【英文】兰德报告：中国和俄罗斯对美国太空军事活动的看法和反应（80页）

英文研究报告 2022年11月03日 08:09 管理员

The 2010 National Space Policy was directly cited only three times in our Chinese literature sample, perhaps because it was perceived as less threatening and thus less noteworthy. As with SDI, this might be a further indication of confirmation bias because PLA scholars actively search for a U.S. threat to the PRC. Authors simply summarized the 2010 National Space Policy and did not use the hyperbolic language that other authors employed when discussing the 2006 National Space Policy or SDI. The authors took interest in the U.S. description of the current strategic environment in space as being “crowded,” “contested,” and “competitive.”All three articles were clear that the United States was basing its future space strategy on the “3C.” One article did note that the strategic principles laid out in the 2010 policy appeared to conform to international norms but, upon closer inspection, especially regarding the claim that the United States would take various actions to deter interference and attacks between space-based systems, revealed that the United States still sought space advantage [太空优势].

The central argument of the articles, which deal with the overall development of U.S. space strategy, is that the United States is striving for space hegemony. This might indicate that the authors saw the 2010 National Space Policy as less provocative than either SDI or the 2006 U.S. National Space Policy. Chinese authors in our sample did appear to overlook the 2010 policy’s guidance to the Secretary of Defense on counterspace actions, including to “develop capabilities, plans, and options to deter, defend against, and, if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with orattack U.S. or allied space systems [and] maintain the capabilities to execute the space support, force enhancement, space control, and force application missions.”160 That said, these PLA articles still cited the 2011 U.S. National Security Space Strategy as another step toward U.S. control of space. All of this suggests that the Chinese perceived both Obama administration documents as less inflammatory than the Bush-era documents but as still not deviating from the greater trend of the United States attempting to increase its control of space.