Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

1. Non-uniqueness --> He tries to counter by saying the position I am defending is also non-unique. This is false on the fact that the resolution sates militarize and weaponize. True militarization is non-unique but space has yet to be weaponized. Therefore, my position is not non-unique. 2. China and Russia --> He gives no warrant about pushing for international agreements. And even if they did both have already broken the agreements but testing their own space weaponry. --> He then states that weaponizing space would actually create more war. He doesn't respond to the analysis i give in the last speech about mitigating war which states that once the US weaponizes space first, our competitors have no incentive to threaten us. This is true on a military and economic level. All the evidence is in the card about making war structurally impossible that I posted in the past speech. --> Operationally Responsive Space development is key to our ability to check Russia, North Korea, Iran, India, and China – they're building they're own space systems, and we need to keep up to maintain military effectiveness Doggrell 06 (Les, Senior Project Engineer with Aerospace Corporation, Air and Space Power Journal, Summer, 2006, Operationally Responsive Space "A Vision for the Future of Military Space") IN FUTURE CONFLICTS, military space forces will likely face challenges ranging from defending against opposing systems to dealing with rapidly changing technology and support needs. The Air Force describes its vision for responding to these challenges as operationally responsive space (ORS). Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom clearly demonstrated the force-multiplication effect of space systems on US military capabilities. Precision-guided munitions; global, high-speed communications; and enhanced situational awareness all contributed to the rapid destruction of the Iraqi military (fig. 1).1 Unfortunately, future opponents observed the United States' dependence on space systems. To win the next war, this nation must prepare to respond to opposing space and counterspace systems. Gen Lance Lord, USAF, retired, former commander of Air Force Space Command, points to ORS as one way of shaping this response.2 According to a draft study of ORS, it "will provide an affordable capability to promptly, accurately, and decisively position and operate national and military assets in and through space and near space. ORS will be fully integrated and interoperable with current and future architectures and provide space services and effects to war fighters and other users. ORS is a vision for transforming future space and near space operations, integration, and acquisition, all at a lower cost."3 During Iraqi Freedom, described as the first counterspace war, both sides executed counterspace missions. Iraq, for example, attempted to jam GPS signals using Russian- made equipment, and US forces destroyed an enemy ground-transmitting facility, disabling Iraq's ability to communicate with its forces and the outside world by using commercial satellite television.4 A more capable future opponent will find additional techniques for using space to counter the space capability of the United States. We can anticipate some responses to our space systems. Specifically, Russia, North Korea, Iran, India, and China may be capable of building a nuclear-armed antisatellite weapon system.5 Furthermore, "many countries are developing advanced satellites for remote sensing, communications, navigation, imagery, and missile warning," and Russia, China, and the European Union have developed or are developing satellite-navigation systems/ More warrants for the Pro position: 1. New threats such as terrorism, WMDs, and European counterbalancing necessitates U.S. space development McLaughlin, 2002 (Kevin, National Defense Fellow at CSIS, MISSILE DEFENSES: NOW WHAT? Vol. 25, No. 3; Pg. 177, "Would Space-Based Defenses Improve Security?" The Washington Quarterly, Summer, lexis) "The world is changing at an ever-increasing rate. The global war against both terrorism and WMD, the emergence of a consolidated European political entity, instability in the Middle East and in much of the Muslim world, and an uncertain global economy are just a few of the forces transforming the geopolitical landscape. Amid this backdrop, the Bush administration is poised to pursue little by little a missile defense program that will feature a role for space-based components. Even though space systems can clearly help satisfy missile defense mission requirements, fewer people agree that such a move will improve U.S. security. Yet, the radically new geopolitical framework, new threats to U.S. security, new concepts for deterrence, and the important role space can play in satisfying larger U.S. interests underpin my assessment that space systems used in support of the missile defense mission could improve U.S. national security." 2. Space Militarization is key to global US hegemony and international peace Krepinevich 03 [Andrew F, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. ‘The Unfinished Revolution in Military Affairs', Issues in Science and Technology, http://www.issues.org...] No state relies on space for its military and economic security more than the United States, a reliance that grows daily more precarious. The United States Air Force has been charged with protecting American and allied space assets in peace and in war, and, at the direction of civilian authority, denying access to space to adversaries in times of crisis and conflict. It is a stark reality of international politics that great power shapes the arena in which state interaction takes place, and yet the exercise of power should be neither capricious nor arbitrary. The United States should endeavor at once to establish military supremacy in space, as it has already done at sea and in the air, for the purpose of stabilizing peace and extending into the foreseeable future its ongoing period of liberal hegemony. No nation relies on space more than the United States—none is even close—and its reliance grows daily. A widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous for American military security and civilian welfare. 3. Space tech is key to future combat effectiveness – it's the ultimate high ground Harter 06 (Mark E., USAF Lt. Colonel, The Air and Space Power Jounral Summer 2006, "The Dawn of a Space Force" http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...) Take the high ground, and hold it! —Sun Tzu, circa 500 BC Great military leaders realize the strategic, operational, and tactical advantages of controlling the high ground. From Sun Tzu's ancient Chinese warriors securing a hill, to US Civil War manned balloons, World War I aeroplane pioneers, World War II aviation heroes, and Cold War high-flying SR-71s and U-2s, the high ground provides the strategic advantages of security, situational awareness, reconnaissance, targeting, and offensive force to dominate the battlespace. The space medium is the ultimate high ground, with unparalleled speed, range, altitude, and stealth. High-ground space systems provide a conduit to channel instruments of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic) to coerce an enemy to capitulate. The twenty-first-century information age, the global information grid, information technology, and network-centric warfare all depend on real- time global collection and dissemination of information, often only possible from space systems. The informational and military instruments of national power are closely linked. Information operations, information warfare, and information-in-war likewise depend on robust space platforms and illustrate that "bullets win battles; information wins wars." Space systems are one of the main pipelines for network- centricity, po