is vital to preventing the collapse of nuclear deterrence Sirak.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SA C. http://www. will also face reductions.. and intercontinental missiles--are also preserved. 8 . ballistic missile submarines.000. “The Future of the U..000 to 182. Elder said. (Mark. Military pay and benefits. are considered a nighttime-only system in high-threat environments. of which only 20 airframes exist.aspx) The Air Force has done a good job in upgrading its B-2 and B-52 fleets. Nuclear Deterrent.S. shedding at least one of nine infantry regiments. The Pentagon may also try to carve out some additional savings through another round of base closures (BostonHerald). The Air Force’s reliable but lumbering B-52s are already limited to low-threat environments. while the stealthy B-2s. but gradual “losses in capability” will degrade the bomber leg’s deterrent as time goes on. which account for about a third of the defense budget. Two army heavy brigades are slated to be withdrawn from Europe as part of the planned elimination of no less than eight brigade combat teams. The total active army will shrink from a peak of roughly 570.

S. strategic nuclear forces as if the only threat we face is that of rogue states and discard the requirement that the U.ria.treaty with the United States. and our conventional forces could be defeated by a state with grossly inferior conventional capability but powerful weapons of mass destruction (WMD).NATO chief. nuclear deterrent be “second to none. including participation in the new strategic arms reduction treaty with the United States.html ACS) In his address to the nation on November 23.ru/world/20111208/169468939.S.. (and our allies) and are modernizing their forces with the objective of targeting the U. May 25. In light of the emerging “strategic partnership” between Russia and China and their emphasis on nuclear weapons. Russia would deploy Iskander tactical missiles in the Kaliningrad Region and halt its disarmament and arms control efforts.S. The NATO secretary general said.S.The United States must maintain an effective nuclear deterrent because. Both Russia and China have the nuclear potential to destroy the U. could be destroyed as an industrial civilization. SBMD will cause Russia to withdraw from START Friedman 11 – Research Intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues (Jonah. “Medvedev's missile shield remarks may be election rhetoric . missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities. Medvedev said that if Moscow's participation in the European missile defense project fails.. while critically important elements of deterrence and national power simply cannot substitute for nuclear deterrence.” START European missile defense puts Russia’s participation in the START treaty on the brink RIA Novasti 12/8 (Russian Newspaper. 2011.org/blog/whynumbers-matter ACS) . “Why Numbers Matter”. http://csis.” December 8. http://en. the U. without it. it would be foolish indeed to size U.S.

some 1. something which both sides know)? For one thing. after warhead(s) separation. and may even withdraw from the New START treaty. For its part. made about the threat posed to Russia by U. yet still capable of defending against limited and unsophisticated attacks from Iran or North Korea. it would only need to contend with the 700 deployed launchers allowed by the New START treaty. In it. it seems as though what the Russians really fear is not U. missile defenses are geared towards targeting missiles in the mid-course or terminal phases of their trajectory.” At current. as well as 40 ships thus equipped – bringing the total number of interceptors to 400./NATO today.500 warheads would have to be met by 400 interceptors.S. Russia has been loudly warning lately that if no agreement can be found on missile defense.. Last week Russian General Andrei Tretyak.S. Although some of those 700 launchers would include bombers and SLBMs. If the pursuit of certain missile defense capabilities serves to increase tensions in the U. According to the MDA website “The MDA plans to develop and test several new technologies designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles during the ascent phase of flight. This means that if a conflict were to erupt between Russia and the U. he claimed that the real danger to Russia‟s nuclear deterrent would come after 2015. BMD systems which target missiles in their mid-course or terminal phases would be less worrying to Moscow. Although it seems highly unlikely that the U.S.S. The impact is accidental nuclear war via nuclear reductions and cooperative relations—START is key . it will resort to augmenting its nuclear strike capabilities. the threat that 400 interceptors (or more in the future) could pose to Russia‟s silo-based ICBMs could start to undermine Russia‟s deterrent.S. These figures mirror those given by the director of the Missile Defense Agency in congressional testimony last year. They figure that if the United States can field 400 interceptors by 2015. even 400 interceptors could cause serious crisis instability. “So what?” some would argue. Add countermeasures to the equation and it becomes difficult to see how the interceptors could prevail. Another reason why 400 interceptors might be cause for concern in Moscow is also related to future U. if the United States were to develop the capability to effectively target missiles prior to warhead separation.550 deployed warheads. since the Russians would be facing a worst-case scenario of losing about a quarter of their warheads. when the United States deploys its new version of the SM-3 missile.Last week Russian General Andrei. the engagement zone of current Standard Missile-3 interceptors can be extended to the pre-apogee portion of a missile‟s trajectory. missile defense plans. what is to stop it from deploying 800 by 2020 or 1. providing increased flexibility and targeting opportunities…By leveraging Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and space assets for pervasive over-the-horizon sensor netting. it could potentially send them there in the event of a crisis. would station the entirety of its BMD-capable ships in Europe. Under the terms of the New START treaty Russia can maintain 1. capabilities further in the future.200 by 2025? Such an expansion would certainly start to undermine Russia‟s nuclear deterrent. Moreover.S. capabilities today (or even in 2015). so why should they care about 400 interceptors (especially given that 400 interceptors does not necessarily entail 400 hits. and modernization of Russia‟s nuclear forces may still suffer funding setbacks (partly due to corruption)..S.S. Although abrogation of the treaty seems unlikely. head of the Armed Forces General Staff Main Operations Directorate. It is important for the United States to consider the impact its missile defense policies will have on the strategic calculations of other nuclear powers such as Russia. However. capabilities. that pursuit may need to be reconsidered. these are not threats which can be totally ignored. U.may need to be reconsidered. but U.-Russia relationship.

but also to increase our security by imposing further limits on what new nuclear weapons the Russians can develop and deploy. Reducing Russia’s nuclear arsenal and taking missile launchers in both countries off alert reduces the likelihood of accidental nuclear war. But without a comprehensive U. leaders across the political spectrum .S.675 on each side — still enough to destroy the world many times over. These programs have helped to deactivate over 7. With around 4. or international monitoring. As of Dec. know how they are using it.S.S. we lack any enforceable. "START is key to reducing the nuclear threat.500 former Soviet nuclear warheads. but far below the 6.100 missile launchers. and take adequate steps to ensure that devastating weapons and dangerous materials remain safe from terrorist theft.000 tons of weapons-grade nuclear material. verifiable treaty to provide that level of information. executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America + director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.000 allowed under the old treaty.000 deployed nuclear warheads. Russia is still potentially the world’s nuclear supermarket. and individual experts under the auspices of the “Nunn-Lugar” Cooperative Threat Reduction and other bilateral and multilateral programs." http://thehill. and verify. 2009. we must agree to.500 and 1.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-thenuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=) both hawks and doves have missed an urgent point: that without a new treaty. To protect America. keeping Americans safer. And as long as nuclear weapons exist.S. steps like these could be totally nullified by production of new nuclear materials. the U. weapons and launchers without any U. bombers and nuclear missile submarines — will be further cut from 1. technologies. Even after a new treaty enters into force. Washington will be unable to manage the risks associated with Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal. and eliminate over 1.000 missiles. a staggering 1. limits on what the Russians have. Over the past two decades. which still poses the single greatest existential threat to the United States. A successor to START would likely lower the maximum number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads allowed to between 1. Agreements governing these arsenals are essential to preventing the many national security nightmares of nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups from becoming realities. the U. Verified and permanent reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal will dramatically reduce the number of targets for potential theft or diversion of nuclear technology to terrorists. We need a new treaty in force not only to plug holes left gaping by the old treaty’s expiration.-Russian arms control agreement in place. facilities. when the 1991 START agreement expired. has invested at least $10 billion to ensure security for Russian and former Soviet nuclear material. Strategic delivery vehicles — missiles. 5.Rojansky and Collins 10 (Matthew and James. destroy over 2.600 to around 800. and Russia will possess the world’s largest nuclear arsenals by a wide margin. hundreds of deployed ballistic missiles and thousands of experts with the knowledge to construct such systems from scratch.

. Arms control is not in itself a solution to U. the U. or a guarantee of security from the nuclear terror threat. Yet in addition to reducing the size of the threat itself.S.-Russian relations on a more productive footing will depend first and foremost on forging a durable bilateral agreement to replace START. but if history is any guide. state failure and drug trafficking throughout the Eurasian region. and Russia on strategic issues. Yet our communication on security issues has been in dangerous decline for the past decade.concur. safest and most reliable arsenal. since the most recent comprehensive U. which will help build mutual understanding. Any “reset” that puts U.S. must maintain the world’s strongest.Russian tensions. and we share immediate and vital national security interests in preventing terrorism. and avert needless suspicion and conflict. Two decades after the end of the Cold War. In a sense. which no longer exists.S.S.-Russian security treaty was actually signed by the United States and the Soviet Union. Americans and Russians are increasingly intertwined in global financial and energy markets.S. a new agreement would be beneficial for increasing regular engagement between the U. it is where we must begin. this should come as no surprise.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful