Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

1. Mitigates War Con: weaponizing space will be perceived a a threat to other nations which would force them to act hostile towards the US. -> This argument is non-unique, meaning it is already happening so it has no impact. The space arms race has already begun. Our only choice is to harden our space assets. Geopolitical competition for military advantages and natural events will destroy our space control Boston Globe, 2K7 (October 3, Protecting our future in space, Nexis, ) "So, in looking forward, we need to figure out how to protect these space assets. And to do that, we must recognize that the space environment has changed dramatically since the Soviets launched a 2-foot-wide metal ball back in October 1957. First, space is now multinational. For decades, the United States and Soviet Union dominated space, but today more than 50 countries own satellites or a share in one, and nine countries have successfully launched satellites. People in nearly every corner of the globe now depend on the services satellites provide. Many developing countries are concerned that slots won't be available when they are ready to use one. Second, space is in danger of becoming weaponized. While space has long supported military forces through reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites, there currently are no weapons based in space. The Bush administration, however, has been pushing to develop weapons to deny other countries the use of space; these include space-based interceptors, which could be used to attack satellites. Meanwhile, China's successful test of an antisatellite weapon last January dramatically demonstrated that satellites are already at risk. Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms race." --> Russia is on the brink of sending weapons to space. Now is key to sustain US hegemony Mowthorpe 2k4 [Matthew, ‘The Militarization and Weaponization of Space', Lexington Books, p.g 176] "Russian views of future war are expected to be global in their aspirations and they stress that control of space will be the decisive determinant in operations concerned with controlling sections of the earth.62 The characteristic of war is deemed to have altered. Large quantities of ground troops will no longer be employed. They will be replaced with substantial strikes delivered by remotely piloted precision-guided weapons. A country will be subjugated to precision strikes and will be a battlefield in war without flanks. The distinction of front versus rear will be replaced with that of targets and nontargets, in that there will be no clearly drawn battle lines. Conventional assets will be able to achieve strategic objectives. The Russians declared the Gulf War as the first of the technological operations. The ability of advanced nonnuclear technology to accomplish missions previously earmarked to nuclear forces means that these assets will achieve the objectives envisioned in a nuclear war.63 These aims will be achieved without the collateral damage and political considerations associated with nuclear weapons. The Russian military views outer space as a potential theater of military actions. The forms of operations that will be conducted in near-earth space will incorporate the following: operations to destroy strategic weapons in flight; operations to destroy or prevent deployment of enemy satellites; operations to defeat orbital and ground space groupings and to seize and hold strategically important spheres of the near-earth space; and strikes delivered from space." My argument about mitigating war and hegemony is warranted by the following: American space dominance makes war structurally impossible Dolman, 5 – Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (Everett C, "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space," September 14, 2005, http://www.e-parl.net...) Indeed, it is concern for the unanticipated arrival of technology X that initially motivates my own preference for a policy advocating immediate deployment of space weapons. So long as America is the state most likely to acquire a breakthrough technology in this area, my concern is limited to the problem of letting technology take us where it will. But what if an enemy of democratic liberalism should suddenly acquire the means to place quickly and cheaply multiple weapons into orbit? The advantages gained from controlling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any liberal state, and the concomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to our already-dependent military force could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the US dithers on its responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize low-earth orbit before America could respond. And America would respond … finally. But would another state? If America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments in kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the US deploy weapons there—at least for the next few years—is extremely remote. This rationality does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. This would clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than any other state doing so. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order, with the weaponizing state at the top. The action would be a challenge to the status quo, not a perpetuation of it. Such an event would be disconcerting to nations that accept the current international order Without sovereignty at risk, fear of a space dominant American military will subside. The US will maintain its position of hegemony as well as its security, and the world will not be threatened by the specter of a future American empire. Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the US is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space." Underview: thus expanding US weaponization of space it necessary to A. Mitigate the space arms race with China and Russia B. Make war close to impossible