<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Spacedebate.org: New Arguments</title>
<atom:link href="http://www.spacedebate.org/newarguments.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<description>Latest arguments added to the database on Spacedebate.org</description>
<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/</link>
	<item>
	<title>U.S. Should Pursue Space Pre-Eminence not Dominance</title>
	<description><![CDATA[	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 20:15:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4082</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Russia is Committed to Space Arms Control</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Russian experts have raised a number of possible solutions in the hopes of steering future space developments in a positive direction. For example, since the U.S. military posture depends more that of any other country on the successful functioning of space-based support systems, some Russian experts (such as former Duma member Alexei Arbatov) believe that it is still possible to convince Washington that it would be better to ensure spacecraft safety (via new accords and international legal restrictions) rather than to deploy ASAT weapons to “protect” these systems.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4037</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>U.S. is not Dominant in Outer Space</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4036</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>U.S. is Dominant in Outer Space</title>
	<description><![CDATA[The U.S. preeminence in outer space can be seen in comparisons of various nations' spending and resource commitments to space. Nearly 60 cents out of every dollar spent globally on space is spent by NASA. The US military space budget similarly outpaces that of the rest of the world. As a reflection of its national commitment to space, the United States dedicates more money per capita toward space than any other nation. 	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4035</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>China's Military Space Program Motivated by its Desire to be Treated as a Superpower</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Space activity, particularly manned spaceflight, also yields considerable prestige, prestige that translates into political prowess. China, as a rising Asian power, is inherently interested in prestige cum geostrategic influence.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:30:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4034</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Russia has no Genuine Interest in Space Arms Control</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Russia's interest in banning space weapons is motivated by a desire to stunt the growth of US military space programs in order to buy time for covertly advancing its own space-weapons program and achieving technological parity. Russia bases its opposition to space weaponization not on a scrupulous set of principles but on strategic objectives.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:45:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4029</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Russia is Concerned about U.S. Spacepower</title>
	<description><![CDATA[The Russian political and military community is currently obsessed with the fear that the United States will finally proceed with massive weapons deployments in space, which Moscow would likely be unable to counter. Experts suggest that any state that militarily dominates outer space might try to control international communications and access to land, sea and air theaters of war. They have no doubts that the United States is presently bent on ensuring its exclusive control of space as one of the most important attributes of its cherished status as the lone global superpower.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:15:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4028</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Chinese Concern over U.S. Space Policy is Spilling over into other Initiatives</title>
	<description><![CDATA[A U.S. move into space could also lead China to reconsider its support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Fissile Missile Control Treaty (FMCT), or the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:15:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4027</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Structural Barriers Impede Russia's Military Space Program</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Although Russia continues to support its military space program, the scale of that effort is just enough to maintain the programs that are most important (i.e. early-warning and military communication satellites). Russia does seem to preserve the basic industrial infrastructure that theoretically would allow it to develop and eventually deploy space-based weapons or anti-satellite weapons, but that infrastructure has been steadily deteriorating in the recent years and it is extremely unlikely that Russia will be able to undertake any serious development effort in this area. 	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:45:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4022</link>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Growing Risk of Miscalculation from Missile Launches</title>
	<description><![CDATA[As space launch and ballistic missile technologies proliferate, countries around the world need to be increasingly vigilant to potential attack. Correspondingly, the opportunities for misunderstandings and false alarms increase as well. The strategic consequences of a ballistic missile attack magnify the necessity to minimize these potential errors, to increase launch transparency, and to establish other confidence-building measures.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:45:00 -0700</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/4021</link>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
