Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

1. Non-uniqueness --> So in Round 2 my opponent claims my argument is non-unique. Meaning weaponizing space is already happening, so it has no impact. So in Round 3 I counter by saying, by that definition both your arguments are non-unique because space is surely already militarized if it is already weaponized in his definition. But then he counters that by saying his argument is not non-unique because space is not weaponized yet? I personally think I should win on that note. 2. China and Russia --> Warrant from Space.com, (Russia, China Make New Push To Ban Arms in Space Over U.S. Objections By Clare Nullis Associated Press posted: 02:50 pm ET 27 June 2002) http://www.space.com... "GENEVA (AP) _ In a challenge to Bush administration plans for a missile defense shield, China and Russia on Thursday submitted a joint proposal to the Conference on Disarmament for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space _ a plan rejected by the United States. ``Outer space is faced with the danger of weaponization and an arms race,' said Chinese ambassador Hu Xiaodi, presenting the text to the 66-nation body. It marked the first time Russia and China had made a joint initiative on the issue, which has long been a priority for Beijing because of its fears that U.S. development of a missile defense will inevitably involve outer space. " --> I then went on to state a whole argument written in my own word not copied off a website because I thought it was self explanatory. Well here's one: (Should the United States "Weaponize" Space? Military and Commercial Implications by Charles V. Peï¿½a and Edward L. Hudgins, March 18, 2002) "More to Lose Than to Gain As important and potentially vulnerable as current U.S. space-based assets might be, deploying actual weapons (whether defensive or offensive) would likely be perceived as very threatening to the status quo. Because of this, any move to weaponize space would likely precipitate a response to counter such capability. And weapons in space would indeed be tempting targets for a preemptive attack by an adversary. To be sure, not deploying weapons in space is no guarantee that potentially hostile nations (such as China) will not develop and deploy ASATs. However, it is virtually certain that deploying U.S. weapons in space will lead to the development and deployment of ASATs to counter such weapons. The United States should therefore not be the first to weaponize spaceï¿½€"either with defensive weapons or with offensive ASATs. But deploying defensive decoysï¿½€"rather than weaponsï¿½€"would not inevitably lead to such an arms race. In the final analysis, any near-term moves toward weaponizing space are premature. If the U.S. government is concerned that some nations may find its military and commercial satellites tempting targets, then the United States ought to look first to its foreign policy and military posture as a factor in motivating those nations to take hostile actions toward the United States. According to Richard Betts at the Council on Foreign Relations, ï¿½€œAmerican activism to guarantee international stability is, paradoxically, the prime source of American vulnerability.ï¿½€�54 To the extent that the U.S. government is concerned that a potential enemy might try to knock out satellite provided military capability, such as GPS, it needs to also understand the consequences of such action to the attacker. If an adversary were to jam or destroy GPS satellites, it would deny such capability not only to the United States but also to itself (unless, of course, it was using the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System, or GLONASS). Furthermore, the United States can switch the encrypted military P-code back on if deemed necessary for national security reasons; it is presumably more jam resistant than the commercial C/A-code. Even in a worst-case scenario where U.S. forces might be denied GPS signals, our military personnel are sufficiently trained to be able to use a map and compass to navigate and determine their location." --> Jonathan Pike of Globalsecurity.org Critics of such a policy shift are concerned that weaponizing space could trigger a dangerous arms race. They are quick to point out that no country currently has weapons in space and that a U.S. move to deploy weapons (either offensive or defensive) would only provide unneeded impetus for other countries to follow suit. Jonathan Pike of Globalsecurity.org states, "It [weaponizing space] runs fundamentally against the main theme of our space policy for the last half century—to demonstrate America's power in space in a non threatening way."25 And U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter Hays and Karl Mueller (both faculty at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies) argue that "it is no longer clear that the relationship between space and national security is, or should be, shaped primarily by international military competition." 3. Terrorists and Muslims. I really don't think your warrant is enough to convince me that's enough of a perceivable threat to weaponize space. They live in caves! It didn't really say anything other then terrorists and Muslims are a threat! I need facts. It even states that fewer people agree that it will increase U.S. security. 4. Space tech is key to future combat effectiveness. --> That's the whole point, the U.S. wants to weaponize space for combat. And that's why I don't think the U.S. should weaponize space. I think they should continue to use military assets in space, and work with commercial companies to expand their assets even more. All anti-satellite stations should be kept on the earth aimed up at the sky, not the other way around. We don't need to weaponize space. We don't need to have a war in space. Putting weapons in space is the first step. Total domination in space by the U.S. may create U.S. hegemony for them. But this is a global issue, I am not from the U.S. and it is not in the majority of the worlds best interest for the U.S. to weaponize space. It's for their best interest. They need to show respect.