8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 1/104

M ORE SPA CE STU FF

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

GO VER NM ENT AC TIO N KEY

GOVERNMENT ACTION KEY

(National §ecurity §pace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and businessexperts around the world, October 10,2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www.nss.org/settlemen t/ssp/library H i nal-sbsp- interim-assessment-release-O Lpdf)

Several major challenges win need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low- cost space

access and a supporting infrastructure svstem on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations

challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar

or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own

SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently docs via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated

review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze snspdevelopment. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an

incremental research and development program that culminates with a space- borne proof-of-concept demonstration

in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class

systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizationalinstruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial-commercial, government-

" " " c o m m e r c i i i l ' ; ' a i l ( r g o ' v e r n r n e ' n t : : g o v e r n m e n t [ i i e e o e c f i o r t l i I s ' c o n c e p f f o ' s i f c c e e a : T n e n n : i 1 ' G o v e r n ' m e n r ' c o ' n ( r i O i i l i o n " i s 'to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis

with other renewable energy systems coming on-line todav.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 2/104

DDW-2008

0 fC lCe_Solar Spac

A2: another agency CP

NASA's expertise determines solar power success

John Gartner, staff writer for Wired, 6-22-04, http://www.wired.com/science/discoverics/ncws/2004/06/63913. NASA Spaces on

Energy Solution

Mankins said that because the technology blurs the lines between governmental agencies, it does not have a true champion. "To

NASA, it's not fish, nor fowl, nor red herring -- it 's not our mission," Mankins said. NASA does not explore telTestrial energy sources

and the Department of Energy does not research satellites, according to Mankins. "It has fallen neatly through the cracks, as it has for

decades," Mankins said. He said that NASA's development of space solar power would likely determine whether or not satellites ever

send energy to Earth. "Given how critical NASA is to all the space and related technologies required, it's hard for me to see how it

could happen" without NASA.

\ \ L \

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 3/104

DDW-2008

C u ~Ct te_A a - : A4t~" tV

Has to be NASA

Solar Spac

NASA's sClenhhc and techmcal experience IS crliIcat to mmmg space

Jim Hodges, prior governor of S.c., 04.01.08, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langlcy/news/researchernews/rn_martyhoffert.html,

'Technological Optimist ' Sees Role for NASA in Alternative Energy Future

The solutions aren't political, Hoffert said, except for the need for enlightened politicians.

"Many of their solutions are superficial, and they mainly rcpresent sort of an economic approach like a trade policy or a carbon tax,

how to pay for it," he said. "Most of the political leaders arcn't very knowledgeable about science and engineering. Primarily their

background is legal, and they know something about economics."

The last scientifically enlightened president of the United States was Jimmy Carter, Hoffert added. Carter was a nuclear engineer.

The answer also isn't industry.

"The truth is that you can't expect venture capitalists or even progressive corporations ... to make investments in the future bevond

which thev can justifv to their stockholders," Hoffert said, citing a requirement that most such investments have to payoff in three to

five years.

The answer is some sort of combination of the two, with government leading through an energy policy and scientific and

technological investment.

"That's what I hope will happen by energizing the scientists and engineers of this country and of the world," Hoffert said.

In that, NASA can take a role in helping to "mine" space, he said. "I believe it's time for Americans to understand that we derive

benefits from space by exploiting the environment of space."

But, he added, "the most important thing is that NASA has a pool of talented innovators, of scientists and engineers, thinkers about

technology, thinkers about complex systems."

\ LQuote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 4/104

nnW-200S

S \ P ~ t - C _

fff It\~ -e lA l'-(f'NASA Key

Solar Space

NASA has Irreplaceable renewable technologies

Langley Research Center, April 9th 2001, Developing renewable energy technologies- NASA data-supported software tool receives

international interest, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htrnl?pid=4564

Developing renewable energy technologies

NASA data-supported software tool receives international interest

NASA's global satellite data are helping people around the world design and develop new technologies for exploiting natural

renewable energy sources. Particularly well-suited for under-developed countries, these technologies better enable the conversion ofsunlight, for example, into electricity for cooking food, lighting homes, refrigerating medicines, and a host of other practical uses. One

product supported by NASA data is receiving international attention at the Summit of the Americas meeting, April 19-22.

Data from the Surface Meteorology and Solar Encrgy (SSE) Project are essential to the global application of RETScreen®, a software

tool developed by CANMET Energy Diversification Research Laboratory (CEDRL) for Natural Resources Canada (NRC an) to help

evaluate the viability of implementing renewable energy technologies. NRC an, which has used SSE data since November 1999, will

promote RETScreen® at the Summit in Quebec City, Canada. This meeting, with 34 heads of state scheduled to attend, will stress the

development of a focused agenda to meet collective challenges, including approaches to energy issues, for nations in the Western

Hemisphere.

This topic is particularly relevant today as local, state, and national governments grapple with issues of cost and distribution of

electricity. Even as there are rolling blackouts across California and states are debating energy deregulation issues, there are millions

of people in lesser-developed countries who must spend more money on fuel for cooking than they spend on food itself.

"This has been a great effort by NASA, and they deserve a lot of credit for making their very valuable data available in a user friendly

format to users around the globe," said Gregory L.Leng, section head of the Renewable Energy Capacity-Building Program in

CEDRL.

only provide a global perspective, they also fill the voids from remote areas where there are no ground-based monitoring stations and

therefore no available data.

"The goal of the SSE Project is to put state-of-the-art. satellite derived solar and meteorology data into the hands of individuals who

are involved in the research and analysis of the feasibility of renewable energy technologies," said Roberta DiPasquale, the SSE

marketing manager. The SSE Project, managed by NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, works with other

government and private organizations to develop the commercial potential of NASA satenite measurements. RETScreen® is just one

of the many ways the SSE team achieves their goal.

"The SSE data set has been incorporated into coursework at educational institutions around the world, used by students for thesis

papers and analyzed by grassroots and international organizations for possible solar cooking and rural electrification projects. It has

even been accessed by architects and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning engineers," DiPasquale said.

The SSE team converts scientific measurements into data useful to the renewable energy community. Users can create resource mapsbased on global satellite and ground data for a specific area at a certain time. SSE data are available via an innovative data delivery

systemat·fiifp:J7e(')sweb:larc.nasa:govlsse7.···Snrcc···JUfte··1999;·thcSSE··Website has generated .~1§;eOO···hit.g;andappFoximately2000

registered users have downloaded over 22,600 data documents.

\\6Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 5/104

nnW-200S ' - 5U V ~ > D I FYISolar Spac

NSSO is•••....

Joseph Rouge, director of NSSO, no date given (post 2004), http://www.acq.osd.milinsso/Our mission is to enable National Security Space decision-making.

The National Security Space Office (NSSO) was established in May 2004. We were formed by combining the National Security Spac

Architect (NSSA), the National Security Space Integration (NSSI) office, and the Transformational Communications Office (TCO).

The NSSO facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities. We arc the only

office specifically focused on cross-space enterprise issues and we provide direct support to the Air Force, National Reconnaissance

Office, other Services and Agencies, Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence,

White House, and Congress, as well as other national security space stakeholders.

Five guiding principles that are critical for NSSO's success:

1) Inclusive-- embrace cross-community, "joint" DoD and Ie perspectives

2) Responsive-- produce value-added products to support timely decisions

3) Objective--

4) Accountable--

5) Efficient--

be the honest broker with broad, analytically based perspectives

serve the needs of the SecDef and DNI

capitalize on agency/service activities and expert ise

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 6/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

V t f · · · t A J D Ltp2ACARGS

DOD CAN'T LEAD· PERM SOLVES BEST(Jeff Foust, Monday, August 13,2007 , "A renaissance for space solar power?",

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1 )

Ali said there needs to be a "coalition of the willing" that includes the DOD and other government agencies like NASA

and DOE, as well as "the usual suspects" in the commercial space sector, to help advance space solar power if it appears

it can be feasible. That group, he said, should also include oil companies. "We like to think of 'Big Oil' as a big, ugly, evil

set of companies that are just taking our money at the gas tank," he explained, "but the reality is that they are not idiots and

they do take the long view." Smith agreed, and noted that his team had already met with some representatives off major oil

companies, in part because "we realized we didn't want to get Tuckered' out of the business," a reference to Preston Tucker,

who clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the 1940s. Ifspace solar power is to become a reality, he said, it

will have to be because of a "massive collaborative effort" in which the DOD will playa small, but not leading, role.

"This is not the Department of Defense's job. We do not want to be in the energy business, we don't want to be a

producer of energy," he said. "We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource that's out there."

, ,

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 7/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

DOD FAILS AT SBSP

(Dwayne A. Day, Monday, June 9, 2008, "Knights in shining armor" http://www.thespacereview.comlarticleI114711)

Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of itsmanagement compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize

that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The

majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems. in many cases cost growth in

excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD's less-public record is far worse,

and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big. expensive new program to

be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study.

They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of the

space activist community to claim that "the military supports space solar power" based solelv on a study that had no

money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 8/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

DOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT SOLAR POWER- NSSO STUDY PROVES

(Dwayne A. Day, Monday, June 9,2008, "Knights in shining armor" http://www.thespacereview.com/artic1e/l147/1)

Ifthe Department of Defense wants advice on, say, options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the

study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existing advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific

Advisory Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the work. Even if the study is performed by a

committee of volunteers, there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and other expenses. Costs can van widely,

but at a minimum will start in the many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million dollars. In

contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had no actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and

labor. This reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the Pentagon leadership.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 9/104

DDW2008

Solar Spacerrr~\)0 ~ L V JDOD cant solve-secrecy

Counter plan can't solve patent secrecy orders prevent market access

Federation of American Scientists, October 92003, Secrecy News: New Patent Secrecy Rises; Energy Task Force Case

http://www.military.com!NewContentlO. 13190,Secrecy _100903,00.html

The legal authority for patent secrecy orders derives from the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. which provides for government review

of patent applications related to a wide range of military technologies, and authorizes the government to regulate or prevent their

disclosure.At the end of fiscal year 2003, there were a total of 4.838 secrecy orders still in effect, according to statistics released this week by the

Patent and Trademark Office under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Invention Secrecy Act and the Atomic Energy Act are the only statutes that assert a government right to prevent the publication o

privately-generated information, a provision that appears to be at odds with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Secrecy orders imposed on such private inventors are termed "John Doe" orders. Last year, an unusually large 75 of the 133 new

secrecy orders were John Doe orders. The nature of these secret inventions could not, of course, be ascertained

FAS (federation of American Scientists) Invention Secrecy, no date given but updated post 97, Invention Secrecy,

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/inventioniindex.html

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain

sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent. Remarkably, this

requirement can be imposed even when the application is generated and entirely owned by a private individual or company without

government sponsorship or support.several of orders which range in severity from simple prohibitions on export (but allowing other disclosure fo

At the end of fiscal year 2007, there were 5,002 secrecy orders in effect.

The Armed Services Patent Advisory Board (ASP AB), which performed security review of patent applications on behalf of the

Department of Defense, was terminated in 1997 under section 906 of Public Law 105-85, and its functions were transferred to the

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DoD Directive 5105.62, 9/30/98, sect. 5.4.5).

Lots of Secrets

Science News, October 11 1986, Patent Office; new rules for 'secrets.' - controls for militarily critical inventions,

httlli/findarticles.eorrJpiarticles/mi m1200/is v130/ai 4501458

Patent Office: New rules for 'secrets'

Since 1951, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been able to impose a secrecv order in instances where disclosure of aninnovation might be "detrimental to the national security." Roughtly 500 of the 121,000 patent applications filed with the agency each

y e a r · receivc··sUchifclassificatiul1:Insuchcases; rro-patent-is-issued- and·only.permit"flutborizedpublicatio.n..or.discJnsure.0Cthc

innovation is allowed unless and until the Department of Defense (DOD) lifts the secrecy order it had the Patent Office impose.

added to the Patent Office's arsenal of controls fo

One states that government contractors already authorized to usc and hold classified information may develop -- and share with

potential co-developers --innovations placed under this secrecy order, as long as all of those involved follow DOD's rules for

safeguarding classified information. The other secrecy order not only allows the development of an affected innovation for marketing

domestically, but also permits the inventor to apply for patent protection on it in 15 foreign countries -- mostly members of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In the past, usc or sharing of information under a secrecy order required the hurdensome acquisition of "special permits," explains

Kenneth L. Cage, director ofthe Patent Office's secrecy controls branch. These new secrecy classes, he says, have been designed to

eliminate much of the red tape involved in obtaining limited exceptions to the publication ban.

However, loosening the restrictions associated with some of the agency's secrecy orders may also broaden the scope of technologies

for which a secrecy order can now be justified, according to Stephen Gould at the American Association for the Advancement of

Science's Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, in Washington, D.C. Gould worries that these new controls may be

applied to innovations that previously would not have drawn a secrecy order. He says this could encourage inventors to treat more of

their new ideas as trade secrets, in order to avoid having a secrecy order placed on them. Instead of loosening controls, Gould says, th

changes might further restrict the free flow of scientific communication.

Cage disagrees, saying few of the cases subject to secrecy controls by his office would likely have escaped other agencies' export-or

publication-control laws.

~Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 10/104

DDW 2008

Solar Space

Dod cant solve-At: wont suppress energy

There are over a hundred pages of cases of energy incentive suppression

Gary Vesper man, Chief Operating Officer and Director of Research Blue Energy Corporation Energy Invention Suppression Cases,

August 30 2007, http://portland.indymedia.org/enJ2007/09/36450S.shtml

My August 30, 2007 123-page compilation of energy invention suppression cases is available at the bottom ofrn'1http://green-

salon.com/presentations.htm and also at www.energysuppression.com where a continuously running update of energy invention

suppression cases and activities is maintained by Sterling Allan and his friends.

Adding to the practical difficulties of pulling out of thin air new energy inventions that have never before been thought of, testing

prototypes of some of these energy inventions can be frustrating due to a weird quick of nature. Thomas E. Bearden, Ph.D., reports

that certain types of energy inventions interact with their local vacuums. Thus their coefficient of performance can vary from place to

place, due to the local vacuums themselves differing. A machine would produce over-unity energy in one location; then inexplicably

quit after being moved to another location!

Dr. Bill Tiller, former head of the Materials Science Department of Stanford University, developed a unique detector which required

that he "grow" its proper pattern in the local vacuum interaction environment. Experimental results from the detector helped Bearden

understand changes in interaction between a local vacuum and a novel machine.

All too many times, however, the conspiracy to suppress new energy inventions has bcen very reaL For energy invention suppression

updates, sec ~ http://www.energysuppression.eom.

Energy Invention Suppression Case Statisticsof Invention Incidents - 95

Number of Energy Inventors and Associates Threatened with Death - 31

Number of Energy Researchers and Associates Imprisoned or Falsely Charged - 5

Number of Incidents of Energy Invention Suppression by the United States Government, Patent Office,

Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshals, Army, Air Force,

Navy, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Defense Intelligence Agency, S.W.A.T. Teams,

National Security Agency, U.S. Postal Service, Department of Energy, Department of State,

Securities and Exchange Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense,

Department of Homeland Security, Internal Revenue Service, Rural Electrification Administration,

White House, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Small Business Administration - 58

Number of Inventions Classified Secret by U.S. Patent Office - 5000

Number of Incidents Involving Oil Companies - 9Names of Companies, Banks, State Agencies, Private Groups, and Universities Involved with Energy

General Motors Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, uecn 0

Kollmorgan, World Bank, Rockefellers, Carlyle Group, and Bush Family

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 11/104

M ORE SPACE STUFF

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

DO D TR ADE OF F 1/1

THE AIR FORCE BUDGET IS TIGHT- BOEING PROVES

(The Belmont Cluh, Tuesday, March 04, 2008, Air Force Tankers, Barack Obama's superdelegates,http://fallbackbelmon Lb 1ogspot.comI2008!03! air-force- tankers- barack -obamas.html)

But Boeing's higgest blunder "vas, arguably, it's initial plan to lease 767 tankers to the Air Force. First approved in

2003, the deal was later abrogated when it was learned that the aircraft manufacturer had offered jobs to the service's senior

civilian contracting official and two members of her family. The contracting official, Darlene Druyun, later served a 9-month

prison sentence and two Boeing executives were convicted as well. Not only did the tanker lease result in a huge fine, it

also made Boeing "radioactive" in terms of future, big-ticket contracts. With an already-tight procurement budget,

the Air Force did not want a rehash of the tanker lease controversy.

FUNDS FOR SPACE AND AIR ARE ZERO-SUM- SPACE KILLS AIR FORCE FUNDING

(Benjamin S. Lambeth, August 2003, Vol. 86, No.8, "How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas-air

and space?", http://www.afa.org/magazine/ Aug2003!0803milspace.asp)

The current method obscures the way the nation's military space money is reported. As long as US military space

cc·fundS'ttt'ecPnJvcidedasthe'''''I:H'ecnow--alm~.entir,,(;lI¥.withinthe ..Air ..E.orceZsc.cR&Dc.andprpcurement.budgets-officia18

in the Office of Management and Budget and in Congress will be inclined to continue their familiar and historic' .c

"service budget balancing" practices, and the other services will be more than content to go along.

TRADEOFF WITH SPACES KILLS AIR FORCE POWER PROJECTION

(Benjamin S. Lambeth, August 2003, Vol. 86, No.8, "How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas-air

and space?", http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803milspace.asp)

Yet the nation's space priorities must not blot out equally vital air-related mission needs. Not even the service's most

senior space leaders would argue that the Air Force can afford to abandon its existing core air mission responsibilities

simply to free up more money for space. At present, there is a zero-sum competition going on between military space

priorities and other USAF spending requirements, including its force-projection needs.

A lR FORCEPOWERPRO JE CTIONCRUC IA L.T .O PREYE1 ·S TN lT ~1 ,EARWA .Jl. ..W!!.l:I.<=l:IIN".A(Maj. Gen Charles Dunlap Jr, deputy judge advocate of the Air Force, h~s 30 ye~~ of service and graduate o f t he N it io n i lWar Colle e, 2006, "America's Assymetric Advantage")

At the same time, America's pre-eminence in air power is also the best hope we have to dissuade China - or any other

future peer competitor - from aggression. There is zero possibility that the U.S. can build land forces of the size that

would be of real concern to a China. No number of troops or up-armored Humvees, new radios or advanced sniper rifles

worries the Chinese. What dominating air power precludes is the ability to concentrate and project forces, necessary

elements to applying combat power in hostile areas. As but one illustration, think China and Taiwan. Saddam might

have underestimated air power, but don't count on the Chinese to make the same mistake. China is a powerful, vast country

with an exploding, manv-faceted economy with strong scientific capabilities. Itwill take focused and determined

efforts for the U.S. to maintain the air dominance that it currentlv enjoys over China and that, for the moment, deters

them. Miscalculating here will be disastrous becasue, unlike with anv connterinsurgencv situation (Iraq included), thevery existence of the U.S. is at risk.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 12/104

MORE SPACE STUFF

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

DOD SPACE DA

SOLAR SPACE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE MISCALCULATION OVER SPACE· ONLY ALLOWING A

CIVILIAN AGENCY LIKE NASA CAN PREVENT WAR

(~.ational §,ecurity §pace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10,2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www.nss.org/settlemenUssp/library/final-sbsp- interim-assessment -r ele as e-O 1 .pdf)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that there is likelv to be concern, both domestically and internationally, that

a SBSP system could be used as a "weapon in space," which will be amplified because of the interest shown by the

DoD in SBSP. Mitigating these concerns, developing trust, and building in verification methods will be kev to political

consensus for sustainable development of SBSP Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the

federal government should take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that SBSP svstems cannot be utilized as

space-based weapons svstems, and to dissuade and deter other nations from attacking these strategic power sources,including but not limited to: Tasking a civilian federal agency to be the lead agency responsible for federal

"'investmeRts"iH"SRSP~aDd"in",the"demonstrationAf"k{tvtechRoJ,pgie.lUleeded"hy industryc",,,,,,,,,,..,."".".,. ,."".",. . """.,,",, ,.

DOD SPACE USE ENSURES CONFRONTATION OVER TAIWAN

(William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, AUTUMN 2003, "Averting a Sino-U.s. Space Race",

www.twq.com/03autumn/does/03autumn_martel.pdf. William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the

Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher Sehool of Law and Diplomacy,

Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts. )

Second, the militan use of space has profound implications for the uneasy stalemate in the Taiwan Strait, which has

always presented the possibility of a major confrontation between Washington and Beijing. One argument is that U.S.

capabilities allow the United States to project power near Taiwan, while the space-based sensors and weapons for

missile defense could blunt China's arsenal of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. Moreover, the prospect of transfers of

missile defense ..s ys te m s ...c.Eaiszan, ...w bic h ..c. o .IJ1 .d..J s . b c r i l J . . ; tPCI!.od()LlI l1mC C:Cclcntecl l?Ji li t i lfy.co( )pe.ra t io. l lP~t~~~.l l . ..ra ip?i .~n~Washington, no doubt deeply troubles Beijing. China, for its part, will increasingly need military space capabilIties if it i s

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 13/104

M ORE SPACE STUFF

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

DOD SPACE DA

THIS ESCALATES TO FULL SCALE TAIWAN WAR AND COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY

(William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, AUTUMN 2003, "Averting a Sino-U.S. Space Race",

www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf. William C. Martel is a professor of national security affairs at the

Naval War College in Rhode Island. Toshi Yoshihara is a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,

Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts. )

In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to

plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling

dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already evident in U.S. global doc-trine) could become a

permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the

leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in

Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to pre-,empt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of

mutual hosti1ity, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand

ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers,which seck to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for

•<••....•·"exaffiptc;W·[shtrrgtnw·s"reaeti'0nif-€}hi1'la ..@isabled"UvS...missile ..warnjng.!;iQ.t~lUt~§.gLYiss:ysr§.a.II1.t~~t~a~~Z ....iJ.l.o-lJ.:~.

relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations ihatcouldleadfo' a c o r i m c t n r ~space. Although attacks against space assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or

conflict, and although conflicts in, the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the

economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international com-,munity, would be extraordinary

given that manv states depend on satellites for their economic wen-being.

CROSS APPLY MEAD 92- ECON DECLINE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR

WAR OVER TAIWAN CAUSES EXTINCTION

(STRAIT TIMES, June 25, 2K, Pg. lin)

unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries near

ar war. Bei'ina has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and

logistics support to any 0 . . . . . . . m ~ . ; , i j l J ; i g ~ W : J ] " " " " y , , , , , n ;

Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. IfChina were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire.

And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world

order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the

Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each

armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a

nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the

Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from

military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its

implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a

broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat

China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China, 50 years later,

short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major

American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that

Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang,

president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre

for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the

military to drop it . He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked

dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the

destruction of civilization.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 14/104

DDW2008

Solar Space

At: NASA fund Cp

Federal funding -prevents internal tradeoffs

Washington Post, January 29th 2006, NASA Supporters Fear Bush May Cut Space Plan, http://www.washingtonpost.com!wp-

dyn!contentiarticle/2006/01/28/AR2006012800967.html

Shortchanging the space budget, lawmakers said, should not be an option. "This is a period of transformation," said Rep. Ken Calvert

(R-Calif.), chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. "We are at the dawn of a new space age, and we

have to do it right."

Industry and congressional sources said the administration has abandoned an early OMB proposal to slash the number of plannedshuttle flights by more than half. but hemmed in by other budget priorities, especially the war in Iraq, it still appears unwilling to fund

a full slate of 19 flights.

This turns case an active shuttle program is necessary for satellite upkeep competitiveness

National Aeronautics and Space administration, Oetober 11th2000, Space Shuttle Program Benefits Industry and Health,

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/usa-00l012.htm

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

SHUTTLE PROGRAM RESULTS IN DOWN-TO-EARTH TECHNOLOGY DISCOVERIES

During construction of the International Space Station, the Space

Shuttle will serve as the world's largest and most sophisticated

moving van. carrying astronauts, cosmonauts and literally tons of

equipment and supplies to the new outpost in orbit.

The technology used to create the most versatile and most advanced

spacecraft ever built also touches the lives of people here on Earth.

After nearly 100 flights, the benefits to industry, medical research,

and to the quality of daily life easily match the number of missions.

More than 100 documented NASA technologies from the Space Shuttle are

now incorporated into the tools you usc, the foods you eat, and the

biotechnology and medicines used to improve your health.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 15/104

DDW-2008

SpaceAFFJack Caporal

AT: Consult NATO

Turkey, who is a member of NATO, greatly dislikes the US and therefore probably won't cooperateOmer Taspinar, Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution, 7/23/08, http://www.hrookings.edu/artieles/2005/1116turkey_taspinar.aspxToday, more than two years after the invasion of lraq, Turkey has yet tglose its potential to disapooint Washington. As the second Bush administration is

stepping up its profreedom rhetoric in the Middle East, it is quite disconcerting that the most democratic Muslim country in the region shows no signs of solidarity

with the United States. Quite the opposite, Turkey is often in tile news for its rampant anti-Americanism and solidarity with Bashar's Syria. Polls after polls

confirm that growing n l imbers of Turks perceive their NATO ally more as a national security threat, rather than a strategic partner. One of the flashiest

symptoms of Turkish distrust towards the United States is the best -sell ing novel in the country, which depicts a Turkish-American war over Kirkuk in northern

Iraq. What went wrong? Why has Turkey become the most anti-American country in the West? One needs to go beyond the generic and global phenomenon of

Bush-bashing in order to fully grasp the dynamics bebind Turkisb anti-Amerleanlsm. In many ways, Turkey is a sui-generis case. Recent polls illustrate

! ! ! . ! t . .while anti-Americanism is in relative deeline in Europe, the trend in Turkey is in the opoosite direction. Moreover, unlike past domestic trends, thecurrent wave of anti-Americanism in Turkey seems to be emj!raee<! by ail segments of Turkish sQciety. For all these reasons, the Turkish case needs to be

analyzed in a historical and comparative perspective. This essay is an attempt to do so.

Countries in NATO don't like the US, causing them to say noPew Global Survey, 3/14/!lL..http://pcwglobal.org/commentary/dispJay .php? AuaJysisID= 1019

To give you some sense oCthe magnitude oCtile problem, favorable attitudes toward the U.S. declined I!!.G"rmany, from 78% in 2000 to 37% cnrrently,

The numbers are similar in f'rance. but even worse in Spain. where only 23% have a favorable view. and in Turkey, where it is 12%. Most people in these

countries held positive views of the U,S. at tile start of tbe decade.

"'fiH'key'hftt~s4IH.~,:(JS"'~aDd,ther~f()r~,will".b~,,,.dic.ks.,J(1,them",Pew Global Surve.v, 3/14/!lL..http://pcwglobal.org!commcntary/display.php'lAualysisID=1019

Second, while anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon, i t i s clearly strongest in the Musl im world. For instance, in all five predominant ly Muslim countries

included in our 2006 study, fewer than one-third of those surveyed had a favorable view of the U.S. Moreover, with the Iraq war, anti-Americanism spread to parts

of the Muslim world where the II,S. had previonsly bee!! relatively popular. In Indonesia, for example, between 2002 and 2003 America's favorabjlity rating

dropped from 61% to only 15%.111 Turkey it plunged from 52% ill the fa!!! 19908 to 15% by 2003.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 16/104

DDW-2008

SpaceAFF

Jack Caporal

More than half of Europe dislikes the US.Pew Global Survey, 3/14/lUJ1ttp:llpewglobal.org/commentary/display.php? Analysisllz= 1019

Third, among many people, anti-Americanism is all illtellsely held opinioll, which makes it difficult to change. The first eye opener for me was a 2003European Union poll that 53% of people in EU countries saw the U.S. as a threat to world peace. Strikingly, i:uropeans were as likely to say this about the

U.S. as they were to say itabout Iran and North Korea.

Countries in the ED dislike the USPew Global Survey, 3/14/!ffi._http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display .php? AnalysisID= 1019

The 2006 Pew survey had similar findings. Tile British, French, and Spanish publics were all more likely to say tile U.S. presence in Iraq poses a great

danger to regional stability and world peace than to say this about the current governments of Iran or North Korea. A fourth feature of contemporary

anti-Americanism is that it is no longer just tbe U.S. a~ a counir); that is perceived negatively, but increasingly the American people as wei!, IIsign that

anti-American opinions aTe deepening and becoming more entrenched.. In countries such as Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, and Turkey, favorable views of

Americans bave declimned signifi£antly in recent years.

France, Russia, and Spain all don't think that the US cares about what they think about international

actionPew Global Survey, 3/14/!ffi._http://pewglobal.org/commcntary /display .php? Analysislfr= 1019

But, as we have documented, anti-Americanism is the case in mnch of the world, not just Muslim countr ies, and certain aspects of American power and

American policy are central to this. First. thl!re is a generai[!crception that the U.S. acts unilaterally in the international arena, failing to take into acconnt

the interest! ; of other countries when it makes foreignPlllicy decis ions . Our 1I0lling since 20lH bas shown!! growing perception that the U,S. lI.£ts

unilaterally, and the waf in Iraq has crystallized that opinion. In 2005, only 18% oftheFrench. 19% ofthe Spanish, and 21% ofRnssi:Uls said that the

U.S. takes into account the interes t!; of countries like theirs when making polin.

Turkey, who is a member of NATO, greatly dislikes the US and therefore probably won't cooperateOrner JlI.s[!inar, Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution, 7/23/08. http://www,brookings.eduiarticies/2005/1Il6turkey_taspinar.aspx

Today, more than two years after the invasion of Iraq, Turkey has yet to lose its potential to disa[! IlOint Washington. As the second Bush administration is

stepping up its profreedom rhetoric in the Middle East, it i squite disconcerting that the most democratic Muslim country in the region shows no signs of solidarity

with the United States. Quite the opposi te, Turkey is often in the news for its rampant anti-Americanism and solidarity with Bashar's Syria. Polls after polls

confirm that grnwing numbers of Turks perceive their NATO ally more as a national security threat, rather than a strategic partner, One of the flashiest

symptoms of Turkish distrust towards the United States is the best -sell ing novel in the country, which depicts a Turkish-American war over Kirkuk in northern

Iraq. What went wrong'? Why has Turkey become the most anti-American country in the West? One needs to go beyond the generic and glllbalJ!henomenon of

Bush-bashing in order to fully grasp the dynamics bebhid Turkisb anti-Americanism. In many ways, Turkey is a sul-generis case. Recent pnlls illustrate

that while anti-Americanism is in relative decline in Europe, the trnd inTnrkey is in tilt oppgsite direction. Moreover, unlike past domestic trends, the

cllrrent wave of anti-Americanism in Turkey seems to be embraced by all segments of Turkish society. For all these reasons, the Turkish ease needs to be

analyzed in a histor ical and comparative perspective. This essay is an attempt to do so.

Countries in NATO don't like the US, causing them to say no"""""=,,,,,~~~~~~~,kil~~l;WiR~~.~t~Ii,,~!~\1l~~ii·~Ji . 9

To uive you som~lIse of tbe magnitnde of the problem, favgrab e es toward tee

The numbers are similar in France, but even worse in Spain, where only 23% have a favorable view, and in Turkey. where it is 12%. Most [!tople in these

countries held positive views oUIle U.S. at tile start of tile decade.

Turkey hates the US, and therefore w in be dicks to themPew Global Survcy, 3/14/!ffi._http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display .php? AnalysislD=l 019

Second, while anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon, it i s clearly strongest in the Muslim world. For instance, in all f ive predominantly Muslim countries

included in our 2006 study, fewer than one-third of those surveyed had a favorable view of the U.S. Moreover, with the Iraq war, anti-Americanism spread to parts

of the Muslim world where the U.S. had [! reviously been relatively [!opular . II I Indonesia, for example, between 2002 and 2003 America's favorllbili~

dropped from 61% to ".'!ly 15%. In Turkey it plunged from 52% in the late 1990s to 15% by 2003.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 17/104

DDW-2008

SpaceAFFJack Caponi

More than half of Europe dislikes the USPew Global Survey, 3/J4/!!L..http://pewglohal.org/commentary/display .php? AnalysisID=lO 19

Third, among many people, anti-Americanism is an intensely beld opiuion, which makes it difficult to change. The first eye opener for me was a 2003

European Union poll that 53% of people in EU conntries saw the U.S. as a threat to world peace. Strikingly, Enropeans were as likely to SlW this abont the

V.S. as they were to say it about Iran and North Korea.

Countries in the EU dislike the USPew Global Survey. 3/14/!!1...http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=lOI9

The 2006 Pew survey had similar findings. The British. French, and Spanish publics were all more likely to say the U.S. presence in Iraq poses a great

danger to regional stability and world peace than to say this about the current governments of Iran or North Korea. A fonrth feature of contemporary

anti -Amerkal lism is tl tat it is 110 IOllger iust the U,S. as a country that is perceived negatively. but increasiugly the American people as well, a sign that

anti-American opinions are deepening and becoming more entrenched. In conntries su£h as Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, and Turkey, favorable views of

Americans have declimned signifi~tly in reee!!. yean.

France, Russia, and Spain all don't think that the US cares about what they think about internationalactionfew Global Survey, 3f14/!!1...http://pewglobal.org!commentary/display.php? AnalysisID= I0 19

But, as we have documented, anti·Americanism is the case in much of the worldl not just Muslim countries, and certain aspects of American power and

American policy are central to this. First, there is a general perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally in the international arena, failing to take into aceoun!

the interests of other countr ies when itmakes foreign poliey decisions. Ou.r polling since 2001 has Shown a growing perception. .! .b!!.!J.!eU.S. acts

nnilaterally. and the war in Iraq has crystallized that opinion. III 2005, only 18% oUhe French, 19% oethe Spanish, and 21% of Russians said that the

U.S. takes into account the interests of countries like theirs wben making oollcy.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 18/104

DDW 2008

Solar Space

At: T Substantial

1. The plan says substantial- if you win your definition that's a reason the aff spends that much

2. The Plan is an infinite increase in Space Solar Funding because NASA is receiving no funding

3. Counter interpretation Substanial means 70 million- prefer this evidence its in the context of energy

US Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Policy Book," 2/14/02,

http:/www.usgcrp.gov/usgrp/Library/gcinitiative2002/gccstorybook.htm

Fully Funding the Global Environmental Facility. The Administration's FY '03 budget request of $178 million for the GEF is morethan $77 million above this year's funding and includes a substantial $70 million payment for arrears included during the prior

administration. The GEF is the primary international institution for transferring energy and sequestration technologies to the

developing world under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

3. reject their interpretation- it isn't a definition- context doesn't make the interpretation exclusive- just because some prccent is

substantial is substantial doesn't make one dollar less not substantial- this makes their interpretation arbitrary and unpredistable

4. literature- solvency advocates and US key warrants massively limit the affirmative- the negatives interpretation excludes core topic

literature effectually over limiting the affirmative

5. No ground loss - we spend 10 billion- we wont no link Da's

[insert card]

6. Reject Competing Interpretations- which encourages the neg to go for T because if they can win their interpretation is 1%

better they would win

7. Don't vote on potential abuse- its like voting on a potential Da

At: Must specify:

I.Their interpretation causes PIeS where they could exclude 1% less than the plan which crushes affirmative ground and it a voting

issue

2. Cross-X checks abuse- You can get links- it doesn't have to be in the plan text

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 19/104

DDW2008

Solar Space

At: T "In" the United States

1. We meet- the plan incentives development of solar energy which would occur on the ground within the United States

2. We meet- in the United States refers to the incentives provided not to the energy the incentives act upon-because

NASA is in the territorial United States the incentives are in the United States

Heres definitional support- incentives act upon a group of peopleDictionary of Economics, 2002

Incentives Rewards or penalties designed to induce one set of people to act in such a way was to produce results that another set of

people want. As rewards for good results, incentives can include higher pay, better working conditions, better job security, better

promotion prospects, or simply prestige. As penalties for poor results, incentives may take the form oflower pay, worse working

conditions, poorer promotion prospects, demotion or sacking, or simply loss of reputation. Incentives may be applied in response to

actual results, such as output or profits, or to mnagment's perceptions of inputs, such as attendance and disciplinary record. Incentives

cannot be based on inputs or outputs which cannot be observed by management: to motivate these it is necessary to rely on self-

respect or team spirit. See also export incentives, and investment incentives.

And prefer our interpretation of the definitions

3. No case meets- all alterative energy has the potential to be used overseas after it is developed- the aff is no different4. resolutional context- ours is the only interpretation which assumes the way that incentives interacts with the

5. No abuse-they still get da's to federal government action and alternative energy creation- no specific ground is

determined by where the incentives are given

6. no limits explosion- solvency advocates check abuse-there wouldn't be a solvency advocate for foreign businesses

coming to the United States to get inventives

7. Reject Competing Interpretations- which encourages the neg to go for T because if they can win their interpretation i

1% better they would win

8. Don't vote on potential abuse- its like voting on a potential Da

Quote goes here

\'~< Z

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 20/104

DDW2008

Solar Space

At: Spending

1. The aff is a turn- our competitiveness advantage indicates the government spending specifically on NASA Solar space

programs invigorates the economy by introducing a demand for space technology. Italso causes spin offs and private sector

innovations, requires massive job creation, and science and technology programs that enable long term economic stability-

the specificity of our links overwhelm their generic deficits bad

2. US economic collapse is imminent

Kevin Phillips, Washington Post, 5/18/08, The Old Titans all Collapsed: is the US next?, hltp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/contenUartic1e/2008J05116J AR2008051603461.html

But in the background, one could hear the groans and feel the tremors as larger political and economic tectonic plates collided. Nine

months later, Greenspan's soothing analogies no longer wash. The U.S. economy faces unprecedented debt levels, soaring

commodity prices and sliding home prices, to say nothing of a weak dollar. Despite the recent stabilization of the economy, some

economists fear that the world will soon face the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s.

In 2008, we can mark another perilous decade: the tech mania of 1997-2000, morphing into a bubble and market crash; the Sept. 11 ,

200], terrorist attacks; imperial hubris and the Bush administration's bungled 2003 invasion of Iraq. These were followed by ()PEC's

abandoning its $22-$28 price range for oil, with the cost per barrel rising over five yearsjQ_more than $100; the collapse of global

respect for the United _Statesover the Iraq war; the imploding U.S. housing market and debt bubble; and the almost 50 percent decline

of the U.S. dollar against the euro since 2002. Small wonder a global financial crisis is in the air.

With the help of the overgrown U.S. financial sector, the United ~tates of 2008 is the world's leading debtor, has by far the largest

current-account deficit and is the leading importer, at great expense, of both manufactured goods and oil. The potential damage if the

~orlcf.~SOD.u~cf.~I·~.s.eshe2:~~t~;t!:~~~~c~alc~i~i~si~ce the1?30s is incalculable. The loss of global economic leadership that' s e e m s m''f)e'lootiiing'ouourownborizon:'' .................••... . " ••.

3. NASA funding increasing by 250 million

Marcos Huerta and Kevin B. Marvel, American Astronomical Society, 2008, Astronomy in the FY 2009 Budget,

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pchI4.htm

- The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would see a significant 5.6

percent decrease for FY 2009 to $4.4 billion, compared with the enacted FY 2008 level through Public Law 110-161 (2008 Omnibus

Appropriations Act). The budget initiates the Joint Dark Energy Mission (funded together with DOE) in 2009.

- The National Science Foundation (NSF) top line budget authority grows by 13.6 percent to $6.9 billion for FY 2009, compared to

the enacted FY 2008 level, returning to a doubling path provided in America COMPETES Act and the American Competitiveness

Initiative, after NSF failed to achieve any real increases in the FY 2008 Omnibus bill. The proposed FY 2009 budget contains $250

million for the Astronomical Sciences Division (AST), an increase of 14.8 percent over the FY 2008 omnibus level.

- The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science receives an R&D budget of $4.3 billion for FY 2009, an increase of 20.7percent over the final FY 2008 level. DOE Science, along with NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

agencies by 2016. While those increases did not survive in the FY 2008 Omnibus budget, sharp increases are proposed for FY 2009.

4. Funding for Alt energy is increasing by over a bi Ion

Us Dept of Energy, February 4 th 2008, President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energy's FY 2009 Budget

http://www.doe.govJnewsJ5920.htm

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush's $25 billion Fiscal Year (FY

2009 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This reques

will continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy; suppo

the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of ournuclearweapons stockpile. ThePresident's budget forDOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS); begins to transformthe weapons complexto address 21st century challenges; and acceleratestechnological breakthroughs to furtherthe President's Advanced Energy

Initiative CAEI),and scientific leadership through theAmerican Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)."This budget furthersPresident Bush's comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, and national securityby focusing on acceleratingtechnological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sourcesof energy, and increasing investment in scientificdiscovery and

development," SecretaryBodman said. "From transforming theweapons complex to maintain the utmost safety and reliabilityof our nuclearweapons stockpile,to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spurinnovation in advanced energy technologies,this budget enables theDepartment to continueto lay the foundation for a clean, safe, secure and reliable energy future for all Americans."

[Insert Cost Effective/ Maximizes investment]

1Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 21/104

DDW2008

Solar Space

At: Tradeoff

1. Their link takes out the uniqueness- if program is on the chopping block any minor funding other than the

plan, will tradeoff with it

2. NASA funding increasing by 250 million

Marcos Huerta and Kevin B. Marvel, American Astronomical Society, Astronomy in the FY 2009 Budget,

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch14.htm- The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would see a significant 5.6

percent decrease for FY 2009 to $4.4 billion, compared with the enacted FY 2008 level through Public Law 110-161 (2008 Omnibus

Appropriations Act). The budget initiates the Joint Dark Energy Mission (funded together with DOE) in 2009.

- The National Science Foundation (NSF) top line budget authority grows by 13.6 percent to $6.9 billion for FY 2009, compared to

the enacted FY 2008 level, returning to a doubling path provided in America COMPETES Act and the American Competitiveness

Initiative, after NSF failed to achieve any real increases in the FY 2008 Omnibus bill. The proposed FY 2009 budget contains $250

million for the Astronomical Sciences Division (AST), an increase of 14.8 percent over the FY 2008 omnibus level.

- The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science receives an R&D budget of $4.3 billion for FY 2009, an increase of 20.7

percent over the final FY 2008 level. DOE Science, along with NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

benefits from the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which seeks to double the total funding for these three

agencies by 2016. While those increases did not survive in the FY 2008 Omnibus budget, sharp increases are proposed for FY 2009.

3. Funding for Alt energy is increasing by over a billion

Us Dept of Energy, February 4th 2008, President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energy's FY 2009 Budget

J l t t l~ ;L {Y{y{y{ , :c1oe,Z8,~/~eV<f~~2~20, :~~, .~ ,WASHINGfON,' bC=U.S."SecretarY'of"Energ'Y"$amue'1"W:'BtJcrll1tl,tttocraYil.n'l'l'OOl'l:ee(l'Pfegid@ntBush:.s,.,$2~.billiQll,Elsc,al.YearFY2009 budget request for the Department of El'l:ergy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This reques

will continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy;

support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our nuclear

weapons stockpile. The President 's budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage

technologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates technological

breakthroughs to further the President 's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the American

Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).

"This budget furthers President Bush's comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, and national security by focusing on

accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sources of energy, and increasing investment in

scientific discovery and development," Secretary Bodman said. "From transforming the weapons complex to maintain the utmost

safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spur innovation in advancedthis budget enables the Department to continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe, secure and reliable energy

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 22/104

DDW2008

Solar Space

At: Spending DOD- Non uniquel Supplements Non unique

Military and Supplementary spending increasing

Kci Koizurni, AAAS (American Academy of Arts and Sciencie), 2008, R&D in the FY 2009 Department of Defense Budget,

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch5.htm

- The Department of Defense (DOD) R&D R&D investment continues to grow, with a proposed increase of $2.9 billion

or 3.7 percent to $80.7 billion in fiscal vear (FY) 2009 (see Table 11-2),but both the 2008 and 2009 totals will grow by

billions later this year when waNelated supplementals are added.-In a surprise move, DOD requests a 4.0 percent increase to $1.7 billion for its basic research ("6.1 ") portfolio, the majority of which

is performed in universities (see Taking out $165 million in 2008 basic research earmarks results in a 16 percent or $230

million increase for "6.1" between non-earmarked 2008 funding and the 2009 request. "6.1" funding in all three military services and

the Defense Agencies would gain, with especially large increases in Navy and Air Force basic research.

- DOD "Science and Technology" (S&T) spending, which includes basic research but also applied research, medical research, and

technology development, would fall 11.7 percent or $1.5 billion to $11.7 billion (see Table rI-5), but entirely because DOD would not

renew $2.2 billion in 2008 S&T earmarks, Excluding earmarks, DOD "S&T" would gain 5.6 percent between 2008 and 2009. S&T

funding would be 2.26 percent of the non-emergency 2009 DOD budget.

- The research-oriented Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would do well with a request of $3.3 billion in 2009,

an 11 percent increase (see Table II-3). DOD weapons development would increase by 6.9 percent or $4.5 billion to an all-time high

of $69.0 billion.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 23/104

DDW-2008SpaceAFFJack Caporal

Econ DA 2AC Block

1. Space Based Solar Power increases jobs and is key to keeping up with other countries

National Space Society, (Non-profit scient ific space advocacy organization), 10/10/07FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns oyer US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences

expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true "Manhattan or Apollo project for energy." In absolute scale and implications, it is

likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established s ignificant workforces and helped tile US maintain its

technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was "deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks cr itical to onr

economic leadership arc eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strengtb." SBSP would reqnire a substantial technical workforce of

high - paying jobs. Itwould reguire eXl!anded technical ed.!!S,!lt ionol!l!ortunities, and directly SUlWort the underlying aims of the American

Competitiveness IlI.itiative.

2. Space Based Solar Power raises the world economyNational Space Society, (Non-profit scientific space advocacy organization),_IO/J0L!!1

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP docs appear to address a significant number of security concerns across the political spectrum but suffers from

a lack of strategic visibility. From interqational economic competitiveness, to maintenance of our indnstrial base, to energy security and addressing climate

change, SBSP is at the in~seetion of our nations l!i'esellt concerns, providing a synergy seldom found in other initiatives.

3. Space Based Solar Power is key to economy and space explorationNational Space Society.,CNon-profit scientific space advocacy organization), I O / I O / ! ! Z

K . l c N P I N : < J . . : Xh.f§~S~§t~d~ (}ro~pfo~~~at:"::~il~~~~~itcd~~t~sn:qui~esasuiteofenergy options, and while many potential options exist, none offers the. U i l r q u e r a n g e o f ancillary b e r ; e l : i l S iin(f[ro:nsformafionalcapa1)ltifles[sSB~P:trttpomrib1eti1'1!fm'WO!ki'sellemyrobleJ'lHj'maY'besolvedwidmut·_ortto··SBSP by revolutionary breakthroughs in other areas, but none gfthe al tern!\t ive options wil l_also simlll itaneonsly create tra.nsformational national security

capabilities, open up the space fronder for commerce, greatly enable space transportation, enhance high - paying, high - tecb iol,ls, and turn America

into an exporter of energy and hORe for the coming cent!!rics.

4. Space programs create billions of dollarsXinhua, 10/21/~http://english.people.com.cn/200510/21/cng20051021_215895.htrnl

According to international practice, the one-dollar investment in the aerospace program will bring about an 8)0 14-dollar benefit to the wllole society, the

newspaper said. Onrinl. '; the first ten years oHbis century. 6 50 to 80 0 billion US dollars of investment are expected to flow into the global aerospace

indnstry. 8y :Z010, th e output ofthe US space indnstry will accoj!nt for '9 to 15 !lCrcent orits .GOP. according to the newspal!cr. The United Statescreated 2 trillion US dollars of profit through the industr ialization of space technology. and the revenue of the French space industry is close to 20 billion

cures annually, Zhang Qingwei, general manager of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. , told the newspaper.

5. New space technology opens up a plethora of advantages(Phillips & Company: Phillips & Company helps leading companies achieve sustainable revenue growth through the creation and execution of

The Spa,~collomy, as range activities in the course of exploring, understanding and utilizing space, has become the next great

front ier for business growt!! exceeding $256 bill ion, according to Tuesday's report by the Space Foundat ion, a non-profit research and education association.

'4"""'EC"x.;'m~~~~.i"S~_S'\~~ .. ~~~,\\(i#!.,UJ~JYl~Ii!!,~Q,Q~~~,~k~~~tj,§04r+"',",,",_""'.;",,,only $17.3 bi llion in 2008. Commercial satel lite services accounted for around 55 percent oftotal commercial space revenues. GPS-rclated services exhibited the

fasted growth rate at 20 percent. Phillips & Company, a global business development and market consul ting fi rm based in Austin, Texas, launched its Space

Technology and Commerce Practice today, on the 49th anniversary of the Mercury Seven press conference, when NASA introduced the first seven astronauts to the

world. "We believe that the business oppOIrtlinity in space technology and commerce will ontpace and eclipse the growth we saw i n the early d_a;ysoitl!eInternet ," said Rich Phil lips, president of Phill ips & Company. "Tile Space Economy is a gold rush of growth opportullity for companies in

communications. security, environmental monitoring, networking. entcril!!.nment and defense. As the networks of the ear th ar e connected to the networks inspace, this global communications revolution will make it possible to locate or communicate with any person or object anywhere on earth -- or beyond," Phil lips

said.

6. Space technology boosts our economyNo author, 2/2~ http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.htrnl

Some of the most frequently asked questions about the U.S. space program are "Why go into space when we have so many problems here on Earth?" and "What

does the space program do tor me?" These are legitimate questions and unfortunately not enough people have been made aware of the vast benefits the space

program provides that increase the quality of our daily lives. APplications on Eartll of techl!ology needed for space flight have produced thousuds of

"spinoffs" that contr ibute to improving national security, the economy, productivity and lifestvle. It is almost impossible to find an area of everyday life

that has not been imprgved by these spinll ffs. Col lectively, these secondary applications represent a substantial return on the national investment in aerospace

research. We should be spending more. Out of a $2.4 trillion budget, less than 0.8% is spent on the entire space program! That's less than 1penny for every dollar

spent. The average American spends more of their budget on their cable bill, eating out or entertainment than this yet the benef its of space flight are remarkableJ!

has beep conservatively estimated by U.s, space experts t!lat for every dollar the U.S. spellds 011 Rand D in the space program, it receives $7 back in theform of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jOhsand economic growth. Besides tile obviolls iobs created in the aerospace indnstry.

th(!lI.sands mOl'e a~ create! !J!y many otber companies apnlying NASA technology in I!onspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to

place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space t e chno logy benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise al l

boats.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 24/104

DDW-2008SpaceAFFJack Caporal

Econ DA2AC Block7. Space programs spawn jobsCoalition for Space Exploration, 6/17/08. hnp://www.spaceref.com!news/viewpr.html?pid=2S666

"Space exploration has impacted the liv!;s of every single American," Engola said. "Countless benefits frgm space have improved bt;alth care an!:'!

medicine, enhanced public safety, and improved the agricnltural and environmental induj! tries. Space technology advances bave created mauy industries.

spawned millious of jobs aud infused billious of dollars into our economy. Tbe return on our investment has been substantia!," Engo la added, "And I thinkAmericans understand that ." When asked about the educational and inspirational qualities of the space exploration program, almost 70 percent of respondents

believe America's space program inspires young people to consider an education in science, technology, math or engineering fields. "The benefits of space extend

far beyond millions of homes, hospitals, schools, offices and airports," said Tracy Lamm, deputy chair of the Coalition's Publ ic Affairs Team. "SRace plays l!

tremendous role in encouraging and motivating students to study these exciting fields ... and today's young people are the vea ones wbo will be making

their mark 011 the universe as they carry ont tbe next pbase ofspace exploration."

8. NASA funding creates new knowledge in all fieldsOffice of the Press Secretary, 1I14LlM.,http://www.whitehouse.gov/ncws/releases/2004/01l20040114-I.hOOI

President Bush's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration The President' s plan for steady human and robotic space exploration is based on the fol lowing goals: First ,

America will complete its work on the International Space Station by 2010, fulfilling our commitment to our 15 partner countries. The United States will launch a

re-focused research effort 01 1 board the International Space Station to bet ter understand and overcome the effects of human space f light on astronaut health,

increasing the safety of future space missions. To accomplish this goal, NASA will return the Space Shuttle to flight consistent with safety concerns and the

recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shut tle 's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the

Station, and the Shuttle will be re t i red by the end of this decade af t e r nearly 30 years of service. Second, the United States will begin developing a new ma n n e d,",Yl.lnrlltj"fl vehicle to beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of it s kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew

2008 and will conduct it s first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be

and no later than and use it as a s tepping stone for more ambitious missions. A series of robotic missions to the Moon, similar to the Spirit Rover

sending remarkable images back to Earth from Mars, will explore the lunar surface beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human

exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, humans will conduct extended lunar missions as early as 2015, with the goal ofliving and working there for

increasingly extended periods. The $xtended buman presence on tbe MooWI enable Ilstronaut~ to develop new t£ehoologies and harness tbe Moon's

abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments. An extended human presence on tbe MOODcould reduce the costs of

further exploration, since 'gnar-based spacecraft could eseaw; tbe Moon's lower gravity using less ellergy at less cost than };artb-based vehicles, The

experience and knowledge gained on the Moon will serve as a foundation for buman missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars. NASA will

increase tlie use of robotic exploration to maximize our understanding oftbe solar system and pave the way for more ambitious manned missions. Probes,

landers, and similar unmanned vehicles will seae al! trailblazers and selld vast amounts of knowledge back to scientists o n Earth.

9. Space programs are key to inventionsBob Jacobs, ( NASA deputy assistant administrator of Public Affairs), 12127/!IT..http://todayinspacehistory.wordpress.com!2007/12127/practical-bcnefits-ot:'nasa-

and-space-technology-part-one/Some of the best kept secrets are how NASA and spinoff space technology benefits consumers in everyday life. Iwas watching a presidential primary political

de!rdtereeenHy··andl'was1itlj'Pfisedhewmel'cdibl'f··igncnm~ffi&\",Y4ilfthe.candidatesw.ere.about ..pace . t e chno logy .;m.dNASA,.luct.!l.ed,.. rightenIY,ffiI;\!;lY..f \ . 1 1 1 : :

candidates had a mediocre attitude toward space technology at best , and a few. even indicated that ifthey were commander in chief, they'd virtually cut the NASA

budget completely. The question deserves to be asked, what are some ofthe benefits of NASA and space technology that impact the average person? Even a casual. . ~.

erha s one of the bcst return-on-investments for our eeooo and nali. of life issues is coeratell from NASA and s ce

talk about wasting money in space, I don't know wbat the ~xchanguate is in space. Every dQllar spent is il lvested right bere 011 Earth aud tbere are mauy

tangible benefits that come from that investment - from the bar codes used in the management of your food in grocery stores to the cordless tools in your

garage - there's not a lot of t£S..!m~logI l!QII use today tbat hasn't benefited from space exploration.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 25/104

DDW 08 Jennifer

Tournament I Date

Solvency Contention

File revision number

Interagency solvency- NASA and private cooperation is necessary to solve

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City,5-15-08, h1lIr//www.thespacereview.com/articlel1130/1, NASA and

Space Solar Power

Eventually NASA will have to playa role, even if a small one, in the development of space solar power. The best option is that it will

be as part of an interagency process directlv supervised from the While House, with lots of Congressional and private sector input.

The debate on this new energy source has hardly begun and these are lots of very smart people with very strong opinions on the

subject.

At some point within the next four years the president is going to have to decide whether to go ahead with this new and potentially

unlimited source of energy or to put it back into limbo. The case for it is growing stronger every time the price of oil goes up or, more

to the point, every time we suffer from a blackout or a near-miss. For example, a couple of months ago many large electric customers

in Texas were asked to shut down their operations because there was not enough wind to spin the numerous wind turbines that have

been sprouting up all over that state.

Obviously space solar power could provide a reliable, non-polluting, and very large-scale source of energy. The biggest question is,

can it be done economically? Frankly, with its history of problematic cost estimates, NASA (or any other government institution) is

not going to provide us with a trustworthy answer. The decision to go ahead will be a shot in the dark. Ifwe can clearly see that low-

cost access to space via the private sector is going to be a reality, then whoever is president will have a solid basis on which to

proceed.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 26/104

DDW·2008 Solar Spac

Money isn't the issue- only NASA expertise can solve

Jim Hodges, prior governor of S.C., 04.0 1.08, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_martyhoffert.html,

"That's what I hope will happen by energizing the scientists and engineers of this country and of the world," Hoffert said.

In that, l';l"..A.SAan t~ role in helping~.9 "mine" space, he said. "I Americans to understand that we derive

bel1~~l7y·~lefttttg-t"lle·-efW·if-eJ+menLaf~ace. "

Iftlt , he added, "the most important thing_is that NASA has apool of talented innovators, of scientists and engineers, thinkers abouttechnology, thinkerSat5'OiiiCOii1pl~;__yste-;;~:'"C"-~~'"~-~--'-~--~~---~--- --..----~--~---.-~. --~~----~---.-.-----.-.--.--.---.

~fillirrng energy solutions iSn't money, Hoffert said, perhaps surprisingly.

'Wly OpInIOnis that Paying- for It is thccasypaiT," Hoffert said. "The hard part is doing it."

The U.S. invests about $120 billion a year in research and development, much of that spent on the military. Energy gets about $3

billion of that, he said. The need is for about $30 billion a year.

Without it, and without the will to invest in alternative fuels and fuel technology, society will exist through the end of the available

petroleum, just beyond the end of the century.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 27/104

MORE SPACE STUFF

DOW 2008

IAN M ILLE R

~ ~ \J~h( k 9 o dSOLAR SPACE POP

SOLAR SPACE UNIQUELY POPULAR(National ~ecurity ~pace Office, Report compiled by more than] 70 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10, 2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www .nss.org/settlemenUsspllibrary/final-sbsp-interim-assessment -release-O 1.pdf)

There is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public

interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars

spent. The most popular response was collecting energv from space, with support from 35 % of those polled-twice the

support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)-and three times the support for the current space

exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(lO%).

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 28/104

DDW08

SPAAACE!

Vivian Guo

AT Bush Good

NASA funding is extremely bipartisan in Congress

Stewart M. Powell, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, 6/11/08, White House Rejects can to Boost NASA

Shuttle Funding, http://www.chron.com/disp/story .mpl/space/5830045 .html

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday forcefully rejected a popular, bipartisan effort in Congress to

hand NASA $2.9 billion for three additional shuttle flights to the international space station before retirement of

the shuttle fleet in2010.

There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate, which will act after the House gives

its funding plan final approval.

Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, designated by Democratic leaders as the next chairman of the House

subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA if he wins re-election, said additional NASA funding and shuttle

flights would "enable the United §.tates to remain the predominant leader in technology and space exploration."

The Bush administration was missing an opportunity to "grow the (Houston) economy and increase jobs at

Johnson Space Center," Lampson said.

SpaceRef.com, 517/08, Statement by George Whitesides - Senate Hearing on Reauthorizing the Vision for Space

Exploration, http://www.spaceref.comlnews/viewsr.htm1?pid:::27921

The Vision for Space Exploration provides the foundation for such a bold program, and as such, it should be

reauthorized by the Congress. Endorsed with bipartisan support. the Vision sets out an inspiring path towards

human habitation of the Moon, Mars and other destinations in the solar system. It builds on the hard-won wisdom

following the Columbia accident: that the risk faced by American astronauts deserves a worthy goal, that of

exploration of the solar system. Under the Vision, an official path for human exploration beyond low earth orbit

was set out for the first time in at least a decade.

Stew ureau, _108, NASA popular, but tax hike for funding

rsn t, poll finds, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpllrnetropolitan/5843539.html

"The international challenge to our dominance in space and the impending gap in our domestic program pose

serious concerns which must be addressed head-on by increasing funding for NASA," said Rep. Nick Lampson,

D-Stafford.

Lampson is working with other Houston-area lawmakers to increase President Bush's proposed $18.2 billion

budget for NASA. The bipartisan measure is expected to pass, over White House objections.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 29/104

DDW08SPAAACE!

Vivian Guo

AT Bush Good

Funding to the Department of Defense for missile defense systems is bipartisan

Riki Ellison, President of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, 4/2/08, Missile Defense Hearing on Capitol

Hill Reveals Bi-Partisan Support, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS231198+02-Apr-

2008+P~20080402

Yesterday, at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington D.C., the United States Senate Committee on

Anned Services held a hearing with their Strategic Forces Subcommittee to receive testimony on the ballistic

missile defense program in review of the 2009 and future years Authorization Request for funding and policy of

Missile Defense within the Department of Defense.

This hearing displayed the true bi-partisan position missile defense has now achieved in the United5.tates

Congress, as the two hour and fifteen minute testimony session was unlike any previous hearing in the past which

were divided and antagonistic. This hearing did not involve questions on why we need missile defense or whether

or not missile defense works. This session was based primarily on the issues of fieJding more missile defense

systems and the efficiency and effectiveness of the current acquisition process at MDA to develop, test and field

energy has bipartisan support in Congress

Committee on Science and Technology, 3/17/08, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Presides over BipartisanCongessional Field Hearing on Utility-Scale Solar Power,

http://scidems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2137

(Tuscon, Arizona) U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords today called solar energy a practical solution to some of the most

significant challenges America will confront in the 21 st century.

"The time for solar is now," Giffords told an audience of 130 attending a bipartisan congressional field hearing on

solar energy. "Technologies are improving, costs are falling and the reasons to adopt it are increasingly compelling."

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 30/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

FUNDING NASA KILLS BUSH'S POLITICAL CAPITAL

(BRIAN BERGER, Space News Staff Writer, November 29, 2004, Bush Vision Gets Second Term,

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04Ibusharch_111704.html)

With his re-election to a second term, U.S. President George W. Bush has another four years to get his space

exploration vision off to a solid start. But even with election results that put the Republican party more firmly in control of

both houses of Congress, the long-term space exploration strategy Bush laid out in January still faces considerable

challenges. One of the most formidable is convincing the U.S. Congress to approve the funding NASA is seeking in

its 2005 budget request to jump start the effort. A budget showdown is expected when U.S. lawmakers return this month to

tackle nine unfinished spending bills against a backdrop of record deficits, and it is unclear to many Capitol Hill aides how

NASA will fare in the funding battles ahead. The House and Senate left Washington before the election at odds over how

much money to give NASA for 2005. House appropriators cut $1.1 billion from Bush's $16.2 billion request, imperiling the

vision and drawing a veto threat from the White House. And while Senate appropriators seemingly managed to give Bush

every dollar he requested for NASA and more, they only did so by taking the controversial step of adding $800 million of so-

called emergency funding to their bill explicitly earmarked for the shuttle program and a mission to service the aging Hubble

Space Telescope. Other earmarks would be paid for by deep cuts to some of NASA's early space exploration proposals,

such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter the agency wants to launch in 2008. Senate appropriators cut all but $20 million

of NASA's request for the mission. House appropriators, meanwhile, declined to provide a single dollar. DavidGoldston, chief of staff for Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, said the "big

numbers work?' With Return to Flight costs skyrocketing and Return to Flight quite properly delayed until next May, the

questions that people like Chairman Boehlert have about the financing only become more salient," Goldston said. NASA's

cost projections for getting its space shuttle ready to fly again have more than doubled since the White House sent

Congress its budget request in February, and operations costs are expected to exceed earlier projections in the years

ahead. NASA also is now considering launching a robotic mission by 2008 to service the Hubble Space Telescope, a risky

undertaking that could cost as much as $2 billion. NASA's plan for finishing the international space station by the end of

2010 and then retiring the space shuttle -- the central pillar of NASA's financing strategy for its long-term exploration goals --

is being increasingly dismissed as overly optimistic by aerospace industry executives and other experts. The White House

Office of Management and Budget is taking a hard look at the program's future budget needs, according to U.S.

government sources, and NASA acknowledged late last month that it had recently begun a re-examination of space

station assembly plans and the 28 space shuttle flights it has said are needed to get the job done. Further complicatingmatters for NASA and its exploration ambitions is the agency's plan to rely on Russian-built Soyuz vehicles for space station

decade. U.S. law prohibits NASA from buying Soyuz vehicles or any other space station-related goods and services from

to receive assistance from Russian firms. Russia's commitment

to at no

Proliferation Act of 2000 is an "extraordinarily difficult issue" and one that most members of Congress don't even know is

coming. With so many challenges confronting NASA, it remains to be seen whether Bush will expend anv of the

"political capital" he said he banked during the campaign on the space exploration vision he proposed back in January.

Jim Banke, the director of the Coalition for Space Exploration, said Bush's re-election is a boon for the vision in the short

run, but returning to the moon and sending astronauts on to Mars requires the backing of "multiple administrations and

multiple Congresses." John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University here and a former Kerry

campaign advisor, said the direction of the space exploration vision could depend in large measure on what happens over the

next four years. "With four more years in office, President Bush has the opportunity to put his personal political

support behind the vision -- something he has chosen not to do since Jan. 14," Logsdon said. "There are congressional

decisions to be influenced. next year's budget decisions to be made, and the issues related to the delays on returning

the shuttle to flight and addressing a Hubble repair mission to be dealt with.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 31/104

DDW08

SPAAACE!

Vivian Guo

AT Bush Bad

Congress is extremely partisan over all issues because of the upcoming elections

McClatchy Newspapers, 6/13/08, Partisanship Prevails in congress while US problems go unsolved,

http://www.mcclatchydc.coml227/story/41033.html

WASHINGTON - Congress is spending these opening weeks of the general-election campaign trying to score

points with voters by forcing partisan opponents to cast embarrassing votes - and doing virtually nothing to ease

the nation's economic, energy or foreign crises. "Things are bad," said Steven Schier, a professor of political

science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. "Politics is the focus this year, not policy."

Partisan politics, it appears, will continue to be the focus in Congress this summer, particularly because two U.S.senators are expected to be their parties' presidential nominees. No sitting senator has been elected president since

1960.

Democrats like to highlight how presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has consistently supported

President Bush's economic plans, including his tax cuts, which they say disproportionately benefit the wealthy and

do little to help today's sluggish economy.Republicans counter that Obama isto~ ea~~~.t~r~is~ t~~:~'~'Nc~ tl1eGOPsay.s ......ould,stii:lejf:lfl'creatitJt11tl1tf"'·

..economic,.grnwth •.~ama·ceaH3'forTaIsinglncome~taxes O l l" i h e ~ery"~ealthy, raising the income limit that'ssubject to the Social Security wage tax. repealing a number of Bush's tax reductions for business and raising the

tax on capital gains.

"Partisanship serves individual members wen," he said. "Money flows in a partisan direction. Congressional

leadership rewards partisanship."

Pushing the plan will lower Bush's political capital

Greg Zsidisen, The Space Review, 11115104,Back to Iraq, But what about the moon",

http://www.thespacereview.comlartic1e/267 II

Funding for NASA is unpopular with the public

Stewart M. Powell, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, 6/17/08, NASA popular, but tax hike for funding

isn't, poll finds, http://www.chron.comldisp/story.mp]JmetropolitanJ5843539 .htmllkl

WASHINGTON - Key arguments being made by supporters of increased NASA funding are not resonating with

the American pUblic, a new Gallup Poll released Tuesday found.

The poll conducted for a business group called the Coalition for Space Exploration found that voters strongly

approve of the venerable space agency's work but are reluctant to pay more taxes to finance new initiatives.

The Gallup survey of 1,002 adults found that two of three Americans were not alarmed by the prospect that China

plans to send astronauts to the moon by 2017 - at least one year ahead of the first scheduled U.S. lunar mission

since ]972.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 32/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLER

PLAN ANGERS DEMS- DEMS ARE TRYING TO KILL NASA AND USE ITS FUNDING FOR THEIR OWN

PRIORITIES

(SPACEDAILY.COM, May 02, 2007, "Weldon Says Democrats Set To Cripple Manned Space Program",

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/W eIdon_Says_Democrats_Set_ To_Cripple _Manned_Space _Program_999 .html)

Washington DC (SPX) U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL) today excoriated the Democratic leadership for failing to

allow a vote on an amendment he proposed that would have kept Congress from raiding NASA's bndget to fund a

35% increase for the National Science Foundation (NSF). "It's increasingly clear that Democratic leaders have our

manned space program in their crosshairs," said Weldon. Weldon noted that at the hearing to introduce his proposal Rep.

Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), who sits on the powerful Rules Committee, said he opposed the amendment because he was

'not convinced' of the need for human space exploration. Weldon originally introduced the amendment after the

Democrats proposed an astounding 40% percent ($2 billion) funding increase for NSF this year alone. The proposed

increase was made possible earlier this year when Democrats cut a half-a-billion dollars from NASA funding. NASA

and NSF are funded through the same budget account and compete for the same pot of money. "Democrats are on a

glide path to cripple our manned Space program. It's time the space community saw this for what it is: an assault on

our commitment to build the Shuttle replacement, return to the moon, and maintain our strategic advantage in space.

It's also an assault on the civilian workers and contractors who are about to have their lives disrupted because

Democrats can't divert NASA funding fast enough to their other priorities."

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 33/104

DDW08

SPAAACE!

Vivian Guo

AT Bush Bad

Funding the DoD is unpopular with the Democrats

Deborah Tate, VOA News, 4/16/08, US Official Urges Congress to Pass War Funding Request,http://www.voanews.comlenglishlarchi ve/2008-04/2008-04-16-

voa70.cfm?CFID=3813492&CFfOKEN=28288062

The Bush administration is warning Congress of potential layoffs at the Department of Defense if they do not

approve a $108 billion funding package for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of next month. But

lawmakers are demanding more accountability over the war funds and more attention be spent on domestic

initiatives, signaling a tough battle ahead for the White House, as VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

But Senate Democrats say the administration is asking for the funding at a time when the U.S. economy is in

serious trouble. They argue the administration has refused to raise taxes to fund the wars, and is paying for them

through the public debt, a practice that Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, says must stop.

"The debt is now at what $9 trillion and going up," she said. "I think it is a real problem for the survival of the

nation in a healthy way. I think it is going to be very hard to vote for a $108 billion emergency supplemental that

puts that amount on the debt. "

Funding for the DoD is extremely partisan because of the controversy over the Iraq war

Jason Leopold, Online Journal, 4/14/8, Iraq War Cost Skyrocketing, but Congress unable to scrutinize

spending, http://onlinejournal.comJartman/publish/article_3172.shtml

Still, these dire warnings from Bush administration officials and military personnel about imminent

funding shortfalls have become routine since Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006.

Last year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates threatened to fire more than 200,000 Defense Department

employees and terminate contracts with defense contractors because congressional Democrats did not

immediately approve a spending package to continue funding the Iraq war. The Government

~~~~;tI.l1!~Si~gy..QfficeLGAO) ..and...he .Congre s s iGRa1 Budget·eff ice'(CBOyatlvisei:TCongress·thaiOates·'could tap into the Pentagon's $471 billion budget to fund the war while Congress continued to debatethe merits 0' ....±"'"%''''''22C·fff·T·0··fff.mf'W!&&_""'''' __ "''''''''''''··· •.••.•.••••

Solar space is extremely unpopular with oil and coal lobbyists

John Gartner, Adjunct Professor at the University of Waterloo., 6/22/06, NASA Spaces on Energy

Solution, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/newsI2004/06/63913

Neville Marzwell, advanced concepts innovation technology manager at NASA. spent five years researching

methods of improving a satellite's ability to collect solar energy before his program was cut. Marzwell claims that

politics played a part in the decision to kill the space solar power program.The United States" doesn't have the political will to fund the research" because of pressure from fossil-fuel

lobbyists, Marzwell said. "We could have become the Saudi Arabia of the world electricity market," Marzwell

said. But because the coal and oil industries don't want threats to their profits, they applied political pressure,

causing the program to be scrapped, according to Marzwell.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 34/104

s f ~l'S' { )\)\1

~(\<\ S : ~ \ G t I ~

Fossil Fuel lobbyists hindered space solar programs

John Gartner, staff writer for Wired, 6-22-04, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news!2004106/63913. NASA Spaces on

Energy Solution

Neville Marzwell, advanced concepts innovation technology manager at NASA, spent five years researching methods of improving

satellite's ability to collect solar energy before his program was cut. Marzwell claims that politics played a part in the decision to ki

the space solar power program.

The United States "doesn't have the political will to fund the research" because of pressure from fossil-fuel lobbyists, Marzwell said

"We could have become the Saudi Arabia of the world electricity market," Marzwell said. But because the coal and oil industries d

want threats to their profits, they applied political prcssure. causing the program to be scrappcd, according to Marzwell.

14

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 35/104

DDW08

SPAAACE!

Vivian Guo

AT Bush Bad

The solar industry will be subject to partisan wrangling because of upcoming elections

Living on Earth, 6/13/08, Clean Energy Crunch Time, http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P 13-00024&segmentID=2

On top of that, the solar industry's Rhone Resch detects some good old partisan wrangling. As the election draws

near, neither side wants to let the other claim credit on clean energy

Resch fears if the partisan showdown continues congress might not act until after the November election. By then,

the wind industry's Greg Wetstone says a lot of the damage will already be done by disrupting investment and project

planning.

\L

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 36/104

SPACE

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

PLAN TAKES 50 YEARS

(Jeff Foust, Monday, August] 3,2007, "A renaissance for space solar power?",

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/93111 )

Smith made it clear, though, that he's not looking for a quick fix that will suddenlv make solar power satellites feasible

in the near term. "If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it's going to take a long time," he said. "The

horizon we're looking at is 2050 before we're able to do something significant." The first major milestone, he said,

would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate

power beaming from GEO. However. he added those plans could change depending on developments of various

technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. "That 2050 vision, what that

architecture will look like, is carved in .JeH-O."

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 37/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

NEGEV

TAKES YEARS(Erik Sofge, January 2008, "Space-Based Solar Power Beams Become Next Energy Frontier",

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ air_space/4 230315 .html)

While most of the technology required for SBSP already exists, questions such as potential environmental impacts will

take years to work out. "For some time, solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper," savs Robert McConnell,

a senior project leader at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "This is a very long-range

activity."

[ S o

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 38/104

SPACE

DOW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

SBSP FAILS- NO TECH

(Dwayne A. Day, Monday, June 9,2008, "Knights in shining armor" http://www.thespacereview.com!articleI1147/1)

You may not have noticed, but the space activist communitv is all worked up about space solar power (see "A

renaissance for space solar power?", The Space Review, August 13,2007). Itis now the topic of much conversation

whenever a group of space enthusiasts get together. Itwas recently on the cover of the National Space Society's magazine Ad

Astra. The upcoming NewSpace 2008 conference will feature a panel on it. The International Space Development

Conference in Washington, DC featured no less than three-yes, three-sessions on space solar power, or SSP, to use the

shorthand term, plus a dinner speaker who addressed the same subject. With all of this attention, one would suspect that

there has been a fundamental technological breakthrough that now makes SSP possible, or a major private or

government initiative to begin at least preliminary work on a demonstration project. But there has been none of this.

In fact, from a technological standpoint, we are not much closer to space solar power today than we were when NASA

conducted a big study of it in the 1970s.

\ b '

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 39/104

Space Aff

DDW'08

Suo

Missile Defense: No solvency frontline1.Any military space program would take decades to implementDwayne A.Day, staff writer for The Space Review, 10/4/07, "SpaceWar 2057", http://www.thespacereview.eomJarticle/970/1

What we have learned from fifty years of military space operations is that the pace of development is slowing down, and the

space component is subject to greater constraints than the ground component. What we have also learned is that revolutionary change

now seems less and less likely compared to the past. Fifty years of mili tary space experience can allow us to draw some general conclusions about theprinciples guiding the development of mil itary space systems. We know that the most important aspect of mili tary space programs is that they are developed by

humans, and social , economic, poli tical and even emotional factors wil l have an effect upon the evolution of military space over the next five decades that will be jus

as important as the pace of technology development-i tself controlled by the decisions that humans make. The first pr inciple that we can now derive from all of this

experience is that the development of space svstems takes a long time, sometimes decades.This was not always so. Early reconnaissance satelli tes went from first concept to full operation in three years or less. But today it is common for big , sophisticated

military spacecraft to take a decade or more to develop, and the time from fir st proposal to fi rst flight is even longer.

An example is the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) missile warning satellite. The US Air Force first began discussing developing

an advanced missile warning satelli te to replace its Defense Support Program satelli tes in the late 1970s. After numerous false starts producing an

alphabet soup of acronyms, SBIRS was officially approved in 1996, with a plan of producing an operational satellite by 2004. But

the first full-up satellite will not fly until 2008, and recent news is that it may not fly unti l 2009 due to problems with a similar satellite. That's

thirteen years of development time, and nearly three decades from the first declaration of need to the actual fielding of the

system.

SBIRS is typical, and there are numerous other examples of satellites initially conceived a decade or even longer before they

actually became operational. For instance, GPS was conceived in the late 1960s but not declared operational until the 1990s. Milstar wasconcei ved in the early 1980s but did not have its first launch until the 1990s.

.· ·· · ·· · ·· ·· ·· " ~ : :: : :: · = ~ ~ ~ ! M : ! · ~ : : :J e : n ~ ~ ~ ~ h : :~ : ! ~ : : c ~ :~ ~: ~ i d~~ t i ~ : J~ : J~~~~ i~ f cyo~~~I£~were other, more bureaucratic reasons for the delays. The Air Force today likes to take credit for GPS. But Air Force

officials originally fought the program's development for years because they believed that existing navigation systems were

sufficient, and because they were wary of a navigation system that could be jammed. Itwas not technology alone that slowed down the

development time of many spacecraft, it was people, making choices.

2. One space-based laser costs billions, and $150 million each time to fireRichard L. Garwin, B.S. in Physics from Case Inst itute of Technology, Ph.D. in Physics f rom the Universi ty of Chicago, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the Thoma", J.

Watson Research Center, Adjunct Research Fellow in the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Columbia

University, 5114/03, "Space Weapons: Not Yet", http://www.fas.org/rlg/030522-space.pdf

Another weapon of considerable interest is the Space Based Laser. These weapons could attack over long distances at the speed of light, although space mines and

the ABL could be equally prompt. A SBL could also attack terrestrial targets , but only with suitable laser wavelengths to penetrate the atmosphere. The currentcandidate SBL lasers cannot attack ground or airborne targets. A single SBL, costing billions of dollars, could typical ly have anmgeofatumst3000km;'uniesstheSBb·eonsteHationwere·coneeivtld to . .have.a-large.num ber.of.rcdirecting ..("fighting"LmiIrQr~,.Ung£r,!h.Qs~~Sirc,,:,1Ps,.~ar1~,~.~!... ,. .

competit ive system could use a ground-based laser , redirected by such mirrors3. Cloud at the GBL site would cancel the capability of a GBL, so

..~~2~~<l..~,,~Wzl!t'.~?bJ?~~2!~!~t!~!~!~~~yst!!!!~~~~~~e" ..?,~~.~~le ~~~~~!t~~e ..I~.any.ca~e':h,~~~~ting.rnirror~ "might be classed by the potential vict ims as weapons m space as w~ ~woUl8''t)e a~ exp~'@'~n~~ISRm"acs!1fe'llTr'e',·'Im"""m,.gl'!l"'7"'_":

be more useful for missi le defense purposes. With relat ively few SBL in orbit , one might need to be used at 3000 km range. At that distance, with no loss through th

atmosphere, a perfect mirror of 3 m diameter, and laser power output of 3 MW in the 3.8-micron DF band, a target protected with 3 em of cork could withstand abou

200 MJm-2before exposing the target surface to laser heal. (Some Minuteman ICBMs have had a 0.6-centimeter layer of cork to protect the booster f rom skin

frict ion heat ing during launch. Such a layer would be vaporized with about 50 MIm-2 (5 kJcm-2) from a SBL.) The laser consumes fuel at a rate of

some 3kglMWs, or 9 kg/s, and it would need to fire for 1700 s at the assumed 3000-km range, thus using 15 tons of fuel, at a

launch cost for fuel of $150 million per target attacked. At a range of 1000 krn, the launch cost would be some $16 M per target. Other

countermeasures are feasible and could be mUltiplicative-such as the slow rotation of the booster during launch.

\55

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 40/104

SpaceAff

DDW'08

Suo

Missile Defense: No solvency extensionSpace-based missile defense is only part of what needs to be a layered defense, can't solve by itselfWestern §'tates Legal ,[oundation, non-profit, public interest organizationwhichmonitors and analyzesU.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies and related hig

technologyenergy and weapons programs, October2k "The Space-BasedLaser Integrated FlightExperiment: GlobalMissileDefense in the Boost Phase",http://www.wslfweb.orgidocs/SBLWP.pdf

The best way to counter even a limited numher of missiles is through defense in depth. Defense in depth means there wiU bea number of opportunities to destroy missiles as they are launched and move through the various stages of their flight paths,ortrajectories.ForNationalMissileDefense,a land-based,hit-to-killnterceptors currently beingdevelopedo interceptwarheadsn themiddleof theirflightpaths.Thereisalso

discussionndstudyofusingsea-basedmissiledefensesocomplementtheand-basedystem.Foritspart,SBL represents a potential future space-based

component of a national missile defense architecture withresidual capabilitythat will enhance the planned theater missile defense architecture.Today,theatermissiledefenseis alreadybeingpursuedintheformofa layereddefense.Afamilyofdefensivesystemswillbeabletoattackshort-andmedium-rangemissilesnvarious

stagesof theirflight.Theboostphase,whichoccursshortlyaft er a missiles launched,s thefirst shotdefensivesystemshaveatdestroying hostilemissile.Presently,the Airborne

Laser is the only theater system being developed that will be capable of attacking and destroying a ballistic missile in the

boost phase. Theboostphaselastsonlya fewminutes,afterwhich the launcherburnsout. Tbewarheadhencontinuesoascendandtravelsoutsidetheatmospherentospaceduri

themiddle,ormid-course hase,of its trajectory.Atypicaltrajectoryookslikeanarc.Themid-course comesafterboostphaseandbeforethedescentphase.It is during the mid

course phase that decoys might be deployed, complicating the defending nation's ability to intercept the actual warhead. Th

final phase of a ballistic missile attack occurs when the warhead desceuds back into the atmosphere toward its target on the

ground. Here. in what is also called the terminal phase, the warhead picks up more speed. The critical aspect of an intercept

during this final phase is to hit and destroy the warhead before it explodes. It is also important to hit it high euough to avoid

any damage from nuclear, chemical or biological debris. The only active defense the United States has deployed today is aslightly upgraded version of the Patriot missile system used in the Gulf War against short-range Scud missiles. This system

'Is"n'IYt'designed"tO"int~reept"I€~Ms;11lstsl!ott~'baitistierni"'i1"'",q1?will4"H"'l*aee(hby4he.llA~Mlatri"l,syslem'';1l,20o..!'0w,hich""jlLhe"abk.JfLinterceptslloU"medium-rangemissilesnsidetheatmosphereduringtheirdescentphase, alongwithcruisemissiles.TheNavyAreasystembasedonAegiscruisersanddestroyers,willcomplementIlA3,helpingointerceptheseshorter-rangemissilesinsidetheatmosphere.

Spaced-based lasers have a number of operational challengesNATO, Parliamentary Assembly, 2003, "156 STCMT03 E - WEAPONS IN SPACE ANDGLOBALSECURITY", http://www.nato-pa.intidefault.asp?SHORTCUT=367

Another system intended to support boost phase missile defences is the Space-Based Laser (SBL). This system's main elementwould

a satellitearmed with a hydrogen-fluoride chemical laser capable of destroying missiles during their boostphase. Despite the advantages of operating a laserin the

vacuumof space, someof the operatioual challenges for an SBL are daunting. According to a studyby the US National Defense University (NDU

these include lift-to-orbit and space assembly, stable and reliable operation in space, and maintenance and re-supply of

fuels. Moreover, an effective system should rely on a constellatiou of at least 12 satellites, considerably elevating costs. It is perhaps f

these reasons that the SBLprogrammc has recentlybeen scaledback. T n September 2002, the Pentagon closed the office dedicated to developing the SBLandmovnew MDA directorate called Laser The first test of the scheduled for 2012, and to build an SBL test

2004.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 41/104

SpaceAffDDW'08Suo

u u ~ ·~ \ ) t ( }~" l ' -<-

Missile Defense: Not inevitableNo evidence of any foreign intent to weaponize spaceTheresaHitchens, VicePresidentof theCenterforDefenseInformation,Washington,DC,2003, "Monstersandshadows:eftunchecked.Americanfearsregardinthreatstospaceassetswilldriveweaponization",http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articlcs/pdt~artI884.pdf

It is obviousthatAmericanspacesystemsdo haveinherentvulnerabilities.t is alsoobviousthattechnologiesorexploitinghosevulnerabilitiesxist.orarelikely

to becomeavailableoverthenextseveraldecades.However,neither vulnerabilities in American systems nor the potential capabilities of

others necessarily translate into threats. In order to threaten American space assets, a potential adversary must have not

only the technological ability to develop weapons and the means to develop and use them, but also the political will and

intent to use them in a hostile manner. There is little evidence todatethat any other country or hostile non-state actor

possesses both the mature technology and the intention to seriously threaten American military or commercial operations in

space-and even less evidence of serious pursuit of actual space-based weapons by potentially hostile actors. There are

severe technical barriers and high costs to overcome for all but the most rudimentary ASAT capabilities, especiallyfor

developmentofon-orbitweapons.Itfurther remains unclear what political drivers-outside of American development of space-

based weaponry-would force American competitors, in the near- to medium-term to seriously pursue such technology.

Moreover,here is little publicconcern voiced by other space-faring nations, includingAmericanfriendandallies,about potential threats

to their space-based assets-although ChinaandtheRussianFederationareuncomfortablewiththepossibilityhattheUnitedStatesmightdeployASAT

capabilities.Thismaybeexplainedbythefact thatnoothernation'smilitaryandcommercialoperationsareso space-dependent,ut it alsomaybethatthese

nations simply do not see the emergence anytime soon of a credible threat.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 42/104

Space Aff

DDW08

Guo

Space Colonization Fails

The moon, or anywhere in space would be extremely difficult to colonize

SpaceRef.com, 4/22/08, Establishing the Vision for Space Exploration,

http://www.spaceref.comlnews/viewnews.html ?id=1285

Other technologies developed at the lunar installation have equal value to us here on the Earth. As we breathe,

C02 is exhaled. Here on the Earth it is thought to change our climate, on the Moon it would soon kill the

inhabitants unless it is dealt with. Therefore a means must be found to reclaim the oxygen from the C02 and use

the carbon as an extra resource. On the Earth today pure water is becoming an increasingly valuable resource. On

the Moon it would cost over $100,000 per gallon, necessitating extreme measures to reclaim it from the bath,

clothes washing, and even from our waste. These same technologies could be fed back into the terrestrial

economy, improving our water usage and lowering the cost of additional water extraction infrastructure. A pound

of food delivered to the Moon is also enormously costly and therefore an early effort to grow nutritious plants and

eventually animal husbandry will be required. Learning how to do this in this extremely resource constrainedenvironment could teach us much to help with the growing concerns over our food supplies here on the Earth.

""""',,,,.,~,,,,,,,

ISq

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 43/104

Space Aff

DDW'08

Suo

Colonization ....CostsSpace colonization is expensiveAI Globus, Bachelors in Information Science at University of California at Santa Cruz, NASA Ames Research Center, 2008, "Space Sett lement Basics" ,

http://space.alglobus.netJBasics/wwwwh.html

Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For example,

the current (2004) cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale space

tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $l,000-$1O,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. Space tourismhas launch requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing technology my

be necessary to enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per pound for operational

vehicles.

The trillions of dollars to set up a function colony could be much better spent at homeJohn Hawks, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin , 1217106, "About your space colony, Dr. Hawking . .." ,

http://johnhawks.nctJwcblog/topics/sociallhawking_colonization._space_2006.w

Ican't imagine a situation where it is better to make my grandchildren pay for a hugely expensive space mission than it

would be for them to pay for a hugely expensive overhaul for Earth's energy supplies, or a hugely expensive asteroid

deflector system. or any number of other things to protect the 10 billion people at home. Sure, there arc some risks that we can probablynot prevent , like a supernova shock wave. But these are risks that we can't escape by colonizing nearby star systems. They will get hit by the supernova, t o o !

Establ ishing colonies on the Moon or Mars is much less expensive, and people on Earth might actually get to go there sometime during their l ives. A Martian colony

might send resources back to Earth, and people might choose to travel there to help build it. Or maybe they want to spend their reti rement in lower gravi ty that hurts

their joints less. Maybe terraforming Mars will g ive us scientif ic knowledge to help control our own climate .But whatever comes from these efforts , it is hard to imagine that the same amount of money wouldn't be better invested here on

,···~1trttr.·RementberthahTsingtemissiottro'Ml:l1·s"'bY'1f"smatl'groo.l1'ofnstronauts'isiiireiv'tl1"Cost'upwardsof'46"l1illtotr'dt)flars;'

I don't see global warming as a threat to humanity. But even supposing that it could wipe us aU off the map, 40 billion

dollars spent to research it would be far better spent than 40 billion dollars spent on a Mars trip. "Better spent" because the

people paying the 40 billion dollars -- our children and grandchildren, again -- will be far more likely to benefit from the increased

knowledge of global warming, than they are to benefit from shipping 5 people to Mars for a few weeks.It seems ludicrous to spend a few tril lion on a serious Mars colony, wheu the same few tril lion might combat global warming, establ ish a series of asteroid deflectors,

and f ind an effective means of harnassing fusion energy. Especially since the few thousand people in that Mars colony wil l be incapable of surviving themselves ove

the long term if Earth was suddculy destroyed. Even terraforming is at best marginal in it s abil ity to make Mars habitable over the long term.

\ b O

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 44/104

Space Aff

DOW 08

Guo

NASA No Solvency

NASA runs extremely expensive and inefficient programs

Jim Grichar, CIA Analyst, 1124/04, Wielding the Budget Axe: It's Time to Abolish NASA,

http://www.lewrockwell.com!grichar/ grichar33 .html

NASA has a history of running expensive boondoggle programs, from the man on the moon program of the

1960's-rnid-1970's (three men lost their lives early in that program), to the colossal, costly and deadly space

shuttle program (13 or 14 astronauts have lost their lives and the shuttle cannot put satellites into orbit for less

than the Europeans or the Chinese), to the wasted billions on the international space station, the soon to be shut-

down Hubble telescope, and othedailed satellite missions. In fact, NASA is essentially nothing more than a

lobbying arm for the public funding of expensive science projects and subsidies to the aerospace industry.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 45/104

Space Aff

DOWD8

Guo

No Spillover

Private sectors are reluctant to adopt NASA's technology because they would have to further develop them

specifically for consumers.

Jim Grichar, CIA Analyst, 1/24 /04 , Wielding the Budget Axe: It's Time to Abolish NASA,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.html

But NASA technology, like any technology developed in government-funded research and development programs,

!§ generally not useful to the private sector in bringing new goods and services to the consumer. Over the years, in

response to prodding by members of Congress and various administrations, federal laboratories - those operated

by the military and civilian arms of the government have repeatedly been put under pressure to transfer

technologies developed with public funds to the private sector. While a few examples of success exist, the general

rule is that the private sector wants nothing to do with technologies developed in federal labs. And this is true for

several reasons. The technologies - while sounding promising - are often not tailored to bringing specitic goods

and services to consumers. To make new technologies into new products attractive to consumers, private tirms

would probably have to spend additional funds on research and development - possibly huge amounts, and eventhen most firms prefer to use proprietary or patented techniques or techn()logiesin orderto earn a better profit III

" " " " ' O t l l e r " w o r a s ; w n ) 7 u s " c " s ( ) m e T c c n n o I o g y ' a v a J T a b 1 e ' i o " e v e ' r y o t h e r b u s l n e s s ; ' i i i 1 l 'e s s · · · · y o u · c a n c ' o u " j 5 f c · r f w 1 t h s o m e " " " " " " " " . ' " , ' " " " '"proprietary technique to give you an edge over the competition?

Thus, the argument that the civilian space program - or for that matter any government research program - has

led to major benefits for consumers is not as simple nor nearly as clear cut as the proponents make it. The fact is

that most of those benefits were provided by the private sector, which used otherwise useless technology or

revamped that technology to make it valuable to consumers.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 46/104

Space Aff

DDW08

Guo

Economy Recovering

The US dollar is rising and the economy is recovering

Channel News Asia, 6/13/08, US Dollar Lifted by Strong Retail Data,

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/353797111.html

NEW YORK: The US dollar firmed on Thursday as a stronger-than-expcctcd reading of US retail sales cased

fears about a sharp US economic slump and traders braced for a meeting of G8 finance ministers.

The euro fell to 1.5435 dollars at 2100 GMT from 1.5554 in New York late on Wednesday.

Against the Japanese curreney, the dollar advanced to 107.91 yen from 106.96.

The main impetus for the rally came from the US retail figures which showed a robust 1.0 percent gain in Mayas

Americans opened their wallets again after getting government tax rebates.

"Overall, this is a strong report, much stronger than we would have expected given that consumer confidence is at

rock bottom. It is now looking less likely that GDP will shrink in the second quarter after ali," he added.

"Despite record high crude oil prices and rising expectations of an ECB (European Central Bank) rate hikelater

this summer, the dollar bottom appears to have been put in with the US economy recovering and the Fed" he said.

dollar," he added.

\

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 47/104

Space Aff

DDW08

Guo

US Economy Stable

US is still the world's greatest economy and attracts investors

Diane Francis, The Huffington Post, 5/30 /08, US Economy Huge Winner in the Future,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-francis/us-economy-huge-winncr-in_b_104205.html

Americans are down in the dumps about their economy, soaring oil and food prices and the sub prime fiasco. All

are legitimately upsetting, but there is a silver lining in America's current economic clouds and the United States

remains the world's greatest economy.

One of Canada's to portfolio managers, David Fingold of Dynamic funds, is bullish on the U.S. and has put his

clients' money where his mouth is. His global funds are 50% invested in the U.S., with minimal investments in

Europe or booming Asia.

Hc said American multinationals are well-poised to cash in on the boom in China and high commodity prices and

pessimism and negative headlines have made their stocks bargains.

So did his boss, Rohit Sehgal, who is Chief Investment Strategist for Dynamic Funds' $30 billion funds. Sehgal

was named the world's second top-ranked hedge fund manager this year by Barron's magazine.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 48/104

Space Aff

DDW08

Guo

US Most Innovative

US remains the most innovative country

Merrill Matthews, HumanEvents.com, 10/13/06, And the Nobel Prize for the Most Innovators Goes too ... ,

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17 531#continueA

We are pleased to announce that innovation is alive and well in the U.S.

Indeed, if Nobel Prizes are any indication -- and they seem to be a pretty good indicator -- the U.S. is the most

innovative country in the world, hands down.

The New York Times ran a story looking at Nobel Laureates in medicine. According to the Times, "In the last 10

years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United

States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers

working outside the country."

Moreover, of the "six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years," four of them "were developed in

American hospitals or by American companies," and one other was "improved" in the U.S. The Times goes on to

say, "Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas intoworkabl .

course, many 0 e top SClcntIsts arc

careers because of the country's deep commitment to innovation.

For all the (often-justified) complaints about the American education system, when it comes to creating and

supporting world-class innovators, we must be doing something right.

US is the most innovative nation because we have the most well- developed market for innovation

James Moore, PhD from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in finance, 9/27~ Innovation

From the Grassroots Up, http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jiml2006/09/27

Taken as a whole, the US innovation ecosystem is the best in the world. The US is the most innovative nation

on the planet. Our patent system is at the center of our innovation. It enables investment in research anddevelopment by individuals, universities, and companies.

n u r i n i i o v a i i o n r a i e r s r a r ~ a 5 o v e t F i e E u r o p e a n s : a n a T f i e y h a v e [ h c m o s f " r C f o r m e c { ' , · s y s t e i i l . · · · W e h a v e t h e m o s itraditional patent system, and the best technical and economic results.

y•••w,••""'_4''''~'''~''~~MM~Jq~m~~~~~~54:@tfti4l)t1lH!~~~~0)~~@:s*'pre~!iI?~t~atl,~~i~s@:!!ij· .•kl?nj;~~s1':~"'~iS:~fo:,=:~"""W~

venture activity. All of this, I believe, is because we have the most well-developed market for innovation. By

contrast Europe is dominated by big companies that monopolize the output of local engineers and scientists bv

forcing them into empoyee status.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 49/104

Space Aff

DDW08

Guo

Global Economy Boost US Economy

Allianz, 1/1/08, Strong Global Economy Could Help Prevent US Recession,

http://www.a1lianzinvestors.com!commentary/frm_OpCapOl012008.jsp

In 2008, our research suggests that a strong global economic environment could help prevent the U.S. economy

from tipping into recession, brightening the prospect for equity and bond markets.

During the second half of 2007, market volatility intensified as many major indexes sought direction. In the end,

amid subprime mortgage defaults. record oil prices and a weak dollar, non-U.S. equities continued to outperform

U.S. issues, and growth outpaced value. Meanwhile, bond prices spiked as yields collapsed in the face of U.S.

Federal Reserve easing. In the pages that follow, Opeap's lead investment professionals weigh in on the

markets' prospects for 2008, the global economy and more.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 50/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

HegBad: INC1. American preponderance makes multi polarity inevitable.Michael Lind, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, 1-25, 2005 (How America Became the World's pispensable Natinu, Financial Times. Page 17. Lexis)

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: 'Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world,

however, do not seem to be lis tening, Anew world order js indeed ~ - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings tq whjch Amcdqms have

not been jnvjtl 'd Consider Asean Plus Three (APT), which unites the member countries of the Association ofSWltbea§( Asjan Nations with China, Japan and SouthKorea. This group could become the world's largest trade bloc, dwarfing the European Union and North American Free Trade Associatiou. The deepening ties of

the APT member states arc a big diplpmatjr defeat for the! IS, which hoped to use the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum to limit the growth of Asian economic

regionalism at American expense. In the same way, recent moves b y SQutb American countries to bolster an economic community represent jl dear reject jo n OfITS a i m stn domjnate a westcrn-bepJjspbere free~tr3de liQne Consider, aswell, the EU's rapid progress towards military independence. American protests failed to prevent

the EU establishing its own mil itary planning agency. independent of the Nato all iance (and thus ofWashington). Europe is Iwilding up it, nwn rapid fl'VrtiOp force

And, despite US resistance, the E! [ is develQPing Galjleg, its own satellite network, which niH break the monopolv of the US global positioning satellite system. Theparticipation of.cJJiwLiD Europe's ~ project has alarmed the US wjUtary But China shares an interest. with other aspiring space powers iu preventjng

Amerjcan rnntro1 o f space for military and commercial uses, Even while collaborating wi t h Europe on Galileo, China is partord"? Brazjl to launch satellites. And in an

unprecedented move , . c h . i .w& recently agreed to host Russjan fo rc eS fo r joint RnssQ-ChiDf:se wjJjtary exerri:)fs Dlf ITS is heing sidelined even iu the area that ~ ir Bushidentified inlast week's address as Amerjea'smissjon; the nromotioD of dClpOCraCy and human rights. The ElI bas devoted far more resources tq consolidating

dem!tfrlICY in post-communist Europe.thaa has 1W:..l.!S,..Byontrast, under Mr Bush the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns

against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan. In Iraq, the goal of democratisation was invoked only after the

invasion, which was justified earlier by claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was collaborating with al-Qaeda, Nor is American democracy a

shining example to mankind. The present one-party rule in the US has been produced in part by the artificial redrawing of political districts to favour Republicans. The role of

money in American politics continues to grow. America's judges - many of whom will be appointed by Mr Bush - increasingly behave as partisan political activists in black

robes. America's antiquated winner-take-all electoral system has been abandoned by many other democracies for more inclusive versions of proportional representation.:Wother a n t a B of M'nb») moral and ipstjhltjonal reform the {is today is 3follower mther than a leader Human rights? Europe has banDed the death penalty and torture.

The lIS i s a leadjng ppwtjtjoner of exCfutjon. Under Mr Bush, the ITSbas constructed a n internatjopal miljtary gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequentlyoccurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who

1iQ!lliu;J,te.~a~.billgtQl1JQda):.mork the very idea of jgternUtjQlJi l l l~. l iJ : .Th~.pe01VS at~qm~xg~1}e,r~l~igbetl)e WhitcI;IousS. S2.~I!Ss.!\V.hq..~811le~thsqsn~Y~S8~~~~ti2~sas obsolete. A decade ago, Amedfun tpumphH1ists mocked those V ; h ~arg~~d'thai'the";;';orfd\vas"bccorn;ngmiiJtrriQ1ar'i'aihcrth'an u n I p a r a i ' . Wnere"wasil1e eviaeilceof~'balancing against the US? they asked. TOday the evidence nfforeign rn-operHtjon to rednce Amerjcan pr imarY is everywhere from the increasing importance of

regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence. It is tmc that the! ISremains

the only country capable Of projecting military power throughout the world. Rut unipolar ity jn tbe mjlitary sphere, narrowly defined. is not preyentjng the rapjd

dfyelopmept o f wn!tjpoiaritv in the geopolitical and economic arenas - far from it. And the other great powers, with the exception of the UK, are content to let the USwaste

blood and treasure on its doomed attempt at hegemony in the Middle East. That the rest of the world is building jnstjtutigps and alliances that shl lt On!the JJS should come

as no surprise. The flew that American leaders can he trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power fur the gpnd ofbnmanity bas neyer been widely

~ outside the US. The trend toward IDultjpolarjty has probably been accelerated by the truculent uni1ateraUSW of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to

be that of the Hollywood mogul Samuel Goldwyn: "Include me out." In rerent memury nothing fmdd be dune wjthsmt the lIS But t J ldu , most jutrrpationaJ institution-

building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade gccurs wjthQUt Amerjcap partjripa1iOp In 1998 Madeleine AlIlI:.ig,ht, then US secretary of state.1lOIil1

of the US: "We are tbe jndisnensable natiO]] 'IBy backfiring, the uviJateralism of Mr Bush has proved her wrong The lIS it tUD1S out, isa disnensuble natinn Europe,

China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are qujetly taking mepsures wbose e f f ec t if not sole purpose, wj]] he , . 0 cut America down to she

l

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 51/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

HegBad: INC

Link

1.Balancing - attempts to maintain global deployment prevents a strategy of offshore balancing. This

solves the benefits of global leadership while avoiding backlash from extremists, regional power wars,

and the destruction of legitimacy.

Stephen Walt, Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 3-10, 2005 (In the National Interest: A New Grand Strategy

for American Foreign Policy. Boston Review. Lexis)

The final option is offshore balancing, which has been America's traditional grand strategy. In this strategy, the United States deploys jts power abroad only when

there are direct threats to vital Amel;can interests. Offshore balancing assumes that only a few areas of the globe are of strategic importance to the United Stales (that is,

worth fighting and dying for). Specifically, the vital areas are the r""ions where there are substantja! concentrations of power and wealth or critical natural resources:

Europe, industrialized Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Offshore balgncjng further recggnjzes that the I Jnlted Staff's does pot need to control tbese areas directly it - merelyneeds to ensure that they do not faIlunder the control of a hostile Ureatpower and especiaIly not under the control of a so-called peer competitor. To prevent rival great

powers from doing this, offshore balancing orefers to rely primari IX on local actors to uphold the regionql halance of power. Under this strategy, ~nited Sotates~

intervene with its own forces onl\!' when regional powers are. unable to uphold the balance of power on their own. Most importantly, oftsbQre balapcing js not

isolat ionist The United Sotates~ still be activelv ep<'<l"edaround the world through multi lateral institutions such as the United Nat ions and theWTO ~ throughclose ties with specific regjooaJ aJJie~ But it would DOlonger keep large numbers o f t rQQps Qyerseas sole ly for the purpose o f "Plaintainiuu stability." and it would

not try to usc American military power to impose democracy on other countries or disarm potential proliferators. Offshore balancjng docs not preclude using power for

humanitarian ends=to halt or prevent genocide or mass murder-but the United States would do so only when it was confident it could prevent these horrors at an

-"Y~'<'~- ;- ; '~ 'a:eeer ta~ejJeGftt~";- ,Jm--14fHitin$}4Dj,Hw¥'§9m;{i t1i t&neH.tff l¥et§tia§t;,1l0 ,MH~";.er l ,~atLoff§hQre", ,halapcin (T ; ; s t r _ S l l ~ g y , , _ w Q u l d m ake J l l ( , , ~ j ~ I tQ r l b e . l ! ; m _ t 9 , S t ~ t _ ~ ~ ; 9 st2 i ~ l y r Y n ~ , ~ _ ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~8 rmass murder or genocide.) The United States ~ stiIlbe prepared to use force when it was directlv threatened--as it was when t h e Tai;ban~alTo,vedarQaeda"asare'"'"haven in Afghanistan--and would be prepared to help other oovernments deal with terrorists that also threaten the United States. Over time, a strategv of offshore

balancino would make it less likely that the United States would face the hatred of radicals like bin Laden, ~ would thus make it less likelv that the 1TnitedSotateswould have to intervene in far-f lung place" where it is not welcome, Offsbore hulanring is the ideal grand strategy for an era of American primacy Ithushands the

power upon which this primacy rest~ and D)jujmjzcs the fear that tbis PQwer prQyo1:;es, By setting clear priorities and emphasizing reliance on regional allies, itreduces the danger of beina drawn into unnecessary confl icts and- encourages other states to do mo r e for us. Equally important, it takes advan taoe gf America's favorable

geqpolitical position and exploits the tendency for regional powers to worry Inore about each other than about the United S,tates. Rut jt is not a psssiye strategy and does

not preclude using the fuB raDae of America'~ power to advance its CQre interests

That results in a nuclear world war.

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8-26, 2004 (Al-Abram Online. http://wcekly.ahram.org.eg/20041705/op5.htm)

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists') Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frighteniIl" world inwhich we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves police measures would be stepped up atthe expense of humanriohts . tensions between civil isat ions

~andreligionswouldriseandethnic ...onflicts would proljfera~, IIwould ~I§gsll~r,lj ljQ fhi<.!!,m~rqse andd~vel~r t1:~.~\~arene~s.h~t ~...ifferent ~ Y I J e , ~f'>V~:ldo.rde.r~simperative if humankind isto survive. But the still more critical scenario is ifthe attack succeeds. Thjs cQiild lear! 10 ;j'ilih'dWof!d war. fr6th \limeD no oilewmemet"li

victorious Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will he without winners and losers When nuclear pollution infects the

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 52/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

HegBad: INC

2. Overstretch - grand strategy causes the United States to become overstretched. Regional powerswould protect regional wars from escalation.

Christopher Layne, Associate Professor in the School of International Studies at the University of Miami, Spring, 2002 (Offshore Balancing Revisited. The

Washington Quarterly. Lexis)

In the longer term, regardless of future developments in the war on terrorism, the paradox of U.S. power willnot disappear. Looking beyond the war, the big question

confronting U.S. strategists in coming years is how to reduce the risks of U.S. hegemony. To lower the risk, lb.iW.!nitedStates must cbange its grand strategy One grand

'strategic alternative to primaev is offshore balancing n18 Like primacy, offshore balancing is a slra1"egv firmly [ooted in the BeaUst tradition Primacy adherents reo-ard

multipolatity -- an international system comprised of three or more great powers -- as a strategic threat to the United States. whj le gffshore haJ9ncer~ sef ' itas Q strategic

onnortnnjty fur the ITnitedStates. Offshore balancing is predicated on the assumption that attempting to maintaip U S hegemQny is self-defeating because itwj1l

provoke other states to cmphine in opposition to the United States and result in the futi.le depletion of the United States' relative~, thereby leaying itworse o f fi h . i w if it accommodated mul t ipola r i t y , OffshQre balancing accepts that the United ~tates cannot prevent the rise of new great powers either within (the EU Gnmany

and Jiman) or outside~, a resurgent Russia)i ts sphere of influence. Offshore balancino would also rel ieve the United ~tates of its burden of mananjng thesecuritv

~ of turbulent regions such as tbe Persian Gulf /Middle East and Southeast Europe. Offshore balancing is a "rand strateuy based on hurden shifting, not burdensharing. Itwould transfer to others the task Ofmaintainjng reoj9JJal power halances· checking the r i s e of Qotegth,) g lobal and region'l l begemonsi and stabil izing

Europe East Asja and the persjan Gulf/Middle East In other words, other states would have to become responsible for p rov id i n iT their own security and for the

security of the regions in which thev live (and contiguous ones), rather than looking to the United States todo it for them.

Michael Ignatieff, Director of the Carr Center, Harvard University, 115/2003 (The New York Times) p. lexis

At the beginning of the first volume of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," published in 1776, Edward Gibbon remarked that empires endure only

so long as their rulers take care not to overextend their borders. Augustus bequeathed his successors an empire "within those limits which nature seemed to

have placed as its permanent bulwarks and boundar ies: on the west the Atlantic Ocean; the Rbine and Danube on the north; the Euphrates on the east; and

towards the south the sandy deserts of Arabia and Afr ica." Beyond these boundaries lay the barbarians. But the "vanity or ignorance" of the Romans, Gibbon

went on, led them to "despise and sometimes to forget the outlying countries that had been left in the enjoyment of a barbarous independence." As a result, the

proud Romans were lulled into making the fatal mistake of "confounding the Roman monarchy with the globe of the earth." This characteristic delusion of

imperial power is to confuse global power with global domination. The Americans may have the former, but they do not have the latter. They cannot rebuild

each failed state or appease eaeh anti-American hatred and the more they try the more they expose themselves to the overreach that eventually

undermined the classical empires of old. The secretary of defense may be right when he warns the North Koreans that America is capable of fightin'T on two

~ -- in Korea and Iraq -- simultaneously, hut AmericanS at home cannot he overjoyed at such a prospect agd if two fronts are possible at once.j;

much larger number of fronts is not. If conflict in Iraq, North Korea or both becomes a possibility, AI Qaeda cap he COUnted o n t o seek t o strike a busy apdOverextended empire in the back. What this suggests is not just that overwhelming power never confers the security it promises but also that~

()verwhelmi'llgIYOgwerfUlTiced··ft1efidslffidiitlies:·Irrtheeoid·war;theroadto the NorthKofklanGapital,·.Pyongyang, ....ed ..thrcughMoscowaru} j2,\;;ij iug,Nmy.

America needs i ts old cold war adversaries more than ever to control the breakaway, bankrupt Communist rogue that is threatening America and her clients

from Tokyo to Seoul. Empires survive when they understand that diplomacy, backed by force, is always to be preferred to force alone. Lpokincr into the still. . .

North Korean case shows, America needs to share the policing of nonproliferation and othet threats with these powers. and if it tr ies. as the current

Security Strategy suggests, to prevent the emergence of any competitor to American global dominance. i t risks everythjng that Gibbon predicted:

oyerextensiqn follqwed by defi·at.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 53/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

HegBad: INC

Impact - failing to curtail American global leadership w in result in an inevitable nuclear war.

Michael M. May, senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies, March, 2000 (The U.S. Enlargement Strategy and Nuclear Weapons, Page 4, iis-

db.stanford.edu/pubsIl1892/enlargementstratcgy.pdf)

These two policies, military enlargement and reliance on nuclear stability and arms control, are not compatible. Continucd enlargement backed or led by military force

will not support de-emphasis of nuclear weapons. let alone nuclear disarmament. Itmay not SUpp011nuci>ar nonproliferation even among allies. depending on whether

the United States is seen to become overextended or overcommitted at home or abroad. Mi!j\i lry enlargement weakens sUpPQl1for several of the arms-control measures

on the U.S agenda. Enlargeluent is also likely to lead tn rrises that wj U 1"st the stahUity of nuclear deterrence more ser iously than it has been tested since the ear ly

years of the Cold War. The altemative to military enlargement would require the Uni ted States and the other principal mil itary powers in the world ~ geographicrestraints on the unilateral use of their power. Such acceptance would mjnimize nuclear-weapons-related risks ~ also, perhaps paradoxically, better serve

continued U.S power and influence than continued attempts 91 military enlargement Itmight even be popularly acceptable. But it would represent such a change from

the present U.S. strategic patterns that it is not likely to be acceptable today. Nevertheless, welcome or not, 1imjtswj!lhaye to be accepted someday ~expansion. if not. checked voluntar ily. must lead to nuclear confrontat ion where the adversary is a nuclear power. Nuclear confrontation wiJllead e ither tn uuclear

;wu: or to a mutual acceptance of lines of demarcation. Nuclear war is unacceptable and will not be accepted so long asrational decision-making prevails. Unf0l1unalely

if pm planned in advance acceptance of limits wil l be reached throuah a succession of dangerops crises some of which may sap t J S power and influence

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 54/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

2NC Overview

Extend lNC (_) - Offshore Balancing

Only a few areas of the world are strategically important, yet current U.S. global leadership interveneseverywhere. This preponderance overstretches the U.S. power. Offshore balancing lets local powersprevent the rise of another great rival power. Preserving U.S. power from an imperial overstretchallows it to prevent genocides and concentrate on the war on terror. By stopping imperialistintervention, offshore balancing reduces anti-americanism that fuels acts of terror. That's Walt 2005.

And - genocide results in extinction.

Kenneth J. Campbell, Professor of International Relations, University of Delaware, 2001 (Genocide and the Global Village) p. 15-16

Where genocide is pennitted to proliferate, the liberal international order cannot long survive. No group will be safe; every group will wonder when they will be

next. Left unchecked, genocide threatens to destrov whatever securitv, democracy, and prosperity exists in the present international system. As Roger Smithnotes: Even the most powerful nations-those armed with nuclear weapons-may end up in struggles that will lead (accidentally, intentionally, insanely) to the

''''!~~~~~~~~~~~;5n~~o~tl~on~~I}:0' e~~a~~ch:o~:t.~he~~r,~b~~u~t;fiilfi::~ki~'n~d~i:tsielf,ewing the fate of the earth forever with a final genocidal effort. In this- risk to lives and treasure.

This solves all their reasons why hegemony is good. Offshore balancing prevents balancing andoverstretch that collapses U.S. hardpower. We do not need to be directly involved to prevent conflict.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 55/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Caporal

2NC Must Read: Layne 97

Preponderance and offshore balancing are mutually exclusive. Offshore balancing is critical to solve

overstretch, the economy and general U.S. power.

Christopher Layne, Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, Summer, 1997 (From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing, International

Security 2 2: 1 . Page 112-113. JSTOR I SWON)

0115h01"1.' alancing is a strategy for the multipolar world that already is

emerging, Its underlying premise is that it wil l become increasingly more

difficult, dangerous, and costly for the United States to maintain order in, and

control 01"[, the international political system as called for by the strategy of

preponderance. Offshore l 'k~rancing w(}uld define u.s, inteR'S!." narrowlv in

terms of detC'lld. lng the United States" territorial integri ty and preventing the

r ise of a Eurasian hegemon" As an (,£Eshore balancer, the United St ;, t( 'S would

disengage from its mil itary commitments in Europe, j<lpan, and South Korea.

IW : overriding objectives of an offshore balancing ,t:raiellV would b", to I n 5 1 1 -

IaJe the United States frOQl futlH't,~ g-rcat P(}\,\i'Ci!'th;ars ,and rtlaXl!Ulze ib, relative

psrwY'r rcHsitigu in the internat ional system. Offshore baJancing "vonk*-reiectthe strategv of prerronderancefs somrnitJnent to econonlic interdependence

fs ore b lane-

J , u g .

would abandon thE' idrologica! pretensions embedded in the strategy of pre-

ponderance ..1 ' . 5 an offshore balancer, the United States would not aS5()rt.lv!.'Iy

export democracy, engage 1.!1peace enJI)tcem,'nt ()perati()ns, attempt

to save "f"ll ,,.j Sh1h~\,"Oikt, and Haiti), or use military power for the

purpose of humanitarian.intervention.

An offshott, bilk,ncing srrategv would be cor"~iderab!v less expensive than

the strategy of preponderance. It would require defense budgets in the ran"e

of 2-25 p,'recnt uf GNP. American militarY stratef.'Vfor possible interventions

would be based on the principle of limited liability, In contrast to the i(m:e

structure current ly underpinning the strategy of preponderan\;e, offshore bal-

ancing would sharply reduce the size "rid tol,) of U.S. ground forces, The

strategy's backbone would be robust nuclear deterrence, air power, and-vmost

lmporrant=overwhelming naval In tile litHer tl'Sp,,)d, ill1offshore hal.in the

otlsh(lre balancer, the United States would seek simul taneously

its mllltary-technologlcel advantages and its strategic f lexib i l i ty .

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 56/104

Space NegDDW08

Jack Capora\

2NC: Geopolitical Insulation

Nuclear weapons, military and economic power and geographic insulation makes a violent transition

war impossible for the U.S. Offshore balancing avoids entanglement and power wars.

Christopher Lavne, Visiting Associate Professor at the NavaJ Postgraduate School, Summer, 1997 (From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing. International

Security 22: 1. Page 115-116. JSTOR)

I1lC strategy of preponderance ass;mncs that multipolar systems are unsta·

lllIi. As ageneralization this may be true, but instability does not affect all states

~aUy: Preponderance's ildv()cates fan to consider geograplw's differential

effects. An offshore balandng strategy. however, would aCC01..mt ~

g~'Ography's impact on grand strat~gv. Insular great powers are substantiallv

less likely to be affected by instabili ty than are states that face geographically

proximate rivals, Hence the United ~lates could effectively insulgte itself from

the future great power wars to be caused bv power transition effects.

Because of the interlocking efi('Cts of geography, nuclear ,,, 'eapoT1s (which

~"'~;' '' '' ''' and formidable military and era-

is virtuallvimpregnable aga.inst direct

and the possible exposure of the American hOIIlI.!'·

IlHlltj.t}Q,l¢usystems, insular greal powers have a much broader nmge of

rtratcgk chokt;s than less . io. r t t l l1<l te ly placed powers, Because their strategic

intercie!J('ncience with others is low. they ,:an avoid b"ing entrapped by alliance

commitments an.d need worry litt.le atlQut being ~Ibandoned by actual or

potential allies.so Offshore great powers also have the choice of slaving out of

grt'i1t powerwaf(~ altogether (;t o.f limiting their involvement-a cborce un-

available to state~ that live in dangerous neigbborhoods mwhich rivals lurk

1 1 , . s an insular power ina world, the United States

would retain a free hand stt·"".""icallv

ternonr,.nl ma i J . t i o nB , the United States

alliance relanonships. Because oJ its """"",.,.",States would seldom need to engage in external L'' ', ' ' ' '"-,,,&. _ " " , " ~ , " " " i . l . l i I . : ~ _ ' "

\ l

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 57/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

PLAN PERCEIVED ASCOSTING TRILLIONS(Jeff Foust, Monday, August 13,2007 , "A renaissance for space solar power?",

http://www.thespaccrcvicw.com/articlc/931/1 )

One obstacle facing space solar power is that most people have not heard of it, and many of those who have associate

it with the huge, expensive concepts studied back in the 1970s. Those proposals featured arrays many kilometers long

with massive trusses that required dozens or hundreds of astronauts to assemble and maintain: Mankins joked that a

giant Borg cube from Star Trek would have easily fit into one corner of one of the solar power satellite designs. "Youended up with a capital investment-launchers, in-space infrastructure, all of those things--on the order of $300

billion to $1 trillion in today's dollars before you could build the first solar power satellite and get anv power out of

i!," he said.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 58/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R B I J Q t \ t t - t\Jtd~h(-e~

OUTSIDE OF BUDGET CYCLE(Jeff Foust, Monday, August 13, 2007 , "A renaissance for space solar power?",

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/9311l )

They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to

commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power. There was one problem with those plans, Smith said: because

this project was started outside of the budget cycle, there was no money available for him to carry out a conventional

study.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 59/104

M ORE SPACE STUFF

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

AGENT DEB AT ESGOOD

AGENT DEBATES ABOUT SOLAR SPACE ARE CRUCIAL AND SUPPORTED IN THE LIT

CJ:S:ational~ecurity ~pace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10,2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/l ibrary/final-sbsp- interim-assessment -release-O l.pdf)' $ ' .

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 vears has made little progress

because it "falls between the cracks" of currently-defined responsibilities of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an

organizational advocate within the US Government. The current bureaucratic Janes are drawn in such a way to exclude the

likelihood of SBSP development. NASA's charter and focus is clearlv on robotic and human exploration to execute the

Moon-Mars Vision for Space Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America's Department of Energy (DOE). DOE

rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space access, and space-to.

Earth power-beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it dependent upon a space-capable

agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this

mission, and no dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development

expertise in-hou~e"~nd,,S!~(lrl)l~.~.~~r~~R~~si~~~i~y~ol~~~ to t~elongternl security of the United States, but it is also notthe count~y' s De'partmenrotEneiiiY~ ancrmusffi5cUs- iese:lfulIWrrrpre\1C1Itit5fta:ncl·warfighting-GfHlOOfI1Sv.,4Fsil;uilaLprobIem...

exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch markets with the government as a primary customer

and advocate, and do not have a developed business model or speak in a common language with the energy companies. The

energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace sector. One

requires a demonstrated market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without a trusted agent to

mediate the collaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive policy, progress is likelv to be slow. 0

Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government re-order roles and responsibilities to

specify SBSP an development champion; one option might included a dedicated sole-purpose organization. FINDING:

The SBSP Study Group found that no existing U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate to invest in the development of

Space-Based Solar Power. Lacking a specific mandate and clear responsibility, no U.S. federal agency has an existing

or planned program of research, technology investment, or development related to Space-Based Solar Power. Instead,

the responsibilities for various aspects of SBSP arc distributed among various federal agencies. 0Recommendation: The~BSF'..~.!lldXg!~llpreC?I111l1e~~st~att~: LJSGovernment should form a SBSP Partnership Council that consists of all federal

agenci es with respoi1sibi1itle~srelevant tosaccessfntlydevetoping~&B§P;+h:cSB£PBartn.er$.hipCouncil.muSJhe~hqireQ'lng. "~'"

led by an existing or newly created single-purpose civilian federal agency. 0Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group

OE~v~~thlg in key technologiesneeded for SBSP. ..... ~ ..... ';,*iiiliiiiL."",s~",·_,-",·~·",_"",,,,," .., * , , , = _ " , , , . •y!,_,,,,,,,,,,,w''''~",.\""'''''~"'

1 7 6

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 60/104

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 61/104

MORE SPACE STUFF

DDW2008

IAN M ILLER

DO D SO LVES

DOD ACTION WILL SOLVE SBSP- THEY ARE THE ONLY ACTOR THAT CAN SOLVE

iliational ~ecurity ~ace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10, 2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www .nss. org/settlemen t/ssp/library /final-sbsp-i nterirn-assessment -release-O 1.pdf)

SBSP needs a champion. The benefits it can provide are benefits to the military in Scenario 1but also to society as a

whole though the development of clean safe energy from Space in Scenario 2. Some feel it should he an effort led by

many government departments but DoD has taken that lead. Itsees the value that applies to the many sectors of the

economy, and to the country as a whole. These efforts by DoD have lead to a higher credibility for this solution than

has existed thus far and it continues to build. The short term benefits under Urgent Need are more valuable to DoD

than to anyone else. Taking the leadership role, providing manpower and financing to further research and study

SBSP, and to encourage product development is work that DoD must continue to initiate and support. One path

would be to define and fund a series of the smallest meaningful demonstrations related to wireless power transfer,

SPS assembly, and SPS operations leading to a 5 MWe pilot for remote base support.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 62/104

MORE SPACE STUFF

DDW2008

IAN M ILLE R

DO D SO LVES

DOD SOLVES PRIVATE RESEARCH(National §ecurity §pace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10,2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www .nss.org/settlementlsspllibrary/final-sbsp-interim-assessment -release-O 1.pdf)

Private research could be encouraged in a number of ways. First it is important for private enterprises to know that

DoD or other government organizations are interested in these products and may be a future market for them. Some

research may voluntarily be done if it can be shown that resulting products developed are dual use technologies, and

have an immediate non-SBSP market. Solar cell manufacturers are already working on increased efficiencies in cells as well

as in manufacturing techniques to increase the output in terrestrial solar power systems.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 63/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

DOD KEY(Jeff Foust, Monday, August 13,2007, "A renaissance for space solar power?",http://www.thespacerevicw.comlartic1e/93111 )

The DoD, as the nation's largest institutional consumer of technology and energy, has determined that long-termenergy securitvis now a forefront issue. The early developments of the 21st Century have created conditions thatmerit that this nation takes a retook of SBSP.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 64/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

SPACE POWER THROUGH THE DOD KEY TO MILITARY

(Jeff Foust, Monday, August 13, 2007 , "A renaissance for space solar power?",

http://www.thespacereview.comJarticle/931/1)

In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhatunlikely quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study

about the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms of

economic and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael "Coyote" Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session

about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in

a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to "the worst nightmare war we could face

in the 21st century." If the United States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy

sources, he said, "that will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal." At the same time, the DOD has been

looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military's voracious appetite for energy, and the high

expense-in dollars as well as lives-in getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a

gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run between

$300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys

shipping the fuel. "The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide

our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas," Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space

had at in their

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 65/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

THE KEY IS MAKING SOLAR SPACE ECONOMICALLY AFFORDABLE· THE DOD CAN BE AN ANCHOR

TENANT THAT WILL SOLVE THE ECONOMICS

@pace frontier foundation, October 10,2007, "Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanity's Energy, National

Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs", www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/

SFFViewsSBSPReportl aOct07 .pdf)

For the last 40 years, the biggest challenge to space-based solar power has not been technology. The biggest challenge

has been figuring out "How can SBSP ever become economically affordable, compared to alternatives?" Perhaps the

biggest news of the NSSO-Ied study is that the team uncovered something new that might forever change the economic

equation for space-based solar power. The report estimates that the Department of Defense (DoD) is paying about $1

per kilowatt-hour for electricity in forward bases in Iraq, when all indirect costs are included. This is an order of

magnitude higher in price than what Americans pay for electricity in their homes. These higher electricity prices are not

caused by gouging, but by the realities of war and how electricity is generated for the warfighter. Currently, we pump oil out

of the ground in the Middle East or the continental United States, and then transport the oil to the Gulf coast where it is

refined into kerosene. We then pump the kerosene onto tankers, which must be guarded by the U.S. Navy, and transport it to

the Gulf region. We then pump the kerosene off the tankers into individual trucks, which must be heavily guarded by

American ground forces. Then, these convoys, which are primary targets for asymmetric attacks by improvised explosive

devices, must run a dangerous gauntlet through a war zone. Finally, the kerosene is delivered to the forward bases, where it is

c9,~~~~t~,~"i!1tolect!i~i~,y:,E~e.NSS()-led~tl1~yreport fi!1~sthat:jletroleum products account for approximately 70% of'd e l iv e r e d ' to n ' n a g 'c ' t o 'U : S :f o r c 'c s I ii I r a q = f o " t i ra i rr Y " ' c o n s u 'm p f io i iI s " u J ) 'J ) r o X l m a f e l Y " ' t :6 'm m i O n I : 'a : ll o n s :'S i g n i f ic a n f " "numbers of American men and women are killed and injured while they are defending these supply chains. The

estimated cost of $1per kilowatt hour does NOT include the cost in lives of American men and women. In other

words, if space-based solar power existed today it would be saving the lives of American men and women in Iraq. Itis

this fundamental finding that creates the possibility that the DoD might become an early adopter, and anchor tenmit

customer, for SBSP. The possibility that the Department of Defense might be willing to sign up as anchor tenant to

"pay for SBSP services delivered to the warfighter in forward bases in amounts of 5-50 MW continuous, at a price of

$1or more per kilowatt-hour", changes the entire economic equation of SBSP. For this reason, the business case for

Space-Based Solar Power may close in the very near futUre with reasonable and appropriate actions by the U.S.

Government.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 66/104

M ORE SPAC E STUFF

DDW2008

IA N M ILLE R

N AS A TR ADE OF F 1/2

NASA IS ON THE BRINK- SOLAR SPACE POWER KILLS NASA

(Taylor Dinerman, Monday, May 19, 2008, "NASA and space solar power" http://www.thespacereview.com!artic1ell1301l)

NASA has good reason to be afraid that the Congress or maybe even the White House will give them a mandate to

work on space solar power at a time when the agency's budget is even tighter than usual and when everything that can be

safely cut has been cut. This includes almost all technology development programs that are not directly tied to the

Exploration Missions System Directorate's Project Constellation. Not only that, the management talent inside the

organization is similarly under stress. Adding a new program might bring down the US civil space program like a

house of cards. In the mid-1990s, urged on by the new chairman of the House Science Committee's space subcommittee,

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), NASA did conduct a so-called "Fresh Look" study of space solar power. According to John

Mankins, one of the world's greatest authorities on space solar power, "Several innovative concepts were defined and a

variety of new technology applications considered including solid state microwave transmitters, extremely large tension

stabilized structures (both tether and intlatable structures), and autonomously self assembling systems using advanced in-

space computing systems." Concluding his 2003 paper on the study, Mankins wrote: The economic viability of such

systems depends, of course, on many factors and the successful development of various new technologies-not least ofis the of low cost access to space. However the same can be said of many other advanced

power

energy that existed a decade ago and also because NASA did not, and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the

Department of Energy. NASA does science and exploration and not much else. Along with its contractors it can develop

new technologies that apply directly to those two missions, but outside of that it will resist being forced to spend money on

projects that it does not see as falling within those two missions. Technologv development ingeneral has been cut

back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed. There is a minimal ongoing effort to build up some

technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launch vehicle development, but it is hard to see how this fits into

a coherent future program. The agency has its priorities and is ruthlessly sticking to them. NASA is not the US

Department of' Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority to control, regulate, or promote commercial

space activities such as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space manufacturing, or space solar power. Such

powers are spread throughout the government in places like the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the

Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even if NASA were somehow to get the funds and the motivation to do spacesolar power, these other institutions would resist what they would recognize as an encroachment on their turf. Until

lfiCsnutr!C:Is"refiredanu'NASl\IiasafieW"aITlllleCUre'lflethod''of'gettirrgpeupie'intcrsvaee;eitnel'wi+n.·the,Orioneapsul&oll.',

top of the Ares 1or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 combination, there is no room

~C''''igM~"·~~~~RJi@4jWamiMIt>,willrAAuiJ:e,aJUb.e¥'canru..Lto G2R&.,wtb,tl!e!I,~~,~,~e-lltJ?J{)~.~"l.l,,~.1l,1l!L!,~,~,s:L!!.!.~~'Y""new president and his or her administration. They don't need any more distractions right now.. ' ~- ,=----0_S/HE2i:¥0

1~ 3

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 67/104

MORE SPACE STUFF

DDW 2008

IAN M ILLER

N AS A TR ADE OFF 2/2

NASA VITAL TO PREVENT PANDEMICS

(Jason McManus, November 07, 2007, NASA Remote Sensing Technology Predicts & Prevent Future Global Pandemics,

http://www.dailygalaxy.comlmy_ weblog/2007 /Ll/nasa-rernote-sen.html)

With the help of 14 orbiting satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space scientists have been

able to observe daily the Earth's environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease outbreaks around the

world, including Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious diseases to thrive depends on

changes in the Earth's environment such as the climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. According to NASA:

Remote sensing technology not only helps monitor infectious disease outbreaks in highly affected areas, but also

provides information about possible plague-carrying vectors n such as insects or rodents -- globally and within the

U.S. The Four Corners region, which includes Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, is a highly susceptible area for

plague and Hanta virus outbreaks, and by understanding the mixture of vegetation, rainfall and slope of the area, scientists

can predict the food supplv of disease transmitting vectors within the region and the threat they cause to humans.

Because plague is also considered a bio agent, NASA surveillance systems enable scientists to decipher if an outbreak

was caused by natural circumstances or was an act of bio. A particular infectious disease being targeted by NASA ismalaria, which affects 300-500 million persons worldwide, leaving 40 percent of the world at risk of infection. The Malaria

Institute of Medical Sciences in Thailand and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit located in Indonesia. NASA satellite

remote sensing technologv has been an important tool in the last few years to not only provide scientists with the data

needed to respond to .epidemic threats quickly, but to also help predict the future of infectious diseases in areas where

diseases were never a main concern," says Mr. Haynes. "Changing environments due to global warming have the

ability to change environmental habitats so drastically that diseases such as malaria may become common in areas that

have never been previously at-risk.

PANDEMICS CAUSE EXTINCTION

(Kavita Daswani, 1996, South China Morning Post)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the" facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There isa much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus

·ut!adiiertlran··tlfV;H·thismalces···9rBsn,Abr;ahamsolmd ..ike......rophet .. f .. d o c Q 1 ) J , . . . .hc.n..c .c ! !1 : :l ,1 5 £ . § l 1 () .i :l P () 1 ( )g Y [ ( ! I . .i~...I~~.;

the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in

- the .are all, aecordin to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive

study and research in the 0 VITO ave convince

nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a

lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate

constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a

tragedv waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said

history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola

has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid -

could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an

outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. Itcould happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it

could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is

indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller

University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-

Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme.

Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the

1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities"

are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced

into areas of' human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mvsterious viruses would, for the first

time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival ofthe human race, II he said.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 68/104

SPACE

DDW 2008

IAN M I L L E R

NASA SUCKS· PRIVATIZING IT IS KEY

(Rick Tumlinson, the president of the space frontier foundation, October 1st 1998, http://www.space-

frontier.orglPolicies/frontieragenda.html)

The government should privatize the NASA centers so they can act as true research centers and incubators for new

space industries. The development of commercial and other private sector activities in space will drive the growth of

supporting industries here on Earth, industries that will duster near space facilities. There will be a great need for test,

training, processing and other specialized capabilities. This is where another legacy of our first forty years in space can

provide a major kick-start to the opening of the frontier. Designed to spread out political support for the early space program,

and sometimes the result of what must be called pork barrel politics, the vast space center-based infrastructure developed

by NASA is filled with redundancies and inefficiencies. It is dominated by turf grabbing and politics and has bred a

culture of division that inhibits progress. We are too often faced with the specter of this or that politicallv powerful

space center actually competing with or killing private sector ideas as a means to retain their own power and funding.

The centers should be spun off to partner with local industries and universities wherever possible, as the cores of

future space industrial and research parks. with the successful CaiTechl,[PL model as a minimum standard.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 69/104

SPACE

DDW2008

IA N M ILLER

THE NSSO IS AWFUL

(Dwayne A.Day, Monday, June 9, 2008, "Knights in shining armor" http://www.thespacereview.com!artic1eIl147 /1)

The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger. But in this case, the activists touting the

NSSO study do not understand where the NSSO fits into the larger military space bureaucracy. The National Security

Space Office was created in 2004 and "facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and

commercial space activities." But any office that "facilitates" the activities of"other organizations has limited influence,

especially when those other organizations are much bigger and have their own interests and connections to the senior

leadership. The NSSO has a minimal staff and budget and does not command any assets-it does not fly any satellites,

launch any rockets, or procure any hardware, all of which are measures of power within the military space realm. Simply put,

the NSSO exists essentially as a policy shop that is readily ignored by the major military space actors such as Strategic

Command, Air Force Space Command, and the National Reconnaissance Office whenever it suits them. As one former

NSSO staffer explained, the office consists of many smart, hardworking people who have no discernible influence on

military space at all. Infact, for several years there have been persistent rumors that the NSSO was about to be

abolished as unnecessary, irrelevant, and toothless. Add to this the way in which the NSSO's solar power satellite study

was pursued-the study itself had no budget. In Washington, studies cost money.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 70/104

SPACE

DDW 2008

IA N M ILLE R

SOLAR SPACE DOESN'T REQUIRE US LEADERSHIP

(~ational §ecurity §pace Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business

experts around the world, October 10,2007, "Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Report to

the Director, Interim Assessment", http://www.nss.org/settlementlssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-O l.pdf)

The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high- level leadership and

resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion energy research or International Space Station

construction and operations. The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S. begin a coordinated national program

to develop SBSP, it should expect to find that broad interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government, ranging

from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments such as .Japan, the EU, Canada, India, China, Russia,

and others; to many individual citizens who are increasingly concerned about the preservation of energy security and

environmental quality. While the best chances for development are likely to occur with US Government support, it is

entirely possible that SBSP development mav be independently pursued elsewhere without U.S. leadership.

\l.

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 71/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

Arms Race

Space Weaponization spurs race arms race and triggers both accidental and intentional nuclear wars

Tariq Malik, Space News Staff writer, January 22 2004, Think Tank Warns Against Space Weapons Systems,

http:// www.space.com/ne wsiweaponizedjspace, 040 122.html

Satellites orbiting high above Earth are a crucial resource for the u.S. military in terms of communications, reconnaissance and globa

positioning. But a new report warns that too much of a space military presence, mainly the use of space-based weapons systems. may

inevitably cause more problems than they're meant to solve. Should the u.S. military "weaponize" space, the report states, it will mos

likely be affect global commerce, weaken American ties with other nations and eventually lead to space weapons proliferation as othe

groups develop countermeasures or their own space weapons systems. The study, called Space Assurance or Space Domination? The

Case Against Weaponizing Space, was released by the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan

think tank aimed at enhancing international peace and security. "When you weaponize space, you invite company," said Michael

Krepon, who wrote the report and served as the founding president of the Stimson Center. "When we go first, others will come

second. That is an absolute certainty." Once killer satellites start destroying one another above Earth, they will cause space debris tha

could harm benign satellites used by civilian agencies and companies around the world, which in turn affects global economy,

according to the Stimson report. Ifother nations or groups choose not to put thcir own space weapons in orbit they could develop

ground-based countermeasures like electronic jamming or spoofing devices to confuse U.S. machines. A ballistic missile could disabl

satellites in low-earth orbit by detonating a nuclear device, subjecting any ground troops relying intelJigence from those satellites to

possible attack, the study noted. Finally, the report added, space weapons systems could hurt U.S. diplomatic ties on the ground, with

other. nations constantly mindful of its space forces in Earth orbit. Krepon said there is a distinction between the current militarization

of space -- which uses satellites to support -fmces~on the -gto-und-- and-weaponizatiori., delTifea in m e sturly a-S1'ITetight-testinganddeployment of any system to specifically as systems used to "fight a war in space or from space, or military capabilities on the ground

designed to kill satellites in space." The U.S. military has had an established foothold in space for decades and its application in

wartime was visually apparent during the recent war, and current occupation, in Iraq. Military forces there from the u.S. and other

nations, rely heavily on satellites on everything from weather forecasts to signal detection and photointelligence.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 72/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Armsl Space Race (112)

MOVING TOWARDS SPACE WEAPONS SPARKS SPACE RACES THAT ENDS IN MASSIVE WARS

(James Carroll, May 13, 2008, "Carroll: Preventing an arms race in space"

hup://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/13/opinion/edcarroll.php)

As World War I broke out, Henry James identified an inexorable current that had been running below international events,

leading to the "monstrous scene" of August" as its grand Niagara." Below the glassy upriver surface, the swift tide had been

driven by habits of mind, arms-merchant greed, imperial hubris, and a politics that was wholly inadequate. At the deadly cascade,

nations tumbled into the most violent century in history. The writer Jonathan Schell cites the Niagara metaphor to define the

still runnin.g momentum of war. But as James wrote, humans stood on another threshold. Wars had always been fought on land and

sea, but then new technologies of flight carried combat into the realm above. Today in Opinion Out of control: Zimbabwe's stolen

election Ireland's sad and lonely 'no' to European unity Giving refuge to victims of mutilation Airborne weapons transformed killing.

Indeed, air force was the invention that made 20th century warfare catastrophic. In looking back on that development, is it only naive

to ask if governments could have agreed to ban weapons in the air? What if the dropping of bombs from the newfangled aeroplane ha

been outlawed? The mind reels to think of it. A centurv later, the human race stands at an equivalent threshold, and a version o

that exact question is indeed being asked. Can weapons be banned from outer space? Or will the Niagara current of defense

contractor greed, imperial hubris, and inadequate politics carry the destructiveness of war into the "fourth battlefield" of the

very cosmos? That is the question that has been asked at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for the last six

years. But not by Washington. How many Americans know that the nation refusing to discuss a treaty aimed at preventing an arms

the Bush administration,

is explicit in to put weapons in space - lasers, directed energ~y~~'w;~e'~ap~o~n~s~':'~ f ~ ~ i [ ~ ' I t l ' i " ~ : ~ E ' ; ~ I , ; ~ ~ ~ F ~ ' J } s : ~ ' 5 r p ~ f 2 i ~ c ; 5 f f"Vision for 2020," plans for" counterspace operations." The already deployed missile defense system is a first step toward an anti-

satellite capability, giving the Pentagon control of the "high frontier." The American Academy of Arts and Sciences recently

published "Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space," a stark lookat where the American project is taking the

world. The academy was instrumental half a century ago in creating the arms control regime that enabled the Cold War to end

nonviolently. Now it warns that "U.S. space weaponization plans would have potentially disastrous effects on international

security and the peaceful uses of space. II Russia and China have insisted in Geneva that a treaty banning such weapons is urgently

needed. Failing that, neither nation sees a choice but to respond - Russia by extending its aging ballistic missile forces, and China by

readying a space weapons program of its own. Last week, for the first time since the Soviet era, missiles were paraded through

Red Square. Last year, China fired the warning shot of a first anti-satellite missile test. How is the crucial question of weapons

in outer space being considered in America? As the quadrennial political conversation of the presidential primaries was moving into

gear last February, the Pentagon announced its intention to send a missile into space to shoot down a "wayward satellite," supposedly

lQ,PIoJhGls::;:u:tb.JmInitsl!I1!;p~J1Jfl!~L.M(l1ll:?~s~Evers.~..c(;Et~illlyillclu~~~.~.<=.~illes~.~.~.I1.~~.l{ussians.....~~estion:d\.\1~et~ert~iswas not, ifact, a step toward anti"satellite weaponry? IfHe~y James wereallve, wou1dn'fne have r-ecogiiized a n upsnift in HIe current towardNiagara? Yet neither the presidential candidates, nor the pundits and moderators who yap at them, saw in this event anything to

threshold into outer space is being left to defense contractors, military commanders, and their wholly owned subsidiary on

Hill. Not since August 1914 has politics seemed so irrelevant. Humans who did not think to ban weapons from the air a century

ago know better when it comes to outer space. Yet what are we doing? If the deadly current is still hidden, what is that low

rumble that can be heard, rolling toward us from down the river?

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 73/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Armsl Space Race (2/2)

SPACE MILITARIZATION SPARKS ACCIDENTAL SPACE WARS THAT ENDS IN EXTINCTION

(Gordon Mitchell et aI, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburg, 2001. ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile

Defense no. 6, July, http://www.isisuk.dcmon.co.uk/08] I/isis/uklbmdlno6.html.)

A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glossesover the tendency that' ... the presence of space weapons ... wiU result iu the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift

toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'antiballistic

missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military

space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of space borne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation

of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same

capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles

in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's

atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with

the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In

theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to

commit violence out of humau hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow

insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled'

industrial systems snch as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless

performance. According to Perrow. this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such

"",systemscouLdrail.=~JlJ~$tgQ~,t:;~J21l!II}§,'[t]he olld term tlnormala,c~iden~tt"is Illeant to si~.Ilal !~~t,~i!~Ilt~~syst~1llcharacteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions off~ilu~res are~inevitabie'~361jepioyment o f s p a c t w e a p o n s w l f f i " p r e :delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the

susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to

retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny proiectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it

can do enormous damage - even more than would be done by a nnclear weapon of the same size!', 37 In the same Star Wars

technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive

weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction,

it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use

of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the

world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 74/104

DDW-ZOOS

Solar Space

Space Weapons Bad - Arms Race

Pursuit of space weaponization could start space arms race.Anup Shah, environmental engineer, 1/21/07 "Militarization and Weaponization of Outer Space,"

http://www.gl 0 bali S8ues.org/Geopo Iitics/ArmsCon trol/Space.asp

While various militaries around the world have used Space for years, it has largely been for surveillance satellites etc.

However, the Bush Administration in the United States has long made it clear that the US wishes to expand its military

capabilities and have weapons in space and therfore also be dominant in this fourth military arena (the other three being sea,

land and air). This new "ultimate high ground" would provide further superior military capabilities.

While it would provide additional important defense mechanisms, many worry about the other benefit it would bring-

capabilities for offensive purposes to push America's "national interests" even if they are not in the interests of the

international community.

Furthermore, together with its pursuit of missile defense, (which goes against the Anti Ballistic Missiletreaty, an important part of global arms control mechanisms), the USA risks starting a wasteful

expenditure of an arms race in space.

t c \ \

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 75/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Prolif/Climate change

SPACE WEAPONIZATIONS KILLS COOPERATION CRUCIAL TO SOLVE PROLIFERATION, CLIMATE CHANGE,

AND TERRORISM

(UNION FOR CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, 06123/08, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/)

Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms

race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and hinder international cooperation

necessary to make progress on snch problems as nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, and terrorism.

PROLIFERATION CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

(Alan Robock, 17 March 2008, "Time to Bury a Dangerous Legacy _ Part II")

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION

(Bill Henderson, February 24,2007, "Climate Change, Peak Oil And Nuclear War", Countercurrents.org)

Damocles had one life threatening sword hanging by a thread over his head. We have three: The awal{ening public now know tha

climate change is real and human caused but still grossly underestimate the seriousness of the danger, the increasing

probability of extinctiou, and how close and insidious this danger is • runaway climate change, the threshold of which, wit

carbon cycle time lags, we are close to if not upon. A steep spike in the price of oil, precipitated perhaps by an attack on Iran o

Middle East instability spreading the insurgency to Saudi Arabia, could lead to an economic dislocation paralyzing the globa

economy. Such a shock coming at the end of cheap oil but before major development of alternative energy economies could mean th

end of civilization as we know it. And there is a building new cold war with still potent nuclear power Russiaand China reacting to

..bellige!;ent,lJnU;:!leI::lli~tA!!}eriSa ()11.ee()r~.t~<lt.i.!...il1 u~el11ilit~l'ypo",~rt?se~ure ....i.t~l.reso~r~~s ..~nd.to. not allow any other countrto threaten it's world dominanc~.The world is Closer to aHnal, m i e l e i l l - ; worrd w a r thanatany tinle"sincelheCuba:rrruissi:lecrisis:in

1962 with a beginning arms race and tactical confrontation over weapons in space and even serious talk of pre-emptive nuclear attack

ettrm~~~"~rj.i""j"I'~~~~~~~~,;M~tQJ~t;~~a~~~,~~~~.~~t,M,~~~.,S5~Q,,,~JJ'l~tf""'-""=4and complicate any possible approach to individual solution. The fossil fuel energy path has taken us to a way of life that is killin

us and may lead to extinction for humanity and much of what we now recognize as nature.

TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION

(Al-Ahram Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, 8/26, 2004, Weekly political analyst, "Extinction!" http://weekly.ahram.org.eg!20041705/op5.htm)

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative

features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures

would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnicconflicts would proliferate. Itwould also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world

order is imperative ifhumankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a

third worM war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs

over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will aU be

losers.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 76/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

Space Weapons causes escalation

ALL WARS ESCALATE TO NUCLEAR WAR WITH SPACE WEAPONS THROUGH MISCALCULATION

(Jeffrey, Lewis, July 2004, "What if Space Were Weaponized? Possible Consequences for Crisis Scenarios." Washington, D.C.:

Center for Defense Information,)

All of these incidents have a common theme -- that confidence is often the difference between war and peace. In times of crisis,

false alarms can have a momentum of their own. As in the second scenario in this monograph, the lesson is that commanders rely

on the steady flow of reliable information. When that information flow is disrupted -- whether by a deliberate attack or an

accident -- confidence collapses and the result is panic and escalation. Introducing ASA T weapons into this mix is all the more

dangerous, because such weapons target the elements of the command system that keep leaders aware, informed and in

control. As a result, the mere presence of such weapons is corrosive to the confidence that allows national nuclear forces to

operate safely.

SPACE WEAPONS DESTROY RUSSIAN EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS- RUSSIA WILL NUKE US FIRST IF WE

CONSTRUCT SPACE WEAPONS

(Thomas Graham, December 2005, "Space Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War." Arms Control Today. Vol. 35, No.

10.)

"Buth ..be ..lnited SJatesand Russia rely on~Rll.ce-.?ll~~.~syste~~.to p~?~i~~ ea~~!.~.~rn.i~?~!~nu.~le~rattac~.Ifdeploved,however, U.S. space-based missile defense ifiterceptors'could: e l i m i n a t e t l i e RussiaIfearlywarn:ing'satetli tes gmckly ami"

without warning. So, just the existence of U.S. space weapons could make Russia's strategic trigger fingers itchy. The potential

protection space-based defenses might offer the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost: a failure of or false

signal from a component of the Russian early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and accidental nuclear war.

There is no conceivable missile defense, space-based or not, that would offer protection in the event that the Russian nuclear

arsenal was launched at the United States. Nor are the Russians or other countries likely to stand still and watch the United

States construct space-based defenses. These states are likely to respond by developing advanced anti-satellite weapon systems.

These weapons, in turn, would endanger U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S. weapons intelligence efforts, and increase

the jitteriness of U.S. officials.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 77/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

Counter measures destroy the economy

SPACE WEAPONS CAN'T DETER OTHER COUNTRIES FROM WEAPONIZING SPACE, WEAPONIZATION CAUSES

NUCLEAR WEAPON COUNTERLVlEASURES, AND SPACE DEBRIS THAT DESTROYS THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

(Tariq Malik, January 22, 2004, Think Tank Warns Against Space Weapons Systems,

http://www.space.comlnews/weaponized_space_040122.html)

Satellites orbiting high above Earth are a crucial resource for the U.S. military in terms of communications, reconnaissance and globa

positioning. But a new report warns that too much of a space military presence, mainly the use of space-based weapons

systems, may inevitably cause more problems than they're meant to solve. Should the U.S. military "weaponize" space, the

report states, it will most likely be affect global commerce, weaken American ties with other nations and eventually lead to

space weapons proliferation as other groups develop countermeasures or their own space weapons systems. The study, called

Space Assurance or Space Domination? The Case Against Weaponizing Space, was released by the Henry L. Stimson Center, a

Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank aimed at enhancing international peace and security. "When you

weaponize space, you invite company,' , said Michael Krepon, who wrote the report and served as the founding president of the

Stimson Center. "When we go first, others will come second. That is an absolute certainty." Once killer satellites start

destroying one another above Earth, they will cause space debris that could harm benign satellites used by civilian agencies

and companies around the world, which in turn affects global economy, according to the Stimson report. Ifotber nations or

groups choose not to put their own space weapons in orbit, tbey could develop ground-based countermeasures like electronic jammingor spoofing devices to confuse U.S. machines. A ballistic missile could disable satellites in low-earth orbit by detonating a

~~nltcteardevice;'SUbjectingcanvgl'6UndytFo~J!&r~l¥ill@:intellige~fJ::om ..hosasatellites~to."nllssjble.,,\ttack,~J;hs;§tJ,UJ~J}QJSlg,cc~

Finally, the report added, space weapons systems could hurt U.S. diplomatic ties on the ground, with other nations constantly mindful

of its space forces in Earth orbit. Krepon said there is a distinction between the current militarization of space -- which uses

satellites to support forces on the ground -- and weaponization, defined in the study as the flight-testing and deployment of any

system to specifically as systems used to "fight a war in space or from space, or military capabilities on the ground designed to ki

satellites in space."

ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR

(Walter Mead, 1992, Policy Analyst, World Policy Institute)

Hundreds of millions - billions - of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have

embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west -- because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it

can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict:

··Soutlt'against,North,righagai!1st ..Dom:• .Russia,.Chin.a .•.ndia..~.Tbese c.ountries.ll!ith their billions of 12e()el~.and th(!i~~l~cl~llrweapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and .Japan did in the 30s. . . , .... . . ... ....

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 78/104

nnW-200S

Solar Space

Space Militarization ~ India-China Conflict

Space militarization will result in India-China war.

Gavin Rabinowitz, AP, Jun 17, 2008, "Indian army wants military space program",

http://ap.google.com/artic1e/ ALeqM5jImmb7wn VKkZLN4SCz6tj-huEEhAD91 BUR 780 [1 ason]

India urgently needs to "optimize space applications for military purposes," Gen. Deepak Kapoor said

Monday at a conference in New Delhi on using space for military purposes. The comments by India's army chi

raise the possibility of a regional race that could accelerate the militarization of space and heighten tensions

between the Asian giants, who have been enjoying their warmest ties in decades. However, the two nations remain

sharply divided over territorial claims dating back to the war. China claims India's northeastern state of Arunachal

Pradesh and occupies a chunk of territory in Kashmir that Indian regards as its own.Talks on the disputed border have

gone nowhere, and Kapoor's "statement is in relation to what is happening on the border dispute and the

Chinese taking an uncompromising position," Mehta said. This, along with China's heavy military spending and

a growing rivalry for regional influence, has alarmed the Indian military, which has been increasingly gearing

up for possible conflict. India has announced plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines at sea in

..Jhe~next ..dec.adeandrecentlytested nuclear-caJ2able 1J1issile~th~L£l!.t5=hil1.~.'.~~~j.or ~i.~..~.~~~l1.i~ .....~~.~~: It.isalso reopening air force bases near the Chi~ese ·border~-·· " ....

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 79/104

DDW-200SSolar Space

SPACE WEAPONS=TAIWAN CONFLICT

China perceives space weapons as a threat against Taiwan.Gabriele Garibaldi degree in International Relations from the University of Pisa, famous author on space militarization 7 1 2 0 / 0 4

Security Dialogue "The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space" http://guerranellospazio.goo21epages.com/thechinesethreat

[ev]

The American perception of the Chinese space program and vice versa For some analysts the Shenzhou, with the rest of the space

program, is intrinsically tied to the Chinese efforts to modernize its own military forces and to catch up to America's spacc assets.

According to Michael Stokes, aerospace analyst at the Department of the Defense, "the Chinese human space flight program is part

and parcel of the nation's broader ambitions in space that have very clear implications for U.S. national security 10 to 20 years in the

future". Stokes declared that China has paid great attention to the strategic role that the space assets have played in the American

military actions in the post-Cold War period (from the 1991 Gulf War to the recent 2003 war against Iraq) and commented that he wa

personally worried less about China's attempt to catch up with the "human space flight club"(the launch of Shenzhou 5 hadn't yet

occurred) than about its efforts "to develop a robust network of military satellites of its own, while at the same time researching ways

to take out the other's satellites in the event of a conflict". Evidently the US military think the enemy has the desire to "deny space to

others, if necessary", as expressed many times in the US Space Command documents, in the conclusions of the Space Commission

presided over by Donald Rumsfeld (before his nomination to the head of the Pentagon) and finally sealed by the Rand Corporation's

"Mastering the Ultimate High Ground". China's official reply to America's anxiety over its competitor's desire to abuse Space

responds by stating their respect of international law regarding this new territory. In fact, China emphasizes that "certain countries",

i.e. America, are sqqwing !~~iF~ Y i ~ ~~ore31liz~"~pace weaponization", notably after the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(ABM) and since declaring their will to develop the Theater MisslTe~TIeTerisefNIDTTne ' C r u n e s e autTi6rlties,~therefore,eindirecttr

admonish tne USA in these terms: "China is concerned about certain countries' joint research and development of theater missile

defense (TMD) systems with a view to their deployment in the Nortneast Asian region. This will lead to the proliferation of advanced

missile technology and be detrimental to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. China resolutely opposes any country which

provides Taiwan [a notoriously independent state] with TMD assistance or protection in any form [italics in original text]." Space, the

key to the balance of power in the twenty-first century As shown, China has the aim to equip itself witn the necessary means to look

after its own interests and be able to withstand a conflict with tne USA. In spite of the (ephemeral) alliance in fighting the

Fundamental Islamic terrorism after 9/11, China considers the USA a hegemonic power that limits its development to its own area of

influence. China's ambition, therefore, is to assert itself as the alternative power to America currently in Asia, and to establish with th

United States a relationship on equal terms in a multipolar international system. Concerning their geostrategic plans, China has

significant reason to enter into conflict with the United States. In order of increasing importance, these areas of dispute include their

increasing influence in Central Asia, their interference in Korean affairs, the Spratly islands and Taiwan. The strategical significance.ot!he§p~~tlxIsla~~s~~scause~:~)~tTovefs)'~~t\¥~enth~ t\V~~uper~o\Vers. Situated in the southern China Sea, they fall on the mostimportant tradingrouteinthEwcirld ~onefhroughwhiCIi 25% of tn e world'suitprodactspass;conungfromtheMiMleEastantt .,

directed towards Japan and the USA - and are surrounded by potential oil-fields. But it is with regard to Taiwan that the friction with. . . .. ., ffered b the

US to the Taiwanese Defense Minister, Tang Yian-ming, and his consequent meeting with the American vice-Minister 0 e ense,

Paul Wolfowitz, has greatly irritated Beijing. The Taiwanese issue is the fulcrum of the American strategy (which, according to

Chinese analysts, even foresees the destabilization of the whole area of influence of China in order to stop its rise) and one that will

necessitate a battle of wills between China and the USA in the twenty-first century, a trial of strength for which China is being well

prepared.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 80/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

SPACE WEAPONS=WARSI

Space militarization guarantees neohegemonic wars.Gabriele Garibaldi degree in International Relations from the University of Pisa, famous author on space militarization 7 /20 /04

Security Dialogue "The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space" http://guerranel1ospazio.googlepages.com/thechincsethreat

lev]

"Deny Space to others": the last chance to stop China As the situation currently stands, it is clear that the expression "to assure our

continued access to space and deny the space to others if necessary" - recurrent, with little variations, in the US military plans - is

specifically directed towards China. The Pentagon believes that China has the same intention towards the ousting the United Statcs

from Space. and considers its polemic declarations about the "rumoured" US plans of space weaponization - expressed in front of the

UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space - as thc wcapon to diplomatically damage and slow down thc action of the USA,

while actively working in secrct towards the same According to Larry Wortzel, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage

Foundation, the introduction by the Chinese of a draft treaty devised to act against the US's intent to devclop space weapons is

misleading (" ... because they're developing their own space-based weapons ..."), having no other purposc than to diplomatically

damage the USA and thus dclay thcir Thcatcr Missile Defensc plan. while China continues with its own plans. According to Richard

Fisher of The Jamestown Foundation, the People's Liberation Army is aware that the "control of space" concept - as theorized by the

US military - is an objective that China must achieve: "China needs to be able to deny to the United States access and use of space, a

they themselves exploit space to support their own forces"objective .. Several factors, therefore, let one foresee that the impact of the

Space challenge between the USA and China will exceed previous expectations about the strategical-military use of Space (spy

satellites) and the race to install weapons, both offensively and defensively (concepts that arc difficult to distinguish from each other,

"f)a1t4(}ul4i):1¥cin.4egardclo"'thc~USmilitaJ;~,1JltimatccQbj.c.(}tiyS;~.l.Q., ' . f i c ! l J ' : , . .S.n~ \,;~.Q.J..)lgl.~I§~jfJ}£?£.~l~~1'[I::Ls,f:1gg£~!f!l~,1h~~,t~~.2!f~~~dimension will prevail against the defensive one). While we may not know much about the character of Chinese space p o l i c y ( w l th t nexception of the declarations of condemnation of any space weaponization plan -but the real intentions of China can be deduced from

its will to expel the USA from its own area of infuence), we do know more about China's progress in Space. Meanwhile, it can be

asserted definitively that the US is determined to maintain by all means possible (including denying the rest of the world access to

Space) their own space leadership, the key to the "Full Spectrum Dominance" and the fundamental presupposition of the unipolar-

imperialistic "New American Century". The relation between the space dimension and the imperialistic dimension (with "Manifest

Destiny" ecllos) of the USA, is sealed by the conclusions of a book written in 1996 by arms experts George and Meredith Friedman:

"Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European experience of power would be its domination of the global seas. it does n

take much to see that the American experience of power will rest on the domination of space. Just as Europe expanded war and its

power to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war and its power into space and to the planets. Just as Europe shaped tbe

world for a half a millennium [by dominating the oceans by its fleets] so too the United States will shape the world for at least that

length of time" - by dominating Space.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 81/104

DDW-200S

Solar Space

SPACE WEAPONS=VIOLENCE

Space weapons will escalate violence.

Rip Bulkeley retired peace researcher and historian of science and Graham Spinardi PhD in the sociology of technology at

Edinburgh University 1986 Space Weapons: Deterrence or Delusion'? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (June 1986)pg 6 lev]

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 82/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

SPACE WEAPONS=VIOLENCE

"Deterrence" is just a buzzword to promote US hegemonic violence.

Rip Bulkeley retired peace researcher and historian of science and Graham Spinardi PhD in the sociology of technology at

Edinburgh University 1986 Space Weapons: Deterrence or Delusion? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (June 1986)pg 161-2 [ev

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 83/104

DDW·2008

Solar Space

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 84/104

n n w - 2008

Solar Space

Space Militarization Bad

Space weaponization is unnecessary and only encourages war.

Karl P. Mueller, associate political scientist at RAND, 8 May 2002, Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space

Weaponization Debate, http://www .gwu.edul ~spi/spaceforumlTotemandTabooGWUpa

perRevised%5B 1%5D.pdf [Jason]

Mosttypically, sanctuary idealism is based on two central political premises. The first is that weapons are necessary for-

and tend, through arms races, to be a cause of-war, so the absence of space weapons prevents space warfare,

while their presence would not only make war in and from space possible, but would in fact encourage it.

The secondprinciple is that minimizing the amount and the extent of warfare is intrinsically desirable. Similar

themeshave underlain some earlier arms control advocacy, such as the effort before and after the First World War to prohibitthe use of aircraft as instruments of war.

Space weaponization destroys international stability.

"Ccc··Karrp.NIuener:cassoctateCpolt{icarS~t~11tisrat1tAj'lfD;8,cMay2602;"TotemandLFa:bcJo':''gepeYfarizingthe8lTace

Weaponization Debate, http://www .gwu.edu/ ~spi/spaceforumlTotemandTabooGWUpa

perRevised%5BI %5D.pdf [Jason]

Where the idealists oppose new weapons, and weapons in new places, in general sanctuary internationalists oppose spaceweapons in particular because of their potentially harmful effects on international stability. Drawing in part upon theories about

the effects of offensive advantage and the securitydilemma,12this perspective argues that the nature of space weapons

makes them far better suited to offensive than to defensive warfare: weapons in orbit can strike quickly

and with little warning, but are themselves vulnerable to attack because they move predictably, cannot

remain over friendly territory, and are difficult to conceal. Thus, both the owners of space weapons and

their enemies would have incentives to strike first in a crisis. Inaddition to encouraging preemptive....attacks.a:nd..pre.v:entiy.e.wars%iistatesw.ereJo ..shifttheir rnilitarxiUy.estrnents from .terrest~ial to s1 2 ' !C : : . ~ . . . .

weapons, these theories predict, the growing advantage of the offense would tend to produce other pathological. . . bilit .

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 85/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Space Militarization ~ Proliferation

Space militarization increases nuclear proliferation.

Karl P. Mueller, associate political scientist at RAND, 8 May 2002, Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space

Weaponization Debate, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/TotemandTabooGWUpa

perRevised%5Bl %5D.pdf [Jason]

Sanctuary internationalism also warns of potential coupling between space weaponization and nuclear instability, on several

levels. First, and perhaps least seriously in the current global environment, opponents of space-based ballistic missile defense,

like generations of BMD critics before them, fear that such systems would weaken the deterrent potency of major

powers' second-strike nuclear forces. Second, sanctuary advocates are concerned that anti-satellite warfare could

contribute to nuclear instability by disabling space-based ballistic missile launch detection systems,

reducing strategic warning and potentially allowing states to launch missile attacks anonymously, and

thus with hope of avoiding retaliation. Third, they note that conventional space weapons, such as kinetic

', "."= c ken e r g'Y ' i7 r o jc@Gt i l~ , .l auRched ,f r, o ,m"o l :b i t "" ,m i gb t .. ha v e J ;; ; o n si d e .r ab l e u ti li ty i n t il e ir own , .r ig il t a s ,1 2~ I! '? ! . , ~ , I ! E ~ tstrike against an enemy's nuclear capabilities. Finally, they argue that space w~~p~nization mig;htencourage"

nuclear proliferation, since states facing threats from space weapons but lacking the ability to respond in

kind or to neutralize the danger would be likely to seek asymmetric means to shore up their security,

among which the acquisition of nuclear weapons might be attractive.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 86/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Space Weapons Bad - No commerce

Space weaponization renders space commercially inaccessible

Bruce M. Deblois, Adjunct Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 7/5/03, "The Advent of Space Weapons

http://www .cfr.org/contentipublications/attachmentslBergman_11 ast03. pdf

Beyond the use of weapons in space, the satellite insurance business is extremely volatile. In the last four years, satelJite

insurance rates have risen by 129 per cent, driven by increasing complexity and anomalies of satellite systems. The mere

presence of weapons poses a risk, and insurance companies structure their rates on risk estimates. The resolution approach forthe insurers will be to strengthen their exclusion clauses for acts of war -- pass the risks to the financiers, who will have to decide to g

to space without such insurance coverage, or not go at all. The combination of weapons posturing and/or use may well cause

increasing debris, expensive hardening and increasing risk (perceived by insurers and/or assumed by financiers), all

producing an inaccessible international commercial space environment.

Space weaponization preempts commericial space development

Bruce M. Deblois, Adjunct Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 7/5/03, "The Advent of Space Weapons

http://www.efr.org/content/publications/attachments/Bergman_l last03.pdf

Unfortunately, there are between 30,000 and 100,000 untraci,ed objects between 1 cm and 10 cm diameter (large enough to

cause serious damage to spacefaring vehicles), and an unknown but enormous number of particles smaller than 1 cm (many o

which could damage sensitive systems on impact). While the space environment is extremely large and the probability of an impact

is still small, that probability is growing, for some space missions active protection through shielding is already a requirement

(e.g. the International Space Station). Getting this shielding to orbit is an added expense to an already low-profit-margin

industry. Any weapon use in space, but particularly proliferating weapons use in space, could readily make space a no-go area

",oL4ange.J:ons,Jlebri5., ..u.the processnre-empting commercial and civil development.'.. ·•..";·o.~·.,.· ~·.~,~~". ",."..".,,·,~~.,,~"",.",...,.,.,.,.,"",- ~ .; ; ."" , . , .~ "< ,, . : . . ;:6-"".T,5"-)<"";"""~""":~c ;0;;;C:.:~.,.,

Space weaponization causes orbital debris, inhibiting space commerce

Bruce M. Deblois, Adjunct Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 7/5/03, "The Advent of Space Weapons

http://www .efr.org/con tent/publications/ attachmentslBergman_11 ast03. pdf

In addition to posing insurmountable military opportunitv costs and the potential of another costlv arms race, space weapons

directly threaten the fiscal health of the space sector itself. Use of destructive weapons in space would obviously promote an

orhital debris problem that is on the threshold of becoming a major inhibitor to space commerce. Currently, the US Space

Surveillance Network uses ground-based radar and optical/infrared sensors to track roughly 7,500 objects across orbital space. That

constitutes objects greater than 10 cm in diameter in low Earth orbit to objects greater than 1 m diameter in geostationary orbit. Only

approximatelv five per cent of those ohjects are operating satellites; the rest are effectively debris, 40 per cent of which are

fragments of disintegrated satellites and upper stages of rockets.

Sl1il~.!;(YiymdQ!li?<l!i()!lil1c:!ea~~s()111l11~r~.i~l..2.~t~l~t~E~~t~I:lY.ky:~~keting i~s~:.~~ce..prell1i~ll1sand protection costsTheresa Hitchens, Director of Center for Defense Informatioii;2002,' 'Fuftire SecUrify in Space: COTIl lnerc ia i ; lvf iHtary ' ; atlcii'il'TItIl

Control Trade-Of Is" , http://cns.miis.edu./pubs/opapers/opl0/oplO.pdf

··:"'!·""'~1m!~tm'd'~tm~m~!·W;~~~i~.f~~.,heJw;Ft:;asedjt:"the.United Sti&ll(~w-~;!;ve~""tp_~~e_;

space a battlefield. Until now, the threat that commercial satellites could hecome direct wartime casualties has been negligible.

But an aggressive U.S. pursuit of ASATs would likely encourage others to do the same, thus potentially heightening the threat

to commercial satellites. This could be costly for industry, especially because current commercial satellites have little

protection (electronic hardening, for example, has been considered too expensive). There would be costs for increasing protection,

not to mention the likely further skyrocketing of already sky-high insurance costs, and it is not at all clear that the U.S.

government would cover all those costs.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 87/104

DDW-2008

Solar Space

Space Weapons Bad - No commerce

Commercial space assets vital to a growing national economy

Andrew T. Park, writer in the Houston Journal of International Law, 2006, "Incremental Steps for Achieving Space Security: The

Need for a New Way of Thinking to Enhance the Legal Regime for Space", Houston Journal ofInternational Law, Vol. 28, No.3,

http://www.hji1.orgJArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdf

One of the primary reasons for the rapid proliferation of space actors in recent years is the growing realization that the space industry

will continue to playa vital role in the growth of the world's national economies. In 1996, global space industry revenue from

commercial sources exceeded revenue earned from government spending on space activity for the first time (fifty-three percent to

forty-seven percent of total revenue, respectively). According to a report from the Department of Commerce, "the markets for

commercial space transportation, satellite commnnications, space-based remote sensing, and satellite navigation totaled over

$80 billion in global revenues in 2000." In addition to revenues, it has been reported that more than 800,000 people worldwide

have been employed by the space industry since 1996. Some of the most profitable high-tech economic sectors in the world,

such as software and hardware development and telecommunications, have been fueled by civilian space activities. In the

United States alone space technology industries have generated approximately $125 billion worth of profits in 2000, and it is

estimated that by 2010 U.S. investment in outer space could reach as high as $600 billion, which would be comparable to the

total current U.S. investment in Europe.

The world relies on space to perform fundamental tasks; without space we are set back 30 yearsLance W. Lord, General, United States Air Force, Commander, Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, September

For many Americans, the most visible images of space are the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. These

programs have accomplished amazing things and have greatly contributed to our quality of life. However, that's just the tip of the

iceberg. Most of what goes on in space is transparent to the average person. We do not see space at the Automatic Teller Machine

or at the checkout counter in the supermarket, but it is there. Precise timing signals from the Global £ositioning ~ystem

svnchronize financial transactions, making them possible. Most people probably don't think about space when they are cooking

dinner, but it plays a role there too. Farmers use space assets to map the mineral and moisture content of their fields. The cost

savings farmers achieve are then passed to consumers. Similarly, it takes space capabilities to get accurate weather forecasts

and provide seamless world-wide communication connectivity. In total, today's space industry exceeds $100 billion annually

world-wide, and is projected to exceed $150 billion per year by 2010. We could do without space capabilities, but only if we are

willing to step back in time about 30 years.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 88/104

DDW-2008Solar Space

Useless! backlash

Everyone aligned against space weaponization

(William Marshall is a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

and at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University, 0 7 / 0 5 120 0 6 )

The rest of the world deems it important to prevent an arms race in space, and wants a treaty to that effect. The need for such a treatyis compounded by the U.S. withdrawal in 2002 from the ABM Treaty, which included restrictions on space weapons.

Space Weaponization useless

(William Marshall is a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

and at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University, 07/05/2006)

So why not pursue space weapons? The most compelling reason is that they would actually make the situation worse.

This is due to the technical ease of building ground-based antisatellite systems. Adversaries wouldn't need to go to the trouble of

building space- based weapons systems. Simple and inexpensive, ground-based systems could shoot satellites out of the sky.

More than 25 nations already have the missile capability to reach the altitude at which satellites orbit. More significantly, powerful

lasers able to kill a satellite in low orbit are available commercially in more than 50 nations.

Space weaponization bad for private companies

(Mitchell, 031 2 91 2 002 , The Hartford Currant)

Philadelphia and Trinity Health from Farmington - are so

part of the discussion. In a Feb. 22 letter, Chairman George David emphatically "recommends that shareowners vote AGAINST this

proposal" on the grounds that "public policy concerning activities in space" is a matter to be discussed in "the executive and legislativ

branches of the U.S. government," not corporate boardrooms.

Space weaponization may not work

(Mitchell, 03129/2002, The Hartford Currant)

Cold War logic suggests that the Pentagon could win this outer space arms race, outspending adversaries to dominate the heavens. Th

problem, as Air Force Lt. Col. Brucc DeBlois points out, is that technological superiority does not automatically translate into security

in outer space. Sophisticated space networks are vulnerable to "asymmetric" attack, wherc adversaries use relatively cheap

countermeasures to bring down entire systems.

It took a boycott in 1986 by 6,700 academic researchers nationwide to rein in the excesses of President Reagan's wasteful and

g~f~pti,,~~t<1f'Y<1fu)r()g~aI!l:.13~!()~eth~b()y~()tt:I!l~nypr()fes.~():~ ..?~.~bel.ieve~:.li~: ...}~or~eI)~~i~.:.t?atspace"v~~pon.policy shouldbe discussed in Washington,D.C., not in their own aca.demic envifonments. Yet when it beCame Clear t1iil.tReaga:n'sstarWarsprogram was a scientific fraud, thousands of faculty members changed their minds and blocked missile defense deployment.

f""=W'""'T"~~ktr!l'H~Mi~4!l'f8·S'~~~t<·"''V'~,4Jhe",,~ii~Wg~.~~~.ti~i:iat~,Q~itbr,~Dl.LC~m".cflmp~.W§ ...!lggk~tl(a"""

that a similar approach would probably fail to stop space weaponry today, because the bulk research occurs in the private sector.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 89/104

DDW-200SSolar Space

Space Weapons Bad - Balancing

Space weaponization will cause asymmetric balancing - nuclear proves.Lt Col Bruce M. Deblois, USAF, 12/1/98, Air and Spacc Power Journal "Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy"

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/win98/dehlois.html

Demonstrations of atomic weapons at the close of World War II and the prospect of nuclear weapons married to emerging

ballistic missile technology ushered in a new era of international relations. Threatening to use military force had always been

an instrument of diplomacy, but the potential for instantaneous, indefensible, and complete annihilation posed a new rubric in

the games nations play. Thus, nuclear deterrence was born.

Initial thoughts that such a threat relegated warfare to the shelves of history due to the prospects of massive nuclear retaliation

proved naIve-subsequent lower-order conflict did not force nuclear escalation. Symmetric nuclear capabilities among the

principal powers weakened the credibility of their use, while asymmetric responses (guerrilla and terrorist tactics, aligning with

nuclear-capable parties, conflict protraction, etc.) still allowed lesser powers to test the resolve of the principals-particularly

over issues of peripheral interest to those nuclear powers. Examples include Vietnam and Afghanistan. Visions of massive

space superiority and the touted huge, coercive power advantage they provide will likely prove as bankrupt a notion as that of

massive nuclear retaliation. In their logical evolution, both give way to strategies that recognize an international context of

reactive nations. Principal powers will simply not allow a space hegemon to emerge, and lesser powers may concede

hegemony but will continue to seek asymmetric counters.' The result will be a space strategy that better aligns with what

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 90/104

DDW-2008Solar Space

Space Weapons Bad - Constitution

Space weaponlzation goes against US constitution.LtCol Bruce M. Deblois, USAF, 12/1/98, Air and Space Power Journal "Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy"

hUp:llwww.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/ai rchron icles/api/api 98/wi n98/deblois.html

The United States exports its national values of individual freedoms and democracy and maintains a pattern of not bullying

other nations into accepting these ideals. The expectation is that the inherent worth of the ideals is self-evident. Maintaining the

moral high-ground in order to support this pattern is essential, even if it requires the United States to take some risks.

Historically, it has taken such risks. Not responding in kind to the operational Russian ASAT is one case. More recently, the

United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (ratified in the US Senate in April 1997) even though Russia, Libya,

and Iraq refused to sign.l" Why give potential adversaries such a military advantage? The answer is reputation. The idea of

putting weapons in space to dominate the globe is simply not compatible with who we are and what we represent as

Americans. I I

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 91/104

DDW-200SSolar Space

Space Weapons Bad - Security

Space weaponization could undermine national and global security.Theresa Hitchens, CDr Vice President, 4/18/02, "Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?

The Policy Implications of U.S. Pursuit of Space-Based Weapons" http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm

Unlike in Star Trek, the "final frontier" has yet to become a battlefield. But if the current trends continue, that will change-not

in the distance future of science fiction, but within the next several decades. Emerging Bush administration plans and policies

are clearly aimed at making the United States the first nation to deploy space-based weapons. There are several drivers behind

this goal, including the very real concern about the vulnerability of space assets that are increasingly important to how the US

military operates, and the administration's decision to pursue missile defense.

Unfortunately, the administration has done little thinking-at least publicly-about the potential for far-reaching military,

political and economic ramifications of a US move to break the taboo against weaponizing space. There is reason for concern

that doing so could actually undermine, rather than enhance, the national security of the United States, as well as global

stability. Thus it behooves the administration, as well as Congress, to undertake an in-depth and public policy review of the

pros and cons of weaponizing space. Such a review would look seriously at the threat, both short-term and long-term, as well

as measures to prevent, deter or counter any future threat using all the tools in the US policy toolbox: diplomatic, including

arms control treaties; economic; and military, including defensive measures short of offensive weapons. There is nothing to be

gained, and potentially much to be lost, by rushing such a momentous change in US space policy.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 92/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Space Weapons Bad - Wars

US controlling space encourages wars.Brigadier General John Hyten, Director of Requirements, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, 6/1/04, Air and Space Power

Journal "Moral and ethical decisions regarding space warfare"http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi mONXLlis 2 18/ai n612] 457/print?tag=artBody;coll

One example of asymmetric advantage can be found in a quick examination of the US special operations forces (SOF)--the

troops that" own the night." Through high levels of training in the application of night vision and other technologies, these

forces have developed a capability that gives them enormous tactical advantage in the field. However, this advantage is

increasingly being challenged by the sale of low-cost night vision devices that are available on the commercial market. Is this

bad? Is it necessary for America to take every opportunity to apply technology to gain and maintain a battlefield advantage

over potential adversaries? Or are there circumstances where it would be in the best interests of the United States not to pursue

such an advantage?

Some might argue that vast advantages in capabilities make it easier to engage in an "electronic stay-at-home war," neither

suffering combat losses nor sharing sacrifice. A more level playing field, one that puts American forces at greater risk, might

make the United States think twice before engaging in hostilities and having to pay that terrible price. Ithas been argued that

shared sacrifice and the loss of untold lives on both sides of a conflict make for an easier peace at the cessation of hostilities.However, as evidenced by the conflicts of the twentieth century, shared sacrifice and loss have not made people more averse to

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 93/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Accidental war! Race

Space based missiles could lead to accidental nuclear war and incentivize other countries to develop their own

defense systems

Thomas Graham, representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, 12/05, Space

Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War, http://www .armscontrol.org/act/200S _12/Dec-spaceweapons.asp

The United S_tatesand Russia maintain thousands of nuclear warheads on long-range ballistic missiles on IS-minute alert.

Once launched, they cannot be recalled, and they will strike their targets in roughly 30 minutes. Fifteen years after the end

of the Cold War, the chance of an accidental nuclear exchange has far from decreased. Yet, the United States may be

contemplating further exacerbating this threat by deploying missile interceptors in space.

Both the United States and Russia rely on space-based systems to provide earlv warning of a nuclear attack. If deployed,

however, U.S. space-based missile defense interceptors could eliminate the Russian early warning satellites quickly and

without warning. So, just the existence of U.S. space weapons could make Russia's strategic trigger fingers itchy.

The potential protection space-based defenses might offer the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost:

failure of or false signal from a component of the Russian early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and

accidental nuclear war. There is no conceivable missile defense, space-based or not, that would offer protection in the

event that the Russian nuclear arsenal was launched at the United States.

.. ~ Nor are the Russig.ns ( ) r ot~~r c£?untrie~li~elx ~~.~~~n9:~~~illandat~hthe :United St~tes c~onstruct space-based defenses.These states are likelv to respond bv developing advanced anti-satellite weapon systems.rHffiese·weapons, In fu m ,would endanger U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S. weapons intelligence efforts, and increase the jitterines

of U.S. officials.

~ \OQuote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 94/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Kills Cooperation

Space based weapons undermine cooperation, which is critical for the US to secure a future in space

Thomas Graham, representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, 12/05, Space

Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-spaceweapons.asp

The history of the last 50 years teaches us that, if dangerous weapons and technologies are to be controlled to the safety

and security of all, it must be done early, before the programs become entrenched. That time may well be now with

respect to weapons in space. The United States does not have a secure future in space without broad and sustained

international cooperation. The deployment of weapons in space, whether offensive or defensive, would make this

necessary cooperation difficult if not impossible. There would likely be retaliation, which would seriously degrade the

progress that has been made over the last five or six decades toward multilateral international cooperation in space.

The groundwork for a comprehensive treaty-based regime has been laid, and the importance of this objective is clear.

Much work remains, but the creation of a space regime, under which the international community decisively enshrines

space as a peaceful environment, ultimately is the only thoroughgoing alternative to a weaponized space free-for-all. The

United States and the rest of the world risk being rendered forever vulnerable to the vagaries and fluctuations of

technology development. In this age of a worldwide struggle against international terrorism, this is the last thing we

should want.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 95/104

DDW-2008Solar Space

Instability

Space based missile defense systems destroys world stability

Thomas Graham, representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, 12 / 05 , Space

Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec~spaceweapons.asp

Preventing the weaponization of space is of paramount importance to world stability. Any deployment of weapons of a

significant nature in space, particularly highly capable weapons systems such as a space-based missile defense, could

provoke countermeasures. There are many important assets in space, and it is highly likely that they will only continue to

flourish in the current sanctuary environment in place since the days of Eisenhower. Above all, we should never take the

slightest chance of impairing early warning systems on which the long nuclear peace between the United States and

Russia may continue to depend.

Space based missiles incentivizes other countries to pursue countermeasures, destabilizing US national security

Thomas Graham, representative ofthe president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, 12/05, Space

Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War, http://www.armscontrol.org!actl2005_12/Dec-spaceweapons.asp

To see the path that a space test bed is likely to follow, one need only look at the present ground-based program: the

f~nt£l,g.QJ!.£llYJl1.§.;th~!:s-:~i~Jiltl~!m;~;iffe!:~ns~!?~!:yeell~ tt?~!):>~~.an.d ~~J2~r~!i~n~I~~IJI~y~.~nt ..1\1.~~.~~.~~~,.n sp~;~~~~edeployment could be more dramatiC:'AIthou"gh-ilie'current grouna=based c o n f i g u r a t T o n e n v l s l o n s a I e w d o z e r n n t e f c e p f ( : f [ ' s ' ;

continuous space coverage over a few countries of concern would likely require a very large number of interceptors

because a particular interceptor will be above a particular target for only a few minutes a day. Today's missile defenses

provide very little real protection as the United States currently faces no realistic threat of deliberate attack by nuclear-

armed long-range missiles. But space weapons could actually be detrimental to U.S. national security. They would

increase the perceived vulnerability of early warning systems to attack and cause Russia and perhaps other countries such

as China to pursue potentially destabilizing countermeasures, such as advanced anti-satellite weapons.

These dangers would be particularly worrisome for those components that are placed in geosynchronous orbits (GEO).

Space objects in GEO are sufficiently far from the Earth (about 36,000 kilometers) so that their speed roughly matches th

rotational speed of the Earth and they remain "stationary" above one location. To be sure, any country that can place a

satellite in these farther orbits-and there are several-could potentially threaten another country's satellites there. Yet, i

WQ!Jld l )~~a§ i~r tQgg§Q,.W}gJ?~rh(lpsIl1Q!:~iIl1p()!:!':ll1tlY,...h~.thr~Cl!..~~.S .~ l? t iOl1W() l l l .~.):>~.~~Clt~E"",it.~."",e~g~n.~.?a~e~.nspace than with existing ground-based technology. The l5U.S. early warning satellites are almost entlre1Yin GEO.Ttie

three Russian warning satellites utilize two different orbits. Two of the satellites use a elliptical

about 8 kilometers per second-out to GEO. The other satellite is permanently stationed in GEO.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 96/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

China threatened

China believes destroying US space systems make them more vulnerable to the Chinese military

Larry M. Wortzel, Vice-President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies for the Heritage Foundation, 10/15/03, China and the

Battlefield in Space, hrtp://author.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePaeific/wm346.cfm?renderforprint=1

Indeciding that destroying American space-based systems is essential to prevail incombat, the Chinese military seeks to

attack the critical nodes of American defense - the dependence of space for communication, reconnaissance and

surveillance. Today the United States enjoys overwhelming superiority in the general field of command, control,

communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). Thorough studies by the Chinese

military of United States military campaigns in the 1991 Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War have

convinced Chinese military planners that America's strength is also its Achilles heel. PLA strategists believe that

neutralizing or destroying U.S. space assets will deny American forces the advantage they have, and make them more

vulnerable to China's less-advanced military.

China could inconspicuously collide micro-satellites with US systems

Larry M. Wortzel, Vice-President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies for the Heritage Foundation, 10/15/03, China and the

Battlefield in Space, http://author .heritage.org/Research! AsiaandthePacific/wm346.cfm ?renderforprint= 1

It is doubtful that the Chinese have "bet the commune" on rmcro-sateuite L'-''''lHRHV,.;y

anti-satellite systems. A Chinese micro-satellite could track near a critical U.S. system and only attack or jam it at a

critical moment. Moreover, an attack would not necessarily have to involve a weapon or explosive on the micro-satellite;

Chinese controllers could merely maneuver the micro-satellite to collide with the U.S. system and could claim that any

collision was accidental. Thus this approach would be consistent with the introduction of the draft United Nations treaty

against weapons in space. Such an approach would give the PRC a form of plausible deniability.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 97/104

DDW· 2008

Solar Space

Space Militarization 7 Decrease Military

Space weaponization decreases US military power.

Karl P. Mueller, associate political scientist at RAND, 8 May 2002, Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization

Debate, http://www.gwu.edul-spiispaceforumlTotemandTabooGWUpa per Revised %5Bl %5D.pdf [Jason]

The other reason is more subtle: a belief that by leading the way in space weaponization, the United States would not

only encourage other states to follow suit, and save them from any political stigmatization that might be

associated with being the first state to weaponize space, but would actually make it easier for them to do so. fuserving as the technological trailblazer, and paying the costs of developing new technologies, the United States

would reduce the technological and cost barriers for the states that followed. Such "advantages of backwardness," wellrecognized in economists' studies of the product cycle, are consistently visible in the development of military technologies, including

aircraft, missiles, and nuclear weapons.17 The prescription that emerges from nationalist sanctuary theory is that the United States

should avoid taking actions that will motivate or facilitate adversaries' development of space weapons, or cause

other effects that would tend to reduce U.S. military advantages over other states. In general, this would point towardsavoiding space weaponization, whether through multilateral regimes or unilateral restraint-either one conditional on the actions of

other countries-or other means. However, as for the internationalists, the specific features of potential space weapons would affectwhether and to what extent the would U.S. To take one example, some but not all of the

weapons.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 98/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Russia Hates it

Russia hates space-based weapons and say they will disrupt balance in the world

Andrei Kislvakov, (political commentator), 5/30 /0 8, " "Peaceful" Space Putting on Khaki"

His Russian counterpart and long-time opponent on this issue, Space Forces Commander Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin,

responded in late May, warning for the umpteenth time: "We are against any deployment or placement of weapons in outer

space, as it is one of the few realms where frontiers do not exist. Militarization of outer space will disrupt the curreut balance

in the world." The Russian general is seriously worried that space-based attack weapons could increase the risk of igniting

hostilities ou the ground.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 99/104

DDW· 2008

Solar Space

Damages space

Space based weapons kill the econ, and can cause irreparable damage to space

Space.com, (space news site), 2001, "Weapons in Space: Dawn of a New Era", page 3

"Space is indeed militarized, and has been since the 1960s," observed Craig Eisendrath, Senior Fellow at theCenter for International Policy in Washington, D.C. "Placing weapons in outer space -- weaponization -- is

different, and has not yet happened. Substantial research is being conducted but deployment has not

occurred," he said.

At stake, Eisendrath said, is not only the immense expense that would be incurred by an arms race in outer

space. "There is also the serious threat that should space be weaponized, and battles fought, it would

become quickly inoperable for the important commercial purposes it serves, particularly in

communications. For this reason, there is an urgent need for more control."

While Eisendrath is not optimistic that the Bush administration will desist from weaponization of space, he

remains hopeful.

"There is little to be gained and much to be lost, particularly given the serious state of our economy

mounting deficits and increasing instability. This could be an area where the administration prudently

withdraws," Eisendrath said.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 100/104

DDW- 2008

Solar Space

Space kills economy and communications

§pace weaponization kills economy and communications through loss of cooperation

WILLIAM D. HARTUNG (Seattle news writer), 7/13/05, http://seattlepi.nwsource.comJopinion/232239_spaceweapons13.html

But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. For years space has served as a sanctuary where nations

cooperate rather than confront one another. Satellites save lives and support our economy by predicting the weather, helping first

responders provide emergency assistance, facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid in cases of natural disaster and by making cell

phones, pagers and modern financial transactions possible. A weapons-free space environment also allows the United States to

maintain its military superiority by supporting state-of-the-art reconnaissance, communications and targeting capabilities. Placing

weapons in space that can shoot down another nation's satellites will encourage them to respond in kind, putting U.S. satellites at risk.

Despite the benefits of a relatively benign space environment, there are voices within the Pentagon and military bureaucracies who

argue that putting weapons in space is inevitable. In a U.S. Air Force document on "counterspace operations," Peter B. Teets, then

assistant secretary of the Air Force -- and formerly COO of Lockheed Martin, a major military and space contractor -- argued that

"controlling the high ground of space ... will require us to think about denying the high ground to our adversaries, We are paving the

path to 21st century warfare now." Research has already begun on a number of space weapons, including the XSS-IO and XSS-11

Experimental Spacecraft Systems, micro satellites that can surround other satellites and photograph, jam or collide with them; the Nea

Field Infrared Experiment, a program aimed at testing the ability to destroy targets in orbit; and the Microsatellite Propulsion

Experiment, which plans to launch maneuverable kill vehicles that are perfect for taking out satellites. There arc also plans afoot to

develop Hypervelocity Rod Bundles, frequently called "Rods from God," designed to drop from space and hit targets on Earth. In

addition to the threats to U.S. security and our economy from sparking an arms race in space, the whole process would be extremely

costly. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, launching an adequate number of Space-Based Interceptors to achieve total

gl()pal covera~~ . i 1 1 . < l : . . ll]js~H~g~f~I1§~X()l~S()llldco~t llEto$§Q!?mi()B()\.'~ra ..~~S~§~'.~tilll~' ..SEac~~Ba~~g!B!~ES~P!~J:sS~.B~!s?!?ead~pi~d·t~·;ork~~a~ti:~aieIirte· w e a p C ; l l s , · i l i h . o u g h t h e · n u m b e r s n ee d e d t o · re a C F l in f n li1 a f c ap a b if li y w ou ld he m u c h smaTler~An(ra··Council on Foreign Relations study group estimates that placing just 40 rods in space for the "Rods from God" program would cost

more than $8 billion.

Quote goes here

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 101/104

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 102/104

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 103/104

8/7/2019 208 Space Aff 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/208-space-aff-2 104/104