Evidence: Alphabetical
- Space surveillance classification policy unnecessarily increases risks of space collisions
- Space weapon funds will come from existing conventional forces
- Should recognize negative effect space dominance rhetoric is having on our relations with China
- Space weapons arms control more likely as international community comes to understand the difficulty of trying to achieve dominance and the risks from space debris
- States have to recognize increasing difficulty of concealing satellite location data
- Shared space surveillance data would improve stability and ease tensions by demonstrating transparency
- Space based systems provide critical advantages over alternative -- dangerous to presume we can get by without them
- Should establish an international agreement to track and clean up space debris pollution, modeled off of similar requirements In Antarctic treaty system
- Should apply lessons of Antarctic treaty system to limit space activities that could cause space debris before they start
- Space based solar satellites would operate from geostationary orbit making space debris less of a concern
- Space based solar satellites would reduce logistical burden of supplying energy to forward deployed troops
- Space based solar power could become powerful diplomatic tool allowing country that controls it to provide or withdraw energy as desired
- Space assets may have the ultimate high ground but they are still highly vulnerable to attack because of predictable orbits and fragile technologies
- Space weaponization debate often focuses on the deployment of weapons in outer space, ignoring the current arms race to develop ground based ASATS
- Satellite operators have limited ability to shield space assets against space debris or maneuver them out of its way
- Space debris population projected to increase steadily, with catastrophic collisions every 5-9 years
- Should consider problem of space debris as both an environmental problem and a threat to national security
- Space debris is already self propagating even without including new launches
- Severity of space debris problem demands that states amend liability convent to allow for strict liability for all damage caused by space debris
- Should establish an international cap and trade regulatory system to address threat of space debris
- States have to date been uninterested in investing in active debris removal technology because of its potential for use as an ASATS
- Successful attack against U.S. space assets would require months of planning and ability to defeat U.S. intelligence satellites
- Space cooperation unlikely to have any effect on terrestrial relations as experience with both Russia and China has demonstrated
- Space warfare increasingly likely over the next 10 - 20 years due to the diffusion of anti-satellite technology
- Should close loophole allowing private space sector to avoid space debris regulation
- Space station and other ICOCs show the capacity for these international agreements to lead to other developments
- Spacefaring nations unlikely to ever abide by agreements on space debris
- Space assets are critical to U.S. power projection capabilities and deterrence
- Space transparency is inevitable and U.S. has most to lose if it does not control the international SSA capability
- Strict liability would provide market incentives to improve debris monitoring both to defend against claims and pursue them
- Strict liability would increase incentives for states to develop effective debris removal technology
- Strict liability is more efficient to implement and enforce than other space debris regulations
- Solution to security dillema in outer space is to pursue a cooperative regime based on reassurance
- Satellite jamming technologies and techniques already widely available and in use
- Space sanctuary idea inevitably failed because of national security objectives
- Space is now a potential "Achilles heel" for U.S. military