8/2/2019 Japan Dump

1/9

Japan Dump

Space is incredibly expensive.Logan 10 - Former Chief of Medical Operations, NASA (James,

Turning Dust to Gold: Building a Future on the Moon and Mars, 2010,265.

Space is too expensive. NASA was supposed to solve the 'cheap, reliable,robust' access to space problem. It failed miserably and continues to fail. TheShuttle is almost three times as expensive on a cost-per-pound basis to LEOas was the Saturn V ($4166 per pound vs. the Shuttle's $12,500 per pound inreal dollars). Everything the Shuttle has ever launched into space is worthmore than twice its weight in gold -- and that's just the transportation costs!

Japan is in a state of national insecurity Korea is on the vergeof attack; stabilization is key for preventionGleis 3-18-11, Joshua, political analyst for Huffington Post JapanMay Have Another Nuclear Crisis to Worry About in North KoreaHuffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.html NH)The world is witnessing an unprecedented series of catastrophes taking place in Japan. A massive

earthquake and powerful aftershocks, followed by waves of tsunamis and subsequent nuclear calamitieshave left the entire world in a state of shock. Japan was arguably the best prepared country in the worldfor such events, yet even it is whollyoverwhelmed at the moment. The United States has been the leadingcountryassisting its ally, using naval assets and other military forces from nearby US bases.

Tertrais 1 (Bruno, Lecturer in World Politics at the Institute dEtudesPolitiques in Paris, works as Special Assistant to the Director ofStrategic Affairs at the French Ministry of Defense, US MISSILEDEFENCE Strategically sound, politically questionable, April,

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp11.pdf)A regional power (for example, North Korea) would be more likely thana major power toactually fire its ballistic missiles. As two US experts point out, roguestates with small arsenalswould be far more vulnerable to a disarming US pre-emptive strike,giving them a more sensitive

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/japan-admits-disasters-overwhelmed-governement_n_837653.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208473952499118.html?mod=googlenews_wsjhttp://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp11.pdfhttp://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp11.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208473952499118.html?mod=googlenews_wsjhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/japan-admits-disasters-overwhelmed-governement_n_837653.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-gleis/japan-may-have-another-nu_b_837801.html

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

2/9

trigger finger than Russia or China.4Regional powers are much more vulnerable to the classic

use them or lose them dilemma. Also, a country that faces the risk of

being totally destroyed areal possibility if it became embroiled in a major war with the US might have nothing to lose bylaunching one or several missiles on US territory. Therefore, the risk ofsuch a country deciding tofire its missiles, once conflict has erupted, is real

China Shift

Relations high nowconsultations proveXinhua 10/11China, U.S. hold consultation on Asia-Pacific affairs,Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United States of

America, http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gdxw/t866433.htmBEIJING, Oct. 11 (Xinhua) -- China and the United States ... affairs inHawaii in June.EIJING, Oct. 11 (Xinhua) -- China and the United States on Tuesday held their second consultation on Asia-Pacific affairs, during

which both sides agreed to jointly maintain regional stability and cooperation. A press release issued after the closed-door

consultation said the two countries shoulder common responsibilities and share common interests in maintaining regional stability,

promoting economic development, dealing with security challenges and promoting regional cooperation. .The Chinese side

conveyed its concern regarding several issues that may affect bilateral ties with the United States. The Chinese side said that

maintaining the sound and stable development of China-U.S. ties is an important requirement for dialogues and cooperation in the

Asia-Pacific region, according to the release.The Chinese side spoke highly of the progress of bilateral relations since President Hu

Jintao's U.S. visit in January.However, it also voiced strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the U.S.'s "interference in China's

domestic affairs and infringement upon China's interests," referring to issues surrounding Taiwan, Tibet and the valuation of China's

currency, the press release said.China values its cooperative partnership with the United States, which was settled by the leaders of

both countries during Hu's visit, the press release said.China hopes the United States will respect China's core interests and

concerns and cooperate with the Chinese side to promote the sound and stable development of bilateral ties, the press release

said.The U.S. side said it attaches high importance to its relationship with China and is committed to its sound and stable

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gdxw/t866433.htmhttp://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gdxw/t866433.htm

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

3/9

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

4/9

Taiwan is the biggest impact most likely scenario for globalnuclear escalationIkegami 8 (Dr. Masako, Professor of Sociology and Peace & ConflictStudies and Director of the Center for Pacific Asia Studies

Stockholm University Time for Conflict Prevention Across the TaiwanStrait, China Brief, 8(7), 3-28,http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[ tt_news]=4822)

Indeed, a cross-Strait conflict is potentially one of the most dangerous conflicts involvingtwo major nuclear powers, in which the risk of escalation, in the worst case, cannot excludestrategic nuclear exchange. Thus, it is understandable that many countries make such a

statement of neutrality or remain bystanders. The location of Taiwan, however, in the

midst of the vital sea lines of communications (SLOCs), any level of armed conflict willinevitably envelop an international affair with global consequences, economically, politically

and militarily. By nature, a cross-Strait conflict cannot be a limited theatre of war.Therefore, it would greatly improve conflict prevention ifNATO could at a minimum maintainits own version ofstrategic ambiguity to make Beijings calculation of using force moredifficult, less optimistic, and thereby more prudent [9]. The recent large-scale naval

exercise conducted by the United States, Japanese, Australian, Indian and Singaporean

navies in September 2007 might have aimed at such a signaling effect toward China. It willalso be constructive if Europe, together with other Western countries, were to make Beijing

understand that any armed attack on Taiwan would lead to worldwide criticism and boycotts

of Chinese products.

DoD Tradeoff

The next generation bomber is currently funded, however

defense spending has been frozen meaning any new spending

would have to trade off

CFR 2/13Council on Foreign Relations, (2/13/12, A Defense Budget

at the Crossroads,http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-

politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCP

Budgeting broadly reflects a new focus on theAsia-Pacific regionand the Pentagon's growing embrace of the adaptable,

expeditionary strengths of the Navy and Air Force. The Navy is set to maintain its current fleet of eleven aircraft carriers and ten air

wings, and receive enhancements in the cruise missile capacity of its submarines. Funding will be sustained for the Air Force's next-

generation long-range bomber as well as sixty-five drone patrols, with a capacity to expand to eighty-five. Financing is protected for

ongoing counterterrorism efforts, includingspecial operations forces (CNN), which have nearly doubled since 2001, and new

unmanned ISR systems (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). Mounting concerns over the security of the Pentagon's

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnewshttp://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCPhttp://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCPhttp://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCPhttp://www.cfr.org/united-states/pentagon-pivots-asia/p26979http://www.cfr.org/united-states/pentagon-pivots-asia/p26979http://www.cfr.org/united-states/pentagon-pivots-asia/p26979http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/special-ops-burden-of-success/http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/special-ops-burden-of-success/http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/special-ops-burden-of-success/http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/special-ops-burden-of-success/http://www.cfr.org/united-states/pentagon-pivots-asia/p26979http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCPhttp://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/defense-budget-crossroads/p27318)JCPhttp://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

5/9

digital networks made cyber operations one of the few areas where funding actually increased. The so-called nuclear triad--strategic

bombers, ballistic missile submarines, and intercontinental missiles--are also preserved. The transition away from troop-intensive

counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan will come with commensurate reductions in the Army and Marine Corps. Two army

heavy brigades are slated to be withdrawn from Europe as part of the planned elimination of no less than eight brigade combat

teams. Thetotal active armywill shrink from a peak of roughly 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000 by 2017. Meanwhile, Marine Corps

numbers are expected to recede from 202,000 to 182,000, shedding at least one of nine infantry regiments. Procurement of the F-35

Joint Strike Fighter will face delays--the previously scheduled purchase of forty-two aircraft for 2013 will be cut to just twenty-nine.

Military pay and benefits, which account for about a third of the defense budget, will also face reductions. The Pentagon may also try

to carve out some additional savings through another round ofbase closures (BostonHerald), but the proposal is likely to face

significant opposition in Congress.

A next generation bomber is vital to preventing the collapse ofnuclear deterrenceSirak, 9senior editor of Air Force Magazine (Michael, Like SAC Air

Force Magazine, June, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspx)

The Air Force has done a good job in upgrading its B-2 and B-52 fleets , Elder said, but gradual losses in

capability will degrade the bomber legs deterrent as time goes on. ... The Air Forces reliable butlumbering B-52s are already limited to low-threat environments, while the stealthy B-2s, of which only 20

airframes exist, are considered a nighttime-only system in high-threat environments..

Maintaining credible nuclear deterrence prevents the collapse of

civilizationSchneider, 8 - Senior Analyst with the National Institute for PublicPolicy, Ph.D in history at the University of Southern California and JDfrom George Washington University, former senior officer in the DoDin positions relating to arms control and nuclear weapons policy.(Mark, The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent, Comparative

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdfhttp://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdfhttp://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdfhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609SAC.aspxhttp://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120128pentagon_call_for_us_base_closures_a_political_move_lawmakers_sayhttp://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdf

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

6/9

The United States must maintain an effective nuclear deterrent because,

without it, the U.S. could be destroyed as an industrial civilization, and ourconventional forces could be defeated by a state with grossly inferior

conventional capability but powerful weapons of mass destruction (WMD).Both Russia and China have the nuclear potential to destroy the U.S. (and

our allies) and are modernizing their forces with the objective of targetingthe U.S. missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities, while critically

important elements of deterrence and national power simply cannotsubstitute for nuclear deterrence. In light of the emerging strategicpartnership between Russia and China and their emphasis on nuclearweapons, it would be foolish indeed to size U.S. strategic nuclear forces as if

the only threat we face is that of rogue states and discard the requirement

that the U.S. nuclear deterrent be second to none.

START

European missile defense puts Russias participation in theSTART treaty on the brink

RIA Novasti 12/8(Russian Newspaper, Medvedev's missile shieldremarks may be election rhetoric - NATO chief, December 8, 2011,http://en.ria.ru/world/20111208/169468939.html ACS)

In his address to the nation on November 23, Medvedev said that if Moscow's participationin the European missile defense project fails, Russia would deploy Iskander tactical missilesin the Kaliningrad Region and halt its disarmament and arms control efforts, includingparticipation in the new strategic arms reduction treaty with the United States.

The NATO secretary general said...treatywith the United States.

SBMD will cause Russia to withdraw from START

Friedman 11Research Intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues(Jonah, May 25, Why Numbers Matter,http://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterACS)

http://en.ria.ru/world/20111208/169468939.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/world/20111123/168969932.htmlhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://csis.org/blog/why-numbers-matterhttp://en.rian.ru/world/20111123/168969932.htmlhttp://en.ria.ru/world/20111208/169468939.html

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

7/9

Last week Russian General Andrei...may need to be reconsidered.

Last week Russian General Andrei Tretyak, head of the Armed Forces General Staff Main Operations Directorate, made about thethreat posed to Russia by U.S. missile defense plans. In it, he claimed that the real danger to Russias nuclear deterrent would

come after 2015, when the United States deploys its new version of the SM-3 missile, as well as 40 ships thus equipped bringing

the total number of interceptors to 400. These figures mirror those given by the director of the Missile Defense Agency

in congressional testimonylast year. Although it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. would station the entirety of its BMD-capable

ships in Europe, it could potentially send them there in the event of a crisis.

So what? some would argue. Under the terms of the New START treaty Russia can maintain 1,550 deployed warheads, so why

should they care about 400 interceptors (especially given that 400 interceptors does not necessarily entail 400 hits, something which

both sides know)? For one thing, it seems as though what the Russians really fear is not U.S. capabilities today (or even in 2015),

but U.S. capabilities further in the future. They figure that if the United States can field 400 interceptors by 2015, what is to stop it

from deploying 800 by 2020 or 1,200 by 2025? Such an expansion would certainly start to undermine Russias nuclear deterrent.

Another reason why 400 interceptors might be cause for concern in Moscow is also related to future U.S. capabilities. According

tothe MDA website

The MDA plans to develop and test several new technologies designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles during

the ascent phase of flight, providing increased flexibility and targeting opportunitiesBy leveraging Unmanned Aerial

Vehicles (UAVs) and space assets for pervasive over-the-horizon sensor netting, the engagement zone of current

Standard Missile-3 interceptors can be extended to the pre-apogee portion of a missiles trajectory.

At current, U.S. missile defenses are geared towards targeting missiles in the mid-course or terminal phases of their trajectory, after

warhead(s) separation. This means that if a conflict were to erupt between Russia and the U.S./NATO today, some 1,500 warheads

would have to be met by 400 interceptors. Add countermeasures to the equation and it becomes difficult to see how the

interceptors could prevail. However, even 400 interceptors could cause serious crisis instability, since the Russians would be facing

a worst-case scenario of losing about a quarter of their warheads.

Moreover, if the United States were to develop the capability to effectively target missiles prior to warhead separation, it would onlyneed to contend with the 700 deployed launchers allowed by the New START treaty. Although some of those 700 launchers would

include bombers and SLBMs, the threat that 400 interceptors (or more in the future) could pose to Russias silo-based ICBMs could

start to undermine Russias deterrent.

For its part, Russia has beenloudly warninglately that if no agreement can be found on missile defense, it will resort to augmenting

its nuclear strike capabilities, and may even withdraw from the New START treaty. Although abrogation of the treaty seems

unlikely, and modernization of Russias nuclear forces may still suffer funding setbacks (partlydue to corruption), these are not

threats which can be totally ignored. It is important for the United States to consider the impact its missile defense policies will have

on the strategic calculations of other nuclear powers such as Russia. BMD systems which target missiles in their mid-course or

terminal phases would be less worrying to Moscow, yet still capable of defending against limited and unsophisticated attacks from

Iran or North Korea. If the pursuit of certain missile defense capabilities serves to increase tensions in the U.S.-Russia relationship,

that pursuit may need to be reconsidered.

The impact is accidental nuclear war via nuclear reductions and

cooperative relationsSTART is key

http://www.nti.org/e_research/source_docs/us/congress/house_representatives/02.pdfhttp://www.nti.org/e_research/source_docs/us/congress/house_representatives/02.pdfhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-new-start-treatyhttp://www.mda.mil/system/potential_new_technologies.htmlhttp://www.mda.mil/system/potential_new_technologies.htmlhttp://www.mda.mil/system/potential_new_technologies.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20110518/164091414.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20110518/164091414.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20110518/164091414.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/961668be-8628-11e0-9e2c-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/961668be-8628-11e0-9e2c-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/961668be-8628-11e0-9e2c-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/961668be-8628-11e0-9e2c-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20110518/164091414.htmlhttp://www.mda.mil/system/potential_new_technologies.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-new-start-treatyhttp://www.nti.org/e_research/source_docs/us/congress/house_representatives/02.pdf

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

8/9

Rojansky and Collins10 (Matthew and James, executive director of

the Partnership for a Secure America + director of the Russia and

Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, "START is key to reducing the nuclear threat,"

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-the-

nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=)

both hawks and doves have missed an urgent point: that without a new treaty, Washington will be unable

to manage the risks associated with Russias vast nuclear arsenal, which still poses the single greatest

existential threat to the United States.

With around 4,000 deployed nuclear warheads, a staggering 1,000 tons of weapons-grade nuclear

material, hundreds of deployed ballistic missiles and thousands of experts with the knowledge to

construct such systems from scratch, Russia is still potentially the worlds nuclear supermarket.

Agreements governing these arsenals are essential to preventing the many national security nightmares

of nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups from becoming realities. To protect America,

we must agree to, and verify, limits on what the Russians have, know how they are using it, and

take adequate steps to ensure that devastating weapons and dangerous materials remain safe from

terrorist theft.

As of Dec. 5, 2009, when the 1991 START agreement expired, we lack any enforceable, verifiable treaty to

provide that level of information. We need a new treaty in force not only to plug holes left gaping by the

old treatys expiration, but also to increase our security by imposing further limits on what new nuclear

weapons the Russians can develop and deploy.

A successor to START would likely lower the maximum number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads

allowed to between 1,500 and 1,675 on each sidestill enough to destroy the world many times over, but

far below the 6,000 allowed under the old treaty. Strategic delivery vehicles missiles, bombers and

nuclear missile submarineswill be further cut from 1,600 to around 800. Reducing Russias nuclear

arsenal and taking missile launchers in both countries off alert reduces the likelihood of accidental

nuclear war, keeping Americans safer.

Verified and permanent reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal will dramatically reduce the number of

targets for potential theft or diversion of nuclear technology to terrorists. Over the past two decades, the

U.S. has invested at least $10 billion to ensure security for Russian and former Soviet nuclear material,

technologies, facilities, and individual experts under the auspices of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat

Reduction and other bilateral and multilateral programs.

These programs have helped to deactivate over 7,500 former Soviet nuclear warheads, destroy over 2,000

missiles, and eliminate over 1,100 missile launchers. But without a comprehensive U.S.-Russian arms

control agreement in place, steps like these could be totally nullified by production of new nuclear

materials, weapons and launchers without any U.S. or international monitoring.

Even after a new treaty enters into force, the U.S. and Russia will possess the worlds largest nuclear

arsenals by a wide margin. And as long as nuclear weapons exist, leaders across the political spectrum

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-the-nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-the-nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-the-nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/81321-start-is-key-to-reducing-the-nuclear-threat?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

8/2/2019 Japan Dump

9/9

concur, the U.S. must maintain the worlds strongest, safest and most reliable arsenal. Yet in addition to

reducing the size of the threat itself, a new agreement would be beneficial for increasing regular

engagement between the U.S. and Russia on strategic issues, which will help build mutual understanding,

and avert needless suspicion and conflict.

Two decades after the end of the Cold War, Americans and Russians are increasingly intertwined in global

financial and energy markets, and we share immediate and vital national security interests in preventingterrorism, state failure and drug trafficking throughout the Eurasian region.

Yet our communication on security issues has been in dangerous decline for the past decade. In a sense,

this should come as no surprise, since the most recent comprehensive U.S.-Russian security treaty was

actually signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.

Any reset that puts U.S.-Russian relations on a more productive footing will depend first and foremost on

forging a durable bilateral agreement to replace START. Arms control is not in itself a solution to U.S.-

Russian tensions, or a guarantee of security from the nuclear terror threat, but if history is any guide, it is

where we must begin.