WC Policy Neg Handbook

West Coast
2011
1
Neg Handbook
WEST COAST DEBATE

SPACE 2011-2012
NEGATIVE HANDBOOK
Edited by Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson

with Matt Taylor
Researched by:
Brett Bricker, Dana Randall, Greta Stahl, and James Taylor
Articles by:
Jim Hanson and Aaron Hardy
West Coast
2011
2
Neg Handbook
WEST COAST DEBATE

SPACE 2011-2012
NEGATIVE HANDBOOK
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or
development of space beyond the Earths mesosphere.
Finding Arguments in this Handbook
Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the briefs you need. We have tried to make the table of
contents as easy to use as possible. Youll find affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, and key positions listed
alphabetically in their categories.
Using the arguments in this Handbook
We encourage you to be familiar with the briefs you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the
evidence. Cut out evidence from our briefs, incorporate your and others research and make new briefs. File the
evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence outloud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents positions; Practice defending your briefs in rebuttal
speeches.
Use West Coast Handbooks as a Beginning
We hope you enjoy our handbook and find it useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we
make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS HANDBOOK AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important
arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Dont stagnate
in briefs--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically
apply to your opponents. In doing so, youll use our handbook to become a better debater.
Photocopying West Coast Handbooks
Our policy gives you the freedom to use the handbook for educational purposes without violating the hard work
that we put into the handbook. You can photocopy this handbook under the following circumstances:
1.
You can make multiple copies of up to five pages of each West Coast handbook for a class handout.
2.
You can make multiple copies of briefs that include evidence from this handbook as long as these
photocopied briefs are significantly different from the ones in this handbook and include a significant number of
pieces of evidence from sources other than a West Coast handbook.
You may not electronically share or distribute this handbook with anyone other than those on your team.
For other situations, you can e-mail us at wcdebate@aol.com and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Handbooks
1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at wcdebate@aol.com
You can also call us at 888-255-9133; fax us at 877-781-5058; or write to West Coast Publishing; PO Box 8066;
Fountain Valley CA 92728-8066
Copyright 2011. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!
West Coast
2011
3
Neg Handbook
Table Of Contents
Table Of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................3
Arguing Negative On The Space Topic ...........................................................................................................................9
Topicality .....................................................................................................................................................................12
The...........................................................................................................................................................................13
United States ...........................................................................................................................................................14
Federal Government ...............................................................................................................................................15
Should .....................................................................................................................................................................16
Substantially ............................................................................................................................................................17
Increase ...................................................................................................................................................................18
Its .............................................................................................................................................................................19
Exploration And/Or Development Of ......................................................................................................................20
Space Beyond The ...................................................................................................................................................22
Earths Mesosphere ................................................................................................................................................23
China Cooperation Neg................................................................................................................................................24
1NC Technology Transfer DA 1/2 ............................................................................................................................25
1NC Technology Transfer DA 2/2 ............................................................................................................................26
Technology Transfer DA Uniqueness ...................................................................................................................27
Technology Transfer Impact US-China War..........................................................................................................28
Technology Transfer Scenario Military Modernization ........................................................................................29
Technology Transfer Scenario Proliferation .........................................................................................................30
1NC US-Japan Relations DA 1/2 ..............................................................................................................................31
1NC US-Japan Relations DA 2/2 ..............................................................................................................................32
1NC US-Indian Relations DA ....................................................................................................................................33
1NC Topicality Its .................................................................................................................................................34
Politics DA Link The Plan Hurts the Agenda .........................................................................................................35
Politics DA Link Congress Will Backlash at the Plan .............................................................................................36
Inherency US-China Cooperation Now .................................................................................................................37
AT: Relations Advantage The Plan Isnt Key to Relations .....................................................................................38
AT: Relations Advantage Other Issues Outweigh Relations .................................................................................39
AT: Relations Advantage Negotiations Impossible ...............................................................................................40
AT: Exploration Advantage ......................................................................................................................................41
Lunar Colony Neg.........................................................................................................................................................42
A Presidential Directive Solves ................................................................................................................................43
International Cooperation Is A Better Approach ....................................................................................................44
International Cooperation Is A Better Approach ....................................................................................................45
The Risk Of Backcontamination Is Low....................................................................................................................46
Claims Of A Moon Race Are Overblown ..................................................................................................................47
Claims Of A Moon Race Are Overblown ..................................................................................................................48
STEM Workers Will Not Rush For The Moon ..........................................................................................................49
A Lunar Base Fuels Militarization ............................................................................................................................50
Lunar-Based Astronomy Benefits Are Exaggerated ................................................................................................51
Economic Motives Will Be Counter-Productive ......................................................................................................52
A Moon Base Is Too Expensive ................................................................................................................................53
A Moon Base Is An Unnecessary Failure .................................................................................................................54
A Moon Base Is An Unnecessary Failure .................................................................................................................55
West Coast
2011
4
Neg Handbook
Mining Wont Yield Significant Resource Benefits ..................................................................................................56

Mining For Lunar Resources Is Not Feasible ...........................................................................................................57
Nothing To Study On The Moon ..............................................................................................................................58
Further Colonization Is Undesirable And Fails ........................................................................................................59
Mars Neg .....................................................................................................................................................................60
Inherency Exploration Now ..................................................................................................................................61
AT: Asteroids Advantage .........................................................................................................................................62
AT: Climate Advantage ............................................................................................................................................63
AT: Competitiveness Advantage .............................................................................................................................64
AT: Hegemony/Leadership Advantage ....................................................................................................................65
Solvency No Technical Knowledge .......................................................................................................................66
Solvency Trade-Off Turn .......................................................................................................................................67
Solvency Space Disease ........................................................................................................................................68
Budget DA Links.......................................................................................................................................................69
Politics Obama Good General Links...................................................................................................................70
Politics Obama Good - Plan Unpopular with Public .............................................................................................71
Politics Turns the Case ..........................................................................................................................................72
CP Robotic Space Flight 1NC ..............................................................................................................................73
Ext: CP Doesnt Link to Politics/Budget ...................................................................................................................74
Ext: Robotic CP Solves .............................................................................................................................................75
CP Lunar Base .......................................................................................................................................................76
Ext: Lunar Base Solves .............................................................................................................................................77
Solar Power Satellites Neg ...........................................................................................................................................78
Inherency SQ Solves SPS .......................................................................................................................................79
AT: Energy Advantage SPS Cant Solve .................................................................................................................80
AT: Energy Advantage Warming/Resources Defense ..........................................................................................81
AT: Aerospace Advantage Yes Aerospace ............................................................................................................82
AT: Aerospace Advantage Alt-Causes ...................................................................................................................83
AT: Aerospace Advantage Yes Hegemony ............................................................................................................84
AT: Colonization Advantage No Asteroids ............................................................................................................86
AT: Colonization Advantage Colonization Impossible ..........................................................................................87
AT: Colonization Advantage Other Countries Solve .............................................................................................88
Solvency Long Timeframe For SPS ........................................................................................................................89
Solvency SPS Not Feasible ....................................................................................................................................90
Spending DA Links ...................................................................................................................................................91
Politics DA Links Plan Popular ..............................................................................................................................92
Politics DA Links Plan Unpopular ..........................................................................................................................93
Launches DA Links ...................................................................................................................................................94
Japan CP Solves .......................................................................................................................................................95
Private CP Solves .....................................................................................................................................................96
Space NMD Neg ...........................................................................................................................................................97
Inherency SBIRS = Missile Defense .......................................................................................................................98
Solvency Missile Defense Fails .............................................................................................................................99
AT Proliferation Advantage ...................................................................................................................................100
AT Terrorism Advantage........................................................................................................................................101
Politics Links Plan Unpopular .............................................................................................................................102
Politics Links Plan Unpopular .............................................................................................................................103
Spending DA Links .................................................................................................................................................104
Capitalism Kritik Link .............................................................................................................................................105
Space Race DA 1NC ...............................................................................................................................................106
West Coast
2011
5
Neg Handbook
Space Race DA Link .............................................................................................................................................107

Space Race DA Impact ........................................................................................................................................108
Space Debris DA 1NC .............................................................................................................................................109
Space Debris DA Link ..........................................................................................................................................110
Space Debris DA Impact .....................................................................................................................................111
Launches Disadvantage .............................................................................................................................................112
Space Solar Power Links ........................................................................................................................................113
Space Colonization Links .......................................................................................................................................114
Ozone Disadvantage 1NC ......................................................................................................................................115
Uniqueness Ozone Layer is Recovering Now .....................................................................................................116
Space Launches Devastate the Ozone...................................................................................................................117
An Increase in Space Launches Hurt the Ozone ....................................................................................................118
Ozone Depletion Makes Space Travel Impossible .................................................................................................119
Ozone Depletion Hurts Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................120
Biodiversity Loss Leads to Catastrophe .................................................................................................................121
Ozone Depletion Leads to Global Warming ..........................................................................................................122
Global Warming Leads to Catastrophe .................................................................................................................123
Space Debris Disadvantage 1NC 1/2 .....................................................................................................................124
Space Debris Disadvantage 1NC 2/2 .....................................................................................................................125
New Space Launches Risk Space Debris ................................................................................................................126
Only Limiting Space Exploration and Development Solves ...................................................................................127
Space Debris Collapses The Global Economy ........................................................................................................128
Collapsing the Global Economy Leads to Conflict .................................................................................................129
Space Debris Collapses U.S. Hegemony ................................................................................................................130
United States Hegemony Solves Nuclear War ......................................................................................................131
Space Debris Leads to Nuclear War ......................................................................................................................132
Politics Disadvantage .................................................................................................................................................133
Immigration Reform DA 1NC 1/2 ..........................................................................................................................134
Immigration Reform DA 1NC 2/2 ..........................................................................................................................135
2NC Impact Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................136
2NC Impact Latin America Relations ..................................................................................................................137
Uniqueness Immigration Reform Will Pass ........................................................................................................138
Uniqueness Political Capital High .......................................................................................................................139
Uniqueness Obama Pushing Immigration Reform .............................................................................................140
Link Space Exploration Drains Political Capital ...................................................................................................141
Link No Congressional Support for Exploration..................................................................................................142
Link No Public Support for Exploration ..............................................................................................................143
Link Mars Exploration Unpopular .......................................................................................................................144
Link Lunar Exploration Unpopular ......................................................................................................................145
Link Asteroid Exploration Unpopular .................................................................................................................146
Internal Link Political Capital Finite ....................................................................................................................147
AT: Link Turn Winners Dont Win .......................................................................................................................148
AT: Link Turn Popularity Not Key to the Agenda ................................................................................................149
Impact Politics Turns the Case............................................................................................................................150
Impact Immigration Reform Key to Economy ....................................................................................................151
Impact Latin America/Renewables Impacts .......................................................................................................152
AT: Impact Turn Amnesty Causes Terrorism ......................................................................................................153
Space Militarization Disadvantage ............................................................................................................................154
1NC Space Militarization DA 1/2 ...........................................................................................................................155
1NC Space Militarization DA 2/2 ...........................................................................................................................156
West Coast
2011
6
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness No Weaponization Now..................................................................................................................157

Link Exploration Causes Weaponization ............................................................................................................158
Link Perception ...................................................................................................................................................159
Link Tech..............................................................................................................................................................160
Link Moon Exploration .......................................................................................................................................161
Space Weapons Cause Conflict .............................................................................................................................162
Space Weapons Cause Arms Race.........................................................................................................................163
Space Weapons Cause Terrorism ..........................................................................................................................164
Space Weapons Cause WMD Prolif .......................................................................................................................165
Space Weapons Cause Nuclear Use ......................................................................................................................166
Space Weapons Collapse Heg ...............................................................................................................................167
Space Weapons Kill the Economy .........................................................................................................................168
Space Weapons Destroy Exploration ....................................................................................................................169
AT: Weaponization Inevitable ...............................................................................................................................170
AT: Space Arms Control Fails .................................................................................................................................171
AT: Weaponization Key to Prevent Space Attacks ................................................................................................172
AT: Weaponization Key to Protect Satellites .........................................................................................................173
AT: Space Weapons Effective ................................................................................................................................174
Spending Disadvantage .............................................................................................................................................175
Spending Disadvantage 1NC .................................................................................................................................176
Spending Disadvantage 1NC .................................................................................................................................177
Uniqueness US Economy High Now ...................................................................................................................178
Uniqueness Spending Being Cut Now ................................................................................................................179
Uniqueness NASA Being Cut Now ......................................................................................................................180
Link Sacred Cow Funding ....................................................................................................................................181
Link NASA Funding is Wasteful and Inefficient...................................................................................................182
Link Public Sector Funding Encourages Waste ...................................................................................................183
Link Private Sector Funding Solves the Case Better ...........................................................................................184
Link Private Sector Innovation is More Effective................................................................................................185
Link Space Based Solar Power ............................................................................................................................186
Internal Link Deficits Collapse the Economy ......................................................................................................187
Internal Link The Plan is Permanent Spending ...................................................................................................188
Impact Terminal Economy Impacts ....................................................................................................................189
Internal Link Deficits Collapse Hegemony ..........................................................................................................190
Impact Terminal Hegemony Impacts .................................................................................................................191
Internal Link New Spending is Coercive .............................................................................................................192
Impact Coercion Must be Rejected ....................................................................................................................193
AT: Congress Will Raise Taxes to Pay for the Plan.................................................................................................194
AT: The Plan Helps the Economy ...........................................................................................................................195
China Counterplan .....................................................................................................................................................196
China Counterplan 1NC 1/2 ..................................................................................................................................197
China Counterplan 1NC 2/2 ..................................................................................................................................198
Chinese Investment in Space Solves .....................................................................................................................199
China Can Successfully Colonize Space .................................................................................................................200
China Can Successfully Build Space Solar Power ...................................................................................................201
Chinese Soft Power Net-Benefit ............................................................................................................................202
Chinese Soft Power Solves Global Threats ............................................................................................................203
Chinese Space Leadership is Key to CCP Stability..................................................................................................204
CCP Stability Solves Asian War ..............................................................................................................................205
Chinese Space Investment is Key to The Economy ...............................................................................................206
Chinese Economic Growth Solves War .................................................................................................................207
West Coast
2011
7
Neg Handbook
AT: US is Key to Solvency ...................................................................................................................................208

AT: Permutation Do Both China Wont Cooperate ............................................................................................209
AT: Permutation Do Both No Benefit to Cooperation ........................................................................................210
AT: Chinese Soft Power Hurts US Soft Power........................................................................................................211
AT: China-Japan Disadvantage ..............................................................................................................................212
AT: International Fiat is Illegitimate ......................................................................................................................213
Private Sector Counterplan .......................................................................................................................................214
Private CP 1NC Shell Tax Incentives ...................................................................................................................215
Private CP 1NC Shell State Prizes........................................................................................................................216
2NC Resource Trade-Off Net Benefit Both Versions ..........................................................................................217
2NC Competitiveness Net Benefit Tax Incentives ..............................................................................................218
Solvency - Tax Incentives Solve Investment ..........................................................................................................219
Solvency Tax Incentives Key to Competitiveness ...............................................................................................220
Solvency Prizes Solve Incentives ........................................................................................................................221
Solvency Prizes Solve Better than Government .................................................................................................222
Solvency Technology/Innovation .......................................................................................................................223
Solvency NASA Fails ............................................................................................................................................224
Solvency Private Exploration Comparatively Better ...........................................................................................225
AT: Permutation Do Both ...................................................................................................................................226
AT: Prize is Too Small.............................................................................................................................................227
AT: Private Exploration Links to Politics ................................................................................................................228
AT: Jobs Turn .........................................................................................................................................................229
AT: Space Control Turn ..........................................................................................................................................230
AT: Regulation Turn ...............................................................................................................................................231
Disposability Critique .................................................................................................................................................232
Disposability Critique Explanation.........................................................................................................................233
Disposability Critique 1NC 1/3 ..............................................................................................................................234
Space Missions Foster Exploitation And Pollution ................................................................................................238
Space Missions Foster Exploitation And Pollution ................................................................................................240
Colonization Leads To Disposable Thinking ..........................................................................................................242
Using Space For Resources And Causes Exploitation ............................................................................................244
Using Space For Resources And Causes Exploitation ............................................................................................246
Ethics Are Important For Space .............................................................................................................................247
Ethics Are Important For Space .............................................................................................................................248
Ethics Should Guide The Judges Decision.............................................................................................................249
Space Has Intrinsic Value ......................................................................................................................................251
Instrumental Justifications Alone Are Inappropriate ............................................................................................253
Requiring Life To Determine Value Undermines Ethics ........................................................................................255
The Overview Effect Is No Panacea .......................................................................................................................256
Space As An Environment Avoids Anthropocentrism ...........................................................................................258
Space As An Environment Avoids Anthropocentrism ...........................................................................................260
Strengthening Earth-Space Connections Works Best............................................................................................262
Anthropocentric Thinking Risks Extinction ............................................................................................................264
Imperialism Critique ..................................................................................................................................................265
Frontier Mentality Critique Explanation................................................................................................................266
Frontier Mentality Critique 1NC 1/3 .....................................................................................................................267
West Coast
2011
8
Neg Handbook
Space Policies Entrench A Frontier Mentality .......................................................................................................270

Astronomy Links ....................................................................................................................................................271
Colonization Rhetoric Links ...................................................................................................................................272
Mars & Robert Zubrin Links ...................................................................................................................................273
Resources Links .....................................................................................................................................................274
Socio-Psychological Justifications Are Frontierist .................................................................................................275
Space Policy Extends Imperialism & Nationalism .................................................................................................276
Space Will Benefit Only For Imperial Elites ...........................................................................................................277
Space Frontier Rhetoric Bolsters State Power ......................................................................................................278
Space Imperialism Entrenches Capitalism .............................................................................................................279
We Should Reject The Frontier Mentality .............................................................................................................280
Frontierist Colonies Will Be Disastrous .................................................................................................................281
Rethinking Space Policy Is Essential ......................................................................................................................282
West Coast
2011
9
Neg Handbook
Arguing Negative On The Space Topic

Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson, Whitman College
Below you will find a general overview of the negative side of the 2011-2012 Space topic, as well
as specific descriptions of responses to affirmative cases, disadvantages, counterplans, and critiques.
You can argue that current plans to explore space are sufficient and should not be expanded. You can
argue that increases in space development are actively harmful and would actually make problems
worse. You can argue that the disadvantages of increasing exploration, such as the cost or the political
backlash would outweigh the benefits of the affirmative plan. You can argue that different agents could
better implement exploration plans. Use this topic overview as a starting point for your research into
the negative side of the Space topic.
Case Responses
Be prepared to defend the present system of space exploration. Research evidence and
arguments that refute the harms that affirmatives are likely to present. Use the affirmative topic
analysis included in this handbook to prepare for likely affirmative cases and research attacks against
their solvency. Here are some of the many possible negative responses you can make to affirmative
cases:
Current plans for space exploration and development are adequate the Obama administration
is refocusing efforts on making US space policy more efficient, better driven by the private sector, and
encouraging a focus on science. The negative could also argue that other countries will ensure solving
the affirmative harms in the future, for example by colonizing space.
Focusing on space is the wrong focus there are many problems with Earth, and time and
resources devoted to space exploration may not pay off for hundreds of years, if at all. There is not
necessarily anything pressing about science experiments performed in zero gravity.
Be prepared to really go after the solvency of affirmative plans. Remember, the topic only allows
affirmatives to increase exploration or development not guarantee that the results of that exploration
will be productive. The affirmative must defend that their plan will actually work or succeed at reducing
the harms. To win that they solve many of the largest impacts, this will require the affirmative to win
that many new technologies are developed, that the economics will work out in favor of their program,
and that it is even possible to do things no human being has ever done before (such as land on Mars). If
any of these programs were simple or guaranteed, we likely would have done them by now. This also
means that many of the problems with current space policy are also potential solvency attacks against
affirmative plans. Failed past projects and things which reputable scientists have failed to support as too
pie-in-the-sky are just two examples of the types of evidence you can use to support your solvency
arguments. Remember, you should both show why the affirmative proposal wont work and why it will
make things worse. This will make your solvency arguments as strong as possible.
As the year progresses, new affirmatives will emerge and you will need to research and strategize to
defeat them. Use the arguments presented here to jumpstart your research. Against any new
affirmative, be sure to defend the status quo, attack the significance of the affirmatives harms, and
attack the affirmatives solvency. This strategy is sure to put you in a good position to win a debate over
the affirmatives case.
West Coast
2011
10
Neg Handbook
Disadvantages
Here are disadvantages you and others might prepare against increasing space exploration:
Launches disadvantage: increasing the amount of space exploration or development could

potentially require a large number of launches into space. Launching things into orbit has several
potential downsides, such as creating chemicals from rocket fuel combustion which damage the ozone,
or cause environmental pollution. Launches my also go awry, causing explosions which create large
amounts of orbiting space debris. Space debris can then impact other objects, making it impossible for
anything to get off the planet.
Politics disadvantage: The plan could be argued to either help or hurt Obamas political agenda.
Space policies are frequently unpopular because they are perceived as too expensive, or irrelevant to
most peoples lives. On the other hand, space programs can be very popular when they successfully
inspire the imagination of a large section of the populace (as did the Apollo program in the 60s). Passing
popular or unpopular programs could give President Obama increased or decreased ability to pursue
other, potentially harmful policies.
Elections disadvantage: The 2012 presidential elections are shaping up to be extremely

important politically, as they could impact whether the country maintains course with Obamas policies
for the next four years. For many of the same reasons mentioned above, the plan could have important
political effects in how the electorate views Obama and the Democrats more broadly.
Spending disadvantage: Almost all forms of space exploration or development are extremely
costly. The time, expertise, and technological sophistication required to launch even the smallest
satellite can run into the millions of dollars. The US is already running huge fiscal deficits and spending
a great deal of money which the US doesnt currently have could have negative effects on the US
economy.
Relations disadvantage: Since many other countries also have space programs, the US does not
operate in a vacuum when deciding how to explore space. Other countries might view US attempts at
space development as encroaching on their own space programs, or view them as US attempts to
hostilely control outer space. This could create the conditions for misunderstanding and conflict.
Militarization disadvantage: While the United States currently makes use of space for military
purposes, such as spy satellites and GPS, the US does not base any permanent weapons or defense
systems there. The affirmative, by increasing exploration, could lead to a greater acceptance of US
activities in space, or inadvertently develop technologies that could be used for ill by the US. This might
spark an arms race in space, or wars that could use even more devastating weapons than nuclear
bombs.
Counterplans
Here are counterplans on the Space topic:
Private Sector counterplan: instead of involving the government in space exploration and
development, this counterplan carries out the mandates of the affirmative via the private sector. This
could take the form of government provided incentives, or just fiat that another actor do the plan. This
counterplan has the benefit of avoiding politics and spending disadvantages by involving the
government, and might argue that private companies would be better equipped to explore space.
International counterplan: instead of increasing US space exploration, this counterplan

advocates some other country or countries (such as Japan or the EU) do exploration instead. These
actors might avoid any disadvantage associated with US action.
West Coast
2011
11
Neg Handbook
Military counterplan: This counterplan argues that instead of involving any of the elected
branches in the plan, the military should use its own space expertise (garnered through the
development of military technology) to explore or develop space. This would avoid any disadvantage to
having Congress or the President act on their own.
Advantage counterplans: since so many affirmatives on the topic share the same goals
exploring and colonizing space, for example, there will be many affirmative ideas which could be re-used
as counterplans when debating a different case. For example, against a case which built a human
settlement on the Moon, the negative might read a counterplan to build a base on Mars instead, and
argue that a Moon base would be detrimental.
Plan-inclusive counterplans: this is an entire category of counterplans, rather than one specific
plan. These counterplans advocate part of the affirmative plan, while excluding the rest and claiming the
benefit of excluding the parts of the plan that link to disadvantages. For example, a plan-inclusive
counterplan against an affirmative which cooperated with India and China on the International Space
Station might exclude cooperating with India, and argue that US-India relations are bad because they
come at the cost of US-Pakistan relations.
Kritiks
What kinds of kritiks may be run on this years topic? Here goes:
Security kritik: this kritik argues that affirmative plans which attempt to avoid security impacts
such as wars by exploring space and trying to change how we view the earth are just contributing to a
cycle of insecurity through threat construction. This might extend to criticizing representations of
conflicts or security concerns. The kritik rejects this way of describing the world and says we should
instead use more positive representations or discourse.
Militarism kritik: This kritik argues that even though the affirmative ostensibly expands space
exploration for benign reasons, that it actually boosts the power of the military-industrial complex which
has been integral to the development of all US space policy. It argues that only a totalizing rejection of
the entire US military-industrial complex can address the root cause of militarism and prevent the US
from enacting violence as it expands out into the cosmos. The kritik rejects a militaristic way of viewing
the universe.
Capitalism kritik: this kritik argues that the root cause of problems on Earth is the existence of
capitalism. It argues that policy proposals which attempt to explore space without dealing with the core
problem on Earth will simply result in replicated the problems of Capitalism on a galactic scale, and that
the only way to truly solve is to reject the whole capitalist system.
Frontier kritik There will likely be specific critiques of the way we frame space as a new
frontier to explore and conquer. This kritik will argue that all past frontiers, such as the American
West, have come at the cost of massive violence and a negative way of viewing the world. They will
argue that only a rejection of this frontier mentality can prevent the root causes of violence.
Disposability kritik This kritik will argue that attempting to solve problems on Earth by moving
to a different planet or solar system will encourage us to treat the Earth as disposable. It will argue
that viewing the Earth as replaceable by space will just ensure that we always exploit resources at our
disposal, ensuring the long-term collapse of human civilization. Only learning to value Earth first can
solve.
West Coast
2011
12
Neg Handbook
Topicality
West Coast
2011
13
Neg Handbook
The
The Means Unique
Merriam-webster's online collegiate dictionary, 2007.
Accessed May 10, 2007, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
b -- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a
particular member of its class <the President> <the Lord>
The Means All Parts

Merriam-webster's online collegiate dictionary, 2007.
Accessed May 10, 2007, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group
as a whole <the elite>
West Coast
2011
14
Neg Handbook
United States
The united states is the executive, legislative, and judicial branches
Princeton university wordnet 1997,
Online, accessed May 15, 2007, http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=united%20states
united states: 2: the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the US
United states is the united states of america

The american heritage dictionary, 1983,
p. 857.
United States: Also United States of America. Country of central and NW North America, with coastlines
on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans. Cap. Washington, D.C. Pop. 226,504,825.
United states is the states within territorial bounds

American heritage dictionary, 2nd college edition, 1988.
United States: A federation of states, esp. one forming a nation within a definitely specified territory:
politicians who proposed a United States of Africa.
United states means a union of states

The oxford english dictionary, 1989.
United States: The proper name or distinctive title of a confederacy, federation, or union of States.
United states means the united states of america

The oxford english dictionary, 1989.
United States: The Republic of North America. Abbrev. U.S. or U.S.A.
United states are a federation of states

Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary, 1988.
United States: a federation of states esp. when forming a nation in a usually specified territory
(advocating a United States of Europe)
The united states is the 48 states plus hawaii, alaska and d.c.
The oxford encyclopedic english dictionary, 1991.
United States of America: a country occupying most of the southern half of North America and including
also Alaska in the north and Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, comprising 50 States and the Federal District of
Columbia.
West Coast
2011
15
Neg Handbook
Federal Government
Federal government is administered by a union or confederation of states
Blacks law dictionary. 1979,
Black, Henry Campbell. p. 550
Federal Government: The system of government administered in a nation formed by the union or
confederation of several independent states.
Federal government is control and influence by the central government

Dictionary of american politics, 2nd edition, 1968.
Federal Government: In the United States: the Government which, from its capital in the District of
Columbia, directly legislates, administers, and exercises jurisdiction over matters assigned to it in the
Constitution and exerts considerable influence, by means of grants-in-aid and otherwise, over matters
reserved to the State governments.
Federal government means the central government

federal government: In the United States: the Government which, from its capital in the District of
Federal government means the central government in washington dc

federal government: In the United States: the Government which, from its capital in the District of
West Coast
2011
16
Neg Handbook
Should
Should expresses obligation or desirability
Webster's new world dictionary, 3rd edition, 1988.
p.1242.
used to express obligation or duty, propriety, or desirability.
Should is different from would

Websters new universal unabridged dictionary, 1983.
Should: 2b. expectation or probability: e.g., since they left Saturday they should be here by Monday:
equivalent to ought to and replaceable by would.
Should can be replaced by would

Should: 2d. futurity in polite or unemphatic requests or in statements with implications of uncertainty or
doubt: replaceable by would: e.g., should (or would) you like some tea? I should (or would) think hed
like it.
Should means past tense of shall

p. 1679.
1. past tense of shall.
West Coast
2011
17
Neg Handbook
Substantially
Substantial means large
Oxford english dictionary, 2nd ed, 1989.
[substantial:] Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or dimensions. More recently also in a
somewhat weakened sense, esp. fairly large.
Substantial means large

Websters new world dictionary, 1988.
p.1336
Substantial 4. considerable; ample; large
Substantial means considerable in quantity

Merriam-websters collegiate dictionary. 1993,
p. 1174
Substantial 2b. Considerable in quantity.
Substantially is considerable or large

The american heritage dictionary, 1983,
p. 678.
Substantially 5. Considerable; large; won by a substantial margin.
Substantially means truly, largely, essentially

Websters new universal unabridged dictionary, deluxe second edition, 1983
Substantially: 2. to a substantial degree; specifically, a. truly; really; actually; b. largely; essentially; in the
main.
Substantial means important

Blacks law dictionary. 1979,
p. 1280 Black, Henry Campbell.
Substantial Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal.
Substantial means of real worth and importance

Black's law dictionary, 6th edition, 1990,
p.1428
Of real worth and importance.
Substantial means important

The american heritage dictionary. 1982, p. 1213
Substantial 5. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent.
Substantial means of considerable or vital worth

Websters new universal unabridged dictionary, deluxe second edition, 1983
Substantial: 6. of considerable worth or value; vital; important; as, they agree on all substantial issues.
West Coast
2011
18
Neg Handbook
Increase
Increase means to make greater
Random House, 2010, Increase, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase
verb (used with object) 1. to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to:
to increase taxes.
Make greater
Collins English Dictionary, 2009, increase, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase
vb 1.
to make or become greater in size, degree, frequency, etc; grow or expand
Increase means to make greater

Merriam-Webster, 2010, increase, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase
transitive verb 1 : to make greater : augment
West Coast
2011
19
Neg Handbook
Its
Its is the possessive form of the pronoun it
Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991)
Its: the possessive form of IT (used as an attribute adjective) The book has lost its jacket. I'm sorry about
its being so late.
Its means of or belonging to the noun referenced as it

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed, 1989
Of or belonging to it, that thing.
Its is possessive or genitive of it

CHAMBERS 20TH CENTURY DICTIONARY, 1983.
Its: possessive or genitive of it.
Its is of or relating to it as the subject or object of an action

WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1988.
Its: adj. of or relating to it or itself esp. as possessor, agent, or object of an action (going to its kennel) a
child proud of its first drawings) (its final enactment into law).
West Coast
2011
20
Neg Handbook
Exploration And/Or Development Of

Space exploration means investigating space outside the atmosphere
John M. Logsdon, 2011, space exploration, Britannica,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557348/space-exploration
space exploration,the investigation, by means of manned and unmanned spacecraft, of the reaches of
the universe beyond Earths atmosphere and the use of the information so gained to increase
knowledge of the cosmos and benefit humanity. A complete list of all manned spaceflights, with details on each missions
accomplishments and crew, is available in the section Chronology of manned spaceflights.
Space exploration means investigating space

Free Dictionary, 2011, Space Exploration,
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Space+Exploration
space exploration, the investigation of physical conditions in space and on stars, planets, and other
celestial bodies through the use of artificial satellites satellite, artificial, object constructed by humans
and placed in orbit around the earth or other celestial body (see also space probe). The satellite is lifted from the
earth's surface by a rocket and, once placed in orbit, maintains its motion without further
Development is making more complex

American Heritage Dictionary, 2002, development,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/development
The natural progression from a previous, simpler, or embryonic stage to a later, more
complex, or adult stage.
Space exploration is distinct from development of space

H.H. Koelle, professor at Berlin Tech., July-Nov 2000, An experimental program for Space Solar Power
Development, Acta Astronautica, v. 47, Iss. 2-9
The question of developing a space solar power system (SSPS) remains on the agenda as long as the energy supply
of our pIanet is not secured for at least the next century. At the present time the oil and gas prices are low enough not to alarm the responsible governmental agencies and
commercial enterprises. This may change in a few decades when the global population grows to over 10 billion people doubling the energy demand. Then energy prices are expected to
it
appears advisable to design an experimental program for the development of space solar power
in concert with the further human exploration of the Moon and Mars, just in case there are no other viable solutions to the problem expected
increase drastically due to dwindling reserves. Furthermore, human space flight is expected to continue during the next century exploring and developing of space resources. Thus,
for the second half of the next century and thereafter. Its technical feasibility and economic viability must be periodically analysed. - Past experience has demonstrated that it requires several
studies of plans to develop space solar power compatible with

the development of the Moon and Mars appears desirable.
decades to develop a new energy system. This forces early planning. Thus
And/Or means what it means

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988)
used as a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or
individually (punishable by a fine and/or a term in jail).
Of is a preposition
Dictionary.Com, 2011, of, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of
preposition 1. (used to indicate distance or direction from, separation, deprivation, etc.): within a mile
of the church; south of Omaha; to be robbed of one's money. 2. (used to indicate derivation, origin, or
West Coast
2011
21
Neg Handbook
source): a man of good family; the plays of Shakespeare; a piece of cake. 3. (used to indicate cause,
motive, occasion, or reason): to die of hunger.
West Coast
2011
22
Neg Handbook
Space Beyond The

Space is everywhere, i.e. outer space
Websters Dictionary, 2010, space, http://www.yourdictionary.com/space
noun 1. 1. the three-dimensional, continuous expanse extending in all directions and containing all
matter: variously thought of as boundless or indeterminately finite 2. outer space
Space means expanse past the earths atmosphere

American Heritage, 2009, space, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/space
a. The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.
b. The region of this expanse beyond Earth's atmosphere.
Beyond means further

Collins Dictionary, 2009, beyond, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beyond
prep 1. at or to a point on the other side of; at or to the further side of: beyond those hills there is a
river 2. outside the limits or scope of: beyond this country's jurisdiction adv 3. at or to the other or far
side of something 4. outside the limits of something
West Coast
2011
23
Neg Handbook
Earths Mesosphere
Earth is the planet, yo
Collins Dictionary, 2003, earth, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/earth
1. (Astronomy) (sometimes capital) the third planet from the sun, the only planet on which life is
known to exist. It is not quite spherical, being flattened at the poles, and consists of three geological
zones, the core, mantle, and thin outer crust. The surface, covered with large areas of water, is
enveloped by an atmosphere principally of nitrogen (78 per cent), oxygen (21 per cent), and some water
vapour. The age is estimated at over four thousand million years. Distance from sun: 149.6 million km;
equatorial diameter: 12 756 km; mass: 5.976 1024 kg; sidereal period of axial rotation: 23 hours 56
minutes 4 seconds; sidereal period of revolution about sun: 365.256 days Related adjs terrestrial,
tellurian, telluric, terrene
Mesophere is part of the atmosphere

Merriam-Webster, 2011, Mesophere, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mesosphere
the part of the earth's atmosphere between the stratosphere and the thermosphere in which
temperature decreases with altitude to the atmosphere's absolute minimum
Mesosphere is between the stratosphere and thermosphere

MSN Encarta, 2009, mesosphere,
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861629445/mesosphere.html
mesosphere [ mzz
the layer of the Earth's

atmosphere in which temperature decreases rapidly, located between the stratosphere and
thermosphere
West Coast
2011
24
Neg Handbook
China Cooperation Neg
West Coast
2011
25
Neg Handbook
1NC Technology Transfer DA 1/2

US technological competitiveness is high now
Kent Bernhard, Editor of Business News @ Portfolio, 9-6-2010, US Slips in Global Competitiveness
Ranking, Portfolio, http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2010/09/09/US-slips-in-globalcompetitiveness-ranking?ana=from_rss
U.S. companies are highly sophisticated and innovative, supported by an excellent university system
that collaborates strongly with the business sector in R&D. Combined with the scale opportunities
afforded by the sheer size of its domestic economythe largest in the world by farthese qualities
continue to make the United States very competitive. Labor markets are ranked fourth, characterized
by the ease and affordability of hiring workers and significant wage flexibility, the authors of the
report write.
US-China space cooperation leads to technology transfers that collapse US

competitiveness
Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, 4-12-2006, U.S.-China Cooperation: The Great Space Debate,
Space, http://www.space.com/2284-china-cooperation-great-space-debate.html
In terms of working with China on space matters, Walker said there is need for "more assurances"
than the U.S. presently has about the Chinese willingness to respect technology, copyrights
and patents. "We have challenges with the Chinese at the present time because the rule of law
sometimes means different things to them than it means to us," Walker added. "We're trying to work
that out through World Trade Organization arrangements and hopefully some day we will." Walker said
that U.S.-China space cooperation should be very carefully measured. There is need to assure that the
United States, he said, doesn't end up giving China technology that challenges, and possibly exceeds,
American space expertise. Leadership in space technology is a very important part of the United
States being competitive in the 21st century, Walker said. "We do not want to easily give up the
technology that allows us to stay in the lead." Most Americans think that the United States is so far
ahead in the space arena that no one will ever catch us, Walker concluded. "In my view, that's a mistake
to believe that...because there are people with ambitions that rival our own.
This causes China to leapfrog US technological leadership

Eric Sterner, fellow at the George C. Marshall Institute, held senior staff positions on the House Armed
Services and Science committees, served in the Defense Dept. and was NASA associate deputy
administrator for policy and planning, 11-20-2009, Viewpoint: Be Wary Of China Space Ties, Aviation
Week
China has already lased U.S. satellites, demonstrated a direct-ascent kinetic anti-satellite weapon, and
is working on advanced microsatellites and formation flying. Collectively, these present a significant
threat to the space systems upon which the U.S. depends for its conventional and strategic military
advantagesadvantages that Chinese theorists clearly want to hold at risk. Chinese access to advanced
U.S. civil and commercial space technologies and experience, whether illicit or approved, reduces the
cost and increases the speed at which China can climb the military research and development learning
curve.
West Coast
2011
26
Neg Handbook
1NC Technology Transfer DA 2/2

Competitiveness is key to hegemony
Zalmay Khalilzad, Former ambassador to the United Nations, 1995, Losing the Moment?, The
Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy
declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global
leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the
world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United
States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength,
the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend
on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions
produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take
advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the
beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative
position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its
institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power,
U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real
per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior
science and technology.
The impact is great power conflict

Zalmay Khalilzad, Former ambassador to the United Nations, 2-8-2011, The Economy and National
Security , National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-nationalsecurity-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2
American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket,
regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into allout conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift
their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be
emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. Since the end of the Cold War, a stable
economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world.
Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk
that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to
deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment,
leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
These wars go nuclear

Mainland in 3
Grant Mainland, Research Specialist at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 3-26-2003,
American Primacy is a Lesser Evil, San Diego Union-Tribune
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=605.
Still, if unipolarity is an evil, it is a lesser evil. Lesser than the world wars of the 20th century, and
lesser than the numerous regional conflicts - potentially nuclear - that would likely erupt absent the
influence of American military force. American predominance will not last forever, but there is little
reason to welcome its decline.
West Coast
2011
27
Neg Handbook
Technology Transfer DA Uniqueness

US competitiveness is high now new energy innovation
Department of Commerce, 9-15-2010, Washington Clean Energy Investments under the Recovery
Act Highlighted in New Energy Department Report, Commerce Publications,
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDNews/CTEDNewsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemID=27
8&mid=840
"Our investments in clean energy under the Recovery Act are benefiting every state in America," said
Secretary Chu. "The Recovery Act funding for projects like modernizing our electrical grid, improving
the efficiency of our homes and businesses, and building new advanced vehicle and renewable energy
manufacturing facilities is creating jobs now while laying the groundwork for Americas new industrial
revolution." Under the Recovery Act, the private sector is joining with the federal government,
universities, states and local communities to move the country toward a clean energy future. These
unprecedented investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, advanced vehicle manufacturing,
the smart grid, and research, development, and deployment of the latest innovative energy
technologies will help the U.S. to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, improve our energy
security, and reduce carbon pollution. Our clean energy investments here in America are improving
U.S. economic competitiveness, supporting the growth of new green industries like advanced battery
manufacturing, solar and wind energy, and carbon capture and sequestration, and creating new jobs
across the country. By 2012, we expect our commitment to clean energy to lead to more than 800,000
jobs nationally. More information about Recovery Act-supported jobs in Washington is available
at http://www.recovery.org.
Competitiveness relies on space leadership

James Bacchus, former Member of Congress, from Floridas 15th Congressional District, which includes
the Kennedy Space Center, 3-16-2011, American competitiveness needs space program, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/150091-american-competitiveness-needsspace-program
At a time of growing concern about American competitiveness, does it make sense to throw away the
critical mass and the critical skills of thousands of space workers whose labors have secured and
sustained Americas comparative advantage in what will surely be one of the key global industries of
the coming century?
US is outcompeting China in key industries now

Brad Hall, managing director of Human Capital Systems, 3-16-2011, America's Competitiveness
Underestimated: The Innovators, The Street, http://www.thestreet.com/story/11042815/1/americascompetitiveness-underestimated-the-innovators.html
When it comes to cost, China maintains a competitive advantage in many low-end products. China
produces consumer goods such as furniture, toys, shoes and electronic components. From my office, I
can see the FoxConn factory in Shenzhen, China that employs 350,000 hardworking young adults, mostly
from the countryside, who make $293 U.S. dollars a month. Watching a sea of humanity walk to and
from the factory during shift changes is an amazing sight. Because of its relatively high labor costs, the
U.S. manufactures high value-add products such as semiconductors, industrial lathes, fighter jets and
biomedical products. Many think Americans are uncompetitive in manufacturing. That's not true.
Although China's growth rate has been faster, the total manufacturing output of China and the U.S. is
the same at $1.8 trillion in U.S. dollars.
West Coast
2011
28
Neg Handbook
Technology Transfer Impact US-China War

China is actively looking to leapfrog US technology
Andy Pasztor, Wall Street Journal Staff, 4-14-2010, China Sets Ambitious Space Goals, Wall Street
Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304159304575184442226504292.html
China's manned space program aims to leapfrog the U.S. by deploying advanced spacecraft and inorbit refueling systems as early as 2016, when American astronauts still may be relying on rides on
Russian spaceships. Wang Wenbao, the head of China's manned space engineering office, disclosed the
new details about Beijing's growing exploration ambitions in an interview Wednesday. In less than 20
years, China has come from having no space program to one that seeks to move into the lead by
relying on an extensive web of universities, government research offices and manufacturing facilities.
Technology transfer leads to US-China war

Jeffrey Logan, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the Congressional
Research Service, 9-29-2008, Chinas Space Program: Options for U.S.-China Cooperation, FAS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22777.pdf
Some of the most important challenges of expanding cooperation in space with China include: Inadvertent technology transfer. From this perspective, increased space cooperation with China
should be avoided until Chinese intentions are clearer. Joint space activities could lead to more rapid
(dual-use) technology transfer to China, and in a worst-case scenario, result in a space Pearl Harbor,
as postulated by a congressionally appointed commission led by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001.
A US-China war goes global and nuclear

Ching Cheong, senior journalist at The Straits Times and author of two books on Taiwan, 6-25-2000,
No One Gains in War Over Taiwan, Straits Times
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the
US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national
interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other
countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already
told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any
US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South
Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China 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.
West Coast
2011
29
Neg Handbook
Technology Transfer Scenario Military Modernization

Increased space cooperation leads to technology transfer that dramatically increases
Chinese military modernization
Week
Unfortunately, there are ample reasons for the U.S. to keep its distance. While the U.S. explicitly
decided to separate its space exploration activities from the military, Chinas human spaceflight
program is a subsidiary of the Peoples Liberation Army. In that context, the risks of illicit technology
transfer are considerable. Closer relations create greater opportunities for China to acquire sensitive
technology. In 2007, the U.S. launched the interagency National Export Enforcement Initiative, designed
to combat illegal trafficking in sensitive technologies. Within a year, charges were filed against 145
criminal defendants. Iran and China were the intended destinations for most of the known illegal
exports. The Justice Dept. noted, The illegal exports to China have involved rocket launch data, space
shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, [UAV] technology, thermal imaging
systems, military night-vision systems and other materials. This is consistent with other Chinese
activities, including a massive 2005 cyber-raid on NASAs computers that exfiltrated data about the
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters propulsion system, solar panels and fuel tanks. The U.S. should be
concerned about such transfers for two reasons. First, they will aid Chinese military modernization,
particularly in areas where the U.S. holds an advantage (see p. 29).
Increased military modernization leads to Asian instability

Malou Innocent, Foreign Policy Analyst @ CATO, 2-26-2009, Outlook on China: peaceful partner or
warmonger?, CSM, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0226/p09s01-coop.html
"Few in Asia doubt that having succeeded once, China will try again," explains Arthur Waldron, a
professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania. China's military modernization
also has implications for US national security. Rising powers have historically brought greater instability
to the international system. In a comprehensive examination of the causes of major wars, A.F.K.
Organski and Jacek Kugler suggest in "The War Ledger" that as a country's power increases, its
willingness to seek change in the international system will be heightened. "It is this shift that
destabilizes the system and begins the slide toward war," they write.
Asian war goes global

Abraham Denmark, Fellow with the Center for a New American Security, 2009, US RoK Alliance in
the 21st Century, Center for a New American Security, Scholar
Today, Asia stands as the most important region for the future of American security and prosperity.
Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of global consumption of steel, and China is consuming almost
half of the worlds available concrete. Asias rise has been sustained by a remarkable period of regional
peace, international stability, the spread of democracy throughout the region, and the expansion of
regional economic integration through Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and a general liberalization of
trade laws. As described by Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, Asias rise has had a
profound impact on the global economy. Since 2000, Asia has accounted for more than one-third of
the worlds economic growth, raising its share of global gross domestic product (GDP) from 28 percent
to 32 percent.
West Coast
2011
30
Neg Handbook
Technology Transfer Scenario Proliferation

Cooperation leads to technology proliferation
Week
Second, China is a serial proliferator. Some technologies could make their way to countries of even
greater concern, including Iran and North Korea. The deputy director of national intelligence for
analysis submits an unclassified annual proliferation report to Congress, known as the 721 Report. The
most recent report states, Chinese companies have been associated with nuclear and missile programs
in Pakistan and missile programs in Iran; Chinese entitieswhich include private companies, individuals
and state-owned military export firms continue to engage in [weapons of mass destruction]-related
proliferation activities. Remaining wary of Chinas intentions does not mean the U.S. should opt for
isolation, but it does argue against close space cooperation. Instead, the U.S. should seek to increase
transparency about Chinas intentions and capabilities through military channels, share scientific data
about the solar system (but not the technology that collected the data), establish standards (such as
limiting orbital debris creation) that serve mutual interests, and possibly coordinate some activities such
as lunar or Earth science missions. Existing international frameworks enable all of this, but China has
resisted accepting the responsibilities that come with membership as a great space power. Aerospace
technologies are high on Chinas illegal shopping list. Until Chinas intentions are clearer and its
behavior has verifiably and persistently changed, close cooperation entails risks that far exceed the
potential benefits.
Iran wants to support belligerent military adventures with aerospace parts

Defense Tech, 2007, Why F-14s Must be Crushed, Defense,
http://defensetech.org/2007/07/16/why-f-14s-must-be-crushed/#ixzz1IbZgIhzj
Irans aerospace industry and intelligence services then embarked on what has become a nearly threedecade shell game of trying to find ways to covertly or illegally procure parts for the F-14. Not
surprisingly, incidents of spares disappearing from storehouses at Subic Base in the Philippines and
other Navy installations worldwide became regular occurrences. Numerous middlemen operating from
shadowy front companies ordered parts for the Iranian Some of these fronts have ended up in the U.S.
courts over the years, but the Iranians have had far more successes than failures in getting their hands
on what they need. During Irans air show last year27 years after the embargo was first imposed
several Iranian aerospace enterprises openly displayed overhauled components for the F-14 that they
manage to keep acquiring parts for up to this day.
That leads to Middle Eastern war

Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2007, Time for Dtente With Iran,
Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86202/ray-takeyh/time-for-detentewith-iran.html
Iran now lies at the center of the Middle East's major problems -- from the civil wars unfolding in Iraq
and Lebanon to the security challenge of the Persian Gulf -- and it is hard to imagine any of them
being resolved without Tehran's cooperation. Meanwhile, Tehran's power is being steadily enhanced
by its nuclear program, which progresses unhindered despite regular protests from the international
community.
West Coast
2011
31
Neg Handbook
1NC US-Japan Relations DA 1/2

Bilateral US-China cooperation hurts the US-Japan alliance
Dean Cheng, PhD, Senior Analyst for the Navy, 12-2009, Space and Defense: Reflections on Sino-US
Space Cooperation, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3
Beyond the bilateral difficulties of cooperating with the PRC, it is also important to consider
potential ramifications of Sino-US cooperation in space on the Asian political landscape. In
particular, cooperation between Washington and Beijing on space issues may well arouse concerns
in Tokyo and Delhi. Both of these nations have their own space programs, and while they are arguably
not engaged in a space race with China (or each other), they are certainly keeping a close eye on
developments regarding China. Of particular importance is Japan. The United States relationship
with Japan is arguably its most important in East Asia. US interest in Japan should be selfevident.
Japan hosts 47,000 US troops and is the linchpin for forward US presence in that hemisphere. Japan
is the second largest contributor to all major international organizations that buttress US foreign
policy. Japan is the bulwark for US deterrence and engagement of China and North Koreathe
reason why those countries cannot assume that the United States will eventually withdraw from the
region. 35 For Japan, whose peace constitution forbids it from using war as an instrument of state
policy, the United States is an essential guarantor of its security. Any move by the US that might
undermine this view raises not only the prospect of weakening US-Japanese ties, but also
potentially affecting Japans security policies.
The US-Japan alliance is key to global democracy

William E. Rapp, Lieutenant Col. With a PH.D in IR from Stanford, 2004, Paths Diverging?, Carlisle
Army Institute, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB367.pdf
Finally, the alliance can provide the continuity of peace and trust necessary for the growth of
liberalism throughout the region. Success for the United States and Japan will increasingly be
measured in terms of an increased community of vibrant, pacific, free-market democracies in Asia.
Making the two publics aware of the idealistic benefits of the alliance will make more headway toward
acceptance of a deepening partnership than simply focusing on the alliances role in power politics in
the region. Creating the conditions for that liberal development and tamping down the anticipated
frictions that will arise along the way can best be accomplished in tandem. In the long run, this
liberalism backed by the concerted power of the United States and Japan will bring lasting stability to
the region.
Thats key to global democracy

Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science @ Wisconsin, 12-2009, The Road Not Taken,
Dissent, Vol. 56, No. 1
Democracy-promoter Larry Diamond concludes in his recent book The Spirit of Democracy that
democracy is in trouble across the world because of the rise of China, an authoritarian superpower
that has the economic clout to back and bail out authoritarian regimes around the globe. "Singapore . . .
could foreshadow a resilient form of capitalist-authoritarianism by China, Vietnam, and elsewhere in
Asia," which delivers "booming development, political stability, low levels of corruption, affordable
housing, and a secure pension system." Joined by ever richer and more influential petro powers
leveraging the enormous wealth of Sovereign Investment Funds, "Asia will determine the fate of
democracy," at least in the foreseeable future. Authoritarian China, joined by its authoritarian friends,
is well on the way to defeating the global forces of democracy.
West Coast
2011
32
Neg Handbook
1NC US-Japan Relations DA 2/2

Democracy solves several scenarios for war and extinction
Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, 12-1995, Promoting Democracy in the
1990s, Carnegie Endowment, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the
global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to
security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The experience of this
century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do
not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves
or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations,
and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against
one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.
Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they
offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible
because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their
environments.
Failure to consult over US-China cooperation tanks the US-Japan alliance

Part of the shock was the fundamental nature of these shifts. Even more damaging, however, was
the failure of the Nixon Administration to consult their Japanese counterparts, catching them
wholly off-guard. It took several years for the effects of these shocks to wear off. If the United
States is intent upon expanding space relations with the PRC, then it would behoove it to consult
Japan, in order to minimize the prospect of a space shock. Failing to do so may well incur a
Japanese reaction. The decision on the part of Japan to build an explicitly intelligence-focused
satellite was in response to the North Korean missile test of 1999, suggesting that Tokyo is fully
capable of undertaking space-oriented responses when it is concerned. 37 That, in turn, would
potentially arouse the ire of China. The tragic history of Sino-Japanese relations continues to cast a
baleful influence upon current interactions between the two states. If there is not a space race
currently underway between Beijing and Tokyo, it would be most unfortunate if American actions
were to precipitate one.
The US-Japan alliance encourages US-China cooperation solves the case

John J. Tzacik, retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Departments
Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration, 10-5-2010, China tests US-Japan
alliance, Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/5/china-tests-us-japan-alliance/?page=2
Beijing's claims to the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh - an area of India bigger than Taiwan
that no Chinese ever have inhabited - raise the specter of armed clashes between the two Asian giants
that also disturb Mrs. Clinton's sleep. America's new firmness in support of its partners across
democratic Asia will oblige China to reassess its aggressiveness. Beijing certainly will regroup to test
Washington again, and soon. Let's hope President Obama is up to the task of organizing our
democratic partners in the region to balance China's rising power.
West Coast
2011
33
Neg Handbook
1NC US-Indian Relations DA

The plan hurts US-India relations
Potentially further complicating this situation is India. With a burgeoning space program India
constitutes yet another participant in a potential Asian space race. Fueled by a growing economy, India has steadily
improved its space capabilities, launching the Chandrayaan-1 lunar probe in 2008, soon after the Japanese Kaguya and Chinese Change-1
probes. Again, this is
not to suggest that there is a space race underway, but it would be hard to deny
that the major Asian powers are each watching the others carefully (or, more accurately, that China
is being watched carefully by its neighbors). That space is a major potential arena for competition
among these states is highlighted by the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation Between Japan and India, initialed by the
Japanese and Indian Prime Ministers on October 22, 2008 in Tokyo. The final mechanism of cooperation listed in the agreement was for
cooperation between the two nations space programs. Cooperation will be conducted between the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
For the United States,

cooperating with China on space issues, when it is not yet doing so with India, could well send
mixed messages to Delhi. In particular, there is a perception in many quarters that the United States is intent upon balancing
(JAXA) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) in the field of disaster management. 38
China through India. 39 US space cooperation with China might allay such concerns and signal that the US is not seeking to counter China
It might, however, be seen as double-dealing by the Indian government, which has its own
concerns about China stemming to at least the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
through India.
US-Indian relations are key to Afghanistan stability

R. Nicholas Burns, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 2007, America's Strategic
Opportunity With India, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86609/rnicholas-burns/america-s-strategic-opportunity-with-india.htm
The United States and India share a particular interest in defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan and in helping to support that country's fledgling democracy. India has made important
contributions there. It has pledged over $750 million for reconstruction, making it the largest South Asian donor to the government of
President Hamid Karzai. It has helped renovate and build hospitals, granaries, and schools; it is training Afghan parliamentary officials in
governance and parliamentary processes; and it has committed to building dams, roads, power projects, and a new parliament building.
India's continuing involvement in Afghanistan is essential to that country's stabilization and long-term
success, and cooperation between the United States and India in Afghanistan has been close and
encouraging.
Indian cooperation is key to regional stability

Neenah Shenai, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2009, The Critical U.SIndia Relationship, The American, http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/the-critical-u-sindia-relationshipg
Afghanistan. India shares the desire of the United States for a stable, secure Afghanistan. Although India has no
military involvement in Afghanistan (due to Pakistani sensitivities), Indias current and future reconstruction activities in Afghanistan are critical
to successful U.S. efforts. In fact, closer
U.S. cooperation with a democratic, U.S.-friendly Indiaa blossoming

regional and rising global poweris vital to stability and the balance of power in the region.
West Coast
2011
34
Neg Handbook
1NC Topicality Its

Interpretation increase its space exploration demands ownership of exploration.
Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, 2nd Ed., Vol. VIII, its, pg. 150
Its, poss. pron. A. As adj. possess. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing; also refl., Of or belonging to
itself, its own. B. As absolute possessive. The absolute form of prec., used when no sb. Follows: its one,
its ones.
Violation The plan increases US-Chinese joint exploration, it doesnt belong to the
United States and the United States doesnt own the project.
Standards
a) Ground explosion allowing exploration by multiple actors leads to an infinite
number of permutations of actors. The plan could include every country, any number
of businesses or non-government organization. This makes it impossible for the
negative to prepare.
b) Grammar Only our interpretation has a precise meaning of its. Mooting any
word in the resolution dramatically changes the meaning.
c) Err Negative The affirmative speaks first and last, chooses the topic and has nearly
infinite preparation. Allowing the affirmative to run to the margins of the topic stacks
the deck too far in their favor.
Topicality is a jurisdictional voting issue. Evaluate based on competing interpretations
because reasonability is arbitrary and based on subjective judge beliefs.
West Coast
2011
35
Neg Handbook
Politics DA Link The Plan Hurts the Agenda

Recent belligerent Chinese actions make the plan extremely controversial
Jeffrey Logan, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division at the Congressional
Research Service, 9-29-2008, Chinas Space Program: Options for U.S.-China Cooperation, FAS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22777.pdf
China has a determined, yet still modest, program of civilian space activities planned for the next
decade. The potential for U.S.-China cooperation in space an issue of interest to Congress has
become more controversial since the January 2007 Chinese anti-satellite test. The test reinforced
concerns about Chinese intentions in outer space and jeopardized space assets of more than two
dozen countries by creating a large cloud of orbital space debris. Some argue that Chinese capabilities
now threaten U.S. space assets in low earth orbit. Others stress the need to expand dialogue with
China.
The plan is wildly unpopular

Jim Wolf, Reuters Staff, 1-2-2011, Analysis: Space: a frontier too far for U.S.-China cooperation,
Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/02/us-china-usa-spaceidUSTRE7010E520110102?pageNumber=1
The idea of joint ventures in space, including spacewalks, explorations and symbolic "feel good"
projects, have been floated from time to time by leaders on both sides. Efforts have gone nowhere
over the past decade, swamped by economic, diplomatic and security tensions, despite a 2009
attempt by President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, to kick-start the
bureaucracies. U.S. domestic politics make the issue unlikely to advance when Obama hosts Hu at the
White House on January 19. Washington is at odds with Beijing over its currency policies and huge
trade surplus but needs China's help to deter North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions and advance
global climate and trade talks, among other matters.
Republicans oppose cooperation

Jim Wolf, Reuters Staff, 1-2-2011, Analysis: Space: a frontier too far for U.S.-China cooperation,
Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/02/us-china-usa-spaceidUSTRE7010E520110102?pageNumber=1
New obstacles to cooperation have come from the Republicans capturing control of the U.S. House of
Representatives in the November 2 congressional elections from Obama's Democrats. Representative
Frank Wolf, for instance, is set to take over as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that
funds the U.S. space agency in the House. A China critic and human rights firebrand, the Republican
congressman has faulted NASA's chief for meeting leaders of China's Manned Space Engineering
Office in October. "As you know, we have serious concerns about the nature and goals of China's
space program and strongly oppose any cooperation between NASA and China," Wolf and three
fellow Republicans wrote NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on October 15 as he left for China.
West Coast
2011
36
Neg Handbook
Politics DA Link Congress Will Backlash at the Plan

Congress has significant opposition to the plan
The political situation in the United States, unfortunately, suggests that there may be significant
obstacles to implementing a more extensive bilateral cooperative approach. In particular, there was
little optimism among attendees to the various workshops that ITAR would be changed anytime
soonalthough there was broad agreement that the ITAR system needed significant overhauling and
revamping. Similarly, longstanding restrictions on technology transfer to the PRC (for reasons of not
only national security but also intellectual property rights and questions of competitiveness), as well
as concerns about human rights and other aspects of the Chinese situation suggest that there would
be significant political opposition to any effort to radically upgrade Sino-US bilateral cooperation in
space. It remains to be seen how the incoming Obama administration might deal with these concerns.
Congress will backlash at any attempt for bilateral US-China space cooperation
William Martel, Professor of National Security and Toshi Yoshihara, Fellow @ Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis, 2003, Averting a Sino-US Space Race, The Washington Quarterly, pg. 30
Meanwhile, a poisonous atmosphere of distrust continues to prevail as a result of allegations in the
past decade that Chinese espionage and illegal transfers of U.S. space technologies strengthened
Chinas military space program. For example, in the mid-1990s, after a series of launch failures, China
turned to Loral Systems, a U.S. satellite firm, for technical assistance. Subsequent investigations
revealed that Loral had released sensitive technical data to the Chinese that may have helped the PRC
improve its missile guidance capabilities. In 1999 a U.S. congressional investigation chaired by
Representative Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) concluded that the performance of Chinas launchers improved
as a result of those transfers. In another case, the Department of State recently charged that In the
1990s, the Boeing Company and Hughes Electronics Corporation violated up to 123 export restrictions
related to the transfer of missile and satellite data to China. As a result of these events, lingering
suspicions on Capitol Hill will impede efforts to spearhead bilateral cooperation in space and could
provoke a congressional backlash against attempts to try.
The politics link turns the case

William Martel, Professor of National Security and Toshi Yoshihara, Fellow @ Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis, 2003, Averting a Sino-US Space Race, The Washington Quarterly, pg. 30
If these mutual suspicions and disincentives to cooperation persist, Washington and Beijing might be
headed on a collision course in space. Therefore, the foreign policy and defense communities should
address at least two important questions. First, how will China respond to continued U.S. dominance in
space, especially if bilateral ties deteriorate into hostility in the future? In other words, will China devise
counterstrategies and invest heavily in space capabilities to blunt or undermine U.S. supremacy in
space?
West Coast
2011
37
Neg Handbook
Inherency US-China Cooperation Now

US-China space cooperation is high now
Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 11-30-2009, Just how soft is NASAs
soft power going to be?, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1519/1
While there are lots of serious reasons to object to the Obama Administrations opening up an
expanded relationship between NASA and the Chinese National Space Administration (CNSA) it is
probably too late to stop the process. They will be, according to the joint statement released earlier
this month when President Obama visited China, starting a dialogue on human spaceflight and space
exploration, based on the principals of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit. If any
ag5reements are reached that truly reflect these principles, the president and his team will deserve all
the credit that will come their way, but meanwhile, skepticism is inevitable.
Cooperation is already increasing

Week
This autumn, China and the U.S. began moving toward greater cooperation in space. As China lifted a
little more of the veil covering its space program, U.S. officials expressed a greater desire to work
together in exploring space. Presidential science adviser John Holdren floated the idea of increased
cooperation in human spaceflight last spring. The Augustine committee raised the idea again, and
Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao pledged to deepen space cooperation last week (see p. 33).
Cooperation is increasing now natural evolution of Chinese leadership

John J. Tzacik, retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Departments
Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration, 1-8-2010, China space program
shoots for moon, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/08/chinaeyes-high-ground/?page=3
But during his visit to Beijing a few days later, President Obama talked about cooperation rather than
competition. In a joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao, the two leaders called for a
dialogue on human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency,
reciprocity and mutual benefit. Chinas aerospace industry firms - which for decades have supplied
dangerous missile technologies and equipment to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, and which have been
sanctioned ceaselessly by four successive U.S. presidents for their transgressions - will find the United
States in a new suppliant posture. The atrophying U.S. space program suggests that America will be
forced to cooperate with China in space, or else cede the high frontier of space to China altogether.
West Coast
2011
38
Neg Handbook
AT: Relations Advantage The Plan Isnt Key to Relations

The plan doesnt solve relations other issues outweigh
Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, 6-17-2006, US-China space cooperation: the
Congressional view, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/661/1
Inevitably, any China-US space cooperation will get tangled up in bigger issues between the two
countries, like economic policy and human rights, something that the congressmen said shouldnt be
avoided. The fact is when you talk to the United States you have to talk democracy and human rights;
its just part of who we are. Were going to talk jobs, and were going to talk about the economy.
Were going to talk about military issues, said Larsen. They may be uncomfortable to talk about, but
were going to have to address these issues if were going to even get to a point where we can talk
about moving forward.
China wont get on board for exploration cooperation if they do, the next
administration will roll back the agreement
Atmospherics, however, are also important. If the US is seen as meekly asking the rest of the world to
please support the goals and ambitions of the exploration program, it will be treated with contempt.
This will not only make it exceptionally difficult to come up with acceptable international agreements,
but it will almost certainly ensure that the next Congress or the next administration will seek to
overturn any unfair, unequal, or humiliating deals made by the current leadership.
International space cooperation makes the US look weak undercuts any soft power
benefits
On the other hand, we know that the Obama Administration and Congress are chock-a-block full of
motivations, many of them contradictory or confused, but all of them expressed with passion. There are
political motivations: after all, Florida, Texas, and California are all big voter-rich states. There are
questions of prestige and international power. There are industrial, scientific, and technological
reasons why leaders in Washington think that this is important. There is a strong desire on the part of
both parties to use NASAs accomplishments as a way to inspire kids to study science and engineering. In
all of NASAs programs, ever since the Eisenhower days, there has been an element of soft power.
Some administrations have used it more effectively than others, but it has always been there. Yet this
kind of power is only a tool, not a goal in itself. If the US presents itself as too eager for partnership
agreements or too weak to explore the solar system without assistance, then the world and the
American people will only see softness.
West Coast
2011
39
Neg Handbook
AT: Relations Advantage Other Issues Outweigh Relations

Cooperation will go nowhere because of lack of Chinese transparency
Space Cooperation, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, Vol. No. 3
While this integration of civilian and military organizations and systems may be understandable,
especially in light of constrained Chinese human, financial, and technological resources, it
nonetheless complicates any effort at Sino-American cooperation. The opacity and uncertainty
regarding the organization of Chinas space efforts, beyond the role of the PLA, adds yet another
layer of complication. The United States and the PRC have almost no parallels in how each has
organized its overall space organizations and political infrastructure. This makes establishing
counterparts for even discussing space cooperation much more difficult.
Empirically, China wont cooperate in space talks

The Washington Post, 1-21-2010, Mistrust stalls U.S.-China space cooperation, Latest China,
http://latestchina.com/article/?rid=28401
But as China ramps up its space initiatives, the diplomatic talk of cooperation has so far found little
traction. The Chinese leadership has shown scant interest in opening up the most sensitive details of
its program, much of which is controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). At the same time,
Chinese scientists and space officials say that U.S. wariness of China's extraterrestrial intentions, as
well as bans on some high-technology exports, makes cooperation problematic.
Accommodation tactics are worse for relations

Robert Pfaltzgraff, Professor of International Security, 4-2009, China-US Strategic Stability, Carnegie
Endowment, Scholar
This, then, leads me to the conclusion that to the extent that the United States perpetuates its
vulnerabilities, it provides an open invitation to Chinese efforts to exploit such vulnerabilities. Let me
be more specific. There is considerable discussion to the effect that the United States should maintain
or develop with China a strategic relationship based on mutual vulnerability and that increased
emphasis, notably, on missile defense on our part will lead China to increase its own programs to order
to counter such U.S. systems. Aside from the shaky empirical basis for such an assertion, the Chinese
emphasis on exploiting U.S. vulnerabilities argues logically for efforts on our part to cut off such U.S.
vulnerabilities wherever possible in the forces that will shape the China-U.S. strategic relationship in
the years ahead. In fact, I could even argue that the conscious perpetuation of U.S. vulnerability in the
mistaken belief that the result will be strategic stability makes no sense. It may even encourage China
to attempt to exploit U.S. vulnerability at a time of crisis and lead to undesired escalation based on
miscalculation.
West Coast
2011
40
Neg Handbook
AT: Relations Advantage Negotiations Impossible

Negotiations take too long to solve the impact
Even Chinese officials appear uncertain at this time about exactly how the various pieces of the
Chinese space bureaucracy will fit together, noting that the reorganization remains a work in
progress. Nonetheless, the uncertainty associated with the basic organization of the Chinese space
bureaucracy, including who is subordinate to whom, underscores the potential difficulties confronting
more extended negotiations between the two sides, as well as more extensive cooperation. Different
Approaches to Negotiations Should the US and the PRC actively seek to cooperate, any ventures will
first require extensive negotiations. As noted earlier, there has been only minimal interaction
between American and Chinese space authorities. This means that there is not an extensive
foundation of personal relationships or even negotiating experience on space issues between the
two countries upon which to build. With neither institutional nor personal relations, the process is
likely to be extremely lengthy.
Different tactics and no foundation for negotiations ensure that the plan fails
In particular, the absence of a legacy of interactions goes to the heart of the Chinese approach to
negotiations. President Richard Nixons visit to China in 1972 and the subsequent establishment of
diplomatic relations in 1979, for example, was the culmination of nearly twenty years of meetings in
Geneva and Warsaw. 20 From the Chinese perspective, these *Ambassadorial+ Talks and the events
leading to the Talks established the boundaries within which the ultimate solutions were found. Like
building a stone house, a solid foundation for the relationship had to be laid, if the relationship was to
endure. 21 The absence of such a foundation means that any effort to foster cooperation in space
arena, which touches on sensitive issues of national capabilities as well as being potentially highly
technical, will also have to reconcile very different approaches to the process of negotiation.
US negotiators wont be able to garner Chinese compliance in negotiations

Andrew Hupert, Professor of Global Negotiation @ NYU, Negotiating in China: Secrets of Success, Part
II, 5-2010, Chinese Negotating Tactics, http://www.chinesenegotiation.com/2010/05/negotiating-inchina-secrets-of-success-part-ii/
Attention to process. You cant pressure the Chinese bureaucracy, but you can be ready, willing and
able to move when the policy environment shifts in your favor. Winners in China play many angles in a
battle of careful inches, and avoid bold dramatics that force a quick answer. The Westerners who
succeed in negotiations with the Chinese conduct a concerted, serious, dignified effort that is
consistent over a long period of time. When the right circumstances arise, these Westerners are aware
of the situation and prepared to act quickly. Americans tend to be poor at the process element of the
Chinese negotiation, while Europeans with their history of coalitions and network-building are a bit
more astute. The Chinese process of deal-making looks chaotic and irrational to the newcomer, but
there is a logic and order to it that remains strong even during times of great structural stress. Trying to
take shortcuts, forcing decisions or aggressively taking control of the process will almost always end
badly. You cant change the Chinese regulatory and political environment, but you can monitor it and
prepare in advance for the window of opportunity whenever it may arise.
West Coast
2011
41
Neg Handbook
AT: Exploration Advantage

Space colonization isnt possible the land isnt tenable
Jeffrey Bell, former space scientist and Adjunct Professor for Planetary Science at the Hawai'i Institute
of Geophysics & Planetology at the University of Hawaii, 2005, The Dream Palace of the Space
Cadets, Space Daily, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html
Unfortunately, the new generation of organizations like the Space Frontier Foundation and the Mars
Society and even the staid National Space Society mostly lack something that the old L-5 Society and
Space Studies Institute had: technical sophistication. Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars
colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's books is there the kind of detailed engineering design for Mars
colonies that the O'Neillians produced for their L-5 colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on
Mars are dismissed after superficial discussions devoid of any hard numbers. And there are obvious
problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incredibly cold there - probably down to 130C on winter nights. Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 to keep its batteries from
freezing at night. And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, but enough to conduct heat.
Terraforming wont work no breathable air

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer and president of the Mars Society and Pioneer Astronautics, 1997,
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, ALEPH,
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html
Nevertheless, Mars will not be considered fully terraformed until its air is breathable by humans.
Assuming complete coverage of the planet with photosynthetic plants, it would take about a
millennia to put the 120 mbar of oxygen in Mars' atmosphere needed to support human respiration in
the open. It is therefore anticipated that human terraformers would accelerate the oxygenation
process by artificial technological approaches yet to be determined, with the two leading concepts
being those based on either macroengineering (i.e. direct employment of very large scale energy
systems such as terrawatt sized fusion reactors, huge space-based reflectors or lasers, etc.) or self
reproducing machines, such as Turing machines or nanotechnology. Since such systems are well outside
current engineering knowledge it is difficult to provide any useful estimate of how quickly they could
complete the terraforming job.
There isnt enough political will for a real colonization effort

Jeffrey Bell, former space scientist and Adjunct Professor for Planetary Science at the Hawai'i Institute
of Geophysics & Planetology at the University of Hawaii, 2005, The Dream Palace of the Space
Cadets, Space Daily, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html
And 21st century Space Cadets don't have to plow through yellowing books in college engineering
libraries like I did in the 1970s - today the basic facts are there at web sites run by people like Mark
Wade and Marcus Lindroos who make extraordinary efforts to dig out obscure information. But for
years now, I have been meeting people who are both wildly enthusiastic about space travel as a broad
intellectual concept and completely ignorant of the practical details. They don't know how rocket
engines work. They don't know the basics of orbital mechanics. They don't know the facts (or the
uncertainties) about the dangers of radiation and microgravity. Even worse, they have no idea how
much space travel costs, or how these costs compare to other areas of human activity like war or
mountain-climbing. They think that Will is all you need to colonize the solar system- they have no
concept of the political, financial, and technological investment that it would take.
West Coast
2011
42
Neg Handbook
Lunar Colony Neg
West Coast
2011
43
Neg Handbook
A Presidential Directive Solves

We should use a presidential directive for space exploration to create a lunar society
and use the moon as a springboard
Thomas F. Rogers, Ph.D., a physicist and former Defense Department deputy director, 2006, Magnifying our
world: Why we must extend civilization to the Moon, Space Policy, vol. 22, pp. 128132
In brief, we would see Moon pioneers working and studying to create an extraordinarily fundamental
shift in civilization: they would be seeking to fashion a novel and growing Moon society and to see it
incorporated, along with the one on Earth, into one united world societya two-body, Earth and
Moon, world society. In time, the people on Earth and the Moon would be living together in the only
living civilization in the Universea civilization that would be starting to learn how to expand,
successfully, outwards throughout the Solar System. Indeed, this would become the fundamental
raison detre for the conduct of the presidentially envisioned scientific space exploration program.
A presidential order will force nasa to reform and go to the moon

Rick Tumlinson, founder of the Space Frontier Foundation, January 12, 2004, Return to the Moon: for the
right reasons, in the right way, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/82/1
The how? of returning to the Moon partially determines the why? For example, if the timeline is too
long, the budget too large, the end goal too amorphous, and the whole project is run by the usual
suspects in the usual way, the end result will be an uninspiring, over-budget dead end like the
International Space Station (ISS). To make a Return to the Moon permanent, inspiring, economical and
beneficial to the taxpayers who pay for it all, we must do certain things: First, we must ignore the
whining of those who say they need a lot more money and time. We went from a standing start to
standing on the Moon in under ten yearsforty years ago! Keep in mind, when Kennedy asked the
NASA of that time if it could be done, they told him no, and then they went and did it when ordered
to.
Obama has used a presidential directive on space issues before

Michael Salla, Ph.D., March 19, 2009, Presidential Directive opens door for release of antigravity technology,
Non Aligned Press Network, http://www.voltairenet.org/article159381.html
On February 13, 2009, President Obama released his first National Security Directive. Titled
Presidential Policy Directive -1, it greatly expands the power of the National Security Council (NSC) to
oversee all executive departments and agencies. The Directive introduces new members into top level
NSC meetings including the Energy Secretary and the U.S. representative to the United Nations. Most
significant is that Obamas National Security Advisor, General James Jones (ret.), was given direct
authority to develop and implement policy throughout the NSC system. Under previous Presidential
administrations, a number of interagency committees were not chaired or controlled by the NSC.
Under Obama, according to one Foreign Policy analyst, the NSC chairs everything, though some
committees can and will be cochaired. Prior to his current appointment, General Jones was involved in
a secretive Boeing Corporation effort to declassify antigravity technology for commercial application.
Boeings declassification efforts were denied. Obamas Directive now gives General Jones a second
opportunity to have antigravity technology declassified for commercial development.
West Coast
2011
44
Neg Handbook
International Cooperation Is A Better Approach

International coop checks the risk of military involvement shifting to warfighting
Taylor Dinerman, Independent Space Analyst and former Director of SpaceEquity.com, May 3, 2010, The
post-American Moon, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1618/1
If the US had gone ahead and built a similar base other nations would, naturally, have expressed similar
fears about it. This may be why a few experts believe that a good future model for lunar governance would be the Antarctic Treaty, which
has kept the peace on that continent for more than half a century. All the worlds major power and almost all the regional
states have research stations there that perform valuable scientific work and also, with military
logistical support, keep a close watch on each other to insure that no one is building an effective
warfighting base.
An international effort to create a moon base could be funded progressively

Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry,
New York University, 2009, A new rationale for returning to the Moon? Protecting civilization with a
sanctuary, Space Policy, vol. 25, p. 5
As we have noted, these efforts will be costly. However, the construction of a permanently staffed lunar facility appears to be an integral part
of the Vision for Space Exploration. Sites
near the lunar South Pole that are under consideration by NASA, such as
the rim of Shackleton crater and the plateau at the top of Malepert Mountain, would also seem appropriate for the lunar
facility. Given this head start, the cost of adapting the base to accommodate the survival sanctuary
would be greatly reduced. In addition, the governments of some developing nations also now have lunar
ambitions and would perhaps share the costs. In the past governments have not been reliable in sustaining long-term
projects, however, and the overall management of the purpose of securing the future of our species might
better be placed with a private, international organization supported by private philanthropy. Our
current prosperity (in comparison to the state of humanity through most of its history) is built upon the achievements of
technology. The preservation of this foundation of knowledge must surely rank near the top of causes to be supported, particularly by
individuals and corporations whose wealth has come from its applications. If presented appropriately, the preservation of our
civilization and species may be seen as the most worthy of all philanthropic purposes. A gift providing
even a small fraction of the ultimate cost would be enough to set the project in motion. Initial efforts could
concentrate on archiving, constructing an organizational infrastructure and designing an appropriate facility. Above all, an educational effort to
bring the project into public awareness would be needed, as an understanding of its goals and participation at the community level in placing
the repositories is essential. As
funds accumulated over the years, the more massive task of construction could
get underway.
A unilateral moon base will fail to foster colonization

Therefore the goal of extending civilization through settlement of the Moon should also be adopted. And we should
do this in a fashion that would explicitly open up new and positive nationalinternational economic and peaceful governance possibilities for
the worlds peoples. This requires
the active involvement of as much of the general public as possible, privately

financed entrepreneurial private sector participation, and the involvement of several US federal offices in addition to NASA. It also
requires cooperative participation by the countries of Europe, and of China, India and Japan, and many,
many professional interests in addition to the natural sciences. Imaginative and vigorous technological, market and institutional measures
should be adopted that would see the USA and much of the rest of the world beginning to be a two-body society, involving both the Earth and
the Moon, by the end of the second civil space half-century.
West Coast
2011
45
Neg Handbook
International Cooperation Is A Better Approach

A moon race is good if done under international cooperation
Dave Kisor, Staff Writer, October 16, 2009, A different Kind of Moon Race, by Buzz Aldrin, Op-Ed News,
http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=14625
A quarter of a million miles from where you are reading these words, on
the dusty surface of our companion Moon, lies

the best chance in decades for America to reestablish itself as a global space leader. It is time for our
country to foster a new Moon race -- but not the kind that our space program has been planning for
the past five years. Instead of duplicating -- at great cost and effort -- the lunar competition that Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I
won more than four decades ago last summer, I propose instead America call the world to the Moon. In a new
global effort to use the Moon to establish a global space consortium with a lunar surface facility as its
epicenter, America can gain new leadership, international respect, and technological progress by
collaborating with emerging space powers, not merely competing with them. Such competition, in an
Apollo-style race back to the Moon, would be a fruitless exercise in national hubris whose rewards, if we
"won" again, would prove fleeting. New space powers such as China and India have dedicated and complex
space programs now under development, with the Moon as their target. Trying to "win" a Moon race
with them would be foolish. They would eventually reach the Moon, with or without our help. What
would be our policy then? Try to deny them access to the Moon's bountiful resources in minerals -- and maybe water as well? Such an
attitude is more appropriate for the Cold War era that has been over for more than two decades. I am
proposing a different way back to the Moon: international collaboration.
A successful return to the moon requires international cooperation

Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation,
Energy Research and Development Administration, and Department of Energy, February 12, 2007, Just how full
of opportunity is the Moon?, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1
Recent press releases seem to indicate that international interest in cooperating with NASA on
returning humans to the Moon does not exist. Some, such as the British, have clearly indicated they have
other plans. Based on statements made by NASA it would appear that in order for the initiative to
return to the Moon to be successful, international cooperation will be required. A meeting has been announced in the
spring to explore the interests of the international space community in joining the Vision. How many nations may sign up is problematic, with good reason, considering how the ISS
international partners have been treated in the past. Meanwhile, some are leapfrogging ahead to send missions to Mars, the indisputable scientific prize. ESAs ExoMars rover will be able to
Some nations will undoubtedly send

robotic missions to the Moon in the future. That will allow them to catch up, technologically, with the
programs we successfully ran some forty years ago. However, it will be surprising if such missions will add significantly
drill two meters into the Martian soil to look for signs of life and Russia is planning sample return from the moons of Mars.
toward understanding our closest planetary neighbor.
The US is cooperating with india on the moon now

Economic Times (Editorial), November 8, 2011, Indo-US cooperation in the space arena,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-11-08/news/27629274_1_insat-geosynchronous-satellitelaunch-vehicle-space-systems
The inclusion of two US Instruments on this spacecraft has provided further fillip to Indo-US
cooperation in the space arena. India, along with seven other countries, has signed a landmark
agreement with the United States (NASA) to carry out lunar exploration . The agreement was signed at American
space agency NASA's Ames Research Centre on July 28, 2008.
West Coast
2011
46
Neg Handbook
The Risk Of Backcontamination Is Low

NASA is fully prepared against space bacteria
Jennifer Harper, Staff Writer, April 28, 2010, Earth to Mars: Beware of bugs, The Washington Times,
p. 7
It's not as if NASA isn't fully aware of the possibility of leaving interplanetary cooties behind. The
federal agency has an office of Planetary Protection whose the mission is to guard "solar system bodies
(planets, moons, comets and asteroids) from contamination by Earth life, and protecting Earth from
possible life forms that may be returned from other solar system bodies."
NASA clean rooms eliminate backcontamination risks

Dr. Catharine Conley, NASA, September 22, 2010, Methods, Planetary Protection,
http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/methods/
NASA requires that planetary protection procedures involving sterile items and sample processing
must be conducted in Class 100 clean rooms, as defined by federal standard (equivalent to ISO Class 5). Such clean rooms
feature laminar-air-flow systems to filter out contaminants; these systems work by keeping the air within a space moving in one direction along
parallel flow lines at a uniform velocity through very fine filters. Planetary
protection procedures specify the types of

devices that may be used for air sampling in these environments. Individuals executing planetary protection
procedures during assembly, testing and launch operations must wear protective clothing to ensure that they do not bring contamination into
the procedures. Clean-room garmenting requirements include the use of hoods, masks, surgical gloves, booties and the protective suits known
as bunny suits. Garmenting requirements may be slightly less stringent for planetary protection work during non-critical operations for
Planetary protection plans may call for the use of active or

passive microbial barriers to protect against the recontamination of spacecraft after microbial
reduction processing. For planetary protection purposes, microbial barriers may operate under high
pressure or ambient pressure. If pressurized, a barrier must be maintained at a specific, continuous static pressure level above
instance, before cleaning and microbial-assay activities.
ambient air pressure to prevent microbiological recontamination. Air must flow from inside a pressurized microbial barrier toward the outside.
A barrier operating at ambient air pressure employs filters to protect against microbiological recontamination. These ambient filter systems
must be capable of retaining 99.97 percent of all particles or organisms greater than 3 10^ -7 ^ meter in size.
NASA already has backcontamination plans in place

Frederick I. Moxley, Director of Research and Deputy Director of the Network Science Center at the United
States Military Academy, Fall 2006, Better Safe than Sorry, Ad Astra, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 36-38
As the United States premier space agency, NASA has been aware of the issues pertaining to
contamination for several years. In fact, its first Lunar Receiving Laboratory was built as a direct result
of the planetary protection procedures that were initially outlined by the Treaty on Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the exploration and Use of Outer Space. Including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies of 1967. During the late 1990s, the Space Studies Board of the National Research
Council, anticipating space travel beyond the scope of the Moon, developed a report outlining how
samples should be handled upon their return to Earth. The report essentially recommended that all
samples from Mars or any other solar system bodies be treated with extreme caution until proven
safe. Based on these report suggestions, a series of workshops was held that partnered experts from
academia and industry together with NASA to address future mission biocontamination issues. These
workshops eventually led to the development of the Draft Protocol.
West Coast
2011
47
Neg Handbook
Claims Of A Moon Race Are Overblown

No one else has the capability or will and private efforts alone will come up short
Kenneth Change, Staff Writer, July 20, 2009, Grander missions to Moon in view; But uncertainty
hangs over NASA's ambitious lunar astronaut plans, The International Herald Tribune, p. 202
If NASA does not go to the Moon, it is not clear anyone else would go, either. Some Chinese and
Russian officials have talked about establishing a Moon base sometime around 2025, but neither
China nor Russia has made any official pronouncements, and their current rockets are too small for
the task. The nascent private space industry, which has yet to send anyone into orbit, does not seem
likely to head to the Moon, either, with no obvious profit windfall to offset the billions of dollars in cost. ''The idea that a
private investor can put together the funds to develop rockets capable of a lunar mission is extremely
speculative, verging on fantasy,'' said John Logsdon, chairman of space history at the National Air and Space Museum.
The moon race is a myth. high attention to lunar activity does not mean space race
Dwayne A. Day, Staff Writer, November 12, 2007, Exploding Moon myths: or why theres no race to our
nearest neighbor, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/999/1
Assuming that the Japanese and Chinese spacecraft are still operating a year from now, lunar orbit is
going to get pretty crowded. This confuses the press, who look for big picture explanations for all this interest. Here are
the myths deconstructed. This is the most common myth about all the new lunar activity. Thats not surprising
considering that its the easiest explanation and the one that reporters are most familiar withthey think that they understand space races. All
that activity must be due to competition, right? It
must be because all of these countries are struggling to get to the

Moon first, or best, or some other competitive goal. But its not really true. If you look at the stated
reasons for each of these missions and apply a little filtering and some knowledge of space policy and
technical capabilities, it becomes obvious that the actual explanation is much less exciting: many of
these missions are happening because these countries have recently acquired the capability to go
beyond Earth orbit, and the Moon is the closestand therefore easiesttarget beyond Earth orbit.
Thats it. Its that simple.
History of expansion and conflict will not be repeated

James Clay Moltz, an associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon?, Strategic
Studies Quarterly, pp. 82-83
While pressures for enclosure of the moon and the privatization of its resources are likely to
increase in the coming decadesat least until more specific management structures are developed and implementedthere
are reasonable grounds for believing that cooperative efforts may eventually succeed. The combined
effects of economic globalization, modern communications, increasing lunar mission transparency, and
the recent internationalization of large space activities (such as the International Space Station), should help facilitate these trends. Broader
international trends toward the adoption of rule-based behavior (such as in the World Trade Organization) and negotiated
approaches
to conflict resolution support institutionally based outcomes on the moon. Thus, while historys
lessons in regard to international cooperation on the moon may be pessimistic, specific differences
in the factors surrounding lunar settlement offer reasons to believe that the negative experience on
certain past frontiers may be avoided.
West Coast
2011
48
Neg Handbook
Claims Of A Moon Race Are Overblown

There is no asian space race. parties would do the same if alone
Of course, three
of these countries are Asian, leading many in the press to talk about an Asian space
race, even if they have no data to back it up. There is no Asian space race, and just because three
Asian countries are sending missions to the Moon does not mean that they are racing each other
there. Japan first launched a lunar mission in 1990. That mission had a string of bad luck. An Earth-orbiting satellite named
Hiten deployed a small spacecraft named Hagoromo, which failed to reach lunar orbit. The Japanese then sent Hiten on a slow trip to the
Moon, but it lacked sophisticated instruments or an imager, and has been largely forgotten. Throughout the 1990s the Japanese space agency
worked on a more sophisticated follow-on spacecraft called Lunar-A, which suffered from numerous managerial and technical problems and
was finally canceled early this year. Had Lunar-A not run into problems, then Japans lunar program would have appeared much more
methodical, with regular, if infrequent, lunar probes starting seventeen years ago. Instead,
the press has misinterpreted

Japans long, if low-key, interest in the Moon as a reaction to China. Similarly, the fact that China and
India have lunar spacecraft does not represent a race between them, but the fact that their
economies and technical capabilities are recently emerging. Their respective governments want to demonstrate to
their own people, and also the rest of the world, that they have sophisticated capabilities, technonationalism, to borrow a phrase from space
analyst Joan Johnson-Freese. But
theyre not racing each other, and there is every indication that they would
be pursuing the same policy even if their Asian counterpart was not.
The status quo policy is based on cooperation

China Daily (Staff Writer), November 26, 2010, Roundup: Obama leaves his mark on U.S. space policy,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-11/26/content_11614441.htm
The Obama administration unveiled a space policy that renounces the unilateral stance taken by Bush
administration (National Space Policy 2006) and instead emphasizes international cooperation across a wide
range of scientific, exploration and national-security projects. From navigation and earth observation
satellites to robotic spacecraft to reducing hazards posed by orbital debris, the new policy shows
willingness to share data for future programs. "No longer are we racing against an adversary; in fact,
one of our central goals is to promote peaceful cooperation and collaboration in space, which not only
will ward off conflict, but will help to expand our capacity to operate in orbit and beyond," Obama said.
For the first time, Obama's space and national-security advisers have opened the door to possible international cooperation on the existing
Global Positioning System satellite constellation, which is operated by the U.S. Air Force and serves military and commercial users world-wide.
The moon is more the center of cooperation than competition

Many of the current plans for exploring the Moon were developed with little regard to what other
countries are doing, and certainly not in response to them. In fact, thats part of the problem; theres
little coordination between the participants when coordination might produce complementary data
instead of redundant data. But there is some cooperation. The Indian spacecraft, for instance, will
carry American and European instruments. The Russian spacecraft, if it gets built, may carry Japanese impactors intended for
Lunar-A. The relevant space agencies are planning, or at least discussing, sharing their data. This is not a
space race by any definition.
West Coast
2011
49
Neg Handbook
STEM Workers Will Not Rush For The Moon

Lunar exploration will not energize students for stem degrees
Jeff Foust, Staff Writer, December 11, 2006, Moonbase why?,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/764/1, The Space Review, p.np
Similarly, the public engagement theme argues that human lunar exploration program will encourage
students and help develop the high-tech workforce, another familiar argument for those who have
followed the various justifications for the space program over the years. Like international cooperation,
encouraging students to study math and science is important and a nice side benefit of any
exploration program, but hardly a justification for the program itself.
Even if many were inspired, they wouldnt get or stay in stem education programs
Dan Lips, Senior Policy Analyst in Education in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Jena Baker
McNeill, Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies,
April 15, 2009, A New Approach to Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education,
Backgrounder #2249, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/A-New-Approach-to-ImprovingScience-Technology-Engineering-and-Math-Education
Unfortunately, experience of the past 50 years suggests that such federal initiatives are unlikely to
solve the fundamental problem of American underperformance in STEM education--the limited
number of students who complete elementary and secondary school with the skills and knowledge to
pursue STEM coursework in higher education and succeed in many parts of the workforce. The
American education system is supposed to be a pipeline that prepares children in elementary and
secondary school to pursue opportunities in post-secondary education and in the workforce. It is well
known that this pipeline is leaky--that millions of children pass through their K-12 years without receiving a quality education. Too
many students drop out and, all too often, those who do earn a high school degree lack the academic
qualifications to succeed in STEM fields in college or in the workforce.
Trying to inspire new graduates obscures the systemic education problem, which is
empirically proven
Dan Lips, Senior Policy Analyst in Education in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Jena Baker
McNeill, Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies,
April 15, 2009, A New Approach to Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education,
Backgrounder #2249, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/A-New-Approach-to-ImprovingScience-Technology-Engineering-and-Math-Education
Policymakers and analysts concerned about American students' low achievement in STEM fields often
focus on the end of the pipeline--the percentage of American college students earning degrees in
STEM fields and the population of the workforce prepared for science, technology, engineering, and
math professions. But the situation does not look much better as students continue to higher
education. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2006 that the percentage of U.S. post-secondary students earning
degrees in STEM fields has fallen over the past decade--from 32 percent in 1995 to 27 percent in 2004. A closer examination of the statistics
shows that the number of degrees earned by college students in STEM fields has essentially remained flat during this period, since the collegestudent population as a whole increased during that period. In addition, an estimated one-third of these STEM degrees were awarded to
students from abroad.
West Coast
2011
50
Neg Handbook
A Lunar Base Fuels Militarization

Any moon base would have military dual-use capabilities
Taylor Dinerman, Independent Space Analyst and former Director of SpaceEquity.com, May 3, 2010, The
post-American Moon, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1618/1
Any Moon base would, at least superficially, resemble the kind of military base that is expressly
prohibited by the OST. It will have to be buried in order to shield it from solar radiation and cosmic
rays, which of course implies that it will be fortified. Its supply and transportation system could
easily be considered a dual use technology since any transport vehicle traveling between the Earth
and the Moon could be used as an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon. An in situ resource utilization (ISRU)
complex that provided liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen could also provide fuel for military space
vehicles of all sorts.
A permanent moon base would be used to extend u.s. imperial dominance

Richard C. Cook, NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the
Challenger disaster, January 22, 2007, Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in
Space?, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4554
To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime
contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the worlds largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martins stock yielded an
NASA is not paying

the giant of the military-industrial complex $8.15 billion to have people hop around and hit golf balls
on the moon. The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffins
instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASAs August 2006 announcement.
statements that "my language"i.e., Englishand not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the
generations to future lunar colonies." The first step will be a colony at the moons south pole, described by NASA in a December 2006
announcement. According to Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, "In
the end, NASAs

plan to establish permanent bases on the moon will help the military control and dominate access on
and off our planet Earth and determine who will extract valuable resources from the moon in the
years ahead."
A u.s. moon base would be militarized

Jim Yardley and William J. Broad, Staff Writers, January 24, 2004, China courted by U.S. to avert new space
race; Cooperation is the byword as exploration goals are set, The International Herald Tribune, p. 1
U.S. government documents, like the air forces Space Operations Doctrine and its Space Commands
Strategic Master Plan, talk much about maintaining space superiority near Earth and even about
using weapons in orbit. But they remain silent about the Moon. There is nothing in air force planning
for the Moon, said Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, a private
research group in Washington. Still, some analysts believe the Moon is part of a larger American
military plan and interpreted Bush's speech as unilateral in emphasis, with echoes of the cold war.
"The moon is a beachhead," said Alice Slater, director of the Global Resource Action Center for the
Environment, a private group in New York.
West Coast
2011
51
Neg Handbook
Lunar-Based Astronomy Benefits Are Exaggerated

Dust will interfere with any astronomy benefits
Jeanna Bryner, Staff Writer, November 28, 2006, Scientists Gather to Plan Observations from the Moon,
http://www.space.com/3161-scientists-gather-plan-observations-moon.html
There are also hurdles to ponder. A layer of fine, particles, the consistency of talcum powder, covers
the lunar bedrock and reaches several feet thick. It can generate dense dust clouds. Unlike the
household variety, lunar dust is glass-like with a core of iron, giving it magnetic properties. Figuring out
ways to ensure dust-free instruments is a major priority. Another issue is levitated dust, which occurs
when the Sun's energy cause dust grains to become electrically charged. "I think we need to continue to
evaluate whether the Moon is usable for astronomy or not," said Paul Spudis of the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. "And finally we need to fill in the missing
pieces of knowledge and specifically we need to characterize this dust levitation and find out-does this
occur and what the real magnitude of the effect is."
Astronomers are split over the benefits of lunar observation

Jeanna Bryner, Staff Writer, December 6, 2006, Lunar Observatories: Grand Plans vs. Clear Problems,
Space.com, http://www.space.com/3183-lunar-observatories-grand-plans-clear-problems.html
Humans will return to the Moon no later than 2020, paving the way for treks to Mars and beyond.
When liftoff happens, astronomers don't want to be left in the dust. But currently, they are split over
the merits of lunar-based observatories compared with those in free space like the Hubble Space
Telescope, which has been a boon to astronomy during its more than 16-year life in low Earth orbit.
Pushing the scientific benefits of a moon exploration undermines support for human
exploration
The problem with relying on science as the primary reason for human lunar exploration is that, in the
eyes of many, science can be done for far less money by robotic missionswhich also dont put
human lives at risk. Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most
space missions these days, the Los Angeles Times concluded in an editorial Sunday. Robots can now perform, or be
developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. Similarly, an editorial Saturday in
the Minneapolis Star Tribune stated, Todays best investments in space exploration lie in extending the reach of uncrewed probes like the
Mars Global Surveyor.
Human spaceflight advocates typically counter that humans are much more capable
than robots. Thats certainly true, but theyre also much more expensive, and for many missions the general public would be
perfectly satisfied with the lower, but less expensive, scientific output provided by robots. In some cases where the scientific stakes are
particularly highsuch as Mars and the search for past or present lifethere may be more support for human exploration, but thats less likely
to be the case on the Moon.
West Coast
2011
52
Neg Handbook
Economic Motives Will Be Counter-Productive

Constructing a lunar base on earth economic models is absent of all ethics
D. M. Livingston, Founder of Livingston Business Solutions, July 2000, "Lunar Ethics and Space
Commercialization," Lunar Development Conference, Space Frontier Foundation, http://www.spacefuture.com/
archive/lunar_ethics_and_space_commercialization.shtml
As we start this new century, we note that many
of our successful business models are based on greed and are

excessively competitive, often to the exclusion of basic human needs and a reasonable distribution of
resources. Although they usually operate within the law, these actual businesses do not always value their moral and
ethical responsibilities to the consumers, let alone the public in general. In the not-too-distant future, expanding our economy to
LEO and the Moon will begin a new era of industrialization in space. Many questions remain as to what this LEO-and-beyond economy will look like, especially the lunar and Martian
settlements which are sure to follow. One of the most important concerns that we can resolve before this era of space industrialization is in full swing involves the standards that our LEO and
The standards that we

export to outer space will be with us for many years to come as our new space economy develops,
expands, and eventually seeks independence from its source here on Earth. To have a say in the moral
component of a new space economy, we need to be addressing these issues now, and even more
important, we need to get the business community involved.
lunar-based businesses will project. All of us, not just the businesses that will be operating in LEO and on the Moon, can contribute to the debate.
The moon is not the new economic frontier. high launch costs prohibit expansion
Under economic expansion, NASA
makes the argument that a Moon base and ancillary activities will provide
benefits to life on the home planet. That phrase sounds perilously close to the old, tired spinoff justification for the space
program, and, in fact, in the brief video associated with this theme the narrator mentions that lunar exploration also fosters innovations that
benefit our society and economy. Fortunately, though, NASAs vision here is broader than spinoffs: the agency is
pitching the Moon

as a new economic frontier, a place for companies to do business and develop products and services. There are certainly
proposals for businesses based on lunar resources, from searching from platinum-group metals deposited by impacting
meteorites to beaming solar power back to Earth (and, of course, everyones favorite lunar resource, helium-3, ready for the taking on the
Moon once we get around to developing fusion reactors.) However,
many of these ideas are many years, if not

decades, away from fruition, if they are even feasible in the first place. Moreover, these potential new industries
will have to struggle with the high costs of space transportation, something the Vision does little, if anything, to
address. The human inhabitation of space in any significant numbers wont happen until someone can tackle the costs of getting astronauts
the first hundred miles up, an editorial in USA Today last week noted.
Relying on private industry alone will fail

China Daily (Staff Writer), November 26, 2010, Roundup: Obama leaves his mark on U.S. space policy,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-11/26/content_11614441.htm
Having more private sector

involvement will ultimately assure a long-term commitment to space, as it develops as a more normal
industry." However, Scott Pace, director of the George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, seemed cautious. "In theory,
private industry can act more quickly and can be more adaptable than government agencies. They can
be more efficient in operating technologies that are well-understood. On the other hand,
governments can take on risks that private sector firms cannot. "Thus it is crucial to have a good understanding of the
Space has been dominated by public funding for development, to its ultimate detriment.
best roles for government and industry at any particular stage of technology development," Pace told Xinhua in an email. "Commercial firms
can supply cargo to the International Space Station. Much
safely carry humans to the Space Station."
more work is needed to prove that commercial firms can
West Coast
2011
53
Neg Handbook
A Moon Base Is Too Expensive

A mission to the moon would be hugely expensive and divert attention and funds
away from more valuable programs
Rudy M. Baum, Editor-in-chief, February 5, 2007, NASA's Bad Idea, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 85, No.
6, p. 3
Unfortunately, what no
amount of balanced reporting can disguise is that such a mission to the moon is an
egregiously bad idea. As Morrissey's sources make clear, it will cost a staggering amount of money (an amount that
NASA, so far, has not bothered to calculate), deprive NASA's legitimate scientific missions of funding, and
accomplish exactly what the International Space Station has accomplished, which is nothing. "Nobody is clear
on what science the astronauts are going to do on the moon," Robert L. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, told Morrissey.
"To invent the project and then look for the science to justify it is not the way it should be done." There
is important science to be
done in space. Observing our home planet, for example, is one such activity. Unfortunately, neglect of
an aging fleet of Earth-orbiting satellites is leading to a significant degradation of our ability to
measure changes in Earth's climate. Diverting NASA's attention and resources to establishing a moon
base will only exacerbate this problem.
A moon base and mining operation are cost prohibitive

Benjamin Donahue and Tryshanda Moton-Nkhata of the AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion
Technical Committee, December 2008, Nuclear and future flight propulsion, Aerospace America, p.
58
A moon base is an additional complexity that will increase maintenance requirements and add higher
cost to the mining scenario. By using only orbital resources, such as orbital transfer vehicles, and the interplanetary
transfer vehicle for Earth return, the mass that must be transferred to the outer planets is reduced. Therefore
reducing the moon base's complexity will be a great benefit for any mining plan.
A moon base will costs at least $300 billion

Gregg Easterbrook, Staff Writer, December 8, 2006, Moon Baseless, NASA can't explain why we need a lunar
colony, Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/?nav=tap3
How much will it cost? NASA said Monday it can build a moon base for about the $10 billion per year it
now spends on the (soon-to-be-retired) space shuttle and the space station. (The agency also says that the
international community will soon begin funding the space station, but no nation has agreed to this.) Considering that the space station and
shuttle cost about $10 billion per year, a moon base might cost much more. The
space station is 200 miles away and only

goes up, never comes down. The equipment for a moon base would need to be accelerated to a
significantly higher speed than was required for the space station, and that means a lot more fuel and
a lot more expense. Moon-base ships will also need lots of fuel to descend to the lunar surface, and
some will need still more fuel to blast off again. Remember, launching the fuel is a major expense. The
Apollo program spent about $135 billion, in 2006 dollars, to place about 50 usable tons on the lunar surface. Even an austere moon base would
need 300 or 400 tons of structure, equipment, fuel, vehicles, and life supportand probably more. Suppose
today's technology
allows for lunar-rated materiel to be built and placed on the moon at half the cost of the Apollo
project. This quickly gets you to a program cost of at least $300 billion to build the moon base.
West Coast
2011
54
Neg Handbook
A Moon Base Is An Unnecessary Failure

The moon is no insurance policy. Wed be prone to the same conflicts
The first reason advanced above for the
creation of a society on the Moon is that creating one would provide the
worlds people with the insurance that would see it continue even if a catastrophe were to bring
human life to an end on Earth. But this insurance would be effective only if the people on the Moon
did not suffer the same fate. For distance provides no protection against physical conflict among the
Moons residents sufficiently grave to result in all of them being killed. This consideration introduces a final reason for people settling
the Moon that is more important that all the others.
Human missions to the moon are useless

Los Angeles Times (Editorial), December 10, 2006, Been there, done that; A manned moon mission doesn't
make sense. Robots are better -- just look at their success on Mars,
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10
Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space
missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people
would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this
is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when
they are of no use to get to Mars? For too long, NASA has been overspending on manned flight and
under-funding scientific study. Vital missions to study the Earth's climate, for example, have been
delayed for years or indefinitely. An unmanned scientific mission to scan for Earth-like planets in nearby solar systems, scheduled
to launch in 2011, has been postponed until 2015.
The plan skips precursor missions essential to success

Thomas D. Jones, former NASA astronaut, PhD in planetary science from the University of Arizona in
Tucson, April 2007, Homesteading the Moon, Aerospace America, p. 12
Finding and recovering lunar resources is the key to NASA's Moon base plan. We can't just build
another ISS, 240,000 mi. away; the logistics cost would far exceed any likely NASA budget envelope. But
to make in-situ resources a reality, NASA must invest in the coming decade in the precursor missions
that will find them and prove they are accessible. With its attention focused on Orion and Ares I, NASA
has done little to implement the robotic successors to Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Yet they are
absolutely essential to a successful plan for inhabiting the Moon. Without accurate data on just what
the Moon offers and how we might practically use those assets, a lunar outpost could quickly turn
into a "money pit," devouring funds for future exploration. As investors in the vision, we should
demand an "exploration prospectus" backed by hard facts, not just hints and hopes.
West Coast
2011
55
Neg Handbook
A Moon Base Is An Unnecessary Failure

Lack of funding and technology means we have to rely on luck
I entered the astronaut corps with the distant hope that I might one day walk on the Moon as part of the 1990s Space Exploration Initiative.
Although I did make it to orbit, I never got farther than about 220 miles from home. The
Apollo explorers who inspired me

ventured more than a thousand times farther into deep space, and touched another world. To equal and
exceed their feat, as NASA plans to do, will require the right combination of steady funding, technological
savvy, and cosmic luck. First, NASA's no-growth budget in FY07 means an immediate $500-million cut in funding the future.
Congress' support for shuttle return to flight, ISS assembly, and space shuttle replacement--so strong after the Columbia accident--has
dissipated entirely. This Congress' disinterest, acquiesced to by the administration, deals an immediate blow to the pace of developing
the Orion CEV and Ares I launcher, the building blocks of a later lunar transportation system.
Without transportation and support, a lunar base is pure fantasy

Thanks to this year's cut and slim prospects for restoration in FY08, the gap in U.S. astronaut access to
LEO may realistically stretch to five or more years. Given that in 2010 (and for years after) NASA will be
forced to buy Soyuz seats just to keep any Americans in space, expansive talk about a U.S. lunar
outpost is hardly convincing. Second, we require a healthy dose of technological know-how and
innovation to make the leap from our ISS experience to a lunar outpost. The development of Ares V,
the critical transportation link, will take both sustained support from future Congresses and the
revival of rocket-building skills we have not exercised since Wernher von Braun's team fathered the
Saturn V.
NASA does not have the expertise to create a permanent moon base
When it comes to imagining how to proceed with the kind of space exploration activity involving the
Moon outlined here, the most important thing to appreciate is that neither NASA nor the USA in
general is at all presently prepared to undertake such a programme (nor are other countries). The
creation of a new Earth-related lunar civilization requires that brainpower, experiences and skills
which do not exist in NASA all be involved in space-related studies and activities. The expertise
required to conduct the requisite pioneering exploration research includes purposeful political
science, foreign affairs, economics, anthropology, history, law and sociology. None of these is in great
evidence in current civil space ventures.
West Coast
2011
56
Neg Handbook
Mining Wont Yield Significant Resource Benefits

Lack of property rights will impede investments
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, January 13, 2011, Moon Mining Idea Digs Up Lunar Legal Issues,
Space.com, http://www.space.com/10621-moon-mining-legal-issues.html
Some space entrepreneurs agree that resources on the moon and other celestial bodies won't be used
to their full extent unless companies have explicit property rights and title. "You have to really own
the ground upon which you've placed these really valuable facilities," Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow
Aerospace, told SPACE.com. Bigelow Aerospace is drawing up plans for a quick-deploy lunar base, using the company's expandable space
habitats. "You
have to instill the ingredients of profit and benefit into the equation."
Lunar rare earth element deposits are localized and small

Leonard David, Staff Writer, October 4, 2010, Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National
Security?, Space.com, http://www.space.com/9250-mining-rare-minerals-moon-vital-national-security.html
Pieters said lunar scientists have a good idea how lunar rare earth elements became concentrated, it
occurred as part of the moon's magma ocean differentiation sequence. But it is now also recognized
that "early events disrupted and substantially reorganized that process in ways we are still trying to
decipher," she added. With the recent, but limited, new data for the moon from the international fleet
of lunar orbiters with remote sensing instruments from Europe, Japan, China, India and now the United
States, "we are beginning to see direct evidence for the activity of geologic processes that separate and
concentrate different minerals," Pieters said. On the moon, these areas and outcrops are local and
small. Exposure is largely dependent on using impact craters as probes to the interior. Current data
are only sufficient to indicate the presence of some concentrations of minerals, but are inadequate to
survey and map their character and distribution, Pieters observed.
Legal obstacles preclude effective resource marketing

Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, January 13, 2011, Moon Mining Idea Digs Up Lunar Legal Issues,
Space.com, http://www.space.com/10621-moon-mining-legal-issues.html
While the Outer Space Treaty likely allows mining, it does not set up a system granting explicit title to
the extracted resources, according to Nelson. That ambiguity may not cause problems during mining
operations, but it could be an issue when companies try to sell the resources. "If you're pouring
billions of dollars into extracting something of value, you don't want the risk that a bunch of people
are going to sue you, or boycott you, or sanction you if you take it to market," Nelson said. White
thinks that companies probably can claim ownership, under the Outer Space Treaty, of the ice they mine
from a lunar crater. But he agrees that there is a bit of fuzziness and fuzziness is daunting to bigdollar operations. "If you really are talking about a multibillion-dollar endeavor, if I were the lawyer
for that company, I would say, 'Don't make that investment until we have legislation in place,'" White
said.
West Coast
2011
57
Neg Handbook
Mining For Lunar Resources Is Not Feasible

Attempting a moon operation without a stable governance regime makes
international conflicts inevitable
James Clay Moltz, an associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon?, Strategic
Studies Quarterly, pp. 82-83
Establishing a peaceful framework for lunar governance will be important, because hostile
international relations on the moon are likely to lead to conflicts elsewhere in space and, possibly, on
Earth. Such patterns regarding new frontiers have plagued the history of international relations for
centuries. Indeed, despite frequent hopes for cooperation, most unclaimed territories historically have become
sources of international conflict rather than serving as peaceful lebensraum. Typically, and consistent with realist predictions
about international politics, states have had a built-in penchant to pursue relative gains over their rivals and therefore have sought to seize and
defend new resources to their own advantage. On
the other hand, successful formation of a stable, transnational

governance systema mechanism for sharing or otherwise peacefully allocating the moons
resourcescould open the possibility for mutually beneficial and self-sustaining lunar commerce and
settlement, consistent with neo-liberal institutionalist predictions. Such a model could have positive spin-off effects on Earth and
set a cooperative pattern for further human exploration and development of the rest of the solar
system, spurring states to pool resources and engage in joint approaches to spaces many challenges.
In such scenarios, hopes for humankind efforts in spacerather than state-driven rivalriesmight
be realized, something for which astronauts and cosmonauts who have visited space have often called. As Per Magnus Wijkman wrote on
these issues in 1982, the interdependence of all actors in space provides strong incentives for the emergence of cooperative solutions.
Lunar dust will interfere with machines and risk health

Leonard David, Staff Writer, November 7, 2006, Lunar explorers face moon dust dilemma, MSNBC News,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15607792/
The Moon is dusty, grimy, and potentially hazardous to your health. Ultra-tiny dust grains can gum up
the works of vital hardware on the Moon. And there's also a possible risk to health from gulping in the
lunar dusta toxicological twist to "bad Moon rising." Thanks to the Apollo program there's firsthand
knowledge about the Moon being a Disneyland of dust. Moonwalkers were covered from helmet to
boot with lunar dust. Also tagged as the "dirty dozen," astronauts on the various Apollo missions
worked long hours in the lunar environment, setting up science equipment and collectively bagged 840
pounds (382 kilograms) of rock and other surface material for shipment back to Earth.
Helium-based fusion is pure fantasy

Mark Williams, Staff Writer, August 23, 2007, Mining the Moon, Technology Review,
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/page1/
Helium-3 advocates claim that it, conversely, would be nonradioactive, obviating all those problems. But a
serious critic has charged

that in reality, He3-based fusion isn't even a feasible option. In the August issue of Physics World, theoretical
physicist Frank Close, at Oxford in the UK, has published an article called "Fears Over Factoids" in which, among other things, he
summarizes some claims of the "helium aficionados," then dismisses those claims as essentially
fantasy.
West Coast
2011
58
Neg Handbook
Nothing To Study On The Moon

We have plenty of data about the moon from multiple projects
Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation,
Energy Research and Development Administration, and Department of Energy, February 12, 2007, Just how full
of opportunity is the Moon?, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1
Scientific investigations, discussed in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon
define an extensive exploration program. If pursued, the program would add additional information to our present knowledge of the Moons
early history and current state. However, we
already have an excellent understanding of the Moons history and

composition compiled from data returned from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo missions. The
more recent Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions also contributed to our understanding. Added
detail is only of interest to those who have spent most or all of their professional lives studying the
Moon. It is unlikely that any new information collected during detailed lunar exploration will resolve
fundamental questions being asked regarding the origin and evolution of the solar system. Making this theme even more suspect in terms of its importance, a successful
implementation of NRC program would require numerous robotic missions complimented by many human missions. The robotic missions would have to be more capable than the present
Mars rover missions for, in addition to making detailed chemical and mineralogical measurements, many would require deep drilling and sample return from both the Moons near and far
NASA has dodged the question of cost for both

robotic and human missions, including establishing human settlements, by hiding behind the slogan
that returning to the Moon is based on an open architecture. Or in other words, to defuse the
critics, it is whatever you want it to be. Not a very strong position on which to ask the Congress to
commit to spending huge sums.
sides. To date, there have been no estimates of how much such an ambitious campaign would cost.
We have nothing new to earn from the moon

Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer, January 13, 2011, The Case Against the Moon: Why We Shouldn't Go
Straight Back, SPACE.com, http://www.space.com/10597-case-moon-return.html
And perhaps we should not. As NASA embarks on a new plan for space exploration amid political uncertainty and budgetary constraints,
some experts are hoping the space agency will look beyond the moon for the future of human
spaceflight, and instead push deeper into our solar system than ever before. "We've done the moon
we understand it better than anything else," Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot on the Apollo 11 mission and second man to
walk on the moon, told SPACE.com. "We've got to stop thinking of short-term hurrahs and start thinking of longterm investments."
A moon base is a pipe dream that diverts from all other space efforts. robots and
probes could do all the science
Coming under a presidency whose slogan might be "No Price Too High To Accomplish Nothing," the
idea of a permanent, crewed

moon base nevertheless takes the cake for preposterousness. Although, of course, the base could yield a great discovery,
its scientific value is likely to be small while its price is extremely high. Worse, moonbase nonsense
may for decades divert NASA resources from the agency's legitimate missions, draining funding from
real needs in order to construct human history's silliest white elephant. What's it for? Good luck answering that
question. There is scientific research to be done on the moon, but this could be accomplished by
automatic probes or occasional astronaut visits at a minute fraction of the cost of a permanent,
crewed facility. Astronauts at a moon base will spend almost all their time keeping themselves alive and monitoring automated equipment, the latter task doable from an office
building in Houston. In deadpan style, the New York Times story on the NASA announcement declared, "The lunar base is part of a larger effort to develop an international exploration
strategy, one that explains why and how humans are returning to the moon and what they plan to do when they get there." Ohso we'll build the moon base first, and then try to figure out
why we built it.
West Coast
2011
59
Neg Handbook
Further Colonization Is Undesirable And Fails

A unilateral moon base will fail to foster colonization
Therefore the goal of extending civilization through settlement of the Moon should also be adopted. And we should
do this in a fashion that would explicitly open up new and positive nationalinternational economic and peaceful governance possibilities for
the worlds peoples. This requires
the active involvement of as much of the general public as possible, privately

also
requires cooperative participation by the countries of Europe, and of China, India and Japan, and many,
financed entrepreneurial private sector participation, and the involvement of several US federal offices in addition to NASA. It
many professional interests in addition to the natural sciences. Imaginative and vigorous technological, market and institutional measures
should be adopted that would see the USA and much of the rest of the world beginning to be a two-body society, involving both the Earth and
the Moon, by the end of the second civil space half-century.
There is no guarantee knowledge from the moon would translate to mars preparation
The exploration preparation theme makes the case of using the Moon as a proving ground for the
technologies and techniques that would be used on missions to Mars and other destinations. On the
face of it, this seems to make some sense: better to learn that a particular system doesnt work as
expected when youre only a few days from Earth, rather than six months or more. However, theres an
open question about how useful the Moon is as an analogue for Mars: what works on the Moon wont
necessarily work on Mars, and vice versa. This rationale also suggests that the Moon is only a means to
a more distant end, and once weve learned all that we can about exploration there well pack up and
leave (something that would probably suit some Mars exploration advocates just fine.) Some might
conclude that the permanent Moon base wouldnt be so permanent after all.
There is no reason to go to the moon before mars for colonies

Don't we need a moon base to go to Mars? No! When George W. Bush made his Mars-trip speech almost three years ago,
he said a moon base should be built to support such a mission. This is gibberish. All concept studies of Mars flight
involve an expedition departing from low-Earth orbit and traveling directly to the red planet.
Stopping at the moon would require fuel to descend to the lunar surface, then blast off again, which
would make any Mars mission hugely more expensive. The launch cost of fuel that is, the cost of placing fuel into
orbitis the No. 1 expense for any manned flight beyond Earth. The Lunar Excursion Module, the part of the Apollo spacecraft that touched
down, was two-t hirds fuelall exhausted landing and taking off again from the moon. Rocket technology hasn't changed substantially since
the 1960s, so a large portion of the weight of any Earth-to-Moon-to-Mars expedition would be dedicated to the fuel needed for just the
layover. This makes absolutely no sense, and the fact that administration officials get away with telling gullible journalists that a Mars mission
would use a moon base shows how science illiteracy dominates the big media. (It is imaginable that a moon facility could support Mars
exploration by refining supplies from the lunar surface and then using automated vessels to send the supplies to the red planet, or to
rendezvous with an expedition en route. But that's pretty speculative, and at any rate,
far exceed that of simply launching the supplies from Earth.)
the cost of building a moon base would
West Coast
2011
60
Neg Handbook
Mars Neg
West Coast
2011
61
Neg Handbook
Inherency Exploration Now

US and international exploration of Mars inevitable.
Andrea Thompson, Space.com, 6/4/2008, What's next for Mars exploration? MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24970710/ns/technology_and_science-space/
NASA plans to waste no time in getting back to Mars after Phoenix finishes its three-month mission. By
September or October of next year, launch is set for the Mars Science Laboratory, a beefed-up rover that will further explore
the Martian surface (it will be the largest vehicle ever sent to Mars). And Americans won't be the only ones visiting the
red planet: The European Space Agency (ESA) is currently working on its own rover, dubbed ExoMars,
which would be equipped to scout out signs of past or present life on Mars. The Chinese and Russian
space agencies are also collaborating on a mission to the planet's asteroid-like moon, Phobos.
Obama already committed to Mars exploration.

John Matson, news reporter, 4/15/2010, Obama's Goals for Space Exploration Include a Manned
Mission to Mars Orbit in the 2030s, Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-space-plan
President Obama laid out his timeline and destinations for manned space exploration during a speech
Thursday, a blueprint that includes a trip to Mars orbit and back in the 2030s. At the Kennedy Space Center in
Florida, Obama pledged his commitment to the space agency and to manned exploration of the solar
system, at a time when his controversial budget proposal for NASA awaits approval from Congress. "As president, I believe that
space exploration is not a luxury, it is not an afterthought," Obama said. "I am 100 percent
committed to the mission of NASA and its future," he added later.
NASA prioritizing Mars mission budget allocation proves.

John Matson, news reporter, 4/15/2010, Obama's Goals for Space Exploration Include a Manned
Mission to Mars Orbit in the 2030s, Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-space-plan
Obama sought to neutralize both lines of criticism in his remarks Thursday, claiming that his plan would bring 2,500 extra jobs to Florida's Space
Coast compared to the Constellation Program. He added that the administration was developing a $40-million plan for economic growth and
job creation in the region, where layoffs from the shuttle program's phaseout are expected to hit hard. Obama also softened his proposal to
eliminate Constellation entirely, saying that he had directed NASA
Administrator Charles Bolden to begin work on an escape craft

for the International Space Station that would be based on Constellation's Orion crew capsule. Bolden had vowed in prior weeks that
NASA's overarching long-term goal remained a manned mission to Mars, and Obama made that
official by announcing his proposed timeline for human spaceflight in a series of what he called
"specific and achievable milestones." Obama said that a heavy-lift rocket to enable astronauts' return
to deep space would be fast-tracked. "We will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it," he said. On
April 8 Bolden had announced that NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., would receive $3.1
billion over five years under Obama's budget to develop new heavy-lift rockets. By 2025, Obama said,
the U.S. would develop a new spacecraft that can take astronauts beyond the moon and into deep
space. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," Obama said. By the 2030s, he continued, it
will be possible to send humans on a two-way voyage to Mars, a mission that would be akin to the Apollo 8 mission of
1968 that set the stage for Apollo 11 the following year. "A landing on Mars will follow, and I expect to be around to see it," Obama said.
West Coast
2011
62
Neg Handbook
AT: Asteroids Advantage

No solvency for asteroids.
James A. Vedda, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Space Policy & Strategy, 9/18/2007, Humans to
Mars: Logical Step or Dangerous Distraction? http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/372849main_Vedda%20%20AIAA%202007.pdf
Using a planning horizon that runs through mid-century, we can eliminate national security as a rationale for going to
Mars. The U.S. currently has a substantial national security space program that has no foreseeable
requirement for people in deep space. Someday, as we prepare for planetary defense, there will be a
requirement for interception of asteroids headed for Earth (or one of our space settlements). Diversion or
destruction of such an asteroid is preferably done as far from Earth as possible using either manned or
automated spacecraft. In any case, this scenario is beyond the capabilities we will have in the next few
decades, so it doesnt apply to our consideration of current exploration plans. Therefore, a national
security rationale for humans on Mars is several decades premature.
Even most probably asteroids incredibly unlikely and long-term.

Economic Times, 7/28/2010, Massive asteroid may hit Earth in 2182: Scientists,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-07-28/news/27625396_1_rq36-potentiallyhazardous-asteroids-earth
The astronomers, who used mathematical models to calculate the risk of asteroid 1999 RQ36 slamming
into Earth through the year 2200, found two potential opportunities for the asteroid to hit Earth in 2182. "The total impact
probability of asteroid '(101955) 1999 RQ36' can be estimated in 0.00092, approximately one-in-a-thousand
chance, but what is most surprising is that over half of this chance (0.00054) corresponds to 2182," said Maria Eugenia
Sansaturio, who led the research.
Deflection solves the impact.

Alastair Jamieson, general news reporter for The Sunday Telegraph, 7/29/2010, Giant asteroid
'heading for Earth in 2182', The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7916088/Giantasteroid-heading-for-Earth-in-2182.html
Maria Eugenia Sansaturio from the Universidad de Valladolid in Spain, who co-led the research, told Universe Today that
knowledge of the risk posed by the asteroid "may help design in advance mechanisms aimed at
deviating the asteroid's path." It was first discovered in 1999 and is more than twice the size of Apophis. If it were to
hit it is likely to cause widespread devastation and possible mass extinction. Sansaturio added: "The consequence is not just
the likelihood of a comparatively large impact, but also that a realistic deflection procedure, or path deviation could
only be made before the impact in 2080, and more easily, before 2060.2
West Coast
2011
63
Neg Handbook
AT: Climate Advantage

Focus on space exploration trades off with NASA measures to solve climate.
Numerous challenges face our planet in the coming decades. Among the most amenable to the
application of space technology are environmental degradation and climate change. As these problems grow
worse and public concern increases, the world will look to space technology and the nation will look to NASA for
information and solutions. There will be an expectation that NASA has maintained its historic levels of activity
and expertise in these areas. If that turns out not to be true, the perception will be that the agency has
sacrificed down-to-Earth societal needs for the sake of Mars ambitions having questionable value. To make
NASAs efforts more relevant to national needs, the Congress will be compelled to shift priority and
funding to programs such as automated science missions and global climate studies, possibly
displacing human spaceflight programs. If NASA is not given adequate resources to pursue both Earth science and human
exploration, these circumstances could undermine both Mars exploration and the development of cislunar space for decades to come.
Mars proves warming inevitable not human-induced.

Kate Ravilious, National Geographic News, 2/28/2007, Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause
for Warming, Scientist Says, National Geographic News,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global
Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been
diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is
being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
and Mars," he said.
Warming inevitable too late to solve.

Mark Hertsgaard, independent journalist, 2/13/2005, It's much too late to sweat global warming:
Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future, San Francisco Chronicle,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL
The problem is that Kyoto governs only future emissions. No matter how well the protocol works, it will have no effect
on past emissions, which are what have made global warming unavoidable. Contrary to the impression given by
some news reports, global warming is not like a light switch that can be turned off if we simply stop burning
so much oil, coal and gas. There is a lag effect of about 50 to 100 years. That's how long carbon
dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted from auto tailpipes, home furnaces and
industrial smokestacks. So even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would
continue warming for decades.
West Coast
2011
64
Neg Handbook
AT: Competitiveness Advantage

Mars exploration not key to economic competitiveness.
The same is true for the economic competitiveness rationale. For the foreseeable future, our space capabilities are far
too underdeveloped to produce direct benefits to the Earth-based economy from Mars marketable
materials, energy, or unique products and services so the only plausible economic benefit is technology spin-offs.
However, spin-offs are, by definition, secondary benefits and therefore not a sufficient justification for a
space exploration program. An investment of this magnitude must be based on its primary benefits. While high-tech spinoffs have brought benefits to society and boosted the U.S. economy, the value of such benefits is impossible to
measure with any precision. Additionally, the technology investment picture in the U.S. has changed
considerably since the Apollo era. Computer hardware and software, telecommunications networks,
medical technologies, and most other engineering advances are now being driven by private sector
and non-space government investment. Starting in the 1980s, U.S. industry surpassed the government
in research and development spending, so NASA technology investment today is going to have less of
an impact than it once did in all but the most cutting-edge technologies. Furthermore, NASA will be even less likely to push
the state of the art under a continued policy of maintaining nearly flat budgets and relying heavily on
existing technology.
US tech development not key to competitiveness.

David Attis, Senior Consultant in the higher education practice at the Advisory Board Company, 2008,
Higher Education and the Future of U.S. Competitiveness, The Tower and the Cloud,
http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud/PUB7202h
While most people accept (and econometric evidence supports) the contention that federal R&D funding contributes to U.S. economic growth,
in a global innovation environment it is no longer true that basic research performed in the United
States will necessarily benefit American firms or American workers. Rather, the economic benefits depend on the
degree to which universities (together with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and corporations) can translate the results of basic research into
marketable innovations. The
benefits now also depend on how corporations choose to commercialize and

produce those innovations through global networks. Doing the research here no longer necessarily
means that the technologies, the factories, or the jobs will be created here.
Health care costs tank solvency.

Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Program Associate with the Health Policy Program at the New America
Foundation, March 2008, What Hill staff should know about health care, Health Policy Program Issue
Brief, http://www.newamerica.net/files/What_Hill_Staff_should_Know_about_Health_Care.pdf
No health reform proposal will be sustainable over time without serious efforts to control health care cost growth. Rising health care
costs are the most pressing economic challenge facing our nation and have left many Americans simply
unable to afford health insurance. In addition, the cost of health care threatens the competitiveness of U.S.
businesses and the solvency of the Medicare program. Americans Can No Longer Afford Health Care In 1987, the average health insurance premium accounted for 7.3% of the
median family income in the U.S. In 2006, that had risen to 17%. The Business Case Health care costs threaten the competitiveness and
profitability of many U.S. businesses. In 2005, employers spent $440 billion on health care, which
represents 24% of all national health expenditures. The average U.S. employer spends 9.9% of payroll on health care
compared to 4.9% for major competitors. Employer health costs put U.S. firms at a competitive
disadvantage compared to foreign firms and result in more and more good jobs being lost overseas.
West Coast
2011
65
Neg Handbook
AT: Hegemony/Leadership Advantage

Mars exploration doesnt boost US hegemony and even if it does, doesnt translate
into solving the impacts.
The national prestige/geopolitics rationale is always present at some level for all nations embarking on
space exploration and development programs. But the geopolitical environment is far different than it was 40
years ago in the midst of the Cold War. The gains to be obtained by any one nation from space
spectaculars are greatly diminished. Instead of a bipolar competition, today we have a growing number of
countries capable of showing off their space achievements, lessening the impact of what any one
country does alone and increasing the likelihood that noteworthy efforts will be multinational. At the same time, world opinion
regarding the U.S. has declined in recent years. If the U.S. puts forth an image of sole superpower aided by
nationalistic space achievements, many around the world will see this as clashing with the political,
economic, and technological leveling effects of globalization that lead the rest of the world to view the
concept of superpower as archaic. Similarly, anti-globalizers and nations unfriendly to the U.S. may view
space spectaculars with distain, viewing them as attempts by the U.S. to flex its nationalistic muscles
to the detriment of other nations. Therefore, it appears unlikely that exploration of Mars, no matter how
successful, would win many hearts and minds around the world. Unless large-scale benefits to Earth (not just the U.S.)
were clearly visible as a result of the program, the more likely response around the world would be, They should have used the resources to
*cure AIDS, end starvation in poor countries, fill in your favorite world problem+.
Multipolarity inevitable even proponents concede.

Christopher Layne, Professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security, at Texas
A&M Universitys George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, Summer 2009, The
Waning of US HegemonyMyth or Reality? International Security, pp.161-162
Unipolar stability? Superficially, Brooks and Wohlforth make a strong case for unipolar stability. But there is
less to their argument than meets the eye. Their case is based on a freeze-frame view of the
distribution of capabilities in the international system; they do not engage the argument that, like all hegemonic systems,
the American era of unipolarity contains the seeds of its own demise. Hegemons sprint to the front of the great
power pack because of economic leadership based on productivity and technological innovation. Over time, however, know-how,
technology, and managerial skills diffuse throughout the international economic system, which allows
other states to catch up. Similarly, leadership costs sap the hegemons power and push it into decline.
A key question is whether the early decades of the twenty-first century will witness the decline of U.S. hegemony. In this respect, the
debate about unipolar stability is misleading. After all, despite their claim at the beginning of World Out of Balance that
unipolarity is robust and that U.S. hegemony will endure well into the future, Brooks and Wohlforth actually concede that
unipolarity is not likely to last more than another twenty years, which is not very long at all. Not only is
this a weak case for unipolarity; it is also an implicit admission thatalthough it has yet to bear fruitother states are
engaged in counterbalancing the United States, and this is spurring an ongoing process of
multipolarization.
West Coast
2011
66
Neg Handbook
Solvency No Technical Knowledge

No technical capabilities for Mars mission.
Norman R. Augustine et al, chairman of the Aeronautics Committee of the NASA Advisory Council
and served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 2009, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program
Worthy of a Great Nation, http://legislative.nasa.gov/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
While Mars is the ultimate destination for the near-term human exploration of space, it is not an easy place to visit with
existing technology and experience. No human has ever traveled more than three days from Earth, and
none beyond 386 miles away for almost 40 years. No American has been in space much more than 180 days at a
time, or exposed to the full radiation of free space for more than about a week. Mars requires a trip in
space of almost 900 days. We do not have flight-demonstrated technology to confidently approach
and land large spacecraft on the Mars surface. Mars is distant enough from the Sun that it is a weak
energy source, and space-based surface nuclear power is probably needed. Under current plans, as many as 12
Ares V vehicles would be needed to launch each biannual set of missions. It seems likely that some form of advanced
propulsion may also be needed to make travel feasible. A focused technology program almost a decade long would be
required before system design could begin.
No technical capability for Mars exploration.

This is an extraordinary statement. Despite nearly five decades of spaceflight efforts, we are still at a primitive
stage in our attempts to conduct efficient, productive human operations in low Earth orbit. To think
that in just twenty years we will have learned all the lessons needed to operate on a distant planet,
two to three orders of magnitude farther than the Moon, seems exceedingly optimistic. The bulk of this experience
must come from spaceflight systems yet to be built, lunar architecture yet to be designed, and longduration missions yet to be planned.
Current technology fails no descent to Mars.

Robert D. Braun and Robert M. Manning, Professor of Space Technology at Georgia Institute of
Technology and Chief Engineer of the Mars Exploration Program at Jet Propulsion Laboratory California
Institute of Technology, 12/9/2005, Mars Exploration Entry, Descent and Landing Challenges,
This investigation also presented a potential entry, descent and landing sequence for Mars human
exploration architecture, highlighting the technology and systems advances required. Unfortunately, it is concluded
that Mars human exploration aerocapture and EDL systems will have little in common with current
and next-decade robotic systems. As such, significant technology and engineering investment will be
required to achieve the EDL capabilities required for a human mission to Mars. Promising technologies for human exploration EDL
include inflatable/deployable aerodynamic decelerators that greatly reduce ballistic coefficient, supersonic propulsive descent systems and
pinpoint landing technologies focused on robust terrain-relative navigation.
West Coast
2011
67
Neg Handbook
Solvency Trade-Off Turn

Mars mission trades off with cislunar exploration the impact is extinction
Eventually Earth could see relief to the stresses that humanity has imposed on it . Earth would no longer be a closed
system, thus overcoming our Malthusian dilemma. Land, air, and water could recover and be preserved through
increased use of extraterrestrial resources that relieve the need for excessive ground-based extraction, transport, and processing. As land use patterns
change, and space technology provides ubiquitous services (including top-quality education) that are not reliant on major population centers, the current incentive to abandon the countryside
space technology will be an

integral driver of settlement patterns worldwide in the 21st century. None of this will be accomplished
by directing our attention and resources to human missions to Mars. Rather, a humans-to-Mars goal at
this stage of our evolution would consume resources that could have been more productively applied to
the development of cislunar space. Such development will allow us to choose a time for our first trips
to Mars after we have the space infrastructure, experience, techniques for living off the land, and wisdom
and flock to the cities will be reversed. Just as the automobile determined settlement patterns in the United States during the 20th century,
to know what to do with a community on Mars (other than basic science). When we go, we will be ready to establish a sustainable, productive settlement, based on what we learned
in Earths environs.
They cant solve the impact space settlements impossible and we solve climate
Population pressure will not be directly remedied by spaceflight advances in the next few decades. We
are already at the stage where migration to off-world settlements would need to number in the tens
of millions in order to provide any significant relief on Earth obviously impractical for a long time to come.
However, within this century humanity could make substantial contributions toward solving global
problems if we persistently direct our attention and resources to doing so. Areas where we could see advances
include: Collection and distribution of energy. The idea of gathering solar energy in space and beaming it to the
terrestrial power grid has been around for four decades, spawning a variety of advanced design concepts and subsystem prototype
demonstrations. Like communications signals, beamed energy is a weightless electromagnetic product that has near-universal demand on Earth. A concerted effort could
make this energy source an important addition to the energy mix, supplanting some of the
environmental impact of fossil fuel use. Other approaches that have been suggested include relay satellites to transmit power from point-to-point on Earth
(allowing redirection of surpluses to areas in need), and mining of helium-3 on the Moon to power fusion reactors on Earth, should this method of power generation prove feasible.
New space missions trade off within the NASA budget tanks solvency.
In the case of NASA, one result of this dilemma is that in order to pursue major new programs, existing programs
have had to be terminated, sometimes prematurely. Thus, the demise of the Space Shuttle and the birth of the gap.
Unless recognized and dealt with, this pattern will continue. When the ISS is eventually retired, will
NASA have the capability to pursue exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, or will there be still another
gap? When a human-rated heavy-lift vehicle is ready, will lunar systems be available? This is the
fundamental conundrum of the NASA budget. Continuation of the prevailing program execution
practices (i.e., high fixed cost and high overhead), together with flat budgets, virtually guarantees the creation of
additional new gaps in the years ahead. Programs need to be planned, budgeted and executed so that development and
operations can proceed in a phased, somewhat overlapping manner.
West Coast
2011
68
Neg Handbook
Solvency Space Disease

Disease contamination destroys Mars exploration.
Ker Than, National Geographic News, 11/4/2009, Mutant Diseases May Cripple Missions to Mars,
Beyond, National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091104-spacediseases-mutants-mars.html
Mutant hitchhikers may become a major hurdle in the quest to send humans deeper into the galaxy,
scientists say. That's because no matter how fit astronauts feel at liftoff, they're likely to be carrying diseasecausing microbes such as toxic E. coli and Staphylococcus strains. Charged particles zipping through
space, known as cosmic rays, can mutate the otherwise manageable microbes, spurring the bugs to
reproduce quicker and become more virulent, recent studies show. At the same time, exposure to cosmic
rays and the stresses of long-term weightlessness can dampen the human immune system,
encouraging diseases to take hold.
Disease makes travel to Mars impossible and this takes out all their colonization
impacts.
Tudor Vieru, science editor at Softpedia, 10/30/2009, Diseases Are 'Major Barrier' to Space
Exploration, Softpedia, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Diseases-Are-Major-Barrier-to-SpaceExploration-125699.shtml
When people think of space travel, often the vast distances are what come to mind first, but even after we figure out a way to
cover these distances in a reasonable amount of time, we still need to figure out how astronauts are going to
overcome disease and sickness, French researcher Jean-Pol Frippiat, from the Nancy University, in France, explains. He is
also one of the co-authors of a new report on the matter, which appears in the latest issue of The Journal of Leukocyte Biology. The team
reveals in the paper that microgravity
has an unwanted effect on pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli and

Staphylococcus. Exposure to this environment considerably boosts their virulence. As clearly outlined by the
researchers, we are unlikely to remain healthy when leaving earth for prolonged periods. Unfortunately,
because spacecraft technology is way ahead of our understanding of how to maintain human health, disease-free survival after
reaching Mars or establishing a colony on the Moon may be problematic, The Journal of Leukocyte Biology Editor-in-Chief, Luis
Montaner, adds. Experts Nathan Gueguinou, Cecile Huin-Schohn, Matthieu Bascove, Jean-Luc Bueb, Eric Tschirhart, and Christine LegrandFrossi have also participated in the new report, which is entitled Could spaceflight-associated immune system weakening preclude the
expansion of human presence beyond Earth's orbit?
Even human infections will destroy effectiveness of Mars travel.

Tudor Vieru, science editor at Softpedia, 10/30/2009, Diseases Are 'Major Barrier' to Space
Exploration, Softpedia, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Diseases-Are-Major-Barrier-to-SpaceExploration-125699.shtml
As experts begin to probe the issues raised by a potential trip to Mars in more depth, they start realizing
that the actual flight itself and the problems related to constructing a proper vehicle to get there and back are only minor, in
comparison to other issues. One of the problems is how nearly two years of cosmic travels would
affect the crew of a space vehicle. Another one, just recently raised by scientists, relates to the dangers posed by
microbes and bacteria that the astronauts may involuntarily take with them to the Red Planet. Crosscontamination issues aside, microorganisms could wreck havoc in a crew, by acting in a double, roundabout
manner. First, an infection would considerably weaken the space travelers' immune systems , which would
make them more susceptible to outside influences. Secondly, the virulence and growth of microbes is significantly
boosted, healthcare experts say. Even minor infections are something to be taken very seriously in
space, as the astronauts have no way of getting off and going to a hospital if the need arises.
West Coast
2011
69
Neg Handbook
Budget DA Links
Mars exploration massively expensive causes long-term program collapse.
The preliminary estimates of the cost of Mars missions are far higher than for other scenarios, all in an
era when budgets are becoming highly constrained. If astronauts were to travel to Mars under these
circumstances, it would require most of the human spaceflight budget for nearly two decades or more,
and produce few intermediate results. When we finally reached Mars, we might be hard pressed to
maintain the financial resources needed for repeated missions after the first landings, recreating the pattern
of Apollo. For these reasons, the Committee found that Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system, but
is not a viable first destination beyond low-Earth orbit.
Human exploration costs hundreds of billions destroys effectiveness of exploration.

Edward F. Konczal, Middlesex County College, 11/29/2001, Onward and Upward:
An Analysis of Human Exploration of Mars, A Report to the President of the United States,
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~konczal/portfolio/marsreport.pdf
The non-technical factors may prove more imposing than the technical problems. A potential lack of funding presents the
most serious obstacle. Human exploration of Mars may run into the hundreds of billions of dollars
(Grabbe, 1999). Some advocates of manned Mars Missions, such as former astronaut Edwin Buzz Aldrin, believe that
the government will not devote the necessary fiscal resources to a Mars Mission (Ochylski, 1999). Critics of
human exploration contend that a manned Mars mission will inflate the NASA budget and crowd out
the more cost-effective unmanned missions, which provide more bang for the buck (Grabbe, 1999). Rshaid
(1996) argues that skepticism and doubt among the scientific and academic communities constitute a social barrier to the exploration of
Mars, one that will persist until more positive attitudes to space exploration prevail.
Mars mission will cost 500 billion.

Yuri Gagarin, former Soviet pilot and cosmonaut, 4/17/2011, Human mission to Mars by 2035: Is it
possible? Economic Times, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-0417/news/29425609_1_mars-missions-human-mission-red-planet/2
But astronauts are not packing their spacesuits. Mars is a lot less hospitable for human life than Earth .
So it's going to be more of a base rather than a second Earth. A one-way manned trip to Mars takes six months and a
round trip could cost as much as South Africa's GDP ($527.5 billion, CIA Factbook estimates for 2010). In fact, the
central challenge for Mars missions is cost. All space powers have budget constraints, especially the
US.
West Coast
2011
70
Neg Handbook
Politics Obama Good General Links

No political support for Mars mission.
James Oberg, 22-year veteran of NASA mission control, 8/17/2009, Why is human Mars exploration
so surprisingly hard? Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
In recent years a better perspective has become possible, and it is far less disrespectful to the successors of Apollo. Furthermore, it suggests
that even
with an immediate post-Apollo national decision (and a reasonable budget) to send astronauts to
Mars, it would not have proven possible by 1982, or 1989, or even perhaps anytime in the century if the task
proved too politically damaging in the face of setbacks. Heres the way Ive come to see it. It should have been
no surprise that On-To-Mars never happened. The reasons directly affect todays chances of tackling
the task in the near future. First, since Apollo had gloriously succeeded in its major purposerestoring
American status as the leading high-tech nation in the worldthe political support for further spending evaporated in
the face of new, more urgent challenges. Apollo had worked. Making the point again on a different
stage would have added little if any value.
No strong constituency for exploration plan drains political capital.

Craig Nelson, author and former editor at Harper Collins, 2/11/2010, Americas Long Journey Away
From the Moon and Mars, Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/11/americaslong-journey-away-from-the-moon-and-mars/
Though congressmen from Texas, Florida, Alabama and California would like to believe otherwise,
space travel today lacks political capital. Lyndon Johnson said that he refused to cut NASAs
budget in order to reach John Kennedys within this decade target as part of tending to the slain presidents legacy. But Congress and
most of the American public in the 1960s fundamentally supported going to the Moon as a crucial element
of national defense. Just as Obamas announced budget freeze omits the Pentagon, so did NASA stay fully
supported forty years ago, even with federal deficits rising in the wake of Vietnam and the Great Society. At its Apollo peak
of funding in 1966, the agency held 5.5% of the federal budget. In 2009, it corralled .55%. In 2008 and
2009, meanwhile, the $200 billion cost of going to the Moon, adjusted for inflation, was spent in 540 days
on the Iraq War.
Space exploration drains political capital.

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist, 8/17/2009, Remembering the lessons of SEI, Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1445/1
From 1989 until they left office in 1993 Bush and Quayle fought hard to keep the SEI alive. Repeatedly they saw
every penny of money for their program stripped from the budget. It was a hard lesson seared into a
generation of space advocates and NASA employees. Today, when the Constellation plan faces tough times the
White House shows little sign, at least so far, of being willing to expend political capital to support the
project. If the US government is going to continue to lead the worlds space exploration efforts then it
will have to spend the money needed to accomplish the goal in a reasonable time frame. Hogans book is a reminder of what happens
when that political capital, and thus that funding, isnt forthcoming.
West Coast
2011
71
Neg Handbook
Politics Obama Good - Plan Unpopular with Public

None of your general turns apply missions to Mars specifically unpopular.
P. Ehrenfreund, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington
University, N.Peter, European Space Policy Institute, and L. Billings, School of Media and Public Affairs,
George Washington University, August-September 2010, Building long-term constituencies for space
exploration: The challenge of raising public awareness and engagement in the United States and in
Europe, Acta Astronautica, pp.506-507
Analyzing the demographic environment is often seen as a prerequisite to define how to target an audience most successfully, through marketing or active engagement. Population growth,
changing mixes of age, gender, educational training and ethnic heritage play a role in understanding the demographic force.4 Life development stages strongly influence as well the opinions
and values of society and their support for a space exploration program. From recent US marketing studies it is evident that NASA receives its major support from the Apollo generation.
NASA has investigated the public opinion using mainly commercial surveys (not academic), whose limitations have been discussed [18,19].
The response to the Vision
for Space Exploration 5 (VES) was investigated by polling 1029 US citizens by phone between August and November 2004 [4]. The results showed
general awareness of space programs and that the majority of men and women are supportive. The attitude toward the VSE was to support ISS
completion, robotic missions and the return to the Moon. Citizens were, however, opposed to human
missions to Mars and in particular the associated risks. Similar to Europe, US citizens are totally unaware about the costs of NASA in US
budgetary perspectives. The public also perceived that public outreach is poorly executed. In 20052006, 450 US citizens aged 1824 participated in
another study and were contacted via internet tools [3]. Only 50% were aware about the VSE, 27% expressed doubts that NASA went to the Moon, 39% said that NASA does not do
anything useful and 72% thought NASA money should be better spent elsewhere.
Public opposes spending on space exploration and no depth among supporters.

Concerns about public opinion may become problematic even before young voters mature. A recent Harris poll on fixing the U.S.
budget deficit held another ominous message for space exploration, with the potential for negative
consequences in the near term. Among the questions in the March 2007 poll, respondents were asked to pick two
federal programs (from a list of 12) that should be cut to reduce government spending. The space program
was chosen by 51% of respondents, topping the list by a wide margin (13 percentage points above the second
choice).44 This result indicates that approximately half of the U.S. voting-age population views the civil space
program as either a waste of resources or simply a non-essential activity. If other polling results, such as the Gallup surveys
discussed earlier, accurately portray two-thirds of the population as supporters of space exploration, then a significant percentage of those supporters
see the space program as a luxury item that could be sacrificed in a constrained budget environment .
Media will spin the plan as too expensive empirically proven.

Dwayne A. Day, space policy analyst, 2/22/2004, Whispers in the echo chamber, Space Review,
We saw the modern media version of this game recently when rumors emerged that President Bush was
about to unveil a new space policy that called for a return to the Moon and an eventual human mission to
Mars. Media reports quickly declared that this plan would cost a trillion dollars or even more. That number was widely repeated within the modern media echo chamber, often by
supposedly reputable sources. It may have already done substantial damage to the Bush space policy, creating
public opposition to what is perceived as a massively expensive program and scaring away any
possible supporters. The $1 trillion cost estimate is wrong. It is based upon a completely inaccurate reading of historical data and deeply flawed
mathematics. But the problems are worse than this. Not only was an inaccurate number repeated endlessly
by the media without confirmation, but the flawed calculations were repeated again and again by
various people with their own agendas. Reporters also appear to have ignored or evaded obvious
weaknesses with the original source of the information, preferring to repeat an inaccurate number that they saw repeated endlessly rather than seek out better
information. The story of the $1 trillion cost estimate raises some troubling questions about how modern journalism is conducted.
West Coast
2011
72
Neg Handbook
Politics Turns the Case

Politics turns the case push for short-term exploration collapses long-term support.
Humankinds fascination with Mars has been with us for centuries, and for at least a half-century the conventional wisdom has
been that Mars is the next logical destination for human spaceflight after the Moon. This becomes
problematic when it is assumed that touching down on the Moon means setting sights on reaching Mars soon afterward, despite the far
higher costs and degree of difficulty. Mars is not a second, slightly farther moon of Earth. There is no reason to expect that the
long leap from the Moon to Mars will take place within one working lifetime. In a venture as
expensive, risky, and significant as the ongoing exploration of the solar system, it is more important to
get it right than to do it fast. Undue haste, in addition to endangering missions, also may prompt observers who
are under 40 years old today to view the enterprise as a mid-life crisis project for baby boomers who
are pining for the Apollo days. Under such circumstances, political support could evaporate for a
generation or more, setting back spaceflight dreams rather than moving them forward.
Lack of support dooms future NASA missions.

Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., et al, former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, June 2004, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, Report of the Presidents
Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf
(3) Credibility. Support for this endeavor must come with a commitment from NASA and all its partners to good stewardship. Above all, the
space exploration vision is neither sustainable nor affordable unless NASAs leadership of the
exploration vision is deemed credible by the public and Congress. NASA will continue to operate
under a bright light of scrutiny. They must embrace best practices of program management, certainly from the public sector, but
also from the private sector. At all levels, NASA must be relentlessly innovative and institutionally nimble enough to embrace good ideas
arriving from any direction, especially from outside the proverbial box.
Stability necessary for long-term success impossible year-to-year appropriations.

Jeffrey Mervis, deputy news editor, Science Magazine, 2/5/2010, President Obama's Science
Spending, WBUR, http://www.wbur.org/npr/123410020/president-obamas-science-spending
Mr. MERVIS: Well, there will be hearings and there will be committees that will take up the bills. And as I said, even though they
support individual agencies, they will have to be mindful that issue arise whether there are new
terrorist attacks or immigration or other issues that will take precedence. I think what the academic
research community would really like to see is stability. They would like to be given a long range
promise about how to furnish that additional wing that they've been given. But unfortunately, Congress goes year to year
in budget appropriations, and so that's why they don't get that kind of consistency .
West Coast
2011
73
Neg Handbook
CP Robotic Space Flight 1NC

Text: The United States federal government should implement plans for a robotic
mission to explore Mars.
Robotic space flight solves better sustains support and avoids spending disads.
Michael Robinson, Ph.D., University of Hartford, October-November 2010, The Problem of Human
Missions to Mars, Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars134.html
The divide over Mars is deep. It extends to basic beliefs about the meaning of exploration. While a scientific vision of Mars, with a
focus on tele-robotic exploration, may not excite the public, it is achievable within the current fiscal climate.
Moreover, the value of such tele-robotic missions can be measured by the amount and significance of
data gathered. By contrast, human missions to Mars will be exceptionally expensive and will rely upon
long-term, intangible, and visionary arguments that are much more difficult to assess. In the past, advocates
of human spaceflight have relied upon historical analogies to make their case, even when those analogies have been faulty and simplistic. So
where do we go from here? Should we send humans to Mars? The case still needs to be made. One thing is clear: humans
will not
reach Mars on the power of peripheral arguments about science, national pride, or technological spin-offs. Advocates of a
human program need to articulate the core values of human spaceflight and justify their missions accordingly, even if they are difficult to
measure.
CP doesnt link to politics.

Public opinion polls on space typically hold few clues as to how funding should be allocated. Respondents are fairly evenly divided
on the relative importance of human vs. robotic missions, but historically have preferred scientific
return over space spectaculars like a piloted mission to Mars.38 Robotic exploration of Mars appears to
have gained favor as a direct result of rover operations, first with Sojourner in 1997 and more recently with Spirit and
Opportunity.
CP alone is better than the perm human exploration destroys effectiveness of

robotic missions.
That said, there are nonetheless inevitable conflicts conflicts that arise from the competition among programs
for resources, particularly financial resources. It is therefore of the utmost importance, if balance is to be
maintained, that neither the human program nor the robotic spaceflight program be permitted to
cannibalize the other. This has been a significant concern in the past, particularly given the size of the
human spaceflight program. Difficulties in the human space program too often swallowed resources
that had been planned for the robotic program (as well as for aeronautics and space technology). Robotics are
generally, although not exclusively, considered to be of greater interest to the scientific community. It is
essential that budgetary firewalls be built between these two broad categories of activity. In the case of the International
Space Station, one firewall should be the establishment of an organizational entity to select endeavors to be pursued aboard the Space Station.
Without such a mechanism, turmoil is assured and program balance endangered.
West Coast
2011
74
Neg Handbook
Ext: CP Doesnt Link to Politics/Budget

Surveys prove robotic Mars missions are more popular than any other program.
Another public opinion survey, by Dittmar Associates Inc.,42 has garnered considerable attention in the space exploration
community. Conducted in August through November 2004, it sought information on support for NASA and its
exploration goals in general, but also dug deeper into issues such as human vs. robotic missions , the level
of interest in human exploration of the Moon and Mars, the appropriate level of NASA funding, and the relevance of NASA to our daily lives.
While the overall results of the
study were positive for space exploration, it revealed some troubling signs when broken
down by age group. With the exception of robotic Mars missions, which received good support across
all ages other than those over 75, the youngest age group showed little enthusiasm or interest in space
exploration endeavors. The greatest concentration of support came from the baby boomers, who will reach retirement age in 20102029, precisely the time when the exploration effort needs sustained momentum.
Robotic missions link less to budget arguments prefer our comparative evidence.
Robotic activity in space is generally much less costly than human activity and therefore offers a major
inherent advantage. Of even greater importance, it does not place human lives at risk. Astronauts
provide their greatest advantage in the most complex or novel environments or circumstances. This will
be the case in the exploration of planetary surfaces and in repair or servicing missions of the type
undertaken for the Hubble Space Telescopes primary mirror. In contrast, the value of humans in space
is usually at its minimum when they are employed transporting cargo. The bottom line is that there are
important roles to be played by both humans and robots in space, and America should strive to maintain
a balanced program incorporating the best of both kinds of explorers.
Robotic Mars mission popular in Congress.

Aviation Week and Space Technology, 11/14/2005, Lunar Exploration Vision Obscures Successes on
Mars, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1075
To deemphasize the robotic Mars program now, in a tradeoff with the manned lunar vision, would be a terrible
mistake. Washington needs to be reawakened to the quantifiable payoff the robotic Mars program
brings now, in terms of NASA political capital in Congress and scientific, educational and technological
benefits to the U.S. as a whole. Accompanying these factors is exploration as a positive symbol of America's contributions to all
mankind.
West Coast
2011
75
Neg Handbook
Ext: Robotic CP Solves

Robotic missions solve the advantages of exploring Mars.
That leaves the scientific discovery and understanding rationale. Much has been said and written about the wealth of
knowledge that the space program has brought to us about Earth and the rest of the universe. The past half-century has
seen textbooks rewritten multiple times and the emergence and blossoming of new scientific disciplines. Arguments about NASA programs and
funding have persisted regarding the right balance between human and robotic missions that will produce the most value for our science
dollars. The
question that needs to be addressed in current planning for human exploration is whether science is a
primary or secondary goal. If it is a primary goal, there will be plenty of work for people to do on the Moon, but little or none to do
elsewhere for a long time to come because sending robots will be a far more efficient use of resources. In other words,
as the sophistication and productivity of robots improve, there is no scientific rationale for sending
humans to Mars that justifies the added risk and expense. Having scientists working on site is the preferred approach
when the costbenefit analysis makes sense. It is reasonable to believe that this will be the case on the Moon in the foreseeable future, but we
lack the knowledge and experience to make a credible estimate of when this will be true of Mars.
Robotic missions solve their inspiration arguments.

Although the Committee was tasked only to address the human spaceflight program, including robotic
missions that are specifically encompassed within that program, it is appropriate to comment about the
role and synergy of human and robotic exploration as a whole. The Committee believes that America is
best served by a complementary and balanced space program involving both a robotic component and a
human component. The robotic portion is often but not exclusively associated with science missions.
Without a strong and sustainable science programthe means of acquiring fundamental new
knowledgeany space program would be hollow. The same can be said of the absence of a human
spaceflight program. Humans in space, on new and exciting missions, inspire the public. But so do the
spectacular accomplishments of such robotic spacecraft as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Mars
rovers, the Earth Observing System satellites, or the twin Voyager spacecraft that are poised to reach
interstellar space. This is to suggest that both the human spaceflight program and the science program
are key parts of a great nations space portfolio.
Even exploration advocates agree that robotic missions solve.

Los Angeles Times, 1/14/2004, 3,2,1,0 ... Wait a Second,
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/14/opinion/ed-space14
The president's speech today is expected to include several elements, but the headline grabber will be his push for a manned mission to Mars.
The scientific rationale for the Mars trip is dubious at best. As James Van Allen, the physicist considered
to be one of the founding fathers of space exploration, put it on Monday, the United States could explore
Mars robotically "at far less cost and far greater quantity and quality of results." Even if a manned
Mars mission promised rich scientific rewards, however, there are serious doubts about the nation's
ability to pay for it. Like his father, who in 1989 proposed but did not push for funds for sending people to Mars, Bush hasn't even
begun to suggest how the nation could afford the estimated $1-trillion cost over the next few decades. That's not to say that the space agency
can't benefit from presidential direction. NASA is still saddled with three grounded space shuttles and a leaking, low-orbit space station. The
agency is a shadow of its former Cold War self.
West Coast
2011
76
Neg Handbook
CP Lunar Base
Lunar base solves best key to long-term Mars exploration.
What about the Moon first, then Mars? By first exploring the Moon, we could develop the operational
skills and technology for landing on, launching from and working on a planetary surface. In the process, we
could acquire an understanding of human adaptation to another world that would one day allow us to
go to Mars. There are two main strategies for exploring the Moon. Both begin with a few short sorties to various sites to scout the region
and validate lunar landing and ascent systems. In one strategy, the next step would be to build a lunar base. Over many
missions, a small colony of habitats would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for
many months, conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel. In the other
strategy, sorties would continue to different sites, spending weeks and then months at each one. More equipment would have to be brought to
the lunar surface on each trip, but more diverse sites would be explored and in greater detail.
Doesnt link to politics new Republican Congress will want to maintain moon
control.
Paul D. Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, 11/6/2010, Can NASA Get
Its Groove Back? Air and Space, http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/11/can-nasa-get-itsgroove-back/
The latest buzz in the space blogosphere is about the recent midterm election results and subsequent
changes in House committees with Republicans in the majority. After these new committee chairs take charge, will
they set new priorities? Only time will tell but past statements by those mentioned to fill these positions give some
clues. They seem less inclined to sell the farm, thereby giving control of U.S. space access to foreign
entities. They seem to be cautious about handing the reins of LEO access to commercial start-ups,
preferring to have them prove themselves first, while at the same time guaranteeing that NASA
retains the infrastructure necessary to assure our national interests in space. Will their priorities for NASA rest
more with the agency staying as a national economic and security asset and less as an international outreach program, heavily influenced by
Earth science concerns? Much rests on the decisions made and the money appropriated by the incoming Congress.
Its the bigger internal link to leadership and space control.

Joe Pappalardo, senior editor at Popular Mechanics, 10/1/2009, Dissent Grows as Scientists Oppose
NASAs New Moon Mission, Popular Mechanics,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4245928
NASA does have vocal supporters, however. Robert Walker, a former congressman and a member of the Presidential Commission on the
Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, points out that a Chinese moon program has already
begun, with the launch of a probe in 2007. Both India and Japan have also announced their intentions
to launch manned lunar missions, to great fanfare. "Having a U.S. presence on the moon at least gives
us the chance to keep an eye on the standard of conduct," Walker says. "And that's pretty damned
important." In military terms, the moon can be seen as the ultimate high ground. A nation could set
up hard-to-defeat microwave or laser weapons platforms aimed at in-orbit satellites or, in the best sci-fi
tradition, to launch large rocks at the Earth with "mass drivers." (These were the weapon of choice for Robert Heinlein's
revolutionary protagonists in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.)
West Coast
2011
77
Neg Handbook
Ext: Lunar Base Solves

Lunar exploration solves their tech arguments creates basis for long-term Mars
exploration.
If Mars is not the first destination beyond low-Earth orbit, the Moon is an obvious alternative. (See Figure
3.4.1-1.) Going there would enable the development of the operational skills and technology for landing
on, launching from and working on a planetary surface, as well as providing a basis for understanding
human adaptation to another planet that would one day allow us to go to Mars. Systems would be
designed for the Moon, but would be as extensible as practicable for use on Mars. At a minimum, they
would demonstrate technologies and operational concepts that would be incorporated into eventual Mars
systems.
CP solves the case better lunar exploration is a prerequisite to Mars mission.

There are potential resources on the Moon that one day could be launched from the Moon to fuel
depots at the EarthMoon Lagrange points, which could then be used by exploration missions beyond the EarthMoon system. The scientific exploration of the Moon is not, in and of itself, a rationale for human exploration, but our scientific
knowledge of the Moon is incomplete. Our previous missions to the Moon, both human and robotic,
encompassed a geographically limited number of sites for a limited time, with little surface range. Much remains
to be learned.
Lunar base key to spur technological development and investment.

Paul D. Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, 11/6/2010, Can NASA Get
Its Groove Back? Air and Space, http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/11/can-nasa-get-itsgroove-back/
The current administrations decision to abandon NASAs mission of resource utilization on the Moon needs to be revisited. The ability of
the United States to routinely access cislunar space through the use of the Moon and its resources
needs to be well understood and addressed. We cannot afford to remain complacent about the Moon while
other countries move forward to reap the rewards of lunar return. The United States needs to make
smart investments that will pay long-term dividends. Lunar return is one of those economic and
technological investments. The majority of the panel of engineers and scientists invited to speak at the recent
Space Manufacturing conference meeting at NASAs Ames Research Center (sponsored by the Space Studies Institute) held the view
that lunar mining was the logical next move and that government needed to prime the pump and
demonstrate that this was possible before private enterprise would follow. We need private sector
money to fully pursue the purpose and realize the potential of space exploration. NASA needs to
show that resource utilization is possible on the Moon. Once we understand how to access and
develop lunar resources, private enterprise will capitalize on these findings. As the door to a sustainable space
faring infrastructure finally swings open, the tyranny of the rocket equation will be broken.
West Coast
2011
78
Neg Handbook
Solar Power Satellites Neg
West Coast
2011
79
Neg Handbook
Inherency SQ Solves SPS

Military needs will spur development of SPS now
William John Cox, retired lawyer, 4-30-2011, The Race for Space-Solar Energy, Truthout,
http://www.truth-out.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557
The project may have remained shelved except for the military's need for sources of energy in its
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the cost of gasoline and diesel exceeds $400 a gallon. A
report by the Department of Defense's (DoD) National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that
the United States "begin a coordinated national program" to develop space-based solar power.
US is falling behind Japan and China are developing SPS now

William John Cox, retired lawyer, 4-30-2011, The Race for Space-Solar Energy, Truthout,
http://www.truth-out.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557
China is currently investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energyefficient green technology and has become the world's leading producer of solar panels. In addition,
China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts and by demonstrating a capability to
destroy the satellites of other nations. Over the past two years, Japan has committed $21 billion to
secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to "put into
geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth,
equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant." Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately,
they will be able to deliver electricity at a cost of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive
with all other sources.
Space solar is inevitable economics ensure development

Taylor Dinerman, 7-16-2007, Solar power satellites, Space Review,
Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earths economy is going to need so much extra
power over the next few decades that every new system that can be shown to be viable will be
developed. If the US were to develop space solar power for military applications it would give the US
civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military requirements are legitimate, there is no reason
why this cannot be made into a win-win outcome.
West Coast
2011
80
Neg Handbook
AT: Energy Advantage SPS Cant Solve

SPS cant replace US energy needs theyre insanely expensive, NASA cant get them
to work, and wed need thousands of them
Roy W. Spencer, research scientist at Alabama, 1-15-2008, Reality Deniers, National Review, ln
And now the space-based solar power crowd has returned. These "experts" point to the increase in
efficiency that could be achieved by putting solar collectors in Earth's orbit and beaming the energy
down to the ground. And indeed you probably could get several times the amount of energy from a
solar collector in space versus on the ground. Too bad it would be insanely expensive. You might have
heard of the problems NASA has had with relatively tiny solar collectors attached to the Space Station
and Space Telescope. Now imagine putting a one-square mile collector in space. Even if we could get
such a thing designed, built, launched, and working, it would replace only 1 of the 1,000 one-gigawatt
plants I mentioned earlier that the U.S. alone needs. The truth is, if you want to get away from
petroleum and coal, we need radically new energy technologies. A massive and immediate program to
start building nuclear reactors would help some, but this is unlikely to occur without a major change in
public opinion.
SPS isnt a silver bullet, even if its helpful

Loretta Hidalgo Whitesides, 12-28-2007, Tiny Country, Wired,
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/tiny-country-of.html
Space based solar energy has long interested NASA and others in the space community because solar
energy is eight times stronger in space then it is after it has passed through the atmosphere. Although it
is not the silver bullet for climate, it is hard to imagine that we won't eventually utilize space based
solar power, especially as the price of launching things into space comes down.
The problem is way broader than the aff as long as fossil fuels are cheap, theres no
renewable silver bullet to solve warming
Seth R. Hawkins, 10-8-2008, No silver bullet, Utah Statesman,
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=31004
Despite technological advances in alternative and renewable energy sources, there is no silver bullet
to solve the nation and worlds energy needs, said New York Times energy and transportation
correspondent Matthew Wald, Tuesday *Oct. 7+ in the TSC Ballroom. We are going nowhere, Wald
said. We have made terrific technological strides but we have not used them for carbon or for oil
efficiency. We are not on track, at this point, to meet any of our goals. Wald said there are many
renewable energy sources available that could be put to good use and the only thing holding them back
is the market and simple economic principles like supply and demand. Calling the energy crisis the
nation and world are facing a steep hill, Wald said the people have to make the decision with their
dollars to make a switch to alternative energy sources. This is a steep hill and its got to be climbed
by market economics, Wald said. The government is just not big enough or powerful enough to
subsidize massive amounts of electricity. Cost effectiveness plays a major role in the current energy
crisis, Wald said, citing the use of gasoline and other carbon-emitting fuel sources as being more
affordable and consistently available than renewable energy sources.
West Coast
2011
81
Neg Handbook
AT: Energy Advantage Warming/Resources Defense

No energy shortage economics prevents shortages
Will Wilkinson, research fellow at Cato, 8-4-2008, No Limits To Growth,
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/08/04/no-limits-to-growth/
(a) energy is not scarce; the historically most efficient sources (oil, coal, etc.) are; (b) a well-functioning price system will
shift energy consumption to (cleaner) alternative energy sources as prices for historical extracted
sources of energy rise; (c) the initial high price of alternative energy will temporarily slow growth, but competition and technological
progress will eventually push prices below the historical trend and even asymptotically approach zero, increasing average rates of growth; (d)
environmental quality is a global public good, but; (e) this is most likely to be secured as a consequence of
growth as a consequence of the technological innovation that both creates and is created by growth together
with the rising scarcity and prices of the most environmentally degrading energy sources. So, (f) there are no meaningful limits to
growth from either the scarcity of energy, or from negative environmental externalities from
economic production, since in the medium run, those externalities are positive.
No resource wars are coming

David G. Victor is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Program on Energy
and Sustainable Development. He is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he
directed a task force on energy security, 1-2-2008, Smoke and Mirrors, National Interest Online,
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16530
MY ARGUMENT is that classic resource warshot conflicts driven by a struggle to grab resourcesare increasingly
rare. Even where resources play a role, they are rarely the root cause of bloodshed. Rather, the root
cause usually lies in various failures of governance. That argumentin both its classic form and in its more nuanced incarnationis hardly a straw
man, as Thomas Homer-Dixon asserts. Setting aside hyperbole, the punditry increasingly points to resources as a cause of war. And so do social scientists and policy analysts, even with their
more nuanced views. Ive triggered this debate because conventional wisdom puts too much emphasis on resources as a cause of conflict. Getting the story right has big implications for social
Saddam Husseins invasion of

Kuwait, the only classic resource conflict in recent memory. That episode highlights two of the reasons
why classic resource wars are becoming raretheyre expensive and rarely work. (And even in Kuwaits case,
scientists trying to unravel cause-and-effect and often even larger implications for public policy. Michael Klare is right to underscore
many other forces also spurred the invasion. Notably, Iraq felt insecure with its only access to the sea a narrow strip of land sandwiched
between Kuwait on one side and its archenemy Iran on the other.) In the end, Saddam
lost resources on the order of $100

billion (plus his country and then his head) in his quest for Kuwaits 1.5 million barrels per day of combined oil and gas
output. By contrast, Exxon paid $80 billion to get Mobils 1.7 million barrels per day of oil and gas productiona
merger that has held and flourished. As the bulging sovereign wealth funds are discovering, it is easier to get resources through
the stock exchange than the gun barrel.
Too much CO2 has already been released cant prevent warming
Robert Longley, 7-11-2010, Global Warming Inevitable This Century, NSF Study Finds,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/climatetochange.htm DA
Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and a greater increase in sea
level are inevitable during this century, according to a new study performed by a team of climate modelers at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Indeed, say the researchers, whose work was funded
by the National Science Foundation (NSF), globally averaged surface air temperatures would still rise
one degree Fahrenheit (about a half degree Celsius) by the year 2100, even if no more greenhouse gases were
added to the atmosphere. And the resulting transfer of heat into the oceans would cause global sea
levels to rise another 4 inches (11 centimeters) from thermal expansion alone. The team's findings are published in this week's
issue of the journal "Science." This study is another in a series that employs increasingly sophisticated
simulation techniques to understand the complex interactions of the Earth, says Cliff Jacobs of NSFs
atmospheric sciences division.
West Coast
2011
82
Neg Handbook
AT: Aerospace Advantage Yes Aerospace

Aerospace industry has record salesserves as a financial beacon for the U.S.
Coalition for Space Exploration, Aerospace an Economic Beacon, December 16, 2010,
http://spacecoalition.com/blog/why-space/aerospace-an-economic-beacon
Aerospace products and services continue to represent an financial beacon for the United States, where
they are responsible for more than 600,000 jobs. However, like many sectors, gains have been slowed by a sluggish global economy, according
to a new report from the Aerospace Industries Association. Overall,
the industry group projects $216.5 billion in sales

for 2010, the seventh consective year for an increase. Only a slight overall gain, $219.2 billion is forecast for 2011.
Aerospace has produced solid results, including a new sales record for the seventh straight year,
leading all manufacturers ins trade surplus and providing a sense of stability amidst the chaos of
economic upheaval, AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey said in a statement this week that accompanied the organizations
annual assessment. Blakey cited NASAs relatively flat budget as one reason for the slow growth and suggested the industry must look to still
stronger sales in the international market for new gains. Orders
of aircraft, spacecraft and other aerospace products

made impressive gains this year, registering $195.6 billion, a 20 percent rise over last year. Record orders topped $347.6 billion
three years ago. The industry continues to be a player in the overall balance of trade, contributing $53.3 billion to the U. S. balance in 2010, slightly below the sectors 2009 numbers.
Employment in all aerospace sectors continues a two-year decline, falling to 624,000 in 2010, down from a peak of 660,000 in 2008.
Aerospace sector expected to grow over the next 20 years.

Myra Pinkham, Ed. Metal Center News, Dec. 2010, Aerospace Metals Outlook Surprisingly Uplifting,
http://www.metalcenternews.com/Editorial/SearchBackIssues/2010Issues/MetalCenterNewsOctober20
10/102010Aerospace/tabid/3610/Default.aspx
Despite the poor economy and much-publicized delays in major aircraft development programs, demand for aluminum, titanium and other
aircraft metals remains promising. The
aerospace market has held up better than most experts anticipated. In fact,
despite a couple of weak spots, predominantly in business and regional jets, it could be considered one of the best sectors
of the current economy. Aerospace has been shockingly strong given the rest of the economy, says
Richard Aboulafia, vice president of The Teal Group, Fairfax, Va. He expects demand for materials to hold up well, which is good news for
producers and distributors of aluminum, titanium, stainless and superalloys. There
has been a solid rebound in orders this

year, which is a good indication there is still strong demand, says Keith Harvey, vice president of sales and marketing
of aerospace and general engineering products for Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Foothill Ranch, Calif. He expects demand to remain
solid for the long-term, pointing to airframe makers forecasts for 5 to 6 percent annual growth over
the next 20 years. Commercial aerospace has held up better than many of us expected, agrees Bill Sales, vice president for nonferrous
operations at Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Los Angeles. Commercial aerospace passenger miles went through an ugly trough in
2009, says Aboulafia, but this year we are seeing a strong, double-digit comeback, especially for cargo shipments, which were awful
last year.
U.S. aerospace industry has a 5% growth rate.

Istock analysis, December 13, 2010, Aerospace Industry To Grow Faster On Asian Growth,
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/4740770
During the financial-crisis of 2008, Aerospace industry was the hit hard sector. However, it has recovered and now growing at a faster rate.
According to a report, the general aerospace and defense market is forecasted to register a
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of over 5 percent during 2011 - 2013. The Global Aerospace
industry has witnessed an impressive growth in the last few years, with civil aviation segment emerging over
commercial aviation segment as the biggest contributor towards the growth of the industry. The US and European countries are
the dominant markets for the aerospace industry and are acting as catalyst for the overall industry growth. Increasing
demand for civil aircrafts from emerging countries and a continuous increase in military spending are the key drivers of the aerospace industry.
According to a report, US is the largest aerospace manufacturer, despite the financial crisis in 2009
and is expected to remain the leader in 2010, closely followed by European Union and Canada. However,
the future belongs to the emerging nations like China and India. These two nations have emerged as the most promising countries as far as
aerospace industry is concerned.
West Coast
2011
83
Neg Handbook
AT: Aerospace Advantage Alt-Causes

Aerospace industry is doomed for lots of reasons the plan doesnt fix
National Academies Press, Financial Health of the Aerospace Industry, 2010,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10201&page=26
One result of the consolidation in the defense industry has been that most defense companies now have a customer base that not only spans the entire spectrum of defense products, but also
includes commercial products, which yield higher margin for less trouble. Large companies, in particular, continue to diversify to compensate for low return on investment (ROI) from
The defense aerospace industry can be characterized

as an industry in transition with many companies facing challenging problems (DSB, 2000b): Because of strong
competition and stringent export controls, opportunities for growth are limited. Profitability, already low
compared to other industries, has declined. In addition, companies that encounter problems on major
programs face potentially further reduced profits. Cash flow, which has traditionally been a strength
of the defense industry, has declined for most companies. As a result of consolidations, some companies have added to their debt, creating
higher debt-equity ratios, which have resulted in lower credit ratings. Market capitalization by defense companies has declined more
than those for most old-economy companies. Innovative research and development (R&D) has been
reduced; funding by DoD for R&D has been flat. Funding for innovative R&D is down 50 percent from
the mid-1980s and is increasingly focused on supporting ongoing programs rather than on
breakthrough technologies. In an era of few large production programs, the Cold War approach of getting well on production, that is, making up for research
government contracts, and only part of the aerospace sector produces defense products.
expenses in the production phase of a program, is no longer viable. Key personnel are leaving or retiring, and retaining and recruiting new high-quality technical and management people are
difficult.
Major alt-causes to readiness the plan doesnt fix

Mackenzie Eaglen, research fellow @ Heritage, 3-3-2011, Assessing the Strategic Readiness of the
U.S. Armed Forces, House Testimony, Heritage,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/2011/03/Assessing-the-Strategic-Readiness-of-the-USArmed-Forces
All the military services, including the National Guard and Reserves, are experiencing lower levels of readiness
after ten years of major combat operations overseas and more homeland defense missions in the United
States. Symptoms include: Delayed, shortened, or less diverse training; Cross-leveling of personnel and
equipment from disparate units to plug deploying-unit shortfalls; Less maintenance for worn-out weapons; and
Shortened rest time at home before redeploying overseas. While Congress has provided necessary funding for many urgent needs of
the services, more must be done to restore short- and long-term readiness within the U.S. military. An illustrative
example is the readiness crunch facing the U.S. Air Force. While the availability rates of aircraftfighter, bomber, tanker, cargo, rotary wing, and trainingare holding relatively steady (except
bombers), the aircraft are spending longer periods of time in depot to maintain the fleet. Meanwhile, the cost per flying hour is increasing as the force ages while being employed at wartime
rates. While depot funding has increased over the past six years, at some point the increasingly intensive maintenance will give way to the reality that aircraft must be replaced with newer
frames. Fighters, such as the F-15, are nearing 30 years in average age. At some point soon, it will no longer be possible to maintain these assets at reasonable cost.
Despite limitations, the US military is still capable enough

Mackenzie Eaglen, research fellow @ Heritage, 3-3-2011, Assessing the Strategic Readiness of the
U.S. Armed Forces, House Testimony, Heritage,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/2011/03/Assessing-the-Strategic-Readiness-of-the-USArmed-Forces
Americas military remains the most capable and professional in the world. The Armed Forces are
combat hardened and of high quality. Yet, such standing cannot be maintained without the continued support of Congress.
Todays world is home to a growing number of threats from both state and non-state actors, each with a myriad of ever-expanding capabilities
ready to challenge our own. If the supposed peace dividend of the postCold War years was insufficient to allow for an easy military drawdown,
todays intense pace of operations unquestionably requires a strong defense capability. Between
force reductions, a dramatic

slowing of new starts, and closures of production lines, Americas domestic industrial capacity is
slowly being whittled away. Once domestic military production capabilities are lost, it will be almost
impossible, if not prohibitively expensive, to rebuild the industry.
West Coast
2011
84
Neg Handbook
AT: Aerospace Advantage Yes Hegemony

US will remain the global hegemon for the forseeable future
Joseph S. Nye, Harvard Prof, Nov/Dec 2010, The Future of American Power, Foreign Affairs, pq
Any net assessment of American power in the coming decades will remain uncertain, but analysis is not
helped by misleading
metaphors of decline. Declinists should be chastened by remembering how wildly exaggerated U.S. estimates
of Soviet power in the 1970s and of Japanese power in the 1980s were. Equally misguided were those prophets of unipolari ty who argued a decade ago that
the United States was so powerful that it could do as it wished and others had no choice but to follow. Today, some confidently predict that the twenty-first century will see China replace the
United States as the world's leading state, whereas others argue with equal confidence that the twenty-first century will be the American century. But unforeseen events often confound such
projections. There is always a range of possible futures, not one. As for the United States' power relative to China's, much will depend on the uncertainties of future political change in China.
Barring any political upheaval, China's size and high rate of economic growth will almost certainly increase its relative strength vis--vis the United States. This will bring China closer to the
United States in power resources, but it does not necessarily mean that China will surpass the United States as the most powerful country-even if China suffers no major domestic political
ignore U.S. advantages in military and soft

power, as well as China's geopolitical disadvantages in the Asian balance of power. Among the range of possible futures,
setbacks. Projections based on gdp growth alone are onedimensional. They
the more likely are those in which China gives the United States a run for its money but does not surpass it in overall power in the first half of
this century. Looking back at history, the British strategist Lawrence Freedman has noted that the
United States has "two features

which distinguish it from the dominant great powers of the past: American power is based
on alliances rather than colonies and is associated with an ideology that is flexible. . . .
Together they provide a core of relationships and values to which America can return even after it has overextended itself." And looking to the
future, the scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter has argued that the United States' culture of openness
and innovation will

keep it central in a world where networks supplement, if not fully replace, hierarchical power.
China wont surpass the United States

Joseph S. Nye, Prof. at Harvard, 2-14-2011, The Misleading Metaphor of Decline , Wall Street
Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358704576118673650278558.html
A fair assessment is difficult because there is always a range of possible futures. On American power relative to China, much
will depend on the often underestimated uncertainties of future political change in China. China's size and
high rate of economic growth will almost certainly increase its relative strength vis-a-vis the U.S. This will bring it closer to the
U.S. in power resources, but doesn't necessarily mean that it will surpass the U.S. as the most
powerful country. Even if China suffers no major domestic political setback, many current projections are based simply on GDP
growth. They ignore U.S. military and soft-power advantages, as well as China's geopolitical disadvantages
in Asia. America is more likely to enjoy favorable relations with its neighbors, allies like Europe and Japan, as well as India and others. My best estimate is that, among the range of
possible futures, the more likely is one described by Lee Kuan Yew as China giving the U.S. "a run for its money," but not passing it in overall power in the first half of this century. Looking back
at history, the British strategist Lawrence Freedman notes two features that distinguish the U.S. from the dominant great powers of the past: American power is based on alliances rather than
colonies, and it is associated with an ideology that is flexible and to which America can return even after it has overextended itself. Looking
to the future, Anne-Marie Slaughter
of Princeton argues that America's
culture of openness and innovation will keep it central in an information

age when networks supplement, if not fully replace, hierarchical power.
US heg is sustainable no risk of imperial overstretch

Joseph S. Nye, Harvard Prof, Nov/Dec 2010, The Future of American Power, Foreign Affairs, pq
Some argue that the United States suffers from "imperial overstretch," but so far, the facts do not fit that
theory. On the contrary, defense and foreign affairs expenditures have declined as a share of gdp over the past several decades. Nonetheless,
the United States could decline not because of imperial overstretch but because of domestic underreach. Rome rotted from within, and some observers, noting the sourness of current U.S.
politics, project that the United States will lose its ability to influence world events because of domestic battles over culture, the collapse of its political institutions, and economic stagnation.
Although the United States has many social

problems-and always has-they do not seem to be getting worse in any linear manner. Some of these problems are
even improving, such as rates of crime, divorce, and teenage pregnancy. Although there are culture wars over issues such as same-sex
This possibility cannot be ruled out, but the trends are not as clear as the current gloomy mood suggests.
marriage and abortion, polls show an overall increase in tolerance. Civil society is robust, and church attendance is high, at 42 percent. The
country's past
cultural battles, over immigration, slavery, evolution, temperance, McCarthyism, and civil rights, were arguably
more serious than any of today's.
West Coast
2011
85
Neg Handbook
West Coast
2011
86
Neg Handbook
AT: Colonization Advantage No Asteroids

Asteroids wont cause extinction none will hit earth and wed be able to deflect it
Robert Roy Britt, Live Science, 8-7-2008, Will an Asteroid Hit Earth?
http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070116_asteroid_hit.html
But no, a continent-destroying asteroid is not likely to hit during your lifetime. Most of 1,100 or so that
could do the job have been found. And none are on their way. Okay, there is one mid-sized rock
called Apophisthat has a small chance of striking Earth in 2036 and wreaking some regional havoc. But
astronomers are watching it and, if future observations reveal it really could hit us, scientists are
confident they can devise a mission to deflect it. And if all else fails, some futurists suggests, humanity
could simply set up shop elsewhere.
Asteroids path has been redefined, no chance of impact.

Dwayne Brown and DC Angle, NASA Scientists, 10-7-2009, NASA Refines Asteroid Apophis' Path
Toward Earth, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/oct/HQ_09232_Apophis_Update.html
PASADENA, Calif. -- Using updated information, NASA scientists have recalculated the path of a large asteroid. The
refined path indicates a significantly reduced likelihood of a hazardous encounter with Earth in 2036 . The
Apophis asteroid is approximately the size of two-and-a-half football fields. The new data were documented by near-Earth object scientists
Steve Chesley and Paul Chodas at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. They will present their updated findings at a meeting of
the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences in Puerto Rico on Oct. 8. "Apophis has been one of those celestial bodies
that has captured the public's interest since it was discovered in 2004," said Chesley. "Updated
computational techniques and

newly available data indicate the probability of an Earth encounter on April 13, 2036, for Apophis has dropped
from one-in-45,000 to about four-in-a million." A majority of the data that enabled the updated orbit of Apophis came from
observations Dave Tholen and collaborators at the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy in Manoa made. Tholen pored over hundreds
of previously unreleased images of the night sky made with the University of Hawaii's 88-inch telescope, located near the summit of Mauna
Kea. Tholen made improved measurements of the asteroid's position in the images, enabling him to provide Chesley and Chodas with new data
sets more precise than previous measures for Apophis. Measurements from the Steward Observatory's 90-inch Bok telescope on Kitt Peak in
Arizona and the Arecibo Observatory on the island of Puerto Rico also were used in Chesley's calculations. The information provided a more
accurate glimpse of Apophis' orbit well into the latter part of this century. Among the findings is another close encounter by the asteroid
with Earth in
2068 with chance of impact currently at approximately three-in-a-million. As with earlier orbital estimates where
Earth impacts in 2029 and 2036 could not initially be ruled out due to the need for additional data, it is expected that the 2068
encounter will diminish in probability as more information about Apophis is acquired.
Apophis wont hit earth newest data

John Johnson, 10-7-2009, 2036 asteroid strike, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-asteroid8-2009oct08,0,3012588.story
Doomsday in 2036 just got a lot less likely. After recalculating the trajectory of the asteroid Apophis,
scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge have determined that the odds of it hitting the Earth that
year are only four in a million. "We've all but ruled out" a collision in 2036, said Steve Chesley, an astronomer with the
Near-Earth Object office at JPL. Previously, the odds had been calculated at one in 45,000, Chesley said. While that doesn't sound like a very
big danger, Apophis has been the greatest worry since 2004 for scientists who track threats from space. At that time, it
appeared the asteroid had a 2.7% chance of hitting the Earth in 2029.
West Coast
2011
87
Neg Handbook
AT: Colonization Advantage Colonization Impossible

Limited human adaptation, radiation and travel time prevent colonization
Charlie Stross, author specializing in technically accurate sci-fi, 6-16-2007, The High Frontier, Redux,
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html
We're human beings. We evolved to flourish in a very specific environment that covers perhaps 10% of our home
planet's surface area. (Earth is 70% ocean, and while we can survive, with assistance, in extremely inhospitable terrain, be it arctic or desert or
mountain, we aren't well-adapted to thriving there.) Space
itself is a very poor environment for humans to live in. A

radiation poses a serious risk
to long duration interplanetary missions, and unlike solar radiation and radiation from coronal mass ejections the energies of the
particles responsible make shielding astronauts extremely difficult. And finally, there's the travel time .
simple pressure failure can kill a spaceship crew in minutes. And that's not the only threat. Cosmic
Two and a half years to Jupiter system; six months to Mars. Now, these problems are subject to a variety of approaches including medical
ones: does it matter if cosmic radiation causes long-term cumulative radiation exposure leading to cancers if we have advanced side-effect-free
cancer treatments? Better still, if hydrogen sulphide-induced hibernation turns out to be a practical technique in human beings, we may be able
to sleep through the trip. But even so, when you get down to it, there's not really any economically viable activity on the horizon for people to
engage in that would require them to settle on a planet or asteroid and live there for the rest of their lives. In general, when we need to extract
resources from a hostile environment we tend to build infrastructure to exploit them (such as oil platforms) but we don't exactly scurry to move
our families there. Rather, crews go out to work a long shift, then return home to take their leave. After all, there's no there there just a
howling wilderness of north Atlantic gales and frigid water that will kill you within five minutes of exposure. And that, I submit, is the closest
metaphor we'll find for interplanetary colonization. Most of the heavy lifting more than a million kilometres from Earth will be done by robots,
overseen by human supervisors who will be itching to get home and spend their hardship pay. And closer to home, the commercialization of
space will be incremental and slow, driven by our increasing dependence on near-earth space for communications, positioning, weather
forecasting, and (still in its embryonic stages) tourism. But the
domed city on Mars is going to have to wait for a magic
wand or two to do something about the climate, or reinvent a kind of human being who can thrive in an airless, inhospitable environment.
Colonize the Gobi desert, colonise the North Atlantic in winter then get back to me about the rest of the solar system!
Space colonization is impossible distances are too big and planets are inhospitable
Donald F. Robertson, freelance space journalist, 3-6-2006, Space Exploration, Space News,
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html
Two largely unquestioned assumptions long ago took root within the space community. As we prepare to voyage back to Earth's Moon
and on to Mars, it is time to question them both. The first assumption is that exploring the Moon, Mars, or any part of the
solar system, can be accomplished in a generation or two and with limited loss of life. The second is that we can use robots to
successfully understand another world. Both assumptions are almost certainly wrong, yet many important elements of our civil space
program are based on one or both of them being correct. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, even within the space community most people don't
have a clue how "mind-boggingly big space really is." Most of the major
worlds in the solar system have surface areas at least as

large as terrestrial continents -- a few are much larger -- and every one of them is unremittingly hostile to human life.
Learning to travel confidently through former President John F. Kennedy's "this new ocean" will be difficult, expensive, time-consuming and
dangerous. Mr. Kennedy's rhetoric was more accurate than he probably knew. The only remotely comparable task humanity has faced was
learning to travel across our world's oceans. We take trans-oceanic travel for granted, but getting from Neolithic boats to modern freighters
cost humanity well over 10,000 years of hard work and uncounted lives. Even today, hundreds of people die in shipping accidents every year.
We and our woefully inadequate chemical rockets are like Stone Age tribesfolk preparing to cast off in
canoes, reaching for barely visible islands over a freezing, storm-tossed, North Atlantic.
Colonization impossible
Giancarlo Genta, Technical University of Turin, and Michael Rycroft, International Space University,
2003, Space, The Final Frontier? p. 309-10
The colonisation of nearby, or even more distant, planetary systems is
unlikely to be a realistic means for easing the

overpopulation problems of the Earth. It will never be possible for a significant number of human beings to
leave our planet to find a better life on some extrasolar system or, for that matter, on some other body in our own solar system.
What would be valuable would be for a few members of the human species to establish remote space colonies, thereby enabling the species to
perpetuate itself ifor rather when human life becomes extinct, for whatever reason, on planet Earth.
West Coast
2011
88
Neg Handbook
AT: Colonization Advantage Other Countries Solve

Space colonization is inevitable without the US tons of other countries are boosting
their space programs
Marc Kaufman, Washington Post, 7-9-2008, US Finds Its Getting Crowded Out There, Global Policy
Forum, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm
Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites
and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian,
European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and
global rivals have been taking

the giant steps that once defined NASA: Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November the
beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's. While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its
European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with
the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana. Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on
lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe
the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts
to the moon. The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly.
Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the
U.S. space-based Global Positioning System. South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-cost satellite launchers. South Korea
and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities. This explosion in international space capabilities is recent, largely taking place since the turn of the century.
While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli and European space efforts go back several decades, their
capability to pull off highly technical feats
-- sending humans into orbit, circling Mars and the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a
comet -- are all new developments. A Different Space Race In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the
global competition today is being driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women, and the confidence that achievements in space will bring
The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable. China has
sent men into space twice in the past five years and plans another manned mission in October. More than any other country besides the United
substantial soft power as well as military benefits.
States, experts say, China has decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military purposes, are as important
as the seas once were to the British empire and air power was to the United States.
Japan will inevitably develop SPS

Tim Hornyak, July 2008, Farming Solar Energy In Space, Scientific American,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space
In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion of fossil fuels has forced humanity to turn to
space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is set in the year 2307, but even now real
Japanese scientists
are working on the hardware needed to realize orbital generators as a form of clean,
plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years. The concept of solar panels beaming down energy
from space has long been ponderedand long been dismissed as too costly and impractical. But in Japan the seemingly far-fetched scheme has
renewable energy, with
received renewed attention amid the current global energy crisis and concerns about the environment. Last year researchers at the Institute for Laser Technology in Osaka produced up to 180
scientists in Hokkaido began ground tests of a power transmission system designed to send
energy in microwave form to Earth. The laser and microwave research projects are two halves of a bold plan for a space solar
power system (SSPS) under the aegis of Japans space agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Specifically, by 2030 the
watts of laser power from sunlight. In February
agency aims to put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant. The energy
Were doing
this research for commonsense reasonsas a potential solution to the challenges posed by the exhaustion of fossil
fuels and global warming, says Hiroaki Suzuki of JAXAs Advanced Mission Research Center, one of about 180 scientists at major Japanese research institutes working on
would be sent to the surface in microwave or laser form, where it would be converted into electricity for commercial power grids or stored in the form of hydrogen.
the scheme. JAXA says its potential advantages are straightforward: in space, solar irradiance is five to 10 times as strong as on the ground, so generation is more efficient; solar energy could
be collected 24 hours a day; and weather would not pose a problem. The system would also be clean, generating no pollution or waste, and safe. The intensity of energy reaching Earths
surface might be about five kilowatts per square meterabout five times that of the sun at noon on a clear summer day at midlatitudes. Although the scientists say this amount will not harm
the human body, the receiving area would nonetheless be cordoned off and situated at sea.
West Coast
2011
89
Neg Handbook
Solvency Long Timeframe For SPS

Long time frame for solvency takes at least a decade to even get a basic program in
place
Joseph D. Rouge, Acting director of National Security Space Office, 10-9-2007, Space-Based Solar
Power, http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently mature to fly a basic proofofconcept
demonstration within 46 years and a substantial power demonstration as early as 20172020, though these are likely to cost
between $5B$10B in total. This is a serious challenge for a capable agency with a transformational agenda. A proposed spiral
demonstration project can be found in Appendix B.
SPS takes forever to become operational 40 years at least to solve

Jeff Foust, 8-13-2007, A Renaissance, Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1
Smith made it clear, though, that hes
not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites
feasible in the near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time, he
said. The horizon were looking at is 2050 before were 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 Jell-O.
Launch costs still make SPS prohibitive technology isnt ready

Taylor Dinerman, Space Review, 11-19-2007, The chicken and the egg,
The report does point out, in one of its most important findings, that The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a
necessary
pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBSP was inexpensive and reliable access to
orbit. However, participants were strongly divided on whether to recommend immediate, all-out attack on this problem or not. We are back
to the old question: is the technology ready or nearly ready to allow for the development of a successful reusable launch vehicle
(RLV)? For the last three or four years the answer from NASA and from the US military has been No. They are waiting for a
breakthrough similar to the one that shifted most aircraft propulsion from piston engines to jet turbine ones. For those experts who want
to gain a good understand of where things stand, Appendix D of the SBSP study provides an interesting look at where the NSSOs experts think
the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) now stand. In order to have routine access to low Earth orbit (LEO) to achieve this goal the study
examines a three-phased approach. Phase one proposes a strategy that will Develop new, fully-reusable two-stage, rocket-powered space
access systems (aerospaceplanes) for passengers and cargo transport. The mission is to Transport passengers and cargo with aircraft-like
safety and operability. The report claims that for such systems the TRL is 69 for a vehicle with a gross weight of 1400 tonnes with the
capability of delivering a bit more than 11 tonnes of payload to LEO. A TRL of 6 to 9 leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Do the authors of the
study think that we are closer to 6 or to 9? If we are close to 9 for the overall system then it would be worth it for the US government to go
ahead and begin work on such a system. If the answer is closer to TRL 6, though, then a more prudent approach would be wise. The DoD (NASA
is in no position to fund such work) should conduct wide-ranging science and technology development work on structural materials, new
propulsion, and on ultra-efficient control systems. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology will invariably pay off in other areas,
but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. The Defense Department is making major funds
available to develop new types of lightweight armor for vehicles that will be exposed to enemy fire and to IEDs. The Air Force should not
hesitate to join with the Army in working on any of these new materials that would fit into a future RLV program. This will require leaders who
not only can get beyond any not invented here problems, but that can push the Air Force or DARPA to spend money on projects that would
The need for low-cost reliable access to space has not gone
away. The slow pace of the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program is not going to change any time soon. Money
otherwise just be funded out of the Armys R&D budget.
is short and the Air Force is losing many of its best people due to the draw down. This is all the more reason to find ways to leverage as many
interesting outside technology projects as possible.
West Coast
2011
90
Neg Handbook
Solvency SPS Not Feasible

Space launch access is prohibitive stops economic development of SPS
John C. Mankins, Spring 2008, Space-Based Solar Power, Ad Astra,
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
Space launch is a well-known and classic case of the chicken-and-egg problem, and one that has proven extremely hard
to overcome. For many concepts, very low recurring costs per pound of payload can be achieved only with high launch rates (so that the
cost of fixed initial investments and annual overhead costs can be spread across many launches). Achieving high launch rates depends upon the
actual revenue-generating traffic to be carried, which depends significantly on earlier investments in space-utilizing enterprises (for example,
investments related to in-space manufacturing capacity). And, as a result, increased investments
in space-utilizing
enterprises (government or commercial) will depend upon the prior existence of assured availability of reliable
launch services at the lower prices. So, in order to make space solar power possible, what has to be done about space
transportation? In the case of conventional transportation infrastructures, low cost has always been achieved through reuse of vehicles and the
deployment of general-purpose infrastructures that can be used many times by multiple customers, such as canals, railways, roads, and
airports. It is hard to imagine how automobiles, aircraft, ships, or any other modern transportation system might somehow be produced so
cheaply that the transport could somehow be disposable after each use. In
order for space solar power systems to be

economically viable, reusable Earth-to-orbit launchers will be essential. In-space transportation
advances are also needed. In-space transportation systems must be very fuel-efficient. Also, transport
hardware costs must be dramatically reduced through the development of reusable, rather than expendable,
systems. Finally, the personnel costs for the transport infrastructure must be drastically reduced: the system must be
largely autonomous, involving neither marching armies of operators or maintenance engineers.
Solar radiation destroys SPS effectiveness

Robert McLeod, Computer Science Prof, 9-12-2006, Entropy Production, Solar Power Satellite,
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/solar-power-satellite.html
A further problem is that satellites in geosynchronous orbit are outside the Earth's magnetosphere, leaving
them open to bombardment by charged particles. This will drastically limit their lifetime compared to
ground-based systems. A satellite in geosynchronous orbit will see a flux of 61013 (1 MeV electrons) cm-2 year-1 (with considerable variation
year-to-year depending on solar flare activity). A 1 Mega electron volt particle is highly energetic and more than enough to break bonds and
eject K and L-shell electrons from semiconductors. A
solar cell in geosynchronous orbit will typically lose 5-6 % of its
performance per year. Compare that to ground based units that are guaranteed to provide 90 % power after 12.5 years, or a loss of 0.8
%/year. We can see that even if a space solar panel receives 8 the insolation of a ground based unit, it will in fact produce less energy over its
much shorter lifetime. The wikipedia article claims a lifetime of 20 years but that is not realistic. The
economics suffer as a result.
Space debris limits solvency it blows up SPS

Y. Akahoshi, Kyush Inst. Of Tech, et al, July 2008, Influence of Space Debris, International Journal of
Impact Engineering, p. sd
Recently, long duration operations spacecraft, higher in power, higher in potential, and the solar array especially higher in
potential have been proposed for the actualization of large space platform for industrial use, such as the space factory, the space hotel, and
solar power satellite. The use of high power in future space missions calls for high voltage power generation and transmission to
minimize the energy loss and the cable mass. Satellites after their end of life, upper stages of rockets and the parts and fragments from them
are called space debris. Solar
arrays that are designed for long periods of operation are more likely to be
impacted by space debris. The potential for impact is greater as the size of the satellites is larger.
When space debris collides with active solar arrays, may cause generation of high-density plasma
induced by impact. Then plasma grows up by surrounding plasma, and the phenomenon called discharge might
take place. Space debris poses an obvious mechanical damage hazard to space assets, and may also
precipitate a catastrophic electrical discharge that disrupts or disables onboard systems [1]. This discharge results
in short circuits on the solar array and current does not flow into the satellite. This fact yields to the reduction of electric power of the solar array, and the impact influences on the satellite
missions. Many debris and dust impacts were confirmed on fuselage of retrieved satellite SFU and solar array of satellite Eureca. Generation of the discharge phenomenon by debris impact is
not yet confirmed, but such possibility will be increasingly important. For example, the discharge phenomenon called sustained arc is suggested as a cause of trouble of geostationary
satellite Tempo-2.
West Coast
2011
91
Neg Handbook
Spending DA Links
SPS will cost an arm and a leg launch costs
Robert McLeod, Computer Science Prof, 9-12-2006, Entropy Production, Solar Power Satellite,
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/solar-power-satellite.html
The biggest overall drawback to any sort of space power solution is the cost of launching material into
orbit. At the top end of the chain, NASA's Space Shuttle or the Titan booster cost approximately $10,000/kg to reach low earth orbit. Getting
up to geosynchronous orbit requires an additional booster and increases the cost by a factor of 5-6. Programs such as SeaLaunch or the Russian
Proton booster are cheaper but by less than an order of magnitude. Realistically, in
order for space solar to have any

opportunity costs would need to drop to $100/kg, which is nearly impossible for a Western company .
There are all sorts of concepts for reducing the costs of launching satellites air-launch, or the big-dumb booster concept but none have the
financing given the lack of a dependable market and high-profile busts such as Beal Aerospace. The
high capital cost of launch

services has a secondary effect that it requires one to use expensive, high-efficiency cells rather than
the one with the lowest price per unit peak power. This further hampers the ability of space solar of
being cost competitive with ground solar.
Launch costs still make SPS prohibitive technology isnt ready

Taylor Dinerman, Space Review, 11-19-2007, The chicken and the egg,
The report does point out, in one of its most important findings, that The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a
necessary
pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBSP was inexpensive and reliable access to
orbit. However, participants were strongly divided on whether to recommend immediate, all-out attack on this problem or not. We are back
to the old question: is the technology ready or nearly ready to allow for the development of a successful reusable launch vehicle
(RLV)? For the last three or four years the answer from NASA and from the US military has been No. They are waiting for a
breakthrough similar to the one that shifted most aircraft propulsion from piston engines to jet turbine ones. For those experts who want to gain a good understand of where
things stand, Appendix D of the SBSP study provides an interesting look at where the NSSOs experts think the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) now stand. In order to have routine access to
low Earth orbit (LEO) to achieve this goal the study examines a three-phased approach. Phase one proposes a strategy that will Develop new, fully-reusable two-stage, rocket-powered space
access systems (aerospaceplanes) for passengers and cargo transport. The mission is to Transport passengers and cargo with aircraft-like safety and operability. The report claims that for
such systems the TRL is 69 for a vehicle with a gross weight of 1400 tonnes with the capability of delivering a bit more than 11 tonnes of payload to LEO. A TRL of 6 to 9 leaves a lot of
questions unanswered. Do the authors of the study think that we are closer to 6 or to 9? If we are close to 9 for the overall system then it would be worth it for the US government to go ahead
and begin work on such a system. If the answer is closer to TRL 6, though, then a more prudent approach would be wise. The DoD (NASA is in no position to fund such work) should conduct
wide-ranging science and technology development work on structural materials, new propulsion, and on ultra-efficient control systems. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology
will invariably pay off in other areas, but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. The Defense Department is making major funds available to
develop new types of lightweight armor for vehicles that will be exposed to enemy fire and to IEDs. The Air Force should not hesitate to join with the Army in working on any of these new
materials that would fit into a future RLV program. This will require leaders who not only can get beyond any not invented here problems, but that can push the Air Force or DARPA to spend
The need for low-cost reliable access to space has not

gone away. The slow pace of the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program is not going to change any time soon.
money on projects that would otherwise just be funded out of the Armys R&D budget.
Money is short and the Air Force is losing many of its best people due to the draw down. This is all the more reason to find ways to leverage as
many interesting outside technology projects as possible.
Costs would still be sky-high launch costs

Molly Macauley, Resources For The Future, 2000, Space Policy 16, Can power from space compete,
p. sd
The relative immaturity of the technologies required for SSP makes it difficult to assess the validity of
estimated costs and the likely competitiveness of SSP. For this reason, as in many space development
initiatives, orders-of-magnitude reductions in the costs of space launch and deployment and other key
technologies are critical. As these reductions occur, the economic viability of SSP may become more
promising. Until then, it is premature for the US government to make commitments such as loan
guarantees or tax incentives specifically for SSP.
West Coast
2011
92
Neg Handbook
Politics DA Links Plan Popular

Space solar is popular with the public its the most supported use of space budgets
Joseph D. Rouge, Acting director of National Security Space Office, 10-9-2007, Space-Based Solar
Power, http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.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 energy from space, with support
from 35% of those polledtwice 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(10%). How
does one account for such significant interest?

Perhaps it is because SBSP lies at the intersection of missionary and mercenaryappealing both to
mans idealism and pragmatism, the United States special mission in the world and her citizens faith in business and technology. As
an ambitious and optimistic project, it excites the imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting Americas previous
projects, and opening new frontiers. Such interest goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, The aerospace
industry has always been a reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a sector of pioneers drawn to the challenge of
new frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering. For this nation to maintain its present proud heritage and leadership in the global arena,
we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry. A healthy and vigorous aerospace industry also holds a promise for
the future, by kindling a passion within our youth that beckons them to reach for the stars and thereby assure our nations destiny.
Large lobbies support the plan

National Security Space Office, 10-10-2007, Space-Based Solar Power,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8736624/SpaceBased-Solar-Power-Interim-Assesment-01
There was clear interest from potential military ground customersthe Army, Marines, and USAF
Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental
impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing
logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional big aerospace, and the entrepreneurial
space community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and
contributed. The subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry
group. Study leaders were made aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace
companies and several major energy and construction companies both in and outside of United States.
SPS flies under the political radar

National Security Space Office, 10-10-2007, Space-Based Solar Power,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8736624/SpaceBased-Solar-Power-Interim-Assesment-01
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP is an idea that appears to generate significant interest
and support across a broad variety of sectors. Compared to other ideas either for space exploration or
alternative energy, SpaceBased Solar Power is presently not a publicly wellknown idea, in part
because it has no organizational advocate within government, and has not received any substantial
funding or public attention for a significant period of time.
West Coast
2011
93
Neg Handbook
Politics DA Links Plan Unpopular

The plan is net unpopular congress and the military thinks SPS is ridiculous, and
advocates have zero clout
Dwayne Day, 6-9-2008, Knights in shining armor, Space Review,
If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the
economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even
relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could
possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for
deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatarone of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has
been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly falls
through the cracks because neither NASA nor the

Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home.
But
theres also another factor at work: navet. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic
impression of its management 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 DoDs 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 solely on a study that had no money,
produced by an organization that has no clout.
Developing SPS would require lots of political capital no support to pay for it
Rob Mahan, founder of Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, 12-28-2007, SBSP FAQ, http://csbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#06
The political solution will most likely be the biggest hurdle to the development of space-based solar
power because so many areas have to be negotiated and agreed upon, not only within the United States, but with our
allies around the world, too. Strong energy independence legislation is the first step that needs to be taken immediately. Treaties and
agreements for the military and commercial use of space must be negotiated and put into place. Universal safety measures must be agreed
upon and integrated into related legislation and treaties. Getting
widespread voter (i.e. tax-payer) support to prompt

Congress to take action may be the highest hurdle of all.
Fossil fuel lobbies oppose SPS

Peter Glaser, PhD, inventor of SPS idea, Spring 2008, An Energy Pioneer, Ad Astra,
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the
average man on the street will not care unless it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my
initial concept. We could have built this system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps getting better. The design and
implementation is a small problem compared to the much larger obstacle of getting people to
understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and limitless power for the entire planet, yet
instead of trying to find a way to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too
difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies
will continue to find plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy
from the sun.
West Coast
2011
94
Neg Handbook
Launches DA Links
SPS requires hundreds of satellites to offset energy use
Al Globus, space expert, Spring 2008, On The Moon, Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstraSBSP-2008.pdf
While it has been suggested that in the long term, space solar power (SSP) can provide all the clean, renewable energy Earth could possibly need (and then some), there has been less
discussion on the most economic way to produce that power. If we want to build two or three solar power satellites, one obvious approach is to manufacture the parts on the ground, launch
a few power satellites wont solve our energy or

generate all the energy used on Earth today (about 15 terawatts)
would require roughly 400 solar power satellites 10 kilometers across. Assuming advanced, lightweight space solar power
technology, this will require at least 100,000 launches to bring all the materials up from Earth. But even 400 satellites
wont be enough. Billions of people today have totally inadequate energy supplies and the population is growing. Providing
everyone with reasonable quantities of energy might take five to ten times more than we produce today. To
supply this energy from solar power satellites requires a staggering launch rate. There are two major issues
them into orbit, and assemble them there, just like the International Space Station. But
greenhouse gas problems. Well need more. To
with a very high launch rate.
Building SPS would take hundreds of thousands of space launches

While it has been suggested that in the long term, space solar power (SSP) can provide all the clean, renewable energy Earth could possibly need (and then some), there has been less
discussion on the most economic way to produce that power. If we want to build two or three solar power satellites, one obvious approach is to manufacture the parts on the ground, launch
a few power satellites wont solve our energy or

greenhouse gas problems. Well need more. To generate all the energy used on Earth today (about 15 terawatts)
would require roughly 400 solar power satellites 10 kilometers across. Assuming advanced, lightweight space solar power
technology, this will require at least 100,000 launches to bring all the materials up from Earth. But even 400 satellites
wont be enough. Billions of people today have totally inadequate energy supplies and the population is growing. Providing
everyone with reasonable quantities of energy might take five to ten times more than we produce today. To
supply this energy from solar power satellites requires a staggering launch rate. There are two major issues with a very
them into orbit, and assemble them there, just like the International Space Station. But
high launch rate. The cost issue is obvious: the cheapest launches today run thousands of dollars per kilogram to low Earth orbit (LEO), and we need to get the materials all the way to
geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), which is significantly more expensive. The cost of launch goes up very quickly with the change in velocity, which is measured in meters per second (m/s). For
each increase in velocity, additional fuel is needed, and even more fuel to lift the additional fuel, and heavier structures to hold the increased fuel, and even more fuel to lift the heavier
structures you get the idea. In any case, the velocity change from the ground to LEO is 8,600 m/s, but to GEO its 12,400 m/s. Paul Werbos (see references on page 36) estimates that launch
costs must come down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $450/kg for SSP to deliver energy near current prices (5-10 cents/kw-h). Fortunately, a high launch rate drives prices down, just
The environmental impact of these launches is

concern. Today there are few launches and, therefore, they have little effect on the atmosphere.
What will happen when hundreds of thousands of rockets are dumping exhaust, even clean exhaust, into the
upper atmosphere? If the vehicles are reusable, which we expect, they will use atmospheric drag to come down.
The heat generated will create a number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere. What will be the
as the mass-produced Ford Model-T was far cheaper than the previous generations of automobiles.
also a
effect? We dont know. Theres reason to believe the problems wont be severe, but the studies conducted so far are inadequate.
SPS would require 300 launches per satellite

Shoji Kitamura, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2007, Study of space transportation, Acta
Astronomica 60, p. sd
Space solar power systems (SSPSs) have the potential to provide abundant quantities of electric power for use on the Earth. One
of the
hurdles to them is the transportation of SSPSs to the operational geostationary Earth orbit (GEO). The objectives of this
study are to examine the transportation of SSPSs, and to give a reference transportation scenario. This study presumes that the SSPSs have a
mass of 10,000 tons each and are constructed at a rate of one per year. Reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) are assumed for the transportation to low
Earth orbit (LEO), and reusable orbit transfer vehicles (OTVs) propelled by a solar electric propulsion system for the transportation from LEO to GEO. The payload element delivered to LEO by
each launch is individually transferred by each OTV transportation service to GEO, where the elements are assembled into a whole SSPS. The OTV round-trip time is assumed to be a year.
With these operations and reasonable estimations for the OTV subsystems, the OTV payload ratio was obtained. This, with an
SSPS element mass, gave the total mass that has to be launched by RLVs. The result indicated that about 300 times of launch are
required per year.
West Coast
2011
95
Neg Handbook
Japan CP Solves
Japan is the global leader on SPS already doing it
Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance, 6-13-2010, Japan Takes Lead in Wireless Power? Mi2g,
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/1306
10.php
In the footsteps of Nikola Tesla, Japan intends to send its first solar-panel-equipped satellite into space that
could wirelessly beam Gigawatt-strong streams of power down to earth, each enough to power nearly 300,000
homes eco-efficiently. A Gigawatt is what a mid-size nuclear power station produces. Putting solar panels in space bypasses
many of the difficulties of installing them on Earth. In orbit, there are no cloudy days, very few zoning laws, and the cold
ambient temperature is ideal for causing the least amount of weathering and degradation in performance. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry (METI) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are leading the project. They plan
to launch a small satellite

fitted with solar panels in the coming few years, and test beaming the electricity from space through
the ionosphere, the outermost layer of the earth's atmosphere. The full-fledged satellites will have a surface area of four square
kilometres each, and transmit power via microwaves to a base station on Earth. Japan's eventual plan is to have a Space Solar
Power System (SSPS), in which arrays of photovoltaic dishes several square kilometres in size would hover in geostationary orbit outside
the Earth's atmosphere. The entire system is likely to be fully operational in stages in the coming two decades. The USD 21
billion Wireless Power Transmission (WPT) project has received major backing from Mitsubishi and designer IHI, in addition to research teams
from 14 other countries.
Japan is already the leader on SPS they could easily do large scale implementation
Hokkaido Shimbun, 2-8-2008, JAXA Testing Space Solar Power System, Pink Tentacle,
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/02/jaxa-testing-space-solar-power-system/
For decades, scientists have explored the possibility of using space-based solar cells to power the Earth. Some see
orbiting power stations as a clean and stable energy source that promises to slow global warming, while others dismiss the idea as an expensive
and impractical solution to the worlds energy problems. While
the discussion goes on, researchers at the Japan Aerospace

have begun to develop the hardware. JAXA, which plans to have a Space Solar
Power System (SSPS) up and running by 2030, envisions a system consisting of giant solar collectors in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the
Exploration Agency (JAXA)
Earths surface. The satellites convert sunlight into powerful microwave (or laser) beams that are aimed at receiving stations on Earth, where they are converted into electricity. On February
JAXA will take a step closer to the goal when they begin testing a microwave power transmission
system designed to beam the power from the satellites to Earth. In a series of experiments to be conducted at the Taiki Multi-Purpose Aerospace Park in Hokkaido, the researchers will
20,
use a 2.4-meter-diameter transmission antenna to send a microwave beam over 50 meters to a rectenna (rectifying antenna) that converts the microwave energy into electricity and powers a
researchers expect these initial tests to provide valuable engineering data that will pave
the way for JAXA to build larger, more powerful systems.
household heater. The
It doesnt matter who develops SPS it will spill over once someone does a
demonstration project
James Bloom, Guardian, 11-1-2007, Power from the final frontier,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/01/guardianweeklytechnologysection.research
Space Island Group is a Californian startup with an ambitious strategy. Gene Meyers, its chief executive, says the company has almost
completed financing for a test prototype launch at a total cost of $200m. "We
expect to have the prototype in orbit within
two years," he says. "It will be a 10-25MW system in low Earth orbit, using a microwave beam to deliver the energy to ground stations,
probably located in Europe." Their main competitors are Mitsubishi and an as-yet unnamed European
consortium. "Mitsubishi is more advanced in their satellite design, but are stymied by launch costs," Meyers says. Space Island will use Nasa fuel tanks and launch facilities built in the
1970s. "They are designed to handle a launch every week, so the capacity is there to scale up to a larger system," he says. The plan is to have a 100 gigawatt service in operation by 2025.
The Indian government has expressed interest in becoming a customer. Many rural areas are undergoing
development but do not have access to the national grid. There are also a large number of island nations paying excessive amounts to
distribute electricity. Leopold Summerer at the European Space Agency says: "I think we'll
use the technology sooner or later.

If one nation develops this service, the others will take it seriously. They won't be able to resist."
West Coast
2011
96
Neg Handbook
Private CP Solves
The private sector solves space better than NASA
James Burk, VP of Artemis Society Intl, 6-3-2004, What the Moon-Mars Commissions Report Should
Say, Mars News, http://www.marsnews.com/articles/20040603what_the_moonmars_commissions_report_should_say.html
For too long, NASA has stifled creativity and entrepreneurialism on the part of non-governmental efforts
to pioneer space. In the late 1990s, many firms such as Rotary Rocket and Beal Aerospace were working on bringing SSTO/RLV
technologies to market, and NASA did everything to prevent their success. Firms like LunaCorp and TransOrbital were talking about private
lunar missions and NASA did everything to stifle them, including spreading rumors of a new NASA moon probe, which ultimately amounted to
Let the commercial sector do what it excels at, namely cutting

through bureaucracy and accomplishing goals on a short timeframe. Instead of stifling private sector efforts, NASA
should do everything they can to help them. NASA should enhance and expand their programs to transfer
technologies & methods developed internally to start-up companies. During the Apollo days, most of the hardware
and operations were conducted by private contractors. That model has worked before and should be returned to for
nothing and caused their funding opportunities to dry up.
future projects. Let NASA set the direction & goals, but let the private sector implement them and create wealth & commercial opportunities
from them. That is a much faster way to get into space, and also much cheaper for the public.
Its just economics anyone can provide the money to spur SPS
Rob Mahan, founder of Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, 12-28-2007, SBSP FAQ, http://csbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#06
Let me start by saying that I believe there are three solutions to every complex problem. First, the technical solution - how are we going to solve
the problem (often the easiest). Second, the financial solution - who is going to pay for / profit from the solution. And third, the political
The technical solution for space-based solar power

is exciting because no scientific breakthroughs are needed. It is essentially a complex engineering project. The technical
solution - who is going to organize the solution and take credit for it.
solution will initially be dependent on developing low cost and reliable access to space, but later we could use resources mined from Moon and
The financial solution will admittedly be very expensive at first, so there must
be an early adopter, like the Defense Department, to provide a market and rewards for those willing to invest
in space based solar power and the supporting technologies. Engineering and scientific advancements and the
commercialization of supporting technologies will soon lead to ubiquitous and low cost access to
space and more widespread use of wireless power transmision. Economies of scale will eventually make space-based
solar power affordable, but probably never cheap again, like energy was fifty years ago. Eventual Moon based operations will reduce
near Earth objects like asteroids.
costs significantly, since it takes twenty-two times less energy to launch from Moon than from Earths gravity well and the use of lunar
materials will allow heavier, more robust structures.
DOD doesnt need to run the program they just want to be a customer for anyone
who produces SPS
Alan Boyle, Science Editor, 10-12-2007, Power from Space? http://qwstnevrythg.blogcity.com/power_from_space_pentagon_likes_the_idea.htm
Even then, the economic equation still doesn't add up, due primarily to the high cost of launching payloads to orbit. But in the near future, the
U.S. military could become a potential "anchor tenant customer" for space-generated power, the report
says. "The business case may close in the near future with appropriate technology investment and risk-reduction efforts by the U.S.
government, and with appropriate financial incentives to industry," the report says. Smith said the military would
prefer to buy its power from a commercial space provider, rather than operating the system itself. "It
is our goal to move this entire project out of DOD [the Department of Defense] as quickly as possible," he said.
"Energy is not our business. We want to be a customer."
West Coast
2011
97
Neg Handbook
Space NMD Neg
West Coast
2011
98
Neg Handbook
Inherency SBIRS = Missile Defense

Recent SBIRS launch provides global surveillance and accurate early warning of
incoming missiles
ZME Media 05-09-2011 U.S. Military launches new missile defense system into space
http://www.zmescience.com/space/missile-defense-system-launched-us-military-443434/
This Saturday the United States Military launched a new geosynchronous satellite into orbit as part of its
Space-Based Infrared System project, which is intended to enhance the countrys ability to detect,
track and counter enemy missiles. Part of an effort to enhance the countrys security, the satellite was launched into orbit by an
unmanned Atlas 5 rocket from Floridas Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, after the initial launch was delayed by a day due to unfriendly
whether. The
$1,3 billion satellite is the first out of the four satellites projected for the Space Based
Infrared System (SBIRS), a project which outperforms and intends to replace the current Defense
Support Program satellites, which are still in orbit. Today, we launched the next generation missile warning capability, Air
Force Space Command commander Gen. William Shelton said in a statement. Its taken a lot of hard work by the government-industry team
and we couldnt be more proud. We look forward to this satellite providing superb capabilities for many years to come. The
satellite,
dubbed GEO-1, will circle the Earth in a geosynchronous orbit at about 22,000 miles its coverage area,
and provide enhanced early warning of incoming missiles though its infrared heat-sensitive
technology, gather intelligence, as well as situational awareness for military personnel. Officials say its main
feature is the fact that it can track multiple areas and potential threats at once, as opposed to the current attention deficit defense satellites
currently in orbit.
SBIRS Ensures early warning

ZME Media 05-09-2011 U.S. Military launches new missile defense system into space
http://www.zmescience.com/space/missile-defense-system-launched-us-military-443434/
SBIRS GEO-1 represents the dawn of a new era in overhead persistent infrared surveillance that will
greatly improve our national security for years to come, said Brig. Gen. (select) Roger W. Teague, the U.S. Air Forces
Infrared Space Systems Directorate director, in a statement. The launch was surprised and developed by United Launch Alliance, a company
who has a long run of history and contracts with the United States Military, and N.A.S.A. as well. This was the 26th launch by United Launch
Alliances Atlas 5 rocket, providing a 100% success rate. Its a great day for United Launch Alliance, we have been entrusted to launch the most
important missions for this country be it for NASA, the military or for the private sector, said ULA spokesman Chris Chavez. This is our 50th
launch overall, our 26th using the Atlas 5 launch vehicle and our fifth launch this year already. The
SBIRS program is considered

by officials as one of the nations highest priority space security programs as it is expected to provide
global, constant infrared surveillance that will accomplish a number of national defense requirements
. The system is expected to provide accurate early warning of incoming missiles to the U.S. President,
Secretary of Defense and military commanders in the field.
Current SBIRS provides global missile-defense surveillance

Mike Wall, staff writer, 05-03-2011, Friday launch to upgrade US missile defenses MSNBC.com,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42884733/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/
The United States military will take a big step toward upgrading the nation's missile-defense system
this week, when it launches the first in a constellation of next-generation surveillance satellites.
On Friday, the Air Force will launch GEO-1, the first of four new satellites planned under the SpaceBased Infrared Systems (SBIRS) program. SBIRS will significantly improve the country's missilewarning and missile-defense capabilities, and it will also provide enhanced technical intelligence to
fighters on the ground, Air Force officials said.
West Coast
2011
99
Neg Handbook
Solvency Missile Defense Fails

Russian missile upgrades allows them to evade space-based defense systems
Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer, 12-01-2008 Russia to upgrade missiles to evade US
space arms, Associated Press, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d94q3bl00
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's military is planning to upgrade its missiles to allow them to evade American
weapons in space and penetrate any prospective missile shield, a Russian general said Monday. In
comments to the Interfax news agency, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces chief, Col.-Gen. Nikolai
Solovtsov, as saying that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles will be modernized to protect them
from space-based components of the U.S. missile defense system. The upgrade will make the missiles'
warheads capable of flying "outside the range" of the space-based system, Solovtsov was quoted as
saying. He didn't elaborate, but Russian officials have previously boasted about prospective new
warheads capable of making sharp maneuvers to dodge missile defense systems.
Missile Defense fails -- Clustered warheads and decoys

Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national security policy at MIT, 2000
Why Missile Defense Wont Work, Technology Review, Scholar
Compounding this problem is a simple fact: in the near vacuum of space, a feather and a rock move at
the same speed, since there is no air drag to cause the lighter object to slow up relative to its heavier
companion. This basic vulnerability makes it even easier for an adversary to devise decoys that will
look like warheads to radar or an infrared telescope observing them from long range. Whats more,
an adversary would likely deploy decoys and warheads close together and in multiple clusters. Under
these conditions, even if the radar could initially identify a warhead among all the decoys, it couldnt
track it accurately enough to predict the relative locations of the different objects when the kill
vehicle encountered them some eight minutes later. Consequently, the kill vehicle must be able to
identify warheads and decoys without help from satellites, ground radars or other sensors. If it
cannot perform this task, the defense cannot work. This is where the infrared telescope comes inand
it was really this critical part of the system that the June 1997 test was all about.
BMD is insufficient against China

Jeremiah Gertler, Assistant Vice President, Defense Policy @ Aerospace Industries Association, 2006,
The Paths Ahead: Missile Defense in Asia, CSIS, Scholar
Current and planned US BMD assets have the capability to fill many of the gaps between threats to
American allies and friends in Asia and their indigenous defense capabilities. That statement comes with
two significant caveats: The most significant exception is China. As noted earlier, Chinese air- and seadefense environments pose formidable obstacles to employment of many US BMD systems,
particularly those operating in the boost phase. At the same time, the sheer number of Chinese
ballistic delivery systems overwhelms available defenses in any scenario except, perhaps, an attack
against the United States proper. No US system scheduled for deployment in the next twenty years
addresses this deficiency.
West Coast
2011
100
Neg Handbook
AT Proliferation Advantage
A more layered US missile defense system will cause China to modernize its aresenal
undermining global nonproliferation efforts
Jing-dong Yuan, PhD, Senior Associate @ East Asian Nonproliferation Program, Spring 2003
Chinese Responses to U.S. Missile Defenses, Nonproliferation Review, Scholar
Owing to its small size and its current deployment mode-in which nuclear warheads and the liquid-fueled ICBMs are separately stored and
launch preparation takes several hours--a limited U. S. missile defense system could neutralize China's strategic nuclear deterrent. 'While
the initial U.S. missile defense deployment seems moderate, the Bush administration has indicated that
it would be "a starting point for improved and expanded capabilities later." Indeed, unlike the limited
missile defenses planned by the Clinton administration, the layered missile-defense architecture the Bush administration
envisions includes multiple basing missile defense systems capable of intercepting incoming ballistic missiles during their
boost phase, mid-course, or terminal phase. Thus, while China's public rhetoric against U.S. missile defenses has
receded, its sense of vulnerability has not. U.S. missile defense systems, once operational, threaten the
very credibility, reliability, and effectiveness of China's woefully inadequate strategic nuclear arsenal.
Barring a significant breakthrough in achieving strategic understandings between Beijing and Washington, a U.S. decision to deploy
ballistic missile defense systems will force China to react in ways that could have farreaching
consequences for global arms control and nonproliferation and, consequently, regional stability.5 China
may embark on a nuclear modernization drive in both quantitative and qualitative terms unseen in
the past two decades. Unlike Russia, which hard economic realities may prevent from maintaining a
large nuclear arsenal (a number higher than the 1,700-2,200 range stipulated in the May 2002 Moscow Treaty), China has the
economic wherewithal to significantly expand and modernize its strategic nuclear force. While in relative
terms Chinese defense spending remains low as a percentage of its gross domestic product, it has risen at a doubledigit rate since 1990 as the
economy registers significant growth during the same period. In addition, China
has a large foreign exchange reserve (about

$286 billion at the end of 2002), which would make available additional funds for foreign acquisitions and
purchases. Analysts suggest that based on such rates of increase, China's defense budget could double by 2005.
Enhanced missile defense systems force proliferation in an attempt to compensate

Jing-dong Yuan, PhD, Senior Associate @ East Asian Nonproliferation Program, Spring 2003
Chinese Responses to U.S. Missile Defenses, Nonproliferation Review, Scholar
Second, U.S. missile defenses would inhibit the international arms control process and could touch off a
resurgence of the arms race, especially in outer space. It could also accelerate missile proliferation.
Beijing suggests that there is an important link between doctrinal developments and nonproliferation.
Liu Jieyi, Director General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, recently argued, "An
important factor for progress in international nonproliferation efforts is to decrease the dependence
on nuclear weapons and to reduce their role in international relations and security strategies ."5 Indeed,
"If a country, in addition to its offensive power, seeks to develop advanced TMD or even NMD, in an
attempt to attain absolute security and unilateral strategic advantage for itself, other countries will be
forced to develop more advanced offensive missiles. This will give rise to a new round of arms races."
Chinese analysts blame Washington for the generally negative developments in the arms control and nonproliferation field since the Bush
administration came into power in 2001. U.S. abrogation of the ABM Treaty, its refusal to accept the Biological Weapons Convention
verification protocol, reduction of funding for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on-site inspections study, and a requirement for
shortened preparation time for resuming nuclear tests are all negative signs from the Chinese point of view. 5" The Chinese suggest that the
broader implications for second-tier nuclear weapons states are that they will be less interested in
joining any multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations and instead will be developing their system
penetration capabilities. With second-tier NWS developing more and better nuclear weapons,
countries such as India and Pakistan will likely follow suit, having an overall negative impact on global
arms control.
West Coast
2011
101
Neg Handbook
AT Terrorism Advantage
The U.S.s space assets are secure- lack of technology and deterrence checks
Hui Zhang is a research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard Universitys John F.
Kennedy School of Government. Action/Reaction:, Arms control today
2005. http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1943
Chinas Security The United States clearly has legitimate concerns about its space assets, given that
U.S. military operations and the U.S. economy are increasingly dependent on them. Satellites are
inherently vulnerable to attacks from many different sources, including ground-based missiles, lasers,
and radiation from a high-altitude nuclear explosion. However, it does not mean that the United States
currently faces credible threats from states that might exploit those vulnerabilities.[8] Most analysts
believe no country seriously threatens U.S. space assets.[9] Only the United States and, in the Cold
War era, the Soviet Union have explored, tested, and developed space weapons; Russia placed a
moratorium on its program in the 1980s. To be sure, a number of countries, including China, are
capable of attacking U.S. satellites with nuclear weapons, but such an attack would be foolhardy, as it
would almost certainly be met by a deadly U.S. response.
Retaliation wont escalate

David Schuler, political commentator, writer and author of the award winning Glittering Eye, 11-192004, Restating the U. S. policy of nuclear deterrence http://theglitteringeye.com/wptrackback.php?p=459
A nuclear response to a nuclear terrorist attack is terrorism. Theres no generally accepted definition of terrorism so before tackling this point
Ill propose one. Ignoring the issue of state actors vs. non-state actors I think that a terrorist attack is an attack on civilians or civilian assets
whose purpose is to provoke terror. It has no other tactical or strategic significance. Any
nuclear response by the United States
would be against military or governmental facilities, sites involved in military production, or command and control. The objective
would be to eliminate the possibility of future attacks or the support for those who would engage in future attacks. That such a response would
inevitably result in massive civilian casualties is sad. But such a response would not, by definition, be terrorism A nuclear retaliation Iran in
response to a terrorist nuclear attack would inevitably draw France, Russia, and China to enter the conflict. To believe this you
must
believe that France, Russia, and China will act irrationally. There is absolutely no reason to believe
that this is the case. All three nations know that their intervention against the U. S. would result in total
annihilation. There are other issues as well and lets examine the two distinct cases: Russia on the one hand and France and China on the
other. As a major non-Gulf producer of oil Russia would be in a position to benefit enormously in case of a disruption of Gulf
oil production or shipment. That being the case they would publicly deplore a retaliation against Iran but privately rejoice._ Both France
and China are in an extremely delicate position. A nuclear response by either would result in total annihilation and,
equally importantly, wouldnt keep the oil flowing. Lack of a blue water navy means that both nations are
completely at the mercy of the United Statess (or more specifically the U. S. Navys) willingness to keep shipments of oil
moving out of the Gulf. China is particularly vulnerable since it has only about two weeks worth of strategic oil reserves. Neither France nor
China has any real ability to project military force other than nuclear force beyond their borders. Theyd be upset. But theyre in no position to
do anything about it.
West Coast
2011
102
Neg Handbook
Politics Links Plan Unpopular

Powerful lobbies effectively prevent space-based missile defense development
Bart Denny, Retired U.S. Naval Officer with sea duty as a nuclear operator in two submarines, as an
officer in two destroyers, and as captain of two coastal patrol ships M.A. National Security Studies,
2009, Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century, The Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis, Inc. https://www.claremont.org/repository/docLib/200901291_iwg2009.pdf
The key impediments to the development of a more robust layered system that includes space-based
interdiction assets have been more political than technological. A small but vocal minority has so far
succeeded in driving the debate against missile defense and especially space-based missile defense.
The outcome has been that political considerations have by and large dictated technical behavior, with
the goal of developing the most technologically sound and cost-effective defenses subordinated to other
interests.
Vehement opposition to weaponization prevents space-based defenses

IV. What are the key obstacles to space-based missile defense and how can they best be addressed and overcome? While in effect, the ABM
Treaty served as a critical impediment to U.S. deployment of space-based missile defense. With the treatys termination in 2002, new
opportunities for space-based missile defense have emerged. However, the
key obstacles to space defenses remain more

political than technological in nature. For example, certain constituencies continue to voice vehement
opposition to space-based missile defenses in the mistaken belief that they could result in the
weaponization of space. This assumption is the result of the dubious logic that if the United States refrains from the deployment of
space-based missile defense, other nations will behave in similar fashion.
Political obstacles prevent deployment department intransience, defense contracts,

and Chinese posturing
Other political obstacles exist. For example, there are institutional barriers in which departments and
agencies responsible for missile defense are understandably reluctant to see their efforts questioned
or their roles changed. Furthermore, defense contractors often have strong financial interests in
maintaining existing programs. Last but not least, China and Russia have adopted strategies to prevent or discourage the United
States from pursuing space-based missile defense options. Both nations seek to undermine the position of the United States as the dominant
space power and to keep it from developing space-based missile defense and other space capabilities. In particular, China
engages in
various forms of psychological warfare intended to shape U.S. policies and attitudes . This includes the
dissemination of information meant to gain support for Chinas position as well as the use of international law, or what is called legal warfare,
to shape opinion and otherwise forward Chinas goals.98
West Coast
2011
103
Neg Handbook
Politics Links Plan Unpopular

Strong opposition to the plan exists from those who fear weaponization
officer in two destroyers, and as captain of two coastal patrol ships M.A. National Security Studies, 4-292010, time to revisit space-based missile defense http://www.bartdenny.com/time-for-spacebased.html
The hurdles to placing a revived Brilliant Pebbles-like system in orbit are predominantly political, not
technical, in nature. Originally, space-based missile defenses faced stiff opposition because of their
prohibition by the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. The U.S., of course, withdrew from the
ABM Treaty in 2002, but there remains continued unfriendliness, in the U.S. and abroad, to deploying
weapons in space. Some mistakenly claim that such weapons are a violation of the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967, although that treaty actually prohibits placing weapons of mass destruction, in space, not
weapons en bloc.
Recent cuts prove the plan is unpopular

Defense News 03-23- 2009, Budget Clouds Hover over US Programs, Defense News,
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4001390
Depending on your point of view, the $10.5 billion U.S. missile defense program is either about to be
crippled by massive budget cuts, or forced to curtail years of wasteful spending on systems that too
often don't work. Nobody thinks the financial future for missile defense includes increased spending.
"The missile defense haters are smelling blood in the water," said James Carafano, a scholar at the
conservative, pro-missile defense Heritage Foundation. "They're coming out of their caves and
throwing rocks at the mastodon."
Democrats oppose missile defense expansion

Joshua Keating, editor at Foreign Policy, 02-26-2009, Missile Defense on the Chopping Block,
Foreign Policy,
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/26/missile_defense_on_the_chopping_block
In President Obama's speech on Tuesday, he pledged to "reform our defense budget so that we're not
paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." Could this have been a reference to the
planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, on which Obama's views are not exactly clear?
Congressional Democrats, at least, do seem to be taking aim at the system. California Rep. Ellen
Tauscher, chairwoman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee is a critic of longrange missile defense, calling for a focus on short- and medium-range defense which have been more
rigorously tested: "Given the need to fund other high priority defense programs, reductions to the
missile defense programs may be required."
West Coast
2011
104
Neg Handbook
Spending DA Links
Space-based Missile defense is expensive and experts agree its ineffective
Space Daily 2006, Experts Debate Space-Based Missile Defense Assets
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Experts_Debate_Space_Based_Missile_Defense_Assets_999.html
The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank, has issued a study saying the
implementation of plans for space missile defense is critical for U.S. national security and an effective system against at least some
intercontinental ballistic missiles from so-called rogue states should be in place no later than 2010. "The absence of a space strategy is a gap in national security," said Robert Pfaltzgraff,
president of the IFPA, during a roundtable on the new report hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, a small conservative Washington think tank, last Friday on Capitol Hill. "Only space
can give us a global missile defense." The threat is even more immediate, many fear, following several missile tests on July 4 by North Korea. While their long range Taepodong-2 ICBM was
unsuccessful, several short range No Dong missiles appeared to work effectively in the tests. One of North Korea's main exports is weapons, and Pfaltzgraff said the United States should be
increasingly concerned that these short range missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists aiming to launch them from domestic shores. The IFPA analysts claimed that U.S. ballistic missile
defense must be revaluated in light of these developments. However, other analysts said the Bush administration has failed so far in adequately developing its BMD programs.
"This won't do anything for security and will blow the defense budget," said Craig Eisendrath, board
chairman for the Project of Nuclear Awareness and a former State Department analyst who dealt with
space and nuclear policy. Similar criticisms were prevalent following President Ronald Reagan's proposal of a Strategic Defense Initiative,
also known as "Star Wars," that originally conceptualized deploying nuclear missile defenses in space. The suggestion was revived again under the current Bush administration with the idea of
said Philip Coyle,

senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information. However, this concept would have required
multiple satellites, perhaps as many as 1,000, in orbit to be effective. "You can't have one interceptor
parked over North Korea," said Coyle. "You need another to take its place." Coyle also questioned the
monetary feasibility of the program. "It would be, by all measures, very expensive. And it's still
problematic as to whether would work," Coyle said. "They've been projecting [costs] for at least 20 years and it doesn't seem to happen." Pfaltzgraff said
"Brilliant Pebbles." "The idea was that a small satellite with good brain that would see enemy missiles and dash off after it, hit it and knock it down,"
that U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 opened up additional options in the use of space-based weapons for missile defense. However, the Bush administration had
not adequately explored these options and current U.S. missile defense policies remained virtually unchanged since the Clinton administration, he said. "Bush will eventually be judged by
what he does in the next two years" of his waning presidency, he said. Eisendraft said U.S.withdrawal from the ABM treaty had been a negative move for the United States and that many of
America's missile defense challenges today stemmed from that pullout. Current ABM defense systems deployed in California and Alaska were inadequate, he said. Should a missile be
launched, the 11 ground-based midcourse interceptors currently deployed would probably be unable to distinguish between an actual threat and a decoy. The United States has also refused
to join in a treaty banning the use of space for missile defense. China, Japan, and the European Union are all willing signatories, Eisendraft said, who helped draft the original treaty. "This is
The United States is acting in a completely

irresponsible manner." But the biggest factor in the push for space weaponry is corporate interests
rather than economic and security sensibility, said Eisendraft. "We're dealing with a situation not
driven by security aspects but money," said Eisendraft. "Across the board, we're not dealing with
anything that's looking promising" in the use of space."
crazy when the rest of the world is completely willing to sign on and kick the rest of this out," he said. "
The plans price tag is astronomical most expensive defense R&D program
Associated Press 04-04-2005 Congress Mulls Funding for Missile Defense,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152339,00.html
Congress is weighing how much to invest in the fledgling ballistic missile defense system, which has
suffered setbacks and whose cost could easily top the $150 billion partial price tag the Bush
administration has estimated. The system is a political hot button because, at a time of budget deficit
pressures, it's the most expensive defense research and development program. President Bush wants lawmakers to
approve $9 billion for the system in the 2006 budget year $1 billion less than the administration previously planned The program is meant to protect the country by launching interceptors
from land or sea to shoot down missiles fired from overseas. The system is a substantially downscaled version of President Reagan's effort in the mid-1980s, which critics dubbed "Star Wars"
for its futuristic weaponry. Its first eight interceptors have been installed in underground bunkers in Alaska and California. Testing of the system and production of more missiles are
continuing. At a time of worries over the weapons programs of North Korea and Iran, many Republicans and Democrats say they think the system will eventually be an effective line of defense
and that a limited ability to shoot down missiles is better than none. These lawmakers fear Bush's latest request won't be enough to continue developing it at the current pace. "The threat
remains real. The American people want their homeland defended, and if they felt these reductions would jeopardize them, they would not be happy with us," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.,
Terry Everett, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services

subcommittee that oversees missile defense, compared the program's expense to the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks. "One strike against this country cost us about $83 billion, not counting the human
suffering," Everett said, using an estimate by the General Accountability Office, an investigative agency
of Congress. Still, he acknowledged, "This stuff costs an awful lot of money and we have to have
results."
chairman of the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. Rep.
West Coast
2011
105
Neg Handbook
Capitalism Kritik Link

Space-based missile defense is designed to protect corporate interests protecting
the haves from the have-nots
Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. 0207-2001, National Missile Defense: We Must Keep Space for Peace, News Insider,
http://www.newsinsider.org/editorials/star_wars_II_2.html
There is also a program called theatre missile defense (TMD) that would forward deploy these systems into the Middle East and Asia to
"protect" U.S. interests and outposts. TMD would place weapons on ground launchers, ships, and airborne lasers enabling the U.S. to hit
The U.S. Space Command, with its logo "Master of

Space," is also working hard to develop the space-based laser (SBL) program, the "follow-on"
technology to missile defense. Its expressed intention is to use this program to protect corporate
"interests and investments" around the globe as the gap widens between the "haves" and the "havenots." The Space Command will become the military instrument by which corporations maintain their
global control. The $30 billion SBL program will soon begin construction of a test facility at either Cape Canaveral in Florida, Redstone
Army Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, or at the Stennis Missile Testing Center in Mississippi. The SBL, the real Reagan-era Star
Wars program, would deploy a constellation of 20-30 lasers orbiting the earth with the job of
knocking out "competitors" satellites and hitting targets on earth.
"offending" ballistic missiles in their boost phase, right after launch.
Space-based missile defense is only being used to spur the military industrial complex
Joseph Gerson, Director @PAMS, July/August 2001 Z magazine,
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Militarization_Space/Dark_Times.html Since the end of the
Cold War, the words "nuclear weapons" and "nuclear war" have become disembodied from their cataclysmic meanings. Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were decimated half a century ago, and since the collapse of the Berlin Wall there has been little public debate about the dangers of
nuclear weapons and war. For many, nuclear weapons are abstract and dated. But, nuclear weapons-some 1,000 times more powerful than the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs-are not abstractions. They are built and deployed to be used, and despite arms control agreements, an
estimated 32,000 fission and fusion warheads remain deployed or in the nuclear power's stockpiles. Only
one nation-the United

States-has ever crossed the moral and legal boundary of launching a nuclear attack against human
beings. Yet, on more than 20 occasions since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and at least 5 times since the end of the Cold War, U.S.
presidents have prepared and threatened to initiate nuclear war during international crises and wars. So-called "missile defenses"
have been conceived to make it safe to threaten or initiate nuclear war. The plan is to develop and
deploy technologies and weapons that can detect and destroy enemy missiles in their boost, flight,
and re-entry phases, and to knock out the satellites that missiles rely on for in-flight guidance. In the
tradition of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, what were formerly called "National" Missile Defenses (NMD) are being developed to shield
all of the United States from missile attacks, while shorter range weapons which were formerly called "Theater" Missile Defenses (TMD) are
designed to raise a protective umbrella over smaller "theaters" of conflict, East Asia and Israel for example. Nations targeted by credible missile
defenses will, at least theoretically, be unable to rely on their retaliatory and deterrent second-strike arsenals. As a result, their range of options
during crises and confrontations with Washington will be limited and stark: accede to Washington's demands or suffer cataclysmic nuclear war.
"Missile defense" architecture includes interceptor missiles, airborne lasers, ballistic missile
earlywarning radars, and multi-purpose satellites. These are to be deployed on the ground, at sea, in
the air, and in outer space-an approach that is based on politics as well as on anticipated technological
requirements. With this strategy, the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and their political and corporate
allies, each get a share in Star Wars' spoils and power.
West Coast
2011
106
Neg Handbook
Space Race DA 1NC

Efforts to renew space-based defense sparks a US-Russian arms race
Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer, 12-01-2008 Russia to upgrade missiles to evade US
space arms, Associated Press, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d94q3bl00
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's military is planning to upgrade its missiles to allow them to evade American
weapons in space and penetrate any prospective missile shield, a Russian general said Monday. In
comments to the Interfax news agency, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces chief, Col.-Gen. Nikolai
Solovtsov, as saying that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles will be modernized to protect them from space-based components of
the U.S. missile defense system. The upgrade will make the missiles' warheads capable of flying "outside the range" of the space-based system,
Solovtsov was quoted as saying. He didn't elaborate, but Russian officials have previously boasted about prospective new warheads capable of
making sharp maneuvers to dodge missile defense systems. Solovtsov also reportedly said the military will commission new RS-24 missiles
equipped with state-of-the-art systems to help penetrate a missile shield. He did not specify that Moscow intended to penetrate a U.S. missile
shield, but the Kremlin has fiercely opposed the U.S. plan to deploy a battery of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the
has criticized U.S. plans for space-based weapons, saying they could trigger a new
arms race. Washington has resisted efforts by Russia and China to negotiate a global ban on weapons
in space. Reflecting Russia's suspicions about U.S. intentions, Solovtsov alleged Monday that the U.S. is considering the scenario of a first
Czech Republic. Russia
nuclear strike that would destroy most Russian missiles. A few surviving Russian weapons launched in retaliation could then be destroyed by
the U.S. missile defense system. Solovtsov said the concept was not feasible.
And a US-China arms race in space

Hui Zhang, research associate at Harvard, Action/Reaction, Arms control Today, 2005.
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1943
Chinese officials have expressed a growing concern that U.S. space and missile defense plans will
stimulate a costly and destabilizing arms race. In particular, the prevailing view in Beijing is that the
United States seeks to neutralize Chinas strategic nuclear deterrent, freeing itself to intervene in
Chinas affairs and undermining Beijings efforts to prod Taiwan to reunify. If U.S. plans are left
unchecked, therefore, Beijing may feel compelled to respond by introducing its own space weapons.
Beijing, however, would prefer to avoid this outcome. Chinese officials argue that weaponizing space is in no states interest, while continued peaceful exploitation redounds to the benefit of
all states. Rather than battling over space, China wants countries to craft an international ban on space weaponization. U.S. Moves Toward Space Weaponization China s concerns are
prompted by evidence that U.S. moves toward space weaponization are gaining momentum. In January 2001, a congressionally mandated space commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld, who
is now secretary of defense, recommended that the U.S. government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the president will have the
r, the U.S. withdrawal from the

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 has given the United States a free hand to move forward with
missile defenses, and space-based missile defenses are envisioned as part of the U.S. mix. In the clearest official sign yet of support for space
option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.*1+ Moreove
weaponization, last year the U.S. Air Force publicized its vision of how counterspace operations could help achieve and maintain space superiority, the freedom to attack as well as the
freedom from attack in space.*2+ Already the United States is pursuing a number of military systems*3+ that could be used to attack targets in space from Earth or targets on Earth from
space. To China, current U.S. deployment of a Ground-Based Midcourse Missile Defense system represents an intentional first step toward space weaponization.[4] China experts argue that
the interceptors of the system based in Alaska and California could be used to attack satellites.[5] After all, such systems could be easily adapted to target satellites, which are more fragile
and more predictable than ballistic missile warheads. If the United States is determined to ensure space dominance, it would first want to use such weapons to negate an adversarys
satellites.
Beijing is even more concerned about U.S. plans for a robust, layered missile defense system.
Such a system would provide the capability to engage ballistic missiles in all phases of flight: soon after they are launched, at the height of their
China is
concerned about interceptors and other defenses that the United States would like to position in
space. The Pentagon announced in December 2002 that the United States would continue the
development and testing of space-based defenses, specifically space-based kinetic energy [hit-to-kill]
interceptors and advanced target tracking satellites. The Pentagon has indicated that a Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, intended to
trajectory, and as they descend. These are known as the boost, midcourse, and terminal phases, respectively. In particular,
develop and test plans for a lightweight space-based kinetic kill interceptor, is expected to conduct its first experiment in 2012. Within the
next year, the Pentagon expects to launch into low-Earth orbit (LEO) its first Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) satellite, designed to gather
information on ballistic missiles during the first few minutes of their flight. Although the NFIRE at this point is only charged with gathering
information, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had originally planned to include a kill vehicle in the NFIREs payload and could presumably
Moreover, research on a Space-Based Laser (SBL) had been conducted for some time
for boost-phase missile defense.
change its mind again.
West Coast
2011
107
Neg Handbook
Space Race DA Link

Space-based missile defense leads to space arms race
Bruce K. Gagnon is the Coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
Space. 2001 Militarizing Space: The Dangers of Star Wars II, The News Insider,
http://www.newsinsider.org/editorials/star_wars_II_2.html
The U.S. Space Command, with its logo "Master of Space," is also working hard to develop the spacebased laser (SBL) program, the "follow-on" technology to missile defense. Its expressed intention is to use this
program to protect corporate "interests and investments" around the globe as the gap widens between the "haves" and the "have-nots." The
Space Command will become the military instrument by which corporations maintain their global control.
The $30 billion
SBL program will

soon begin construction of a test facility at either Cape Canaveral in Florida, Redstone Army Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, or at the Stennis Missile Testing Center in Mississippi. The SBL, the
real Reagan-era Star Wars program, would deploy a constellation of 20-30 lasers orbiting the earth with the job of knocking out "competitors" satellites and hitting targets on earth. These
lasers could very possibly be powered by nuclear reactors. Imagine what would happen if they tumbled back to earth! We are now standing on the edge of history, poised to move the bad
seed of war, greed, and environmental degradation into the heavens. We have sown this bad seed ever so widely on our fragile planet leaving behind such human suffering and environmental
waste that it makes me angry to think about now moving the war system into space. I am often asked if I am opposed to the space program all together. Actually I am not. But I believe we
should approach space exploration with a sense of awe and mystery. We should approach this final frontier with a reverence for what the heavens will reveal to us, rather than with the
arrogance of exploitation. I often tell a story about my son, who when he was young wanted to stay out on the street after dark playing with his friends. I told him that he was too young, too
immature, and that when he showed more maturity we would renegotiate the deal. This is the way I see the space program. NASA and the Pentagon are showing that they do not have the
good judgement or the maturity to be given the responsibility to move off this planet. I see earth's citizens as the parents. It is the parents' job to protect the children, or in this case, the planet
from those who do not demonstrate a proper respect for life on this earth and the heavens beyond. Like all good parents who would stop their children from hurting themselves, it is our job to
Space is not a
junkyard or bombing range or playground for the high-tech boys with their new expensive toys. It is a
place of wonder and life. It is the place where our spirit soars and our dreams live and grow. The United Nations recognized this
when they created the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that says no weapons of "mass destruction" can be
put into the heavens. The treaty says that the heavenly bodies are the province of all human kind. We must call for the strengthening of this treaty, not its nullification! The
stop the aerospace industry which views space as a new market for war and enormous profit. The time has come for a new consciousness about space.
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space has been working since 1992 to create a new consciousness about space. When we look up at that beautiful moon on a clear
night, we must remember that everyone on the entire planet has the same experience - it is a unifying symbol for all the people. We cannot allow the Pentagon to think that they can put
military bases on the moon or weapons into orbit around the Earth. I believe that space must be protected just like any other wilderness. We must create a global movement that says we shall
not move the bad seed of war into the heavens. We must not pollute space any longer with nuclear reactors and nuclear generators, and we must stop all planning for U.S. space weapons and
For once, we have a chance to stop something truly horrific before it actually happens.
We can prevent an arms race before it begins if we act now. If we pause long enough to give the
Pentagon and the aerospace industries the opportunity, they surely will move the arms race into the
heavens and rob our children and their children of the resources that they need to create a sustainable life on our earth. We must call out to the public to help us keep space for peace.
We must demand that the politicians rescind plans for "missile defense" and the space-based laser. We
military bases on the moon.
must say that space will be protected as a wilderness.Our relations who sat around their council fires for centuries before us marveled at the wonders of the night sky. We must honor them by
preventing the arms race from moving into the heavens. We must keep space for peace
Space weaponization uniquely triggers Chinese containment fears

Michael Krepon, Founding President of the Stimson Center, 2002, Missile Defense and the Asian
Cascade, Stimson Center, Scholar
The deployment or transfer of theater missile defenses by the United States could have positive as well
as negative repercussions. In contrast, prospective US deployments of national missile defenses
overwhelmingly point to negative repercussions and downside risks, especially in Asia. Cascade effects
in triangular interactions among China, India, and Pakistan have already begun in the form of
contingency planning. Washingtons decisions could dampen or heighten negative effects. Safety
ledges could still be found and slippery slopes avoided if US national missile defenses are designed
against maverick states rather than China, and if Washington refrains from weaponizing space. These
dampening measures could be realized by executive branch forbearance or by congressional control of
the purse.
West Coast
2011
108
Neg Handbook
Space Race DA Impact

Space arms race causes Chinese first strikes
Christopher Twomey, Assistant Professor @ Naval Postgrad, July/August 2007 Asian Survey, p.556
Early signs of strategic competition are already apparent. While thus far muted, and not yet meriting
the inflammatory phrase arms race, it appears that China is reacting to American missile defense
deployments by enhancing the ability of its strategic missiles to penetrate such defenses (i.e.,
penetration aids). In space, the various Chinese anti-satellite weapons tests are an unsur- prising
response for a country that is attempting to discourage American intervention in a Taiwan
contingency. In both these areas, it is not in the U.S. interest to engage in an arms race. While the
American technological advantages are substantial in each, both space and strategic nuclear arenas are
dangerous venues for competition. Space as a battlefield is highly offense-dominant: the incentive to
attack American satellites early in a conflict is large. Similarly, given growing Chinese offensive capabilities, the U.S. will be pressured to attack Chinese ground stations needed for targeting either
lasers or missiles. Such an exchange would be extremely costly to both commercial as well as military
interests. Nuclear competition between the Soviet Union and the United States was arguably
relatively stable for most of the Cold War because the competition never threatened the security of
the other sides second-strike forces. That is not the case in current Sino-American relations, and
intensifying strategic competition may produce unstable crisis dynamics.48
Space wars lead to global nuclear shootouts

Theresa Hitchens, Director of The World Security Institute's Center for Defense Information, 2-142005 Worst-Case Mentality Clouds USAF Space Strategy, Center for Defense Information
The case being argued by space weapon enthusiasts goes like this: U.S. space assets are vulnerable,
potential adversaries have woken up to this fact, therefore, actual threats (enemy systems to attack our
satellites based on newly available technologies) will inevitably emerge thus, U.S. space weapons are
required to counter those threats. And true to salesmen everywhere, the pitch is often served with a
generous helping of hyperbole. However, there comes a time such as when a candidate is actually
elected when it is dangerous to fail to see through ones own PR. Proponents of space weapons are
in danger of being blinded by their own hype. A recent case in point: Maj. Gen. (select) Daniel Darnell, head of the Air Force Space Commands Space
Warfare Center, was quoted in the January 2005 issue of Air Force Magazine as exhorting all satellite operators to not only beware potential attacks, but to assume as a first-case rather than
worst-case scenario that any disruption of a space system is most likely an attack. The first response when something goes wrong, said Darnell, should be "think possible attack." Even if one
gives the general the benefit of the doubt as simply playing the campaign game, such a pronouncement is not only based on false premises, but also highly dangerous. Especially if operators
really believe it. Careful probing of even the most ardent space weapon proponents reveals that no one seriously believes major threats to on-orbit systems exist today. While Air Force space
officials are inordinately (and somewhat disingenuously) fond of pointing to attempts by Iraqi forces to jam the Global Positioning System during the 2003 Gulf War as part of their spacewarfare-is-inevitable argument, it is important to recognize that those incidents involved ground-based jammers aimed at ground-based receivers, not any direct attack against on-orbit assets
themselves. Indeed, there is no country, not even the United States, that currently has a working anti-satellite system in its arsenal. Direct threats to space assets are possible in the mid- to
long term, but do not exist today (outside of the remote chance of someone launching a nuke into space, a threat that has existed since the dawn of the ballistic missile). More worrisome is
the fact, subsequently admitted in the Air Force Magazine article, that the Air Force does not have the capability at this time to ascertain on the spot whether any disruption of satellite
operations is due to a malfunction, such as faulty software or space weather, or the result of some sort of deliberate interference or attack. Some problems can be pinpointed over time, but
facts dont matter. Any problems encountered by a

satellite should be treated as a likely attack an attack that under current Air Force doctrine would be
considered an act of war subject to military response. In other words, we will shoot back. But at whom
or what? The satellite that happens to be nearest the disabled one? The "rogue state" du jour? The
wholesale adoption by the Air Force of such trigger-happy thinking would obviously be a recipe for
disaster, raising the likelihood of the United States launching an accidental war. Furthermore, one can be doubly sure
that if the United States has expensive space weapons on orbit, trigger fingers will be even itchier due to concerns about losing those assets before they can be used. The upshot
will be a "shoot first and let God sort em out" strategy that will no doubt backfire on U.S. security
sooner or later. Suffice it to say, there will be a price to pay the first time a U.S. anti-satellite weapon
shoots down an innocent Chinese communications satellite because a crucial widget on a U.S. satellite
conked out due to faulty manufacturing processes.
not always with complete certainty. Taking Darnells logic at face value, however, these
West Coast
2011
109
Neg Handbook
Space Debris DA 1NC

Space-based missiles will generate huge amounts of debris
Tim Stephens, Staff Writer, 04-15-2002, Space-based missile defense systems could jeopardize
astronomical research and space exploration, University of Santa Cruz News,
http://news.ucsc.edu/2002/04/104.html
The Bush administration's plan to develop space-based missile defense systems has generated heated
debate, but most commentators have overlooked an important and potentially destructive consequence
of placing weapons in orbit around the Earth. The militarization of space could create a permanent halo
of orbiting debris that will interfere with important scientific and communication satellites, according
to Joel Primack, professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz . "In science fiction movies like Star Wars
there are constant explosions, but a few seconds later the screen is clean. It's not going to work that way near a planet," Primack said. About 3 million kilograms of space debris (roughly 6
million pounds), from dead satellites to paint chips, already orbit the Earth. The U.S. Space Command tracks over 9,000 objects larger than four inches in diameter, and operational satellites
can take evasive action to avoid being hit by one of these larger objects. In the range from four inches down to about the size of a marble, there are relatively few objects now in orbit. The
most serious hazard currently is the non-trackable debris smaller than a marble that orbits the planet at speeds around 17,000 miles per hour, 10 times faster than a bullet from a highpowered rifle, Primack said. A BB-sized fragment traveling that speed has the destructive power of a bowling ball moving over 60 miles per hour, and a marble-sized fragment can do even
Spacebased missiles will generate huge amounts of small debris particles, said Primack. Some will arise from
weapon explosions, but even more will come from the resulting small projectiles hitting larger objects
already in orbit and fragmenting them. According to Primack, so many bits of junk could eventually be
orbiting the Earth that no satellite or space station could be operated in Low Earth Orbit, 200 to 1,250
miles above the planet. Space shuttles and other space vehicles would need heavy armor to pass
through the debris.
more damage. Satellites are armored, but they can only withstand BB-sized particles. Even the International Space Station is vulnerable to any debris much larger than a BB.
Increased space debris will destroy all satellites, making space unusable every new
satellite and launch makes the situation worse
Brian Adeba Embassy 04-04-2007, US Scientist Says Weapon Ban could Curb Space Junk,, Canadas
Foreign Policy Newsweekly Issue 148, http://www.embassymag.ca/pdf/2007/040407_em.pdf
A scientist with the U.S- based Union of Concerned Scientists has called on Canada to use its position in multilateral fora to push for a ban on
the use of weapons in space. David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists global security program, fears that if countries
start putting weapons in space, the arms could be used to destroy satellites, which are vital to humans communication needs. Though
there are currently no weapons in space, Mr. Wright believes the destruction of an aging weather satellite by the Chinese early this year
sets a dangerous precedent for other countries because the incident has the potential of sparking an arms race in space. In addition, he
fears that if nations start to destroy old
satel-lites or those belonging to enemy states, this could lead to an increase in the
amount of debris floating in space. He said spy satellites are 10-times larger than the weather satellite destroyed by the Chinese and could add more debris in
space if they are destroyed. Mr. Wright visited Ottawa last week as part of a campaign by the Rideau Institute for International Affairs and the U.S.-based Secure World Foundation to
educate the public and politicians about the dangers of space weapons. Since the first satellite was launched 50 years ago, many more have been placed in space to monitor weather
conditions, as well as for spying and for communication purposes. Now outer space is littered with broken pieces from some of these satellites that are no longer use an estimated
500,000 pieces of debris. Mr. Wright said the destruction of the Chinese satellite added 40,000 more pieces, contributing to a 20 per cent increase in space garbage created by humans.
Eventually, when that amount gets larger, you have a situation where you cant use certain areas of
space, he said in an interview with Embassy. An increase in space junk created by the military destruction of satellites could
eventu-ally lead to a situation where humans would no longer be able to launch satellites, thereby
dis-rupting vital communication links such as weather monitoring, sci-entific observation, navigation,
commercial ties and military operations. Mr. Wright said even though satellites have shields to protect them from debris,
pieces which can travel at a speed of 30,000 km per hour or 30 times faster than a jet aircraft, could endanger
satellites if there are so many of them out there. No Way To Remove Space Junk Michael Krepon, an expert on arms
control and disarmament issues at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., said the world is now increasingly dependent on space.
There is no way of
removing debris from space and Mr. Wright said the best solution is not to put them out there. Its like
global warming, once you put carbon dioxide in the air, theres no way of getting it out. For that
The more dependent people become, the more fearful they become if satellites are placed at risk, he said.
reason, banning the testing and use of destructive anti-satellite weapons should be an urgent priority for the international community, said
Mr. Wright at a media conference on Parliament Hill.
West Coast
2011
110
Neg Handbook
Space Debris DA Link

Every satellite launch makes the problem worse creating a cascade effect which
results in destruction of all space objects
Michael W Taylor, Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air
Force Space Command; B.A, Berry College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill
University, Fall 2007 , Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earths Orbital Debris Problem,
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
Estimates of the future levels of risk are even more speculative than estimates of current risk levels, but most show an
alarming trend of increasing debris. A January 2006 NASA study estimates the amount of debris ten centimeters and larger in LEO
will triple within 200 years, increasing the likelihood of debris collisions by a factor of ten. n126 The greatest concentration of orbital debris will
be located in the regions 800-900 kilometers and 1400-1500 kilometers in altitude. n127 The study acknowledges it seriously underestimates
the future risk because it assumes no further launches into space. n128 For each of the past five years, launch providers have sent an average
of sixty-one rockets into orbit each year. n129 Considering that each
of these launches produces multiple pieces of

debris in addition to one or more payloads, the future risk in the NASA study is understated. The
cascade effect is the greatest fear of those who study the problem of orbital debris. If the cascade effect
begins, orbital debris would collide with other space objects, which in turn would create new debris that
would cause even more collisions. In this way, orbital debris would become self-generating and could make certain regions of space completely
unusable, even without new satellites [*19] being placed in those areas. n130 International efforts aimed at mitigating the creation of new
debris have helped, n131 but will not alone solve the problem. That is why many authors are calling for increased research efforts into
technologies for remediation-removal of existing debris from space. n132 Unfortunately, remediation measures are currently economically or
technologically unfeasible. n133
Orbital Debris can be created by even a small number of launches.

Space Security 2003 The Space Environment,
http://www.dfait.gc.ca/arms/isrop/research/space_security/section3-en.htm
In recent years, the developed space powers have recognized the problem of space debris and taken
technical and operational measures to mitigate its creation. However, the launch and commercial
industries continue to present a challenge to reduction efforts. This despite the fact that the number
of commercial orders has gone down 20, and launch rates are at historically low levels21. At the same
time, the number of space-faring nations has increased, and many other countries now own satellites
purchased and launched from foreign providers. In 2001, COPUOS asked the IADC to develop and submit
a set of voluntary international guidelines for debris mitigation. Those guidelines, submitted in
November 2002 and expected to be endorsed by COPUOS in 2004, address debris production during
normal space operations, including minimizing the potential for orbital break-ups, post-mission disposal
and the prevention of collisions.
The risk is linear: collisions become more likely as more debris is added.
Michael W Taylor, J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill, Fall 2007 , Trashing
the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earths Orbital Debris Problem, Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review
Satellites operate within an enormous volume of space. For example, the volume of the most congested areas of LEO is more than 177 times
larger than the volume of airspace typically used by commercial airliners.69 It seems
improbable that in such an enormous

area orbital debris would be a hazard to current and future operations in space. The risk, although currently small,
will increase unless steps are taken to prevent further accumulation of debris. Even now, objects have
collided in space, and both manned and unmanned satellites have maneuvered in orbit to avoid close
encounters with known debris.70 Risk calculation involves tracking, modeling, and understanding the risk variables. This article
uses historical examples and future estimates to describe the magnitude of the risk.
West Coast
2011
111
Neg Handbook
Space Debris DA Impact

Space debris increases the risk of strikes on Russian early-warning satellites, resulting
in an accidental global nuclear war
Jeffery Lewis, postdoctoral fellow in the Advanced Metods of Cooperative Study Program; worked in the
office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, July 2004 Center for Defense Information, What if
Space were Weaponized?, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
This is the second of two scenarios that consider how U.S. space weapons might create incentives for
Americas opponents to behave in dangerous ways. The previous scenario looked at the systemic risk
of accidents that could arise from keeping nuclear weapons on high alert to guard against a space
weapons attack. This section focuses on the risk that a single accident in space, such as a piece of
space debris striking a Russian early-warning satellite, might be the catalyst for an accidental nuclear
war. As we have noted in an earlier section, the United States canceled its own ASAT program in the 1980s over concerns that the
deployment of these weapons might be deeply destabilizing. For all the talk about a new relationship between the United States and
Russia,
both sides retain thousands of nuclear forces on alert and congured to ght a nuclear war.
When briefed about the size and status of U.S. nuclear forces, President George W. Bush reportedly asked What do we need all these weapons for?43
The answer, as it was during the Cold War, is that the forces remain on alert to conduct a number of possible contingencies, including a nuclear strike against Russia. This fact, of course, is
not lost on the Rus- sian leadership, which has been increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for the countrys declining military might. In the mid-1990s, Russia dropped its
pledge to refrain from the rst use of nuclear weapons and conducted a series of exercises in which Russian nuclear forces prepared to use nuclear weapons to repel a NATO invasion. In
October 2003, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reiter-ated that Moscow might use nuclear weapons preemptively in any number of contingencies, including a NATO attack.44
So, it remains business as usual with U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. And business as usual includes
the occasional false alarm of a nuclear attack. There have been several of these incidents over the years. In September 1983, as a relatively new
Soviet early-warning satellite moved into position to monitor U.S. missile elds in North Dakota, the sun lined up in just such a way as to fool the Russian satellite into reporting that half a
dozen U.S. missiles had been launched at the Soviet Union. Perhaps mindful that a brand new satellite might malfunction, the ofcer in charge of the command center that monitored data
from the early-warning satellites refused to pass the alert to his superiors. He reportedly explained his caution by saying: When people start a war, they dont start it with only ve missiles.
Norwegian scientists launched a sounding rocket on a trajectory

similar to one that a U.S. Trident missile might take if it were launched to blind Russian radars with a
high altitude nuclear detonation. The incident was apparently serious enough that, the next day,
Russian President Boris Yeltsin stated that he had activated his nuclear football a device that allows the
You can do little damage with just ve missiles.45 In January 1995,
Russian president to communicate with his military advisors and review his options for launching his arsenal. In this case, the Russian earlywarning satellites could clearly see that no attack was under way and the crisis passed without incident.46 In both cases, Russian observers
were con-dent that what appeared to be a small attack was not a fragmentary picture of a much larger one. In the case of the Norwegian
space-based sensors played a crucial role in assuring the Russian leadership that it was
not under attack. The Russian command sys-tem, however, is no longer able to provide such reliable, early warning. The dissolution of
sounding rocket,
the Soviet Union cost Moscow several radar stations in newly independent states, creating attack cor-ridors through which Moscow could
not see an attack launched by U.S. nuclear submarines.47
The already overstretched EWS systems make this more likely

Jeffery Lewis, postdoctoral fellow in the Advanced Metods of Cooperative Study Program; worked in the
office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, July 2004 Center for Defense Information, What if
Space were Weaponized?, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
What would happen if a piece of space debris were to disable a Russian early-warning satellite under
these conditions? Could the Russian military distinguish between an accident in space and the rst phase of a U.S. attack? Most Russian
early-warning satellites are in elliptical Molniya orbits (a few are in GEO) and thus difcult to attack from the ground or air. At a minimum,
Moscow would probably have some tactical warn-ing of such a suspicious launch, but given the sorry state of Russias warning, optical imaging
and signals intelligence satellites there is reason to ask the question. Further, the advent of U.S. on-orbit ASATs, as now envisioned50 could
make both the more difcult orbital plane and any warning systems moot. The unpleasant truth is that the Russians likely
would
have to make a judgment call. No state has the ability to denitively deter-mine the cause of the satellites failure. Even the
United States does not maintain (nor is it likely to have in place by 2010) a sophisticated space surveillance
system that would allow it to distinguish between a satellite malfunction, a debris strike or a
deliberate attack and Russian space surveillance capabilities are much more limited by comparison.
Even the risk assessments for col-lision with debris are speculative, particularly for the unique orbits in which Russian early-warning satellites
operate.
West Coast
2011
112
Neg Handbook
Launches Disadvantage
West Coast
2011
113
Neg Handbook
Space Solar Power Links

Building SPS would take hundreds of thousands of space launches destroying the
environment
But a few power satellites wont solve our energy or greenhouse gas problems. Well need more. To
generate all the energy used on Earth today (about 15 terawatts) would require roughly 400 solar
power satellites 10 kilometers across. Assuming advanced, lightweight space solar power technology,
this will require at least 100,000 launches to bring all the materials up from Earth. But even 400
satellites wont be enough. Billions of people today have totally inadequate energy supplies and the
population is growing. Providing everyone with reasonable quantities of energy might take five to ten
times more than we produce today. To supply this energy from solar power satellites requires a
staggering launch rate.
Once SPS becomes cost-competitive it will require mass launches to be successful

In any case, the velocity change from the ground to LEO is 8,600 m/s, but to GEO its 12,400 m/s. Paul
Werbos (see references on page 36) estimates that launch costs must come down to somewhere in the
neighborhood of $450/kg for SSP to deliver energy near current prices (5-10 cents/kw-h). Fortunately,
a high launch rate drives prices down, just as the mass-produced Ford Model-T was far cheaper than the
previous generations of automobiles. The environmental impact of these launches is also a concern.
Today there are few launches and, therefore, they have little effect on the atmosphere. What will
happen when hundreds of thousands of rockets are dumping exhaust, even clean exhaust, into the
upper atmosphere? If the vehicles are reusable, which we expect, they will use atmospheric drag to
come down. The heat generated will create a number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere.
What will be the effect? We dont know. Theres reason to believe the problems wont be severe, but
the studies conducted so far are inadequate.
Space solar power would require 300 launches per satellite

Shoji Kitamura, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2007, Study of space transportation, Acta
Astronomica 60, p. sd
Space solar power systems (SSPSs) have the potential to provide abundant quantities of electric power
for use on the Earth. One of the hurdles to them is the transportation of SSPSs to the operational
geostationary Earth orbit (GEO). The objectives of this study are to examine the transportation of SSPSs,
and to give a reference transportation scenario. This study presumes that the SSPSs have a mass of
10,000 tons each and are constructed at a rate of one per year. Reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) are
assumed for the transportation to low Earth orbit (LEO), and reusable orbit transfer vehicles (OTVs)
propelled by a solar electric propulsion system for the transportation from LEO to GEO. The payload
element delivered to LEO by each launch is individually transferred by each OTV transportation service
to GEO, where the elements are assembled into a whole SSPS. The OTV round-trip time is assumed to be
a year. With these operations and reasonable estimations for the OTV subsystems, the OTV payload
ratio was obtained. This, with an SSPS element mass, gave the total mass that has to be launched by
RLVs. The result indicated that about 300 times of launch are required per year.
West Coast
2011
114
Neg Handbook
Space Colonization Links

Space colonization requires thousands of launches
Al Globus, chairs the space settlement committee of the National Space Society, 2004, ContestDriven Development of Orbital Tourist Vehicles, The Space Settlement,
http://www.thespacesettlement.com/tourism4.html
Aircraft developed much more rapidly in their first 50 years. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
flights occurred in that period, but we have only launched a few thousand payloads into space.
Substantial launch vehicle improvement may require tens of thousands of launches per year, not the
current 50-70.
Settling space will require millions of launches into space

Ruth Globus, PhD with NASA, 4-29-2011, Space Settlement Basics, NASA,
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html
Transportation. This is the key to any space endeavor. Present launch costs are very high, $2,000 to $
14,000 per pound from Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). To settle space we need much better launch
vehicles and must avoid serious damage to the atmosphere from the thousands, perhaps millions, of
launches required. One possibility is airbreathing hypersonic air/spacecraft under development by NASA
and others. Transportation for milllions of tons of materials from the Moon and asteroids to
settlement construction sites is also necessary. One well studied possibility is to build electronic
catapults on the Moon to launch bulk materials to waiting settlements.
Settlement will require constant supply lines from earth

Al Globus, chairs the space settlement committee of the National Space Society, 2003, Orbital Space
Colonies, Book Excerpts, http://space.mike-combs.com/excerpts.html
Fortunately, Near Earth Objects (NEOs, which include asteroids and comets with orbits near Earth's)
have water, metals, carbon, and silicon -- everything we need except possibly nitrogen. NEOs are very
accessible from Earth, some are easier to get to than our moon. NEOs can be mined and the materials
transported to early orbital colonies near Earth. The Moon can also supply metals, silicon, and oxygen in
large quantities. While developing the transportation will be a challenge, colonies on Mars and the
Moon will also face significant transportation problems. As Robert Zubrin suggests in The Case for Mars
(Zubrin and Wagner, 1996), small groups of Martian explorers can carry select supplies (hydrogen,
uranium, food, etc.) and make rocket fuel, water, oxygen, and other necessities from the Martian
atmosphere. However, to truly colonize Mars will require extensive ground transportation systems to
get the right materials to the right place at the right time. These systems will be difficult and
expensive to build, particularly considering the long resupply times from Earth.
West Coast
2011
115
Neg Handbook
Ozone Disadvantage 1NC

A. Current regulations are limiting ozone depletion from non-space industry sources
Anne Minard, National Geographic Researcher, 4-14-2009, Rocket Launches Damage Ozone Layer,
Study Says, National Geographic News, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414rockets-ozone.html
Plumes from rocket launches could be the world's next worrisome emissions, according to a new
study that says solid-fuel rockets damage the ozone layer, allowing more harmful solar rays to reach
Earth. Thanks to international laws, ozone-depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
methyl bromide have been slowly fading from the atmosphere. But when solid-fuel rockets launch,
they release chlorine gas directly into the stratosphere, where the chlorine reacts with oxygen to form
ozone-destroying chlorine oxides. Increased international space launches and the potential commercial
space travel boom could mean that rockets will soon emerge as the worst offenders in terms of ozone
depletion, according to the study, published in the March issue of the journal Astropolitics.
B. However, increased space launches devastate the ozone layer

Lewis Page, Register Space Staff, 4-1-2009, Space launches could be capped to save ozone layer, The
Register, pg. A6
Currently, global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer [approximately] 0.03%, an insignificant
fraction of the depletion caused by other ozone depletion substances (ODSs). As the space industry
grows and ODSs fade from the stratosphere, ozone depletion from rockets could become significant ...
Large uncertainties in our understanding of ozone loss caused by rocket engines leave open the
possibility that launch systems might be limited to as little as several tens of kilotons per year ...
limitations on launch systems due to idiosyncratic regulation to protect the ozone layer present a risk to
space industrial development. The risk is particularly acute with regard to the economic rationale to
develop low-cost, high flight rate launch systems.
C. This leads to human extinction

William Thomas, Investigative Journalist, 8-7-2006, Scientist Says Chemtrails, Shuttle Launches
Endangering Earth, Chem Trails, http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/Space%20Shuttle%20LaunchOzone%20Layer.htm
A Canadian atmospheric scientist warns that chemtrails, airliners and shuttle launches are weakening
the stratosphere and destroying Earths ozone layerthreatening all life on Earth. It was one of those
messages that phones are notorious for deliveringthe kind of call that cancels the sleep and makes flu
symptoms worse. But this time, the health of the entire planet was at stake. A concerned Canadian
scientist named Neil Finley was on the line to inform me that high-altitude jet traffic, space launches
and chemtrails are threatening to destroy not only Earths protective radiation shieldingbut the
stratosphere itself.
West Coast
2011
116
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness Ozone Layer is Recovering Now

The ozone hole is closing now
Columbia Engineering, 4-21-2011, Study Links Ozone Hole to Broader Climate Change, Columbia
University School of Engineering and Applied Science, http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/studylinks-ozone-hole-broader-climate-change
Located in the Earth's stratosphere, just above the troposphere (which begins on Earth's surface), the
ozone layer absorbs most of the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Over the last half-century, widespread
use of manmade compounds, especially household and commercial aerosols containing
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has significantly and rapidly broken down the ozone layer, to a point where
a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was discovered in the mid 1980s. Thanks to the 1989 Montreal
Protocol, now signed by 196 countries, global CFC production has been phased out. As a result,
scientists have observed over the past decade that ozone depletion has largely halted and they now
expect it to fully reverse, and the ozone hole to close by midcentury.
International efforts are successfully limiting ozone depletion now

Emma Woollacott, Science analyst, 9-20-2010, Ozone layer is recovering, says UN, TG Daily,
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/51619-ozone-layer-is-recovering-says-un
The ozone layer is regenerating, and could be back up to strength by the middle of the century,
according to a UN report. It concludes that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol are
successfully protecting the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from harmful levels of ultraviolet
rays. The report, titled Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010, was written and reviewed by
around 300 scientists and is the first comprehensive update in four years.
Human-induced ozone depletion is decreasing now

Emma Woollacott, Science analyst, 9-20-2010, Ozone layer is recovering, says UN, TG Daily,
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/51619-ozone-layer-is-recovering-says-un
The Montreal Protocol, it says, is working. "It has protected the stratospheric ozone layer from much
higher levels of depletion by phasing out production and consumption of ozone depleting
substances," says the report. Almost 100 substances once used in refrigerators, aerosols and other
products have been phased out.
Long-term trends point to recovery

Stephanie Nebehay, Geneva Staff, 9-16-2010, Ozone recovering but will take longer over poles:
U.N., Reuters, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/16/us-ozone-idUKTRE68F1UW20100916
The ozone layer that shields life from the sun's harmful rays is projected to recover from harmful
chemicals by mid-century, but it will take longer over the polar regions, a United Nations study said on Thursday. Ozone
depletion -- blamed for higher ultraviolet radiation that causes skin cancers and cataracts and damages agriculture -- will continue for
decades as several key damaging substances stay in the atmosphere for a long time after emissions end. While many cooling agents or other
compounds harmful to the ozone are no longer being produced or emitted, some of their industrial replacements are greenhouses gases that
contribute much more to global warming, the report said. "The
ozone has bottomed out. It is no longer really

decreasing. But there is also no real sign yet of an increase in ozone," Geir Braathen, senior scientific officer at the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), told a news briefing.
West Coast
2011
117
Neg Handbook
Space Launches Devastate the Ozone

The risk posed by space launches outweighs other causes of ozone destruction
Register, pg. A6
American researchers have warned that space rockets could do more damage to the ozone layer than
old-school spray-cans and fridges. "As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying
rocket emissions," said Professor Darin Toohey, atmosphere and ocean scientist at Colorado Uni. "If
left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was
ever realized by CFCs." Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned from use in aerosol cans, freezer
refrigerants and air conditioners by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Some scientists believe that the
upper-atmosphere ozone layer - which protects the Earth's surface from harmful solar ultraviolet - will
return to normal by 2040 as a result. But Toohey and his collaborators say the potential damage caused
by rocket exhaust has been ignored. "The Montreal Protocol has left out the space industry, which
could have been included," says the prof.
The effects are immediate and have negative long-term ramifications

Martin Ross, PhD from UCLA in Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Paul Zittel, PhD in Physical
Chemistory, 6-2000, Rockets and the Ozone Layer, AeroSpace,
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html
Rocket emissions have two distinct effects on ozone: short-term and long-term. Following launch,
rapid chemical reactions between plume gases and particles and ambient air that has been drawn into
the plume wake cause immediate changes in the composition of the local atmosphere. During this
phase, which lasts for several hours, the concentrations of radicals in the plume can be thousands of
times greater than the concentrations found in the undisturbed stratosphere, and the ozone loss is
dramatic. Long-term effects occur as gas and particulate emissions from individual launches become
dispersed throughout the global stratosphere and accumulate over time. The concentrations of
emitted compounds reach an approximate global steady state as exhaust from recent launches replaces
exhaust removed from the stratosphere by natural atmospheric circulation.
New space missions devastate the ozone

Doug Messier, Space Analyst, 4-7-2009, Space Tourism Threat: Less Carbon Emissions Than Ozone
Depletion?, Parabolic Arc, http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/04/07/space-tourism-threat-carbonemissions-ozone-depletion/
The frequent launches of space rockets are harming the protective ozone layer of Earth thats what
the US atmospheric researchers have warned in their recent study. The scientists have cautioned and
advised that the space missions should be restricted as rocket launches are damaging the
stratospheric ozone layer.
West Coast
2011
118
Neg Handbook
An Increase in Space Launches Hurt the Ozone

The link is linear each new launch risks ozone depletion
University of Iowa Space Science and Engineering, 2004, Potential Threats to the Ozone Layer,
Univ. of Iowa, http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/education/ssep/threats.html
The solid rocket strap-on motors used in the most powerful US space launch systems, the space shuttle
and the Titan IV, as well as the European Ariane V, produce copious amounts of HCl and possibly other
reactive chlorine-containing exhaust products. Since these strap-on motors burn well into the
stratosphere, a significant fraction of their exhaust gases is deposited there. The plume from each
launch causes a temporary "mini" ozone hole, although since space launch trajectories are slant paths,
the ozone depletion is not stacked up over a single surface point. Current launch levels are so low that
the stratospheric chlorine injected by space launches is only a few tenths of a percent of that due to
halocarbon decomposition. But if more frequent space launches occur in the future, care should be
taken to design more stratospherically benign rocket propulsion systems for both US and foreign
launch systems.
Space flight risks ozone depletion

Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, 6-15-2009, Space and (or versus) the
environment, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1395/1
However, another environmental concern might loom large in the years to come: the effect of
suborbital spaceflight on the ozone layer. A generation ago the depletion of the ozone layer by
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was a major concern, leading to international agreements to ban the use of
such chemicals. As a result, the ozone layer is starting to rebound, and current models project a
complete recovery by 2040. Launch vehicles dont emit CFCs, but they do release other combustion
byproducts that can affect the ozone layer. Moreover, these materials are injected directly into the
ozone layer as rockets ascend into space, a far more efficient delivery mechanism than the
atmospheric processes that slowly waft ground emissions into the stratosphere.
Current launches pose an insignificant risk. However, a drastic increase in space

launches devastates the ozone
While the current rate of ozone loss is considered insignificant, the paper examined what would
happen if there was a sharp increase in launch rates. If launch rates doubled every decade, they found,
rising emissions from rockets would offset the decline in other ozone-depleting substances by around
2035, causing ozone depletion rates to rise again. The effect would be sooner and sharper if launch
rates tripled every decade. The authors conclude that, in such a scenario, there would be a move to
regulate rocket emissions that could, in the worst case, sharply restrict launch activity.
West Coast
2011
119
Neg Handbook
Ozone Depletion Makes Space Travel Impossible

Mass ozone depletion turns the case leads to a ban on space travel
In an op-ed in last weeks issue of Space News, Ross urged the space industry to address this issue headon rather than avoid it in the hopes it might go away on its own. It is clear that the risk of regulation
that would cap or even tax space systems according to the amount of ozone depletion they cause is
small, but it is real, he wrote. He added: Historically, technical activities with high visibilitysuch as
space operationsoften excite unpredictable public and regulatory attention. Combined with a lack
of scientifically reliable environmental effects data, the risk of idiosyncratic and overly restrictive
regulation is high.
Ozone depletion leads to regulations that collapse the space industry

Register, pg. A6
Toohey's co-authors include Martin Ross of US government-funded R&D outfit The Aerospace
Corporation. He, Toohey and the rest believe that more research is needed into the amount of ozone
damage caused by different types of rockets. They argue that, should the ozone layer continue to
deplete - or even fail to regenerate as expected - tough new regulations might outlaw the space
industry. "Space system development often takes a decade or longer and involves large capital
investments," says Ross. "We want to reduce the risk that unpredictable and more strict ozone
regulations would be a hindrance to space access by measuring and modelling exactly how different
rocket types affect the ozone layer."
These new regulations devastate space industrial development

Martin Ross, et al., Professor of Planetary and Space Physics @ UCLA, 2009, Limits on the Space
Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Astropolitics, Volume 7, Issue 1, pg. 51
This raises the possibility of regulation of space launch systems in the name of ozone protection. Large
uncertainties in our understanding of ozone loss caused by rocket engines leave open the possibility
that launch systems might be limited to as little as several tens of kilotons per year, comparable to the
launch requirements of proposed space systems such as spaceplanes, space solar power, and space
reflectors to mitigate climate change. The potential for limitations on launch systems due to
idiosyncratic regulation to protect the ozone layer present a risk to space industrial development. The
risk is particularly acute with regard to the economic rationale to develop low-cost, high flight rate
launch systems.
West Coast
2011
120
Neg Handbook
Ozone Depletion Hurts Biodiversity

Ozone depletion leads to cancer and hurts biodiversity
The UN environment program estimates that for every 1% thinning of the ozone layer there is a 2% to
3% rise in skin cancer. It can also cause cataracts--even if dark glasses are worn. Since some species are
more vulnerable than others, an increase in UV exposure has the potential to cause a shift in species
composition and reduce diversity in ecosystems. Excess UV radiation cuts photosynthesis in plants,
reducing the size and yield of winter wheat and other crops. Over half of all new cancers are skin
cancers. One person dies of melanoma every hour. More than 1 million new cases of skin cancer were
diagnosed in the United States in 2004. The incidence of melanoma more than tripled among
Caucasians between 1980 and 2003. *Rachels Jan 5/87+
Ozone depletion tanks phytoplankton leads to carbon spikes

Onboard a plant that is mostly seawater, the microscopic plants that underpin all life in the oceans are
being starved as global warming halts the vital up welling of nutrients from the deep sea. Now,
increased solar radiation streaming through the holes left rocket launches and airline flights are also
frying the oceanic plankton that provide most of our spaceships oxygen, while scrubbing huge
amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. Reducing the world's populations of phytoplankton would
significantly impact the world's carbon cycle, warns the Guardian, by leaving more carbon in the air.
[Independent Jan 19/06; Guardian Apr 27/05]
Ozone depletion effects all areas of the food chain drastically changes biodiversity
Chandramita Bora, MA in Economics, 2010, Ozone Layer Depletion: Effects and Causes of Ozone
Depletion, Buzzle, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ozone-layer-depletion-effects-and-causes-of-ozonedepletion.html
The effects of ozone depletion are not limited to humans only, as it can affect animals and plants as
well. It can affect important food crops like rice by adversely affecting cyanobacteria, which helps
them absorb and utilize nitrogen properly. Phytoplankton, an important component of the marine
food chain, can also be affected by ozone depletion. Studies in this regard have shown that ultraviolet
rays can influence the survival rates of these microscopic organisms by affecting their orientation and
mobility.
West Coast
2011
121
Neg Handbook
Biodiversity Loss Leads to Catastrophe

Biodiversity loss outweighs all other impacts
Jim Chen, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, 2000, Globalization and its Losers,
Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, pg. 211
The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is literally . . . incalculable. What,
if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noahs Ark as a
moral basis for biodiversity preservation. Others regard the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the
biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the Wests deplorable environmental record. To
avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian myth and legend, we
should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural
history. The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity. If we
cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that our descendents *will+ most regret, the
loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats is worse than even
energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government.
Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth will a diversity of species approximating that of
a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million.
There is an invisible threshold to all-out human extinction

David Diner, Ph.D., Planetary Science and Geology, 1994, The Army and the Endangered Species Act:
Who's Endangering Whom?, Military Law Review, pg. 161
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and
the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly
perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each
new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an
aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
We are on the brink of the next great extinction

Roger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, 524-2000, Federal News Service, pg. 49
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed that a majority of scientific
experts believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree
that: the loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in this century; during the next 30
years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today could become extinct; this so-called "sixth
extinction" is the fastest in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, but unlike prior mass extinctions, is
primarily the result of human activity and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a greater threat than
the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination.
West Coast
2011
122
Neg Handbook
Ozone Depletion Leads to Global Warming

Ozone depletion leads to global warming
"It's really amazing that the ozone hole, located so high up in the atmosphere over Antarctica, can
have an impact all the way to the tropics and affect rainfall there it's just like a domino effect," said
Sarah Kang, Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Columbia Engineering's Department of Applied Physics
and Applied Mathematics and lead author of the paper. The ozone hole is now widely believed to have
been the dominant agent of atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere in the last
half century. This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about
mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone ozone needs to be
considered, too. "This could be a real game-changer," Polvani added.
An ozone hole drastically increases global warming

But, as Polvani has said, "While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we're now
finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that's been observed." So, even though CFCs
are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades,
the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate. This shows that through
international treaties such as the Montreal Protocol, which has been called the single most successful
international agreement to date, human beings are able to make changes to the climate system.
Independent climate models confirm the impact of the ozone on climate change
Agence France Presse, 4-21-2011, Ozone hole linked to southern rain increases, AFP,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOaD5cbu9B7kBnzdXUiXmi9I00ug?docId=CNG.
9057d69a3ac96dafe3eb30ac1711a0b9.41
"While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we're now finding it has caused a
great deal of the climate change that's been observed," said co-author Lorenzo Polvani, senior
research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The study used two independently drawn
climate models -- the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model and the United States' National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Atmosphere Model.
West Coast
2011
123
Neg Handbook
Global Warming Leads to Catastrophe

Warming is human induced
James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and professor in the Department
of Earth and Environmental Sciences @ Columbia University, 2009, Storms of my Grandchildren: The
Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity, pg. 9
What is clear is that human-made climate forcings added in just the past several decades already
dwarf the natural forcing associated with the Little ice Age. Carbon dioxide increased from 280 parts
per million (ppm; thus 0.028 percent atmospheric molecules) in 1750 to 370 ppm in 2000 (and to 287
ppm in 2009). The impact of this Co2 change on Earths radiation balance can be calculated accurately,
with an uncertainty of less than 15 percent. The climate forcing due to the 1750-2000 CO2 increase is
about 1.5 watts. Other human-caused changes, such as adding methane, nitrous oxygen,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and ozone to the atmosphere, make the total greenhouse gas forcing
about 3 watts.
Global warming leads to conflict and failed states

James Lee, PhD, runs American University's Inventory of Conflict and Environment project, 2009,
Climate Change and Armed Conflict, pg. 18
Climate change will fall heavily on sub-Saharan Africa in a one-two punch. First, the Sahara and the
Sahel will continue to creep south into the northern Sahel, and push marginal lands into desert.
Second, a new widespread area of dryness will extend across parts of Southern Africa in a belt
stretching roughly from Angola to Mozambique. The drying will descend on Africa with deadly
consequences: "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to an
increase of water stress due to climate change. If coupled with increased demand this will adversely
affect livelihoods and exacerbate water-related problems" (IPCC 2007b: 10). Africa remains a region
where livelihoods remain extremely reliant on agriculture as a source of income and of survival.
Future agricultural production will be extremely compromised (IPCC, 2007b: 10). These conditions will
breed instability, and may lead to failed states.
Warming collapses China

Gwynne Dyer, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former @ Senior Lecturer in
War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 2009, Climate Wars, pg. 34
. Moreover, the deeper we get into the food shortages attendant on global heating, the more difficult
it will be to make international deals of any kind, though only global deals can save us. Once we hit
mass famine, mass migrations, and widespread war, the game is lost, and the only rule is sauve qui
peut. Every man for himself. China is particularly worrying, as the country's insatiable need for energy
imports, together with the general unsustainability of its present pattern of headlong economic
growth (12 percent in 2007), mean that it may be heading for a crash: political and social upheavals
may threaten internal stability, and paralyze the government's ability to make deals about
greenhouse-gas reductions and carry them through. The Chinese Communist regime itself often warns
that such upheavals could break the country's unity. That would leave behind squabbling fragments,
with which it would be impossible for the rest of the world to make viable deals on curbing emissions.
West Coast
2011
124
Neg Handbook
Space Debris Disadvantage 1NC 1/2

A. Each new space launch drastically increases the risk of space debris
Australian Space Academy, 2007, Briefing on Space Law, ASA,
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelaw/spacelaw.htm
Since the start of the space age the problem of unwanted material or debris in space has been growing.
Each space launch usually leaves considerably more than the desired satellite in orbit. Expended
rocket boosters, attachment bolts, shields, solid rocket motor slag, and innumerable other items are
placed into Earth orbit. Some of these decay (lose altitude) and burn up in the atmosphere - some are
large enough to escape complete destruction by ablation and then may pose a potential hazard to life
and property on the Earth's surface. In space, materials degrade and detach from satellites; stored
energy in the form of unspent fuel and battery vapours may cause explosive rupture and fragmentation
of space objects. Collisions between space objects at hypervelocity not only causes damage, but also
creates thousands of other space objects (ie fragments of the original objects) which themselves then
pose collision hazards to active spacecraft.
B. We are at critical mass new launches create a pollution cloud that limits any
economic benefit from space
Thierry Snchal, PhD from Columbia University, 2007, Space Debris Pollution: A Convention
Proposal, Protocol for a Space Debris Risk and Liability Convention,
http://www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf
The time is right for addressing the problem posed by orbital debris and realizing that, if we fail to do
so, there will be an increasing risk to continued reliable use of space-based services and operations as
well as to the safety of persons and property in space. We have reached a critical threshold at which
the density of debris at certain altitudes is high enough to guarantee collisions, thus resulting in
increased fragments. In a scenario in which space launches are more frequent, it is likely that we will
create a self-sustaining, semi-permanent cloud of orbital pollution that threatens all future
commercial and exploration activities within certain altitude ranges. The debris and the liability it may
cause may also poison relations between major powers.
C. Increased debris effects every major economic sector

Megan Ansdell, Graduate Student @ GWU, 2010, Active Space Debris Removal, Princeton
Publications, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-Debris-Removal.pdf
Although the probability of catastrophic collisions caused by space debris has increased over the years,
it remains relatively low and there have been only four known collisions between objects larger than
ten centimeters (Wright 2009, 6). Nevertheless, the real concern is the predicted runaway growth of
space debris over the coming decades. Such uncontrolled growth would prohibit the ability of
satellites to provide their services, many of which are now widely used by the global community.
Indeed, in a testimony to Congress for a hearing on Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and
Commercial Uses, the Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Dr. Scott
Pace, stated that, space systems such as satellite communications, environmental monitoring, and
global navigation satellite systems are crucial to the productivity of many types of national and
international infrastructures such as air, sea, and highway transportation, oil and gas pipelines,
nancial networks, and global communications (Pace 2009).
West Coast
2011
125
Neg Handbook
Space Debris Disadvantage 1NC 2/2

D. Economic decline leads to fast global conflict
Earl Tilford, PhD in history from George Washington University and served for thirty-two years as a
military officer and analyst with the Air Force and Army, 2008, Critical Mass: Economic Leadership or
Dictatorship, The Cedartown Standard, pg. A6
If the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that
happens the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism
will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile
democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble. A global economic collapse will also
increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems shut down, so will the distribution systems
for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations
perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi
Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water.
Industrial nationsthe world powers of North America, Europe, and Asianeed access to energy.
When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy
collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid
rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.
E. Space debris makes affirmative solvency impossible

Steve Olson, Author of Space Junk, 1998, The Danger of Space Junk, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jul/junk.htm
Once collisional cascading begins, the number of objects in a particular orbit will gradually increase -and the risk to satellites and manned spacecraft will rise accordingly. A team of researchers in Italy,
collaborating with Alessandro Rossi, a research fellow at the National Research Council of Italy, has
calculated that enough objects are already present in two popular orbits, about 600 miles and 1,000
miles overhead, for cascading to begin. By the time the cascades have run their course, in a hundred
years or so, even small spacecraft will suffer damaging collisions after just a few years in orbit. "This is
only a projection," Rossi says, but if we keep putting objects into orbit as we have been, "operations
will not be possible anymore."
F. New launches risk making space inaccessible

Ram Jakhu, Professor and Chair, IAASS Legal and Regulatory Committee, 2-15-2011, Towards Longterm Sustainability of Space Activities, International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety,
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/pres/stsc2011/tech-35.pdf
Finally, continuous growth in the amount of space debris will likely result in more collisions. This
indicates looming danger and a sense of urgency in finding viable solution(s) to the space debris
problem. The risks posed by space debris are a global problem requiring global solutions, which could
be implemented internationally, regionally, and nationally. This can be best achieved through active
efforts by space technologists and policy and law makers, in concert with spacecraft manufacturers,
operators, and insurers, to establish regulatory solutions and assure a sustainable space environment
for present and future generations.
West Coast
2011
126
Neg Handbook
New Space Launches Risk Space Debris

Each new launch risks space debris
Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News Writer, 3-28-2010, Tiny Solar Sail Pitched to Clean Up
Space Junk, National Geographic,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/28/tiny_solar_sail_pitched_to_cle/
Collisions with even a small speck can damage working satellites or harm spacewalkers. And larger
pieces left up there will eventually come down, creating potential hazards if they do not completely
disintegrate during reentry. Not to mention that space junk is only increasing with each new launch
some experts say at a rate of 5 percent a year. That much clutter invariably blocks communications
signals, making it harder to get reliable data streams from satellites surrounded by junk.
Every launch risks new space junk

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2-27-2006, Final frontier littered with junk, Atlanta-Journal
Constitution, pg. A6
In 2002, when U.S. shuttle astronauts changed out the solar panels on the Hubble Space Telescope
and returned them to Earth for examination, engineers found them riddled with thousands of impact
craters including 174 punctures none of them bigger than a BB. A speeding paint chip gouged a pit in
one of the space shuttle's windows in 1983. Gravity, of course, eventually brings most of the junk back
to terra firma. But each new launch adds to the problem. And as things collide and proliferate, space
junk is becoming a self-renewing nuisance.
We are at critical mass new launches risk collisional cascading

Eventually the number of explosions will diminish, but by then spacecraft will be breaking up for
another reason. As more objects go into orbit, spacecraft will begin colliding with -- and being
shattered by -- debris. Furthermore, collisions beget more collisions. This process is known as
collisional cascading, or the Kessler effect, after Donald Kessler, recently retired from his post as the
head of the debris program at NASA. In the 1970s Kessler showed mathematically that once a certain
amount of mass, known as the critical mass, is put into a particular orbit, collisional cascading begins
even if no more objects are launched into that orbit. Originally dismissed as a mathematical fantasy,
Kessler's prediction is on the verge of coming true. In the most popular orbits, Kessler says, "if we're
not at the critical mass, we're pretty close to it."
West Coast
2011
127
Neg Handbook
Only Limiting Space Exploration and Development Solves

The private sector wont solve space debris
None of these companies is under any obligation to limit orbital debris. Companies that are launching
large constellations of satellites are worried about collisions between the satellites, and they are well
aware that a public-relations disaster would ensue if a piece of a shattered satellite smacked the
station. As a result, some plan to deorbit satellites at the end of their useful lives. But other companies
are leaving their satellites up or are counting on atmospheric drag to bring them down.
Governmental attempts to contain space debris will fail

Government regulations covering orbital debris are still rudimentary. For now, the federal agencies
that have authority over commercial launches are waiting to see if the private sector can deal with the
problem on its own. But deorbiting rockets and satellites is expensive. A satellite could keep operating
for several additional months if it didn't need to reserve fuel for deorbiting. Some industry
representatives say they want regulations, but only if the regulations apply to everyone and cannot be
evaded. "Industry has a vested interest in keeping near-Earth orbit amenable to their continued
operations," Nicholas Johnson, of NASA, says. "But companies want to make sure that everyone plays by
the same rules."
International attempts to contain space debris will fail

International regulation will be even more difficult. Already the Russians and the Europeans launch a
significant number of U.S. commercial satellites. U.S. launch companies would howl if the government
imposed unilateral restrictions on spacecraft launched from U.S. territory. Extending restrictions
internationally would probably require the involvement of the United Nations, which would raise a
host of additional issues about the equitable use of orbits. Though discussions are taking place at a
technical level, no one expects international agreements on deorbiting to be achieved anytime soon.
No technological fix will be cost-effective

One reason for our nonchalance is that new technologies have gotten us out of many past scrapes -and maybe they will with orbital debris, too. Perhaps a future spaceship will race around Earth
grabbing old spacecraft and flinging them back into the atmosphere, though it is hard to imagine a
similar clean-up method for the small pieces of debris generated by collisional cascading. Maybe Star
Wars technologies will produce a laser that can shoot orbital junk from the sky. But no such
technologies are available today. Two years ago a distinguished National Research Council committee
concluded that "active removal of debris will not be an economical means of reducing the debris
hazard in the foreseeable future." Even if some such technology were developed, it would probably
be much more expensive than reserving a bit of fuel to bring a spacecraft down at the end of its
functional life.
West Coast
2011
128
Neg Handbook
Space Debris Collapses The Global Economy

Space disruption collapses the global economy
Thierry Snchal, PhD from Columbia University, 2007, Space Debris Pollution: A Convention
Proposal, Protocol for a Space Debris Risk and Liability Convention,
http://www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf
An Increasing Space Market with Higher Risks of Economic Disruptions The market for commercial
space launchers has witnessed rapid growth over the past several years. If more space debris
accumulates, the business is at risk. Today, more and more activities rely on well functioning
communication equipment in space. Any disruption can have major consequential losses. World
geopolitics has dramatically changed since the 1960s race to the moon. At the time, the U.S. and the
Soviet Union competed with one another, both on Earth and in space.
Space junk effects all key space assets

The Telegraph, 2-1-2011, What is space junk and why should we be worried?, The Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8295958/What-is-space-junk-and-why-should-we-beworried.html
Space junk is the term used to describe man-made rubbish floating in space often litter from space
exploration, including spanners, nuts, bolts, gloves and shards of space craft. - The majority of the debris
in space is believed to consist of small particles but some objects are larger, including spent rocket
stages, defunct satellites and collision fragments. - As many as ten million pieces of human-made
debris are estimated to be circulating in space at any one time. - Experts believe that global
positioning systems, international phone connections, television signals and weather forecasts could
be affected by increasing levels of space junk.
Increasing space debris collapses the global economy

It is likely that space debris will become a signicant problem within the next several decades.
Predictive studies show that if humans do not take action to control the space debris population, an
increasing number of unintentional collisions between orbiting objects will lead to the runaway
growth of space debris in Earths orbit (Liou and Johnson 2006). This uncontrolled growth of space
debris threatens the ability of satellites to deliver the services humanity has come to rely on in its dayto-day activities. For example, Global Positioning System (GPS) precision timing and navigation signals
are a signicant component of the modern global economy; a GPS failure could disrupt emergency
response services, cripple global banking systems, and interrupt electric power grids (Logsdon 2001).
West Coast
2011
129
Neg Handbook
Collapsing the Global Economy Leads to Conflict

Economic decline leads to nationalism and conflict
Michael Lind, policy director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, MA in
International Relations from Yale University and a JD from the University of Texas Law School, 2010,
Michael Lind: Will the Great Recession Lead to World War IV?, History News Network,
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126611.html
If history is any guide, an era of global economic stagnation will help the nationalist and populist right,
at the expense of the neoliberal and cosmopolitan/multicultural left. During the Long Depression of the
late 19th century, which some historians claim lasted from 1873 to 1896, the nations of the West
adopted protectionist measures to promote their industries. Beginning with Bismarcks Germany,
many countries also adopted social reforms like government pensions and health insurance. These
reforms were often favored by the nationalist right, as a way of luring the working class away from the
temptations of Marxism and left-liberalism. By and large the strategy worked. When World War I broke
out, the working classes and farmers in most countries rallied enthusiastically around their respective
flags. The Great Depression of the 1930s similarly led to the rise of one or another version of the
authoritarian, nationalist right in Europe.
Economic decline undercuts global cooperation makes war more likely

In both eras of depression, great-power rivalry for resources and markets intensified and ultimately
led to a world war. Following World War II, the U.S. sought to avert a repetition of that pattern, by
creating a global market secured by a global great-power concert in the form of the Security Council.
But the project of economic disarmament and security cooperation broke down almost immediately
after 1945 and the split between the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans produced the Cold War. The
second attempt at a global market that began after the Cold War may be breaking down now, as the
most important economic powers pursue their conflicting national interests.
Economic decline leads to fast global conflict

Dictatorship, The Cedartown Standard, pg. 4
If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is
well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could
crumble. A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic
systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is
certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the
military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation
in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nationsthe world powers of North America,
Europe, and Asianeed access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade
meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely
alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve
to that point very quickly.
West Coast
2011
130
Neg Handbook
Space Debris Collapses U.S. Hegemony

Space debris collapses US hegemony
Furthermore, satellite-enabled military capabilities such as GPS precision-guided munitions are critical
enablers of current U.S. military strategies and tactics. They allow the United States to not only
remain a globally dominant military power, but also wage war in accordance with its political and
ethical values by enabling faster, less costly warghting with minimal collateral damage (Sheldon
2005; Dolman 2006, 163-165). Given the U.S. militarys increasing reliance on satellite-enabled
capabilities in recent conicts, in particular Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, some
have argued that losing access to space would seriously impede the ability of the United States to be
successful in future conicts (Dolman 2006, 165). In light of these threats, certain measures have been
taken to address the issue of space debris.
Loss of access to space assets collapses hegemony

Ben Lambeth, Military analyst @ RAND, 2003, War Games have Established U.S. Military's
Dependence on Space Assets, RAND, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1649.html
Prompted by this concern, the U.S. Army, U.S. Strategic Command, and other joint agencies conducted
a succession of high-level war games in recent years that focused expressly on the susceptibility of
various U.S. space systems to disruption, denial, degradation, deception, and destruction. By one
account, those experiences gave land, sea, and air commanders "a new appreciation for how dependent
on space resources their operations have become." In one Army-sponsored game, a scenario set in the
year 2020 involving an invasion of Ukraine by 'a neighboring state' featured the early neutralization of
many U.S. satellites by detonations of nuclear weapons on orbit aimed at disrupting intelligence and
communications channels and at inhibiting any Western intervention. As one game participant later
said of this gambit, "they took out most of our spacebased capabilities. Our military forces just ground
to a halt."
The US increasingly relies on space for military supremacy

Space Wars, 4-24-2009, Space Deterrence Concept Critical To US Space Asset Security, Space Wars,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Space_Deterrence_Concept_Critical_To_US_Space_Asset_Security_
999.html
Space is becoming ever more important to U.S. military and commercial activities. The increasing
reliance of the United States on space for economic and military power has amplified the incentive for
potential adversaries to exploit the inherent vulnerabilities of space assets. As a result, analysts are
revisiting deterrence concepts in a space context as one possible strategy to enhance U.S. security in
this regard.
West Coast
2011
131
Neg Handbook
United States Hegemony Solves Nuclear War

US hegemony solves great power conflict
Security , National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-nationalsecurity-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2
These wars go nuclear

Grant Mainland, Research Specialist at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 3-262003, American Primacy is a Lesser Evil, San Diego Union-Tribune
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=605.
Still, if unipolarity is an evil, it is a lesser evil. Lesser than the world wars of the 20th century, and
lesser than the numerous regional conflicts - potentially nuclear - that would likely erupt absent the
influence of American military force. American predominance will not last forever, but there is little
reason to welcome its decline.
US hegemony keeps great power peace

Robert Kagan, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, 1-24-2011, The Price of Power, The Weekly
Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html?nopager=1
We might begin by asking about the global security order that the United States has sustained since
Word War IIthe prevention of major war, the support of an open trading system, and promotion of
the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How much is that order worth? What would
be the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of order? Whatever the nature of the
current economic difficulties, the past six decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity
than any time in human history. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward
nations have become economic dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups and downs
throughout this period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this international order. One price
of this success has been maintaining a sufficient military capacity to provide the essential security
underpinnings of this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th century, the
United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the second half, this global American strategy
helped produce a peaceful end to the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20 more years of
great-power peace.
West Coast
2011
132
Neg Handbook
Space Debris Leads to Nuclear War

Space debris leads to accidental nuclear conflict
Jeffrey Lewis, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Study Program, Worked In
the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Center for Defense Information, 6-2004, What
if Space Were Weaponized?, Center for Defense Information, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
This is the second of two scenarios that consider how U.S. space weapons might create incentives for
Americas opponents to behave in dangerous ways. The previous scenario looked at the systemic risk of
accidents that could arise from keeping nuclear weapons on high alert to guard against a space weapons
attack. This section focuses on the risk that a single accident in space, such as a piece of space debris
striking a Russian early-warning satellite, might be the catalyst for an accidental nuclear war.
Space debris will coincide with a false alarm which triggers nuclear war
Jeffrey Lewis, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Study Program, Worked In
the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Center for Defense Information, 6-2004, What
if Space Were Weaponized?, Center for Defense Information, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
Even the United States does not maintain (nor is it likely to have in place by 2010) a sophisticated space
surveillance system that would allow it to distinguish between a satellite malfunction, a debris strike or
a deliberate attack and Russian space surveillance capabilities are much more limited by comparison.
Even the risk assessments for collision with debris are speculative, particularly for the unique orbits in
which Russian early-warning satellites operate. During peacetime, it is easy to imagine that the Russians
would conclude that the loss of a satellite was either a malfunction or a debris strike. But how confident
could U.S. planners be that the Russians would be so calm if the accident in space occurred in tandem
with a second false alarm, or occurred during the middle of a crisis? What might happen if the debris
strike occurred shortly after a false alarm showing a missile launch? False alarms are appallingly
common according to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S.-Canadian
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) experienced 1,172 moderately serious false
alarms between 1977 and 1983 an average of almost three false alarms per week. Comparable
information is not available about the Russian system, but there is no reason to believe that it is any
more reliable.
This nuclear war is an existential risk

Nick Bostrom, PhD and Professor at Yale University, 3-2002, Existential Risks, Journal of Evolution
and Technology, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR.
An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences
that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry
among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon
would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.
Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either
accidentally or deliberately.
West Coast
2011
133
Neg Handbook
Politics Disadvantage
West Coast
2011
134
Neg Handbook
Immigration Reform DA 1NC 1/2

Obama will push immigration reform will pass now.
Frank Sharry, Founder and Executive Director, America's Voice, 4/29/2011, The President's Actions
on Immigration Will Speak Louder Than Words, The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry/obama-immigration-policy-dream-act_b_855565.html
At our meeting, the president made it clear he is willing to use the political capital he has to make the case
for immigration reform that can fix our nation's dysfunctional immigration system in a way that ends
illegal immigration. He brought together a number of unusual allies -- including former Republican
officials and elected leaders, business representatives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, labor leaders, faith
leaders from across the political spectrum and civil rights leaders -- and asked for their assistance. Their
engagement will be critical to creating more political space for a policy breakthrough. In particular, proreform Republicans must challenge their allies in Congress to work on this issue on a bipartisan basis or
the immigration system will remain broken forever.
Space exploration drains political capital.

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist, 8/17/2009, Remembering the lessons of SEI, Space Review,
From 1989 until they left office in 1993 Bush and Quayle fought hard to keep the SEI alive. Repeatedly they saw
every penny of money for their program stripped from the budget. It was a hard lesson seared into a
generation of space advocates and NASA employees. Today, when the Constellation plan faces tough times the
White House shows little sign, at least so far, of being willing to expend political capital to support the
project. If the US government is going to continue to lead the worlds space exploration efforts then it
will have to spend the money needed to accomplish the goal in a reasonable time frame. Hogans book is a reminder of what happens
when that political capital, and thus that funding, isnt forthcoming.
Political capital key to immigration reform.

David Jackson, Staff Writer, 5/6/2011, Obama: We need to fix 'broken' immigration system, USA
Today, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-we-need-to-fixbroken-immigration-system/1
President Obama is making it clear he will used his newly earned political capital to push his version of
immigration reform, including potential citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. "I
strongly believe that we've got to fix this broken system so that it meets the needs of our 21st Century economy and our security needs,"
Obama told Hispanic supporters last night during a Cinco de Mayo event at the White House.
Obama, whose approval rating is

up after the death of Osama bin Laden, says he wants to both toughen the border and provide a path
to citizenship for those who have already made it across. That last item has drawn fierce objections
from congressional Republicans -- including those who run the U.S. House. They say it amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers. In his
Cinco de Mayo remarks, Obama said "his is not going to be easy" and "it's going to require bipartisan
support."
West Coast
2011
135
Neg Handbook
Immigration Reform DA 1NC 2/2

Immigration reform key to economic growth and US leadership.
Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, 5/2/2011, A New Immigration Consensus,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj
In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will
grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We
would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrantsand we
cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the
innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech
startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobswith the vast majority of
them going to Americans.
US leadership is key to prevent global nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Program director for strategy, doctrine, and force structure of RAND's Project AIR
FORCE, Spring 1995, Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly, p.84
Under the third option, the
United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States
exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more
open and more receptive to American values - democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a
world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
Lack of economic growth causes global war.

Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2/4/2009, Only Makes You Stronger, The New Republic,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169866/posts
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time
the crisis has

weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to
develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of
religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a
goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently,
variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established
firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when
crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the
so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the
two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German
public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression,
what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born?
The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
reassuring messages as well
Anglophone powers,
West Coast
2011
136
Neg Handbook
2NC Impact Terrorism

Political capital key to comprehensive immigration reform key to Muslim
cooperation on terrorism.
Rinku Sen, President and Executive Director of the Applied Research Center, 5/5/2011, The Purpose of
Political Capital: Three Agenda Items for Obama, Color Lines,
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/the_purpose_of_political_capital_three_agenda_items_for_a_r
esurgent_obama.html
Immigration policy has been held hostage to September 11 for a decade. Before 9/11, Bush instructed the White
House domestic policy staff to work out a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented people living with the results of an outdated and
broken immigration system. After
9/11, Republican communications strategist Frank Luntz wrote a memo saying that the
words illegal immigrant would conjure up a link to terrorism and negate support for legalization,
and he turned out to be correct. Before 9/11 we had the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and now we have Immigration
and Customs Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security. In these ten years, conservatives and liberals alike have
alienated and squandered one of the countrys greatest assets because they cant figure out how to
keep terrorists out of the country without ending the great tradition of immigration. Last week, DHS
ended, finally, the ineffective and highly charged special registration program for Muslim immigrants.
It had been just one example of the official policy of racial profiling that fuels Islamaphobia in our country.
Since he took office, Obama has stalled on immigration, insisting that reform cannot move without Republican support.
Now he needs to acknowledge out loud that immigration and terrorism are not the same thing, and
use his capital to lean on Republicans and Democrats alike to finally bring our immigration policy into
the 21st century.
Thats key to effective War on Terrorism.

Laurie Goodstein, staff writer, 3/9/2011, Police in Los Angeles Step Up Efforts to Gain Muslims
Trust, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10muslims.html
But in Los Angeles, home to one of the largest and most diverse Muslim populations in the country, the
picture is far more encouraging, though there are still challenges. And it has one of the most assertive
multidepartmental efforts in the country, along with New York, to overcome mistrust and engage Muslims as allies
in preventing terrorism, according to law enforcement experts. Were not going to win the war against terrorism
without Muslims, said Leroy D. Baca, the Los Angeles County sheriff, in an interview in his office. Mr. Baca will be called as a
witness at the hearings on Thursday.
Terrorism causes nuclear war.

Patrick F. Speice, Jr., JD Candidate at Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary,
February 2006, Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to
Bilateral US-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs, William & Mary Law Review, pp.1439-1440
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist
groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack
with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses.
Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators
and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a fullscale nuclear conflict. In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce
the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. This proliferation will
increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, as well as increase the likelihood that regional
conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
West Coast
2011
137
Neg Handbook
2NC Impact Latin America Relations

Immigration reform key to Latin American relations.
Miguel Diaz, former professional staff member with the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, 5/4/2011,
Obamas Trip to Latin America: Accomplishments, Shortcomings, and What It Presages for U.S.Hemispheric Relations, Americas Quarterly, http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/2496
The more daunting challenge will be meeting Obamas pledge to El Salvadors President Funes to get
comprehensive immigration reform approved by Congress. Certainly the Administrations failure to make much of a dent on the high rate of
unemployment and get through Congress in 2010 the limited, less controversial DREAM act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought
to the U.S. as children, does not bode well for the passage of comprehensive reform in the foreseeable future. That the presidential entourage did not include a single member of Congress
should also give President Funes pause as to whether Obama will be able to fulfill this pledge. Another lingering concern is whether Obamas Latin American team has the imagination and
creativity to come up with grander goals for the region and the strategies to attain them. The reluctance of the Presidents Latin American team to welcome outside counsel has also hampered
its ability to build broad-based support and foster new ideas. Surely, the relatively mundane MOUs with Brasilia leave doubt whether the agenda that the Administration is promoting befits
Brazils new, more prominent role on the world stage. Although many of the concrete results of the trip will take a while to determine, the trip has served as a point of reference for those who
follow the relationship, and it has helped to better define the metrics to judge the Administrations Latin American policy. Specific promises were made and the stated goal of opening a new
The optimists,
including the Presidents Latin American team, believe the trip will serve as a preamble of greater
substantive accomplishments to come in Washingtons relations with the region, and not mark a high point
based merely on public relations successes. If true, they have their work cut out for them, and only 18 months to get it done.
On the other hand, if they dont rise to the challenge and invest the necessary political capital, Obamas will
go down in the history books as just the latest in a long string of administrations that peddled hope
and new beginnings with our Latin neighbors in the course of a visit or two only to disappoint in the
end.
chapter in Washingtons engagement with the region based on mutual respect, common interests, and shared values will keep expectations high.
Strong relations key to renewable energy development and energy security.

Dr. Nancy E. Brune, Sandia National Laboratories, 7/26/2010, Latin America, Journal of Energy
Security, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250:south-of-theborder-americas-key-to-energy-security&catid=108:energysecuritycontent&Itemid=365
The current landscape is ripe for technological partnerships which should provide the cornerstone of strategic, bilateral
energy partnerships. According to EIAs World Energy Outlook of 2007, Latin America needs to invest approximately $1.3 trillion in overall investment in its energy sector
by 2030. Moreover, the potential for renewable energy production has remained unexplored due to engineering difficulties, environmental concerns and lack of investment. Americas
strategic
partnerships between the US and our Latin American neighbors. These sorts of strategic
collaborations could enable the Western Hemisphere to become the global behemoth in renewable
energy and biofuels, an area in which we are quickly losing ground to China. America stands at a crossroads. On the one hand, we can
technological expertisewielded by our private sector companies, research institutions and unique configuration of national laboratoriescould assist and support
continue our muddled, reactive engagement with Latin America. Or, we can forge a bold new vision of collaborative engagement to strengthen our energy security and manage the regions
Our global counterparts recognize that the countries south of the border are critical to their
energy security interests. Will America?
energy problems.
Lack of energy transition causes economic collapse and global conflict.

Erica Etelson, former environmental attorney, 8/29/2007, After Oil Supplies Dry Up, What's Plan B?
San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/29/3472
The report followed on the heels of a 2005 peak oil risk management report commissioned by the Department of Energy, which
warned of the "extremely damaging" and "chaotic" impacts that will ensue if "intensive," "aggressive" and
"expensive" mitigation measures are not put in place at least 10 years ahead of time. Both reports landed with a dull thud and
have been dutifully ignored. In other words, there is no Plan B. Depending on whom you ask, the impacts of peak oil range from
dire to catastrophic: At best, get ready for a crippling recession and widespread inflation. At worst, we
face severe global food shortages that threaten wide-scale starvation and an overall breakdown of
social and economic institutions. And if history is any guide, we can expect a series of military
invasions into every remaining oil hot spot in the world - invasions that may, by the way, require even more fossil fuels
than we could possibly expropriate by force.
West Coast
2011
138
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness Immigration Reform Will Pass

New consensus for immigration reform Obama push will get it done.
William Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 5/6/2011, Survey Says, The New
Republic, http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/87976/obama-democrats-republicans-pewpolitical-typology
The opportunity for compromise is greater than you think. One issue that enjoys a surprising degree
of bipartisan support for reform is immigration. 72 percent of respondents favor a path to citizenship
for illegal immigrants, with only 24 percent opposed. Conversely, respondents favor tougher enforcement of immigration laws and our
border by a margin of 78 to 19. In other words, theres a super-majority for comprehensive immigration reform
waiting to be mobilized. Now look at the breakdown by group. Majorities in seven of the eight
including one of the core Republican groupsfavor a path to citizenship. Even the Staunch
Conservatives are split down the middle, 49/49. And every groupeven the Solid Liberalsfavors stronger enforcement.
President Obama and his team will be guilty of political malpractice if they dont push hard for action,
and Republicans will pay a price if they go all-out to block it.
Immigration reform will pass new coalition.

Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, 5/2/2011, A New Immigration Consensus, Wall
Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj
Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement
leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future
our broken immigration system. We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive
immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy
and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the
Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military. These
defeats
have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible.
But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break
the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep
talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.
It will pass new Congressional caucus.

Luis F. Perez, staff writer, 5/5/2011, Pa. Rep. Barletta Forms House Immigration Caucus, NewsMax,
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Barletta-immigration-House-caucus/2011/05/05/id/395323
As President Barack Obama has stumbled on tightening the countrys immigration laws, freshman U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa.,
announced the creation of a new congressional caucus that will focus on stopping illegal immigration.
Barletta first made national news as mayor of Hazelton, when he signed a local law to fight illegal immigration, Fox News Latino reported
Thursday. "Im
putting together a group of freshman members to address the problem of illegal

immigration in this country, Barletta said. Im optimistic that other new members of Congress who
are concerned about our flawed immigration system will join this caucus so we can devise some real
solutions.
West Coast
2011
139
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness Political Capital High

Obama has enough political capital to push new domestic legislation.
esurgent_obama.html
That action, in addition to providing whatever comfort it might to those who lost family and friends on September 11, has entirely
reset the political board. Both substantively and politically, killing Bin Laden releases Obama from Bushs
violence-driven approach to security. Republicans and their surrogates can no longer claim with any
real credibility that Obama pals around with terrorists. And in any case, the past weeks eventsObamas
release of his long-form birth certificate and his thrashing of Donald Trump, at a point when he clearly knew the Bin Laden operation was in
processshows
that our president is fully capable of masterful political strategy. The president now has
the opportunity to redirect the last decades trajectory by resetting national priorities. This moment will not come again, and
struggling Americans are still waiting for Obama to make good on his promise of change. One enormous obstacle that stood in his way no
longer does: an unwinnable war on terror that created a budget sinkhole with more than $1 trillion spent in 10 years. Now
is the time
to end these wars and refocus our energy and resources on the domestic issues that are causing so much misery in the
lives of U.S. residents. With his detractors grasping at chewed up straws, here are the three things that Obama
should ram through Congress over the coming year.
Their ev is wrong Obama capital high enough to get legislation through.

esurgent_obama.html
Some people will deny that killing Bin Laden gives Obama renewed credibility and popularity,
asserting that the birther madness will continue even after the certificate release and bad-guy obliteration. Theres no
question that Obama continues to face challenges that no white president ever has or ever will. But he has as much
credibility now as he is ever going to have among sane people, and he can gain more by simply claiming the results he has
generated. Its time for those of us who have been waiting for fulfillment of campaign promises to push
hard for their completion, while the feeling of unity is relatively fresh and the danger of losing low .
Bin Laden victory will translate into legislative political capital.

Jake Sherman and Manu Raju, staff writers, 5/2/2011, Back to politics on domestic front, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54152.html
Democrats are also hoping that President Barack Obamas newfound political capital will give him leverage
on other fronts. Democrats believe Obamas poll numbers will improve and he will be viewed by
voters as a stronger leader, allowing him to wield a bigger stick to prod Congress to reach deals on a
range of issues. For months, Democratic senators have been growing weary of his hesitance to engage in budget battles but some
think there may be more faith in his leadership style in the aftermath of the bin Laden episode.
West Coast
2011
140
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness Obama Pushing Immigration Reform

Obama devoting political capital to immigration reform.
Carrie Budoff Brown, staff writer, 5/3/2011, President Obama to ramp up immigration fight,
Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54196.html
President Barack Obama is ramping up his push to overhaul the immigration system, launching a sustained
personal campaign that will rely in part on recruiting outsiders to pressure Congress to take up the
controversial issue. He is committed and will be leaning into this issue in a very serious and very
vigorous way, Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council, said Tuesday. We are upping the intensity on
this issue, and hopefully the information and facts about this issue will compel people to act.
Obama pushing immigration reform will use new political momentum.

David Jackson, staff writer, 5/4/2011, Obama (again) touts his version of immigration reform, USA
Today, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-again-touts-hisversion-of-immigration-reform/1
Osama bin Laden's death is not the only item on the presidential plate these days -- President Obama is also
touting his immigration bill. "The president reaffirmed that he will continue to work to forge
bipartisan consensus and will intensify efforts to lead a civil debate on this issue in the coming weeks and months," said the
White House readout of yesterday's meeting between Obama and members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus. Obama's version of immigration changes include not only tighter security at the
nation's borders, but a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here.
Obama pushing immigration reform now.

Perry Bacon Jr., Staff Writer, 4/29/2011, Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech,
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-actionin-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html
MIAMI President Obama urged the passage of the Dream Act and broader immigration reform in a speech
Friday at a community college, pressing a legislative goal that he has found little success in pushing through Congress. At the
commencement of Miami Dade College, a majority-Hispanic school where most students get two-year degrees, Obama repeatedly
voiced his support for both immigration legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for
people in the United States illegally and the Dream Act, which would make it easier for the children of illegal immigrants
to gain legal status by serving in the U.S. military or graduating from college.
West Coast
2011
141
Neg Handbook
Link Space Exploration Drains Political Capital

No strong constituency for exploration plan drains political capital.
Craig Nelson, author and former editor at Harper Collins, 2/11/2010, Americas Long Journey Away
From the Moon and Mars, Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/11/americaslong-journey-away-from-the-moon-and-mars/
Though congressmen from Texas, Florida, Alabama and California would like to believe otherwise,
space travel today lacks political capital. Lyndon Johnson said that he refused to cut NASAs
budget in order to reach John Kennedys within this decade target as part of tending to the slain presidents legacy. But Congress and
most of the American public in the 1960s fundamentally supported going to the Moon as a crucial element
of national defense. Just as Obamas announced budget freeze omits the Pentagon, so did NASA stay fully
supported forty years ago, even with federal deficits rising in the wake of Vietnam and the Great Society. At its Apollo peak
of funding in 1966, the agency held 5.5% of the federal budget. In 2009, it corralled .55%. In 2008 and
2009, meanwhile, the $200 billion cost of going to the Moon, adjusted for inflation, was spent in 540 days
on the Iraq War.
Space drains political capital and presidential focus.

Dwayne A. Day, historian, 6/28/2004, Lost in space: Bill Clintons memoirs and the non-importance of
space, Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/171/1
Clintons lack of attention to space in his memoir is not surprising or unusual. Presidents, by the nature of their job, cannot
spend much time, energy, or political capital on space issues. Even if they were inclined to do so and
they are notthey have too many other demands on their time. NASAs budget is less than one percent of
the federal budget and gets about the same amount of presidential attention. Dwight Eisenhower devoted
about a dozen pages of his memoir, Waging Peace, to discussing Sputnik and NASA. Lyndon Johnson spent ten pages of his memoir, The
Vantage Point, discussing space during his senatorial, vice presidential and presidential terms. Richard Nixon devoted only two pages of his
memoirs to discussing Apollo 11 and NASA. The downward trend continued for other presidential memoirs. Space is nowhere near as
important today as it was during the Cold War.
New space priorities cause Congressional battle.

Rikki Klaus, Reporter, 2/16/2011, Former NASA Advisor Says Fight Is Brewing Over 2012 Budget,
WHNT News, http://www.whnt.com/news/huntsvilleandmadisoncounty/whnt-former-nasa-advisorsays-fight-is-brewing-over-2012-budget-20110216,0,69849.story
Huntsville attorney Mark McDaniel, who has advised presidents, NASA administrators and Congress on space policy,
says a fight for NASA's future is about to lift off. "What's gearing up right now is a space policy fight
again, just like we had last year," he predicted. McDaniel says President Obama's nearly 19 billion dollar budget may not
be NASA's roadmap to the future. "The president can propose a budget all day long, but the Congress
has to dispose. Congress has to fund it," pointed out McDaniel. Generally speaking, McDaniel said the president sets space
policy. But last year, it was members of Congress who did it, an unprecedented move on their part .
West Coast
2011
142
Neg Handbook
Link No Congressional Support for Exploration

Bipartisan opposition to NASA exploration your evidence is out-dated.
Frank Morring Jr., Senior Editor, Space at Aviation Week, 2/26/2010, NASA Plan Falls Flat In
Congress, Aviation Week and Space Technology,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/02/2
6/01.xml&headline=NASA%20Plan%20Falls%20Flat%20In%20Congress
NASAs proposed policy turnaround faces stiff bipartisan opposition in Congress, which twice
authorized the George W. Bush administrations Constellation program with bipartisan support. In back-to-back
Senate and House hearings by the NASA authorizing committees this week, members from both parties sharply questioned
Administrator Charles Bolden about the new plan he was defending. No lawmaker in either hearing endorsed the
change. Objections to it fall into two broad categories the lack of a clear objective in space for the new
program, and the faith-based belief, in the words of one House member, that a commercial route to orbit for U.S.
astronauts is better than the government-managed Ares I and Orion vehicles.
Broad Congressional opposition to financing space exploration.

James Bacchus, former Member of Congress, from Floridas 15th Congressional District, 3/16/2011,
American competitiveness needs space program, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/economy-a-budget/150091-american-competitiveness-needs-space-program
Yet, for all the considerable promise of private commercial space exploration, it is not at all clear that commercial rockets will be able to be
man-rated by NASA to taxi astronauts any time soon. And, sadly, one
of the very few recent examples of bipartisanship

in Washington has been the utter bipartisan failure thus far to figure out what to do next in human
space flight, how to make it work, and how to pay for it at a price our chosen leaders think we can
afford.
No Congressional support for exploration budget worries.

David M. Livingston, business consultant, financial advisor, and strategic planner, 8/10/2000, From
Earth to Mars: A Cooperative Plan,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/from_earth_to_mars_a_cooperative_plan.shtml
In today's world, public budgets and allocations are stretched in various ways, and different types of
projects compete for funding. Most publicly funded projects have strong advocates behind them, both among the citizenry and in
Congress, and many of these projects are deemed essential for many segments of the population. Just where funding allocations for a manned
mission to Mars would fit into the budget is unknown, but to
many people it is far more important to take care of our

needs here on Earth than to worry about putting people on Mars. So far, funding has not been an issue because no
credible plan for a manned mission to Mars has been put forward. Should such a plan come to fruition, however, it is going
to face opposition from the politicians and the people unless reasons for undertaking the Mars mission are clearly explained and
made available to everyone. The reasons and explanations must be compelling.
West Coast
2011
143
Neg Handbook
Link No Public Support for Exploration

No link turns public supports space, but not government funding.
P. Ehrenfreund, Space Policy Institute, et al, August-September 2010, Building long-term
constituencies for space exploration, Acta Astronautica, p.503
Today, governments and societies consider environment, the economy, the fast growing population and
climate change as higher priorities than human activities in Low Earth Orbit(LEO) and the exploration of the solar
system. This is due to the evolution of perception from a need to know to a nice to know
approach, as well as the necessity to have standard observations of our home planet to monitor its changes. Space probes and satellites
are launched all over the world nearly every week but their purpose is often obscure and they remain far removed from the
publics everyday consciousness [2]. In particular, the younger generation (between18and 25), as evidenced from
recent US marketing studies, is least interested in space endeavors [3]. The lack of support from the public for space
programs is a complex issue. Despite many efforts and initiatives in the 21st century of NASAs previous Office of
Communication Planning (OCP),public information policy surveys, marketing and advertising studies [4]
resulted in similar conclusions concerning the public awareness of space activities [57]. An important finding
is that the part of society that supports the space program and believes that space exploration is a
noble endeavor does not necessarily agree that governments should allocate
substantial financial resources to achieve those exciting space missions [8]. Even
during the Apollo era, polls showed that the public did not approve the large governmental spending [1]. A survey in Europe in 2007 showed that space activities are perceived risky, expensive
and not very useful by a large part of the population [9]. The recent survey on space activities of the European Union (EU) in July 2009 conducted by Gallup showed that a majority of 63% of EU
citizens regards European space activities as important in the EU framework [10]. However, a majority is either against or not sure if the EU should invest more in space exploration.
Public opposes spending on space exploration and no depth among supporters.

Concerns about public opinion may become problematic even before young voters mature. A recent Harris poll on fixing the U.S.
budget deficit held another ominous message for space exploration, with the potential for negative
consequences in the near term. Among the questions in the March 2007 poll, respondents were asked to pick two
federal programs (from a list of 12) that should be cut to reduce government spending. The space program
was chosen by 51% of respondents, topping the list by a wide margin (13 percentage points above the second
choice).44 This result indicates that approximately half of the U.S. voting-age population views the civil space
program as either a waste of resources or simply a non-essential activity. If other polling results, such as the
Gallup surveys discussed earlier, accurately portray two-thirds of the population as supporters of space exploration, then a significant
percentage of those supporters see the space program as a luxury item that could be sacrificed in a
constrained budget environment.
No public support for NASA missions shuttle disasters.

Peja Bulatovic, CBC News, 1/28/2011, NASA struggles with direction 25 years after Challenger
disaster, CBC News, http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTI2MzM2NDA%3D
The explosion of the shuttle in 1986 destroyed the lives of the victims and their families, but also factored into a drastic
change in public and government opinion towards NASA and space flight in general. The highly publicized
mission was Challenger's 10th launch. The team included Christa McAuliffe, a teacher who was selected to be the first civilian in space, in
addition to six NASA crew members. "Back then, the attitude was the shuttle can't blow up - nobody thought of space flight as dangerous,"
recalled Pat Duggins, author of Trailblazing Mars: NASA's Next Giant Leap. A
similar disaster involving the shuttle Columbia

in 2003, compounded by a sluggish U.S. economy, has drastically reduced government and public
support for funding the program, says Duggins. But he maintains that the space industry will continue to move forward.
West Coast
2011
144
Neg Handbook
Link Mars Exploration Unpopular

No political support for Mars mission.
James Oberg, 22-year veteran of NASA mission control, 8/17/2009, Why is human Mars exploration
so surprisingly hard? Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
In recent years a better perspective has become possible, and it is far less disrespectful to the successors of Apollo. Furthermore, it suggests
that even
with an immediate post-Apollo national decision (and a reasonable budget) to send astronauts to
Mars, it would not have proven possible by 1982, or 1989, or even perhaps anytime in the century if the task
proved too politically damaging in the face of setbacks. Heres the way Ive come to see it. It should have been
no surprise that On-To-Mars never happened. The reasons directly affect todays chances of tackling
the task in the near future. First, since Apollo had gloriously succeeded in its major purposerestoring
American status as the leading high-tech nation in the worldthe political support for further spending evaporated in
the face of new, more urgent challenges. Apollo had worked. Making the point again on a different
stage would have added little if any value.
None of your general turns apply missions to Mars specifically unpopular.

P. Ehrenfreund, Space Policy Institute, et al, August-September 2010, Building long-term
constituencies for space exploration, Acta Astronautica, p.503
Analyzing the demographic environment is often seen as a prerequisite to define how to target an audience most successfully, through
marketing or active engagement. Population growth, changing mixes of age, gender, educational training and ethnic heritage play a role in
understanding the demographic force.4 Life development stages strongly influence as well the opinions and values of society and their support
for a space exploration program. From recent US marketing studies it is evident that NASA receives its major support from the Apollo
generation. NASA has investigated the public opinion using mainly commercial surveys (not academic), whose limitations have been discussed
[18,19]. The response to the Vision for Space Exploration 5 (VES) was investigated by polling 1029 US citizens by
phone between August and November 2004 [4]. The results showed general awareness of space programs and that the majority of men and
women are supportive. The
attitude toward the VSE was to support ISS completion, robotic missions and the
return to the Moon. Citizens were, however, opposed to human missions to Mars and in particular the
associated risks. Similar to Europe, US citizens are totally unaware about the costs of NASA in US budgetary perspectives. The public also
perceived that public outreach is poorly executed. In 20052006, 450 US citizens aged 1824 participated in another
study and were contacted via internet tools [3]. Only 50% were aware about the VSE, 27% expressed doubts that NASA went to the Moon,
39% said that NASA does not do anything useful and 72% thought NASA money should be better spent elsewhere.
Media will spin the plan as too expensive empirically proven.

Dwayne A. Day, space policy analyst, 2/22/2004, Whispers in the echo chamber, Space Review,
We saw the modern media version of this game recently when rumors emerged that President Bush was
about to unveil a new space policy that called for a return to the Moon and an eventual human mission to
Mars. Media reports quickly declared that this plan would cost a trillion dollars or even more. That
number was widely repeated within the modern media echo chamber, often by supposedly reputable
sources. It may have already done substantial damage to the Bush space policy, creating public
opposition to what is perceived as a massively expensive program and scaring away any possible
supporters. The $1 trillion cost estimate is wrong. It is based upon a completely inaccurate reading of historical data and deeply
flawed mathematics. But the problems are worse than this. Not only was an inaccurate number repeated
endlessly by the media without confirmation, but the flawed calculations were repeated again and
again by various people with their own agendas. Reporters also appear to have ignored or evaded
obvious weaknesses with the original source of the information, preferring to repeat an inaccurate number that they saw
repeated endlessly rather than seek out better information. The story of the $1 trillion cost estimate raises some troubling questions about how
modern journalism is conducted.
West Coast
2011
145
Neg Handbook
Link Lunar Exploration Unpopular

No popular support for lunar exploration.
Roger Launius, PhD in History, 8/16/2010, Exploding the Myth of Popular Support for Project Apollo,
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/exploding-the-myth-of-popular-support-for-project-apollo/
These statistics do not demonstrate an unqualified support for NASAs effort to reach the Moon in the
1960s. They suggest, instead, that the political crisis that brought public support to the initial lunar
landing decision was fleeting and within a short period the coalition that announced it had to
reconsider their decision. It also suggests that the public was never enthusiastic about human lunar
exploration, and especially about the costs associated with it. What enthusiasm it may have enjoyed
waned over time, until by the end of the Apollo program in December 1972 one has the image of the program as
something akin to a limping marathoner straining with every muscle to reach the finish line before
collapsing.
No political support for lunar base.

Joe Pappalardo, senior editor at Popular Mechanics, 10/1/2009, Dissent Grows as Scientists Oppose
NASAs New Moon Mission, Popular Mechanics,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4245928
Vocal opponents of the lunar base plan have two basic criticisms. First, says Friedman, the mission hasn't sparked
enthusiasm. "The weak point in the program now is the lack of public resonance that the lunar base
has," Friedman says. "It's much like the space station was after Reagan announced it. Interest waned
until a political purpose presented itself: Clinton bringing the Russians in." The second criticism is that a lunar base may not be
practical. For instance, such an installation would require a lunar supply of water ice; probes have suggested the presence of water, but have
not proven it. Friedman and others also argue that the moon is too close to the Earth to provide a good practice run for a Mars mission.
No constituencies in favor of lunar exploration no security or economic motive.

Tega Jessa, freelance writer, 1/3/2011, Apollo 19, Universe Today,
http://www.universetoday.com/83053/apollo-19/
So why didnt the subsequent Apollo missions get completed? There were actually many forces at play. The first
was the end of the space race. There is no official date for when the rivalry in space flight between the United States and the Soviet
Union ended. All we know is that it ended when the two space agencies started to work together namely on the Apollo-Soyuz mission in the
1970s. Without the
political incentive that the Cold War produced to advance space flight support
started to wane. The other major factor was the economy. The United State went through a period of
economic stagnation and recession that crippled its economy. With a bad economy the United States
government had fewer resources to devote to its space program. This lead to congress cutting funding
for the Apollo program and forcing NASA to go with cheaper alternatives.
West Coast
2011
146
Neg Handbook
Link Asteroid Exploration Unpopular

Asteroid exploration politically controversial.
John Matson, Online news reporter for Scientific American, 4/12/2011, At Heaven's Gate: 50 Years
After Humans First Reached Space, What Frontiers Remain? Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-person-in-space-yuri-gagarin
But nothing in space travel is easy, and touching down on an asteroid might be a sight more complicated than a
simple rendezvous. Asteroids are often odd-shaped bodies that spin extremely rapidly. Some are little more than rubble piles, and their
loose structure combined with weak gravity means that the vicinity of an asteroid might be littered with loosely bound debris. In any event,
such a mission would require NASA to develop a heavy-lift launch system to spring a crew of
astronauts out of Earth orbit, and the specs, timeline and cost of such rockets have caused friction
between the space agency and Congressional funders.
No political justification for asteroid landing congress will oppose.

Traci Watson, staff writer, 6/21/2010, Obama plan to land on asteroid may be unrealistic for 2025,
USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-06-20-asteroid-obama-nasaplan_N.htm
Asteroids have always been passed over as a destination for human explorers. Then-president George H.W.
Bush wanted NASA to go to Mars, while his son, George W. Bush, chose the moon. During the past six years, NASA spent $9 billion building a
spaceship, rocket and other gear to help reach the second Bush's goal of returning humans to the lunar surface by 2020. In February, Obama
took steps toward killing Bush's moon program, which was beset by technical troubles and money woes. Two months later, in
a speech at
Cape Canaveral, Obama announced that the astronauts' next stop is an asteroid. So far, the Obama
administration has been quiet on the need for a major sum of money to accomplish his goal. And unlike Kennedy, who used
Sputnik to promote the moon mission, Obama doesn't have a geopolitical imperative to justify the
goal. Congress is resisting Obama's change of direction, which could delay investment in the program.
No political support for asteroid landing.

Planetary Society, 6/15/2010, Next Steps for the 2011 NASA Budget Proposal, Projects: Space
Advocacy, Next Steps for the 2011 NASA Budget Proposal
The administration continues to do a poor job of making a case for the new program. President Obama's
proclamation that more American astronauts will fly to the space station and Earth orbit in the next decade
under this new plan does not seem to be understood by many in Congress and in the media. The goal
of sending humans into the solar system, and landing on an asteroid by 2025, has aroused some interest
and even excitement, but the steps to reach this goal also have not been communicated effectively. The
administration sorely needs a spokesperson for the new plan who can clarify the message and inspire public and Congressional support. In
the meantime, NASA is paralyzed without an approved budget. If this situation continues through the year, the agency
will be unable to start work on the new plan and will be unwilling to continue investing in the old.
West Coast
2011
147
Neg Handbook
Internal Link Political Capital Finite

Political capital is finite drains Obamas ability to pass other legislation.
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor at Florida State University College of Law, October 1994, A Big
Picture Approach to Presidential Influence on Agency Policy-Making, Iowa Law Review, pp.38-39.
The cumbersome process of enacting legislation interferes with the President's ability to get his
legislative agenda through Congress much as it hinders direct congressional control of agency policy-setting. A President
has a limited amount of political capital he can use to press for a legislative agenda, and precious little
time to get his agenda enacted. These constraints prevent the President from marshalling through
Congress all but a handful of statutory provisions reflecting his policy vision. Although such provisions, if carefully crafted, can significantly alter the
perspectives with which agencies and courts view regulation, such judicial and administrative reaction is not likely to occur quickly. Even after such reaction occurs, a substantial legacy of
existing regulatory policy will still be intact. In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might seriously undercut presidential
efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. On any proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to
The
President's ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the
constituents of members of Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in
congressional elections increase the likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. Repeated
use of such tactics, however, will impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's
political capital. At some point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from
modify and kill legislation is well-documented. This is not meant to deny that the President has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition.
doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his policy vision.
Political capital is finite for Obama.

Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, 11/20/2008,
Now Obama Has to Govern, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714421493443077.html
Even giving the list to outside groups raises problems. Such strong-arming irritates allies, infuriates fence sitters, and
enrages opponents in Congress. Lawmakers dislike grass-roots lobbying by those representing people in their
states or districts. They'll be livid if the White House facilitates it. Gregory Craig, slated to be White House counsel, will likely
put the brakes on use of the campaign's email addresses. One challenge the president-elect faces is setting a starting
agenda that's too ambitious. Even a popular new president has finite political capital and time. The
congressional pipeline moves more slowly than any White House wishes, especially a new administration.
Political capital finite.

John Feehery, former staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in
Congress, 7/21/2009, Commentary: Obama enters 'The Matrix', CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/
Ego: Probably the most intangible and most unpredictable part of the legislative process is the rather large egos of the legislators. Despite
having generally milquetoast reputations, each
member of Congress has a variety of factors that impact how and

why they vote. Of course, their chief motivation is political survival. But each assesses their political
viability differently, and loyalty to the White House is not always top of the list. Some members of Congress, who have
been in the trenches for decades, have healthy egos that need love and affection from the Obama administration. For example, when the White House concluded deals with health care
providers, legislative leaders like Charlie Rangel and Henry Waxman, who weren't party to the talks, threw a fit, said the deals didn't apply to them, and sent a strong message that they
weren't going to honor those commitments. That of course, threw the larger health care negotiations into disarray. Egos matter on Capitol Hill, and stroking them is an essential part of
In a Hollywood movie,
anything is possible. But in Congress, with limited money, limited time and limited patience, the
president can't get everything he wants. And after watching his cap and trade proposal fall flat in the Senate, his health care
cracking the congressional code. In the movie "The Matrix," Keanu Reeves, playing Neo, ends the film with the line, "Anything is possible."
bill lose support in both chambers, his tax proposals meet stiff resistance from the business community and key centrist Democrats, and his
financial service reform proposals go nowhere, he risks getting nothing that he wants.
West Coast
2011
148
Neg Handbook
AT: Link Turn Winners Dont Win

Controversial issues drain political capital.
Michael Kranish, Staff Writer for the Boston Globe, 11/6/2008, For Obama, high expectations and
high hurdles, Boston Globe,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/06/for_obama_high_expectations_and_
high_hurdles/
To avoid mistakes of past presidents, Panetta said, Obama should put at the top of his agenda some early issues he is
confident he can win, and delay other more controversial measures that are bound to fracture Congress. The
new president must be also be willing to upset some supporters by delaying action on their priorities,
including healthcare reform, until he has some successes in his effort to improve the economy, Panetta said. Indeed, amid the euphoria
expressed by Obama supporters after his victory came a note of caution from the US Chamber of Commerce. Bruce Josten, the chamber's
executive vice president, said yesterday that Obama's decisive defeat of John McCain is "hardly a strong mandate." He urged
Obama not
to squander precious political capital on hot-button issues that would alienate the business community, such as a
proposal to make it easier for workers to form unions.
Winners win only applies to pet issues like health care not the plan.
Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd, Host of Hardball and Correspondent for NBC, 6/22/2009, Hardball
with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31506736
MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, lets start and I want to start with Chuck, our guy on the beat. One thing weve learned, it seems, from presidents is
If you win the first year, you really get it

going. If you dont win on your big issue, your pet project, if you willand its more important than thatyou
really set a standard for defeat and you go down to further losses down the road. Your thoughts on this.
you better win that first year. Reagan won the first year. Bush won the first year.
CHUCK TODD, NBC CORRESPONDENT/POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, no, youreA, youre absolutely right. And B, its, like, people that are
familiar with the way Rahm Emanuel thinks on trying to strategize when it comes to a legislative agenda and getting these big things done, you
know, this
is the lessons he feels like he learned the hard way in that first two years of the Clinton
administration, 93, 94, when a lot of their big things went down. Sure, they got their big stimulus
package, but they never did get health care. And that is what defines those first two years when you
look back on it. Fair or unfair, thats what its seen as.
Obama cant regenerate capital its finite.

Selwyn Ryan, Director of the St. Augustine Branch of the Institute of Social and Economic Studies,
University of the West Indies, 1/18/2009, Obama and Political Capital, Trinidad & Tobago Express,
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968
Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is
unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given
the structure of American and world politics, it

would be difficult for him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make
many u turns and detours which may well land him in quick sand. Obama will, however, begin his stint with a vast
accumulation of political capital, perhaps more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans
polled believe that his inauguration is one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and
fast diminishing asset in todays world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever
renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and
probably meant well, but who did not know how to husband the political capital with which they were
provided as they assumed office. They squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the
public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white
young lady who waved a placard in Obamas face inscribed with the plaintive words, I Trust You.
West Coast
2011
149
Neg Handbook
AT: Link Turn Popularity Not Key to the Agenda

Popularity undermines Obamas agenda Bush empirically proves.
Grover Norquist, President of the Americans for Tax Reform, 9/1/2002, Bushs White Elephant, The
American Enterprise, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90753084.html
President Bush's approval rating has remained above 70 percent forten months. Far from being an asset, these approval
ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda. Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush's approval ratings--which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent-would create political capital that would help Bush advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans.
Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. On November 6, only 55 days after September 11, the GOP lost
control of the governors' mansions in Virginia and New Jersey. President Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such
as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen
Congressional leadership staff members have told me that the President's high approval ratings have
not helped him pass any important bills.
Obamas popularity doesnt translate into his agenda public doesnt support specific
policies.
Rick Klein, ABC News' Senior Political Reporter, 6/23/2009, The Note: Drag & Pull -- Agenda Lags
Behind Obamas Popularity, ABC News, http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/the-note-agendalags-behind-obamas-popularity.html
With a news conference Tuesday at 12:30 pm ET (out of primetime), and a health care forum Wednesday evening on ABC (back in primetime),
the president gets to make his case with what remains the most solid brand in American politics
today: himself. That brand retains impressive approval ratings -- 65 percent in the new ABC News/Washington Post poll. But it
remains what he wants to do with those numbers that promises difficulties. From the start, the public
hasnt been behind his policies so much as its been behind him. And the president gets further out in front with
every new detail that emerges in a health care plan that isnt really a fully formed plan. (And look what was back Monday: Yes, we can, the
president said Monday morning, per ABCs Jake Tapper.) (The slogan really didnt have the same oomph this week, in the stodgy old
Diplomatic Reception Room, Tapper reported on Good Morning America Tuesday.) The underpinnings of Obamas presidency -- and his
argument for getting Congress to move his way -- has been found in the numbers all along: Since Obamas election, a key piece of his political
currency has been that confidence has been on an upward swing; right track finally beat wrong track in April. Now, wrong track is back on top - and with a slow erosion of support on key issues, the climb in optimism about the nations course is no longer.
Consensus of studies prove that popularity isnt key to Congressional opinion.

Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University and
Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University, 1990, The President in the Legislative
Arena, pp.28-29
In addition, there are theoretical problems. Some of the confusion results from lack of clarity about what the theory linking popularity and
Edwardss (1980) argument and analysis suggest that presidential popularity

exerts strong, direct effects on congressional decision making. Despite Rivers and Roses (1985) criticisms of his
presidential support actually predicts.
interpretation, Edwards reports some very strong relationships between partisan public approval and partisan support in Congress which seem
But virtually every study of congressional

behavior suggest that such external forces as public opinion will have marginal effects at best.
Moreover, in his discussion of presidential prestige as a source of presidential power, Neustadt (1960,
87) emphasizes that it is a factor operating mostly in the background as a conditioner, not the
determinant, of what Washingtonians will do about a Presidents request.
to support his conclusions about the importance of presidential popularity.
West Coast
2011
150
Neg Handbook
Impact Politics Turns the Case

Politics turns the case push for short-term exploration collapses long-term support.
Humankinds fascination with Mars has been with us for centuries, and for at least a half-century the conventional wisdom has
been that Mars is the next logical destination for human spaceflight after the Moon. This becomes
problematic when it is assumed that touching down on the Moon means setting sights on reaching Mars soon afterward, despite the far
higher costs and degree of difficulty. Mars is not a second, slightly farther moon of Earth. There is no reason to expect that the
long leap from the Moon to Mars will take place within one working lifetime. In a venture as
expensive, risky, and significant as the ongoing exploration of the solar system, it is more important to
get it right than to do it fast. Undue haste, in addition to endangering missions, also may prompt observers who
are under 40 years old today to view the enterprise as a mid-life crisis project for baby boomers who
are pining for the Apollo days. Under such circumstances, political support could evaporate for a
generation or more, setting back spaceflight dreams rather than moving them forward.
Lack of support dooms future NASA missions.

Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., et al, former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, June 2004, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, Report of the Presidents
Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy,
(3) Credibility. Support for this endeavor must come with a commitment from NASA and all its partners to good stewardship. Above all, the
space exploration vision is neither sustainable nor affordable unless NASAs leadership of the
exploration vision is deemed credible by the public and Congress. NASA will continue to operate
under a bright light of scrutiny. They must embrace best practices of program management, certainly from the public sector, but
also from the private sector. At all levels, NASA must be relentlessly innovative and institutionally nimble enough to embrace good ideas
arriving from any direction, especially from outside the proverbial box.
Stability necessary for long-term success impossible year-to-year appropriations.

Jeffrey Mervis, deputy news editor, Science Magazine, 2/5/2010, President Obama's Science
Spending, WBUR, http://www.wbur.org/npr/123410020/president-obamas-science-spending
Mr. MERVIS: Well, there will be hearings and there will be committees that will take up the bills. And as I said, even though they
support individual agencies, they will have to be mindful that issue arise whether there are new
terrorist attacks or immigration or other issues that will take precedence. I think what the academic
research community would really like to see is stability. They would like to be given a long range
promise about how to furnish that additional wing that they've been given. But unfortunately, Congress goes year to year
in budget appropriations, and so that's why they don't get that kind of consistency .
West Coast
2011
151
Neg Handbook
Impact Immigration Reform Key to Economy

Immigration reform boosts consumer spending and solves government deficits.
Walter Ewing, Ph.D., senior researcher, Immigration Policy Center, 3/9/2010, Immigration reform
affords chance to improve economy, The Hill, http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/85805-immigrationreform-affords-chance-to-improve-economy
As President Barack Obama discusses immigration reform with congressional leaders, it is important to keep in mind that such reform
would deliver a much-needed boost to the U.S. economy. Contrary to the views of some, immigration is an
economic resource that can be maximized to the benefit of both immigrant and native-born workers.
A comprehensive immigration reform package that includes a pathway to legal status for
unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States would increase their wages, and therefore their
purchasing power and tax contributions, which would support hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs at a
time of high unemployment, and generate billions of dollars in government revenue at a time of
gaping budget deficits.
Their impact turns are wrong no job trade-off.

Walter Ewing, Ph.D., senior researcher, Immigration Policy Center, 3/9/2010, Immigration reform
affords chance to improve economy, The Hill, http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/85805-immigrationreform-affords-chance-to-improve-economy
Opponents of immigration reform erroneously argue that native-born Americans will lose out on
scarce jobs if currently unauthorized immigrants acquire legal status despite the obvious fact that
unauthorized immigrants are already here and in the labor force. The best available evidence suggests
that neither legal nor unauthorized immigration is the cause of current high unemployment . In fact, a
report released in February by the Economic Policy Institute not only finds that immigration raises the
average wages of U.S.-born workers, but fuels the growth of the U.S. economy. The report emphasizes
that more people, including more foreigners, do not mean lower wages or higher unemployment. If they did, every
time a baby was born or a new graduate entered the labor force, they would hurt existing workers. In reality, an economy with more people does not mean lower wages and higher
unemployment; it is simply a bigger economy.
Reform boosts overall GDP higher wages and consumer spending.

Dr. Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, founding director of the North American Integration and
Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, January 2010, Raising the Floor for
American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/immigrationeconreport.pdf
The results of our modeling (see Appendix 2) suggest that comprehensive immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP
by at least 0.84 percent. Note that 0.84 percent is the projected increase in GDP level, not an increase in the long-term growth rate.
GDP each year would be 0.84 percent higher that it otherwise would have been. The additional GDP
would have equaled $120 billion if reforms were fully effective and their effect fully realized in 2009. Using 10-year GDP
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office,35 adding 0.84 percent to CBO-projected GDP each year yields a 10-year cumulative total of at least $1.5 trillion in added GDP, which
includes roughly $1.2 trillion in additional consumption and $256 billion in additional investment (see Figure
8 and Appendix 3). Comprehensive immigration
reform brings substantial economic gains even in the short runduring the first three years following legalization.
The real wages of newly legalized workers increase by roughly $4,405 per year among those in lessskilled jobs during the first three years of implementation, and $6,185 per year for those in higher-skilled jobs. The
higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of
$30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue. Moreover, an increase
in personal income of this scale would generate consumer spending sufficient to support 750,000 to
900,000 jobs.
West Coast
2011
152
Neg Handbook
Impact Latin America/Renewables Impacts

Energy security key to hegemony.
Council on Competitiveness, 2009, Drive. Private Sector Demand for Sustainable Energy
Solutions,
http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/DRIVE._Private_Sector_Demand_for_Susta
inable_Energy_Solutions,_Sept09_.pdf
Our national security is challenged and will increasingly be compromised by our energy supply and
usageranging from our dependence on oil imports and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure
to the impact on our armed forces on the land, sea and air. In 2008, we imported over 66 percent of our
oil, much of it from areas of the world that are insecure and not always friendly to American interests.
Expansion of renewable energy key to solve climate change.

Council on Competitiveness, 2009, Drive. Private Sector Demand for Sustainable Energy
Solutions,
http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/DRIVE._Private_Sector_Demand_for_Susta
inable_Energy_Solutions,_Sept09_.pdf
Energys impact on the environment is pervasive, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuel
energy. If we are to mitigate climate change and keep changes in global temperatures to a safe level,
we need to limit the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from using fossil fuels. Using old technologies
to supply energy for the next few decades will lock in increases of emissions and make any needed
reductions more expensive and harder in the future.
No adaptation - Runaway warming causes extinction.

Oliver Tickell, British journalist, author and campaigner on health and environment issues, and author
of the Kyoto2 climate initiative, 8/11/2008, On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,
The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel
from the climate science adviser to Defra. But
the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous.

Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle
probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80
metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial
infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be
transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea
and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and
severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced.
Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who
warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway
increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant
feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed
by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes
of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already
under way.
West Coast
2011
153
Neg Handbook
AT: Impact Turn Amnesty Causes Terrorism

Illegal immigration increases risk of terrorism only reform can solve terrorism.
Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, 2/12/2003, Dealing with illegal immigrants
should be a top priority of the war on terror, National Review Online, http://www.cis.org/node/348
Of course, "dealing with illegal immigrants should be a top priority in the war on terror." That's a nobrainer. Not that most illegal immigrants are terrorists - they aren't. Most are poor, unskilled people who
have come to America to work - whether as busboys, farm hands, chambermaids or in some other low-paid, dirty job - and there's
rarely any mistaking them for the kind of monsters who sneak into the country to kill Americans. Still, no nation can afford a vast
underworld of illicit residents. Not only is this unsafe - a natural haven for real evildoers to hide and
thrive in. It also makes a mockery of our democratic principles. And it's more urgent than ever now to
do something about it. The question is what to do. And this is where restrictionists like Mark Krikorian have
it wrong. Because the truth is we can't and won't deport even a small share of the foreign workers who
do so much to keep our economy running. Nor, in an age of globalization, can we seal ourselves off
from the rest of the world. Yes, of course, we can regulate the flow - we must. But we will succeed in
doing so only if our regulatory scheme is realistic - if it bears some relation to the number of needed workers who come
and go every year.
Reform frees up resources to focus on rooting out terrorists.

So what, when it comes to immigration, would a realistic regulatory scheme look like? Well, for one thing, it
would recognize the reality of the global labor market, acknowledging that more than a million
foreigners come to the U.S. each year to work - in jobs we need done, even in a downturn. As is, our ceilings
accommodate only about three-quarters of that flow, criminalizing hundreds of thousands of laborers
and, in the manner of Prohibition, making it impossible to maintain control of our borders. Surely it would make
more sense to regain control over who comes and goes by setting a more realistic ceiling - creating an
adequate legal channel for needed workers and, in the process, freeing up resources to focus on the few
who truly mean to do us harm? Then the rule of law would have a chance to stick.
Pathway to legalization key to solve security.

So too with the seven million illegal workers already here. The answer isn't a blanket amnesty ; no one
wants to reward law-breaking. But we do - for our own safety's sake - need to offer these valuable laborers a
way in out of the shadows. And the best means to do so would be a gradual scheme under which,
over time, they earn legitimacy - by first coming forward and declaring themselves, then paying a fine, and then remaining on the
right side of the law, working, paying taxes and assimilating into American life. Earning legal status would take some years, but the security
benefits would kick in right away, allowing us to get an immediate handle on who is here and
eliminate the vast black market for bogus identity papers.
West Coast
2011
154
Neg Handbook
Space Militarization Disadvantage
West Coast
2011
155
Neg Handbook
1NC Space Militarization DA 1/2

Obama pursuing space arms control now no weaponization.
Eli Lake, geopolitical desk of the Washington Times, 1/27/2011, U.S., EU eye anti-satellite weapons
pact, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/27/us-eu-eye-antisatellite-weapons-pact/print/
The Obama administration is negotiating with the European Union on an agreement limiting the use
of anti-satellite weapons, a move that some critics say could curb U.S. development of space weapons in
general. Three congressional staffers told The Washington Times that Pentagon and intelligence analysts said in a briefing Monday that the
administration is looking to sign on to the European Union's Code of Conduct for Outer Space
Activities. The briefing followed the completion of an interagency review that recommends the United
States sign on to the document with only a few minor changes to its language, according to two administration officials familiar
with the review.
That will guarantee security for US space assets.

Joshua Philipp, Staff Writer, 2/8/2011, US Space Strategy Bringing Governance to Outer Space,
Epoch Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50800/
The latest strategy on space may help reduce such threats, however, as Resiliency and mission
assurance can help protect critical capabilities in crisis and conflict, Schulte said. Moreover, to the
extent we develop and demonstrate resilience and mission assurance, potential adversaries may be
dissuaded in peacetime from pursuing counterspace capabilities.
Exploration causes space weaponization military will use NASA missions to expand
military programs.
Bruce K. Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and a
contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, 3/21/2009, The Space Arms Race and the NASA Scam , Foreign
Policy in Focus, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/bgagnon.php?articleid=14436
NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration. But the
growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and
military programs. When George W. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001, the
new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use." This
meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. The
military would ride the NASA Trojan horse and accelerate space weapons development without the
public's knowledge. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for
weapons propulsion. Permanent, nuclear-powered bases on the moon and Mars would give the United
States a leg up in the race for control of those planetary bodies. The international competition for resource extraction
in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on.
West Coast
2011
156
Neg Handbook
1NC Space Militarization DA 2/2

New space tech will increase the viability of space weaponization.
Trevor Brown, MSc, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University,
Spring 2009, Soft Power and Space Weaponization, Air and Space Power Journal,
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html
But the United States does not necessarily have to choose between civilian and military space
programs since much of the technology developed for space is dual use. The space industry provides a
tremendous opportunity for militaries that desire more affordable access and space assets that can
significantly augment terrestrial forces. As Alfred Thayer Mahan pointed out, Building up a great merchant shipping lays the
broad base for the military shipping. The US military can maximize its resources, not only financially but also
politically, by packaging as much military space activity as possible into commercial space activity . One
example involves satellite communications. The arrangement the Pentagon has with Iridium Satellite LLC gives the military unlimited access to its network and allows users to place both secure
and nonsecure calls or send and receive text messages almost anywhere in the world. Another example involves space imagery. Even though the government must maintain sophisticated
imaging capabilities for special situations, it could easily meet the vast majority of its routine requirements at lower cost by obtaining commercially available imagery. The Air Force could also
use space transportation, another emerging industry, to maximize its resources. Private ventures now under way are reducing the costs of space access considerably. It is possible that one
enterprise could become an alternative to Russian Soyuz spacecraft for NASAs missions to the International Space Station. Such enterprises could prove attractive, cost-effective options for
delivering the Air Forces less-sensitive payloads to Earth orbit. Space tourism, a growing industry, could enable the Air Force to procure affordable capabilities to routinely operate 60 to 90
Advances that entrepreneurs are making in suborbital space flight could eventually evolve
to a point where the Air Force would find it far easier, politically as well as financially, to acquire
platforms capable of delivering munitions from space.
miles above Earth.
Space weaponization causes first strike and global conflict.

Charles S. Robb, member of the U.S. Senate committees on armed services, foreign relations, and
intelligence, Winter 1999, Star Wars II, Washington Quarterly, pp.85-86
The third consequence of U.S. space weaponization would be the heightened probability of strategic
conflict. Anyone familiar with the destabilizing impact of MIRVs will understand that weapons in space will bring a new
meaning to the expression "hair trigger." Lasers can engage targets in seconds. Munitions fired from
satellites in low-earth orbit can reach the earth's surface in minutes. As in the MIRV scenario, the side to strike first
would be able to destroy much of its opponent's space weaponry before the opponent had a chance to respond.
The temptation to strike first during a crisis would be overwhelming; much of the decisionmaking would have to be automated. Imagine
that during a crisis one of our key military satellites stops functioning and we cannot determine why. We - or a computer controlling our weapons for us - must then decide whether or not to
The fog of war would reach an entirely new density, with our situational awareness of the
. Events would occur so quickly that we could
not even be sure which nation had initiated a strike. We would be repeating history, but this time with far graver consequences.
treat this as an act of war and respond accordingly.
course of battle in space limited and our decision cycles too slow to properly command engagements
Space war causes WMD conflict outweighs any of their war scenarios.
Gordon R. Mitchell et al, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh, July
2001, Missile Defence: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads, ISIS Briefing Series on Ballistic
Missile Defence, No 6, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchelletal2001b.pdf
It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M.
Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it
can do enormous damage - even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!,. 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. 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.
West Coast
2011
157
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness No Weaponization Now

New Obama policy embracing space arms control will enhance security.
Joshua Philipp, Staff Writer, 2/8/2011, US Space Strategy Bringing Governance to Outer Space,
Epoch Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50800/
Lynn said Obamas new space strategy brings a move toward the sustainability and stability of the space
domain; a new emphasis on international cooperation; an expansion of how we protect space systems in a contested
environment; and, finally, the improvement of our space acquisition process. According to a DOD summary, the space
strategy program, NSSS, draws on all elements of national power and requires active U.S. leadership
in space. It will include establishing partnerships with responsible nations, international organizations, and
commercial firms and will promote responsible, peaceful, and safe use of space. It also includes strategy to deter
aggression against space infrastructure that supports U.S. national security, and states the United States will
prepare to defeat attacks and operate in a degraded environment.
Obama embracing space arms control.

William J. Broad and Kenneth Chang, Staff Writers, 6/28/2010, Obama Reverses Bushs Space
Policy, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/space/29orbit.html
The Obama administration on Monday unveiled a space policy that renounces the unilateral stance of the
Bush administration and instead emphasizes international cooperation, including the possibility of an
arms control treaty that would limit the development of space weapons. In recent years, both China and the
United States have destroyed satellites in orbit, raising fears about the start of a costly arms race that might ultimately hurt the United States
because it dominates the military use of space. China smashed a satellite in January 2007, and the United States did so in February 2008. The
new space policy explicitly says that Washington will consider proposals and concepts for arms
control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies.
Obama policy prevents weaponization of space while maintaining US security.

Spencer Ackerman, Senior Reporter for Wired, 6/28/2010, Obama Backs Away from Intergalactic
Domination, Wired, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/obama-backs-away-fromintergalactic-domination/
Still, thats good enough for long-time space policy analyst Theresa Hitchens, who likes the new strategys
return to the less-aggressive approach of 20th Century administrations. While the new Obama space
policy does not directly support a treaty banning weapons in space as many in the international community have
hoped, it does in a 180 degree turn from the Bush administration policy re-commit the United
States to the open consideration of space arms control in language similar to the Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton space
policies. This is a positive move. And the plan satisfies Defense Secretary Robert Gates, too, who praised it as
presenting the right space policies and priorities for our nation, and is also a pledge that the United
States will maintain the leadership and capabilities in space imperative for our national security. So its
like the conception of the Jedi from the Prequels.
West Coast
2011
158
Neg Handbook
Link Exploration Causes Weaponization

Classification of NASA programs proves expansion of space programs will be used for
militarization.
Sourav Roy, Singapore based analyst and researcher of geopolitical and strategic affairs, February
2010, Mission Absolute: American Hegemony in Space, Al Jazeera Centre for Studies,
http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/streams/2010/2/11/1_971142_1_51.pdf
Bruce Gagnon, renowned peace activist and Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (GN), says
the U.S. Space Command was the command that was put in charge of a total control of space and has
recently been entrusted with Americas strategic Air Command. So now the space guys, the bomber guys and missile
guys are all part of the same command, Gagnon said. And this very command put out a planning document a few years ago called Vision for
2020. On the cover of this document one sees a satellite hitting targets on the earth below. According to Gagnon, the
attempt to
enjoy supremacy on earth through threatening space warfare tactics will remain the essential doctrine
of the U.S. for years to come. Perhaps this is why most of the complex space exploration
projects of NASA remain classified. Keith Glennon, the first director of NASA, said the major
implications of the U.S. Space Act was to pursue the development of activities in space for the benefit
of all humankind. Just like any other American policies, Glennons description of NASAs prerogatives
sounds dangerously suspicious.
Administrator statements prove our link.

Richard C. Cook, former NASA analyst and frequent contributor to Global Research, 1/22/2007,
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space? Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4554
The shuttle will stop flying after 2010. But the nationalistic tone of Griffin's language about the moonMars program, combined with the gargantuan contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, the Bush
administration's 2006 space policy declaration, and the Air Forces "Strategic Master Plan for FY 2006 and Beyond," which
designates space as "the ultimate high ground of U.S. military operations," sets the stage for another
attempt to militarize NASAs manned space activities.
Exploration causes new space race with China.

Mark Whittington, writer and space policy analyst, 6/23/2003, The coming space race with China,
The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/28/1
Chinas space ambitions suggest, and indeed demand, a response from the United States and her allies. In order
to avoid being left behind in space, and thus having its position as sole superpower called into question, the United States
should jump start its moribund space effort. In effect, the United States should challenge China to a
space race. The appeal of such a race is obvious. It could be suggested that more progress was made in perfecting the art of space travel in
the eight years between Kennedys lunar challenge and the landing of Apollo 11 than in the over thirty years since Apollo ended.
Reintroducing the spur of international competition would seem to be a potent idea.
West Coast
2011
159
Neg Handbook
Link Perception
Even if the plan doesnt cause actual weaponization, other nations will perceive it that
way.
Jeremy Hsu, contributor to Space.com, 5/5/2010, Is a New Space Weapon Race Heating Up?
http://www.space.com/8342-space-weapon-race-heating.html
Many existing space technologies play dual roles in both military and civilian life. The Global Positioning
Satellite (GPS) system which started out as military-only has since become common in consumer smartphones and car navigation systems.
Modern rocketry grew in part from the technology and scientific minds behind Nazi Germany's V-2 rockets of World War II, and continued to
evolve alongside ballistic missile technology. Even
something as basic as a satellite image can be used for either

military weapons targeting or civilian crop rotation, Johnson-Freese said. Space plane technology can seem
equally ambiguous ? the Air Force deputy undersecretary of space programs scoffed at the notion of X-37B paving the way for future
space weapons. "The whole issue is further complicated because beyond technologies like lasers, Rods from God, explosives, etc.... virtually
any object traveling in space can be a weapon if it can be maneuvered to run into another object,"
Johnson-Freese told SPACE.com. Uncertainty matters a great deal for how other nations view the recent
U.S. space plane and hypersonic glider tests, regardless of whether or not the technologies lead
to future weapons. "They are testing capabilities that could certainly be useful to the military if it
chose to use them in an offensive manner," Johnson-Freese said. "And the military has been silent on
intent."
Other nations will perceive the plan as a distraction for weaponization.

Jeremy Hsu, contributor to Space.com, 5/5/2010, Is a New Space Weapon Race Heating Up?
http://www.space.com/8342-space-weapon-race-heating.html
Pike said the current work under way by the U.S. military leaves plenty of room for misinterpretations or
even outright deception, which could be a ploy to distract other nations with military space projects.
"One of them could be a deception program and the other could be the spitting image of the real
thing," Pike noted. He said that such misdirection could force other nations' militaries to waste money
chasing down dead ends.
Mistrust means China will perceive the plan as a military program.

Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, 3/3/2008, China and the US: space race or
miscommunication? The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1075/1
There are, though, more hostile views of US space programs in China, particularly of American military space projects.
Those articles tend to be written not by space professionals but by political officers in the Chinese military,
who write polemics that claim that the US wants to fight space wars. Because theyre not written by professionals,
Kulacki said, they tend not to be sophisticated: in one example shown by Kulacki, a Chinese article was illustrated by a model of
an American ASAT weaponmade of Lego bricks. This results in something of an echo chamber effect between the
polemical communities in the US and China. They feed off of each other for sure, Kulacki said.
There is this whole tiny dialogue between these two hawkish communities in these two countries that dominates the entire discussion on this
in the public domain. There are also Chinese suspicions of American motives elsewhere in space. Kulacki noted
that, shortly before the Shenzhou 5 launch, NASA provided orbital debris tracking data to the Chinese so they could avoid any potential
collisions. A Chinese official involved with the mission told Kulacki that the data came late in their planning process, raising suspicions. The
relationship is so bad that he was convinced that NASA did that on purpose to mess them up, he
said. Theres a lot of mistrust and bad feelings.
West Coast
2011
160
Neg Handbook
Link Tech
Exploration program will be used to militarize space
Richard C. Cook, former NASA analyst and frequent contributor to Global Research, 1/22/2007,
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space? Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4554
The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new
national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize
space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the
stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the
space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative"Star Wars"which were gaining momentum until space
weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster. To date, the principal beneficiary of
the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already
the worlds largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martins stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than
seven percent in the five weeks following NASAs August 2006 announcement. NASA is not paying the giant of the military-industrial
complex $8.15 billion to have people hop around and hit golf balls on the moon. The aim of the moonMars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffins statements that "my language"i.e.,
Englishand not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."
Exploration boosts US aviation innovation.

Matt Gurney, member of the National Post editorial board, 12/13/2010, U.S. putting NASA expertise,
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/13/matt-gurney-u-s-putting-nasa-expertise-at-risk/
With the end of the shuttle and with no new manned programs, NASA risks losing the brain trust of
talent and high-tech expertise that has driven American innovation for two generations. Indeed, NASA has an
entire website (Sti.nasa.gov/tto/) tracking the number of industrial partnerships it has formed (a clever way of showing suspicious Congressmen that it provides bottom-line benefits to the
American people). And those benefits have rippled out across the rest of the Western world, Canada included. More than 80,000 Canadians work in the aerospace sector, and 60% of their
labour is exported to the United States. If the high-tech jobs dry up there, especially at a time when countries like China and India are ramping up their own space exploration programs,
Canada will have to scramble to compete. Both Asian superpowers enjoy trade with Canada, but nothing can compare in economic or cultural terms to our ties to the United States. Their
space program has been ours, we have sent astronauts into space on American ships and provided advanced robots to the shuttle fleet and space stations. We continue to be a leader in
America will eventually

recover from its current economic crisis and political stagnation. But whether or not it is still a world
leader in aviation and space exploration and technology in general is an open question. The U.S.
desperately needs to rein in its spending, but not at the expense of stifling innovation and crippling
Americas ability to explore and if necessary, wage war in space. NASA should be at the forefront, bringing
the wonders of the universe to the American people while leading the way towards newer, better
technologies.
telecommunications and satellites, in no small part due to our close relationship with the United States and access to their space program.
That will be used to expand the military presence in space.

Efstathios T. Fakiolas and Tassos E. Fakiolas, Political Science at Peloponnese, and Special Advisor,
June 2009, Space control and global hegemony, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis,
http://kida.re.kr/data/kjda/RKJD_A_387383_P.pdf
At present the United States is determined not only to protect its right to use space for military and
civilian purposes and ensure freedom of action, but also to deter potential enemies from having
access to or using space. It identifies space operations conducted by state or non-state opponents or adversaries as a disruptive challenge to its military capabilities and
national interests.50 It considers space, in addition to the land, sea, air, and cyberspace, a domain of the battle-space and space capabilities as an essential component of the application and
it pursues a policy to enjoy an advantage in space

capabilities across all mission areas and develop responsive space capabilities in order to keep
access to space unfettered, reliable and secure. It intends to achieve this goal by staying at least
one technology generation ahead of any foreign or commercial space power.52 Thus, for instance, in February 2008 the
projection of military force.51 Having founded the Pentagons Executive Agent for Space,
U.S. military destroyed the defunct and out-of-control USA 193 spy satellite with a specially designed SM-3 ballistic missile.53
West Coast
2011
161
Neg Handbook
Link Moon Exploration

Moon exploration will be used to establish military weapons in space.
Bruce K. Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space,
12/13/2006, NASA Plans Moon Base to Control Pathway to Space,
http://www.space4peace.org/articles/nasa_moon_base.htm
There has long been a military connection to NASAs Moon missions. In early 1994, NASA launched the Deep Space
Program Science Experiment, the first of a series of Clementine technology demonstrations jointly sponsored with the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO). The
Pentagon announced that data acquired by the spacecraft indicated that there is
ice in the bottom of a crater on the Moon, located on the Moons south pole the same venue NASA now
envisions as the site for the 2024 permanent base. According to a Pentagon website, The principal
objective of the lunar observatory mission though was to space qualify lightweight sensors and
component technologies for the next generation of Department of Defense spacecraft [Star Wars]. The
mission used the Moon, a near-Earth asteroid, and the spacecrafts Interstage Adapter (ISA) as targets to demonstrate sensor performance. As
a secondary mission, Clementine returns valuable data of interest to the international civilian scientific sector.
In the end, the NASA

plan to establish permanent bases on the Moon will help the military control and dominate access
on and off our planet Earth and determine who will extract valuable resources from the Moon in the years ahead.
Lunar base will be used to militarize the moon.

Joe Pappalardo, senior editor at Popular Mechanics, 3/13/2008, Dissent Grows Over NASA's Moon
Mission, Popular Mechanics, http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163859,00.html
NASA does have vocal supporters, however. Robert Walker, a former congressman and a member of the Presidential
Commission on the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, points out that a
Chinese moon program has already begun, with the launch of a probe in 2007. Both India and Japan have also announced their intentions to
launch manned lunar missions, to great fanfare. "Having
a U.S. presence on the moon at least gives us the chance to

keep an eye on the standard of conduct," Walker says. "And that's pretty damned important." In military terms, the
moon can be seen as the ultimate high ground. A nation could set up hard-to-defeat microwave or
laser weapons platforms aimed at in-orbit satellites or, in the best sci-fi tradition, to launch large rocks
at the Earth with "mass drivers." (These were the weapon of choice for Robert Heinlein's revolutionary protagonists in The Moon
Is a Harsh Mistress.)
There are no administrative barriers Obama has already made this official policy.
Demian McLean, writer for Bloomberg, 1/2/2009, Obama Moves to Counter China With PentagonNASA Link, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g&refer=home
President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.s civilian and
military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race
with China. Obamas transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and
ready sooner than the space agencys planned launch vehicle, which isnt slated to fly until 2015, according to people whove
discussed the idea with the Obama team. The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising
over Chinas space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes
of the military.
West Coast
2011
162
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Cause Conflict

Space weaponization causes inevitable outbreak of conflict.
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence,
but this rationale glosses over the tendency that '... the presence of space weapons ... will result in the
increased likelihood of their use'. 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'. The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space
technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne 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. 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.
Space weapons cause miscalculation and accidental launch.

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 human hands and endowing
computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental
conflict.
Space weapons will cause use and nuclear retaliation.

Michael Krepon, president emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, November 2004, Weapons in
the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option, Arms Control Today,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon
To prevent adversaries from shooting back, the United States would need to know exactly where all threatening space objects are located, to neutralize them without producing debris that
successful space
warfare mandates pre-emptive strikes and a preventive war in space as well as on the ground. War
plans and execution often go awry here on Earth. It takes enormous hubris to believe that space warfare would be any different.
If ASAT and space-based, ground-attack weapons are flight-tested and deployed, space warriors will have succeeded in the
dubious achievement of replicating the hair-trigger nuclear postures that plagued humankind during
the Cold War. Armageddon nuclear postures continue to this day, with thousands of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons ready to be
launched in minutes to incinerate opposing forces, command and control nodes, and other targets, some of which happen to be located within large metropolitan areas. If the
heavens were weaponized, these nuclear postures would be reinforced and elevated into space. U.S.
space warriors now have a doctrine and plans for counterspace operations, but they do not have a
credible plan to stop inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation once the shooting starts. Like U.S. war-fighting scenarios,
there is a huge chasm between plans and consequences, in which requirements for escalation dominance make uncontrolled
escalation far more likely. A pre-emptive strike in space on a nation that possesses nuclear weapons
would invite the gravest possible consequences. Attacks on satellites that provide early warning and other critical
military support functions would most likely be viewed either as a surrogate or as a prelude to attacks on nuclear forces.
can damage U.S. or allied space objects, and to target and defeat all ground-based military activities that could join the fight in space. In other words,
West Coast
2011
163
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Cause Arms Race

Space weaponization causes space arms race.
Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, October 2003, Space
Weapons: Are They Needed? http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Security_Space_Volume.Final.pdf
It is inconceivable that either Russia or China would allow the United States to become the sole nation
with space-based weapons. Once a nation embarks down the road to gain a huge asymmetric
advantage, the natural tendency of others is to close that gap. An arms race tends to develop an
inertia of its own, writes Air Force Lt. Col. Bruce M. DeBlois, in a 1998 article in Airpower Journal. Chinese moves to put
weapons in space would trigger regional rival India to consider the same, in turn, spurring Pakistan to
strive for parity with India. Even U.S. allies in Europe might feel pressure to keep up with the
Joneses. It is quite easy to imagine the course of a new arms race in space that would be nearly as
destabilizing as the atomic weapons race proved to be.
India and Pakistan will model US space weaponization.

Jeffrey Lewis, Center for Defense Information, July 2004, What if Space Were Weaponized?
http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf
India is a state that may pursue ASAT capabilities, if other states do so first. The chief of the Indian
Air Force, S. Krishnaswamy, recently remarked that: Any country on the fringe of space technology like India has to work towards such a
command as advanced countries are already moving towards laser weapons platforms in space and killer satellites. Pakistan
has a
much smaller industrial base, but has long attempted to match Indian deployments particularly in
military matters. Pakistan is likely to emulate Indian ASAT efforts, given the enmity between the two
countries and the relative advantage that India derives from the use of space for military operations .
That causes India/Pakistan nuclear war.

Perhaps more importantly, the risk of Pakistani ASAT attacks would create the same escalatory incentives for
India that the United States faces in the second scenario. U.S. war games suggest that future conflicts in South Asia may not be very stable. A
contractor who has conduct more than two dozen war games for the Pentagon and other militaryplanning centers told the Wall Street Journal that the India-Pakistan scenarios usually escalate to the
use of nuclear weapons within the first 12 days of the war game. Its a scary scenario, said one participant.
Anti-satellite weapons would reinforce the strong escalatory dynamic that many war games have
revealed. For example, war games that quickly escalate to nuclear use are often restarted to allow the Indian side to reconsider some of the
moves that lead to Pakistani escalation. The Indian side, however, generally learns the opposite lesson and attempts a
lighting strike to destroy the Pakistani nuclear stockpile. When asked if the Indian Armed Force could really execute a
preemptive strategy, one participant noted, Probably not, but they believe they could.
West Coast
2011
164
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Cause Terrorism

Space weapons cause CBW terrorism.
Such a strategic-level space race could have negative consequences for U.S. security in the long run that
would outweigh the obvious (and tremendous) short-term advantage of being the first with space-based weapons. There
would be direct economic costs to sustaining orbital weapon systems and keeping ahead of opponents intent on matching U.S. space-weapon
capabilities raising the proverbial question of whether we would be starting a game we might not be able to win. (It should be remembered
that the attacker will always have an advantage in space warfare, in that space assets are inherently static, moving in predictable orbits. Space
weapons, just like satellites, have inherent vulnerabilities.) Again, the price tag of space weapons systems would not be trivial with
maintenance costs a key issue. For example, it now costs commercial firms between $300 million and $350 million to replace a single satellite
that has a lifespan of about 15 years, according to Ed Cornet, vice president of Booz Allen and Hamilton consulting firm. Many
experts
also argue there would be costs, both economic and strategic, stemming from the need to counter other
asymmetric challenges from those who could not afford to be participants in the race itself.
Threatened nations or non-state actors might well look to terrorism using chemical or biological
agents as one alternative.
Space weapons collapse alliances key to the War on Terror.

Bruce M. DeBlois, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2003, The Advent of Space Weapons, Astropolitics,
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Bergman_11ast03.pdf
A decision to posture weapons in space might also diminish the ability of the space-weaponizing
country to assemble international coalitions. In the case of the United States, such international
political clout has been crucially important to the military, political, judicial and economic conduct of the war on
terrorism. These forms of diplomatic influence might be more important than hard power in the
maintenance of global stability in the twenty-first century.
No offense space weapons cant help fight terrorism and it risks funding trade-off
with key technology.
Donald P. Christy, Lieutenant in the US Air Force, 3/15/2006, United States Policy on Weapons in
Space, USAWC Strategy Research Project,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf
The last category to examine is the impact space weapons could have in the Global War on Terrorism.
The most likely use for space weapons to contribute to the war on terror is by expanding and improving global strike
and global reach capabilities. As previously discussed, however, there is minimal, if any, benefit in this area. There are
numerous cases (one previously cited) where we have missed high value targets despite having quick strike
capabilities readily available. The United States has proved quite adept at gaining the necessary
access around the globe to combat terrorism. The funding necessary to develop and deploy space to ground
weapons would be better-used improving effectiveness in other areas of the fight and reducing the
vulnerability of existing space based enablers.
West Coast
2011
165
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Cause WMD Prolif

Space weapons cause WMD prolif other nations will try to counter US advantages.
intelligence, Winter 1999, Star Wars II, Washington Quarterly, pp.83-84
In a second, more likely scenario, the United States deploys the same capabilities, but other nations do
not simply acquiesce. Understanding the tremendous advantages of military space operations, China deploys nuclear
weapons into space that can either be detonated near U.S. satellites or delivered to the earth in just
minutes. Russia fields ground-based lasers for disabling and destroying our satellites, then deploys satellites
with kinetic-kill munitions for eradicating ground targets. It also reneges on the START treaties, knowing that, rather than
trying to replicate America's costly defensive systems, its incremental defense dollar is better spent on offensive
warheads for overwhelming American defenses. Other rogue nations, realizing that their limited
missile attack capabilities are now useless against our new defense screen, focus on commercially available
cruise missiles, which they load with chemical and biological warheads and plan to deploy from
commercial ships and aircraft. Still others bring to fruition the long-expected threat of a nuclear
weapon in a suitcase. If history has taught us anything, it is that a future more like the second scenario will prevail. It defies
reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in
weaponizing space, leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage.
Space weapons collapse WMD arms control causes global prolif.

Weaponizing space would poison relations with China and Russia, whose help is essential to stop and
reverse proliferation. ASAT weapon tests and deployments would surely reinforce Russias hair-trigger
nuclear posture, and China would likely feel compelled to alter its relaxed nuclear posture, which
would then have negative repercussions on India and Pakistan. The Bush administrations plans would
also further alienate Americas friends and allies, which, with the possible exception of Israel, strongly oppose
the weaponization of space. The fabric of international controls over weapons of mass destruction,
which is being severely challenged by Irans and North Koreas nuclear ambitions, could rip apart if the Bush administrations interest in
testing space and nuclear weapons is realized.
New technology will inevitably proliferate.

It is important to understand that there is another, more likely inevitability involved if the United States
pursues these capabilities, that is: other nations almost assuredly would, too. Although Russia and
China have declared a moratorium on ASAT testing, it would be irresponsible for either state not to
acquire their own deterrent to potential U.S. ASAT attacks. Russian and Chinese ASATs may, in turn, be a
reason (or, perhaps, just an excuse) for states such as India to follow suit. Still other countries and this
includes North Korea and probably Iran that have the desire, but not yet the skills, would then be able to
draft in the wake of the big powers through espionage, declassification and, perhaps, the black market.
The point is this: once the United States has gone down the ASAT road, there likely wont be an option of
negotiating a ban on ASATs or discouraging the proliferation of legitimate dual-use technologies such as microsatellites. As
we have learned with nuclear and missile proliferation, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out for good.
West Coast
2011
166
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Cause Nuclear Use

Space weaponization causes China to move to high alert for its nuclear forces.
While China currently maintains its forces on a no alert status, Beijing has indicated considerable
concern about how a U.S. spacebased missile defense system might undercut its nuclear deterrent. The Chinese
ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament warned that the deployment of space weapons
would jeopardize the global strategic balance and stability and trigger off another round of arms
race. China currently does not appear to keep nuclear warheads mated to its ballistic missiles, nor
aboard its single ballistic missile submarine (which stays in port). All Chinese nuclear weapons appear to be
under lock and key in storage facilities that are physically separate from their launch pads. The
deployment of space weapons could create strong incentives to reverse this restraint, and increase
the alert rates of Chinese forces.
That causes accidental nuclear war.

Raising the alert rates of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces would undermine U.S. security on a day-to-day
basis, because forces on alert are inherently more vulnerable to the inherent risks of accident or
unauthorized use. Accidents happen, including accidents with U.S. nuclear weapons. In some cases, the
warheads were lost the United States lost at least two nuclear weapons during aircraft crashes in 1958 off the coast of Savannah, Georgia,
and in 1966 off the coast of Spain.40 In other cases, warheads have been recovered: In 1996, an Energy Department tractor trailer overturned
in a Nebraska blizzard carrying classified cargo later confirmed to be several nuclear warheads. Fortunately, the weapons were recovered
undamaged after several hours. These
kinds of accidents are more likely to happen when forces are kept on
alert and moved around.
It also causes unauthorized nuclear launch.

Forces on high rates of alert are also vulnerable to the nightmare scenario of an unauthorized launch
by a field commander. Although the United States has instituted extensive human reliability programs
to ensure that U.S. military personnel are psychologically stable, there is little evidence of comparable programs in
Russia or China. Even in a perfect program, mistakes are made. As one U.S. officer recalled: I used to worry about
Gen. [Thomas] Power. I used to worry that Gen. Power was not stable. I used to worry about the fact that he had control over so many
weapons and weapon systems and could, under certain conditions, launch the force. Back in the days before we had real positive control,
[Stratgeic Air Command] had the power to do a lot of things, and it was in his hands, and he knew it.
West Coast
2011
167
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Collapse Heg

Space weaponization collapses US heg undercuts US ground and space capabilities.
Karl Mueller, now at RAND, in an analysis for the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, wrote, The
United States would not be able to maintain unchallenged hegemony in the weaponization of space,
and while a space-weapons race would threaten international stability, it would be even more dangerous to U.S.
security and relative power projection capability, due to other states significant ability and probably
inclination to balance symmetrically and asymmetrically against ascendant U.S. power . Spurring other
nations to acquire spacebased weapons of their own, especially weapons aimed at terrestrial targets, would
certainly undercut the ability of U.S. forces to operate freely on the ground on a worldwide basis
negating what today is a unique advantage of being a military superpower. U.S. commercial satellites
would also become targets, as well as military assets (especially considering the fact that the U.S. military is heavily reliant
on commercial providers, particularly in communications). Depending on how widespread such weapons became, it also could even
put U.S. cities at a greater risk than they face today from ballistic missiles.
Weaponization decreases heg trades off with soft power and geopolitical support.
Trevor Brown, MSc, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University,
Spring 2009, Soft Power and Space Weaponization, Air and Space Power Journal,
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html
The problem for the United States is that other nations believe it seeks to monopolize space in order
to further its hegemonic dominance.7 In recent years, a growing number of nations have vocally objected to this perceived
agenda. Poor US diplomacy on the issue of space weaponization contributes to increased geopolitical
backlashes of the sort leading to the recent decline in US soft powerthe ability to attract others by the legitimacy
of policies and the values that underlie themwhich, in turn, has restrained overall US national power despite any
gains in hard power (i.e., the ability to coerce).
Space weaponization collapses heg.

intelligence, Winter 1999, Star Wars II, Washington Quarterly, p.84
This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. The first is that Americans would, in a relative sense, lose
the
most from a space-based arms race. The United States is currently the preeminent world military
power, and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. A large
percentage of our military communications now passes through space. Our troops rely on weather satellites, our
targeteers on satellite photos, and virtually all of our new generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point
accuracy. By
encouraging potential adversaries to deploy weapons into space that could quickly destroy
many of these systems, a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to
attack than they are today. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force, they
could still position deadly satellites disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most
vital military satellites. And even if we could sustain our space advantage, the costs would be
extraordinary. Why pursue this option when there is no compelling reason to do so at this time? Why make a battlefield out of an arena
upon which we depend so heavily?
West Coast
2011
168
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Kill the Economy

Space weapons collapse the economy destroys US space industry
Besides the potential for undercutting, rather than strengthening, the U.S. military edge, there also is reason
to be concerned about the possibility that moves toward weaponizing space could damage the
competitiveness of the U.S. space industry, which currently dominates the international marketplace
and therefore bolsters U.S. economic and military power. The commercial space and
telecommunications sector is also arguably the most globalized of todays economic sectors. The customer base
is international; the industry itself is largely comprised of multinational alliances among companies and consortia, as well as joint government
programs. Whereas space used to be available only to the most developed nations, there are more than 1,100 companies in 53 countries now
exploiting space.34 Space
is a major worldwide market accounting for many billions in revenue, and U.S.
firms are dominant in the sector.
Weaponization hurts US businesses satellite destruction.

The competitive and cost challenges the U.S. satellite industry faces could be increased if the United
States moved to make space a battlefield. Up to now, the threat that commercial satellites could
become 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 U.S. satellites . Space
industry executives, whose companies often are working at the margins of profitability, are concerned
about U.S. commercial satellites and their operations becoming targets, especially because current
commercial satellites have little protection (electronic hardening, for example, has been considered too expensive). There
would be costs to commercial providers for increasing protection, and it is highly unclear whether the
U.S. government would cover all those costs.
No impact turns the costs to businesses outweigh any limited benefits.

Of course, it must be pointed out that some U.S. firms will no doubt benefit from any new U.S. programs
to develop space-based weaponry particularly the large defense contractors already involved in military space
programs. Nonetheless, there remains reason to be concerned about the affect on other companies more
involved in the commercial use of space. And since there are, and will remain, direct benefits to the
military of maintaining a strong and competitive commercial space and telecommunications industry,
the possibility that the deployment of weapons in space or a policy of aggressive targeting of satellites (and subsequent
government regulatory restraints) may have negative industrial implications must be more fully explored.
West Coast
2011
169
Neg Handbook
Space Weapons Destroy Exploration

Space war collapses exploration high levels of space debris.
Rebecca Johnson, Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, September 2003, Ballistic Missile
Defence and the Weaponisation of Space, Space Without Weapons,
http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/rejintro.htm
A much more immediate danger to commercial and military assets in space, already arising from careless human practices in the
first 45 years of space activities, comes from space-crowding and orbital debris. Space in low earth orbit is teeming with
human generated debris, defined by NASA as "any man-made object in orbit about the Earth which no longer serves a useful purpose". There
are some 9,000 objects larger than 10 cm and over 100,000 smaller objects. As
orbiting debris may be travelling at very high

velocities, even tiny fragments can pose a significant risk to satellites or spacecraft . As noted by Joel
Primack, a University of California physics professor, and one of the US' foremost experts on space debris: "The weaponisation of
space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the
entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth highly
hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes".
Space weapons destroy all other purposes for space turns the case.
Bruce M. DeBlois, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2003, The Advent of Space Weapons, Astropolitics,
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Bergman_11ast03.pdf
In addition to posing insurmountable military opportunity costs and the potential of another costly
arms race, space weapons directly threaten the fiscal health of the space sector itself. Use of
destructive weapons in space would obviously promote an orbital 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 1m diameter in geostationary orbit. Only approximately five per cent of those objects
are operating satellites; the rest are effectively debris, 40 per cent of which are fragments of disintegrated satellites and upper stages of
rockets. Unfortunately, there are between 30,000 and 100,000 untracked 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 of 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 weapon use in space, could readily make space a no-go
area of dangerous debris, in the process pre-empting commercial and civil development.
Space shuttle explosion proves debris will make exploration impossible.

Rebecca Johnson, Director of the Disarmament and Arms Control Programme, The Liu Institute for
Global Issues, University of British Columbia, 2003, Security without weapons in space: challenges and
options, Disarmament Forum, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2155.pdf
LEO is teeming with human generated debris, defined by NASA as any man-made object in orbit about the Earth which no
longer serves a useful purpose. There are some 9,000 objects larger than 10cm and over 100,000 smaller objects. As orbiting debris
may be travelling at very high velocities, even tiny fragments can pose a significant risk to satellites or
spacecraft, as experienced by US astronaut Sally Ride, when an orbiting fleck of paint gouged the
window of the Space Shuttle during her first flight. If instead of paint, the projectile had been harder or
larger, it could have put the lives of the crew at risk.
West Coast
2011
170
Neg Handbook
AT: Weaponization Inevitable

Weaponization not inevitable US policy key.
Karl P. Mueller, associate political scientist at RAND and adjunct associate professor in Georgetown
University's Security Studies Program, October 2003, Space Weapons: Are They Needed?
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Security_Space_Volume.Final.pdf
In the end, most of the inevitability arguments are weak. Even the best one, that space weapons will
provide irresistible military advantages for those who employ them, is plausible but not decisive, and many of
those who assert it probably harbor exaggerated expectations about the capabilities that space
weapons will offer. In spite of the large number of people who apparently believe the inevitability thesis to be true, there is good
reason for prudent policymakers to assume that the weaponization of space is not in fact predestined,
and that U.S. military space policy is one of the factors, but not the only one, that will shape the likelihood of
space weaponization of space by other countries.
Lack of US weaponization solves inevitability.

Rebecca Johnson, Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, September 2003, Ballistic Missile
Defence and the Weaponisation of Space, Space Without Weapons,
http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/rejintro.htm
No states with the technological potential to pose a serious threat to US (or other) space assets (for example
Russia, China, India) are prioritising financial or technical resources to developing weapons capable of
threatening space assets. This, however, could change. If US military developments in space continue
their drive towards weaponisation, it is likely that others will decide that they need to devote
political, financial and technological resources to counter or off-set US space-based superiority.
Military advantaged does not make weaponization inevitable.

Karl P. Mueller, associate political scientist at RAND and adjunct associate professor in Georgetown
University's Security Studies Program, October 2003, Space Weapons: Are They Needed?
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Security_Space_Volume.Final.pdf
This is a reasonable argument, but to conclude for this reason that space weaponization is inevitable, rather than merely
possible or likely, is unwarranted, for several reasons. There is no question that space systems are critical to U.S.
military capabilities. An enemy that attacked them might be able to impair U.S. military operations
very seriously, but while this ranks high among threats that concern U.S. strategists, it need not follow that enemies of the
United States will do so, or will invest in the weapons required to do so. The U.S. armed forces
possess many important vulnerabilities that adversaries have opted not to attack in past conflicts,
typically due to resource limitations, a desire to avoid escalation, or fear of the reaction of third party
audiences. For example, during Operation Allied Force in 1999, Serbia apparently did not attempt to mount special forces attacks against
key NATO airbases in Italy or to use manportable missiles to shoot down aircraft operating from them, although such an action could have
profoundly disrupted the Alliances bombing campaign. Moreover, it
is quite possible that if a potential enemy did want

to develop the ability to attack U.S. space systems, it would choose to do so in ways that would not
involve weaponizing space such as investing in computer network attack capabilities, nonspace
weapons to attack the terrestrial elements of space systems, or ASAT capabilities that are not weapons in the conventional sense
and against which the logical defensive countermeasures would not involve deploying U.S. space
weapons. For military as well as commercial satellites, a transition to redundant networks of satellites
would do much to reduce their vulnerability, perhaps together with supplementing satellite platforms for some military
functions with new types of terrestrial systems, such as high endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
West Coast
2011
171
Neg Handbook
AT: Space Arms Control Fails

History proves weaponization not inevitable arms control can solve.
During the Cold War, no weapons were deployed in space, and the last test of an ASAT weapon occurred almost two
decades ago, in 1985. This record of restraint reflects international norms and widespread public sentiment
to keep space free of weapons. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty calls on the exploration and use of outer space to be conducted for
the benefit and in the interests of all countries and mandates that space may not be subject to national appropriation by any means. Why,
then, would space warriors now seek to chart a different and far more dangerous course? If
the weaponization of space were

inevitable, it would have occurred decades ago when Washington and Moscow competed intensively
in other domains. Indeed, the record of restraint since the Cold War ended suggests that the Outer
Space Treatys injunctions against placing weapons of mass destruction in space could be broadened if
they are championed by the United States, China, and Russia.
Space arms control can be effective maintains US leadership even the military
agrees.
The potential for strategic consequences of a space race has led many experts, including within the
military, to tout a space arms control regime as an alternative. A ban on space weapons and ASATs could
help preserve at least for some time the status quo of U.S. advantage (especially if coupled with U.S. moves to shore up
passive satellite defenses). In a recent article in Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Jeffrey Lewis, a graduate research fellow at the
Center for International Security Studies at the University of Maryland, makes a good case for an arms control approach,
arguing: If defensive deployments in space cannot keep pace with offensive developments on the
ground, then some measure of restraining offensive capabilities needs to be found to even the playing
field.
Other nations will support space arms control US is key.

Rumsfelds transformation in U.S. military space policy is driven by worst-case assumptions that the
weaponization of space is inevitable; that conflict follows commerce in space, as on the ground; and that the United
States must not wait to suffer a Space Pearl Harbor. Yet, the countries most capable of developing
such weapons, such as Russia and China, have professed strong interest in avoiding the weaponization
of space. The Bush administration has refused negotiations on this subject.
West Coast
2011
172
Neg Handbook
AT: Weaponization Key to Prevent Space Attacks

Weapons not key to protect space assets other mechanisms solve.
It is obvious that the United States must ensure the integrity of its increasingly important space
networks, and find ways to defense against threats to space assets. Still, there is little reason to
believe that it is necessary for the U.S. to put weapons in space to do so. Space warfare proponents
are making a suspect leap in logic in arguing that space-based weapons are, or will soon be, required to
protect the ability of the United States to operate freely in space. One could argue much more rationally that
what is needed most urgently is to find ways to prevent computer network intrusion; to ensure redundant
capabilities both at the system and subsystem level, including the ability to rapidly replace satellites on orbit; to improve security of
ground facilities (perhaps moving to underground facilities); and to harden electronic components on particularly important
satellites.
No risk of space attacks US assets not vulnerable now.

Michael OHanlon, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and Adjunct
Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, October 2003, Space Weapons: Are
They Needed? http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Security_Space_Volume.Final.pdf
Basic technological and strategic realities argue for a moderate and flexible U.S. military space policy. They argue against two extreme positions
that have been espoused by prominent U.S. policymakers in recent years. The
report of the Commission on Outer Space, which

warned of a possible space Pearl Harbor and implied that the United States needed to rapidly take
many stepsincluding offensive onesto address such a purportedly imminent risk was alarmist. Most U.S.
satellites are not vulnerable to attack today, and will probably not be in the years aheadand to the
extent they are vulnerable, they can often be protected through relatively passive measures rather than
an all-out space weapons race. By racing to develop its own space weapons, the United States would cause two
unfortunate sets of consequences. Militarily, it would legitimate a faster space arms race than is
otherwise likely something that can only hurt a country that effectively monopolizes military space activities today. Second, it
would reinforce the current prevalent image of a unilateralist United States, too quick to reach for the gun and impervious to
the stated will of other countries (as reflected in the huge majority votes at the United Nations in favor of negotiating bans on space weaponry). Among its other consequences, this perception
can make it harder for the United States to oppose treaties that it has good reasons to oppose (as when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM Treaty). It can also make it harder for
the United States to uphold international nonproliferation norms since its own actions weaken its credibility in demanding that others comply with arms control regimes.
Risks of space attack are overstated in the status quo weaponization risks
retaliation.
Worries about a surprise attack in space cannot be written off, but there are far easier, less traceable, and more painful
ways for Americas enemies to engage in asymmetric warfare than by attacking U.S. satellites. Weapons in
space and weapons on Earth specifically designed to neutralize or destroy objects in space are being pursued for another reason as well: to help U.S. armed forces win quickly and with a
This rationale only makes sense if Americas adversaries will refrain from fighting back in
space. If they return fire, however, U.S. troops are likely to be punished rather than helped because of their greater reliance on satellites. Similarly, the clear preference
of U.S. space warriors is to use nondestructive techniques that disorient, dazzle, or disable an
adversarys satellites without producing debris that could destroy the space shuttle, the international
space station, and satellites. Americas weaker foes, however, have far less incentive to be so
fastidious about debris in their approach to space warfare.[8] States possessing nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles could explode a nuclear weapon in space to wreak havoc on satellites.
minimum of casualties.
West Coast
2011
173
Neg Handbook
AT: Weaponization Key to Protect Satellites

Weaponization does not protect satellites and other methods solve.
Bruce DeBlois et al, Director of Systems Integration at BAE Systems and formerly Adjunct Senior
Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, Fall 2004 Space Weapons,
International Security, pp.56-7
Denial and deception, ground-station attacks, and high-altitude nuclear explosions. The
development of space weapons would

not significantly mitigate three of the generalized threats to U.S. space capabilities mentioned above: denial
and deception, attacks on ground stations, and high-altitude nuclear explosions. To counter an
adversarys denial and deception techniques, for example, the United States might seek to employ
multiple, redundant satellite and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sensing channels; avoid detection of its
reconnaissance satellites; and improve analysis of currently available imagery. Evidently, orbiting weapons
cannot prevent physical attack on satellite ground infrastructure; more effective counters are familiar security
techniques such as physical surveillance, fences, guards, and back-up systems. A high-altitude nuclear explosion, and its resulting
bands of persistent, damaging beta radiation, would require shielding (to reduce the radiation dose) and, in some cases,
hardening (to increase tolerance of semiconductor circuitry to radiation) of satellites in potentially vulnerable orbits. Technological
means to proactively depopulate the trapped electrons from the Van Allen beltssuch as the orbiting of lead or uranium foil to scatter and
disperse the electrons into the atmosphereare possible but in their infancy.
Defensive measures solve satellites better weaponization risks trade off.

International Security, p.61
The cost and limited effectiveness of a weapon-based satellite defense must be weighed against those
of alternative approaches. In particular, the use of redundant backup systems with equal or greater
capabilities in a theater of conflict, while not providing physical protection, would reduce an
adversarys motivation to attack (if it was known that such an attack would have no effect), and in any case would
reduce the adverse effects. Although accepting the inherent physical vulnerabilities of expensive and
vital U.S. satellites is undesirable politically, and Whipple Bumpers add cost and may limit flexibility, a defense by
redundancy is preferable to a weapons-based solution with a known low probability of success.
Weaponization increases risks to satellites.

In sum: protecting U.S. satellites. Space weapons are generally not good at protecting satellites capabilities. In
those cases where space weapons might play a unique or contributing rolein opposing microsatellite attack and
hit-to-kill antisatellite weaponsterrestrial or passive approaches match or exceed their utility. In the case of
microsatellites and bodyguards, one might commit to deploying (in the spirit of Jonathan Swift) smaller still to bite em. In such an arms
race, the vulnerability inherent in the cost of existing and future U.S. high-capability satellites in low
earth orbit outweighs any competitive advantages of superior U.S. space resources (e.g., in building advanced
bodyguard microsatellites).
West Coast
2011
174
Neg Handbook
AT: Space Weapons Effective

Space weapons fail technical barriers.
Indeed, the technical barriers to development and deployment of space-based weapons cannot be
overestimated, even for the U.S. military. There are serious, fundamental obstacles to the
development of both kinetic kill weapons and lasers both for use against targets in space and
terrestrial targets not to mention the question of the staggering costs associated with launch and maintaining systems
on orbit. Problems with lasers include power generation requirements adding to size, the need for large
quantities of chemical fuel and refueling requirements, and the physics of propagating and stabilizing
beams across long distances or through the atmosphere. Space-based kinetic energy weapons have their own issues,
including achieving proper orbital trajectories and velocities, the need to carry massive amounts of
propellant, and concern about damage to ownforces from debris resulting from killing an enemy satellite. Spacebased weapons also have the problem of vulnerability, for example, predictable orbits and the
difficulty of regeneration.
Even if we can strike from space, we lack satellite data to make strikes effective.
Some defense strategists argue that the United States should pursue new strike capabilities that could
reach anywhere in the world from U.S. territory in less than ninety minutes. With the exception of ballistic missiles and
forward deployed forces (which face significant practical, economic, and political barriers), space systems alone possess the
vantage point and positioning necessary for rapid global response. But U.S. satellites do not currently have any
ability to employ or project direct force from orbit.
Conventional weapons superior to space weapons and hesitation to employ

mitigates anything they might solve.
International Security, pp.80-81
in sum: global force projection. Global rapid and denied-access force projection is possible and will happen
without the development of space weapons, through adaptations to existing systems. Except for the unique
capability that might be contributed by space-based lasers for a small class of targets, terrestrial
methods of force projection appear to be superior to space weapons systems, if they were to become a reality
at some point in the future. Furthermore, space weapons will be expensive, vulnerable to countermeasures, and
politically inflammatory. The question of whether to deploy space weapons, therefore, becomes a matter
of marginal value added and opportunity costs. In the near term, nonspace weapons such as UAVs,
cruise missiles, and ICBMs with conventional payloads will provide greater capability sooner and at
lower cost.
West Coast
2011
175
Neg Handbook
Spending Disadvantage
West Coast
2011
176
Neg Handbook
Spending Disadvantage 1NC

A) Uniqueness NASA funding is being cut now
Mark Whittington, author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker, 3-20-2011, Congress
Looks for Sources for Extra NASA Funding, Yahoo News,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110330/pl_ac/8173149_congress_looks_for_sources_for_extra_nasa_f
unding
With all of the competing interests involved in putting together a budget, it might be a minor miracle
if NASA's human space flight programs were to actually be fully funded. Indeed, considering that the
process usually goes the other way, that NASA gets cut to fund other programs, it would be almost
unprecedented.
B) Link The plan leads to wasteful and inefficient government spending

Andrew Dart, broadcast engineer in Dallas, Texas, 2006, It's Time to Scrap NASA, Personal Collection
of Essays, http://www.akdart.com/nasa.html
It is time for average Americans to begin questioning the assumptions made about extravagant
scientific research done at the taxpayers' expense. This is especially true of NASA. No one seems to
notice that almost everything done by NASA is trivial, such as the endless series of manned space
flights ostensibly conducted to study such things as the effects of weightlessness on plants and
insects. (Who cares what those effects might be?) The only activity in space that could be authorized
by the Constitution would be projects connected in some way to national defense. But the US military
has its own rockets and apparently has little use for NASA facilities. NASA is wasteful and inefficient,
squandering the public's goodwill and $13.5 billion annually. While the government has a legitimate
defense role in space, commercial ventures, and most scientific research and exploration, ideally should
be left to the private sector. [0]
c) Internal Link Rejection of the plan sends a signal against wasteful government
spending
Alexander Villacampa, summer fellow at the Mises Institute, 2006, NASA: Exemplary of Government
Waste, Rockwell Institute, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html
In summation, in order to roll back the growing tide of government spending, the most wasteful
programs must be cut first. What is needed from such public sector failures as NASA is not increased
funding and wasteful behavior but full privatization. Only when this occurs will resources be used
efficiently, will there be increased emphasis on consumer safety on extraterrestrial flights, and an end
to the coercive sequestering of funds from taxpayers to prop up a failed program.
West Coast
2011
177
Neg Handbook
Spending Disadvantage 1NC

d) Impact USs failure to get their economic house in order leads to hegemonic
decline
Nial Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, 3-2010, Complexity and Collapse, Foreign
Affairs, pg. 4
If empires are complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and catastrophic malfunctions,
rather than cycling sedately from Arcadia to Apogee to Armageddon, what are the implications for the
United States today? First, debating the stages of decline may be a waste of time - it is a precipitous and
unexpected fall that should most concern policymakers and citizens. Second, most imperial falls are
associated with fiscal crises. All the above cases were marked by sharp imbalances between revenues
and expenditures, as well as difficulties with financing public debt. Alarm bells should therefore be
ringing very loudly, indeed, as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2009 of more than $1.4
trillion - about 11.2 percent of gdp, the biggest deficit in 60 years - and another for 2010 that will not be
much smaller. Public debt, meanwhile, is set to more than double in the coming decade, from $5.8
trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019. Within the same timeframe, interest payments on that debt are
forecast to leap from eight percent of federal revenues to 17 percent. These numbers are bad, but in the
realm of political entities, the role of perception is just as crucial, if not more so.
e) There is an invisible threshold to wholesale collapse

Nial Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, 3-2010, Complexity and Collapse, Foreign
Affairs, pg. 4
Rather, empires behave like all complex adaptive systems. They function in apparent equilibrium for
some unknowable period. And then, quite abruptly, they collapse. To return to the terminology of
Thomas Cole, the painter of The Course of Empire, the shift from consummation to destruction and then
to desolation is not cyclical. It is sudden. A more appropriate visual representation of the way complex
systems collapse may be the old poster, once so popular in thousands of college dorm rooms, of a
runaway steam train that has crashed through the wall of a Victorian railway terminus and hit the
street below nose first. A defective brake or a sleeping driver can be all it takes to go over the edge of
chaos.
f) The impact is great power conflict

Security, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-nationalsecurity-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2
West Coast
2011
178
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness US Economy High Now

Top investors state the economy is strong now
Bloomberg, Top economics and investment news site, 3-22-2011, Buffett Says U.S. Economy
Improves by the Month, Can Withstand Japan Quake, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/buffett-says-u-s-economy-is-getting-better-month-bymonth.html
Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) posted its biggest profit since 2007 last year,
said the U.S. economy is getting better month by month, aided by government stimulus and the
strength of capitalism. The most important factor is the really underlying resilience of capitalism,
Buffett said today at a press conference in Bangalore. There are more than 300 million Americans
thinking about how to do something better tomorrow than theyve done today. The U.S. economy
expanded 2.8 percent last year, the most since 2005, after the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to
near zero. Joblessness in the U.S., the worlds largest economy, dropped to 8.9 percent in February from
9.8 percent in November. The U.S. economy has been improving fairly steadily, but not at a great rate
since mid-2009, Buffett said. Berkshire reported $13 billion of 2010 profit on Feb. 26, and this month
Buffett, 80, announced a $9 billion deal to buy engine-additive maker Lubrizol Corp. (LZ) Last year, the
billionaire completed the biggest takeover of his career, the $26.5 billion deal for railroad Burlington
Northern Santa Fe, in what he called an all-in-wager on the U.S. economy. The Standard & Poors 500
Index gained 3.2 percent this year through yesterday after climbing 13 percent in 2010 and 23 percent
in 2009. The index is still about 14 percent below where it ended in 2007. Global Prosperity Buffett, who
has a derivative bet that Japanese stocks will advance, said earlier this week that declines caused by the
countrys worst earthquake on record are a buying opportunity for equity investors. The S&P 500 was
little changed at 10:29 a.m. in New York. The quake will not stop the growth of the worlds economy,
Buffett said today. Its going to be important for Japan, obviously.
US recovery is increasing
Sonai Nikai , Economics and investment staff, 3-23-2011, U.S. Recovery is Slowly Happening Said Fed
Officials, Financial Feed, http://www.financialfeed.net/u-s-recovery-is-slowly-happening-said-fedofficials/852556/
Two Federal Reserve officials agreed that U.S. recovery has improved but their views on the economys
inflation risks opposed. Cleveland Fed President Sandra Pianalto, expecting a fair but continued pace
U.S. recovery and temporary pressure on consumer prices because of commodity and energy prices
rise said there seems an established firmer footing for recovery. Its a clear sign of a virtuous growth
cycle, she added.
The US economy is strong because housing doesnt pose a risk

Ian McKendry, Financial analyst, 3-23-2011, US Economists: Housing Rebound Not 'Essential' To
Econ Recov, Market News, http://imarketnews.com/?q=node/28250
A survey of 111 economists, real estate experts and market strategist published Tuesday by
MacroMarkets suggests housing prices are unlikely to recover until 2013. "Overall, the sentiment
among our expert panel regarding the U.S. housing market outlook continues to deteriorate," Robert
Shiller, co-founder of MacroMarkets, said in a statement accompanying the survey. The housing market
is not necessarily going to be a drag on the economy "and not going to be a huge boost," Onyett-Jeffries
said.
West Coast
2011
179
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness Spending Being Cut Now

Cuts across the board are happening on Congress now
Claire Provost, Guardian poverty staff in concert with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 4-82011, Aid is certain to be a casualty of US federal budget cuts, The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/08/us-federal-budget-cutsaid-certain-casualty
Though the dust will take time to settle, whatever the outcome, one of the casualties will almost
certainly be US foreign aid, which constitutes less than 1% of the federal budget. According to the US
Global Leadership Coalition, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief programmes would be cut
down by 41%, food security and food aid programmes would be slashed by 30% and multilateral
contributions would drop by 40%, under budget proposals put forward by congressional Republicans.
Meanwhile, resources for global health programmes would fall by 11%, including a 43% reduction to
US contributions for the Global Fund to fight Aids, TB and Malaria. Also on the chopping block is
former president George Bush's global Aids programme, PEPFAR.
Even more cuts are coming

Claire Provost, Guardian poverty staff in concert with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 4-82011, Aid is certain to be a casualty of US federal budget cuts, The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/08/us-federal-budget-cutsaid-certain-casualty
Whatever the outcome of this budget struggle, though, bigger battles will come this summer in
Congress. The 2012 budget proposed on Tuesday by Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House
budget committee, would reduce federal spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade: a 29% cut
next year to international affairs and foreign assistance, and 44% by 2016. Defence spending would rise
by 14% over the same period.
The tea party ensures strong Congressional cuts

Ed Pilkington, Guardian US Staff, 4-8-2011, Tea Party movement keeps up pressure despite lower
profile, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/08/tea-party-pressure-republicans
But prominent figures within the movement insist that the impression that it has gone off the boil belies
reality. "The idea that the Tea Party has waned is a total misreading of what has happened," said Matt
Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that has spearheaded local groups.
"We've evolved from a protest movement to a get-out-the-vote machine last November to what we
are today a network of local groups holding our representatives to account." Jeffrey Berry, professor
of politics at Tufts university, agrees that though the Tea Parties have kept a low profile since
November they should by no means be written off. They have continued to wield influence within
Congress by threatening to have Republican politicians such as Orrin Hatch of Utah and Dick Lugar of
Indiana unseated in 2012 should they fail to follow a cost-cutting right-wing agenda.
West Coast
2011
180
Neg Handbook
Uniqueness NASA Being Cut Now

NASA funding is decreasing now
Jean-Louis Santini, AFP Staff, 2-14-2011, Obama: Five-year freeze on NASA budget, Phys Org,
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-obama-five-year-nasa.html
Obama would restrict NASA's budget to last year's levels, $18.7 billion annually through fiscal 2016. The
figure represents a 1.6-percent decrease from the spending total the agency had sought for fiscal 2011,
which ends in September. "This budget requires us to live within our means so we can invest in our
future," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told a news conference. Bolden sought to put a brave face
on the budget limitations, saying the administration's proposal "maintains our commitment to human
spaceflight" and research. Experts said it reflected Washington's new fiscal reality, framed by voter
frustration with excessive government spending. "There is not a lot of money available," said John
Logsdon, a former director of the Space Policy Institute in Washington. "It should not compromise what
NASA wants to do but it certainly would slow it down," said Logsdon, an independent consultant to the
Obama administration. The belt-tightening comes just as the United States winds down its space
shuttle program, and struggles to move forward on a replacement for the vaunted vessels that have
carried hundreds of astronauts into space.
Current budget crisis is forcing NASA cuts

Jean-Louis Santini, AFP Staff, 2-14-2011, Obama: Five-year freeze on NASA budget, Phys Org,
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-obama-five-year-nasa.html
US President Barack Obama unveils his 2012 budget Monday, proposing a raft of spending cuts and tax
hikes aimed at curbing a record budget deficit. Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at
NASA, sending his 2012 budget blueprint to Congress calling for a five-year freeze on new spending at
the US space agency.
Virtually every project is having funding cut now

Mark Whittington, author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker, 2-12-2011, House
Appropriators Propose Cutting NASA FY2011 Budget by $579 Million, Yahoo News,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110212/us_ac/7842048_house_appropriators_propose_cutting_nasa_f
y2011_budget_by_579_million
Virtually every account, with the exception of space operations that will finish the space shuttle
program this year and maintain the International Space Station, will be underfunded. There will be little
or no progress on building hardware for future space exploration. Research in science and technology
development will be curtailed for the time being. The commercial space initiative will also likely take a
hit.
West Coast
2011
181
Neg Handbook
Link Sacred Cow Funding

NASA is an untouchable sacred cow rejecting the plan is necessary
It is time to pull the plug on NASA and privatize or just scrap everything NASA does. Then, if it is
commercially attractive to fly to Mars, some corporation will undertake the project and reap the
rewards. But if such a project is just a bottomless money pit, capitalism and healthy skepticism will
take over, and space exploration will return to the pages of science fiction. There is no reason to
spend billions of dollars on additional moon missions or on manned missions to Mars, just for the
sake of busy work. NASA has become an untouchable "sacred cow" that no politician dares to oppose.
But in reality, NASA represents pork barrel politics at its worst.
Holding the line on new sacred-cow spending legislation is key to restoring US fiscal
discipline
Ron Smith, Editorial Staff at Southwest Farm Press, 2004, Southwest Farm Press, pg. 3
Stenholm agrees that Congress must clamp down on a deficit that is rapidly spiraling out of control.
"Our nation is being threatened with an economic perfect storm consisting of record deficits largely
financed by foreign investors, large and growing trade deficits, and the approaching retirement of the
baby boom generation," Stenholm said. "Unfortunately, the President's budget fails to prepare our
nation to deal with these economic dangers. His budget leaves our nation with large structural deficits
that will be on the rise after the five-year budget window used by OMB." Neugebauer quipped that the
budget problem "is not mad cow, but too many congressional sacred cows. As a father and small
business owner, I had to make tough economic decisions for my family just like most every American
family does. Congress should have that same fiscal discipline." Stenholm supports increased fiscal
discipline from Congress. He said he was pleased with the proposed reinstatement of discretionary
spending limits and PAYGO rules but said the proposal did not go far enough. "I have been a long-time
proponent of budget enforcement legislation - the idea that Congress and the President should not
make the deficit worse," he said. "If we are going to restore much needed fiscal discipline to
Washington, we must apply budget rules to all legislation that would increase the deficit."
New, permanent spending undermines perception of fiscal discipline and contributes

to structural budget deficits that undermine the US economy
Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, 10-15-2001, A Remedy for Repair, US News and World
Report, pg. 4
But we must beware of the crosscurrent. Increased spending by the government means smaller
surpluses--indeed, the surplus has disappeared before our very eyes--higher interest rates, and less
private investment. Long-term rates are sensitive to the increased uncertainty about the durability of
future fiscal surpluses at the federal level. That's why it is so important that tax relief or funding
programs should be one-offs. That way they can be shut off before they threaten future surpluses-and before they panic financial markets with the fear of a structural, or continuing, budget deficit, like
the one we endured in the 1980s and 1990s. For this reason, Congress should also suspend the tax cuts
scheduled for the years 2005 to 2010. We need to make this money available as a backup now,
especially if the first kick start only turns the engine. The financial markets would applaud the reduced
risk of a continuing federal deficit. And that, in turn, would increase our chances to lower interest and
mortgage rates in the near term to accelerate capital spending.
West Coast
2011
182
Neg Handbook
Link NASA Funding is Wasteful and Inefficient

NASA projects only end in waste and corruption
It is quickly becoming the natural state of affairs that citizens are no longer working for themselves
but are instead laboring in order to fill the greedy coffers of the State. Most individuals in the United
States have about half of their yearly income taken away by the government and this percentage is
steadily growing. A majority of the citizenry may believe that these funds are being funneled into
important social projects but in fact most of this wealth is simply wasted by opportunist politicians
and bureaucrats. There are an endless number of government programs that would increase the wealth
and productivity of the citizenry if they were only dismantled. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), with a requested 2007 budget of almost $17 billion, is a government program
that is nothing short of wasteful.
Private innovation solves technological innovation better than government

intervention
Individuals claim that a majority of NASA's funding is spent on the exploration of new useful
technologies. The citizenry views the government as an entity that can fund and perform research in
order to uncover technologies that would be beneficial to the market. There is no reason to believe
that corporations, with patent laws in place, would not be more than willing to research more efficient
ways of creating products. Yet, even if it were the case that government research in technology was
necessary or beneficial, NASA is funding scientific studies that are far from useful to the market.
New technologies were not produced by NASA

Much of NASA's funding is spent directly on extraterrestrial initiatives that study the solar system,
space exploration, and methods of improving shuttle performance. It is also a myth that NASA created
such technologies as Velcro, Tang and those famous memory-cell mattresses. In reality, the maker of
Velcro was a private engineer with a bright idea, Tang was created by the General Foods Corporation,
and the Tempur-Pedic company developed those memory-cell mattresses for use on NASA flights. These
were all private initiatives and not outcomes of NASAs technological research efforts.
West Coast
2011
183
Neg Handbook
Link Public Sector Funding Encourages Waste

NASA has spent money on cancelled programs
CNN, 2-24-2011, Is NASA wasteful spending?, NECN and CNN Collaboration
http://www.necn.com/02/24/11/Is-NASA-wastefulspending/landing_scitech.html?blockID=417006&feedID=4213
As space shuttle Discovery gets ready to blast off on its final mission, there's a lot of controversy over
some NASA spending. The agency has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a program
that was already canceled, and by law, it has to. Over the years, there's been no shortage of criticism
about how NASA spends its money, your money. The space agency is again at the center of another
"how did this happen?" head-scratcher.
NASA projects are purely political they provide no economic benefit and ensure
government coercion
While the space program yielded many successes in years past, taxpayers are no longer getting their
money's worth from a space program that focuses on repeating the deeds of yesterday. But NASA's
current priorities allow the scientifically and financially bankrupt $100 billion Space Station to absorb a
larger and larger share of the NASA budget. [24] Americans must come to the realization that the
federal government does not have infinite amounts of money to spend. In fact it has no money, other
than the money it has taken out of your paycheck and mine! The manned space program is an indirect
way to buy votes, by associating the Space Shuttle with patriotic pride. NASA's apparent goal is to make
space flight look like a worthwhile endeavor, at least to the masses who don't give it much thought. But
it is not the proper role of government to take money from its citizens (through taxes, which are paid
under the threat of imprisonment) and spend it on the pet projects of the politically powerful.
There is zero public benefit to NASA spending

The question then arises, should the United States citizens continue to pay for such a costly
program? In the end, it is always the citizenry who pays. Nave individuals may believe that the
Federal government has an endless spring of wealth from which it draws in order to fund its
operations, but this is not the case. NASA has continuously let down the United States citizens and is
nothing but a wastebasket into which the government throws our hard-earned wealth. The NASA
shuttle tragedies are an outright shame, not only because of the precious lives lost, but also due to the
immense cost of these shuttles. The costs of these space ventures are steep and the rewards reaped
from these explorations are close to nil. The Mars Observer, that was lost in 1993, cost the taxpayers
nearly $1 billion dollars. What the government can not understand is the profit and loss mechanism
that is so ingrained into the market. Private entrepreneurs produce goods in a way that minimizes
costs in order to obtain a high profit margin. Government programs, such as NASA, continuously
spend without giving any benefit to the public.
West Coast
2011
184
Neg Handbook
Link Private Sector Funding Solves the Case Better

Unleashing private sector innovation is the best approach at solving the affirmatives
impacts
The solution the problem of NASA overspending and endless mishaps is, like all government programs, privatization. If
the citizenry, through the market process, find it profitable to invest and consume products that are tied to space exploration, so be it. In such a
scenario no individual is forced to pay for products that continuously fail to meet their expectations. In addition, private companies
that take on the task of space exploration will be doing so at a profit and trying to minimize cost. This
is significantly different from the wasteful practices of government and public sector programs.
Whenever costs outweigh profits, precious resources have been wasted in the production of that
good or service. In the private sector, entrepreneurs quite literally pay the price for having misused
resources and the costs will cut into the entrepreneurs income. If this occurs, either changes are to be
made in order to cut costs or the entrepreneur will need to shut down the business. When public
sector industries waste resources, often times no direct harm is done to their ability to continue the misuse of
funding.
Government intervention leads to failed policy private sector innovation will solve
best
In summation, in order to roll back the growing tide of government spending, the most wasteful
programs must be cut first. What is needed from such public sector failures as NASA is not increased
funding and wasteful behavior but full privatization. Only when this occurs will resources be used efficiently,
will there be increased emphasis on consumer safety on extraterrestrial flights, and an end to the coercive sequestering of funds from
taxpayers to prop up a failed program. It
is time to put the industry of space exploration to the ultimate test: that
of the market economy. The market, not the government, will be the true decider as to the existence
of such an industry. It seems that the market is declaring that space exploration can be not only
profitable but safe. If this is so, then so be it; it might be possible one day for all citizens to afford flights
into the far reaches of space. What is important is to allow consumers, not bureaucrats, to decide where precious resources should
go. It is time to end the government finance of wasteful public space exploration and to forevermore
dismantle NASA.
NASA funding is based on governmental coercion there is no public benefit

One may say that the simple existence of shuttle programs are a psychological benefit to society but this
does not justify the coercive collection of taxes from citizens who may or may not be willing to donate to
such a program. When government collects tax revenue, it does not allocate the funds to where
citizens demand but instead the funds are spent where politicians desire. Not to mention the fact that
much of this funding is lost in the shuffle between citizen and program and wind up in the golden
pockets of pork-barrelers. NASA, like all government programs, becomes increasingly less efficient as
time goes by and its purpose becomes less clear. The space shuttle programs may have once
accomplished significant scientific discoveries but this is no longer evident.
West Coast
2011
185
Neg Handbook
Link Private Sector Innovation is More Effective

Only privatization can make space exploration profitable
Edward Hudgins, Director of Advocacy and Senior Scholar @ the Atlas Society, 2004, Move Aside,
NASA, CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2514
Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services. Only private entrepreneurs can
improve quality, bring down the prices, and make accessible to all individuals cars, airline trips,
computers, the Internet, you name it. Thus, to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station,
NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets, and perhaps
conducting some basic research, which also might serve a defense function. This will mean leaving low
Earth orbit to the private sector.
Public sector funding solves the affirmative better

NASA's space exploration programs have continued to fail and this is only understandable to those
aware of the lack of incentives present in the public sector. Government, unlike the capitalist market,
has little incentive to strive for successful output and may often times overlook the many systematic
failures present in the execution of these programs. The public sector inherently has less of an
economic incentive to keep costs low and profits high. NASA knows that funding will continue, at
least for the coming year, and pushes on promises rather than accomplishments in order to receive
funding. On the other hand, the private sector functions on accomplishments, the achievement of its
goals, and keeping costs at a minimum while maximizing profits. The failure of the NASA program is
inevitably tied to the fact that it is not a private company; it has much less of an economic incentive
than those companies that are furthest away from the governments grasp.
Avoiding public sector funding is the best way to promote exploration

Edward Hudgins, Director of Advocacy and Senior Scholar @ the Atlas Society, 2004, Move Aside,
NASA, CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2514
If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars, NASA will actually need to
be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. The lunar landings of
over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11
"was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power." We were inspired at the sight of
humans at our best, traveling to another world. In announcing NASA's new mission, President Bush
echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American values of "daring, discipline, ingenuity," and "the
spirit of discovery. But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to
mankind. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week; instead, there have been about four
per year. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the
mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. Worse, neither
the station nor the shuttle does much important science.
West Coast
2011
186
Neg Handbook
Link Space Based Solar Power

Space based solar power is way too expensive to be viable
National Space Society, Foremost advocate of Space Based Solar Power, 2007, Space Solar Power
Limitless clean energy from space, National Space Society, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
The technologies and infrastructure required to make space solar power feasible include: Low-cost,
environmentally-friendly launch vehicles. Current launch vehicles are too expensive, and at high
launch rates may pose atmospheric pollution problems of their own. Cheaper, cleaner launch vehicles
are needed. Large scale in-orbit construction and operations. To gather massive quantities of energy,
solar power satellites must be large, far larger than the International Space Station (ISS), the largest
spacecraft built to date. Fortunately, solar power satellites will be simpler than the ISS as they will
consist of many identical parts.
Launch costs are too expensive ensure a huge investment from the plan
Tom James, Futurismic analyst and space writer, 3-9-2009, Japanese plan space-based solar power,
Futuristic, http://futurismic.com/2009/09/03/japanese-plan-space-based-solar-power/
There are still a number of hurdles to work through before space-based solar power becomes a reality
though. Transportation of the solar panels into space is too expensive at the moment to be
commercially viable, so Japan has to figure out a way to lower costs. Even if costs are lowered, solar
stations will have to worry about damage from micrometeoroids and other flying objects. Still, spacebased solar operates perfectly under all weather conditions, unlike Earth-based panels that are at the
mercy of the clouds.
Expenses are astronomical

Al Globus, Director at the National Space Society Board, 5-17-2007, Solar Power From Space, Ad
Astra, http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html
The catch is cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front expense,
although after development of a largely-automated system to build solar power satellites from lunar
materials SSP should be quite inexpensive. To get there, however, will cost hundreds of billions of
dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just what America is good at. And you know
something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military
presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more
to deal with global warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best
bargain we've ever had.
SPS would require developing re-usable launch vehicles very expensive

John C. Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, Spring 2008, Space-Based
Solar Power, Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
It is hard to imagine how automobiles, aircraft, ships, or any other modern transportation system might
somehow be produced so cheaply that the transport could somehow be disposable after each use. In
order for space solar power systems to be economically viable, reusable Earth-to-orbit launchers will
be essential. In-space transportation advances are also needed. In-space transportation systems must
be very fuel-efficient. Also, transport hardware costs must be dramatically reduced through the
development of reusable, rather than expendable, systems. Finally, the personnel costs for the
transport infrastructure must be drastically reduced: the system must be largely autonomous, involving
neither marching armies of operators or maintenance engineers.
West Coast
2011
187
Neg Handbook
Internal Link Deficits Collapse the Economy

Increased debt leads to a quick economic collapse
Marc Labonte, Specialist in Macroeconomic Policy at the Congressional Research Service, 3-12-2010,
Economic Effects of a Budget Deficit Exceeding $1 Trillion, Congressional Research Service,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/141631.pdf
As private investors observe the debt burden increasing, they will decide to flee the countrys debt
before the point where the government is forced to default or monetize. The decision by some
investors to flee the debt will make it more onerous for the government to finance the debt, because
it will now have to offer higher yields to attract new buyers. Thus, unsustainability tends to be triggered
rapidly, as no investor wants to be the one still holding the debt when default or hyperinflation
occurs. The exact point when investors choose to flee depends on psychological factors that cannot be
predicted with accuracy and are likely to vary with circumstances.
Historical statistical analysis shows increased debt hurts economic growth

Bill Conerly, Professor of Economics, 5-25-2010, Effect of Budget Deficit: Taxes Going Up, Seeking
Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/article/206813-effect-of-budget-deficit-taxes-going-up
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have studied financial crises around the world, and they find
that when debt/GDP ratios get to 90 percent, then "median growth rates fall one percent, and
average growth falls considerably more." With our projected debt/GDP ratio getting close to 90
percent, we may well anticipate slower growth. To put that one percentage point slower growth in
perspective, our economy normally grows by about three percent a year. With one percent population
growth, our per capita output rises by about two percent per year. After 21 years, per capita output has
risen 50 percent. But if growth slows to a mere one percent per capita, then in 21 years our output
rises only 23 percent, less than half the normal growth.
Growing deficits collapse the economy

Peter R. Orszag, Senior Fellow Economic Studies, 1-5-2004, Sustained Budget Deficits: Longer-Run
U.S. Economic Performance and the Risk of Financial and Fiscal Disarray, Brookings Institute,
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/orszag/20040105.htm
The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more
suddenly than traditional analysis suggests, however. Substantial deficits projected far into the future
can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home
and abroad. The unfavorable dynamic effects that could ensue are largely if not entirely excluded from
the conventional analysis of budget deficits. This omission is understandable and appropriate in the
context of deficits that are small and temporary; it is increasingly untenable, however, in an
environment with deficits that are large and permanent. Substantial ongoing deficits may severely and
adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative
cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy.
West Coast
2011
188
Neg Handbook
Internal Link The Plan is Permanent Spending

Permanent spending grows exponentially, undermining deficit reduction efforts
Jeff Sessions, Member of the Senate Finance Committee, 11-20-2004, Congressional Record, States
News Service, pg. 25295
If we measure our spending by maintaining the same rate of increase, we will not only have to spend the
$2 billion next year, but we can assume more than $2 billion on top just to maintain the rate of
increased baseline. So a $2 billion increase this year becomes a $4 billion increase next year, or at least
an increase in the debt. And this is the way it works: We go over the budget this year by $2 billion.
Then next year, we have to have a budget that funds that same $2 billion, and if our habits continue the
same and our appropriators cannot stay within the $821 billion or whatever our budget number is next
year, and it will be somewhat higher, then we will have another $2 billion or maybe more through
additional gimmicks next year, because I do not think we have ever done an appropriations bill since I
have been in the Senate that has been truly honest, without some gimmicks. Now, I figured this out. If
we did it just $2 billion--and, remember, often we have done worse than this bill and had more than $2
billion in gimmicks--then the next year there is another $2 billion plus the $2 billion we raised up this
year, and so it is $4 billion up, and the next year it is $6 billion up, and next year it is $8 billion. Add
those to the amounts that have been tapped and hit the country with deficit spending, in over 10 years I
calculate it would be $132 billion. So this $2 billion a year is not a one-time deal. It tends to become
part of the baseline of Federal spending, and as a result of that it grows exponentially over time. That
is how we get out of control.
Our link is lineareach sacred cow weakens efforts to balance the budget
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Baby steps Toddling towards a balanced budget, 5-14-1997,
Editorial Project at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, pg. 10B
The agreement also achieves some savings in Medicaid. Just a few years ago, the so-called entitlements
-- Medicare, Medicaid, and especially Social Security -- were considered politically untouchable, even if
the programs themselves were in financial straits. Each time Congress finds the courage to rein in
entitlements even a little -- and so chip away at their sacred-cow status -- the likelihood grows that
Congress will eventually find the courage to really reform these programs. And reform is needed, not
just to balance the federal budget but so the programs themselves can remain healthy for the long haul.
The perception of reigning in spending is important

Fred Bergsten, PhD, former assistant secretary for international affairs of the US Treasury, 9-11-2004,
The risks ahead for the world economy, Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/3172404
Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for
financial markets of expectations concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as
likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial
instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 198587 and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially and the Federal Reserve would
probably have to push them still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation.
West Coast
2011
189
Neg Handbook
Impact Terminal Economy Impacts

Economic decline leads to nationalism and conflict
If history is any guide, an era of global economic stagnation will help the nationalist and populist right,
at the expense of the neoliberal and cosmopolitan/multicultural left. During the Long Depression of the
late 19th century, which some historians claim lasted from 1873 to 1896, the nations of the West
adopted protectionist measures to promote their industries. Beginning with Bismarcks Germany,
many countries also adopted social reforms like government pensions and health insurance. These
reforms were often favored by the nationalist right, as a way of luring the working class away from the
temptations of Marxism and left-liberalism. By and large the strategy worked. When World War I broke
out, the working classes and farmers in most countries rallied enthusiastically around their respective
flags. The Great Depression of the 1930s similarly led to the rise of one or another version of the
authoritarian, nationalist right in Europe.
Economic decline undercuts global cooperation makes war more likely

In both eras of depression, great-power rivalry for resources and markets intensified and ultimately
led to a world war. Following World War II, the U.S. sought to avert a repetition of that pattern, by
creating a global market secured by a global great-power concert in the form of the Security Council.
But the project of economic disarmament and security cooperation broke down almost immediately
after 1945 and the split between the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans produced the Cold War. The
second attempt at a global market that began after the Cold War may be breaking down now, as the
most important economic powers pursue their conflicting national interests.
Economic decline leads to fast global conflict

Dictatorship, The Cedartown Standard, pg. 4
If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is
well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could
crumble. A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic
systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is
certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the
military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation
in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nationsthe world powers of North America,
Europe, and Asianeed access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade
meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely
alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve
to that point very quickly.
West Coast
2011
190
Neg Handbook
Internal Link Deficits Collapse Hegemony

A large budget deficit collapses hegemony
Aaron Friedberg, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School, and Gabriel Schoenfeld, Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, 10-21-2008, The
Dangers of a Diminished America, Wall Street Journal, pg. 3
Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before
this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply
unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial
implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of
billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown.
Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support
among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism
will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial
architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that
system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made
it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying
dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional
foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has
not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan
and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's
seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world
stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum.
Lowering federal debt sustains US hegemony

Kori Schake, PhD from Maryland, Fellow @ the Hoover Institute, 2009, Managing American
Hegemony: Essays on Power in a Time of Dominance, pg. 20
Debt. Reducing our debt is the simplest and most difficult challenge facing the country. It is so glary a
vulnerability and its magnitude so staggering that it beggars useful comparison: the government has
incurred debts of $30 thousand for every person in the country, and with disappointingly little to show
for the price tag. Continuing such profligacy will eventually erode long-term confidence in the United
States as the rule setter of global order and in the dollar as a prime holding currency. Debt servicing
on the loans will absolutely grow more expensive and crowd out other kinds of government spending.
A large federal budget deficit makes hegemonic decline inevitable

Kori Schake, PhD from Maryland, Fellow @ the Hoover Institute, 2009, Managing American
Hegemony: Essays on Power in a Time of Dominance, pg. 20
There is no investment the U.S. government could make, or capability it could acquire, that would add
as much to American power, and to a stable, prosperous international order as would paying down
our national debt. Breaking the cycle of deficit spending will grow harder, not easier, as the severity of
reduction grows commensurate with the size of the debt. We are facing no catastrophic challenge that
justifies an unbalanced budget or perpetuating this enormous debt. Political leaders are averting their
eyes from their responsibility to keep the country on a stable footing economically because trade-offs
will be politically unpopular and painful. And yet this window of prosperity and dominance in the
international order is the best time to accept near-term sacrifice and risk to ensure long-term wellbeing. If we cannot do it now, we cannot do it, and we will have sown the seeds of our own demise.
West Coast
2011
191
Neg Handbook
Impact Terminal Hegemony Impacts

US hegemony keeps great power peace
Robert Kagan, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, 1-24-2011, The Price of Power, The Weekly
Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html?nopager=1
We might begin by asking about the global security order that the United States has sustained since
Word War IIthe prevention of major war, the support of an open trading system, and promotion of
the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How much is that order worth? What would
be the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of order? Whatever the nature of the
current economic difficulties, the past six decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity
than any time in human history. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward
nations have become economic dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups and downs
throughout this period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this international order. One price
of this success has been maintaining a sufficient military capacity to provide the essential security
underpinnings of this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th century, the
United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the second half, this global American strategy
helped produce a peaceful end to the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20 more years of
great-power peace.
US unipolarity guarantees stability

Robert Knowles, Acting assistant Professor, New York University School of Law, 10-2009, American
Hegemony and the Foreign Affairs Constitution, Arizona State Law Journal, pg. 87
International relations scholars are still struggling to define the current era. The U.S.-led international
order is unipolar, hegemonic, and, in some ways, imperial. In any event, this order diverges from
traditional realist assumptions in important respects. It is unipolar, but stable. It is more hierarchical.
The U.S. is not the same as other states; it performs unique functions in the world and has a government
open and accessible to foreigners. And the stability and legitimacy of the system depends more on
successful functioning of the U.S. government as a whole than it does on balancing alliances crafted
by elite statesmen practicing realpolitik.
US hegemony solves Asian conflict

James Holmes, Professor of Strategy @ Naval War College, 3-5-2009, US strength crucial to Asia
peace, Taipei Times, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/03/05/2003437649
Theres precedent for a conventional US drawdown spurring efforts at nuclear proliferation. South
Korea interpreted the pullout of a US combat division from the Korean Peninsula in 1971 as a precursor
to a withdrawal of the US nuclear guarantee and launched a crash nuclear-weapons program in
response. Similarly, Chinas nuclear breakout in the 1960s, followed by US force reductions on Taiwan in
the 1970s, prompted Chiang Kai-shek () to initiate clandestine research into a Taiwanese bomb.
Washington prevailed on Taipei and Seoul to forego the nuclear option, in part by convincing them it
remained committed to their defense and possessed the wherewithal to fulfill its commitment. Now
as then, as Lippmann might counsel, the repercussions could be dire if Asian leaders lose confidence in
the US armed forces staying power in the region.
West Coast
2011
192
Neg Handbook
Internal Link New Spending is Coercive

Government spending encourages coercive taxation
John Hospers, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at USC, 2007, Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy
for Tomorrow, pg. 207
The most obvious interference by government with the supply of money in the country is taxation.
Government takes by force from every citizen: from every wage-earner in the form of income tax, from
every buyer in the form of sales tax and all the other taxes applied in the production of goods that are
bought. In general, the most productive people-in producing goods that others are willing to buy-are
those who make the most money; and those who make the most money are the most heavily taxed.
Never mind that these are the people on whom the welfare of the huge mass of employees depends;
never mind that these are the people whose prosperity, if interfered with, will mean a drop in the
prosperity of virtually everyone else; never mind that by taxing them most, the government is
draining its tax-incomes in future years; the government blindly taxes them the most.
Government intervention causes significant violations of freedom

Ron Paul, MD in Psychiatry, 2005, What Does Freedom Really Mean, Ron Paul Platform,
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/
If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it
real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about
freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and
benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only
when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents
no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her)
demolished this argument by explaining how such freedom for some is possible only when
government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and
property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are
coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. Liberalism, which once stood for civil, political, and
economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
The logic of the inevitability of government intervention is exactly what justifies mass
coercion
John Hospers, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at USC, 2007, Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy
for Tomorrow, pg. 210
But it is so easy, so fatally easy, every time a senator has an idea for "just one more" government
project that will redound to his honor, for the tax on everyone to be raised once again, just a little.
(And once raised, how often does it come down again?) But the result is cumulative and devastating:
every shopkeeper in the nation has to pay just that bit more in taxes to break even, has to work just
that bit harder and longer every day, before he can afford an evening out. He has to work that much
more just to stay where he was before. And the customers, for their part, will not be likely to increase:
on the contrary, their taxes are higher too, and the things that they can't buy now (because the money
has to go to pay their taxes) may just include the things they would have bought at his/[her] shop. He is
the unsung victim of government's interference in a once free economy.
West Coast
2011
193
Neg Handbook
Impact Coercion Must be Rejected

Coercion is immoral and must be rejected a priori
Stefan Molyneux, MA in History from University of Toronto, 2007, Freedomain Radio - Frequently
Asked Questions Part 1, Freedomain Radio, http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomainradio-frequently-asked_03.html
The most important thing to understand about anarchism is that it is a moral theory which logically cannot be overconcerned with consequences. For instance, the abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, because
slavery as an institution is innately evil. The abolition of slavery was not conditional upon the
provision of jobs for every freed slave. In a similar manner, anarchic theory does not have to explain
how every conceivable social, legal or economic transaction would occur in the absence of a coercive
government. What is important is to understand that the initiation of the use of force is a moral evil. With that in mind,
we can approach the problem of roads more clearly. First of all, roads are currently funded through the initiation of force. If you do not pay the
taxes which support road construction, you will get a stern letter from the government, followed by a court date, followed by policemen
coming to your house if you do not appear and submit to the court's judgment. If you use force to defend yourself against the policemen who
are breaking into your home, you will very likely be shot down. The roads, in other words, are built at the point of a gun. The
use of
violence is the central issue, not what might potentially happen in the absence of violence.
Anti-coercion is a necessary stance to prevent all violence

Tibor Machan, professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University, 2005,
Libertarianism: For and Against, pg. 33
As such, libertarianism is demanding, because it has no tolerance for anyones, including
governments, coercive meddling for any purposes whatever. Government which isto say, certain
other people-is not to be our daddy, nanny, or uncle; it is to be our civilized bodyguard. The reasoning
behind these ideas is not simple, but it includes one crucial fact that immediately refutes the claim that
libertarianism is utopian. That is that human beings are in fact incapable of being forced to be morally
good. It is up to them whether they will, or whether they will fail in that all-important task. We have
free will, and we ought to excel at being human individuals, but there is no formula by which that goal
can be guaranteed. Indeed, one reason government must be limited is that it wields a very dangerous
weapon, namely, physical force, a weapon that may only be used by people who know their limits
clearly and well; otherwise those in government, who are just like us, become despotic, tyrannical.
Government coercion is tantamount to slavery

Brian Farmer, Staff at the New American, 1-2009, The Welfare State Is Really Socialism in Disguise,
The New American, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/683
The right to life does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you. It means that you
have the right to earn your food and clothing yourself, and that no one is allowed to forcibly stop your
efforts to obtain them, or to take them from you, when you finally get them. In other words: you have
the right to act, to keep the fruits of your labor, and to do with them what you wish. But you have no
right to the goods, services, and talents of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
The right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit to a certain type of
action and its result not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do
so. If your desire for something imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then their right to
liberty is violated, and the right to pursue their happiness is hindered. Your right to happiness at their
expense means that they become, in effect, your slaves.
West Coast
2011
194
Neg Handbook
AT: Congress Will Raise Taxes to Pay for the Plan

Congress will deficit spend they are too averse to raising taxes
Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, 4-7-2011, Budget stalemate: Why America
won't raise taxes, Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0407/Budget-stalemate-Why-America-won-t-raise-taxes
It was a seminal moment in what has been a subtle but significant shift in the politics of Washington. For
generations, Republicans have resisted tax increases. As far back as the 1920s, conservative Treasury
Secretary Andrew Mellon was arguing that "high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large
revenue to the government, and more revenue may actually be obtained by lower rates." But in
recent years, the aversion to taxes has become more deeply ingrained. It is more than a policy
preference, more than a tenet in a party platform. For many Republican officeholders, raising taxes is
a subject they simply won't broach anymore period. If there is a third rail of politics today, it might
not be Social Security. It might be tax increases.
There will be an outright refusal to raise taxes to support the plan

The antitax ethos has been shaped by both politics and principle. To tax opponents, the overall tax
burden is still needlessly high the US corporate tax rate, for example, is one of the highest in the
industrialized world suppressing the activity of businesses and individuals who would otherwise use
those resources to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. They say higher taxes would just
feed an already bloated government that is getting inexorably bigger by the day. As the nation once
again grapples with staggering deficits and some $14 trillion in debt, the real problem, they insist, isn't
a lack of revenue. It's too much government spending. "The federal government is too big and too
wasteful and too inefficient," says former GOP House majority leader Dick Armey, who now heads
FreedomWorks, a tea party affiliated group.
No risk any republican gets on board for tax cuts

"It is a factor in every Republican primary," says Norquist. "[Candidates] know voters reward people
who take the pledge and punish people who raise taxes." Even talking about raising taxes can get a
lawmaker in trouble. Recently, three Republican Senate members of the bipartisan "Gang of Six"
working behind the scenes to come up with a compromise on deficit reduction suggested that
revenues would have to be "on the table." Immediately, Norquist sent a public letter warning that any
tax package that wasn't "revenue neutral" that didn't include the same amount in tax decreases to
offset any tax increases would violate the pledge.
West Coast
2011
195
Neg Handbook
AT: The Plan Helps the Economy

There is no economic benefit from the plan
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, 9-15-2008, Space Privatizationfrom Cato
to the BBC, CATO at Liberty, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/space-privatization-from-cato-to-the-bbc/
In the premier issue of BBC Knowledge, the Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees makes
several provocative arguments about manned space flight. They are: The completion of the
International Space Station (ISS) comes with a price tag of $50 billion, with the only profit being the
cooperation with foreign partners. There is no scientific, commercial, or military value in sending
people to space. Future expeditions to the Moon and beyond will only be politically and financially
feasible if they are cut-price ventures.
If NASA doesnt do it, the private sector will fill in which is better for the economy
He concludes that fostering good relations with other countries is insufficient justification for the
expenditures, and that NASA should move aside and allow the private sector to play a role in manned
space flight. The cost of these activities must lessen if they are to continue, and that will only happen
with a decrease or removal of government involvement. Rees observes that only NASA deals with
science, planetary exploration, and astronauts, while the private sector is allowed to exploit space
commercially for things such as telecommunications. However, there is no shortage of interest in space
entrepreneurship: wealthy people with a track record of commercial achievement are yearning to get
involved. Rees sees space probes plastered with commercial logos in the future, just as Formula One
racers are now.
NASA programs crowd-out private investment that would ensure technological

growth
This effectively works against the advancement and expansion of technology, while pushing out talent
to foreign countries who court American scientists and researches to launch from their less-regulated
facilities. In Move Aside NASA, Hudgins reported that neither the station nor the shuttle does much
important science. This makes the price tag of $100 billion for the ISS, far above its original projected
cost, unjustifiable. Michael Gough in 1997 argued that the space shuttle is a bust scientifically and
commercially" and that both successful and unsuccessful NASA programs have crowded out private
explorers, eliminating the possibility of lessening those problems.
West Coast
2011
196
Neg Handbook
China Counterplan
West Coast
2011
197
Neg Handbook
China Counterplan 1NC 1/2

The Peoples Republic of China should ____ (Insert mechanical component of the plan
text).
The counterplan solves China is a space technology leader
Voice of America, 4-21-2010, Analysts Say China Poised to Become Leader in Space, Voice of
America, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Analysts-Say-China-Poised-toBecome-Leader-in-Space-91720434.html
But she says Beijing's space program has launched China into a new geo-political level. "China is only
the third country to have human space flight capabilities [after the United States and Russia]. That
inherently projects the image of it being the regional technology leader," said Johnson-Freese.
Historian Jeffery Wassertstrom at the University of California, Irvine, says China is trying to reclaim the
powerful status it held hundreds of years ago.
The counterplan rejuvenates Chinese soft power

Rob Chambers, M.S., Strategic Intelligence, Joint Military Intelligence College, Major in the USAF,
2009, Chinas Space Program: A New Tool for PRC soft power in International Relations, Naval
Postgraduate School, http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Mar/09Mar_Chambers.pdf
Overlooked, however, is Chinas growing role as global competitor on the non-military side of space.
Chinas space program goes far beyond military counterspace applications and manifests manned
space aspirations, including lunar exploration. Its pursuit of both commercial and scientific
international space ventures constitutes a small, yet growing, percentage of the global space launch
and related satellite service industry. It also highlights Chinas willingness to cooperate with nations
far away from Asia for political and strategic purposes. These partnerships may constitute a challenge
to the United States and enhance Chinas soft power among key American allies and even in some
regions traditionally dominated by U.S. influence (e.g., Latin America and Africa).
This solves Korean conflict

Minxin Pei, PhD in Political Science from Harvard, 3-12-2003, A Docile China is Bad for Global Peace,
Financial Times, pg. 3
In dealing with an unfolding nuclear confrontation in North Korea, Beijing's inaction has disappointed
its friends and irked Washington. Although it does not have to toe the US line toward Pyongyang, China
needs to come up with an alternative to Washington's policy of no negotiation. If it allows the crisis to
spiral out of control, it could be dragged into a nuclear maelstrom with devastating consequences for
peace and prosperity in the region. In a world where the threats from rogue states and international
terrorism are at least as dangerous as rivalry among major powers, Beijing can better defend its
interests by modifying its diplomatic strategy. While it should continue a policy of co-operation with
the US, it must use its growing influence to assume a more active role in the international community.
This may require Beijing to break some old habits, such as its aversion to substantial participation in
peacekeeping missions, reluctance to increase its financial contributions to the United Nations, and
abdication of any leadership role in multilateral organisations. Chinese leadership will be necessary
above all in reshaping its own volatile neighbourhood. To be sure, its initiative to establish a free-trade
zone with the Association of South East Asian Nations is a good start. But Beijing can do much more to
allay the fears of its neighbours about China's growing power. This may require it to adopt a new twopronged regional strategy.
West Coast
2011
198
Neg Handbook
China Counterplan 1NC 2/2

Korean conflict goes nuclear
Stratfor Publishing, 5-26-2010, North Korea, South Korea: The Military Balance on the Peninsula,
Stratfor,
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100526_north_korea_south_korea_military_balance_peninsula
So the real issue is the potential for escalation or an accident that could precipitate escalation that would be
beyond the control of Pyongyang or Seoul. With both sides on high alert, both adhering to their own national (and
contradictory) definitions of where disputed boundaries lie and with rules of engagement loosened, the potential for sudden and
rapid escalation is quite real. Indeed, North Koreas navy, though sizable on paper, is largely a hollow shell of old, laid-up vessels.
What remains are small fast attack craft and submarines mostly Sang-O Shark class boats and midget submersibles. These vessels are best
employed in the cluttered littoral environment to bring asymmetric tactics to bear not unlike those Iran has prepared for use in the Strait of
Hormuz. These kinds of vessels and tactics including, especially, the deployment of naval mines are poorly controlled
when dispersed in a crisis and are often impossible to recall. For nearly 40 years, tensions on the Korean Peninsula were managed within the
context of the wider Cold War. During that time it was feared that a second Korean
War could all too easily escalate into

and a thermonuclear World War III, so both Pyongyang and Seoul were being heavily managed from their respective corners.
China is the only country that can limit North Korean aggression
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 6-23-2005, Should Nukes
Bloom in Asia?, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/china/should-nukes-bloomasia/p8192
China is the only country that can pressure North Korea to give up its nukes. Only China has the
carrots and sticks that the North Koreans respect. Without China, no progress is possible. If North
Korea stays nuclear, the region will respond in ways that China will hate. With China's and India's
power growing, North Korea rattling its nukes, Japan becoming more nationalistic and South Korea
reconsidering its relations with the U.S., this once-stable part of the world is in flux. A nuclear arms
race across East Asia would be hugely dangerous and destabilizing. Far better that the Bush
administration convince China that the wiser course is to prevent a nuke race by telling Pyongyang the
time has come for a deal.
The permutation doesnt solve only countering the US led system boosts Chinese
leadership
Kevin Pollpeter echoes this idea behind the 2006 White Paper as he notes that, the document serves
as a venue to tout Chinas accomplishments in space not only for domestic political and bureaucratic
reasons, but also to advertise Chinas viability as an international partner in space. He also noted
Chinas space program will help it achieve great power status within a system dominated by the
United States and to increase its international influence without triggering a counterbalancing
reaction. Clearly, for a nation to successfully achieve manned spaceflight is a tremendous
accomplishment with significant second-order impacts. Dean Cheng, CNA China space expert, notes, At
the very least it seems the manned programme is about international prestige. Chinas space
capability says to the world, We are an advanced nation. Cheng also asserts that Another driver is
diplomacy.
West Coast
2011
199
Neg Handbook
Chinese Investment in Space Solves

China is comparatively more effective in space innovation
Chinas competitive edge in space launch is due to several factors. First, it offers insurance for all
launches in case of failure through the China Insurance Company. Second, its lower wage scales allow
it to underbid competing offers by at least 10 to 15 percent. Third, as part of its outreach to
developing nations, it allows a flexible payment method as part of the package. Taking these factors
as a whole, the launch portion can save prospective customers $50 million per rocket over the
average higherpriced U.S. and European alternatives. The French-based Thales Aleniaspace has already
taken advantage of this and had China launch six of its satellites since 2006.
China has better technology than the United States

Rich McSheehy, Physicist at MIT for over 30 years working on engineering on infrared sensors, high
energy laser systems, and radar systems, 3-10-2010, China: The New World Leader in Technology,
RMW, http://richmcsheehy.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/china-the-new-world-leader-in-technology/
I suppose we should have seen it coming when China launched its own version of the Apollo
spacecraft three Chinese astronauts circling the Earth a few years ago. It was at a time when the
U.S. space program was, at best, going sideways, partnering with Russia, making short trips to the
Space Station with the Shuttle. Not a whole lot of new things have been done by NASA recently, and
now NASAs most recent brainstrom, a return to the Moon, has been canceled. But this Chinese high
speed rail deal is different. Were not talking about the Moon anymore.
China leads in all technology areas

Rich McSheehy, Physicist at MIT for over 30 years working on engineering on infrared sensors, high
energy laser systems, and radar systems, 3-10-2010, China: The New World Leader in Technology,
RMW, http://richmcsheehy.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/china-the-new-world-leader-in-technology/
Meanwhile, China quietly pushes ahead on all fronts. Chinas economy is booming. China is already
the primary manufacturer of most of the consumer goods that are sold in America. Oh, but thats OK
we said. Its just low tech stuff. We dont need those jobs anymore. Were a high tech country now. OK.
So what high tech stuff do we make? Airplanes? Sure, if you count military planes (were really good at
making things that kill people). How about commercial planes? Well, were down to Boeing now.
Everyone else names like Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Convair not to mention Wright theyre
not in the business anymore. Most of the planes you see in the sky in America these days are built by
the European company Airbus, or by the Canadian company Bombardier, or by the Brazilian company
Embraer. Boeing is fading too. My guess is that the 787 will be its swan song for commercial aviation.
The last of the American commercial airplane companies.
West Coast
2011
200
Neg Handbook
China Can Successfully Colonize Space

Chinese manned-space technology is advanced
Gabriele Garibaldi, MA from Pisa, 5-9-2005, Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space,
Global Politician, http://globalpolitician.com/2699-china-america
China is making substantial progress in manned space missions, with the first mission successfully
completed on October 17, 2003, and has long-term plans for its own space station and probably a
reusable space shuttle. Although the strongest factor behind the Chinese space program is political
prestige, the efforts of this Far East power to send men into Space will also contribute, indirectly, to the
development of the expertise required for future military applications between 2010 and 2020. It is
known to US Intelligence Services that China is dedicating considerable resources into lasers for
military use, and that by "using a combination of indigenous capabilities and foreign assistance, China
could emerge as a leading producer and exporter of military lasers by 2020", according to the US
Department of Defense.
Chinese Mars planning is far ahead of the United States

Michael Zey, Futures Trends Examiner, 5-7-2010, As US Abandons Manned Flight, China, Russia,
Europe Train For Space Colonization with Mars500, The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/futuretrends-in-national/as-us-abandons-manned-flight-china-russia-europe-train-for-space-colonization-withmars500#ixzz1M3M9HChS
The six-person crew was chosen from hundreds of applicants. The commander, a recently-married
Russian commander named Aleksei Sitev, 38, has worked at Russias cosmonaut training centre. The
doctor, Sukhrob Kamolov, 32, and one of the researchers, Aleksander Smoleyevsky, 33, are also Russian.
Other researchers include Wang Yue, 26, from Chinas space training centre, and Diego Urbina, 27, an
Italian- Colombian. The flight engineer is 31 year old Frenchman Romain Charles. Mars500 will provide
these countries with a wealth of knowledge about the technological obstacles and psychological trials
and tribulations a space crew will encounter both during the flight to Mars and while on the planet
itself. By missions end China, Russia, and the European Space Agency will be years ahead of the US on
the space learning curve.
China is having huge space technology breakthroughs

Leonard David, Space Staff for MSNBC, Winner of the National Space Club Press Award, 5-10-2011,
China's first space station: A new foothold in earth orbit, MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42977450/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Chinas goal for the program, Kulacki said, is equally simple: to acquire experience living and working
in space. "The planned scientific and technical experiments will be informed by developments in space
science since the late 1970s," he added, "and China has high hopes that their experience in space will
lead to breakthroughs that can be applied back on Earth."
West Coast
2011
201
Neg Handbook
China Can Successfully Build Space Solar Power

China can lead space solar power technology and production
William Cox, JD and Public Interest Lawyer, 3-26-2011, The Race for Space Solar Energy, The Peoples
Voice, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/26/the-race-for-space-solar-energy
Presently, only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power
to compete in the race for space solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster,
Japan occupies the inside track, as it is the only nation that has a dedicated space solar energy program
and which is highly motivated to change directions. China, which has launched astronauts into an earth
orbit and is rapidly become the worlds leader in the production of wind and solar generation
products, will undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the United States, which should
have every advantage in the race, is most likely to stumble out of the gate and waste the best chance it
has to solve its economic, energy, political and military problems. A Miraculous Source of Abundant
Energy Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially,
completely solve the worlds energy and greenhouse gas emission problems.
China can leapfrog on US technology to build space solar power

Jeremy Germand, Political Contributor, 6-2-2008, Space Solar Power, The Next Leapfrog
Technology?, True Progress, http://true-progress.com/space-solar-power-the-next-leapfrogtechnology-64.htm
Leapfrogging refers to the tendency of developing economies to take the next best available
technology off the shelf as they add infrastructure, which many times causes those economies to end
up with higher technology infrastructure than established developed economies have. So, could space
solar power be one of those technologies, shunned by the developed West and taken up by developing
India and China. The CNN article brings up that possibility. With enormous costs to electrify their nations
from a minimal starting point, India and China can consider this technology from a clean slate
perspective. Given soaring fuel costs for all energy types around the world, this strategy may prove to
be an excellent long term move. With a steady source of energy totally independent from most
Earthly politics, and any pressures on the supply side, they may have a real recipe for sustainable long
term energy development.
China is already developing space solar technology

National Space Society, independent, educational, grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to
the creation of a spacefaring civilization, 6-8-2010, Space Solar Power is Unspillable, NSS Blog,
http://blog.nss.org/?cat=5
Weve been harvesting solar power in space and sending it to Earth since 1962, when the first
commercial satellite, Telstar, was launched and began transmitting energy harvested by the solar
panels studded all over its beach-ball-like surface. Today, the space solar power harvesting business is
a quarter of a trillion dollar industry. We call it the commercial satellite industry. That industry uses
space solar power transmitted to earth for everything from satellite radio and television to direction
finding via GPS. The Japanese space agency, JAXA, has committed $27 million to space solar power and
has plans for a satellite capable of powering 300,000 homes. JAXA says it has the backing of 15 other
nations in its effort. And Russia, China, and India are all working on space solar power development.
West Coast
2011
202
Neg Handbook
Chinese Soft Power Net-Benefit

The counterplan sends the signal that China is willing to use space peacefully
National Institute for Defense Studies, 2008, Chinas Space DevelopmentA Tool for
Enhancing National Strength and Prestige, East Asian Strategic Review,
http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/east-asian/pdf/2008/east-asian_e2008_01.pdf
Of greater interest to China, however, is the use of satellite data to improve agricultural crop cultivars.
China possesses less than ten percent of the worlds arable land, yet must feed a population that
accounts for more than twenty percent of humankind. China is attempting to develop better cultivars by
exposing seeds in space to micro-gravity, near-vacuum, and cosmic radiation. If all goes well, the
improved seeds may revolutionize the Chinese agricultural industry. The practical orientation of Chinas
space program is visible in other areas as well. Chinas becoming the third nation to achieve human
spaceflight and the announcement of new projects for space station construction and lunar
exploration are not just means of boosting national prestige; they also show that the nation is steadily
making progress in practical space use. This trend may accelerate in the years ahead, and it is unlikely
to slow down.
Chinese space leadership is key to China-African joint ventures that solves Chinese
energy security
In addition to serving national security and domestic civilian use of space, Chinas space activities are
also being used as a tool for diplomacy. The nations spacerelated international cooperation efforts,
which began with a bilateral arrangement for satellite development, have blossomed to include the
establishment of satellite tracking stations and a leading role in multilateral frameworks. Chinas
pursuit of such international cooperation is expected to expand in the future, and will likely help the
nation to secure its necessary supply of resources and energy. In light of this posture and Chinas
growing efforts to provide African nations with official development assistance and debt relief,
projects like the China-Nigeria partnership in communication satellite development and launches can
be seen as examples of Chinas exploitation of space activities as a diplomatic tool.
Chinese space leadership is key to their soft power

Tim Luard, BBC News Staff, 10-15-2003, Going into space to gain face, BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3131374.stm
The Shenzhou V mission is a "showcase for China's coming of age as a major player in international
affairs," according to Li Cheng, professor of government at Hamilton College in the US State of New
York. "It has joined a club that until now has had only two members," he told BBC News Online. It is
significant that this club excludes such other leading satellite launchers as the European Union, Japan
and India, says Jean-Pierre Cabestan, China specialist at the French National Centre for Scientific
Research. "This goal is therefore highly political, and is aimed at projecting China above other regional
powers, to an orbit where only the largest continental nations rotate. In other words, a manned space
programme is the passport for entering the superpower club," he said.
West Coast
2011
203
Neg Handbook
Chinese Soft Power Solves Global Threats

Chinese soft power is key to energy security and doesnt pose a risk to the US
Carola McGiffert, Editor, Senior Fellow and director of Smart Power Initiatives at CSIS, 3-2009,
Chinese Soft Power and its Implications for the United States, CSIS
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090305_mcgiffert_chinesesoftpower_web.pdf
China in recent years has been pursuing its national interests through its exercise internationally of
soft power and economic power as it projects a nonconfrontational, friendly diplomacy to states in
developing regions. China is using its soft-power projection to promote its own national interests, not
as a direct challenge to the United States. It is China's rapid economic expansion that is driving its
state development forward, and the country's need for natural resources, viable export markets, and
political influence has led China to step up its engagement with developing countries. The measurable
benefit to China of its economic and soft-power initiatives in the developing world has yet to be
assessed or realized, primarily because of the future orientation of many of its programs.
Chinese soft power is key to Asian peace

Southeast Asia is the area of the world where China's use of soft power has been most significant,
especially in the mainland Southeast Asian countries of Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos. China's concern
for maintaining a peaceful, stable periphery drives this effort. The focus of Chinese initiatives in many
states is ensuring access to viable energy sources, and soft power plays a significant role in solidifying
energy relationships in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. In Latin America, China has actively
leveraged soft power and economic power to maintain access to energy resources and markets as well
as to gain support for its one-China policy.
Chinese soft power leads to US-China cooperation and solves war in global hotspots
China has not sought to replace or supplant the United States in its role of security provider in the
Middle East, Southeast Asia, or Latin America. Thus, U.S. policymakers must recognize China's
objectives of maintaining its own internal stability and economic growth as they craft policies to
ensure that the United States promotes its own policies effectively. The United States can do more to
collaborate with China in the developing world, particularly in the areas of energy, health, agriculture,
and peacekeeping. If such collaboration were to take place, the United States and China would find
themselves working toward a greater global public good.
West Coast
2011
204
Neg Handbook
Chinese Space Leadership is Key to CCP Stability

Chinese space leadership is key to CCP stability
There are a variety of reasons behind Chinese motivations for manned spaceflight, and one of them
has a domestic political spin: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Dean Cheng comments, Just
because there arent elections, doesnt mean that there are no means for the population to express its
displeasure. As Peter Aldhous notes: Its [the Chinese space program] value in promoting a domestic
feel-good factor should not be underestimated. Even Chinas authoritarian rulers have to worry about
keeping the countrys billion-strong population reasonably happy. A successful space program could
paper over the cracks for a while.
Chinese space leadership limits dissent by boosting national image and prestige
Noting Chinas semi-obsessive behavior with its national image and prestige, as well as the CCPs
determination to retain absolute control of the country, William Martel and Toshi Yoshihara echo the
conventional wisdom: Success in Chinas manned space program will confer a strong sense of national
dignity and international status on the country, which are viewed as crucial elements to sustain the
legitimacy of the Communist Party and replace its declining ideological appeal. This intangible yet
powerful expression of Chinese nationalism partially explains why Beijing invests substantial
resources into its space program.
Chinese space leadership cements the power of the CCP

Morris Jones, an Australian-based space analyst says, Chinas space program reflects the power and
legitimacy of the Communist Party. They are using manned space exploration as a political
demonstration of their legitimacy. Jones also notes that the launch date of the Shenzhou-7 came on
the heels of not only the Beijing Olympics, but also close to the conclusion of the Paralympics and
Chinese National Day on October 1, making the space mission a nice bridge between two major
nationalistic events. Roger Launius, senior curator of space history at the National Air and Space
Museum, focuses more on the symbolism of Chinese technological achievements in his perspective: It
[Chinas space program+ is a prestige program, no question. I think China has entered the [manned
spaceflight] arena for the same reasons that the United States and Soviet Union did in 1961. It is a
demonstration of technological virtuosity. Its a method for showing the world they are second to
none which is a very important objective for them.
West Coast
2011
205
Neg Handbook
CCP Stability Solves Asian War

CCP instability leads to WMD use
San Renxing, Epoch Times China Staff, 8-8-2005, The CCPs Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear
War, Epoch Times, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-8/30931.html.
Since the Partys life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards
human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight
hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really
is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate
attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly
evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab
themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a
gangster who would use biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die
together with him. This bloody confession has confirmed the CCPs nature: that of a monstrous murderer who has
killed 80 million Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with
their lives.
Chinese instability risks world war three

Tom Plate, UCLA Professor of Political Science, 6-28-2003, Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than China,
Straits Times, pg. A4
After all, having created a runaway economic elephant, will the Communist Party leaders be able to
stay in the saddle? Before long, the Chinese middle class alone may approach the size of the entire
population of America. It will want more freedom, not less - bet on it. But imagine a China
disintegrating - on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much
less outright military invasion - because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That
would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places
with poor border controls, which don't want them and can't handle them; some in Japan might lick
their lips at the prospect of World War II Revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send
Singapore and Malaysia - once occupied by Japan - into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might
make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia-style.
That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth - the very direction
the White House now seems to prefer.
Chinese breakup leads to nuclear war

The Economist, 3-18-1995, A long, hard road, The Economist, pg. 1
Fragmentation along military lines might produce responsible generals in some areas and warlords in others. The weapons
factories and nuclear arsenals deep in the western provinces would be disputed prizes. Any sort of
break-up would increase the chances of local conflicts along volatile borders, particularly in places with
rich energy reserves -- for example, off the South China coast, where China is one of six countries claiming ownership
of the Spratly Islands and the oil-fields that may surround them; in the north-east, where China's main onshore oil fields are located and
where Russia is at its most unruly; and the Tarim basin of Xinjiang, which has a Muslim minority and Muslim
neighbours. Even a messy fragmentation, however, would be more comfortable for China's neighbours than a China united behind a
strong leadership of the kind that now haunts the shadows of Russia's future -- one proclaiming the virtues of aggressive, army-backed, rightwing nationalism. A
Chinese neo-nationalist agenda might include attacks on Taiwan and Vietnam, hardline
repression in Hong Kong, and border disputes with Kazakhstan and Russia. Were Russia to be pursuing
an extreme nationalist agenda at the same time, the result would be an Asian nightmare
West Coast
2011
206
Neg Handbook
Chinese Space Investment is Key to The Economy

The counterplan invigorates the Chinese economy
Given the resource constraints on its budget and personnel, China needed to find the proverbial
biggest bang for the yuan for space technology investment. It smartly chose communication satellites
to start with, which could support a wide range of government services as well numerous civilian and
commercial applications. Yardley writes, Satellites have become status symbols and technological
necessities for many countries that want an ownership stake in the digital world dominated by the
West. Earth-imaging (or remote sensing) and weather satellites, which can also support a variety of
applications are of almost equal importance. Growth in these areas, as well as other space-related
industries, have had positive side-effects for the Chinese economy, commercial growth, and laid a
solid foundation for space science and high-technological research and development.
The counterplan spills over to improve all sectors of the Chinese economy
Chinas space program has brought immense benefits to its industrial, commercial, and agricultural
programs. Johnson-Freese notes, Having studied the Apollo playbook, China understands there are
multiple rewards to be reaped from a successful manned space program. China sees a space program
as generating technology, and technology as spurring economic development. As the demand on
telecommunications industry and demand for remote sensing services continue to grow, China will
see an increase *in+ future financial revenues, as well as the quality and number of available jobs
produced in China
Chinese space investment creates spin-offs that boost their economy

Ashley Tellis, PhD in Political Science from U of Chicago, 10-2008, Chinas Space Capabilities and U.S.
Security Interests, Carnegie Endowment,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/?fa=view&id=22595
Third, Chinas space efforts are focused in multiple ways. To begin with, although some Chinese
activities are intended to procure symbolic benefits that enhance the control or legitimacy of
Communist rule, these gains are usually conceived of as positive externalities that derive from some
other material benefits of exploiting space for specific economic, political or military aims. To that
degree, Beijings space investments are in fact conservative. Given its relative under-development,
China has consistently sought to avoid frittering its resources on showcase projects that provide few
tangible gains, preferring instead to invest in those activities that provide highest value within what
are acknowledged fiscal constraints. Given the desire to secure the most while spending the least, even
more controversial initiatives such as the manned space program have been authorized mainly
because it is expected that this effort would push the frontiers of innovation, create a new quality
control culture across the space program, generate new demands for technical education, and
produce spin-offs that would benefit the economy more generally.
West Coast
2011
207
Neg Handbook
Chinese Economic Growth Solves War

Chinese economic decline leads to nuclear war
Michael Auslin, Fellow @ AEI, 2009, Averting Disaster: Preventing the worst case scenario in Asia,
The Weekly Standard,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp
AS THEY DEAL WITH a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe
must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the
most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing
trade flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately,
military miscalculation. The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should
think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also important to remember what has helped keep
the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong,
Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to
development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic
initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly
benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general
conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of
growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of
terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of
armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide.
Chinese economic growth promotes human rights

Carlos Fuentes, Professor @ Princeton and former Mexican ambassador to France, 2004, Carlos
Fuentes, Newsweek, pg. 1
The best way to defeat totalitarianism is through free trade, not only in things, but in people, in ideas.
Cuba will start to change from within because Fidel Castro will no longer have the bogeyman of
American imperialism to invoke. The same thing will happen in China. China is moving very rapidly.
Eventually the [economic] growth of China will [lead to] the growth of democracy, a demand for
human rights, free speech, by the Chinese people themselves. What you cannot do is impose
democracy on other people. Every nation has its own culture, its own rhythm, its own antecedents, its
own ways of reaching democracy. You can never impose it from abroad.
Chinese economic growth is key to stability

Sarah Tong, Professor at the National University of Singapore, Institute of East Asian Studies, 2006,
China: Is Rapid Growth Sustainable?, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, pg. 271
It is increasingly clear that the sustainability of its rapid economic growth has become a central concern
for China. As shown in the book, economic growth has contributed significantly to the rising average
standard of living and the reduction of poverty in the country. Continued economic growth is,
therefore, essential to maintain social stability in China while the economy has been undergoing
fundamental transformation. Moreover, China's rapid economic growth has been an important factor
in recent years in the positive economic dynamism in Asia and in the world. As a result, the
sustainability of China's economic growth has captured increasing attention from both within and
outside China. The book is a much-welcome addition to the literature on China's growth and its
sustainability.
West Coast
2011
208
Neg Handbook
AT: US is Key to Solvency

Any benefit to US action can be leapfrogged by China
Jason Fritz, Masters of Human Resource Management, 2008, How China will use Cyber Warfare to
Leapfrog in Military Competitiveness, Culture Mandala, http://www.international-relations.com/CM81/Cyberwar.pdf
Chinas use of espionage to obtain foreign military technology is not restricted to the US. In 2007, the
head of a Russian rocket and space technology company was sentenced to 11 years for passing sensitive
information to China. An alleged agent who defected in Belgium claimed hundreds of Chinese spies
were working within Europes industries. These allegations coincided with an arrest in France for illegal
database intrusion of the automotive components manufacturer Valeo, and a guest researcher in
Sweden arrested for stealing unpublished and unpatented research. Further, Chinese diplomat Chen
Yonglin defected to Australia in 2005, claiming there were over 1,000 Chinese secret agents and
informants within Australia (Luard 2005; Isachenkov 2007). Espionage and technology transfer prosper
in cyber warfare, where being physically present is not required, and attribution becomes increasingly
difficult. It also falls in line with Chinas strategy of leapfrogging. By acquiring foreign military
knowledge, China can quickly catch up and begin working at a comparable level, rather than investing
the large amounts of time and effort it would take to acquire this knowledge independently.
China can access any US technology via cyberattacks

Jason Fritz, Masters of Human Resource Management, 2008, How China will use Cyber Warfare to
Leapfrog in Military Competitiveness, Culture Mandala, http://www.international-relations.com/CM81/Cyberwar.pdf
During peacetime, China is likely to rely on cyber reconnaissance to gather information and catalogue
exploits/weaknesses in the US military and infrastructure. Automobile companies, food services, oil
companies, financial institutions, and telecommunications all play a vital role in supporting military
operations, as well as housing technological advances, expertise, and inside information which could
prove useful for leapfrogging (Winkler 2005). Technology transfer allows China to skip years of costly
research and development, and it removes the competitive edge of foreign militaries and companies
(Tkacik 2007). In unrestricted fashion, China may also seek advantage during peacetime to battle
military export restrictions of the EU, purchase vital capital in the US financial system, and help shape
the international legal structure being developed for cyber warfare.
Leapfrogging mitigates any US benefit

James Lewis, Fellow @ CSIS, 2005, Surmounting the Peak: Chinas Space Program, Center for
Strategic and International Studies,
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/051116_china_space_program.pdf
We often talk about why people go into space and how it is mans nature to explore, the quest for knowledge and discovery
and so on. This may be true for people who work in space, but these are not the primary reasons that political leaders pay for space activities.
The motives
that seem to guide both Chinas civil and military space efforts fall into three categories that
I call catch-up, leap-frog, and conspicuous consumption. Catch-up involves China bringing its space
capabilities up to par with other developed nations. "Leap-frog' has China taking advantage of new
technologies, like microsatellites, to surpass developed nations. Conspicuous consumption involves those eyecatching activities that will enhance Chinas prestige and influence. While there are elements of all three in Chinas space efforts, judging from
expenditures and payloads, the most important of the three motives is now conspicuous consumption.
West Coast
2011
209
Neg Handbook
AT: Permutation Do Both China Wont Cooperate

The permutation links to the disadvantage _____
There is no net-benefit to the permutation China will refuse to cooperate with the
United States
Today China appears determined to become a center of resistance against the United States, the postCold War worlds leader in many arenas. This opposition is seen in not only Chinas economic activities,
but also its national security efforts. Having minutely analyzed the United States current strengths and
weaknesses, China is endeavoring to narrow its gap with US capabilities in established weapons
systems by exploring such possibilities as construction of an aircraft carrier and reinforcement of its
nuclear capabilities. At the same time, China is building up its cyber war capabilities. China is also
countering US dominance in security-related space activities by developing technologies to exploit the
vulnerabilities of US space assets. This capability was amply demonstrated by the success of the antisatellite test described earlier.
China will only work on cooperation with Europe they oppose US joint ventures
Chinas resistance is further manifested in its proactive involvement in the Galileo Project, the
European program aimed at developing a navigation satellite system that will not rely on the United
States GPS. As such, the project serves as an opportunity for China to deepen its ties with Europe
while challenging US supremacy. Moreover, China is carrying out its own initiatives, such as the Beidou
system mentioned earlier. It also appears to be enhancing its optical reconnaissance satellites and
developing SAR reconnaissance satellites; these projects, if successfully realized, will allow China to
dramatically improve its capabilities in space asset use and space-based information gathering.
ITAR prevents permutation solvency

Also in 2004, the EU surpassed Japan as Chinas largest trading partner with Sino-EU trade accounting
for over $160 billion. Although the economic ties are very strong, Chinas grander strategy with Europe
is based on science and technology diplomacy (keiji waijiao) over normal economic diplomacy
(jingji waijiao), since much of the technical space knowhow that China lacks can be found in Europe
and is free from U.S. export restrictions. It seemed to be in that spirit that China recently purchased a
satellite made by the French firm, Alcatel, which was proudly announced to be ITAR-free and
impervious to U.S. badgering.
West Coast
2011
210
Neg Handbook
AT: Permutation Do Both No Benefit to Cooperation

Cooperation will go nowhere because of lack of Chinese transparency
While this integration of civilian and military organizations and systems may be understandable,
especially in light of constrained Chinese human, financial, and technological resources, it
nonetheless complicates any effort at Sino-American cooperation. The opacity and uncertainty
regarding the organization of Chinas space efforts, beyond the role of the PLA, adds yet another
layer of complication. The United States and the PRC have almost no parallels in how each has
organized its overall space organizations and political infrastructure. This makes establishing
counterparts for even discussing space cooperation much more difficult.
Empirically, China wont cooperate in space talks

The Washington Post, 1-21-2010, Mistrust stalls U.S.-China space cooperation, Latest China,
http://latestchina.com/article/?rid=28401
But as China ramps up its space initiatives, the diplomatic talk of cooperation has so far found little
traction. The Chinese leadership has shown scant interest in opening up the most sensitive details of
its program, much of which is controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). At the same time,
Chinese scientists and space officials say that U.S. wariness of China's extraterrestrial intentions, as
well as bans on some high-technology exports, makes cooperation problematic.
Cooperation tactics are worse for relations

Robert Pfaltzgraff, Professor of International Security, 4-2009, China-US Strategic Stability, Carnegie
Endowment, pg. 7
This, then, leads me to the conclusion that to the extent that the United States perpetuates its
vulnerabilities, it provides an open invitation to Chinese efforts to exploit such vulnerabilities. Let me
be more specific. There is considerable discussion to the effect that the United States should maintain
or develop with China a strategic relationship based on mutual vulnerability and that increased
emphasis, notably, on missile defense on our part will lead China to increase its own programs to order
to counter such U.S. systems. Aside from the shaky empirical basis for such an assertion, the Chinese
emphasis on exploiting U.S. vulnerabilities argues logically for efforts on our part to cut off such U.S.
vulnerabilities wherever possible in the forces that will shape the China-U.S. strategic relationship in
the years ahead. In fact, I could even argue that the conscious perpetuation of U.S. vulnerability in the
mistaken belief that the result will be strategic stability makes no sense. It may even encourage China
to attempt to exploit U.S. vulnerability at a time of crisis and lead to undesired escalation based on
miscalculation.
West Coast
2011
211
Neg Handbook
AT: Chinese Soft Power Hurts US Soft Power

Chinese soft power invigorates US soft power
William S. Cohen, chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group, a strategic business consulting firm based in
Washington, D.C. Secretary Cohen served as U.S. secretary of defense, and Maurice R. Greenberg,
chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. Mr. Greenberg retired four years ago as chairman and CEO of
American International Group (AIG) after more than 40 years of leadership, 3-2009, Smart Power in
U.S.-China Relations, CSIS,
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090309_mcgiffert_uschinasmartpower_web.pdf
Although Beijing certainly has an eye on Washington, not all of its actions are undertaken as a
counterpoint to the United States. In addition, CSIS research suggests that growing Chinese soft power
in developing countries may have influenced recent U.S. decisions to engage more actively and
reinvest in soft-power tools that have atrophied during the past decade. To the extent that there
exists a competition between the United States and China, therefore, it may be mobilizing both
countries to strengthen their ability to solve global problems. To be sure, U.S. and Chinese policy
decisions toward the respective other power will be determined in large part by the choices that
leaders make about their own nations interests at home and overseas, which in turn are shaped by
their respective domestic contexts. Both parties must recognizeand acceptthat the other will pursue
a foreign policy approach that is in its own national interest. Yet, in a globalized world, challenges are
increasingly transnational, and so too must be their solutions. As demonstrated by the rapid spread of
SARS from China in 2003, pandemic flu can be spread rapidly through air and via international travel.
Dust particulates from Asia settle in Lake Tahoe. An economic downturn in one country can and does
trigger an economic slowdown in another. These challenges can no longer be addressed by either
containment or isolation. What constitutes the national interest today necessarily encompasses a
broader and more complex set of considerations than it did in the past
Chinese soft power wont replace the US

Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, 2-20-2007, The hard evidence that China's
soft power policy is working, Financial Times, pg. 4
Mr Nye, the original theorist of soft power, sees obvious limitations to China's charm offensive. The Chinese
model, he argues, is only likely to work in "places where an authoritarian model of rapid development
is attractive". What is more, the US is better placed to polish up its image than China. Surveys
regularly suggest that American society retains much of its international appeal; it is US foreign policy
that has provoked a backlash. By contrast, Chinese foreign policy excites little hostility - outside Japan and Taiwan. It is the Chinese
political and social system that worries foreigners. It is much easier to change your policies than to change your political system.
Soft power has zero influence

Barry M Blechman, founder and president of DFI International Inc.,1-2005, Soft Power: The Means
to Success in World Politics, Political Science Quarterly, pg. 681
Although Nye makes a persuasive case, in the end, the book is unsatisfying because of inherent
limitations in the concept of soft power. It is a form of power, yes, but not an instrument of power
that can be deployed in specific situations or even one that can be shaped in a meaningful way by the
government. Soft power exists, and may be influenced by governmental choices, but it is more an
existential factor in the policy environment than something policy makers can utilize to their
advantage. A nation's "attractiveness" to others is not a factor that can be exploited in any coherent
way.
West Coast
2011
212
Neg Handbook
AT: China-Japan Disadvantage

Senkaku disputes outweigh the impact of space policy
Xiaoxiong Yi, director of Marietta College's China Program, 10-6-2010, Column: The United States
must stand by Japan, our top ally in Asia, Zanesville Times Recorder,
http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20101006/OPINION02/10060307
The world is witnessing the start of a new era of antagonism and confrontation between its secondand third-biggest economies, with volatile consequences for regional security and stability, as well as
for U.S. strategic interest in Asia. The recent standoff between Japan and China over a boat collision
near the disputed Senkaku Islands, a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea controlled and
administered by Japan since 1895, shows that Beijing has adopted an aggressive stance against Japan
and there will be more tension to come.
Historical distrust prevents China-Japan relations

Mike Mochizuki, Professor of Political Science @ George Washington, 2006, Power Shift, pg. 147
The history issue continues to be a thorn in China-Japan relations. The approval of a Japanese
nationalistic history textbook, Koizumi's repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, and provocative
statements by conservative Japanese politicians have caused frictions in Sino-Japanese relations. But
since 1999, Chinese leaders have been notably restrained in their criticisms of Japan about the history
issue. Their public statements appear to be carefully crafted to be responsive to Chinese popular
sentiments critical of Japan while trying not to inflame anti-Japanese views. Nevertheless, Koizumi's
bold behavior regarding the Yasukuni Shrine visits has impeded the exchange of visits by the top
leaden of the two countries, even on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of Sino-Japanese
normalization and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the bilateral Peace and Friendship Treaty.
Historical baggage prevents any China-Japan cooperation

Yong Deng, Professor of Political Science, 2008, Chinas Struggle for Status: The Realignment of
International Relations, pg. 181
These unsettled historical issues have long haunted the Sino-Japanese relationship. What separated
the latest episode from the past was a profound shift in the Japanese official attitude and the Chinese
determination to use history to beat back what they perceive to be Japanese attempts to derail
China's ongoing rise. In the 1980s, when Japanese officials made ill-conceived remarks offensive to the
Chinese, they would profusely apologize and some would even lose their jobs. On the history issue,
almost all the controversies ended with the Japanese side backing down. Under strenuous Chinese
objections, even the assertive nationalist Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone decided to cease visitng the
Yasukuni shrine after 1985.35 In contrast, under the Koizumi administration, the prime minister
repeatedly visited the shrine, and his key cabinet members were markedly less prohibited than their
predecessors in criticizing their communist neighbor. Fierce Chinese reactions were often met with
equally blunt rebuttals. Polls showed that the majority of the Japanese public wanted Koizumi to stop
the shrine visits, but they also lay real blame on the Chinese and Koreans - rather than their politicians
- for the deterioration of their bilateral relationship. Not backing down to foreign demands in fact
helped shore up KoizUJ;ni's image as a refreshingly strong leader among the electorates.
West Coast
2011
213
Neg Handbook
AT: International Fiat is Illegitimate

International fiat is goodA) Global citizenry - learning about relative capabilities and raises global awarenessaccesses more topic literature and education, and makes us better, less xenophobic
citizens in light of a culture of dissent
B) Role-playing - Integration of international perspectives makes us better decision
makers based on a better set of information
c) Negative flexibility - Allows full testing of the aff, forces them to think critically and
corrects side biases
Counter interpretation- the judge is a policy analyst who chooses the best solution to
the problem presented by the resolution.
A) Real world- burden-sharing, joint operations, think tanks, NGOs, and the UN all
prove policymakers inside and outside the government choose between two states
B) US key warrants- intrinsic reasons the federal government must act check back
hundreds of affs like removing troops under NATO command or vacating a base so
host countries can use it
c) Viewing problems globally is good and predictable
David Chandler, Professor of International Relations at the Centre for the Study of Democracy, 2009,
The Global Ideology: Rethinking the Politics of the Global Turn in IR, International Relations,
http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Journal%20of%20Int%20Rels%20%20Global%20Ideology%20published.pdf
In this dominant framework of thinking and understanding our relationship to our external world, the
only question is how we can adapt to our globalised world; how academic theorising and government
policy-making can overcome the political and theoretical baggage of the past to meet todays
challenges and possibilities. It is argued that we need to ditch previous frameworks of social theorising
for their methodological nationalism or methodological territorialism: rather than understand
political communities as bounded by the nation state, we should instead conceive of ourselves as
political subjects constituted and acting on a global level. Similarly, at the level of political practice, the
nation state is increasingly seen to be a barrier to progressive political movements rather than the
object of political struggle. William Connolly is not exceptional in arguing that the state imprisons
citizens through confining democratic possibilities or in questioning the view that to be a democrat one
has to be committed to a particular territorial community. In fact, it appears that while economic and
social actors have taken on global engagement only democratic citizens remain locked behind the
bars of the state in the latemodern time.
West Coast
2011
214
Neg Handbook
Private Sector Counterplan
West Coast
2011
215
Neg Handbook
Private CP 1NC Shell Tax Incentives

Text: The United States Federal Government should pass the Commercial Space Jobs
and Investment Act of 2010.
CP solves spurs investment in space exploration and avoids political opposition to
spending on NASA.
Leroy Baker, Tax-News.com, 8/19/2010, Tax Breaks to Boost Private Space Exploration,
http://www.usa-tax-news.com/story/Tax_Breaks_To_Boost_Private_Space_Exploration____44876.html
United States Senator Bill Nelson has announced legislation that would offer major tax and other incentives to
encourage growth in the private space exploration industry. Nelson's plan would create up to five
regional business enterprise zones around the country as "magnets for commercial space ventures."
As it grapples with record federal deficits, the Obama administration no longer perceives the funding
of space exploration a priority and is cancelling the space shuttle program. One more shuttle flight is scheduled for next year after
the Senate approved a bill to provide additional funding to the program, but a cloud of uncertainty currently hangs over the
US space industry, not to mention the hundreds of high technology firms supplying equipment to the
US space program. Nelson's bill, known as the Commercial Space Jobs and Investment Act of 2010
would create a new 'commercial space capital formation credit' allowing investors to claim a tax
credit worth 20% of their equity investment in a business producing equipment such as launch
vehicles and re-entry vehicles. The equity investment would have to be held for a minimum of five
years for the investor to qualify for the tax credit.
Tax incentives solve boost private investment and doesnt link to our budget DA.
Edward Aldridge Jr. et al, Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, at the
Department of Defense, June 2004, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, Report of the
Presidents Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy,
Tax Incentives. A time-honored way for government to encourage desired behavior is through the creation
of incentives in the tax laws. In this case, an increase in private sector involvement in space can be
stimulated through the provision of tax incentives to companies that desire to invest in space or space
technology. As an example, the tax law could be changed to make profits from space investment tax free until they reach some predetermined multiple (e.g., five times) of the original amount of the investment. A historical precedent to such an effort was
the use of federal airmail subsidies to help create a private airline industry before World War II. In a like manner,
corporate taxes could be credited or expenses deducted for the creation of a private space transportation system, each tax incentive keyed to a
specific technical milestone. Creation
of tax incentives can potentially create large amounts of investment and

hence, technical progress, all at very little expense or risk to the government.
West Coast
2011
216
Neg Handbook
Private CP 1NC Shell State Prizes

Text: The governments of the fifty states of the United States of America should offer
a prize of $100 million to the first private organization to _____insert plan goal___
State prizes spur new technology solves exploration.
The U.S. government need not shoulder the entire cost for implementation of the vision. The Commission
believes there will be significant private sector and international investment, if the recommendations
made herein are adopted. For example, we are persuaded that the award of significant monetary prizes tied
directly to the vision plan will spark entrepreneurial investment globally and accelerate the
development of technologies and systems that enable travel to the Moon and Mars. In our hearings, the
Commission also heard from state governments that are prepared to invest in Americas space
infrastructure, if those investments can be appropriately tied to their own economic growth. Proper
coordination with other nations will also yield alignment of missions for mutual scientific advantage and will bring cost savings that benefit all
parties.
Americas direct financial investment should be designed to leverage all such private and public
investments. These monies, when added to what the federal government can afford, will indeed get us to the Moon,
Mars, and beyond.
Expanded prize program solves technology development and exploration.

Although many companies exist and more are emerging in the field of space, an increase in both the number and variety of
such businesses would vastly increase the processes and materials available for space exploration. The
private sector will continue to push the envelope to succeed competitively in the space field. It is the stated policy of the act creating and
enabling NASA that it encourage and nurture private sector space. The Commission heard testimony on both positive incentives and potential
bottlenecks encountered by the private sector as they attempt to exploit these commercial opportunities. A
space industry capable

of contributing to economic growth, producing new products through the creation of new knowledge
and leading the world in invention and innovation, will be a national treasure. Such an industry will rely upon
proven players with aerospace capabilities, but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity. Prizes. The Commission heard
testimony from a variety of sources commenting on the value of prizes for the achievement of
technology breakthroughs. Examples of the success of such an approach include the Orteig Prize, collected by Charles Lindbergh for his solo flight to Europe, and the
current X-Prize for human suborbital flight. It is estimated that over $400 million has been invested in developing technology by the X-Prize competitors that will vie for a $10 million prize a
40 to 1 payoff for technology. The Commission strongly supports the Centennial Challenge program recently established by NASA. This program provides up to $50 million in any given fiscal
year for the payment of cash prizes for advancement of space or aeronautical technologies, with no single prize in excess of $10 million without the approval of the NASA Administrator.
The focus of cash prizes should be on maturing the enabling technologies associated with the vision.
NASA should expand its Centennial prize program to encourage entrepreneurs and risktakers to undertake major space missions. Given the complexity and challenges of the new vision, the
Commission suggests that a more substantial prize might be appropriate to accelerate the development of
enabling technologies. As an example of a particularly challenging prize concept, $100 million to $1 billion
could be offered to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to
Earth. The Commission suggests that more substantial prize programs be considered and, if found appropriate, NASA should work with the Congress to develop how the funding for such a
prize would be provided.
West Coast
2011
217
Neg Handbook
2NC Resource Trade-Off Net Benefit Both Versions

Government investment in exploration trades off with consumer spending.
Robert Murphy, adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, January 2005, A Free Market in Space, The
Free Market, http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=525
Prior to the exploits of SpaceShipOne, the standard justification for government involvement in space was that
such undertakings were "too expensive" for the private sector. But what does this really mean? The
Apollo moon program certainly didnt create labor and other resources out of thin air. On the contrary, the
scientists, unskilled workers, steel, fuel, computers, etc. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other
industries and potential uses. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, and
consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services.
This is just another example of what Frdric Bastiat described in his famous essay, "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen."
Whenever the government creates some public work, everyone can see the obvious benefits. For example,
everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon, and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. Or to use a more mundane example, everyone can
What people cant see are the thousands of other goods and
services that now wont be enjoyed, because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted
to the government project. Politicians may break moral laws, but they cant evade economic ones: If they send a man to
the moon (or build a new stadium), consumers necessarily must curtail their enjoyments of other goods.
see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars .
Thats key to economic growth.

Daniel Indiviglio, Daniel Indiviglio is an associate editor at The Atlantic, 4/28/2011, Chart of the Day:
How Slower Consumer Spending Stifles GDP, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/chart-of-the-day-how-slower-consumerspending-stifles-gdp/238026/
The American consumer drives the U.S. economy. Consumer spending generally makes up around 70%
of the nation's GDP. So when spending grows, the nation grows. But when spending slows, so does
overall growth. Unfortunately, spending growth wasn't as strong in the first quarter of 2011 as it was in the final quarter of 2010. That's one of the big reasons why the U.S.
economy grew at a weak rate of just 1.8%.
Lack of economic growth causes global war.

Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2/4/2009, Only Makes You Stronger, The New Republic,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169866/posts
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time
the crisis has

weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to
develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of
religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a
goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently,
variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established
firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when
crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the
Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the
two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German
public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression,
what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The
United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
reassuring messages as well.
West Coast
2011
218
Neg Handbook
2NC Competitiveness Net Benefit Tax Incentives

New tax credits solve US competitiveness.
R.D. Atkinson, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, July 2007, Expanding the R&E tax
credit to drive innovation, competitiveness and prosperity, Journal of Technology Transfer,
http://www.itif.org/files/AtkinsonRETaxCreditJTT.pdf
The debate over the R&E tax credit needs to be broadened from the question of does it cost-effectively
stimulate more research to does it cost-effectively stimulate more research in the United States. In other
words, the R&E credit has potential to become a central policy tool for ensuring that the United States is
an internationally attractive location for research activities.
Competitiveness is critical to US leadership.

Bruce Jentleson, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University, 8/6/2007, The
Globalist, http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=6364
The Business Roundtable tellingly uses the term atrophy to express its concern about what has been
happening to U.S. scientific and technological superiority. And the National Intelligence Council points
to science and technology as the key uncertainty for whether the United States will remain the
worlds single most important actor. The declining competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry
which for a century was a driving economic engine and the countrys defining cultural symbol is telling. 2007 has been the year Toyota
ended General Motors reign as first in worldwide sales.
US leadership is key to prevent global nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Program director for strategy, doctrine, and force structure of RAND's Project AIR
FORCE, Spring 1995, Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly, p.84
Under the third option, the
United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States
exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more
open and more receptive to American values - democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a
world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
West Coast
2011
219
Neg Handbook
Solvency - Tax Incentives Solve Investment

Private enterprise solves market barriers wont prevent exploration.
Naveen Jain, chief executive officer and co-founder of Intelius, 4/20/2011, Our Sputnik Moment: US
Entrepreneurs Needed for the "Space Race, TFD News,
http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/04/20/93401-naveen-jain-our-sputnik-moment-usentrepreneurs-needed-for-space-race.htm
To re-launch our space program, we need private enterprise to step into the void. Government
funding only needs to take us to the point where the technology has been developed to get us to the Moon -and we already have that. It's a model that's been used successfully in the past: the military first
developed the Internet, and private enterprise then seized on its commercial potential; the same
thing occurred with GPS technology. Naturally, there are barriers to entrepreneurs leading the charge
to the Moon. For one thing, ownership is always a point of discussion -- but the fact is that "everyone" and "no one" owns the
Moon. Much like when mining resources from international waters (as in fishing), entrepreneurs would need to respect the rights of other
business and government players. There is legal precedent for explorers finding and keeping resources that they have uncovered via private
investment. There's also the question of whether we can transport resources from the Moon in a cost-effective
manner. Perhaps the cost of rocket launches -- by far the greatest expense for a Moon mission -- will come down as more entrepreneurs move
into this market, or new technology will make them cheaper. It's even possible to create rocket fuel from resources on the Moon, which would
slash return costs and even lower launch costs from Earth. On the other hand, mining and transporting these resources back to the Earth could
depress prices as supplies grow, making such ventures less appealing to entrepreneurs. As with all private market endeavors, many will want to
take a wait-and-see approach to the Moon's market potential. But
therein lies the opportunity for early movers who

apply entrepreneurship to the opening of whole new markets, and in the case of the Moon, a whole
new world.
Tax incentives overcome investment fears.

David M. Livingston, business consultant, financial advisor, and strategic planner, 8/10/2000, From
Earth to Mars: A Cooperative Plan,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/from_earth_to_mars_a_cooperative_plan.shtml
For the private-sector companies participating in the manned mission to Mars, the government can initiate
policies that provide them with noncash tax and other incentives, which can certainly minimize or buy down the
risk and add to the expected rate of return for their investment. Such use of economic incentives to
support private-sector investment has long been a tradition in opening up new industries-the
development of the railroads and civil aviation are primary examples.
Tax incentives key to overcome market barriers solves innovation.

Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, July 2009,
Effective Corporate Tax Reform in the Global Innovation Economy,
http://www.itif.org/files/090723_CorpTax.pdf
Because markets dont always allocate resources to optimize productivity and innovation,
government has a key role to play in providing better incentives for private actors to increase
investments that drive innovation and productivity. This means that effective corporate tax reform
strengthens, not weakens, incentives for firms to invest in these activities. As discussed below, it is clear what these
activities are: investment in new generations of capital equipment (including computers and software), conduct of research
and development, and training the workforce with skills needed to develop and use innovations.
West Coast
2011
220
Neg Handbook
Solvency Tax Incentives Key to Competitiveness

Tax credits are the single biggest variable for competitiveness key to spur innovation
in the US.
Addressing the new competitiveness challenge will require policy makers to take a host of steps,
including improving education and significantly increasing funding for research (Atkinson 2007). Yet while these steps are
necessary, they are not sufficient to win the competitiveness challenge. Policy needs to do more than
boost the supply of innovation resources (e.g., a better trained workforce and increased basic research discoveries); it must
also spur demand by companies to locate more of their innovation-based production in the United
States. If the United States is to remain the worlds preeminent location for technological innovation
(and the high paying jobs that result), Congress will need to significantly expand a nd reform the Research
and Experimentation Tax Credit.
US falling behind in tax incentives hurting competitiveness.

Among nations with a tax incentive for research, the United States now provides one of the weakest incentives,
below our neighbors Canada and Mexico, and behind many Asian and European nations (see Fig. 2). Its ironic
that at a time of increased concern about Americas growing competitiveness challenge, our credit,
until just last year, had been getting weaker, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations in part because of changes made by
Congress over the years that have diminished its generosity.10 In fact, by 2006 credit was about half as generous as it
was in the early 1980s (Whang 1998). Moreover, in the last decade, all other nations with R&D tax incentives
(with the exception of Canada) have boosted the generosity of their R&D tax incentives , particularly since 2000 (Falk
2005). As a result, companies can receive significantly more generous tax incentives if they invest in R&D in
these other nations.
Tax incentives are the most effective government tool for spurring innovation.
In an environment where R&D investments are increasingly mobile, R&D tax incentives have become
a more important policy tool. Of 27 OECD nations examined, 70% had R&D tax incentives in place in
2005, up from 50% in 1996 (Warda 2006). Moreover, other nations have boosted their R&D tax credits. In the late
1980s the United States provided the most generous tax treatment of R&D in the world (Hall 2000). By
1996, we had fallen to seventh most generous among OECD nations, behind Spain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France
(Guellec et al. 1997). By 2004, we had fallen to 17th in generosity for general R&D; 16th for machinery and equipment used for
research; and 22nd for buildings used for research (see Fig. 1).7 In 2006 Congress added a new Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC). While clearly
a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the addition of the ASC increased our rank only to 15th in tax generosity for R&D
(assuming that other nations did not increase their R&D incentives last year).
West Coast
2011
221
Neg Handbook
Solvency Prizes Solve Incentives

Prefer our specific literature state incentives proven to boost private investment.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2009, State Support for Commercial Space Activities,
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/State%20Support%20for%20Co
mmercial%20Space%20Activities.pdf
Every state in the union offers a range of incentives to encourage businesses to locate or increase their
activities within that specific state. The vast majority of these incentives are financial, most commonly
resulting in a lower tax burden or otherwise reducing the costs of conducting business critical activities. Sometimes these incentives
target specific industries or even components of specific industries. Incentives of this kind are generally available at both the state and local level. Any business
considering locating in a particular state would likely be eligible for benefits from the state, county, or local municipality. The motivation for most states and
localities to offer these types of incentives is to promote job growth and development. Given this, there is often a
substantial bias in the types of incentives offered towards industries that pay high salaries and employ large numbers of people. This report lays out the different
general types of incentives that states employ to try and guarantee that aerospace companies,
particularly emerging commercial space transportation companies commit to locating within that
state. To that end, the report includes an examination of the advent of regulatory incentives within Virginia and Florida, the different types of incentives that states have at their disposal,
the incentive-like impact of certain types of infrastructure (such as spaceports and tracking facilities), and a state by state summary of the assets and incentives in place within each state.
Monetary prizes solve incentives for new research.

Bruce G. Charlton and Peter Andras, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Advisory Board, Medical
Hypotheses, Newcastle University, 2008, Stimulating revolutionary science with mega-cash prizes,
Medical Hypotheses, http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/03/mega-cash-prizes-forrevolutionary.html
Given that revolutionary science is a high risk endeavour which usually fails; it is likely to thrive only when
the incentives rewarding the rare instances of success are greater than for normal science. Therefore we
would argue that it is insufficient for successful revolutionary scientists merely to get the usual rewards of
prestigious professorships, respect from within the scientific profession, and a modestly high level of reasonably secure income.
Something more is needed: lots of money. The money incentive in science To compensate for the intrinsically
greater risk of failure, successful revolutionary science requires greater rewards than normal science;
rewards such as higher prestige, better jobs and/or more money. We suggest that more money is the
most promising incentive to encourage revolutionary science, because it is the factor which is mostcontrollable.
Prize of $100 million solves these incentives.

Traditional science prizes (such as Nobels) therefore constitute a zero sum game in which the more prizes are awarded the less prestige
attaches to each prize because there is only a fixed amount of status to be shared. But this does not apply to monetary rewards a
prize
of one hundred million dollars remains well-worth winning whether it is unique or whether 10 or 100
other people also get a 100 million dollar prize. This is important because there need to be enough prizes for revolutionary science that competitors should feel
they have a realistic chance of winning one of these prizes so long as their research succeeds in its aims. This would enable there to be a significant
incentive to do revolutionary science across as many scientific disciplines as there are mega-cash
prizes. Our feeling is that mega-prizes to stimulate revolutionary science would need to be of the order of
magnitude of tens of millions of US dollars in order to replicate the kind of incentives seen in popular
creative activities such as music and sports.
West Coast
2011
222
Neg Handbook
Solvency Prizes Solve Better than Government

Prizes solve better than government programs spurs more effective and cost
efficient research.
Thomas Kalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, December
2006, Prizes for Technological Innovation, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf
Prizes can also address some of the problems that are associated with government support for
applied R&D. As Kremer and Glennerster (2004, p. 49) note, researchers funded on the basis of an outsiders
assessment of potential rather than actual product delivery have incentives to exaggerate the
prospects that their approach will succeed, and once they are funded, may even have incentives to
divert resources away from the search for the desired product. Inducement prizes avoid this problem
by paying only if someone meets the predefined objective. By comparison, if the government provides
a grant or a contract, it pays even if the recipient is unsuccessful, on the condition that the scope of work was
completed. For example, NASA gave Lockheed Martin more than nine hundred million dollars to build the X33, a technology demonstrator for NASAs next-generation reusable space-launched vehicles (David 2001). When the program was
cancelled because of problems associated with the X-33s composite fuel tanks, no one expected
Lockheed to give the money back.
Prizes attract larger body of researchers government regulations deter the best and
brightest.
Prizes can attract teams with fresh ideas who would never do business with the federal government
because of procurement regulations (e.g., accounting and reporting requirements) that they may find burdensome.
This effect is important because, as Baumol (2004, p. 5) notes, the independent innovator and the
independent entrepreneur have tended to account for most of the true, fundamentally novel
innovations. In the list of the important innovative breakthroughs of the twentieth century, a substantial number, if not the majority, turn
out to be derived from these sources rather than from the laboratories of giant business enterprises. As examples of small-firm
innovations, Baumol cites the airplane, air conditioning, the electronic spreadsheet, FM radio, the
high-resolution CAT scanner, and the microprocessor.
Prizes solve student innovation and public attention.

The two most compelling advantages of prizes, for NASA, are the potential to increase public interest
in science and technology, and the possibility of attracting a broader range of researchers and
entrepreneurs to work on innovation related to NASAs work. For example, Team Snowstar, a team of
undergraduates from the University of British Columbia who performed the bulk of their work in a dorm room, was voted most
likely to succeed on the basis of their performance in the 2005 space elevator competition. Given
that students have been responsible for Netscape, Yahoo!, Google, Napster, and many other
successful technology companies, it is vital to engage students and other nontraditional performers. In
the short run, of course, NASA is unlikely to rely on prizes for innovations that are on their critical path for important missions, and will need
more experience with prizes before making them a mainstream tool.
West Coast
2011
223
Neg Handbook
Solvency Technology/Innovation
Private development key to innovation and technology development solves your
inspiration arguments.
Joseph N. Pelton, Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute, George Washington
University, May 2010, A new space vision for NASAAnd for space entrepreneurs too? Space Policy,
p.78
XPrize Founder Peter Diamandis
has noted that we don't have governments operating taxi companies, building
computers, or running airlines-and this is for a very good reason. Commercial organizations are, on
balance, better managed, more agile, more innovative, and more market responsive than government
agencies. People as diverse as movie maker James Cameron and Peter Diamandis feel that the best way forward is to let
space entrepreneurs play a greater role in space development and innovation. Cameron strongly endorsed a
greater role for commercial creativity in U.S. space programs in a February 2010 Washington Post article and explained why he felt this was
the best way forward in humanity's greatest adventure: I applaud President Obama's bold decision
for NASA to focus on building a space exploration program that can drive innovation and provide
inspiration to the world. This is the path that can make our dreams in space a reality
Private leadership boosts innovation and jobs.

Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8/2010,
Prepare for Liftoff, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1
But in the long run, the new approach will create more jobs -- and more value -- because the United States
will end up with both an innovative, long-term government space program and an energetic, fast-growing private-sector
market that will transport people and cargo for the U.S. government, space tourists, and non-U.S.
governments. Ultimately, the costs and risks of space transport will come down, flights will increase,
and markets will grow. As with the Internet, we can't predict all the uses to which commercial
innovation will put this infrastructure.
Space tourism proves private sector capable of pushing innovation.

Thomas Brannen, J.D. Candidate, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Summer
2010, Private Commercial Space Transportations Dependence on Space Tourism and NASAs
Responsibility to Both, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, p.652
With the simplifications of regulatory requirements, the success of space prizes, and the gains in
technology and innovation, space tourism is now finally building momentum. New spaceports are
being built, old airports are being transitioned into spaceports, new RLVs are rapidly being developed, environmental
regulations are being streamlined for simpler and quicker licensing procedures, and NASA is finally handing the
reins of suborbital human transportation over to private entrepreneurs so it can focus on grander missions. Most
importantly, the combination of efficiency, competition, and economies of scale has finally translated into
lower prices for commercial launches, extending space access beyond merely the wealthy .
West Coast
2011
224
Neg Handbook
Solvency NASA Fails

NASA empirically fails budget overruns and failure to commercialize.
Edward L. Hudgins, director of The Objectivist Center and editor of the Cato Institute book, Space: The
Free-Market Frontier, 1/28/2004, Move Aside, NASA,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2514
But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. There were
supposed to be shuttle flights every week; instead, there have been about four per year. The space
station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will
be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. Worse, neither the station nor the shuttle does much
important science. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services. Only private
entrepreneurs can improve quality, bring down the prices, and make accessible to all individuals cars,
airline trips, computers, the Internet, you name it. Thus, to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station, NASA's mission must be very
narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets, and perhaps conducting some basic research, which also might serve a defense function.
This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector.
Track record proves NASA not able to accomplish exploration goals.

p.79
One might think that, since Muskwas seeking to develop his own launch capability, he was exaggerating; but a review of the record suggests
otherwise. Today nearly
25 years after the Rogers and Paine Commission reports that followed the Challenger disaster, we
find that the recommendations for NASA to develop a reliable and costeffective vehicle to replace the
Shuttle is somewhere between being a disappointment and a fiasco. Billions of dollars have gone into
various spaceplane and reusable launch vehicle developments by NASA over the past 20 years. Spaceplane
projects have been started by NASA time and again amid great fanfare and major expectations and
then a few years later either cancelled in failure or closed out with a whimper. The programs that NASA has
given up on now include the Delta Clipper, the HL-20, X-33, the X-34, X-37, X-38, and X-43 after billions of US funds and billions more of private
money have been sacrificed to the cause.
Budget battles make NASA exploration unsustainable.

Edward Isarevich, Principal at ETA Consulting, 7/25/2008, The Real Cost of Space Exploration,
http://knol.google.com/k/the-real-cost-of-space-exploration#
Ever since Apollo 11's landing on the moon, the government's interest in space started to decline.
Did
we win the space race or did we uselessly spend billions of dollars? It is doubtful if anyone will ever have a clear answer to this question.
NASA's ambitious lunar plans became bogged down in the incoherence of the annual funding battles
in Congress. A few more Apollos were indeed completed but the ideas to pursue numerous scientific experiments
on the moon got "lost in space." The moon base and space station projects were completely
abandoned to the next generation of space explorers. Not until the Bush administration were they touched upon once again. President
Bush proposed to undertake a large project that would involve the construction of both a moon base
and a space station that would mainly serve as assembly, test, and departure points for piloted missions to Mars and beyond.
However, estimates nearing $300 billion made it obvious why this ambitious idea was never
mentioned in Congress. History clearly shows, tells us Robert A. Frosch, former NASA Administrator, that "society gets its money back
from science programs, but not immediately. That's why science programs can be tough to sell to political people,
who aren't terribly interested in what's going to happen 10 or 15 years from now. "
West Coast
2011
225
Neg Handbook
Solvency Private Exploration Comparatively Better

Private-led exploration key to more efficient allocation of investment.
Robert Murphy, adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute who teaches economics at Hillsdale College,
January 2005, A Free Market in Space, The Free Market,
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=525
Beyond the obvious implications for sci-fi buffs and other space enthusiasts, the
episode sheds light on the versatility of free

enterprise. Most obvious, we see that the government is not necessary for space exploration; engineers and
pilots do not suddenly become smarter when they are hired by NASA. Indeed, because a free market in
space industries would be open to all competitors, we have every reason to expect technological
innovation to be much quicker than in a monopolized space program. In a free market, the maverick
pioneer just needs to convince one or a few capitalists (out of thousands) to finance his revolutionary
project, and then the results will speak for themselves. In contrast, an innovative civil servant at NASA
needs to convince his direct superiors before trying anything new. If his bosses happen to dislike the idea,
thats the end of it.
NASA led exploration risks disasters tanking the whole program privatization solves.
Martin Rees, Britain's astronomer royal and a Royal Society research professor at Cambridge
University's King's College, 7/1/2003, Mars Needs Millionaires, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/07/01/mars_needs_millionaires
But the speed of communication will not make probing the universe any less dangerous. Machines fail. Visitors to Mars, or the
long-term denizens of a lunar base, will confront an environment far more inhospitable than anything they
knew before. When nations send people to space, space disasters become national traumas -- and
nations lose some of their will to explore. By contrast, were a private adventurer like Fossett to come to a sad
end in space, we would mourn a brave and resourceful man, but his death would not be considered a
catastrophe on the scale of the Columbia or Challenger accidents. Nor would it provoke nearly as
much hand-wringing. It would be seen for what it was: a personal tragedy. To reach Mars and points beyond will
require a certain ruthlessness of spirit, and swashbuckling individuals possess this quality much more
than civilized nations do.
Private leadership key to large-scale space exploration NASA cant keep up.
Zach Meyer, J.D. Candidate, 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, Winter 2010, Private
Commercialization of Space in an International Regime: A Proposal for a Space District, Northwestern
Journal of International Law & Business, pp.242-3
NASA has sent limited numbers of astronauts into space over the last five decades, including landing a dozen
astronauts on the Moon. Other national space agencies have or are poised to develop the ability to send astronauts into space. However,
private commercial space enterprise promises to be a more powerful catalyst to the full development
of the Space Age. Consider that NASA is due to retire its space shuttle fleet in 2010, leaving the national
space agency without the ability to transport supplies or a crew to the International Space Station ("ISS"). To cover
this gap, NASA will temporarily rely on the Russian Space Agency's Soyuz rockets to fulfill its ISS commitments. In addition, NASA has
awarded commercial contracts to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation and Orbital Sciences Corporation ("SpaceX")
for the development of a domestic, commercial alternative to reliance on the Russians. SpaceX has been
rapidly developing a new space vehicle capable of reaching high orbit, docking with the ISS, and transporting supplies and crew
at a more reasonable cost and within a more concrete schedule than NASA's own proposed new space transportation architecture. Through
the accomplishments of SpaceShipOne and SpaceX, private commercial space enterprise has made a
case for itself as the best-suited candidate for pioneering the space frontier.
West Coast
2011
226
Neg Handbook
AT: Permutation Do Both

Permutation doesnt solve including government programs trades off with private
investment key to solve.
Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for CNET, 10/3/2007, Do we need NASA? CNET
News, http://news.cnet.com/Do-we-need-NASA/2009-11397_3-6211308.html
The difference? Critics say it's the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Aviation's youth and adolescence were
marked by entrepreneurs and frenetic commercial activity: Lindbergh's trans-Atlantic prize money was put up by a New
York hotel owner, and revenue from the airlines funded the development of the famous DC-3. The federal government aided aviation by paying
private pilots to deliver air mail. Space,
by contrast, until recently has remained the domain of NASA. Burt Rutan,
the aerospace engineer famous for building a suborbital rocket plane that won the Ansari X Prize, believes NASA is crowding out
private efforts. "Taxpayer-funded NASA should only fund research and not development," Rutan said
during a recent panel discussion at the California Institute of Technology. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars
to build a manned spacecraft, you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by saying),
'No, you can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology.'"
Perm forces NASA resource trade-off prevents solutions to warming and asteroids.
p.79
With much less invested in a questionable Project Constellation enterprise we can do much more in space
astronomy. We can invest more wisely in space science to learn more about the Sun, the Earth and threats from Near
Earth Objects. David Thompson, Chairman and CEO of Orbital Sciences said the following in a speech that endorsed the new commercial
thrust of the NASA space policies on Nine February 2010: Let us, the commercial space industry, develop the space
taxis we need to get our Astronauts into orbit and to ferry those wanting to go into space to get to where they want to go.
We are in danger of falling behind in many critical areas of space unless we shift our priorities. With a
change in priorities we can deploy far more spacecraft needed to address the problems of climate
change via better Earth observation systems. We can fund competitions and challenges to spur space
entrepreneurs to find cheaper and better ways to send people into space. We can also spur the
development of solar power satellites to get clean energy from the sun with greater efficiency. We can
deal more effectively with finding and coping with killer asteroids and near earth objects. We may
even find truly new and visionary ways to get people into space with a minimum of pollution and promote the
development of cleaner and faster hypersonic transport to cope with future transportation needs.
Runaway warming causes human extinction.

Bill Henderson, Frequent Contributor to online news source CounterCurrents, 8/19/2006, Runaway
Global Warming, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still
seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat
waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global
warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep
further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of
civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with
the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.
West Coast
2011
227
Neg Handbook
AT: Prize is Too Small

One large prize solves best.
This could be accomplished by a change in behaviour of the large grant awarding bodies a shift from
funding research programs with grants and towards rewarding successful revolutionary science with
prizes. For example, a research foundation working in a specific scientific field might at present spend 100
million dollars per year and might spread this money among ten 10 million dollar program grants. In
all likelihood, this money will at present be spent on normal science, and will produce modest incremental
progress. We are suggesting that such a research foundation might instead spend 100 million dollars
in a single prize, awarded to a relatively young scientist or a few scientists in recognition of a significant success in
revolutionary science.
Establishing one government prize spurs private sector investment and prizes
counterplan will get modeled.
Under some circumstances, prizes can stimulate philanthropic and private sector investment that is
greater than the cash value of the prize. For example, the ten million dollar Ansari X PRIZE was financed by a one
million dollar insurance policy, and the X PRIZE Foundation reports that the prize stimulated at least one hundred million
dollars in private sector investment (Diamandis 2006). This leverage can come from a number of different
sources. Companies may be willing to cosponsor a competition or invest heavily to win it because of
the publicity and the potential enhancement of their brand or reputation. Private, corporate dollars
that are currently being devoted to sponsorship of Americas Cup or other sports events might shift to support prizes or teams .
Wealthy individuals are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to sponsor competitions or bankroll
individual teams simply because they wish to be associated with the potentially historical nature of
the prize. Most areas of science and technology are unlikely to attract media, corporate, or philanthropic interest, however.
CP solves incentives for innovation empirically proven by the X Prize.

Peter Diamandis, Chairman & CEO, X Prize Foundation, 4/7/2010, Big Think Interview With Peter
Diamandis, http://bigthink.com/ideas/19450
When you put up a large incentive prize, you get the entire world. So it pulls out of the woodwork all
hundred companies and you get to see them all. And you automatically back the winner. So, for me its a very logical, its
highly leveraged, typically 10 to 50 fold the amount of money you put up, you got spent by the teams
to win it. You are creating brand new industry and you have full industry insight. And in the winning of the prize you create a
brand new marketplace. Instead of just buying the product that you incentivized in the first place. You know, Paul Allen, who backed Burt Rutan
in a recent interview with Dave Moore, who ran Paul Allens venture here. Dave said that Paul
Allen invested somewhere

between $20 and $30 million and that he got probably 5 or 10x the money back by backing it in terms
of the licensing rights and the tax deferrals and the technology they developed and the media and so
forth. So, in this time when money is tighter and tighter and tighter, we believe that incentive prizes
are extraordinarily efficient way for companies to drive breakthroughs in their industry. Youve got companies like
Netflix, and Cisco and others creating incentive prizes inside their company or in their area to drive. You have to ask yourself the question, do you have the smartest people in the world
working for your company? And if you do, youre lucky. But if you dont, put up the incentive. We get what we incentivize and cast it out to the world. And have someone who is absolutely
brilliant whos a 22-year old in India who says what about this way? And who revolutionizes the way you do business.
West Coast
2011
228
Neg Handbook
AT: Private Exploration Links to Politics

CP doesnt link to politics government can spin it as job-creating.
Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8/2010,
Prepare for Liftoff, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1
Politically, the fuss is mainly about jobs that can help politicians get elected, and not about space
exploration itself. The simple solution is some promise that the jobs will not be lost; they will simply
be transformed. If no commercial company is willing to hire these workers, then perhaps they could retrain as teachers, an area where
the United States desperately needs more scientists and technical people, or in medicine, which requires the same meticulous attention to
detail. But the
commercial space market will need at least some of them. President Obama and all of us
who want to focus on the future should not forget how good the private sector can be at creating
both jobs and opportunities.
New budget proves theres bipartisan support for financing private space travel.
Frank Morring Jr, Writer for Aviation Week, 2/15/2011, NASA Wants Commercial Crew, Technology,
Aviation Week,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2011/02/1
4/awx_02_14_2011_p0-289550.xml
In a bid to follow President Barack Obamas overall science and technology policy, the new budget aims to create a
sustainable program of exploration and innovation, according to Administrator Charles Boldens introduction to the
strategic plan that accompanies the budget request. This new direction extends the life of the International Space Station, supports
the growing commercial space industry, and addresses important scientific challenges while continuing our commitment to
robust human space exploration, science and aeronautics programs, Bolden states. The strong bipartisan support for the
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 confirms our essential role in addressing the nations priorities. The
governments effort to seed private development of commercial crew and cargo transportation to the ISS and other LEO
destinations would be boosted to $850 million in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 up from the $612 million authorized but not
appropriated in the current fiscal year.
Support for NASA doesnt mean politicians will oppose the CP supporters will see
the CP as allowing NASA to preserve its resources.
Bart Leahy, technical writer and National Space Society member, 5/12/2006, Space Access: The
Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
Meanwhile, in another part of ISDC, space law lecturers were discussing the best way to secure private property rights on lunar resources when
a private landing happens. To settle that argument, lawyer Bill White suggested that someone should "just do it." And Peter Diamandis
suggested that Mars itself could and would be settled by private citizens before NASA. He believes space enthusiasts should "give up on
government." Virgin Galactic's Wil Whitehorn
indicated that "It [the private sector] can't get hooked on

government money." NASA's Clouded Future And yet, in the face of all this independent-mindedness, many of
these same people object strongly to the cuts in NASA's space science budget and feel that the CEV,
with its Shuttle-derived hardware, is not ambitious enough. Few people blame Administrator Michael Griffin for NASA's
troubles, not even the more outspoken pundits like The Case for Mars author Robert Zubrin or Burt Rutan. There is
widespread agreement that NASA does not have the resources to do all of the things it has been
asked to do, but there is not much confidence that the political process within Washington will give
NASA what it needs to succeed.
West Coast
2011
229
Neg Handbook
AT: Jobs Turn

US tech development not key to competitiveness.
David Attis, Senior Consultant in the higher education practice at the Advisory Board Company, 2008,
Higher Education and the Future of U.S. Competitiveness, The Tower and the Cloud,
http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud/PUB7202h
While most people accept (and econometric evidence supports) the contention that federal R&D funding contributes to U.S. economic growth,
in a global innovation environment it is no longer true that basic research performed in the United
States will necessarily benefit American firms or American workers. Rather, the economic benefits depend on the
degree to which universities (together with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and corporations) can translate the results of basic research into
marketable innovations. The
benefits now also depend on how corporations choose to commercialize and

produce those innovations through global networks. Doing the research here no longer necessarily
means that the technologies, the factories, or the jobs will be created here.
Health care costs tank solvency.

Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Program Associate with the Health Policy Program at the New America
Foundation, March 2008, What Hill staff should know about health care, Health Policy Program Issue
Brief, http://www.newamerica.net/files/What_Hill_Staff_should_Know_about_Health_Care.pdf
No health reform proposal will be sustainable over time without serious efforts to control health care cost growth. Rising health care
costs are the most pressing economic challenge facing our nation and have left many Americans simply
unable to afford health insurance. In addition, the cost of health care threatens the competitiveness of U.S.
businesses and the solvency of the Medicare program. Americans Can No Longer Afford Health Care In 1987, the average health insurance
premium accounted for 7.3% of the median family income in the U.S. In 2006, that had risen to 17%. The Business Case Health care costs
threaten the competitiveness and profitability of many U.S. businesses. In 2005, employers spent
$440 billion on health care, which represents 24% of all national health expenditures. The average U.S. employer
spends 9.9% of payroll on health care compared to 4.9% for major competitors. Employer health costs
put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign firms and result in more and more
good jobs being lost overseas.
Hegemony doesnt cause a net decrease in conflict ongoing wars prove.

Daniel Larison, Ph.D. graduate from the University of Chicago and contributing Editor, 4/5/2010, A
Bright Post-Hegemonic Future, The American Conservative,
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/04/05/a-bright-post-hegemonic-future/
In other words, unsustainable U.S. hegemony will not be as great as it was, and that will mean that other
major and rising powers will be able to exert something more like the normal influence in their regions that
such powers have exerted throughout most of modern history. Will there be conflicts in such a world? Of course, there will
be, but we already have a number of conflicts in the world that have either been deemed irrelevant to
the maintenance of Pax Americana or they are the products of policies designed to perpetuate Pax
Americana. In practice, securing this peace has involved starting several wars, the largest and most
destructive of which has been the war in Iraq, as well as supporting proxies and allies as they
escalated conflicts with their neighbors.
West Coast
2011
230
Neg Handbook
AT: Space Control Turn

Weapons not key to protect space assets other mechanisms solve.
It is obvious that the United States must ensure the integrity of its increasingly important space
networks, and find ways to defense against threats to space assets. Still, there is little reason to
believe that it is necessary for the U.S. to put weapons in space to do so. Space warfare proponents
are making a suspect leap in logic in arguing that space-based weapons are, or will soon be, required to
protect the ability of the United States to operate freely in space. One could argue much more rationally that
what is needed most urgently is to find ways to prevent computer network intrusion; to ensure redundant
capabilities both at the system and subsystem level, including the ability to rapidly replace satellites on orbit; to improve security of
ground facilities (perhaps moving to underground facilities); and to harden electronic components on particularly important
satellites.
Space weaponization collapses US heg undercuts US ground and space capabilities.

Karl Mueller, now at RAND, in an analysis for the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, wrote, The
United States would not be able to maintain unchallenged hegemony in the weaponization of space,
and while a space-weapons race would threaten international stability, it would be even more dangerous to U.S.
security and relative power projection capability, due to other states significant ability and probably
inclination to balance symmetrically and asymmetrically against ascendant U.S. power . Spurring other
nations to acquire spacebased weapons of their own, especially weapons aimed at terrestrial targets, would
certainly undercut the ability of U.S. forces to operate freely on the ground on a worldwide basis
negating what today is a unique advantage of being a military superpower. U.S. commercial satellites
would also become targets, as well as military assets (especially considering the fact that the U.S. military is heavily reliant
on commercial providers, particularly in communications). Depending on how widespread such weapons became, it also could even
put U.S. cities at a greater risk than they face today from ballistic missiles.
Space arms control can be effective maintains US leadership even the military
agrees.
The potential for strategic consequences of a space race has led many experts, including within the
military, to tout a space arms control regime as an alternative. A ban on space weapons and ASATs could
help preserve at least for some time the status quo of U.S. advantage (especially if coupled with U.S. moves to shore up
passive satellite defenses). In a recent article in Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Jeffrey Lewis, a graduate research fellow at the
Center for International Security Studies at the University of Maryland, makes a good case for an arms control approach,
arguing: If defensive deployments in space cannot keep pace with offensive developments on the
ground, then some measure of restraining offensive capabilities needs to be found to even the playing
field.
West Coast
2011
231
Neg Handbook
AT: Regulation Turn

New policy development solves space regulation.
Molly K. Macauley, senior fellow at Resources for the Future, Summer 2003, Regulation on the Final
Frontier, Regulation, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n2/v26n2-6.pdf
Policymaking has also been insular another problem on an isolated frontier. Seldom have space legislators
and regulators taken into account lessons learned from other policy experiences, be they the ills of price regulation, government competition,
or command-and-control management. In June 2000, President Bush
asked the National Security Council and the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy to begin a review of national space policies including those
pertaining to space transportation and earth observation. The reviewers do not start with a clean slate, but if they are
willing to entertain new perspectives like market-based approaches and fully appreciate the legacy of
innovative policy regulation, the space future looks bright.
This is a DA to the plan space development more unpredictable under government

model.
Peter Diamandis, Chairman & CEO, X Prize Foundation, 4/7/2010, Big Think Interview With Peter
Diamandis, http://bigthink.com/ideas/19450
Peter Diamandis: One of the precepts of the X Prize is you get what you incentivize; a very simple concept, but
extraordinarily powerful. And if you look to the root of what the problems are, you always find out, well we dont incentivize that. Well
today what we incentivize, we incentivize a Congressman being elected every two years, a President being
elected every four years, and a Senator every six years. So, its whats going to affect people right
now. What can I promise and delivery in two years. Space is not a two-year objective. It used to be, in the early 60s, we had
this eye candy of Mercury and Gemini and Apollo and every year we would do something more and more and it met those needs. But the
easy stuff has been done. And today, NASA calls stuff nominal instead of phenomenal, like it really is. So I have given up
that there is going to be a balance and NASA is going to do certain things and we are finally in a state
of existence where small groups of individuals can do extraordinary things, funded by single people.
Today, a group of 20 individuals empowered by the exponential growing technologies of AI and robotics and computers and networks and
eventually nanotechnology can do what only nation states could have done before.
The process of prizes is sufficient to solve overcomes private regulation.

Eric R. Sterner, George C. Marshall Institute, April 2010, Worthy of a Great Nation? NASAs Change of
Strategic Direction, George C. Marshall Institute Policy Outlook,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/797.pdf
True support for the burgeoning commercial human spaceflight industry would significantly limit the
amount of government intervention in the infant marketplace, lest the distortions created by real-, or
near-monopsonistic government domination of demand and capital markets swamps free market
signals. In the long run, the best approach may be to follow the X-Prize model and create an award for the
first company that meets certain very simple mission goals, such as carrying three people to the ISS orbit and
demonstrating the ability to rendezvous and dock with another space object. Such an approach would theoretically reduce
the cost of private capital by improving the possible returns on an investment. At the same time, it would
reduce government risk by withholding cash until a winner had actually earned the prize. This differs
from the COTS program in that the goal of COTS is to meet NASA-unique requirements for access to the
space station, which requires intensive government oversight, whereas the prize programs goal is to
foster private sector innovation for its own sake, mandating considerably less government oversight .
(The FAA would still be involved to regulate safety of passengers and the public.)
West Coast
2011
232
Neg Handbook
Disposability Critique
West Coast
2011
233
Neg Handbook
Disposability Critique Explanation

W. James Taylor
Emporia State University
When astronauts landed on the moon, people across America were inspired by something larger than themselves. Some claim
the images of Earth alone in a sea of darkness were a primary inspiration for the environmental movement. Since that time
connections between Earth and space have grown to witness a flurry of orbiting satellites, private space launches, and rovers
on Mars. Although we have not established orbiting colonies or mined asteroids for untold wealth, we have made remarkable
progress in the short history of space exploration.
Yet, many are beginning to ask fundamental questions about our role in space and its so-called human footprint. Why are we
going to space in the first place? Is it possible to pollute space? Is space an environment? Do rocks have value? These
questions point to an underlying ethical orientation between humans and the nonliving world. As we progress into space, we
ask these questions to determine how we operate in space.
Current theories of environmental ethics remain tied to both an anthropocentric and a geocentric and ethical relationship with
the natural world. While many reject seeing humans as a privileged species above all others (anthropocentrism), they have yet
to extend this analysis to the space environment (geocentric). For example, Deep Ecology and the animal rights movement
have much in common with a space-faring environmental ethic, space is still conceived as external to Earth and without an
environment. On the other hand, most of who theorize about environmental ethics in space, speak in terms of extending
these same insufficient theories of environmental ethics to space, where space will be managed under the guise of
protection.
In the absence of a space environmental ethic, future space missions will continue to leave behind broken spacecraft. Martian
explorers will take little care in disturbing possible life buried in unfound crevices. Used rocket boosters, spare parts, and other
orbital debris will continue to clog near-Earth space until it becomes too dangerous or impossible to travel to or beyond Earth.
Adopting a space-faring ethic essentially does two things. First, this reconceives space as an environment. Instead of remaining
separate from Earth, we look at Earth as one part of a larger environment in which we now interact. This happens much in the
same way as one considers a tree within a forest, or the Amazon rainforest in the context of the planetary ecosystem. In this
way, a space-faring ethic would de-center human beings and Earth as the perceived center of the universe. Denying this
privileged status represents an ethical re-orientation away from the dichotomous thinking of anthropocentrism.
Secondly, a space-faring ethic reflects an appreciation and recognition that everything has value. We are all children of the
cosmosthe dust and atoms that originated in the Big Bang persist in all living and nonliving entities. In fact, the lack of
recognition of this represents another pitfall of current environmental ethics. When Greenpeace and the Worldwatch Institute
refer to protecting the environment, they mean protecting plant and animal species in wetlands, or curbing industrial
pollution because it leads to acid rain. All of this refers to living entities. When activists seek to prevent new coal mining
operations, it is the habitat of living creatures that is destroyednot the nonliving mountaintop itself. Humans, mountains,
streams, puppies are all the accumulation of the same galactic particles. When they ask, So do rocks have value? You say
Yes! Some refer to this as a cosmocentric ethic as well.
Adopting an ethical orientation toward space that considers it an environment with inherent value can foster a feedback loop
of understanding, whereby our behavior in space again becomes transmitted back into Earth consciousness. Let there be a new
ethical awakening among space policymakers, voters, and activists that embraces a sustainable future in space. A space-faring
environmental ethic does not foreclose space missions, but forces us to ask fundamental ethic questions about why we desire
to mine asteroids for resources. We find the answer to be our current flawed anthropocentric relations that have strip mined
the planet for fossil fuels and rare elements.
Space policies are not made in a laboratory or ethical vacuum. Many of those deeply passionate about our future role in space
are beginning to ask the crucial questions that will define our future, and perhaps survival. By adopting a space-faring ethic,
humanity can dance with rocks on Mars and celebrate out mutual coexistence in the cosmos!
West Coast
2011
234
Neg Handbook
Disposability Critique 1NC 1/3

A. The affirmatives conception of space denies seeing it as an environment. Well go
to space only to pollute it and deny future use
Mark Williamson, Space Technology Consultant, The Glebe House, 2003, Space ethics and
protection of the space environment, vol. 19, pp. 4752
By analogy with the early days of terrestrial environmentalism, we appear to be in the very early stages of realisation
that the space environment has a value, and can be detrimentally affected by our activities. Indeed, in
some ways, the space environment is more fragile than the Earths. Whereas the terrestrial environment has proved
itself remarkably resilient, and able to regenerate once a destructive mechanism has been removed, parts of the space environment do not
possess that advantage. For example, an
orbit made inaccessible by a chain reaction of debris collisions could,
depending on its altitude, remain inaccessible for millennia. Likewise, a planetary body such as the Earths Moon, which has no
appreciable atmosphere, no weather and negligible tectonic activity, has no facility for environmental renewal. Unless we actively disturb them,
the hardware left by the Apollo astronauts, and their footprints, will remain intact for millennia. However,
to most people outside

the space community including otherwise intelligent and professional individualsspace is a limitless, alien void
populated by huge and indestructible stars, a handful of barren planets and swarms of potentially
dangerous comets and meteors. The space environment is hardly in need of protection, they might say; if
anything, we on Earth are the ones in need of protection! Although those in the space community may have a more informed view than those
outside, the majority is likely to need some persuading that the space environment is worth protecting for its own sakefor example, because
parts of it may harbour simple forms of alien life, because they contain unique physical formations, or simply because they are beautiful. The
question is one of perceived value and the answer lies in pragmatism. In pragmatic terms, the space environment is valuable because it has a
use for commercial applications. So if, for example, geostationary orbit became unusable because of a build up of debris, there would be a
significant financial impact on satellite operators. Of course, the space environment is also valuable from a scientific perspective and scientists
have a vested interest in maintaining its relative purity (at least for the course of their study). Planetary scientists, for instance, are concerned
about potential contamination of planetary bodies by visiting spacecraft, while ground-based astronomers are concerned at the potential
disruption to observations at both optical and radio wavelengths from orbiting spacecraft. The issue for industrialists and scientists alike is that
current attitudes could prejudice future activities. The potential of the debris-clogged orbit or the
contaminated canyon are simply different manifestations of the same lack of understanding and
appreciation; both eventualities call for protection of the respective resource.
B. Before we decide on space missions, we inevitably must decide how we

conceptualize space. Understanding space as an environment itself lays the
foundation for ethical space exploration
Saara Reiman, Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, University of Helsinki, 2009, Is space an
environment?, Space Policy, 25, pp. 81-87
Expanding the human sphere of influence beyond Earth presents philosophical questions that also
have important practical implications. In order to begin studying these questions, one must first choose how to
conceptualize the target area, in this case space. Conceptualization means commitment to certain values - to a fixed
conception of how one should understand the world. In recent discussion, space is assumed to be an environment. However, the
concept of environment is a term loaded with implications and background assumptions. The
question of whether or not space is in fact an environment, should be decided consciously, based on
something more than just intuition or convention. If we choose to understand space as an environment as opposed
to a mere phenomenon for us to exploit we lay the foundations for an ethics of space exploration that
is very different from an ethics that treats space exclusively from the point of view of human
interests. Do we need to worry about the moral implications of our actions in the vastness of space? What kind of explorers will
we be - and what kind of explorers should we be? The answers to these questions depend greatly on what answer is given
to the deceptively simple question is space an environment?. No matter which option we end up choosing (and it should become clear later
that the decision is not simple), the conceptual framework should be chosen after studying the available options analytically. In Sections 2 and
3, I therefore examine arguments both for and against considering space as an environment.
West Coast
2011
235
Neg Handbook

The alternative is: vote negative to embrace a space-faring environmental ethic that
reconceives space as an environment with intrinsic value
C. Current environmental ethics are rooted in a human-centered awareness extended
to space. we must reconceive of space as an environment that decenters earth within
the solar system and humans as privileged within the terrestrial environment
Michael A. Peters, Associate Professor in the Education Department, University of Auckland, New
Zealand and Ruyu Hung, Professor at the National Chiayi Universit, Department of Education, Taiwan,
2008, Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for Environmental Ethics, Environmental Education, Vol. 1 of
Contexts of Education, pp. 13-14
This feature requires some comment because it is an unusual claim to consider the way in which empirical matters to some extent determine
the philosophical nature of environmental ethics even where the notion of ethics in relation to the environment is also unclear. Yet it seems
clear that environmental
ethics as the theory of environmental right conduct or the environmental good

life (where the notion of life itself is, definitionally, at stake) rests fundamentally upon the notion of environment and
how we understand it. Environmental ethics has been slow to develop and has suffered from
anthropocentrism or human-centeredness embedded in traditional western ethical thinking that has
assigned intrinsic value only to human beings considered as separate moral entities from their
supporting environment. The difficulty is whether such anthropocentric accounts can retheorize the relations between human
beings and their environment and if so, whether the concept of environment might be taken in an extraterrestrial sense as applying to our solar system with the sun at the centre. This seems more like the
environmental package that has a kind of systemic wholeness and integrity as a system with the
energy source at its center without which life would not be possible. If we are to accept this more
inclusive notion of environment that decenters Earth within the solar system, then the notion of
environment has to be renegotiated as one that dynamically also includes the lifespan of the solar
system. One of the advantages of this definitional move is to resituate human beings in relation to the
environment out of which they emerged in a number of evolutionary steps towards complex
intelligent life forms and systems, and into which they will finally remerged.
D. Anthropocentrism is the root cause of the environmental crisis. It places humans in

a privileged position at the privileged center of reality
Michael A. Peters, Associate Professor in the Education Department at the University of Auckland, New
Zealand and Ruyu Hung, Professor at Chiayi Taiwan, 2008, Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for
Environmental Ethics, Environmental Education, Volume 1 of Contexts of Education, pp. 13-14
Anthropocentrism is the key assumption identified authors such as Dave Foreman in Confessions of an Eco-Warrior and
Christopher manes in Green Rage as the primary cause of the current ecological crisis. Val Plumwood also critiques
anthropocentirsm as the standpoint of mastery which centrally applies to the domination of nature
and goes on to argue that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in
anti-racist theory. Her Environmental Culture: The Crisis of Ecological Reason extends and refines her earlier work to show as one reviewer
puts it that current ecological crises are: the
result of arrogant cultures (based in arrogant philosophical views) that deny the fact
that humans are dependent on nature, men are dependent on women, and those with economic and decision-making power are
dependent on disempowerment of others. Cultures built on the legacies of Platonic dualism (which posits
reason as separate from and superior to nature, or matter) and empiricism (which admits that nature is relevant to knowledge, but
debases it nonetheless) fail to acknowledge the existence and importance of the Othernature, women,
indigenous people, and anyone identified with the less powerful side of the reason/matter dualism.
West Coast
2011
236
Neg Handbook
They therefore allow for and encourage mindsets and practices that harm those others on which
the privileged at the center of reality depend.
West Coast
2011
237
Neg Handbook

E. Adopting a space-faring ethic transcends hierarchal relationships with in the earth
and space environments. we begin to see both instrumental and the intrinsic value of
protecting nature in every form as we embrace the cosmos
Charles S. Cockell, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Geomicrobiology, Open University, 2007, Space on
Earth: Saving Our World By Seeking Others, pp. 123-124
In this regard, a space-faring environmental ethic is not hierarchical, in the subjects it cares about.
Because all creatures on Earth, from the civet to the cyanobacteria, are likely unique in the Universe,
then all natural communities on Earth are worthy of protection. I'm not arguing that this is the only
reason to look after ecosystems. Quite the contrary: we must continue the conservation and
preservation of ecosystems for all the existing reasons the instrumental value they have to us, the
future scientific value they might have to us, and their vitalness to the health of other ecosystems on
Earth. But the space-faring environmental ethic provides a completely new reason for ecosystem
preservation and conservation an understanding that ecosystems have universal value as unique
interstellar examples of life and evolution. Indeed, it is perhaps the most egalitarian environmental
ethic of all, given that it advocates sweeping protection for all organisms from microbes to people
themselves. In short, the Earth will have intrinsic worth to a civilization that has long since left its
surface and established a permanent presence elsewhere. For a space-faring civilization then, there
are both instrumental and intrinsic worth arguments for looking after the Earth. Indeed, the
arguments for the care of the Earth's environment and its creatures get stronger the further from
Earth we go and the more we realize the Galaxy- and (eventually) Universe-wide uniqueness of life on
Earth.
F. Rethinking our relationship to the space as an environment creates sustainable

space exploration
Michael A. Peters, Associate Professor in the Education Department at the University of Auckland, and
Ruyu Hung, Professor at the National Chiayi Universit, Department of Education, Taiwan, 2008, Solar
Ethics: A New Paradigm for Environmental Ethics, Environmental Education, Volume 1 of Contexts of
Education, pp. 17-18
When space exploration opens a vast and grand world beyond our planet, when the stories of the
universe have started to be unfolded, when fascinating secrets of the cosmos are being revealed, when
the destiny of our Earth is found to be closely related to the other planets, and the Sun, when the
environmental crisis on the Earth alerts us to re-examine the human/nature relationship, some
questions demand our exploration: What is the relationship between human beings and nature when
the nature we know is no longer limited to our own earth? What is an appropriate relationship
between human beings and nature when environmental changes on earth sound an alarm about a
sustainable human/nature relationship? These questions bring us to an attempt to envisage an ethics
which may lead us towards a wider sustainable frame of mind: a solar system ethics.
West Coast
2011
238
Neg Handbook
Space Missions Foster Exploitation And Pollution

Space exploration and development are marked by the desire to extend our
management and exploitation to space
protection of the space environment, vol. 19, pp. 4752
The exploration of the space environmentby robotic and manned missionsis a natural extension of mankinds
desire to explore our own planet. Likewise, the development of the space environmentfor industry, commerce
and tourismis a natural extension of our current business and domestic agenda. Unfortunately, this brings
with it the ability to pollute, degrade and even destroy aspects of the space environment. Space exploration and
development have been underway for some 45 years, since the launch of Sputnik1 in October 1957, and few would doubt their importance and impact on society. In a pragmatic sense, space
development provides employment and opportunities for wealth creation, while in a philosophical sense it provides an outlet for mankinds inherent desire to explore and conquer new
the history of space exploration and development is regarded as a triumph of mankind

over the space environment, first in providing access to it and second in surviving its extremes of
temperature, radiation and other characteristics. Relatively little consideration has been accorded to
the space environment itself in terms of the detrimental effects of space exploration and
development, and relatively few practitioners consider the subject worthy of consideration. Gradually,
environments. For the most part,
however, protection of the space environment is beginning to appear on the space communitys agenda, as increasing numbers of space professionals begin to consider mankinds collective
attitude towards the space environment.
All space missions leave behind pollution in space

Earth: Saving Our World By Seeking Others, p. 106
Even spacecraft successfully landed on other planets eventually break down. Like abandoned cars,
they too become pollution; they litter the landscape with pieces of old hardware. Indeed, any
extension of human technology and machinery to beyond the bounds of Earth, in the context of its
inevitable eventual demise, represents a form of pollution.
Space exploration infuses a closed loop ecological perspective rooted in rationalism

and environmental management
Peder Anker, PhD in history of science from Harvard University and currently a research fellow at the
Center for Development and the Environment at University of Oslo, April 2005, The Ecological
Colonization of Space, Environmental History, vol. 10, p. 259
The colonization of space was of key importance for ecological debate, methodology, and practice. This
endeavor grew out of military efforts to improve submarines and shelters, and make humans less vulnerable to atomic attack through the dispersion of populations. With the space program of
When humans were

seen as astronauts, environmental ethics became an issue of trying to adopt the lifestyle of space
travelers recirculating their material resources within a closed ecosystem. Measured in terms of
influence, space ecology was a successful endeavor. Spacecabin technologies, such as computer-simulation programs,
sewage systems, airrinsing methodologies, energy-saving devices, and solar-cell panels have become regular ecological tools for biological survival. The rationalist and
managerial ideals for measuring a spaceships carrying capacity of astronauts also became a
standard for organizing practical as well as moral life onboard Spaceship Earth. The ecological
colonization of human space seems nearly complete. This turn toward space ecology as a beacon of
hope for an environmentally friendly future also had liabilities. For one, it contributed to a managerial
culture of scientific technocracy among environmentalists. Moreover, a theoretical noli me tangere syndrome came to mark nonthe 1960s, ecologists aimed at building cabin-ecology systems for astronauts that later served as models for ecological remodeling of life on Earth.
anthropocentric thinkers willing to question space exploration but not the value of ecological methodology. As a result, ecological analysis has become synonymous with environmental
This ecological colonization of outer and earthly space empowered the managerial ecologist at
the expense of humanism. One can only hope that environmentally concerned humanists of today will
analysis.
West Coast
2011
239
Neg Handbook
abandon the intellectual space capsule ecologists have created for them. In the lyrics of David Bowies Space
Oddity, Now its time to leave the capsule if you dare.
West Coast
2011
240
Neg Handbook
Space Missions Foster Exploitation And Pollution

The call for space as a way to solve warming reflects a disposable planet mentality
Gar Smith, journalist and former editor of Earth Island Journal, and currently edits Earth Island, Earth
Island Institute, 2003,
http://replay.web.archive.org/20070714053020/http://www.earthisland.org/project/
newsPage2.cfm?newsID=331&pageID=177&subSiteID=44
Those of us who are still alive also have to take care not to think of space travel as a convenient
"escape hatch" from the problems we've created on Earth. The "Disposable Planet Mentality" argues
that we've simply outgrown this planet and now it's time to move on to the stars. With the impacts of
global warming suddenly falling about our ears, this temptation is greater than ever. But before we
embark on a mission to Mars, we need to undertake what former astronaut Sally Ride has called a
"Mission to Earth." After all, if we still haven't learned how to survive within the limits of our
planetary ecosystem, how can we possibly hope to thrive in the cramped quarters of a voyaging
spaceship?
Space exploration destroys the environment and risks extinction

Giancarlo Genta, Technical Univ. of Turin, Italy and Michael Rycroft, International Space University,
Strasbourg, France & DeMontfort University, Leicaster, UK, 2003, Space, The Final Frontier?, pp. XIX-XX
Many others, on the other hand, would react quite differently, with answers ranging from a sceptical 'maybe' to a plain and
annoyed 'no'. Reasons for rather negative answers may be their general anti- technological feelings or political, moral or even religious views.
Some of them see space
exploration as part of a process which is forcing humanity to lose sight of its very
nature and values, pushing it toward a future in which technology replaces human values. If not
stopped in time, that route could lead to the destruction of the ecosystem on which human life itself
depends.
Expanding our reach into space makes pollution inevitable

All sorts of other pollution will eventually come from industry and space colonies old manufacturing plants
on the Moon, pieces of broken off asteroids with old drilling rigs, pieces of habitats that blew away in the last Martian dust storm, bits
of rovers strewn across the Moon and Mars, landers on Titan and Europa, and defunct spacecraft visiting
distant comets and even solar systems. Where humanity goes, its pollution will follow, and we need to decide
what to treat as pollution and what to treat as wonderful artifacts of our history. Many people,
particularly those that have to live next to the artifacts, may have very conflicting views.
Environmentalism must follow us to the stars, like it or not.
Commercialization guarantees space debris and pollution

When space becomes commercialized, a vast expansion of this problem is inevitable. As space
becomes filled with private corporations making profit, we can expect that, like industrial pollution on
Earth, space debris will become increasingly difficult to police. On Earth, industrial pollution can be carefully
monitored by national agencies and factories, and corporations can be fined for excesses. In the endless reaches of space, who will expend the
time and money to watch perhaps many thousands of corporations to ensure that they do not release noxious chemicals on countless possible
planetary bodies? Certainly
new legal structures will have to be created to guide industries in their use of
West Coast
2011
241
Neg Handbook
space, particularly across the pristine surfaces of planets like Mars. Ideas will be garnered from the
legal protection of rivers, forests and other wilderness areas on Earth.
West Coast
2011
242
Neg Handbook
Colonization Leads To Disposable Thinking

Using the term colony instead of settlement in space advocacy reflects an imperial
history of colonization. they will be modelled ecologically on earth, forming an earthspace feedack loop of colonization
Colonization of Space, Environmental History, vol. 10, pp. 239-240
The use of colonial terminology was deliberate and in line with the imperial tradition from which
ecology as a science emerged. According to Stewart Brand, a leading defender of space colonization, the term space
colony (instead of space settlement) was unproblematic since no Space natives *were+ being
colonized. Yet, as this article argues, when space colonies became the model for Spaceship Earth, all human
beings became Space natives colonized by ecological reasoning: Social, political, moral, and
historical space were invaded by ecological science aimed at reordering ill-treated human
environments according to the managerial ideals of the astronauts life in the space colony. The colonialist
agenda of space research invites the use of postcolonial theory. Though hardly novel in other areas of historical research, postcolonial analysis
has yet to be applied to the history of ecology. The
connection between ecological colonization of outer and earthly

space has largely been ignored. The few historical analyses of space ecology that do exist have hardly paid attention to its
importance to ecologists understanding of Earth. Scholars have rightly emphasized the significance of modeling
closed ecosystems, but have not placed this methodology in the context of ecological colonization of
space. This article holds that advocates of the Martian ecological perspective sought to create on Earth what one proponent described as a
neo-biological civilization at the expense of the humanist legacy, which holds that every human being has intrinsic and unique capacities,
dignity, and worth.
Colonization will foster a disposable planet mentality

J. Baird Callicott, Professor at the University of North Texas Department of Philosophy and Religion,
1989, In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, p. 311
Hartmann denies that extraterrestrial resource development and colonization, which he
enthusiastically recommends, would lead to a 'disposable planet mentality' (p. 229). Yet he
apparently forgets this disclaimer and later writes, "The possibilities or self-sustaining colonies or
humans ... on other planetary surfaces are really increasing the chances for survival of the human race
against [political and environmental] disasters." If we think we can escape these disasters by
emigrating off the Earth, we shall have less incentive to try to avert them.
Space colonization is an unethical enterprise bent on environmental management

Space colonization caused hardly any controversy until 1975, when royalties from the counterculture sourcebook, The
Whole Earth Catalog, were used to finance space-colonization research. In the debate that followed, the overwhelming majority
thought space colonies could provide well-functioning environments for astronauts seeking to push
human evolutionary expansion into new territories, while also saving a Noahs Ark of earthly species
from industrial destruction and possible atomic apocalypse on Earth. To supporters, space colonies
came to represent rational, orderly, and wise management, in contrast to the irrational, disorderly,
and ill-managed Earth. Some of them built Biosphere 2 in Arizona to prepare for colonization of Mars and to create a model for how
life on Earth should be organized. The skeptical minority argued that space colonization was unrealizable or
West Coast
2011
243
Neg Handbook
unethical, yet nevertheless adopted terminology, technology, and methodology from space research
in their efforts to reshape the social and ecological matrix onboard Spaceship Earth.
West Coast
2011
244
Neg Handbook
Using Space For Resources And Causes Exploitation

Drive for resources in space will lead to consumption that destroys the environment
Of all the connections between space settlement and environmentalism, the possibility of gathering resources from space
is perhaps the one that could have the worst effect on Earth. This utopian view of space resources that I
have just sketched maintaining the Earth as an oasis and developing almost limitless sources of energy
and minerals is an attractive one. There are an increasing number of books welcoming the emergence of an environmental future
when space resources will save the Earth. But there are many potential problems with this future. Resources brought
back to Earth might simply fuel mass consumption. One could argue that the depletion and limitation of
resources we currently have on Earth is good it keeps the population in check, it keeps our waste
under control, and it reduces the burden on the environment. But imagine billions of people on Earth
using unlimited resources from space. The only way to stop this unfolding age of plenitude from destroying Earth's environment
would be to remove the waste produced from all these resources back into space, but it is not clear that this will be profitable or attractive
enough for anyone to bother doing it. The
promise of limitless resources from space will threaten the Earth's

environment in potentially very serious ways.
Mining exploits the moon and countless workers. the world would be divided
between space have and have-nots
Angela Burr, Conference Speaker, April 29, 2001, Touching The Limits Of Knowledge, Cosmology and
Our View of the World, Space Exploration/Exploitation? Conference, http://wwwssg.sr.unh.edu/preceptorial/ Summaries_2001/summary9_2001.html
Lunar regolith is a valuable historic record of solar wind and cosmic rays, similar to the radiation and climate "recording" of the polar ice caps.
We can mine the Moon, release O2 in the process and have a record of solar energy. This could lead to
the process of strip-mining Helium 3 and other materials that could be brought back and used for energy.
Once private companies found a way to use the Moon for profit, exploitation begins. This could also
lead to the exploitation of certain groups within the human race as one student pointed out. Those
who find a way of using materials from space and those who have the money to buy it will be
exploiting the work of countless others who won't have access to these materials. The technology
would not be shared with the entire world and would therefore exploit humans as well as space.
Space wont free up population pressures. Abundant resources will fuel migration
These problems become particularly serious when one considers that the Earth is almost certainly likely to always be a
very attractive place to live. It has forests, a breathable atmosphere, lakes, oceans and abundant life.
Compare this to the grey lethal wasteland of the Moon, the red desiccated deserts of Mars, or the
radiation-bombarded blackness of outer space. Given the choice between living in space or on the
Earth, most people would probably prefer the latter, where they can move and breathe freely and admire the natural
wonders around them. If the resources from space become widely available on Earth at a good price, this is
likely to be even more the case. Abundantly available space resources are likely to fuel migration back
to the Earth, further contributing to environmental difficulties and the population explosion. Regardless
of how rapidly space markets and communities do develop, the people of Earth will overwhelmingly, for a long time, remain the largest market
in the Solar System, even if it turns out that people are enthusiastic to leave Earth and live in space. There are six and a half billion of us here on
Earth. We cannot predict when there will be an equal number in space, making markets there equal in size to those on Earth, but we can be
fairly certain that the Earth will remain the largest market for resources for some time to come. So
it is reasonable to assume that
West Coast
2011
245
Neg Handbook
for a considerable period space resources will be transported back to the surface of the Earth to feed
this large market with its ensuing impact on the environment.
West Coast
2011
246
Neg Handbook
Using Space For Resources And Causes Exploitation

Colonization efforts fuel the extension of resource exploitation to space. such blind
faith in technical solutions will backfire making global warming look insignificant
Space does not offer a panacea. It is common for space explorers to argue that by exploiting the
resources of space we can remove all factories and manufacturing processes from Earth. Pollution
would be banished from our green world forever and Earth could return to a state of harmony with
Nature while we go about settling the space frontier. This vision is a powerful one it has a talismanic
power over those that want to believe that technology will save us. It is a very humanist vision; it has
embedded within it the idea that we should not worry about environmental problems because in
space there is a solution to them, and humans will master that solution. Everything is going to be fine.
This is a blind faith in technology, dangerously rife in many publications and visions of space
exploration. I predict that the emerging threats and challenges of keeping the Earth's environment
healthy alongside the vastly expanding availability of energy and resources from space will become
one of the most serious and extraordinary challenges to the welfare of Earth and Earth-based human
civilization, rather than a salvation to our many problems. Global warming may pale into
insignificance compared with the crisis on Earth precipitated by the human settlement of space.
Resources from the moon will not have a positive benefit

Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science
Foundation, Energy Research and Development Administration, and Department of Energy, February 12,
2007, Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?, The Space Review,
There are no lunar resources that, when processed, would have any economic value if utilized on the
Moon or returned to Earth. Lunar in situ resource utilization has been shown by several analyses to
not have a positive cost benefit. Enthusiasts who have made claims to the contrary have done so by
using questionable and very optimistic projections of what would be required. They would be well
advised to reopen their chemistry and physics textbooks and spend some time with real-world mining
and drilling operations.
Energy from solar power satellites would fuel global mass consumption and
environmental destruction
The same concerns apply to solar power satellites. Yes, solar power satellites could free us of energy
shortages, climate change and starvation on Earth, but what would society be like with access to huge
amounts of cheap energy? What would happen to consumption? The energy must go somewhere, and
it will feed new electrical appliances, more street lighting, more development and more waste.
Society's greed for energy tends to grow to match availability. Power and resources from space will
not necessarily create a new, clean environment. Indeed, it is more likely to be the fuel of mass global
consumption and environmental destruction on Earth.
West Coast
2011
247
Neg Handbook
Ethics Are Important For Space

Ethical frameworks determine how we interact with an environment. we can use
lessons from environmental ethics on earth to guide us in space
Environmental ethics on Earth has many practical applications. The ethical frameworks we build guide
us in the treatment of the biosphere and geosphere. There are over six billion people on Earth, and it is
hard for us to operate and even survive without altering our environment. Environmental ethics
provides us with the intellectual tools to address the problem of the mutual coexistence of the Earth,
its non-human inhabitants and its vast human population. But it is apparent that the current
environmental ethical debate is insufficient for a space-faring civilization that must embrace the
challenges of exploring the vast realm of space far beyond Earth and its possible other inhabitants,
however basic they may be. We need a much expanded vision of ethics. My thesis is that
environmentalism and space settlement can be viewed as one and the same objective the
sustainable existence of humans in the cosmos. Can we find environmental ethics to fit this idea?
Our ethical orientation necessarily determines space polices

Eligar Sadeh, Professor of Space Studies, University of North Dakota, and James P. Lester, Former
Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University, 2003, Space Politics and Policy: An
Evolutionary Perspective, Ch. 8: Space and the Environment, p. 155
Ethics, as a distinctive feature of humans to reflect and question the justification, motivation, contents, significance, and repercussions of
their actions, is particularly necessary in the space field now that space has become accessible to human
beings. Ethical questions condition the acceptability of policies and plans in space. Space ethics raise
increasingly important questions that include a concern for the extraterrestrial environment. Important
questions to consider include: what is the role of human beings in the cosmos; how can links between Earth and space be organized; who is to
determine the priorities and choices of science and on the basis of which objectives to society; and what is the level of moral responsibility to
which individuals, groups, organizations, and governments must aspire for present and future generations.
Current modes of thinking make anthropocentrism inevitable. ethical choices are

essential when making space policy
Eligar Sadeh, Professor of Space Studies, University of North Dakota, and James P. Lester, Former
Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University, 2003, Space Politics and Policy: An
Evolutionary Perspective, Ch. 8: Space and the Environment, pp. 160-161
Future policies for space exploration, including the possible discovery and physical interaction with extraterrestrial life, will
need to account for the extent to which anthropocentrism is inevitable. The case for anthropocentric inevitability
contends that human activities in space are unavoidable since they are consistent with the dominant myths and metaphors of
Western Civilization. This implies that there is a link between the culture that engages in space exploration and anthropocentrism. If a lack
of concern for the biological, ecological, and geomorphological features of the cosmos is part of the
dominant culture and exploratory pursuits, then perhaps a fundamental reorientation of Western
culture is in order. The further the ethical framework departs from anthropocentrism (i.e., to biocentrism
and cosmocentrism) the greater is the moral constraint on human freedom of action within the space
environment. Since ethical morality regulates behavior, it is important to consider what the
fundamental policy choices are. One approach suggests that possible policies should be formulated according to their scientific
value. This implies the protection of selected sites (e.g., celestial bodies and interplanetary space) for scientific study and astronomical
observation. The sites selected for environmental protection would be undertaken with regard to their scientific value and uniqueness.
West Coast
2011
248
Neg Handbook
Ethics Are Important For Space

Space science priorities are based on subjective bias
Dwayne A. Day, Staff Writer, November 12, 2007, Exploding Moon myths: or why theres no race to
our nearest neighbor, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/999/1
This highlights the fact that space science priorities are not set by a computer; they are established by
humans, in a social context. Human biases, emotions, and even history all affect those priorities.
Unsurprisingly, this happens not only with the Moon, but with other space sciences as well. Consider the
long delay between Mars missionsMars Observer was not launched until 1992, seventeen years after the Viking missions. Was this long delay
because of little scientific interest in Mars? No. It was due to many factors, including delays in the Space Shuttle program. But it was also due to
the fact that Viking had been extremely expensive, and had raised expectations so high (they were hoping to find life on Mars, and didnt) that
Mars advocates had a difficult time building a coalition to pursue another mission for a very long time. Theres an unfortunate lesson based on
history: if youre going to spend a lot of money on something, you better get a positive result, or it will be much harder to argue for additional
funding in the future.
Cost-benefit analysis on space is a decision making paradigm that requires ethics

Seth D. Baum, Department of Geography & Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University, 2009,
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Space Exploration: Some Ethical Considerations, Space Policy, vol. 25(2), pp.
75-80
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a very prominent decision making paradigm. Many government agencies
around the world are often asked to justify their programs via CBA. For example, CBA justification is
required of all agencies of the Executive Branch of the USA, including NASA. CBA also has strong support from
some sectors of the academic community, including economics and risk analysis. Finally, private businesses also employ a form of CBA in much
of their decision making. Despite its prominence, CBA remains highly controversial. Many outright reject CBA on ethical grounds; others accept
CBA itself but object to the way in which it is commonly implemented, also on ethical grounds. Even within the common approach to CBA
implementation, there exists great flexibility in how to conduct and interpret the analysis; again, different ethical frameworks will yield
different implementations. How
if at all CBA is implemented has substantial implications for space

exploration decision making and thus is the focus of this paper.
The affirmative represents an environmental philosophy at best, not ethics

Erin Moore Daly, graduate student in the School of Life Sciences and the Center for Science, Policy, and
Outcomes at Arizona State University, and Robert Frodeman, Chair of the Department of Philosophy
at the University of North Texas, 2008, Separated at Birth, Signs of Rapproachment: Environmental
Ethics and Space Exploration, Ethics & the Environment, 13(1), pp. 135-151
By the early 1990s, the twin assumptions that our valuing of nature is solely a matter of ethics, and that our ethical claims must be grounded in
science, were ready for reevaluation. The
development of environmental philosophy (a new traditionalism, in that it looked

increasingly giving epistemological,
aesthetic, religious, and metaphysical concerns about nature equal status with ethics. The wider range
of environmental philosophy is better situated to describe our interests and experiences at places
such as the Grand Canyon. People go to the Grand Canyon for reasons of aesthetics (its beauty), theology (the awe it inspires), or
metaphysics (it gives us a new sense of ones place in the universe), not ethics. Moreover, the wider concerns of environmental philosophy
are more consistent with our responses to and concerns with the extraterrestrial realm. While issues such as the possible
biological contamination of other planets and space debris have clear ethical dimensions, the
expansion of our understanding of the cosmos through instruments such as the Hubble Space
Telescope is much more a matter of aesthetics (e.g., Hubbles stunning pictures) and metaphysics (our growing
appreciation of the long view of cosmic history) than ethics. Humans tend to acknowledge ethical responsibilities to
what is close at hand. The thought of environmental ethics in outer space, where few will go in our
lifetimes and nothing is known to live, is quite simply unfathomable to most. But despite all this, the
cosmic environment continues to awe, delight, and inspire generation after generation.
back to the pre 19th century categories of natural philosophy and cosmology) is
West Coast
2011
249
Neg Handbook
Ethics Should Guide The Judges Decision

Absent ethics, politics benefits the powerful, justifying infinite violence
Donald S. Lutz, professor of political science at the University of Houston, 2000, Political Theory and
Constitutional Construction, Political Theory and Partisan Politics, pp. 36-37
The position argued here is that to the extent such a discussion between political theorists and politicians does
not take place we damage the prospects for marrying justice with power. Since the hope of uniting justice with
power was the reason for creating political philosophy in the first place, political theorists need to pursue the dialogue as
part of what justifies their intellectual project. Politics is the realm of power. More specifically it is the
realm where force and violence are replaced by debates and discussion about how to implement
power. Without the meaningful injection of considerations of justice, politics tends to become
discourse by the most powerful about how to implement their preferred regime. Although constitutionalism
tends to be disparaged by contemporary political science, a constitution is the very place where justice and power are married.
Ethical frameworks are distinct from decision paradigms

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Space Exploration: Some Ethical Considerations, Space Policy, vol. 25(2), pp.
75-80
In studying how we go about answering questions such as these, it is helpful to distinguish between an ethical
framework and a decision making paradigm. An ethical framework is an underlying view of what is
fundamentally right and wrong which can be used to evaluate specific decisions. A decision making
paradigm is a procedure for making decisions given both an ethical framework and the requirements
of a decision making scenario, such as limited time and information. Different ethical frameworks can and indeed
often do share the same decision making paradigm in certain scenarios.
A flawed ecological epistemology will destroy all life on the planet forever
Glen Barry, Ph.D. in "Land Resources" from the Univ.of Wisconsin-Madison, May 2007, Earth
Prophecy - And the way out, New Paradigm Journal, 2(1),
http://www.newparadigmjournal.com/May2007/earthprophecy.htm
Imagine the panic as Americans and others in the world that are ecologically ignorant and isolated
realize food does not come from grocery stores but from healthy agro-ecosystems with dependable
climatic patterns and rich soil. That water does not come from the tap, but from aquifers and rivers. That weather need not follow reliable cycles, that natural
resources are finite, and that social order depends upon all the above. I prophesize that within my lifetime environmental destruction and
unsustainable living will lead to widespread global ecological collapse and social disintegration;
leading eventually to extinction for most life forms including humans and Gaia - the Earth system
itself. This is the Earth Prophecy. None of what follows need happen, and I close this essay by repeating the policies that offer the way out. We have all the tools and knowledge on hand
to prevent global ecological and social collapse. Yet the hour is late, widespread political and personal will essentially absent, and the momentum behind Earth destroying trends so pernicious
and constant that barring major social change unprecedented in scale and ambition, the Earth and her inhabitants are going to die a hard and brutal death. Globally as the climate becomes
wildly unpredictable, droughts and floods prevalent, and the land and oceans lifeless; starvation and disease will become rampant, economies will fail, and social cohesion will break down
leading to unprecedented violence and death as the truth of existence is revealed to a formerly air-conditioned, consumer society fighting to survive. Firstly, what do I mean when I say the
Earth is dying? The prevailing sentiment is whatever the fate of humanity; the Earth's biota shall sufficiently persist to maintain other life forms. Evolution will be set back by a sixth major
Given the magnitude and speed of the assault

upon every aspect of Gaia's biosphere and ecosystems - toxins interacting, oceans dead and empty, failed water
ecosystems, a dysfunctional atmosphere, and the virtual annihilation of native terrestrial habitats - it is not inconceivable that the
planet could essentially become lifeless. Maybe entirely, or possibly some bacteria, dandelions and rats hold on - in either case the Earth is dead. It is
prophesized that advanced, complex life including humans and the Earth as a living system are
imminently threatened with extinction. Humanity's manner of existing threatens advanced life for a
very long time if not forever. The coming eco-collapse is going to be brutal and violent. And it could all
extinction event, but over geological time life will bounce back. I am not convinced this is the case.
West Coast
2011
250
Neg Handbook
be averted, or at least some semblance of humanity and ecosystems achieved post-collapse, given
people power and political will now.
West Coast
2011
251
Neg Handbook
Space Has Intrinsic Value

We cannot simply extend human environmental values to space. only recognition of
the inherent value in lifeless space objects affirms ethics
The intrinsic worth of extraterrestrial objects to people on Earth is a less tractable part of the ethical
debate, particularly when we consider lifeless objects, i.e. most of the Universe. Here Christopher
Stone's call to extend intrinsic worth to inanimate objects such as rivers and oceans is helpful. Holmes
Rolston, an American environmental ethicist, also averred that any object with a proper name should
be considered to have value. If we have ethical standards for the river Amazon or the Pacific Ocean,
then surely these same ethical standards could apply to a star- forming region of the Galaxy or a black
hole? Throughout the vast expanse of interstellar space there are many objects and things of potentially
little value to humans, but should we respect them anyway? Just as we stand in awe of the Grand
Canyon and protect it, perhaps our sense that objects in the rest of the Universe have intrinsic worth
will be based on a similar sense of wonder. The sulphur volcanoes of lo, the jets of radiation ejected by
a supernova explosion and the hot gas giants orbiting other stars are just as impressive as the Grand
Canyon, but currently not as easy to appreciate because few people see them with their own eyes. A
space-faring civilization will witness these spectacles directly and perhaps grasp the intrinsic worth of
extraterrestrial objects from a sense of insignificance at the grand scope and beauty of nature in
action.
Objects in space have intrinsic value

Angela Burr, Conference Speaker, April 29, 2001, Touching The Limits Of Knowledge, Cosmology and
Our View of the World, Space Exploration/Exploitation? Conference, http://wwwssg.sr.unh.edu/preceptorial/ Summaries_2001/summary9_2001.html
Does Space have value/worth? What has value? What has worth? The great thinker Kant once did an
experiment to find what had intrinsic value and came up with a single answer: good will. Some say that
it is not the value of the object, but the context and our value around it. Similarly, others suggest it is
the relationships between the subject and object that are valued rather than just the object itself. So
does Space have intrinsic value or worth? According to Heidegger, we place value on something, but
why not nothing? Some students argued that there is nothing and no one in Space that we have found
to exploit. We can therefore do what we please to Space without exploiting it.
Rocks have inherent value as facets of nature that can be experienced as beautiful and
sublime
Erin Moore Daly, graduate student in the School of Life Sciences and the Center for Science, Policy, and
Outcomes at Arizona State University, and Robert Frodeman, Chair of the Department of Philosophy
at the University of North Texas, 2008, Separated at Birth, Signs of Rapproachment: Environmental
Ethics and Space Exploration, Ethics & the Environment, 13(1), pp. 135-151
The question, however, of whether e.g., rocks have intrinsic value is different from whether they have
values of their own. Abiotic nature can also have value through the relatedness of nature and natural
objects to human beings. This value resides in the daily presence of humans in nature, humans as part
of naturesomething not (yet) true of the extraterrestrial world. We may be confident that rocks do
not think, or have values of their own. But humans can nonetheless value rocks for their own sake
West Coast
2011
252
Neg Handbook
they can be experienced as beautiful, sublime, or sacred. Metaphysical, aesthetic, and theological
questions such as these must be included as we address issues of terraforming.
West Coast
2011
253
Neg Handbook
Instrumental Justifications Alone Are Inappropriate

Instrumental conceptions of space alone lead to exploitation
It was suggested above that, in order to obtain useful answers to the ethical questions of space exploration, it
would be wise sometimes to grant space the status of a moral subject (environment). Can we make this case
stronger and say that, at least sometimes, moral subjecthood is more than a philosophical tool? Can we assert that objects in
space really have inherent value? According to Rolston, we can. He points out that asking what alien worlds are
good for prevents us asking whether those worlds are good in a deeper sense. In his opinion the class of
habitable places is only a subset of the class of valuable places and a failure to be functional for Earth-based life is a different thing from failing
on form, beauty or eventfulness. Therefore, just
as there is (in)appropriate behaviour in places on Earth, regardless

of how hospitable they are to human life, so it is also meaningful to speak of (in)appropriate
behaviour in space environments. Williamson agrees with this when he says that, whereas life forms and ecology
are considered sacrosanct, the inherent beauty of geology and geomorphology is not always accorded
the recognition it deserves. Recognizing that space environments have inherent value is a simple way
of keeping in mind that, even when lifeless, space environments can have many valuable qualities
that deserve to be protected and cherished. Space is not just a new area for the application of
environmental ethics but can also teach an ethics lesson of its own: that environmental ethics at its
best is more than an ethics of life. If lifeless environments can be valuable and unique in many ways, what does this tell us about
our moral responsibilities towards all environments?
A utilitarian calculus is uselss in considering ethical orientations toward space

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Space Exploration, Space Policy, vol. 25(2), pp. 75-80
It should be noted that the flexibility of CBA is not unlimited. In particular, CBA, even when broadly construed, still falls within
the realm
of consequentialist ethics. This means that only the consequences of decisions are taken into
consideration. Questions of fundamental rights are ignored. Thus, where questions of rights come up
in space exploration, such as in questions of whether we have the right to perturb extraterrestrial
planets from their native condition, CBA may be of limited or negligible relevance.
Treating space as an environment affirms equal freedom

One of the reasons for exploring space is that Earth is not enough for us. We need more living room
and resources than our home planet can offer. But who is this we? Is spreading out into space a good
thing if the human presence there consists of large commercial enterprises, scientists and members of
a rich elite? Should we not mark from early on another interest: that of equal freedom. Equal freedom
means that the goal of space exploration is to make space accessible to ordinary people who are not
particularly rich or influential or particularly professionally involved in it. Satellite services are a good
example of how the exploitation of space has also improved the lives of ordinary people. If space is explored in part for the
purpose of making human life better, it should mean the life of the ordinary human. Otherwise there
is a risk that the gap between the privileged and the poor will expand into something never seen
before, with equally unpredictable consequences. The space environment is like the Earths
environment in the sense that we have diverse interests towards it but physical and social realities set
certain limits on the manner and the extent to which we may pursue these interests. Treating space as
West Coast
2011
254
Neg Handbook
an environment highlights the need to discern and evaluate our various interests, as well as the need
to ask, who we includes in a given situation.
West Coast
2011
255
Neg Handbook
Requiring Life To Determine Value Undermines Ethics

We should recognize the inherent value of space as an environment, without the base
requirement of life
Considering space as something that does not enjoy a moral status equal to that of Earths
environments does not imply that it would be wise for us to exploit it short-sightedly. Certainly, it would
still be wise to keep our own long-term interests in mind while planning new projects. However, it is a
very different thing to recognize that it is in our own best interest, e.g. to reduce the amount of debris in important orbits or
to preserve areas that have important historical or aesthetic value, than it is to say that space, for the most part, has inherent
value in the same way that Earth environments are thought to have. On Earth, the term environment
is loaded in so many ways that space is not. Our own well-being is closely connected with the wellbeing of our planet. If there is excessive pollution we will become ill or may even have to move away from areas that have become unsafe. Space, on the other hand, is
extremely hostile to humans to begin with. While it can be argued that some phenomena taking place in space are significant from the perspective of human well-being, our actions in general
do not have the power to affect those phenomena in nearly the same way that we can affect the flourishing or extinction of life on Earth. Second, on Earth we have an abundance of life forms
In space we have interesting phenomena but it is lifeless, and in environmental ethics life is of special
importance; many central environmental ethical concepts and ideas make sense only when we are
talking about places where there is life. It is still under dispute how far we should go to protect and cherish life here on Earth. Another complication is that
the theory of environmental ethics is often quite different from the practices in place in various levels of society: even when we know that polluting our environment is harmful, we often
choose to do it anyway for one reason or another. Keeping this in mind, it may be difficult to argue that we should prohibit all exploitation of space on the grounds that pollution in the process
is inevitable.
We are all the accumulation of galactic particles and atoms. we are the stuff of rocks.
move beyond anthropocentric conceptions of value, life/nonlife
John Seed, founder and director of the Rainforest Information Centre, 1995, Beyond
Anthropocentrism, http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/deep-eco/Anthropo.htm
When humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most
profound change in consciousness begins to take place. Alienation subsides. The human is no longer
an outsider, apart. Your humanness is then recognised as being merely the most recent stage of your
existence, and as you stop identifying exclusively with this chapter, you start to get in touch with yourself as mammal, as vertebrate, as a
species only recently emerged from the rainforest. As the fog of amnesia disperses, there is a transformation in your
relationship to other species, and in your commitment to them. What is described here should not be seen as merely intellectual. The
intellect is one entry point to the process outlined, and the easiest one to communicate. For some people however, this change of perspective follows from actions on behalf of Mother Earth.
"I am protecting the rainforest" develops to "I am part of the rainforest protecting myself. I am that part of the rainforest recently emerged into thinking." What a relief then! The thousands of
years of imagined separation are over and we begin to recall our true nature. That is, the change is a spiritual one, thinking like a mountain, sometimes referred to as "deep ecology". As your
as the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace the outmoded
anthropocentric structures in your mind, there is an identification with all life, then follows the
realisation that the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct. Every atom in this
body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago. Remember our childhood as
minerals, as lava, as rocks? Rocks contain the potentiality to weave themselves into such stuff as this.
We are the rocks dancing. Why do we look down on them with such a condescending air. It is they
that are immortal part of us.
memory improves,
West Coast
2011
256
Neg Handbook
The Overview Effect Is No Panacea

Not everyone will get the same effect. some will feel nothing
Frank White, Senior Associate at the Space Studies Institute, 1998, The Overview Effect: Space
Exploration and Human Evolution, p. 25
There certainly have been breakthrough experiences akin to "enlightenment" on space missions.
However, this does not make spaceflight a spiritual experience per se. Just as some people can go to
church and feel nothing, while others are enraptured just by looking at a flower, there are those who
have had profound experiences in outer space and those for whom it was simply a job well done. Edgar
Mitchell preferred to avoid the word spiritual and to discuss, instead, expansions in consciousness and belief systems. He said that being open
to the new information of the experience is the key: "To me, the difference between gelling and not getting an 'aha' experience out of it is
whether it shifts your structure a bit. Do you get a sense of freedom, of expansiveness, because you've just experienced something that is
different from your previous experiences and beliefs?"
Expanding into space fosters a fundamental disconnection from the earth

environment
The idea that we should protect the Earth because it helps us settle space is the easiest idea to
understand. We might also protect the Earth for its own intrinsic worth, not just because we think
animals, plants and microbes should have a right to continue to exist, but because the Earth has a
universal intrinsic worth. The possibility that Earth might have an intrinsic value within a space-faring environmental ethic has a great
deal of long-term importance. As humanity moves away and explores new regions of space, its connection
with Earth weakens. For example, imagine a space-faring civilization that gathers all of its resources
from asteroids and lives amongst these objects. As few of these new space-dwelling pioneers will visit
the Earth, then their sense of the intrinsic worth of the planet will also fade away. It will be to them a distant
world, a curiosity.
The overview effect is the language of ecocracy that seeks to erase all notions of
difference. it is the call of colonialism
Wolfgang Sachs, Fellow at the Institute for Cultural Studies, 1995, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, p.
442
Satellite pictures scanning the globe's vegetative cover, computer graphs running interacting curves
through time, threshold levels held up as worldwide norms are the language of global ecology. It
constructs a reality that contains mountains of data, but no people. The data do not explain why Tuaregs are driven to exhaust their waterholes, or what makes Germans so obsessed with high speed on
freeways; they do not point out who owns the timber shipped from the Amazon or which industry
flourishes because of a polluted Mediterranean sea; and they are mute about the significance of forest
trees for Indian tribals or what water means in an Arab country. In short, they provide a knowledge
which is faceless and placeless; an abstraction that carries a considerable cost: it consigns the realities
of culture, power and virtue to oblivion. It offers data, but no context; it shows diagrams, but no
actors; it gives calculations, but no notions of morality; it seeks stability, but disregards beauty. Indeed, the global vantage point requires ironing out all the differences and disregarding all
circumstances; rarely has the gulf between observers and the observed been greater than between
satellite-based forestry and the seringueiro in the Brazilian jungle. It is inevitable that the claims of
global management are in conflict with the aspirations for cultural rights, democracy and selfdetermination. Indeed, it is easy for an ecocracy which acts in the name of "one earth" to become a
West Coast
2011
257
Neg Handbook
threat to local communities and their lifestyles. After all, has there ever, in the history of colonialism,
been a more powerful motive for streamlining the world than the call to save the planet.
West Coast
2011
258
Neg Handbook
Space As An Environment Avoids Anthropocentrism

Conceiving space as an environment allows us to ask ethical question about space
Philosophically it may be beneficial to employ the tools of environmental ethics in discussions about
space ethics. If we act in space, the ethical questions we encounter often have as much in common
with environmental ethics as with the philosophy of science or sociology. There already exist ethical
questions that have a distinctly environmental ethical undertone (for example: if we discover life, how should we
treat it?). This strongly suggests that we should consider space as an environment for practical reasons.
Studying space as an environment allows us to have another perspective besides that of human
interests. While it is true that studying the ethical questions of space exploration from the perspective of human interests can answer many ethical questions (for instance, cluttering
an important orbit with debris is unwise mainly because doing so is against our own best interests in the long term, and this provides a good reason to avoid it), other questions benefit from
combining different perspectives.
Recontextualizing our ethical thinking within nature and the solar system transforms
anthropocentrism by decentering the human beyond dichotomous thinking
Michael A. Peters, Associate Professor in the Education Department at the University of Auckland, New
Zealand and Ruyu Hung, Professor at the National Chiayi Universit, Department of Education, 2008,
Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for Environmental Ethics, Environmental Education, Volume 1 of
Contexts of Education, pp. 17-18
Solar ethics is an ethical frame of mind which may help to re-position human beings within nature. Don
Cupitt has published a small book entitled Solar Ethics in 1995. In this book, Don Cupitt (1995) points out that what drives him to think about
solar ethics is moral anxiety or even panic about contemporary moral problems. For him, the
present social and moral disorder
makes explicit the failure of the traditional moral philosophy, whether be it emotivism or moral objectivism or realism.
It is the starting point to conceive of a new ethics. Thus he states, if you agree that tradition has failed, and that moral philosophy as we have
been doing it has been addressing itself to all the wrong questions; and you further agree that we need a moral philosophy better fitted to our cosmology and our culture then you may be
ready for solar ethics. The Sun sees no reason at all to apologize for making such an exhibition of itself all the time; it simply is its own outpouring self-expression... It has no inwardness; that
is, it is not inwardly subject to something unseen that is authoritative over it. It does not experience the moral orderit is purely and only affirmative.
It coincides
completely with its own joyous, headlong process of selfexteriorization
Cupitt reveals the metaphorical

strength that the Sun could bring to us: Sun can be taken as a source of human beings to conceive the qualities of affirmativity, unselfishness,
openness and joy. These qualities could be regarded as references for moral thinking. For us, there is a better reason to conceive solar
ethics as it recontextualizes our ethical thinking by broadening human/nature relationship to

human/solar system relationship. It is a re-envisioning of the boundary between human beings and
the rest of nature, of which we are a part. This re-envisioning may create a perspective different from
the conventional one which makes a separation between nature and human beings, between nature
and culture, between nature and nurture: a holistic ethics beyond divides.
Regarding space as an environment means we avoid the frontier-oriented mistakes

A staple of science fiction imagery are tales of Earth being attacked by a ruthless spacefaring conqueror species. Noble humans then rise to
fight and finally beat the invaders. These latter, technically advanced species trample through the galaxy leaving destruction and death behind.
Everyone agrees that it is only good and right to stop such a galactic plague by any means necessary. But if we abandon the idea of space as an
environment that we must explore responsibly and view the ethics of space exploration only as a subspecies of the ethics of science, are we not
well on our way to becoming a galactic plague ourselves? Our
track record on Earth shows that we certainly have a

capability to destroy our environment - and to an increasing degree, also the capacity to regret it later. On the
other hand, if we regard space as wilderness, in the spirit of astro-environmentalism, we might avoid
repeating some of the mistakes we have made on Earth. Conceiving of space as a wilderness to
West Coast
2011
259
Neg Handbook
explore and protect rather than as a frontier to exploit could help to keep nuclear technology, debris
and other environmental hazards out of the heavens.
West Coast
2011
260
Neg Handbook
Space As An Environment Avoids Anthropocentrism

Holding ethics to an earth-based perspective keeps ethics tied to anthropocentrism
Michael A. Peters, Associate Professor at Auckland, New Zealand and Ruyu Hung, Professor at the
National Chiayi Universit, Department of Education, 2008, Solar Ethics: A New Paradigm for
Environmental Ethics, Environmental Education, Volume 1 of Contexts of Education, pp. 20-21
Among the innumerable galaxies, the star systems and planetary systems in our universe, each one is unique, containing its own dynamics. Yet
the solar system is the one closest to us; we are part of it; it has been observed numerous times (although no yet from outside it) and
taken as the frontier of science since the time of Nicolaus Copernicus. Even modern science encompasses many theories and models to explain
phenomena outside our tiny solar system. We still hesitate to argue that we have the same confidence about understanding other star
systems as we have of our own solar system, let alone other universes. In this sense, the
solar system provides a unique

compared with other star systems and novel compared with biocentric or ecocentric contexts
perspective for conceiving human/nonhuman relationships. The solar system, consisting of our Sun and other celestial
objects including planets, moons, dwarf planets and billions of small bodies, has been known since the 16th century. However, the
replacement of geocentrism by heliocentrism in astronomy has not occurred in ethics. In the ethical
field, human beings are the ego-centric agent-dominators. Although there has been a call for
biocentric or ecocentric ethics based on a critique of anthropocentrism, the biocentric or ecocentric
view is still grounded on Earth. If the massive knowledge concerning our universe accumulated in the
past centuries could help human beings to broaden their vision, to attempt to resituate themselves in
a broader context, and try to image themselves as a (post-)modern cosmologist, the solar system
might be an appropriate starting point.
Conceiving space as an enironment before the plan prevents damage to space

protection of the space environment, Space Policy, vol. 19, pp. 4752
Despite the difficulties, the design of and agreement on a code of space ethics is considered
sufficiently important to pursue. In practice, agreement on an ethical code for space may prove as
difficult as agreement in space law, a topic that has been under serious discussion since the beginning of the Space Age.
Nevertheless, an effort must be made now, before more serious and irreparable damage is done to
the space environment. The danger inherent in not developing an ethical code for space, or of not
including protection of the space environment as a part of its foundation, has already been
demonstrated by the former laissez faire attitude towards the terrestrial environment, which has led
to the destruction of parts of that environment. Although mankind may be decades from a return to the Moon, and centuries from terraforming Mars, the next half-century of space
exploration and development is as difficult to predict as the first was in 1957, when Sputnik1 opened the Space Age. Had an ethical code for space been in force in the late 1950s, much of the
Given the potential for development and exploitation

of the space environment in the coming decades, there can be no advantage in further delay.
damage to the space environment might not have occurred in the decades that followed.
Viewing space as an environment resolves managerialism

One of the most obvious reasons that environmentalists and space explorers keep apart is that
settling space and managing the Earth seem such daunting problems. Space explorers sometimes feel
that Earth's problems are insurmountable and that we should abandon it and spread into the cosmos,
away from our dependence on the biosphere. This vision has some elements of truth in it. In the long
term it is true that we will have to escape the Earth and go somewhere else. Our biosphere is
ultimately doomed. The Earth will eventually be engulfed by the fireball of the Sun as it turns into a Red Giant in five billion years. Even in about two billion years time the
biosphere will overheat from a natural runaway greenhouse effect, as the Sun's luminosity increases. However, this problem is so far in the future as
West Coast
2011
261
Neg Handbook
to be practically moot. Many of the people that pursue this line of logic sometimes forget that most of the six and a half billion of us (and rising) on Earth are not going
anywhere for a long time, and that we should indeed solve the environmental problems at home.
West Coast
2011
262
Neg Handbook
Strengthening Earth-Space Connections Works Best

Environmentalism and space exploration are compatible
Earth: Saving Our World By Seeking Others, p. viii-vix
After the lecture I thought about what I had said and realized that I had missed the point. Environmentalism
and space exploration are not only perfectly compatible, but positively beneficial to each other. We explore space
because it helps us care for the Earth and we explore the Earth's environments and try to protect
them because it helps us get into space. The links are so tight that one can argue that
environmentalism and space settlement have actually one and the same objective creating sustainable human communities in the cosmos whether they are on the Earth or on any other planet
or moon. Why should we care about these links and trying to strengthen them? To strengthen these connections will
vastly improve our ability to solve environmental problems, and it will increase our chances of
successfully settling space, with all the resources it has to offer. In continuing a philosophy of division
between home and away we miss an opportunity to improve the human condition.
Current environmental ethics are bound only to earth. we must strengthen the links
between the space and earth environments to create a broader ethic
Today, environmental ethical discussions are focused on objects only on this planet. We consider
whether objects have instrumental worth and intrinsic worth. This is a view of environmental ethics that fits a
society bound only to Earth, and it considers only the component parts of this world. A space-faring civilization must
consider the instrumental and intrinsic worth of the Earth and its component parts to the space-faring
society; equally, it must consider the instrumental and intrinsic worth of objects in space to the Earth
and its inhabitants. We should first consider the value of the Earth to a civilization that plans to spread across the Solar System and eventually, perhaps, beyond. What value
does Earth have to the space branches of a space-faring civilization? As we've seen, the biosphere is a source of analogue environments that help us explore space. We protect ice-covered
lakes in Antarctica, volcanoes in Iceland and asteroid craters in America because they help us to understand and explore space. They might help us search for life or assist us in understanding
Within this ethos, environmentalism and space settlers find common ground. A spacefaring environmental ethic can create a strong and lasting connection between Earth and space that
can be of benefit to Earth and space dwellers many millennia into the future. Even if you don't use any
of Earth's resources, its analogue environments are useful to you. Perhaps, as you explore the volcanoes of some distant world, you can use
the geology of other planets.
the databases of Earth volcanoes to understand them better. As you examine what you think is life on another planet, the information about life in extreme environments on Earth can help
you out. The use of Earth's environments in this way gives the Earth an instrumental value to people who may not even live there.
Making space-earth connections revitalizes environmentalism

For the past century people have generally seen understanding the Earth's environment and moving
into space as two very separate problems, and different organizations have been set up to deal with
them. Sometimes the two groups are even antagonistic to each other. It is not uncommon to find environmentalists who regard
space exploration as a waste of money, an activity that draws off resources that should be used tor solving problems here at home. On the other hand, I have met space settlers who regard
These
perceived differences are superficial. Environmentalists and space explorers actually share the same
overarching goal the sustainable use of the environment around us; they just differ in the location
they focus on. If we look at each community through the eyes of the other, we can think of environmentalists as people
who believe in the successful colonization of planet Earth, a laudable and grandiose vision of space exploration.
Space explorers, on the other hand, are an ambitious set of environmentalists who would like to
environmentalists as Luddites, peering inwards to the wounds of Mother Earth and lacking the vision to look outwards to the endless resourCes and opportunities in space.
West Coast
2011
263
Neg Handbook
extend human living to the surface of other worlds. In the process of pursuing these common
ambitions, both groups of people reflect very practical and deep connections between them.
West Coast
2011
264
Neg Handbook
Anthropocentric Thinking Risks Extinction

Anthropocentric ethics jeopardizes survival
Thomas Berry, Director of the Riverdale Center for Religious Research, Deep Ecology For The TwentyFirst Century, 1995, pp. 9 10
While there are pathologies that wipe out whole populations of life forms and must be considered
pernicious to the life process on an extensive scale, the human species has, for some thousands of
years, shown itself to be a pernicious presence in the world of the living on a unique and universal
scale. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Western phase of development of the human species. There is scarcely any
geological or biological reality or function that has not experienced the deleterious influences of the
human. The survival of hundreds of thousands of species is presently threatened. But since the human
survives only within this larger complex of ecosystems, any damage done to other species, or to the
other ecosystems, or to the planet itself, eventually affects the human not only in terms of physical
well-being but also in every other phase of human intellectual understanding, aesthetic expression
and spiritual development.
Anthropocentrism undermines all life on the planet

Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Institute for Humanities and the
Arts at Tulane University, Summer 1997, Context Institute, Introduction to Deep Ecology,
http://www.context.org/ ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm
Deep ecology is founded on two basic principles: one is a scientific insight into the interrelatedness of all systems of life on Earth, together with
the idea that anthropocentrism - human-centeredness - is
a misguided way of seeing things. Deep ecologists say that an

of regarding humans as
something completely unique or chosen by God, they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. They believe we need to
develop a less dominating and aggressive posture towards the Earth if we and the planet are to
survive. The second component of deep ecology is what Arnie Naess calls the need for human self-realization. Instead of identifying with
our egos or our immediate families, we would learn to identify with trees and animals and plants, indeed the whole ecosphere. This would
involve a pretty radical change of consciousness, but it would make our behavior more consistent
with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth. We just wouldn't do certain
things that damage the planet, just as you wouldn't cut off your own finger.
ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life on Earth. Instead
Continuing along the path of anthropocentrism guarantees extinction

Thomas Berry, Director of the Riverdale Center for Religious Research, 1995, Deep Ecology for The
Twenty-First Century, p. 10
A deep cultural pathology has developed in Western society and has now spread throughout the
planet. A savage plundering of the entire earth is taking place through industrial exploitation.
Thousands of poisonous unknown in former times are saturating the air, water, and the soil. The
habitat of a vast number of living species is being irreversibly damaged. In this universal disturbance
of the biosphere by human agents, the human being now finds that the harm done to the natural
world is returning to threaten the human species itself.
West Coast
2011
265
Neg Handbook
Imperialism Critique
West Coast
2011
266
Neg Handbook
Frontier Mentality Critique Explanation

Americans relied on their perceptions of centuries of frontier tradition to explain the importance of space exploration... By the
late 1950s and 1960s, both intellectual and popular frontier myths had fully developed. Americans were exposed to these
concepts as they went to school and through literature, television, and movies. Susan Landrum Mangus*
Although children do not usually play Cowboys and Indians nowadays, the frontier spiritconquering, expansion, and
genocidelive on in the American imagination. This is particularly true in the context of space policy and advocacy. Space
officials and advocates routinely employ frontier metaphors: final frontier, space pioneers, and colonies. The rhetorical
markers denote a larger ontological perspective that sees space as something to be conquered and dominated. Using the
word space denotes both outer space and makes reference to all physical space.
The frontier mentality refers to the persistent drive, especially in America, toward outward expansion. Many describe space as
our destiny. Central here are romanticized notions of the so-called glory of the Old West. That is, we can say conquering the
West was a good thing in terms of structural progress (trade, railroads), but that glory is tainted. Progress was born on the
backs of exploited Chinese immigrant laborers, pillaging of the land and natural resources, patriarchal gender relations, and the
genocide of indigenous peoples. When confronted with this historical legacy, we should rethink our support for frontierism.
While there are no buffalos to kill, or Indians to slaughter, the mentality that gave rise to these events can manifest itself in
different ways in the context of space. First, how far will we go to get there? Do we restart destructive uranium mines for
nuclear propulsion and irradiate even more Native peoples? Will we begin to consider those in poverty or lesser-developed
nations as disposable on this path and withdraw out foreign aid? Secondly, why do we go to space? Is it for the egalitarian
purpose of raising the standard of living for all peoples? Or is it the expansionist drive of frontierism that will mine planets for
resources to satisfy the ever-expanding desire of the ultra-rich toward capital accumulation? Finally, what will we do when we
get there? Who will participate and who will reap the benefits?
These questions and more riddle space advocacy with an urgent need to rethink U.S. exceptionalism, nationalism, colonialism,
imperialism, and ethnocentrism. This calls for an ontological investigation into how we speak of, think about, and advocate
space exploration and development. On a broader level, this would involve a historical understanding of frontierism and how it
has been situated with space policy. This type of rethinking can open up new avenues for pursuing space exploration. Since
the frontier metaphor itself was constructed to tap into things like a romantic history of triumph (unless you were an Indian or
buffalo!) over adversity in the Old West.
Some will claim that the historical legacy of a metaphor does not determine its future use. Since the frontier metaphor was
most prominently used during the Cold War, there is an argument to be made that things will be different in space. However,
the ontological markers of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism as modes of being persist today. There is every reason to
believe we would take our destructive sets of ethics and ontology with us to space, absent rethinking before doing the plan.
Others might argue that, despite a poor historical record, the frontier mentality manifested in imperialism is net-beneficial.
These defenders of the West point to the absence of big powers and nuclear wars as a benefit. However, looking to Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan tell a much different story. Still others may choose to defend frontierism by illustrating the
benefits of capitalism. While there are many reasons capitalism is bad, many claim it to be essential if we are to colonize space.
This is tricky: if the Affirmative wins this argument, and that extinction is inevitable if we do not go to space, then the
alternative will do very little.
To defend against these challenges, the prudent critic would rely on an ontological framing of the ballot. While the impact
debate might be easy if you have good files, the more strategic route is to deny them access to these claims through ontology.
*Susan Landrum Mangus, Ph.D. candidate, 1999, Conestoga Wagons to the moon: The Frontier, The American Space Prgram,
and National Identity, Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University, p. 11
West Coast
2011
267
Neg Handbook
Frontier Mentality Critique 1NC 1/3

A. The US space program is rooted in nationalism
Alan Marshall, PhD in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Wollongong where his
interests revolve around the political sociology of space development and the politics and sociology of
environmentalism, 1995, Development and imperialism in space, Space Policy, V. 11, No. 1, pp. 41-52
Nationalism has been the background against which the US space programme has gained much of its
popular support. The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations were able to tap into the political mileage
to be gained from space travel. In the face of an attack on American national prestige by the Soviet
Unions space exploits nationalist sentiments were easily excited to gain support for a space programme
that would reaffirm the USAs technological prowess. Technological achievements are tangible
examples of the superiority of a society, or so many a political leader has sought to convince its
subjects. The Kruschev regime, too, held that the technological success of the Sputnik and Vostok
projects clearly demonstrated the superiority of the Soviet communist system. Throughout many
periods of imperialist history, nationalism has been an essential driving force. As Mommsen declares Sometimes
statesmen were far less inclined to engage in costly overseas ventures than were those sections of the population, including the masses, who
were tempted by vague future greatness and economic advantage. This situation may well apply to modern day USA, in which the repeated
public calls for a massive reassertment of Americas space programme are repeatedly ignored by the US senate, who show a bias towards
prudent management of the federal budget rather than the future imperial glory of the USA in space. It might be claimed that the lack of
receptivity of the US Senate to vast popular sentiments shows the inadequacy of Americas political structures in matters of representation.
This may indeed be the case, but it seems likely that the main reason populism is not successfully spurring on Solar System space development
is because space development is not popular enough.
B. Space advocacy rhetoric invokes romanticized notions of a uniquely american final

frontier, normalizing exceptionalism
Asif A. Siddiqi, Ph.D., assistant professor of history at Fordham University, April 2010, Competing
Technologies, National(ist) Narratives, and Universal Claims: Toward a Global History of Space
Exploration, Technology and Culture, v51, n2, pp. 425-443
As Launius has shown, influential space activists of the past fifty years deployed rhetoric and rationale
to support space exploration that simultaneously invoked romanticized notions of the American
frontierFrederick Jackson Turners frontier thesis was ubiquitouswith emphatic language that
underscored that what was at stake with space exploration was not about Americans but the entire
human race. Commentators as varied as Wernher von Braun, Gerard K. ONeill, and Robert Zubrin all
couched their arguments with a distinctly American spiningenuity, frontier, freedom in their
search to create the opportunity for global survival in the form of human colonization of the cosmos.
Here, the American becomes the normative for space travel for the species.
C. Space policy is all about rhetorical ploys to secure american exceptionalism

Fletcher Fernau, International Studies, American University, May, 2009, Putting U.S. Space Policy in
Context, How Have Policymakers Drawn on Existing Rhetorical Commonplaces to Legitimate U.S. Space
Policy?, Capstone Project for Honors in International Studies, http://wrlcsun3ge.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/7793/1/ Fernau,%20Fletcher,%202009S.pdf
This situation underlines the relevance of constructivism as a useful lens for understanding space
policy debates. It is clear that conflict over space policy today is a rhetorical battle, not a question of
technological capability. Postmodern skepticism of American exceptionalism coupled with the failure
of successive American leaders to convincingly maintain the space-as-frontier compound
commonplace, even if they occasionally tried to use its language, explains the stagnation of further
ambitious space policy initiatives and reveals the historical contingency of space policy discourse.
West Coast
2011
268
Neg Handbook

D. Frontierists mask an imperialist agenda to control resources.
Alan Marshall, PhD Wollongong, 1999, "Gaining a share of the final frontier", Technology and Public
Participation, pp. 231-247.
It is apparent that if you are interested in space development in the solar system you can participate
in it in only indirect ways. Either (a) you get yourself into a position that enables you to formulate space policy, (b) you make do with being happy about receiving the
audio-visual and scientific results from projects that others plan, (c) you campaign for those others to do what you want, or (d) you follow some misguided effort to do it by yourself. These
lack of participation in formulating space

policy may be paralleled with equally deficient participation with regards to the global distribution of
future space benefits. This realm, of international participation, can be regarded as perhaps the most important avenue of participation, not because it necessarily
realities expose a cavernous deficiency in the way that participation in national space policy is formulated. This
guarantees citizen participation in formulating space policy but because it has the potential (conferred upon it by international law) to decide how the final frontier and its accompanying
material benefits may be shared. Though any one nation has myriads of barriers that stand in the way of citizen participation in the formulation of space policy, it could be argued that even if
these were resolved in your favour you would soon come up against barriers against participation at the international level. There is within the international realm a variety of conflicting views
Though
couched in terms of peace and inclusiveness the legal regimes emerging from the machinations of
international politics firmly veer the future of space in an imperialistic direction, where the commonly owned resources
with regards to space development scenarios. Watching these proposed scenarios clash exposes the significantly anti-participatory schemes at work in particular governments.
of the solar system become entrenched in the hands of a technological elite. At work to glorify such extraterrestrial technocracy is a continuing ideological attachment to frontierism.
Space frontierists speak of the rational and renaissance character of space development much as
those humanists of old heralded the worldwide expansion of Europeans as the civilised dispersal of an
enlightened culture and nothing but. In so doing they become not only the ideologues of a misjudged
past and the silencers of alternative histories, but also the progenitors of future imperialism.
E. The frontier mentality leads to domination and exploitation

Valerie Neal, Department of Space History at Smithsonian Institute, former NASA Shuttle engineer,
1994, Where Next Columbus? The Future of Space Exploration, p. 196-197
A powerful concept is that it is human nature to explore; we are genetically and biologically
programmed to be on the move, and we explore in response to some primal need. This concept of
exploration is linked to the concept of conquest, of spreading out to acquire more land, more food,
mare wealth, more power. In this concept, exploration is an inevitable "next step." While most human
cultures do explore and migrate, there are some that inexplicably do not, thus casting doubt on the notion of biologically programmed impulse.
While benefits accrue to the explorer, the explored land or

people, even another planet, usually does not fare as well. It is often a short step from exploration to
exploitation, and the two terms are used interchangeably in space-program rationales. We heard
more about the "conquest of space" in the cold war era, but the phrase still resonates in space-policy
studies and speeches.
We are learning more about the darker side of conquest.
F. The endpoint of colonialist imperialism is extinction

Robert B. Porter, Law Professor, 1998, A Proposal to the Hanodaganyas to Decolonize Federal Indian
Law, University of Michigan Journal of Law, p. 11
Nonetheless, this otherwise natural process was dramatically altered by colonization. These colonizing
efforts were accomplished by force and often with great speed, producing dramatic changes within
Indigenous societies and interfering with the natural process of adaptation and change. This
disruption has had a genocidal effect; groups of Indigenous peoples that existed 500 years ago no longer exist. There
should be no doubt that their extinction was not an accident it was the product of a concerted effort to subjugate
and eliminate the native human population in order to allow for the pursuit of wealth and manifest destiny. As a result, extinction is the
most dramatic effect of colonization. Allowed to run its full course, colonization will disrupt and
destroy the natural evolutionary process of the people being colonized to the point of extinction.
West Coast
2011
269
Neg Handbook

G. The frontier mentality embeds space exploration with an ethnocentric ontology
It is debatable whether these people are basing their ideology upon sound premises. It can be argued, for instance, that at best intellectual,
humanitarian and technological progress was quite independent of expansion across the Atlantic and across the West and that at worst such
expansion only gave rise to and reflected the oppressiveness of European ideas and technology. An
entrenched ethnocentrism is
contained within the frontierist attitude to space expansion. There are two great modern stories of
westward expansion. One is of glorious and civilised Euro-American discovery and settlement and the
other is of imperialist victimisation of colonised peoples. It is questionable whether either of these two stories is
adequate when dealing with the many local and enormously heterogeneous histories of North American people, but the point is that space
frontierists only ever adopt one of these two great stories: that of grand and glorious European
expansion. In the many writings of space frontierists there is hardly a sentence acknowledging the
plight of colonised peoples in the face of such expansion, except when it comes to rebutting the
legitimacy of the alternative story. Space frontierists feel safe in reinvigorating the ideas of
frontierism because there are no indigenes on the other planets. Thus imperialism can forevermore be
excised from the final frontier because there will be no victims in its pursuit. In this last point,
however, they may be grossly mistaken.
H. Becoming a spacefaring species causes infinite destruction

David M. Lavery, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Communication at Memphis State University, 1992,
Late for the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age, p. 18
While Brand thinks an extraterrestrial existence will teach humankind ecological wisdom-- he is
impressed by the small-scale simplicity, the appropriate technology demanded by life in O'Neill's selfcontained colonies--Berry sees in the birth of a universal species only a blank check for new
destructiveness. O'Neill's scheme has been forged in ignorance of what Berry calls "the moral law of
the frontier": that "humans are destructive in proportion to the supposition of abundance; if they are
faced with infinite abundance, then they will become infinitely destructive". "Mr. O'Neill has
apparently never thought to ask," Berry observes, "what good might be accomplished by the
proliferation in space of a mentality that cannot forebear to do anything at all that is possible". Taking
care to note that O'Neill's advocacy of ecology is accompanied by plans to mine the planets and bring
raw materials and cosmic energy back to Earth, Berry finds him guilty of "the thug morality of the
technological specialist, by which we blandly assume that we must do anything that we can do" and
demands to know "Do we not live in a universe? Is there no ecology of the heavens?"
I. Decentering space policy from nationalism opens up new avenues for space
Since a global history would theoretically be decentered and a nations space program rendered as a
more nebulous transnational process, one might expect a multitude of smaller, local, and ambiguous
processes and meanings to become visible. With a new approach grounded in a global history of
spaceflight, we might learn much more about how individuals, communities, and nations perceive
space travel, how they imbue space exploration with meaning, and especially how those meanings are
contested and repeatedly reinvented as more and more nations articulate the urge to explore space.
West Coast
2011
270
Neg Handbook
Space Policies Entrench A Frontier Mentality

Representations of space exploration are embedded in illusions of benign colonialism
and imperialism, while glossing over the history of genocide
Peter Redfield, Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002, The Half-Life of Empire in Outer Space, Social Studies of Science, v. 32,
pp. 791-85
The rhetorical link between outer space and colonial history requires little introduction. Anyone with
a passing acquaintance of the Space Age is familiar with its frontier metaphors and allusions to
European colonial expansion, from the frequent appearance of male explorers past in NASA presentations to the imaginary exploits
of increasingly varied Star Trek crews. The above quotation thus constitutes a reflexive, though casual, reference; its intended import lies less in
the actual words transcribed than the reminder of a larger pattern echoing through them.
Just like colonial history itself, the

field of representation running through outer space is complex, multiple and full of tension,
encompassing the possibility of reversals and counter-themes, such as the reverse colonialism of alien
abductions. However, at the base of rockets we can identify a consistent and optimistic reading of
history through the future. In the aftermath of the 20th century, advocates of space exploration constitute
perhaps the last unabashed enthusiasts of imperialism, cheerfully describing conquest, settlement
and expansion, and hesitating not a whit before employing the term colony. Theirs is a Columbus of
exploration, nation building and risk taking, not of invasion, domination and genocide. History is cleansed
above the planet; unlike a group of Native American scholars meeting in the immediate aftermath of the Apollo landing, it would never occur to
participants of workshops such as the one cited above to pity the Indians and the buffalo of Outer Space.
Frontier rhetoric is used to protect national security and nationalistic glory

Peter J. Fiske, Senior Capstone Rhetorical Analysis, Metropolitan State University, Summer 2008,
Rhetoric of Space Exploration; Why the Silence?, www.pjfiske.com/Assets/files/RhetoricalAnalysis.pdf
Rhetoric on space exploration has taken many forms since the first idea of investigating the final
frontier. The term final frontier is rarely used in science presentations (this term was popularized in television
and film science fiction in the 70s and 80s). Scientists use the term infinite possibility when describing space
explorations. Not much has changed since the 60s on the main reasons for going into space: national
security, economics and glory. These reasons boil down to being able to realize human potential.
Potential has many definitions such as possible but not yet in existence.
Space development and expansion follows a frontier mentality

environmentalism, 1999, "Gaining a share of the final frontier", Technology and Public Participation, pp.
231-247.
Frontiersmen never die, they just drift off into space. So may read the bumpersticker of space
expansionists since for them space development is classed as the final frontier. It is the next and
ultimate step in an expansionist saga that has seen Europeans sail to the shores of the New World and
then drift relentlessly and purposefully westward across continental North America. According to many
space frontierists, just as the western frontier opened up new land, new resources, new ideas, new
freedoms and new and better technologies during the first centuries of European presence in
America, so the coming centuries of space expansion will do the same.
West Coast
2011
271
Neg Handbook
Astronomy Links
Astronomy research is viewed by practitioners as a benign, pure science, but
astronomy is divorced from the lived experience of everydayness and ethics.
advancing astronomy research advances military/industrial control of space
Mark A. Bullock, planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, March 15, 2005,
Cosmology and Ethics, in Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Carl Mitcham, ed.,
Macmillan Reference, Detroit, www.boulder.swri.edu/~bullock/cosmo_ethics.pdf
Cosmology evokes a sense of the most benign, most pure of sciences. The fascination of
contemplating what's out there, combined with the fact that we can't do anything to it lends the
study of space its alluring innocence. That of course, is the old view - cosmology today is coming dangerously close to asking God
some rather direct questions. To some degree, scientific disciplines can be categorized by how influential ethics is
thought to be in the field. Indeed, the ethical weight of astronomy, compared with that of genetics,
lends it a kind of lightness and purity, which is perceived by the people who fund it. Virtually everyone on the
planet has at one time or another gazed up and rested briefly in that human space where we wonder what it all is and what it all means. The
pursuit of these wonders feels ennobling, partly perhaps because of the human space it comes from, and partly because it is
difficult to imagine how contemplation of the stars above us could remotely alter our own fate. The modern science of cosmology
is perhaps as far removed from the day to day concerns of humanity as any human endeavor could be.
Futurists may conjure colorful uses for the discoveries of scientific research on the nature and origin
of the Universe, but we are not dealing here with transistors or life-extending drugs. No one argues that cosmology is
studied because of its economic impact. Does this mean that the study of the Universe has no economic impact? Not at all. The
latest discoveries in astronomy have always depended upon progress in computer, space, and detector technology. Synergism between
the astronomical sciences and industrial and military concerns is strong and growing. Both enterprises
benefit.
Even amateur astronomers operate within a frontier mentality

231-247.
A fourth avenue for participation in space exploration is through amateur astronautics. Amateur astronautics groups are sometimes allied to
the advocacy avenue for participation. The people within amateur astronautics, however, do not wish to just sit around waiting for their
respective governments to implement space development they are interested in doing it for themselves. Some
amateur astronautics
groups are gradually building up to orbital rocket potential and are proposing solar system colonisation schemes already.
Of course, one may wonder if these plans will ever come about. Even with the help of a few eccentric
millionaires it seems unlikely that the resources will be near what a nation state can muster. Much of
the time, though, it seems as though capital accumulation is only a minor programme for space advocates and amateur rocketeers. What
they (as well as many professional space-workers) really like dealing in is ideology: the ideology of frontierism.
There are few benefits to astronometric observation

Jeanna Bryner, Staff Writer, December 6, 2006, Lunar Observatories: Grand Plans vs. Clear Problems,
Space.com, http://www.space.com/3183-lunar-observatories-grand-plans-clear-problems.html
Humans will return to the Moon no later than 2020, paving the way for treks to Mars and beyond.
When liftoff happens, astronomers don't want to be left in the dust. But currently, they are split over the
merits of lunar-based observatories compared with those in free space like the Hubble Space
Telescope, which has been a boon to astronomy during its more than 16-year life in low Earth orbit.
West Coast
2011
272
Neg Handbook
Colonization Rhetoric Links

Colonialist terms will be modelled ecologically on earth, causing colonization
Space colonization caused hardly any controversy until 1975, when royalties from the counterculture sourcebook, The
Whole Earth Catalog, were used to finance space-colonization research. In the debate that followed, the overwhelming majority
thought space colonies could provide well-functioning environments for astronauts seeking to push
human evolutionary expansion into new territories, while also saving a Noahs Ark of earthly species
from industrial destruction and possible atomic apocalypse on Earth. To supporters, space colonies
came to represent rational, orderly, and wise management, in contrast to the irrational, disorderly,
and ill-managed Earth. Some of them built Biosphere 2 in Arizona to prepare for colonization of Mars and to create a model for how
life on Earth should be organized. The skeptical minority argued that space colonization was unrealizable or
unethical, yet nevertheless adopted terminology, technology, and methodology from space research
in their efforts to reshape the social and ecological matrix onboard Spaceship Earth.
Using the term colony instead of settlement reflects a history of colonization.

The use of colonial terminology was deliberate and in line with the imperial tradition from which
ecology as a science emerged. According to Stewart Brand, a leading defender of space colonization, the term space
colony (instead of space settlement) was unproblematic since no Space natives *were+ being
colonized. Yet, as this article argues, when space colonies became the model for Spaceship Earth, all human
beings became Space natives colonized by ecological reasoning: Social, political, moral, and
historical space were invaded by ecological science aimed at reordering ill-treated human
environments according to the managerial ideals of the astronauts life in the space colony. The colonialist
agenda of space research invites the use of postcolonial theory. Though hardly novel in other areas of historical research, postcolonial analysis
has yet to be applied to the history of ecology. The
connection between ecological colonization of outer and earthly

space has largely been ignored. The few historical analyses of space ecology that do exist have hardly paid attention to its
importance to ecologists understanding of Earth. Scholars have rightly emphasized the significance of modeling
closed ecosystems, but have not placed this methodology in the context of ecological colonization of
space. This article holds that advocates of the Martian ecological perspective sought to create on Earth what one proponent described as a
neo-biological civilization at the expense of the humanist legacy, which holds that every human being has intrinsic and unique capacities,
dignity, and worth.
We should reject using the term colonization

David Grinspoon, a NASA-funded scientist, January 12, 2004, Bringing life to Mars: Inhabited or not,
the Red Planet isn't ours to conquer or to colonize, Ottawa Citizen, p. A13
But the future peopling of Mars is much more than a scientific endeavor. It is a step of historic and spiritual importance for the human race. Any group that seeks to garner support for human
journeys to Mars must reassure people that this goal is broadly humanistic and environmentally conscientious. There is no reason why this can't be the case. The fanatical comments quoted
above do not represent the majority view of Mars Society members: Some are credible, thoughtful activists with an inclusive vision more likely to win wide support for continued Mars
let's retire the word

"colonization," which carries a permanent stain, and talk instead about the "cultivation" or
"animation" or "peopling" of Mars. I know that some of you Mars hounds will dismiss the above as a
bunch of PC nonsense. Fine, but it's your movement that is not yet taking the world by storm.
exploration. I hope they succeed in burying the "pioneering the West" analogy before it does any more damage to the cause. While we're at it,
West Coast
2011
273
Neg Handbook
Mars & Robert Zubrin Links

Going to mars under a frontier mentality dooms the mission
Today on Earth we are grappling with the fact that you cannot "conquer" a planet, even if -- especially if - it is your home and your life- support system. If we go to Mars with the idea that we can charge
ahead and subdue a new world, our efforts are doomed. We should rather study how we might learn to help cultivate a Martian Biosphere
that is balanced and self-sustaining, as is the Earth's. (On the other hand, the conquering mentality would save us time and money. We could skip planting the Martian forests, which would
eventually be chopped down anyway, and go straight to sprawling developments of condos, strip malls, Starbucks, and Blockbuster Videos.)
Zubrins space advocacy is rooted in a frontier mentality

As we have already seen, Zubrin is not content to espouse just one American ideology; he is also an avid
defender of the mythology of the West. Like many others who champion the US as the technological
and moral epitome of all humanity, he is loathe to abandon this ideology of frontierism and admit to
the varying human disasters that have arisen from it, for it would cast the bleakest of ethical lights
upon his preferred history and his preferred future. Other histories, and other futures, are castigated
as peripheral to Zubrin's 'central facts' of the last half-millennium of civilisation. Columbus discovering
America is a 'central fact' (and thus is important and so must be retold over and over again!). Death and destruction of
native peoples and native lands are merely peripheral (and thus are unimportant--and not worth talking about!).
Zubrins advocacy is fully rooted in the frontier mentality

Bob Zubrin, Mars Society president, stated that mankind has a duty to terraform Mars, that given the choice between
letting Mars remain the sorry planet that it is and transforming it in Earth's image, we have a moral obligation to do the latter. He added that
it is the Western tradition to expand continually and to value humans above nature, that "this is the
only system of values that has created a society worth living in." These comments were amplified by panelist Lowell
Wood, an architect of Reagan-era "Star Wars" space-based weapons plans. He stated confidently that terraforming Mars will happen in the 21st
century. "It is the manifest destiny of the human race!" he declared and went on to boast: "In this country we are the builders of new worlds. In
this country we took a raw wilderness and turned it into the shining city on the hill of our world." To hell with terraforming: It
seemed
that we were discussing the Ameriforming of Mars. Hearing these words, my heart sank. Is this really the way we
want to frame our dreams of inhabiting Mars? Maybe these guys are simply not aware of the historical use of this phrase
and its negative connotations, I thought. This hope vanished when Zubrin leapt to the defence of Manifest
Destiny, shouting, "By developing the American West we have created a place that millions of
Mexicans are trying to get into!" to a smattering of applause (and some gasps of disbelief) from the crowd.
Zubrins mars advocacy relies on western frontierism

Zubrin has written that we need to go to Mars because it will serve the same function that
"pioneering the West" did for American civilization, creating jobs and opportunity and relieving
population pressure. If there were an award for "most unfortunate choice of analogies," this should win.
It is historically inaccurate, culturally clueless, and fails to capture some of the most compelling
reasons why we really should consider someday bringing Mars to life by inhabiting it and perhaps
eventually altering its environment with (and for) living creatures.
West Coast
2011
274
Neg Handbook
Resources Links
Resource extraction drives the frontier mentality
Why should expansionist development occur in outer space? What is there to motivate governments
and private firms to develop space? Throughout the Space Age many officials in the US public sector,
as well as many entrepreneurially minded space writers, have set their minds on the utilization of
extraterrestrial resources. Some industries on Earth owe their existence (or a substantial amount of their revenue) to the utilization
of space resources (for instance; the telecommunications, weather forecasting and living marine resource industries). Other private firms owe
their success not to the utilization of space resources but to the vague pursuit of space resource utilization. Such companies succeed by
campaigning their respective governments into giving them multi-million dollar contracts based on the precept that at some time in the future
they will be able to utilize extraterrestrial resources commercially.
Perhaps the most frequently elaborated rationale

from human space expansion is the pursuit of new raw materials - raw materials which on Earth are unavailable or
have become enormously rare. From this perspective, development in space is based upon the search for
resources. Historical precedents for such a model can be cited to support this idea. For instance, British
colonialism in South East Asia secured a ready supply of tin for Englands industrial revolution. American economic imperialism in Latin America
supplied the USAs burgeoning automobile industry with cheap rubber during the early twentieth century.
The frontier mentality guarantees space is dominated imperial expansion

Ray A. Williamson, Office of Technology Assessment, October 1987, Outer Space as Frontier:
Lessons for Today, Western Folklore, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 255-267
However, the analogy between conquering and settling North America and settling outer space, with
its utopian overtones, is seriously flawed. As Stoeltje points out, the images of the frontier that space
enthusiasts resort to bear little relationship to the actual experiences of life on the frontier. The picture they
show is rather a construct of images rooted in the eastern seaboard: a deliberate attempt to conjure a positive, romantic, masculine image of life in the West. They convey
none of the loneliness, the exploitation, or the risks actually experienced by settlers." Except to depict
them as an enemy, these images virtually ignore the Native Americans who inhabited North America
before European intrusion; suppressed too are the violence and struggle for domination characteristic of the west. Clothing their aspirations in the mythic garments of a romanticized frontier
the
only nations that can afford to make use of the potential material wealth in space are those that can
now afford the enormous expense to reach them. It is likely that in exploiting space we shall continue
the same imbalances of resources and material wealth we experience on Earth.
is a way of ignoring or pushing aside the possible negative aspects of the exploitation of space. For example, although in space there are no Indians and no plasmoid buffaloes to exploit,
The outer space treaty will keep resources only for the rich
Alan Marshall, PhD Wollongong, 1995, Development and imperialism in space, Space Policy, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp. 41-52
What will be the nature of such development? Given that space expansion is only ever likely to
proceed due to economic forces, space development must thereby operate by economic principles,
which themselves are regulated by political regimes. Currently the political regimes in place (notably
the Outer Space Treaty) dictate that solar system development will be undertaken in an imperialistic
manner. Space advocates are not necessarily malevolently predisposed towards the welfare of the
worlds poor, but to hold to the view that extraterrestrial resource utilization is capable of positively
contributing the global community with the Outer Space Treaty intact is to bask in a vat of optimism
so large as to be unsupportable.
West Coast
2011
275
Neg Handbook
Socio-Psychological Justifications Are Frontierist

Appeals to socio-psychological justifications for space are just economic accumulation
Sociopsychological models of imperialism attempt to explain imperialistic endeavours by
concentrating on the sociopsychological characteristic within an individual or a society that compel it
to pursue an expansionist agenda. A common example with reference to space activities is that humans are
naturally curious and have a fundamental desire to explore the unknown. One of the manifestations
of the sociopsychological model is the justification of space activities for the benefits it offers for
scientific advance. Throughout much of the history of western science such scientific imperialism has been
associated with the European expansion into other parts of the world, involving the desire to
categorize nature and render its secrets knowable. However, the search for scientific understanding has not been a prime force behind expansionist
development by itself, although, from Joseph Banks to Harrison Schmidt, its presence close behind imperialistic endeavours motivated by other rationales is demonstrable. Because the basis
of human survival and prosperity is essentially a function of economic welfare it is arguable that the desire to explore is not an inherently prime concern for most individuals (except those
whose economic wellbeing depends on it). Given this, and given the fact that curiosity about the unknown is a variable trait between different individuals and societies (to the point that some
the desire to explore rationale can

also not be considered a prime motivator of outer space development. It is doubtful that many
political figures in history have decided on expansionist policies to satiate their own curiosity or that
of their subjects. Having said this, though, it is possible that expansionist endeavours in the Solar System based on other rationales (such
individuals and some societies are unable to comprehend what all the fuss is about with regards to space exploration)
as the need to find an outlet for surplus capital or the search for new resources) might occur under the cover of sociopsychological desire to
explore reasons. This is evident in Antarctica, where geopolitical and geostrategic imperialist policies are pursued by a number of nations in the
guise of scientific exploration.
Describing space as "destiny" replicates "manifest destiny"

Valerie Neal, Department of Space History at Smithsonian Institute, former NASA Shuttle engineer,
1994, Where Next Columbus? The Future of Space Exploration, p. 197
The second concept is that it is our destiny to explore, that exploration is in our national character. This
idea of exploration is wed to the West and pioneering. Space is the "high frontier," and it is manifest
destiny that people, especially Americans, go pioneering there. At least one historian has pointed out
that the space program has adopted only parts of the pioneering analogythe parts about courage,
self-reliance, ingenuity, and taming the wild. There are also valuable lessons to be learned in what
went wrong in the westward expansion, but they are usually ignored when the analogy is made to the
"new frontier in space."
Frontierism becomes manifested in nationalistic calls for competitiveness

Alan Marshall, PhD Wollongong, 1995, Development and imperialism in space, Space Policy, V. 11,
No. 1, pp. 41-52
In the recent past, nationalist and populist calls for an increase in the US space effort were often
imbued with ideological stances aimed at the activities of the USSR in space. Only two years before the onset of glasnost,
American space advocates tried to ressurrect a flailing US space interest by appealing to intrinsic ideological sentiments of the US public. James Michener stated I am increasingly disturbed by
the Soviet Unions constantly widening lead in the utilization of low-Earth-orbit flight and Jerry Grey stated Those goals, set by the Soviet Union even before the US formed NASA in 19.58,
focus on the permanent occupancy of space by Soviet cosmonauts and eventual domination of the entire cosmos by the Soviet Union. Since the break-up of the USSR in September 1991, the
efficacy of campaigning for more US space activities on the basis of a fear of a Commie cosmos has diminished considerably. That, in turn, means a direct lessening in the role of nationalism
Now, those who appeal to nationalist sentiment in

order to increase the space effort have to resort to arguments based upon the resurrection of
American technological primacy in the face of European and East Asian competition, and upon
appealing to the frontierism supposedly entrenched in the American psyche as being responsible for
the nations economic and political greatness.
as a force in promoting solar system development, but certainly not to its evaporation.
West Coast
2011
276
Neg Handbook
Space Policy Extends Imperialism & Nationalism

Space exploration is the apex of modernity, where the local is erased under the new
privileged global empire from above
Peter Redfield, Associate Professor at UNC, 2002, The Half-Life of Empire, Social Studies of Science,
v. 32, pp. 791-85
In this paper, I take a related but slightly different tack, emphasizing degrees of distance within locality, and examining intersections of place,
power and time implicit in the location and operation of a vast technical network. For if we incorporate colonial history into our considerations
of science and technology, do we not always, continually, need to ask what it might mean for something to be somewhere relative to
somewhere else? My
focus will rest directly on the spatial edge between metaphor and materiality used to
distinguish global and local: the planet, united and bounded by its atmospheric limit, revealed and
transcended by technoscience. The general argument I will advance here is that outer space reflects a practical
shadow of empire. I mean by this two things. The first is that space represents a kind of stabilization of
elsewhere, and its removal from the globe. From the very inception of influential modern dreams of
space exploration, the masculine adventure of earthly colonialism was a constant referent, and the
temporal pairing of rocket launches and the greatest anti-colonial movements only accentuated the
parallel. Indeed, the realization of outer space its initial domestication if you will represents the
effective provincialization of terrestrial empire from above. Once a few white men moved beyond the
atmosphere they became newly, artificially human by virtue of the nonhuman space around them,
cast as universal representatives by virtue of their transcendent, hazardous location. Once extended
beyond the planet, modernity acquired the possibility of another geographic frame, intermingled with
a new temporal order. Whatever the past may have been, the future was clearly out there, and everything else a local concern. Aliens
became extraterrestrials.
Space advocacy is the drive to secure nationalist identity

Space explorations link with national identity partly overlapped with its claims to a larger idea that
appealed to a global, even universal, vision of humanity. Counter-intuitively, these ideas emerged from
ideas deeply embedded in national contexts. Roger Launius has noted that nations have historically justified
space exploration by appealing to one (or a combination) of five different rationales: human destiny,
geopolitics, national security, economic competitiveness, and scientific discovery. The latter four stem
from national and nationalist requirements; the first, human destiny, appeals to the idea of survival of the species. In the American context, this universal
rationale of human destiny combines older traditions of technological utopianism and an updated version of manifest destiny. Technological utopianism, i.e., a notion that conflates
progress (qualified technologically) with progress (unqualified), has been an essential part of popular discourse since the late nineteenth century, and if the crisis of modernity and the
Great War made Western Europeans less enamored of the panacea promised by technology, Americans continued to embrace more fully the idea of technological utopianism than most other
societies.
That there is no one to colonize does not excuse space imperialism

Alan Marshall, PhD Wollongong, 1995, Development and imperialism in space, Space Policy, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp. 41-52
Returning to extra-orbital space development, many are bound to enquire: what is
wrong with imperialism in outer space if

there are no indigenous peoples there? Apart from the anthropocentrism inherent in this question,
what is problematic about extraterrestrial imperialism is that it will increase economic inequalities
between the Earths nations by giving inequitable access to, what may eventually be, significant
amounts of resources. What also has to be noted is that imperialism involves dominion over territory
and not just people. The outcome of this dominion being that others who have legitimate claim on the
resources within those (extraterrestrial) territories are effectively excluded from using them.
West Coast
2011
277
Neg Handbook
Space Will Benefit Only For Imperial Elites

Their vision of space exploration will only benefit imperial elites
231-247.
Touted as the final frontier, space expansion has been expressed as the next large scale exploration
and settlement project for modern humanity. From such expansion it is supposed that vast resources
will be opened up for the general benefit of humankind. If this is so, then it is appropriate to enquire about the
participatory mechanisms involved in such a grand project. With respect to this, two particular questions are raised: (1) What sort of
participation exists in the formulation of solar system resource exploitation policy? (2) What sort of participation in the distribution of solar
system resources can be expected? After examining the avenues for such participation it is concluded that--despite
the universalist
visions of space developers--advanced space development will only be enacted by a few elite spacecapable nations for the near exclusive material benefit of aerospace and mining companies from
those nations.
Space exploration will only be for the priviledged and military industrial complex
Giancarlo Genta, Technical Univ. of Turin, Italy and Michael Rycroft, International Space University,
Strasbourg, France & DeMontfort University, Leicaster, UK, 2003, Space, The Final Frontier?, pp. XX
Other sceptics see space exploration as a toy for a privileged part of humanity. After seizing almost all
of the planet's resources, they are now wasting them on costly and useless technologies. An even
more cynical view is that space research is an instrument of the military/industrial/political
establishment, always on the lookout for new ways to increase its wealth and power.
Vicarious participation is nothing more than the consumption of pre-determined

goods. Most people will be excluded from space
231-247.
When contemplating participation in space exploration and development we might like to consider how to answer this question: 'How did
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the moon?' We could answer this question by dealing with the specific technical
details of the Apollo-Saturn V launch vehicle that they rode upon and the Newtonian physics that plotted their trajectory. Alternatively we
could answer it by acknowledging the social conditions that enabled Armstrong and Aldrin to be the
first humans on the lunar surface. Both were men, both were United States citizens, both were white,
both were university-educated aeronautical engineers and both had served as test-pilots for military
aircraft. When these two men landed on the moon, however, it was stated over and over again that
they were merely representatives of humanity. 'We come in peace for all mankind' was the declaration on the plaque that
they unveiled upon the moon. Somehow we had all gone with them, whether we were black factory workers from Minneapolis,
illiterate peasants from Mongolia or unemployed high-school drop-outs from Melbourne. Despite the fact that the moon landing enterprise had
an in-built socio-structural bias for placing humans of Armstrong and Aldrin's walk upon the moon, it
was claimed that everybody

on the Earth participated in this great human feat. This is how the space programme is sold: all
participate in space exploration because its pursuit can be seen by all. Such participation is quite
shallow of course. It is nothing but the one-way dispersal of the results of already determined plans.
Most members of the human race have no way of being a part of the space effort.
West Coast
2011
278
Neg Handbook
Space Frontier Rhetoric Bolsters State Power

Utilizing the frontier analogy allows space advocates the platform of ideology, where
popular imagination is used to secure the state and new markets
As Launius and McCurdy note, tapping into the frontier analogy gives space exploration advocates access to a
vein of rich ideological power, easily understandable to people caught up in the American
experience. The use of the frontier as a rhetorical commonplace is a means of associating and
explaining a new phenomenon (space exploration) with preexisting concepts of American identity in the
public consciousness. Again, Launius and McCurdy put it well: The frontier ideal has always carried with it the ideals of optimism, democracy, productivity, heroism, honor,
duty, and a host of other positive traits. Some make a negative analogy between the space program and the American West. Launius and McCurdy cite Mazlishs work comparing the railroad
to the space program in terms of government waste and corruption. The argument, for example, that the railroad was supported by government largesse past its usefulness has some validity.
However, such arguments leave out the wider picture. Government support of the railroads and other western projects, larded with graft though they may have been, were an integral part of
developing those states, and by extension the country as a whole. This is the role of the frontier as a rhetorical commonplace, distinct from the frontier as history.
The myth of
the frontier appeals to the popular imagination and acts as a tool to build the state. The captains of industry
and the government urged crowded easterners and newly arrived immigrants to Go West! The frontier myth suggested that
the pioneer would gain opportunity: land, work, or abstract personal fulfillment. Their backers gained
customers, new markets, and new institutional capabilities. The West was presented as a land of opportunity in order to incentivize people
to settle there, and that settlement was made possible by and in turn legitimized the large government-supported state-building projects that connected the west to the rest of the country
and supported its infrastructure. Such projects included land grants and subsidies for railroads. The government also bought land to give to settlers. It maintained a military presence across the
West, and in fact fought a war with Mexico from 184648 to expand the western border and firmly establish U.S. control of Texas and California. It subsidized mail service via the Pony Express
and the railroads. Mail service presupposes settlers who need mail delivered and, lured by the promise of the frontier, they came.
Opening space as the new frontier bolsters the state

The closing of the frontier in the continental U.S. in early 20th century destroyed, in part, the
actualization of the myth, but its legacy is the developed west as a source of growth and innovation.
The formerly frontier state of California has an economy today roughly equal to that of France. The
deployment of the frontier rhetorical commonplace with its associations of opportunity and a clean
start helped to build the state, even if the myth was unsupported by historical reality.
Space policy debates are rhetoric exercises of statebuilding

My analysis suggests that in the case of the effort to legitimate the space policy agendas of U.S. policymakers
(specifically President John F. Kennedy) the rhetorical commonplaces deployed act as state-building mechanisms.
Put another way, statebuilding is an outcome of the space policy legitimation process that is not
always entirely explicit in the public rhetoric. As such, the rhetorical commonplace of the frontier
functions as a permissive mechanism for state-building.
West Coast
2011
279
Neg Handbook
Space Imperialism Entrenches Capitalism

The frontier mentality cannot be divorced from capitalist imperialism
Alan Marshall, PhD Wollongong, 1995, Development and imperialism in space, Space Policy, V. 11,
No. 1, pp. 41-52
In reality frontierism is a more accepted and socially-sensitive word for capitalist imperialism, since
(just as in capitalist imperialism) it involves the appropriation of economic resources that are
considered previously unowned. Like capitalist imperialism, frontierism perceives nothing of value in
the frontier lands except what can be scraped from it economically and converted into capital. In
nineteenth-century USA, the value of native peoples and the value of the landscape was arrogantly
ignored as the West was made to succumb to the utilitarianism of the imperialistic capitalists. Such is
also the outlook of those who advocate pioneering the Final Frontier. Frontierists views that the
planets and moons of the solar system are valueless hunks of rock until acted upon by humans to
produce economic value and contribute to capital accumulation. Space frontierists such as Wernher von
Braun, Arthur C Clark, Kraft Ehrick, William Hartmann and Gerard ONeill feel that imperialism can be excised from their
frontierism by appealing to the innate curiosity in our personal consciousness. To them, frontierism in
space will amply channel the human propensity to explore and expand in a constructive and
benevolent way. These rationales for space expansion must, however, stand up for themselves, since they are ultimately separate from
the frontierism experienced in history. The fact that there is confusion between these socio-psychological
elements and the actual economic nature of fronterism in modern day calls for space development
gives credit to the nineteenth century idealogues who so convincingly tied bourgeois economic policy
with populist ideology that it continues to fool so many into believing fronterism is a worthy
nationalist (even universalist) ideal.
Rhetoric of space exploration and development expands state power and capitalism
Space development has incontrovertibly had a tremendous effect on the capabilities of the American
state. Yet space exploration has so far failed to deliver fully on the promises of the frontier
commonplace myth. Launius and McCurdy suggest: Invoking the ideas of Frederick Jackson Turner has become increasingly
counterproductive for anyone attempting to carry on a discourse in a postmodern, multicultural society. Linda Billings echoes this thinking :
The rhetoric of space advocacy has sustained an ideology of American exceptionalism and reinforced
longstanding beliefs in progress, growth, and capitalist democracy. This rhetoric conveys an ideology
of spaceflight that can be described, at its worst, as a sort of space fundamentalism. . . Although the social,
political, economic, and cultural context for space exploration has changed radically since the 1960s, the rhetoric of space advocacy has not.
West Coast
2011
280
Neg Handbook
We Should Reject The Frontier Mentality

Space can be advocated without relying on frontierism
The choice of the frontier as a symbol was not inevitable. A number of options were available for
defining a rhetorical frame for Kennedy. Some were even used to a lesser extent in his speeches. Certainly there was the option
of explicitly framing everything in the language of the Cold War and the Communist Threat. This strategy presented a number of problems,
however. Challenging Eisenhower on military credentials would have been difficult, given his popularity and extensive World War II record, as
well as Kennedys own relative youth and inexperience. For all that the Kennedy campaign would harp on the idea of a missile gap, the Cold
War menace as a rhetorical commonplace did not provide the same universally acceptable and unifying rhetorical force as the frontier. Space
policy, at least, could also have been framed as a purely scientific endeavor, thus avoiding the dangers or
controversy of militarization while still emphasizing American preeminence. However, this was essentially what
Eisenhower had done, and Kennedys rhetoric would have to be differentiated against the Eisenhower/Nixon program. Furthermore, the series
of stinging Soviet firsts in space undermined the assumption of American technical and scientific supremacy.
Deconstructing the rhetorical relationship between space advocacy and nationalism

illuminates the analytical pitfalls of their scholarship
My goal in this essay has been to explore the relationship between nationalism and spaceflight, problematize it, and, using insights from that
process, suggest some possible new avenues in the practice of space history.
Although nationalist narratives (and nationalism)

have been essential to the project of space exploration and its retelling, barring a few exceptions, space
historians have not critically explored the relationship between spaceflight and national identity.
Deconstructing this relationship has become more urgent as a flotilla of non-Western nations are
becoming more visible in the endeavor of space exploration, rendering the old cold-war dynamicboth
in reality and in memorializationless effective as an explanatory tool for understanding the process of space
exploration. Deterministic explanations from the cold war often rely on simplistic binary and
oppositional divisions; although not trivial, these display their limitations as tools to fully explain the
complexities of space exploration both during and after the cold war. Without disposing of technological determinism, I would
urge historians to incorporate a broader matrix of approaches, including, particularly, the highlighting of global flows of actors and knowledge
across borders, communities, and identities. Ultimately, this approach might lend itself to constructing for the first time a global and
transnational history of rocketry and space travel.
Acting through a frontier mentality fosters historical amnesia

Late for the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age, p. 18
While Brand is excited by the rebirth of a sense of frontier space colonization is likely to produce,
Berry finds such excitement guilty of historical amnesia. "[O'Neill] sees himself and his American contemporaries as
the inheritors of the frontier mentality, but not of the tragedy of that mentality. He does not speak as a
Twentieth Century American, faced with the waste and ruin of his inheritance from the frontier. He
speaks instead in the manner of a European of the Seventeeth and Eighteenth Centuries, privileged to
see American space and wealth as conveniently distant solutions to local problems". While Brand finds
O'Neill's optimism about the human future invigorating in a time of doomsday prophecy, Berry finds O'Neill guilty of "moral despair."
For at the heart of his project lies the unstated premise that human beings on Earth are incapable of
change, that they cannot revolutionize their thinking in order to live in harmony on this planet.
West Coast
2011
281
Neg Handbook
Frontierist Colonies Will Be Disastrous

Colonizing the Moon or Mars wont save humanity
Lynda Williams, Physics Instructor, Santa Rosa Junior College, Spring 2010, Irrational Dreams of
Space Colonization, Peace Review, a Journal of Social Justice, 22.1,
http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_ peacereview.pdf
According to scientific theory, the destruction of Earth is a certainty. About five billion years from
now, when our sun exhausts its nuclear fuel, it will expand in size and envelope the inner planets,
including the Earth, and burn them into oblivion. So yes, we are doomed, but we have 5 billion years, plus or
minus a few hundred million, to plan our extraterrestrial escape. The need to colonize the Moon or Mars to guarantee
our survival based on this fact is not pressing. There are also real risks due to collisions with asteroids and comets,
though none are of immediate threat and do not necessitate extraterrestrial colonization. There are many Earth-based technological strategies that can be developed in time to mediate such
The solar system could also potentially be exposed to

galactic sources of high-energy gamma ray bursts that could fry all life on Earth, but any Moon or
Mars base would face a similar fate. Thus, Moon or Mars human based colonies would not protect us from any of these astronomical threats in the near future.
astronomical threats such as gravitational tugboats that drag the objects out of range.
In the drive for colonization we will destroy planets

Late for the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age, pp. 48-49
Spacekind's desire to explore and eventually to colonize the cosmos may be, Eiseley hypothesizes, our
response to a primordial urge within us and not merely the logical culmination of our tremendous scientific and technological
achievements. "Perhaps," Eiseley suggests, "man has evolved as a creature whose centrifugal tendencies are intended to drive it as a blight is
lifted and driven outward across the night". (The explanation of the source of this urge, Eiseley liked to think, may lie in the old theory of the
Swedish chemist Arrhenius that life on Earth originated from spores falling from outer space, the desire to launch into space then being the
result of a longing to return home.) But
"to climb the fiery ladder that the spore bearers have used," to reach
that point in our evolutionary, historical, and technological development when space travel even
becomes a possibility, it has been necessary, as Eiseley reminds us, to first "consume the resources of a
world," to become what he calls world eaters, all in order to hurl only a few spore-individuals into the
reaches of space, where, as is the case with the slime molds, only a handful will survive. History, Eiseley
endeavors to show, is therefore an "invisible pyramid"--an all-consuming project, secretly enslaved to a monomaniacal yearning: to construct
the means for leaving the planet Earth.
Our desire to colonize will destroy all life

Late for the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age, pp. 3-4
Whatever our ambitions, "The Earth," Arendt hastens to remind us, remains "the very quintessence of the human
condition," and "earthly nature, for all we know, may be unique in the universe in providing human beings
with a habitat in which they move and breathe without effort and without artifice". Now humankind
seems increasingly committed to its abandonment, intrigued by the challenge of perfecting a world
ruled solely by human artifice. The desire to explore and eventually to colonize space represents, as
Arendt insists we remember, the most far-reaching means yet imagined for "cutting the last tie through which man belongs among the children
of nature." Yet "there is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange," Arendt adds, "just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on
Earth".
As a rational alternative to such a rash and momentous course of action, Arendt suggested more than thirty
stop for a moment in order "to think what we are doing". With some notable exceptions, however, few have
years ago that we
heeded her recommendation. ("Considering the quarter-century duration of the Space Age, its primacy in national and international affairs, and the way it has affected our lives," David
When we have stopped at all--as we did, for example,

has only been to think in a calculative, not a meditative, way: for purposes of
technological reassessment or political reappraisal, not in pursuit of wisdom, not to seek a
philosophical or psychohistorical understanding of our extraterrestrial urges prior to their enactment.
Ehrenfeld has noted, writing in 1986, "surprisingly little intelligent thought has been devoted to it".)
after the Challenger disaster--it
West Coast
2011
282
Neg Handbook
Rethinking Space Policy Is Essential

Space is the bellwether of american philosophical outlook
Jeff Marlow, Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency's ExoMars mission at Imperial
College London, Spring 2009, Moon-Rush, Ad Astra, vol. 21, no. 12-13, p. 13
Space exploration is also a bellwether for a country's philosophical outlook. A nation excitedly
engaged in space exploration is a nation that believes in its future, one that tackles new problems
confidently and leads fearlessly. It is a nation where schoolchildren idolize astronauts and rocket scientists like most youths today
admire football stars -- an attitude that eventually develops into a wide base of scientific and technological knowledge, driving innovation and
A nation with a stagnating space program, on the other hand, is

one on its heels, stricken by intellectual malaise. It is a nation that has turned inward and is unwilling
or unable to take risks that are likely to provide economic and societal rewards. It is a nation that has
lost its hunger and grown a little too comfortable in its privileged position, happy to reflect on past glory days.
economic growth. It is a nation that is going somewhere.
Western modes of thinking seek to gain ontological dominion over the planet
William V. Spanos, professor of English and Comparative Literature, Binghamton University, 2000,
Americas Shadow: Anatomy of An Empire, p. 61
If the genealogy of the triumphalist imperial thinking I have undertaken in this chapter teaches us anything at all, it is to take this telling "qualification" of the end-of-history discourse seriously.
Doing so puts one in a position to perceive not only the inordinately persuasive power of this kind of contradiction-defying "technological" thinking, but also its weakness, a weakness that up
to now has been obscured by oppositional discourses that contradictorily think resistance in the logic prescribed by the dominant thought of the Enlightenment, the very thought they would
If, indeed, the highly prized Western consciousness as such is a technological optical machine of
conquest, if the Western will to know is simultaneously a will to total power, if the Western subject in fact
defines itself as "I think; therefore I conquer," and if it is this imperial ocularcentric Western mode of thinking that
has gained complete discursive dominion over the planet, then surely in this interregnum the time has
come for those who would effectively resist the practical fulfillment of the Pax Metaphysica as the Pax
Americana to return to the site of ontology as point of departure. I mean the site of Heidegger's de-struction and of
oppose.
the deconstruction of those like Derrida, Levinas, Lyotard, Lacoue-Labarthe, Nancy, and others whose thoughteven their critique of
Heidegger'sHeidegger's catalyzed. In
thus calling for such a "step back," I am not positing the ontological in
opposition to the other more "political" sites that, admittedly, these thinkers originally neglected or
rarefied. I am suggesting, rather, that the "triumphant" liberal/capitalist democratic culture's
overdetermination of the "truth" (the correspondence of mind and thing) in justifying its "triumph" has rendered a rigorous analysis of the ontological ground of
this imperial truth an imperative of political resistance against the New World Order, the Pax Americana, that would follow this Pax Metaphysica. I mean an analysis such as that inaugurated in
this time reconstellated into the context of the global imperial

politics enabled by metaphysical thinking in its fulfilled technological/instrumental phase.
the post- Vietnam decade by these "postmetaphysical" thinkers, but
Value and emotion approaches is better than maintaining the frontier mentality
Bob Mahoney, Staff Writer, February 5, 2007, Space for improvement: re-engaging the public with
the greatest adventure of our time (part 1), Space Review,
Tagging space exploration as primarily an emotional experience isnt much better than offering up the
manifest destiny mantra that exploration is in our souls. The key is to capitalize on the connection.
Unfortunately, during the past three decades NASAs public affairs organization has done nearly the
opposite. Caught between trying to present NASA in a favorable light (NASA is, after all, dependent on public
monies) and conveying often complex content (the stereotypical rocket science) to a mostly nontechnical
audience, NASAs Public Affairs Office (PAO) presents each new space mission as just another set of bland (yet always upbeat)
statistics couched in a gee-whiz (but always understatedly competent) shell. Even though some of the accompanying pictures and videos have
been spectacular, PAOs fundamental approach has gone a long way toward convincing the public that spaceflight has no emotional content at
all.

WC Policy Neg Handbook

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WC Policy Neg Handbook

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

West Coast

WEST COAST DEBATE

Edited by Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson

WEST COAST DEBATE

Visit our web page!

Mining Wont Yield Significant Resource Benefits ..................................................................................................56

Space Race DA Link .............................................................................................................................................107

Uniqueness No Weaponization Now..................................................................................................................157

AT: US is Key to Solvency ...................................................................................................................................208

Space Policies Entrench A Frontier Mentality .......................................................................................................270

Arguing Negative On The Space Topic

Launches disadvantage: increasing the amount of space exploration or development could

Elections disadvantage: The 2012 presidential elections are shaping up to be extremely

International counterplan: instead of increasing US space exploration, this counterplan

The Means All Parts

United states is the united states of america

United states is the states within territorial bounds

United states means a union of states

United states means the united states of america

United states are a federation of states

Federal government is control and influence by the central government

Federal government means the central government

Federal government means the central government in washington dc

Should is different from would

Should can be replaced by would

Should means past tense of shall

Substantial means large

Substantial means considerable in quantity

Substantially is considerable or large

Substantially means truly, largely, essentially

Substantial means important

Substantial means of real worth and importance

Substantial means important

Substantial means of considerable or vital worth

to make or become greater in size, degree, frequency, etc; grow or expand

Increase means to make greater

Its means of or belonging to the noun referenced as it

Its is possessive or genitive of it

Its is of or relating to it as the subject or object of an action

Exploration And/Or Development Of

Space exploration means investigating space

Development is making more complex

Space exploration is distinct from development of space

studies of plans to develop space solar power compatible with

And/Or means what it means

Space Beyond The

Space means expanse past the earths atmosphere

Beyond means further

Mesophere is part of the atmosphere

Mesosphere is between the stratosphere and thermosphere

the layer of the Earth's

China Cooperation Neg

1NC Technology Transfer DA 1/2

US-China space cooperation leads to technology transfers that collapse US

This causes China to leapfrog US technological leadership

1NC Technology Transfer DA 2/2

The impact is great power conflict

These wars go nuclear

Technology Transfer DA Uniqueness

Competitiveness relies on space leadership

US is outcompeting China in key industries now

Technology Transfer Impact US-China War

Technology transfer leads to US-China war