64 CM Solar Powered Satellites Case Neg

Solar-Powered Satellites Neg
DDI 2008 – Clark/Martin Lab

Gabrielle
Index
Index............................................................................................................................................................1
Strategy Sheet.............................................................................................................................................5
Inherency....................................................................................................................................................6
Solvency F/L...............................................................................................................................................7
Solvency F/L...............................................................................................................................................8
Solvency F/L...............................................................................................................................................9
Solvency F/L.............................................................................................................................................10
Solvency F/L.............................................................................................................................................11
Solvency F/L.............................................................................................................................................12
Solvency – Ext. #1 – International Backlash.........................................................................................13
Solvency – Ext. #4 – Cyber Terrorism...................................................................................................14
Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris..........................................................................................................15
Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris..........................................................................................................16
Solvency – Ext. #7 – Technical Barriers................................................................................................17
Solvency – Ext. #10 – Timeframe..........................................................................................................18
Solvency – Ext. #13 – Alt Causes............................................................................................................19
Competitiveness F/L................................................................................................................................20
Competitiveness F/L................................................................................................................................21
Competitiveness – Ext. #3 – Heg Inevitable.......................................................................................... 22
Failed States F/L......................................................................................................................................23
Fossil Fuels F/L........................................................................................................................................24
Japan F/L..................................................................................................................................................25
Japan F/L..................................................................................................................................................26
Lunar Materials F/L................................................................................................................................27

1
Gabrielle
Military Readiness F/L............................................................................................................................28

Military Readiness F/L............................................................................................................................29
Military Readiness – Ext. #1 – Readiness Low Now.............................................................................30
Pollution....................................................................................................................................................31
Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 32

Space Colonization – Ext. #3 – Extinction Not Inevitable................................................................... 35
Space Colonization – Ext. #5 – Infeasible..............................................................................................36
AT: Space Weaponization.......................................................................................................................37

AT: Space Weaponization.......................................................................................................................38
AT: Space Weaponization Inevitable.....................................................................................................39
Space Weaponization Bad – Prolif.........................................................................................................40
Space Weaponization Bad – Accidental Attack....................................................................................41
Space Weaponization Bad – International Law................................................................................... 42
Space Weaponization Bad – US-Russia Relations................................................................................43
Space Weaponization Bad – Terrorism.................................................................................................44
Space Weaponization Bad – Soft Power................................................................................................45
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Space Prolif......................................................................................46
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Accidental Attack............................................................................47
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. International Law........................................................................... 48
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russian Relations Key To Space....................................................49
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russia Relations Good....................................................................50
Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier.................................................................51
Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier.................................................................52
Space Weaponization Bad – AT: Solves Prolif..................................................................................... 53
Space Weaponization Good....................................................................................................................54
Space Weaponization Good....................................................................................................................55
Space Weaponization Good – AT: Arms Race..................................................................................... 56
2
Gabrielle
Heg Bad.....................................................................................................................................................57
Heg Bad.....................................................................................................................................................58
Heg Bad.....................................................................................................................................................59
Heg Bad – Ext. Terrorism.......................................................................................................................60
Heg Bad – AT: Benign Hegemon........................................................................................................... 61
AT: NASA Key.........................................................................................................................................62

AT: NASA Key.........................................................................................................................................63
T – Incentives........................................................................................................................................... 64
Bizcon DA Link........................................................................................................................................65
Spending DA Link................................................................................................................................... 66
Politics DA Link – Congress Hates Plan................................................................................................67
Politics DA Link – Congress Hates Plan................................................................................................68
Politics DA Link – Congress Loves Plan............................................................................................... 69
Politics DA Link – Plan Bipartisan........................................................................................................ 70
Politics DA Link – Plan Popular............................................................................................................ 71
Politics DA Link – Plan Unpopular....................................................................................................... 72
Politics DA – Plan Not Salient................................................................................................................ 73
China CTBT DA – 1NC Shell.................................................................................................................74
China CTBT DA – 1NC Shell.................................................................................................................75
China CTBT DA – China Wants Peace.................................................................................................76
China CTBT DA – China Key To CTBT.............................................................................................. 77
China CTBT DA – AT: CTBT Hurts US Nukes...................................................................................78
China CTBT DA – AT: CTBT Collapses Heg...................................................................................... 79
China CTBT DA – AT: Can Cheat CTBT............................................................................................ 80
Space Militarization DA Uniqueness.....................................................................................................81
Space Militarization DA Link.................................................................................................................82
Private Sector CP – 1NC Shell............................................................................................................... 83

Private Sector CP Solvency.....................................................................................................................84
3
Gabrielle

Private Sector CP – AT: Perm Do Both................................................................................................ 87
Private Sector CP – AT: Plan Solves..................................................................................................... 88
Private Sector CP – AT: Plan Solves..................................................................................................... 89
DoD CP – 1NC Shell................................................................................................................................90
DoD CP Solvency.....................................................................................................................................91
DoD CP Solvency.....................................................................................................................................92
Japan CP – 1NC Shell............................................................................................................................. 93
Japan CP Solvency.................................................................................................................................. 94
Japan CP Solvency.................................................................................................................................. 95
Japan CP – AT: Perm Do Both..................................................................................................................96
4
Gabrielle
Strategy Sheet
The best strategy in the file is probably the States CP (have the states give funding to private industry to
do the plan). The aff will have a lot of cards that say federal involvement is key, but the cards don’t
provide any warrants. If they do provide warrants, they aren’t reasons why the USFG is key but rather
why any level of government involvement is key – the states can capture these warrants.
The Japan CP is solid, but it might be trickier because a lot of the advantages are specific to the US.
The DoD CP is also pretty good, but the net benefit situation is trickier. You could run it with a politics
DA with NASA-specific links and argue that the DoD solves the plan better.
Disads
Politics – the best links to read are plan unpopular. Congress never gives NASA as much money as it
asks for, and although NASA is popular with the public, there’s decent evidence that the public really
doesn’t care about space exploration.
A Space Militarization DA can be found in the generic alternative energy DA’s file. The uniqueness in
the file seems to go the wrong way, so I’ve included a couple new uniqueness cards and another link. You
can find more impacts in the Space Weaponization Bad part of this file.
Advantages
I’ve included some generic heg bad cards. They will read hegemony as an impact to various arguments –
military readiness, leadership, competitivenss – so rather than include heg bad cards in all of these
frontlines, I put them in a separate file.
One lab may also claim a space weaponization advantage. This advantage is a bit tricker because they
have internal links going both ways. The space weaponization frontline consists of generic cards
explaining why space weaponization won’t happen, and then there are cards on space weaponization
good and space weaponization bad depending on which way they read their impact.
Other Tricks
Normally source quals don’t matter much, but most of the aff’s solvency/US key warrants come from the
government itself (NSSO studies or Rouge – they both are part of the government). A good argument
could be made for source bias here.
5
Gabrielle
Inherency
High interest in Space Solar Power Now
Leonard David Special Correspondent, Space News 9-17-07
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html
BRECKENRIDGE, Colorado – The deployment of space platforms that capture sunlight for beaming down electrical
power to Earth is under review by the Pentagon, as a way to offer global energy and security benefits – including the
prospect of short-circuiting future resource wars between increasingly energy-starved nations.
A proposal is being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10 percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050,
perhaps sooner, could be produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is
being eyed to occur within the next five to seven years. A mix of advocates, technologists and scientists, as well as legal and
policy experts, took part in Space Based Solar Power – Charting a Course for Sustainable Energy, a meeting held here
September 6-7 and sponsored by the United States Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies and
the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.
6
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
1. International cooperation is key – unilateral action creates backlash from other nations
Dr. Peter Glaser, member of National Space Society Board of Governors, former Vice President for Advanced Technology at Arthur
D. Little, Inc., fellow of the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the American Institute for Aeronautics and
Astronautics, inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame, and inventor of SSP, Spring ’08, “An Energy Pioneer Looks Back,”
Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf [Tandet]
Since it would be such a huge undertaking, I think it would be best accomplished at an international level, perhaps even
managed by the United Nations. Each country could contribute their best effort, and then each country would reap the
benefit of cheap and plentiful power from the sun. We could utilize the knowledge of all the nations that have been
researching space- based solar power. If only one country has the satellites, the international community will worry that
the technology will be misused. With every nation taking part in the planning, building, and operation of the system,
there would be inherent transparency, oversight, and equality. There would be no secrets, and no country would be left in
the dark. On the other hand, if one nation decides to build the system, all hell may break loose. There would be distrust
and a huge shift in the balance of power. Any nation with such a system would not only have an advantage in space,
but they would have economic and military advantages on the ground as well. And there are many countries taking the
idea of solar power from space much more seriously that we are in the United States. I would prefer to see a network of
power satellites built by an international effort.
2. International backlash creates lash-out – other countries get angry and sabotage US leadership,
turning case
Michael Katz-Hyman, Research Assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L.
Stimson Center and the author or editor of eleven books and over 350 articles, April ’03, “Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case
Against Weaponizing Space,” Henry L. Stimson Center, http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81 [Tandet]
Given the extraordinary and growing differential in power that the United States enjoys in ground warfare, sea power, and air
power, it is hard to propound compelling arguments for seeking to supplement these advantages by weaponizing space. The
current U.S. lead in the military utilization of space has never been greater and is unchallenged. If the United States pushes to
extend its pronounced military dominance into space, others will view this through the prism of the Bush administration's
national security strategy, which places emphasis on preventive war and preemption. Foreign leaders will not passively accept U.S.
initiatives to implement a doctrine of space dominance. They will have ample, inexpensive means to take blocking action, as it
is considerably easier to negate U.S. dominance in space than on the ground, at sea, and in the air. The introduction of space
weaponry and ASAT testing are therefore likely introduce grave complications for the terrestrial military advantages that the
United States has worked so hard, and at such expense, to secure.
7
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
3. Government control crowds out the private sector, ultimately creating rebellion
Taylor Dinerman, editor and publisher of SpaceEquity.com, 1-15-07, “Independent space colonization: questions and
implications,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/784/1 [Tandet]
In the long term the effort to impose controls on private space colonization by the use of a vague process of international
consensus-seeking will create a reaction not only against the OST but against the whole idea that Earth governments should be
allowed any say whatsoever in the governance of off-Earth activities. In the near term it is relatively easy for governments to
impose their will on space activities, but when vehicles that can provide low-cost access to low Earth orbit are as available to
the public as oceangoing private yachts, maintaining control will be much harder.
4. Satellites are vulnerable to terrorism – ground and cyber terrorists can attack satellite beams or
ground control centers, rendering satellites ineffective
The Economist, 1-17-08, “Disharmony in the Spheres,” http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533205
[Tandet]
Many strategists argue that the most vulnerable parts of the American space system are closer to home. Ground stations
and control centres, particularly those of commercial operations, are exposed to conventional bombing, whether by armies
or terrorists. Communication links to and from satellites are open to interference. In cyber-warfare, critical parts of the
space system could be attacked from distant computers. Even without external meddling, notes Tom Ehrhard, a senior
fellow at the CSBA, American forces struggle to find enough bandwidth and to prevent the myriad of electronic systems from
jamming each other.
Some remedial action is being taken. Backup ground stations are being set up in case the main GPS control centre outside
Colorado Springs is disabled. New satellites will have a more powerful GPS signal that is harder to block. America is
experimenting with satellite-to-satellite communication by laser, which can carry more data and is less prone to interference
than radio waves.
And the armed forces are starting to train for warfare with few or no data links. Simulated attacks by both space and
cyberspace “aggressors” are being incorporated into events such as the regular “Red Flag” air-combat exercises over the
Nevada desert. But, said an officer at one recent wargame, there are other ways of doing things. “If you really want to take us
down, why go to space? You could just try to take out the control tower or bring down the electricity supply to the
base.”
5. NASA doesn’t want to develop SPS – they’d just reject the aff’s funding
Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst and editor/publisher of The Space Review, 8-13-07, "A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?", The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1
Another big problem has been finding the right government agency to support R&D work on space solar power. Space solar
power doesn't neatly fit into any particular agency's scope, and without anyone in NASA or DOE actively advocating it, it has
fallen through the cracks in recent years. "NASA does science, they do astronauts, and they do aeronautics, but they don't do
energy for the Earth," Mankins said. "On the other side, the Department of Energy doesn't really do energy for space." That
situation, at least in regards to those two agencies, shows little sign of changing.
8
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
6. Satellites are vulnerable to space debris – anything larger than an M&M can destroy them
Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, July ’04, “What if
Space Were Weaponized?”, Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf [Tandet]
There are, however, dangers to placing such important assets in space. Satellites are inherently vulnerable. They
travel in predictable, fixed orbits — this is the reason that some in the Air Force call intercepting a satellite “scheduling.”
Because of the high velocities of objects in orbit, even a small object can destroy the most durable military satellite.
For example, engineers cannot shield satellites against orbital debris larger than one centimeter in diameter – anything
larger than an M&M.
7. There are major technical barriers to SPS – conversion efficiency, waste heat, expensive access, and
environmental damage – and the technology their cards claim to use has never been tested in space
John C. Mankins, former manager of NASA’s Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Spring ’08, “Energy Free from
Orbit,” Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf [Tandet]
If collecting solar power in space is such a good idea, why isn’t it already being done today? The simple answer: because it’s
hard! The platform itself offers major challenges. One challenge is to efficiently convert sunlight into electrical power,
and in turn efficiently create an electrically (not mechanically) steered beam for transmission to a receiver on Earth.
Another closely related platform challenge is to cost- effectively remove the remaining waste heat from the platform and its
electronics so that it won’t overheat and fail. The platform must meet these challenges while being as lightweight and
inexpensive as possible. There are also a range of detailed issues involving pointing and control of the platform, and of
designing platform systems for assembly, maintenance, and repair.
A major barrier to all space endeavors also applies to space solar power, and that is affordable access to space. This barrier
is one of compelling importance. The problem of space access includes both low-cost and highly-reliable Earth-to-orbit
transportation, and in-space transportation. (Fortunately, one of the key ingredients in overcoming this barrier is having a
market that requires many flights. It’s hard to imagine how air travel between continents would be affordable if the aircraft
were used once or twice per year rather than once or twice per day!)
Advances that drive down the cost of space operations present significant hurdles, too. These hurdles involve a range of
capabilities, most of which have never been demonstrated in space—but all of which are entirely taken for granted here on
Earth. The kinds of capabilities in question include the highly-autonomous assembly of large structures, the deployment and
integration of modular electronic systems, refu eling, and repair and maintenance. (The key ingredient is to perform such
operations without large numbers of operators and sustaining engineers on Earth—which drive the high cost of contemporary
space operations.)
Environmental interactions pose another potential challenge. It is not yet understood how the space environment may
affect the space solar power platform or how transmitting the energy may affect Earth’s atmosphere.
9
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
8. Treaties make SPS illegal – this prevents effective tech and hurts security and competitivenss
National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of
U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,”
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Application of the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) may constitute a major barrier
to effective partnerships in SBSP and negatively impact national security. Right now ITAR
greatly restricts and complicates all space‐related business, as it treats all launch and satellite
technologies as arms. This has had the effect of causing America’s competitors to develop
ITAR‐free products, and had a negative impact on our domestic space industries, which can no
longer compete on level ground. Many participants in the feasibility study were very vocal that
including satellite and launch technology in ITAR has had a counterproductive and detrimental
effect on the U.S.’s national security and competitiveness—losing control and market share,
and closing our eyes and ears to the innovations of the competition while selling ourselves on a
national illusion of unassailable space superiority. Effective collaboration, even with allies on
something of this level, could not take place effectively without some special consideration or
modification.
9. No tech spillover – demonstrating feasibility doesn’t mean the tech will necessarily be used
Charles V. Pena, Cato's former director of defense policy studies, and Edward Hudgins, formerly director of regulatory studies
for the Cato Institute and editor of Regulation magazine, 3-18-02, “Should the United States ‘Weaponize’ Space? Military and
Commercial Implications,” CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-427es.html [Tandet]
When evaluating a threat to U.S. spacebased military and commercial assets, it is important to note that possession of a
technology by a potentially hostile power does not mean that the country will be able to translate the technology into an
effective military system. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had scientists and engineers doing cutting-edge work,
but it often found it extremely costly and difficult to produce in quantity�or sometimes prototype�the most cutting-edge
systems, equipment, or devices. The race to the moon was a case in point. The Soviet Union produced many space firsts but
ultimately could not produce refined, quality systems that could be launched successfully, time after time. America had its
major mistakes as well, such as the fire on the launch pad of Apollo 1 in 1967. But America learned from its mistakes and
constantly improved its systems, even ones run by the American government. In the late-1960s, the Soviet Union built what for
some years was the world�s largest telescope, the Bolschoi Teleskop Azimultalnyi. The problem was that it rarely worked
properly. At a more basic and humble level, the Soviet Union was not able to produce quality consumer products in quantity.
China, the country often feared as threatening U.S. space-based assets, has quality problems similar to those of the old
Soviet Union. For example, it has never been able to produce in quantity a quality fighter plane, which would be far
more important to its military needs than exotic space weapons. Thus, the fact that a country possesses a technology
that could be developed to threaten U.S. space assets is a reason for attention and concern, but it is not a reason for
new, costly programs to counter phantom threats.
10
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
10. The plan has a long timeframe – satellites won’t even be launched until 2050
Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst and editor/publisher of The Space Review, 8-13-07, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?”, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1 [Tandet]
Smith made it clear, though, that he’s 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, it’s going to take a long time,” he said. “The horizon we’re
looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major milestone, he said, would be a small
demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beaming
from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter
the direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.”
[“Smith” refers to Lt. Col. Michael Smith, an officer in the US Air Force and Chief of Future Concepts of the National Security
Space Office]
11. Space shuttles are dangerous and costly – unmanned vehicles are better
Jim Grichar, professor of economics who formerly worked for the federal government, 1-21-04, “Wielding the Budget Axe: It’s
Time to Abolish NASA,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.html [Tandet]
The space shuttle is a disaster, having led to the deaths of 14 astronauts. It costs too much to use it to launch payloads into
space, and over its more than 20 year life, it has been proven to be unreliable. Cheaper, unmanned vehicles are more useful
and reliable for putting payloads into orbit. In a move that reveals the multibillion-dollar boondoggle status of the international
space station, the Bush Administration is proposing that U.S. funding of it be ended in the near future, and, with savings from the
proposed termination of the space shuttle and some additional funds (yet to be specified, of course), that the U.S. once again put
astronauts on the moon and eventually send manned expeditions to Mars. This plan, if funded, would probably raise NASA’s
budget to the $50 billion annual level from the proposed $16.4 billion for fiscal year (fy in the b-lingo) 2005.
12. International cooperation is key to solve – U.S. alone isn’t as efficient

Joseph D. Rouge – Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that although there was universal agreement that international
cooperation was highly desirable an necessary, there was significant disagreement on what form the cooperation
should take.
There are multiple values to be balanced with respect to international cooperation. The various goods to be
optimized include efficiency, speed of development, cost savings, existing alliances, new partnerships, general
goodwill, American jobs and business opportunities, cooperation, safety & assurance, commercial autonomy, and
freedom of action. Adding more and new partners may increase goodwill, but add additional layers of approval and
slow development. Starting with established alliances and shared values fulfills some expectations and violates others.
The spectrum of participation ranges from beginning with a demarche before the UN General Assembly, to privately
approaching America’s closest allies, to arranging multi‐national corporate conferences. Many participants felt the
International Space Station (ISS) overvalued cooperation for cooperation’s sake, and took mutual dependency too far.
11
Gabrielle
Solvency F/L
13. Ground solar power is a pre-requisite to space solar power
Geoffrey A. Landis, scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center, on the science team of the Pathfinder mission to Mars and the
Mars Exploration Rovers mission, February ’04, “Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite,” NASA,
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf [Tandet]
Analyses of space solar power often assume that ground solar power is a competing technology, and
show that space solar power is a preferable technology on a rate of return basis. In fact, however, space
solar power and ground solar power are complementary technologies, not competing technologies. These
considerations were initially discussed in 1990 [4]. Low-cost ground solar power is a necessary precursor
to space solar power: Space solar power requires low cost, high production and high efficiency solar
arrays, and these technologies will make ground solar attractive for many markets. The ground solar
power market, in turn, will serve develop technology and the high-volume production readiness for space
solar power.
Since ground solar is a necessary precursor to space solar power, an analysis of space solar power
should consider how it interfaces with the ground-based solar infrastructure that will be developing on a
faster scale than the space infrastructure.
12
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #1 – International Backlash

International community will backlash against unilateral US action
Stephen Latchford, Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, December ’05, “Strategies for Defeating Commercial Imagery
Systems,” USAF Center for Strategy and Technology, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat39.pdf [Tandet]
Beyond the din generated by the international community, the United States will need to consider the actual destabilizing
effects of deploying a space weapon, even if nominally defensive. As the world's superpower, a rush to weaponize in absence of an
impending threat to its military superiority will be regarded with suspicion. American politicians must be prepared to respond to
the question, “What threat is so grave that it cannot be handled by America’s prodigious terrestrial capability?” Although
competitors may not respond militarily to U.S. weaponization, some will see it as a dangerous move by a hegemon and will shift
to create a counterbalance. Coalitions are likely to form, particularly in diplomatic circles, in resistance to any effort to
capitalize on weaponization, and adversaries will look to field asymmetric countermeasures against those weapons. Even a U.S.
policy to build space weapons to be held in reserve until needed is certain to draw fire from those who perceive little difference
between a quick-reaction defensive capability and an offensive capability.
13
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #4 – Cyber Terrorism

Satellites are vulnerable to cyber-attack – information can be co-opted and satellites can be destroyed
Christopher M. Petras, former legislative director of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe, fall ’02, “The Use of Force in Response to Cyber-
Attack on Commercial Space Systems,” Journal of Air Law and Commerce, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2159/ [Tandet]
Although the 1996 National Space Policy directed that steps be taken to protect satellites from cyber-attacks,
commercial satellite operators have generally not seen a need to do this, due to the high cost and the lack of demand from
customers for protective measures. Hence, U.S. commercial satellites are vulnerable to cyber-attack, and "the political,
economic, and military value of space systems makes them attractive targets." The growing interdependence between
U.S. civilian and military space systems further increases the likelihood that cyber-attacks might be launched against
American commercial satellites, if for no other reason than military action directed against U.S. space capabilities will have to
target the nation's broader space infrastructure to be successful. In addition, to potential foreign adversaries seeking to avoid
a direct military confrontation with the U.S. forces, whether a traditional uniformed military or "non-traditional" adversary
(such as a terrorist organization), the commercial sector represents the "soft underbelly" of American space power, which
can be attacked through cyberspace in such a way as to make determining the origin of the attack very difficult.
14
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris

Space junk in space limits space travel and satellite deployment
Rachel Courtland, Expert analyst for News Scientist Space MIT alum., 6/27/08, Newscientistspace “Weak Solar Cycle May Keep
More Space Junk In Orbit” (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14207-weak-solar-cycle-may-keep-more-space-junk-in-orbit.html)
These numbers are set to fall, regardless of the severity of the solar cycle, as the pieces gradually get dragged into Earth's
atmosphere, where they will burn up. But if the weak solar cycle forecast is correct, hundreds more pieces of Fengyun-1C
debris larger than 10 cm will still be in orbit by 2019 compared to a normal cycle, according to simulations by Whitlock
and colleagues. This could spell trouble for satellite operators, who must plan manoeuvres to avoid passing Fengyun
debris. In 2007, for example, the NASA satellite Terra had to dodge a fragment set to approach it within 19 metres. Mild solar
weather could also keep thousands of smaller pieces in orbit. An estimated 40,000 Fengyun pieces between 1 and 10 cm across
– below the limit ground-based radars can detect – currently circle the Earth, says Whitlock. These objects can also cause
considerable damage. "Anything over 1 centimetre can really cause problems, almost for any satellite. If it happens to
hit an instrument or an antenna, it could completely disable it,"
The plan only makes space debris worse – space conflict increases debris
Michael Krepon, Co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and the author or editor of eleven books and over 350 articles, July
’05, “Seven Questions: Space Weapons,” Foreign Policy, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1443/ [Tandet]
Once you blow something up in space, the debris lingers. It isn't like a sea battle where the remains of two warships sink to
the bottom. The last anti-satellite weapons test was carried out in 1985 by the United States. We took aim at an old, dying
Air Force satellite -- just as a test -- and it created 200 pieces of debris that were large enough to track. The last piece of
debris finally left low Earth orbit 17 years later, and one of the pieces came within 1 mile of the International Space
Station and could have done significant damage. Debris is the single greatest threat to the space shuttle. This is why the Air
Force prefers to jam or dazzle satellites rather than blowing them up. But once we go down this road, there are no
guarantees that other countries will play by our rules. It is a lose-lose situation if space warfare happens. The United
States will still win wars, but we will win with more casualties and more destruction.
15
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris

High risk of space debris now – the plan only makes it worse
John B. Rhinelander, senior counsel in Pillsbury's healthcare & life sciences group, and Philip E. Coyle, senior advisor to the
Center for Defense Information, September ’02, "Drawing the Line: the Path to Controlling Weapons in Space, Disarmament
Diplomacy, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd66/66op1.htm [Tandet]
The problem of space debris is a factor in the weaponisation of space, and in the ability of arms control agreements to deal
with weapons in space for both defensive and offensive purposes. Reportedly, the US Space Command currently tracks
about 9,000 man-made objects larger than four inches across. Most of these are small objects, the result of shroud or stage
separation, missile break-up, or other phenomena. The exact number of man-made objects is impossible to catalogue, but there
are reportedly hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of smaller man-made objects ranging from golf ball-sized objects
to flecks of paint. The increase in space debris has become such a concern to the US military that it voluntarily constrains
its activities likely to further aggravate the problem. Obviously, weapons fired at objects in space would very quickly and
dramatically add to the burden from space debris.
16
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #7 – Technical Barriers

Their author concedes that there are significant technological barriers to economic feasibility
John C. Mankins, former manager of NASA’s Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,, 10-12-07, “Leading Scientists
and Thinkers on Energy,” from an interview with Mankins conducted by David Houle, an analyst who advises companies on new
developing technology, http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-–-john-c-mankins/
[Tandet]
All of the basic science seems to be in hand. Unlike fusion energy R&D, not fundamental problems of science remain to be
solved for space solar power to become feasible. However, there are definitely significant technical challenges remaining
before economic feasibility can be established. Solving these challenges is more than just engineering—it requires real
invention—but not basic research. A number of areas remain to be developed, including wireless power transmission,
robotics, materials and structures, thermal management—and, of course, very low cost Earth to orbit transportation is
critical.
Plan’s not possible – there’s no way to get the satellites into space
David Boswell, keynote a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference, “Whatever happened to solar power
satellites?”, 8-30-04, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1
A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Some designs suggest creating
rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If we assume that enough money could be found to
build something like this and that it could be run competitively against other energy options, there is the very real problem of
figuring out how to get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from separate smaller pieces.
The largest solar panels ever deployed in space are currently being used on the International Space Station. They cover
more than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panels make the ISS one of the brightest
objects in the night sky. Scaling up from there to something much larger would be challenging, but the good news is that
we can take one thing at a time.
For a proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the station’s solar panels as a baseline. By taking advantage of
improvements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of the same size that generates up to 3 times
as much power. The station’s solar panels are 14% efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators could
allow us to build panels that are up to 50% efficient.
If this demonstration system validated the theory behind generating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step
would be figuring out how to put even bigger solar panels in space. It may be that with our current launch options it simply
isn’t possible to launch an operational solar power system into orbit. If that were the case, the concept would need to be put
on hold until other lift options, such as a space elevator, are available.
17
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #10 – Timeframe

Plan won’t happen until 2050
Space Island Group, Group of prominent engineers scientists economists and financial officers, Aug 30, 2004, The Space Review:
Whatever happened to solar power satellites? (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)
This will allow solar satellites to begin replacing most Earth-based generating plants during the next decade, which will in turn
reduce the greenhouse gases these plants produce. It will also reduce the need for nuclear power plants. However conversion of 90%
of Earth’s power needs to solar power generators could be completed by 2050, giving companies and employees several
decades to adjust to this new technology.
18
Gabrielle
Solvency – Ext. #13 – Alt Causes

The American educational system is ineffective – education reform is a prerequisite to space tech
development
James Burk, vice president of Artemis Society International and staff writer for Mars News, 6-3-04, “What the Moon-Mars
Commission's Report Should Say...” http://www.marsnews.com/articles/20040603-
what_the_moonmars_commissions_report_should_say.html [Tandet]
American students were #1 in the world in the 1950's in math & science skills. Now every year we are closer to the
bottom of industrialized nations. This problem has been ignored for decades and, for me at least, is extremely disturbing.
The effects are profound: not only are people lacking in basic skills that are needed in a 21st century technical society, but also
the problem endangers our economy and accellerates the exodus of technical jobs out of the country. The Hart-Rudman
commission on terrorism threats even said that the decline in math & science education was the second largest national
security threat that America faces.
The 21st century is about technology & America's economic and political leadership in the world depends on our ability to
innovate and create new products & ideas, which will lead to industries that create technology jobs for Americans. The next
generation of Americans, in school now, will create the new space industries of tomorrow. It is imperative that we give
them all the tools they need to succeed in learning math & science.
19
Gabrielle
Competitiveness F/L
1. Status quo solves the aff – American Competitiveness Initiative was already established
US Gov. Domestic Policy Council Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2/06, “AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS
INITIATIVE,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/aci06-booklet.pdf[TANDET]
To build on our successes and remain a leader in science and technology, I am pleased to announce the American
Competitiveness Initiative. The American Competitiveness Initiative commits $5.9 billion in FY 2007 to increase
investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship. Over 10 years, the
Initiative commits $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for research and development tax
incentives. Federal investment in research and development has proved critical to keeping America’s economy strong by
generating knowledge and tools upon which new technologies are developed. My 2007 Budget requests $137 billion for
Federal research and development, an increase of more than 50 percent over 2001 levels. Much of this increased Federal
funding has gone toward biomedical research and advanced security technologies, enabling us to improve the health of our
citizens and enhance national security. We know that as other countries build their economies and become more
technologically advanced, America will face a new set of challenges. To ensure our continued leadership in the world, I am
committed to building on our record of results with new investments—especially in the fields of physical sciences and
engineering. Advances in these areas will generate scientific and technological discoveries for decades to come.
2. US dominance is inevitable – we’ll always be ahead in space

Dwayne A. Day, space journalist and noted historian, 10-4-07, “SpaceWar 2057,” The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/970/1 [Tandet]
The principles of military space system development listed above can be applied to many countries, not simply the United
States, although it is the United States that develops the biggest and most expensive—and therefore most problem-plagued
—military spacecraft. But, of course, any future projection of military space fifty years from now should address what
America’s potential adversaries may be capable of. It is safe to assume that the United States will continue to lead in the
development of military space systems, as it always has, even while American technological leadership in the commercial
world is now frequently challenged. However, military space technology has proliferated since the end of the Cold War.
Numerous countries have acquired limited reconnaissance capabilities, few have acquired space radar or signals
intelligence capabilities, and fewer still have sought offensive space capabilities. How those newly-acquired space
capabilities will affect America’s military space program is very difficult to predict. This is one area where the past fifty years
may not tell us much about the next fifty years in military space, and the movies are useless.
20
Gabrielle
Competitiveness F/L
Hegemony will never decline – we’re ahead of every other country in the world in tech and military
leadership – they can never catch up
Stephen G. Brooks, Assistant Prof, Govt, Dartmouth, and William C. Wohlforth, Associate Prof, Dept Govt, Dartmouth
College, Jul/Aug, 2002, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, Issue 4, ebsco [Tandet]
To understand just how dominant the United States is today, one needs to look at each of the standard components of national
power in succession. In the military arena, the United States is poised to spend more on defense in 2003 than the next 15-
20 biggest spenders combined. The United States has overwhelming nuclear superiority, the world's dominant air force,
the only truly blue-water navy, and a unique capability to project power around the globe. And its military advantage is
even more apparent in quality than in quantity. The United States leads the world in exploiting the military applications
of advanced communications and information technology and it has demonstrated an unrivaled ability to coordinate and
process information about the battlefield and destroy targets from afar with extraordinary precision. Washington is not
making it easy for others to catch up, moreover, given the massive gap in spending on military research and development
(R&D), on which the United States spends three times more than the next six powers combined. Looked at another way,
the United States currently spends more on military R&D than Germany or the United Kingdom spends on defense in total.
No state in the modern history of international politics has come close to the military predominance these numbers
suggest. And the United States purchases this preeminence with only 3.5 percent of its GDP. As historian Paul Kennedy notes,
"being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world's single superpower on the cheap is astonishing."
America's economic dominance, meanwhile -- relative to either the next several richest powers or the rest of the world
combined -- surpasses that of any great power in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945
(when World War II had temporarily laid waste every other major economy). The U.S. economy is currently twice as large
as its closest rival, Japan. California's economy alone has risen to become the fifth largest in the world (using market
exchange-rate estimates), ahead of France and just behind the United Kingdom.
It is true that the long expansion of the 1990s has ebbed, but it would take an experience like Japan's in that decade -- that is,
an extraordinarily deep and prolonged domestic recession juxtaposed with robust growth elsewhere -- for the United
States just to fall back to the economic position it occupied in 1991. The odds against such relative decline are long,
however, in part because the United States is the country in the best position to take advantage of globalization. Its status as the
preferred destination for scientifically trained foreign workers solidified during the 1990s, and it is the most popular destination
for foreign firms. In 1999 it attracted more than one-third of world inflows of foreign direct investment.
U.S. military and economic dominance, finally, is rooted in the country's position as the world's leading technological
power. Although measuring national R&D spending is increasingly difficult in an era in which so many economic activities
cross borders, efforts to do so indicate America's continuing lead. Figures from the late 1990s showed that U.S. expenditures
on R&D nearly equaled those of the next seven richest countries combined.
21
Gabrielle
Competitiveness – Ext. #3 – Heg Inevitable

Heg will never decline.
Stephen G. Brooks, Assistant Prof, Govt, Dartmouth, and William C. Wohlforth, Associate Prof, Dept Govt, Dartmouth
College, Jul/Aug, 2002, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, Issue 4, ebsco [Tandet]
Many who acknowledge the extent of American power, however, regard it as necessarily self-negating. Other states
traditionally band together to restrain potential hegemons, they say, and this time will be no different. As German political
commentator Josef Joffe has put it, "the history books say that Mr. Big always invites his own demise. Nos. 2, 3, 4 will gang up
on him, form countervailing alliances and plot his downfall. That happened to Napoleon, as it happened to Louis xiv and the
mighty Hapsburgs, to Hitler and to Stalin. Power begets superior counterpower; it's the oldest rule of world politics."
What such arguments fail to recognize are the features o America's post-Cold War position that make it likely to buck
the historical trend. Bounded by oceans to the east and west and weak, friendly powers to the north and south, the
United States is both less vulnerable than previous aspiring hegemons and also less threatening to others. The main
potential challengers to its unipolarity, meanwhile -- China, Russia, Japan, and Germany -- are in the opposite position.
They cannot augment their military capabilities so as to balance the United States without simultaneously becoming an
immediate threat to their neighbors. Politics, even international politics, is local. Although American power attracts a lot of
attention globally, states are usually more concerned with their own neighborhoods than with the global equilibrium. Were any
of the potential challengers to make a serious run at the United States, regional balancing efforts would almost certainly
help contain them, as would the massive latent power capabilities of the United States, which could be mobilized as necessary
to head off an emerging threat.
22
Gabrielle
Failed States F/L

1. Multiple alt causes – food crisis, political upheaval, and US economy – causing state failure now
Foreign Policy Magazine, July/August ’08, “The Failed States Index 2008,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?
story_id=4350 [Tandet]
On top of the country’s already colossal challenges, a food crisis seems an especially cruel turn for a place like Somalia. But it
is a test that dozens of weak states are being forced to confront this year, with escalating prices threatening to undo
years of poverty-alleviation and development efforts. The unrest in Mogadishu echoes food riots that have erupted on nearly
every continent in the past year. Tens of thousands of Mexicans protested when the price of corn flour jumped 400 percent in
early 2007. Thousands of Russian pensioners took to the streets in November to call for a return to price controls on milk and
bread. In Egypt, the army was ordered to bake more loaves at military-run bakeries after riots broke out across the country.
Kabul, Port-au-Prince, and Jakarta experienced angry protests over spikes in the price of staples.
But if few foretold the hunger and hardship that have followed the uptick in prices, the events of 2007 revealed that
unexpected shocks can play a decisive role in the stability of an increasing number of vulnerable states. Primary among
last year’s shocks was the implosion of the U.S. subprime market, which burst housing bubbles worldwide, slowed
trade, and sent currencies into tailspins. A contested election in Kenya in December swiftly shredded any semblance of
ethnic peace in a country that many had considered an African success story. And though Benazir Bhutto feared her own
assassination upon returning to Pakistan, her murder reverberated in a country already contending with the challenges of
ambitious mullahs, suicide bombers, and an all-powerful military.
These shocks are the sparks of state failure, events that further corrode the integrity of weak states and push those on
the edge closer to combustion. As the food crisis has shown, these political and economic setbacks are not unique to the
world’s most vulnerable countries. But weak states are weak precisely because they lack the resiliency to cope with unwelcome
—and unpleasant—surprises. When a global economic downturn pinches the main export base, an election goes awry, or
a natural disaster wipes out villages, the cracks of vulnerability open wider.
2. No way to determine failed states – under their interpretation the US is a failed state
Stephen Lendman, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, 4-30-06, “Failed States: Comments on Noam
Chomsky’s New Book,” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12889.htm [Tandet]
Having laid out his premises, Chomsky believes the US today exhibits the very features we cite as characteristics of
"failed states" - a term we use for nations seen as potential threats to our security which may require our intervention against
in self-defense. But the very notion of what a failed state may be is imprecise at best, he states. It may be their inability to
protect their citizens from violence or destruction. It may also be they believe they're beyond the reach of international
law and thus free to act as aggressors. Even democracies aren't immune to this problem because they may suffer from a
"democratic deficit" that makes their system unable to function properly enough.
Chomsky goes much further saying if we evaluate our own state policies honestly and accurately "we should have little
difficulty in finding the characteristics of 'failed states' right at home." He stresses that should disturb us all, and I would
add, as a citizen of this country and now in my eighth decade, it obsesses me. Chomsky then spends the first half of his book
documenting how the US crafts its policies and uses its enormous power to threaten other states with isolation or
destruction unless they're subservient to our will. He also explains how we react when they go their own way and how
routinely and arrogantly we ignore and violate sacred international law and norms in the process.
23
Gabrielle
Fossil Fuels F/L

1. SPS alone can’t cover the world’s energy needs – won’t create a complete shift
[Tandet]
Mankins: Solar power satellites will be very, very large. Of course, all solar power systems are enormous. On the ground, it’s
hard to see because the solar arrays are spread across thousands of rooftops. However, the overall systems is still of tremendous
size. In the case of solar power satellites, if each satellite were to provide about 4,000 megawatts of power, then five of them
would be needed to provide about 20 GW – which is approximately 2 percent of the U.S. demand for electricity. World
demand for energy is currently about 4-times U.S. demand, but is growing fast! By 2100, huge new sources of renewable
energy will be critical to our civilization, including hydroelectric (already in place), wind, ground solar, appropriate nuclear
power—and space solar power.
Evolutionshift.com: It sounds to me as though SSP is the one form of alternative energy that can supply a significant
percentage of the energy needs of the planet. So it sounds like the vision needs to be forged into a multi-national will and then
receive the necessary funding. Is that correct? If so, care to comment on the probability of this starting up in the next 2-3 years?
Mankins: Actually, even if space solar power were fully developed, the global economy should have more than just one
option: a prudent scenario would also involve a portfolio of current energy options—and a “quiver” full of new energy
technologies ready to be deployed if, or when they are needed. Certainly, however, space solar is one of very few options to
provide a substantial fraction of the truly vast amount of renewable energy that is needed to support human civilization.
24
Gabrielle
Japan F/L
1. Their Farrar evidence indicates that whoever takes the lead on SPS will be the global energy provider,
not the global hegemon - no internal link into hegemony.
2. North Korea militarization makes Japanese rearmament inevitable in the status quo
Ratner, their author, ’03 Ellen, “Engage North Korea!” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30541)
That is now threatened by North Korea's brazen stupidity. By rattling the nuclear saber, withdrawing from non-
proliferation treaties and tossing out U.N. inspectors, the North Koreans are on the verge of making one of the colossal
blunders of world history. If North Korea is not reined in, then it is likely that Tokyo will rearm – and experts predict
that with Japan's high-tech, industrial economy, they could assemble a full nuclear arsenal and bomb delivery systems within
three years.
3. No internal link into Japanese hegemony – they don’t read any evidence that Japan would become the
global hegemon as a result of the plan or that Japanese heg leads to Japanese rearmament
25
Gabrielle
Japan F/L
4. Turn – Japanese rearmament is key to Sino-Japanese relations and Asia-Pacific stability
Thi Lam, former general in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, 10-27-95, “Why a Remilitarized Japan Is Crucial for Asia-Pacific
Stability,” http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/columns/pacific-pulse/951027-japan.html [Tandet]
Public clamor in Japan for the U.S. military to get out of Okinawa has heightened fears that Japan may be contemplating its
own remilitarization. Ironically, the best hope for stability in the economically booming Asia-Pacific lies in Japan's
rearmament -- both militarily and morally. PNS analyst Thi Lam served as a general in the Army of the Republic of
Vietnam and is the author of "Autopsy: The Death of South Vietnam (1985)"
Public outrage over the rape of an Okinawa school girl by a United States serviceman may finally push the Japanese towards
remilitarization, ending 50 years of "splendid isolation" under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Despite nascent Asian fears of
renewed Japanese expansionism, Japan's remilitarization would greatly enhance the security prospects of the Asia-Pacific
region.
For decades Japan, like Germany, has basked in the generosity of its American conqueror, rising from the ashes of World War
II to become an economic superpower. But whereas Germany finally broke free of the victor-vanquished complex, actively
helping to contain the former Soviet Union as a NATO member, and ultimately integrating itself into the European Union,
Japan clung to its post-war insular mentality. Recently, it has remained conspicuously silent in the face of Chinese aggression
in the South China Sea through which pass some of the world's most vital shipping lanes. Even when the 1992 Gulf War
threatened its Mideast oil supplies, Japan refused to send ground troops to aid the U.S.-led coalition, despite repeated requests
from Washington. Instead, it sent money.
But money alone cannot buy security in the Asia Pacific, particularly in an era of U.S. disengagement and new Chinese
assertiveness. A growing chorus of domestic critics -- notably New Frontier Party chief and long-time Diet member Ichiro
Ozawa -- have warned that Japan risks following the path of ancient Carthage, whose "belief that wealth alone could
sustain a nation ultimately caused its demise."
There are signs that more and more Japanese are heeding the warning. Well before the Okinawa outrage, Japanese voters
rejected anti-rearmament left-wing party candidates in elections for parliamentary seats in the Diet. Their loss paved the way
for new legislation authorizing deployment of Japan's Self Defense Forces on non-combat UN missions. (Two years earlier,
Japan sent engineer army units to Cambodia to help rebuild the country's road network under UN supervision.)
Meanwhile, Japan and the United States have been working on an agreement to standardize military equipment similar to those
of NATO allies. Even more significant, Ryutaro Hashimoto, the man many consider destined to become the country's next
prime minister, actively favors revising the restrictive U.S. imposed constitution so that Japan can play a more active role in
regional security.
If there is any single factor goading Japan to finally assume its global responsibilities it is China's growing military power.
Only a remilitarized Japan can offer a strategic counter-weight to help stabilize the economically booming region. But
the new rearmament of Japan is not intended as a show of hostility towards Beijing. Rather, the aim is to bring about a
cooperation between the two East Asian giants. The model is the cooperation between France and Germany that
became the foundation for a peaceful and prosperous European community.
26
Gabrielle
Lunar Materials F/L

1. Lunar business won’t happen – it’s too expensive and it takes too long
Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. His is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, 12-11- 06, “Moonbase
why,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/764/1 [Tandet]
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, everyone’s 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 won’t happen until someone can
tackle the costs of getting astronauts the first hundred miles up,” an editorial in USA Today last week noted.
2. Going to the moon now doesn’t catalyze further space exploration later
Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. His is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, 12-11- 06, “Moonbase
why,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/764/1 [Tandet]
Human missions to Mars, if and when they might occur, are so far in the future that lessons learned on the Moon will
have little relevance. If humans eventually travel to Mars, technology that would be used will be far advanced over that
which NASA would employ on the Moon in the next twenty years. The first humans who might travel to Mars will probably
not have the immediate objective of establishing a settlement. Rather, they will go as explorers and spend only that amount of
time required to meet initial objectives, with their staytime defined by orbital mechanics. Determining how to utilize lunar
resources to supply a lunar base will not have applicability to a Mars base as the technology and processes needed to
use Mars raw materials will be unique to Mars resources. Other surface conditions on Mars that human explorers will
have to cope with will also be much different than those found on the Moon and will require specific technology to ensure
safe operations. Costly and risky human exploration of Mars may never be needed. As robots become more capable, the major
scientific and philosophical question that drives Mars exploration—does life exist or has it ever existed on Mars—may well be
answered by robotic missions. The need to establish human settlements on Mars in the future is problematic.
3. Lunar materials have no economic value – their cards rely on unscientific projections
Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation, 2-12-07, “Just how full
of opportunity is the moon?”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 [Tandet]
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.
27
Gabrielle
Military Readiness F/L

1. Impact empirically denied – multiple alt causes mean military readiness has already hit rock bottom
John Murtha, U.S. Congressman, 9-13-06, “United States Army Military Readiness,”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2006_rpt/060913-murtha-obey_army-readiness.htm [Tandet]
The U.S. Army’s preparedness for war has eroded to levels not witnessed by our country in decades. As deployments to
Iraq and Afghanistan continue unabated, there is a very real prospect that Army readiness will continue to erode,
undermining its ability to meet the theater commanders’ needs and foreclosing any option for the U.S. to respond to conflicts
elsewhere around the globe. The degradation of Army readiness is primarily a function of unanticipated high troop
deployment levels to Iraq, chronic equipment and personnel shortages, funding constraints, and Pentagon civilian
mismanagement. These factors have resulted in:
2. Alt cause – smoking impairs readiness

Doug Sample, Sergeant 1st Class, 11-19-03, “With Military Readiness on the Line, DoD Reminds Smokers 'D-Day' Is Nov. 20,”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=27759 [Tandet]
Smoking affects both the personal health and readiness of military personnel, so DoD is encouraging those who smoke or
use smokeless tobacco to take steps to end their addiction by taking part in the Great American Smokeout Nov. 20.
According to Dr. David Tornberg, deputy assistant secretary of defense for clinical and program policy, smoking percentages
are highest in the 18-25 age group, which is a significant part of the military's ranks. He said that smoking impacts
military readiness by "cutting" into the physical endurance of military personnel.
"There is a substantial reduction in physical endurance as a consequence of smoking. And we just can't ignore it,"
Tornberg said. He added that cigarette smoking can have a "psychological" impact on military personnel as well.
3. Alt cause – equipment shortfalls impair readiness

William J. Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, and Michele A Flournoy, Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, ’06, National Defense Magazine, “The U.S. Military: Under Strain And at Risk,” May 2006, p.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/TheU.S.MilitaryUnder.htm
The Army and the Army National Guard also have experienced equipment shortfalls that increased the level of risk to
forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and reduced the readiness of units in the United States. From the beginning of
the Iraq war until as late as last year, the active Army experienced shortages of key equipment — such as radios, up-
armored Humvees, trucks, machine guns, rifles, grenade launchers, and night vision equipment — for troops deploying
overseas.
While many of these shortfalls have now been addressed for deployed units, the readiness ratings of many non-deployed
units have dropped. This is particularly worrisome because some of these units are slated to deploy later this year. This
situation is even worse for Army National Guard units, many of which have had to leave their equipment sets in Iraq for
arriving units. These readiness shortfalls are only likely to grow as the war in Iraq continues to accelerate the wear-out
rate of all categories of equipment for ground forces.
28
Gabrielle
Military Readiness F/L

4. Military readiness is massively low now – personnel shortages are the key internal link
John Murtha, U.S. Congressman, 9-13-06, “United States Army Military Readiness,”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2006_rpt/060913-murtha-obey_army-readiness.htm
Again, the situation facing the Army Guard and Reserve is comparatively worse. Of all the Guard units not currently
mobilized, about four-fifths received the lowest readiness rating. Conversely, only about 1 in 10 received the highest or
second highest ratings for readiness, which are the ratings traditionally required for a unit to be considered capable of
deploying and completing its mission. The same is true for the Army Reserve; about four-fifths of non-mobilized Army
Reserve units received the two lowest readiness ratings; only one in 10 received the two top ratings. Personnel
shortages are the major reason behind the decline in Guard and Reserve readiness - shortages created, for the most
part, by mobilizations having lapsed or personnel having been pulled from units to augment others in theater
29
Gabrielle
Military Readiness – Ext. #1 – Readiness Low Now

Military readiness is the lowest in history now – their impacts should already have happened
Roxana Tiron, staff writer for The Hill (Capitol Hill newspaper), 11-25-07, “Members warn of ‘national crisis’ in military
readiness,” http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/members-warn-of-national-crisis-in-military-readiness-2007-11-25.html [Tandet]
Although Democrats in Congress have not been able to force an Iraq withdrawal, two House Armed Services Committee
leaders are sounding the alarm that readiness shortfalls could prevent the U.S. military from responding to new threats at
home and abroad.
Reps. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), the chairman of the Armed Services Readiness subcommittee, and Neil Abercrombie (D-
Hawaii), chairman of the Air and Land Forces subcommittee, this week introduced a resolution detailing the challenges facing
the military and the resulting impact on national security.
The two veteran lawmakers are working on getting co-sponsors for the bill, and the Armed Services panel could have a hearing
on the issue at the beginning of next year.
“While the Congress has been unable to agree on policy related to Iraq in veto-proof numbers, we should all be able to agree on
one thing: the U.S. military constitutes our first and last line of protection – and they are in a world of hurt,” Ortiz said
in a joint statement accompanying the resolution.
“Our military’s ground forces are broken by the ongoing operations, particularly in Iraq, and we are watching the making
of a full blown national security crisis,” Ortiz added.
30
Gabrielle
Pollution
Plan increases pollution – rocket fuel contaminates the Earth
Jennifer Lee, staff writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10-29-03, “Health threat of rocket fuel debated,”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/145886_rocket29.html [Tandet]
Perchlorate, a component of fuels for solid rockets such as the large boosters on the space shuttle, first became a
concern in 1997, when technologies became sophisticated enough to detect the chemical at extremely low levels. The EPA set
in motion a process of setting safety levels for perchlorate. Despite criticism from the Pentagon, EPA scientists have been
steadfast in their recommendations, and the scientific debate was referred to the National Academy of Sciences last spring for
review.
The EPA has recommended that levels of perchlorate be restricted to concentrations as low as one part per billion, but
the agency's current guidelines specify concentrations of 4 to 18 parts per billion. The California Environmental Protection
Agency, which has conducted an independent risk assessment, has made similar recommendations. By contrast, the Pentagon
has urged that the safety levels be set at 200 parts per billion, higher than the levels of ground contamination already
found.
Perchlorate contamination has been an issue for some time in the West, particularly in California and Nevada. Over 300
municipal and local wells have been closed in California alone, and Native American tribes that draw water from the lower
Colorado River are contemplating lawsuits against companies to force them to clean the water. Of the 45 states where the
Pentagon uses perchlorate, 25 have confirmed cases of perchlorate contamination.
31
Gabrielle
Space Colonization F/L

1. Going to space causes killer viruses, space arms race, and global war
Bruce K. Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, ’99, “Space Exploration and
Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm [Tandet]
We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such
enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the
heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously
jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for
containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms
race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of
consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations
2. Reproduction is impossible in space – gravity means that the sperm won’t reach the egg
Giuseppe Lippi, professor and surgeon at the University of Verona, 2-26-08, “Abolishing the Law of Gravity,” Canadian Medical
Association Journal, http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/5/598 [Tandet]
As the International Space Station moves us closer to the possibility of colonizing space, it is becoming increasingly important
to understand the effects of altered gravity on mammalian reproductive physiology. There is evidence that hypo- and hyper-
gravity induce changes in male and female reproductive processes.2 Findings from studies using a variety of
experimental conditions to simulate hypogravity raise questions about whether reproduction is possible when gravity is
reduced.
Studies using the Holton hindlimb suspension model, which provides a practical way to simulate the major physiologic effects of
hypogravity, are providing evidence that hypogravity might exert pronounced effects on male reproductive processes and
reduce the rate of implantation during early pregnancy in rats. Moreover, the cardiovascular deconditioning, bone
demineralization and decrease in red blood cell concentration associated with hypogravity might affect the ability of female
rats to sustain their pregnancies. Similar findings from experiments during space flights raise questions about whether
early pregnancy can be sustained in humans when gravity is reduced.2 Additional research is needed to fill in the gaps in our
knowledge about reproductive physiology under conditions of hypo- and micro-gravity.
3. Extinction is not inevitable – empirically proven that their articles are just empty alarmism
Robert Shapiro, staff writer for The Space Review, 3-19-07, “Why the moon? Human survival!”,
Of course, we have been hearing predictions of Doomsday for years, and we are still here. According to geologists, the
eruption of Mt. Toba in Indonesia 71,000 years ago darkened the sky for years. The event caused killed much of plant life
on the planet. The famine that resulted caused a severe drop in the human population of that time. The Black Death of the
14th century killed perhaps one-third of the population of Europe and the great flu epidemic of 1918 claimed an estimated
40 million victims. Despite these disasters, and others such as global wars, humanity has muddled through and even
prospered. Why should things be different now?
32
Gabrielle

4. Investors won’t fund space development – no short-term profit
John Hickman, Ph.D. and associate professor of government at Berry College, November ’99, Journal of Evolution and
Technology, “The Political Economy of Very Large Space Projects,” http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm [Tandet]
Attempting to persuade investors to risk enough capital to finance the construction of a very large space development
project would run up against the same capitalization problems now faced by entrepreneurs seeking capital for ordinary
space development projects such as launching communication satellites. Investors and lenders seek to maximize economic
returns from capital while avoiding risk. The cost of capital is higher for riskier investments. Persuading investors and
lenders to part with their capital requires making credible promises that they will receive better returns than they
would have received from making alternative investments during the same time period commensurate with risk. While
investors often accept higher levels of risk than do lenders, they do so in the expectation of even better returns. Ordinary
space development projects confront not only the risks that their businesses might not make money and that the
technology might fail to work as projected, but also that they might not attract enough investment because the
necessary capital investment is too “chunky.” In other words, the “up-front” capital investment necessary to proceed with
even an ordinary space development project tends to be relatively large and to take a relatively long time period before
generating cash flows or profits (Simonoff 1997: 73-74; U.S. Department of Commerce 1990: 55-60; McLucas 1991). It is
important for the subsequent discussion that the reader note that many investors typically understand the phrase “long time
period” to mean “5 years” (Marshall and Bansal 1992: 99-100).
5. SpaceCol will never happen. Even if the plan allows further space development, humans won’t ever
live in space – it’s too expensive and no one would lead.
Hank Dolben, senior computer developer, 1-6-04, “No Escape from Environmental Disaster,”
http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.html [Tandet]
Second, we will never accomplish the colonization of space. Again, not because it is technically impossible, though certainly much
more difficult than most people seem to appreciate. How can one imagine that we could create artificial ecosystems that would be
sufficiently rich and robust to support human life as we know it, when we could not prevent our own destruction of the natural
world that gave us our existence to begin with? What potential return on investment would motivate the unimaginably huge
expense of attempting the establishment of a self-sustaining colony? Or do you think that some government would have the political
will and resources to accomplish it? There would not be enough resources if the crisis were reached, not enough will if not. In
short, there is a better chance of saving our existing environment than creating a new one. Still, it's unprovable, only refutable by
counterexample.
33
Gabrielle

6. Space is too harsh an environment – we can’t live there
Rudy M. Baum, editor-in-chief of Chemical & Engineering News, 2-5-07, “NASA’s Bad Idea,”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/85/8506editor.html [Tandet]
There is an enormous cost to designing and building spacecraft that can transport humans safely to the moon and beyond.
Space will never be anything other than a brutally hostile environment. The surface of the moon is outer space with gravity. The
surface of Mars is far harsher than Antarctica in the dead of the austral winter. Putting humans in these environments serves
no useful purpose whatsoever other than satisfying an atavistic hubris that is no longer affordable.
7. Public won’t support – means no colonization

John Hickman, Ph.D. and associate professor of government at Berry College, November ’99, Journal of Evolution and
Technology, “The Political Economy of Very Large Space Projects,” http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm [Tandet]
Persuading a space faring power to support any part of a very large space development project will require
th
mobilization of elite and mass public support. The historical experience of late 19 century naval arms races and
th th
exploration (and colonialism) in Africa, of early 20 century polar exploration, and of late 20 century Cold War nuclear
weapons race and space exploration all suggest that international competition offers a far better tool for mobilizing public
support than international cooperation. At least in the short term, effective political advertizing and lobbying should be
capable of emotionally engaging masses and elites in international competition over the further exploration and control of
territory in space. International competition need not be military in nature to fire the public imagination. International
competition in civilian endeavors such as Olympic sports can also whip up intense public passions, at least over the short term.
Good propaganda requires the same elements as melodrama: a hero, a villain, and a simple story line involving struggle
between good and evil. A public relations firm would have little difficulty locating all three elements in competition over
space. The public relations job would be to convince elites and masses in the United States, the European Union, or Japan
that competition for territory in space has erupted and that their team is being left in the dust. Such a neo-jingoist
public relations and policy lobbying campaign would need to be coordinated by an interest group capable of keeping the
focus of new public interest in space on competition in civilian endeavors.
34
Gabrielle
Space Colonization – Ext. #3 – Extinction Not Inevitable

Space colonization is not necessary – even if disaster strikes, we won’t die
Robert Shapiro, staff writer for The Space Review, 3-19-07, “Why the moon? Human survival!”,
Physicist Stephen Hawking, and a number of others, have called for humanity to spread out to distant planets of our Solar
System. But there is no need to go so far to protect ourselves. After a few decades—centuries at worst—dust and ash will
settle, radioactive materials will decay, and viruses will perish. Earth will once again become the best home for
humanity in the Solar System. Return would be easiest if a safe sanctuary were nearby. In the more probable instance that
only a limited disaster took place, that nearby sanctuary could also play a valuable role in restoring lost data and cultural
materials, and coordinating the recovery. And of course, construction of the rescue base will be much easier if it is only
days, rather than months or years, away.
35
Gabrielle
Space Colonization – Ext. #5 – Infeasible

Space colonization is impossible – we can’t survive in space and there’s no economic motivation
Charlie Stross, science fiction writer and space enthusiast, June ’07, “The High Frontier, Redux,”
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html [Tandet]
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 simple pressure failure can kill a spaceship crew in minutes. And that's not the only threat. Cosmic 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. 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.
36
Gabrielle
AT: Space Weaponization

1. DoD won’t use SPS as a space weapon – it’s motivated by other things
Joseph D. Rouge, director of the National Security Space Office, space-based solar power study group under a government
organization that is responsible for integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities , Spring
’08, “Strategic Importance,” Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
[Tandet]
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a space- based solar power
(SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?” Depending on their bias that could
either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to
space. But the NSSO is not interested in space- based solar power as a weapon.
1. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation for studying SBSP is to identify
sources of energy at a reasonable cost any- where in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of
infrastructure needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources
become increasingly costly.
2. SPS is not a reliable weapon – it can’t hit targets with intense light, and cheaper options exist
Joseph D. Rouge, director of the National Security Space Office, space-based solar power study group under a government
organization that is responsible for integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities , Spring
’08, “Strategic Importance,” Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
[Tandet]
2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less- expensive options. For
example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy
targets.
3. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that reaches the
ground is less than a quarter of noon-sunlight; a worker could safely walk in the center of the beam. The physics of
microwave transmission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-
determined maximum intensity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal,
the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted.
4. SBSP would not be a precision weapon. Today’s militar- ies are looking for more precise and lower collateral-
damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot indi-
vidual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm.
37
Gabrielle
AT: Space Weaponization

3. SPS isn’t an effective space weapon – the beam is too weak
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [Tandet]
The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale
make the beam very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the
geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power
concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it
requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the
microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut‐off
mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if
occurring would be extremely anti‐climactic.
4. SPS is too expensive – the military would look to cheaper options

Dwayne A. Day, space journalist and noted historian, 10-4-07, “SpaceWar 2057,” The Space Review,
Weapons delivery from space has been possible for decades. What has changed is that it is now possible to precisely deliver
conventional weapons onto an enemy. But the cost is prohibitive compared to other forms of weapon delivery such as
cruise missiles or bombers, which have the benefit of reusability. Given the cost of putting something into orbit, the goal
is to keep it there as long as possible rather than bring it down to hit something. That seems unlikely to change barring a
radical decrease in launch costs.
38
Gabrielle
AT: Space Weaponization Inevitable

Inevitability arguments are self-fulfilling prophecies – space weaponization isn’t inevitable unless we
believe it to be inevitable and take no action
Andrew T. Park, lawyer and associate in the Corporate Practice Area and the Equipment Finance Group, ’06, “INCREMENTAL
STEPS FOR ACHIEVING SPACE SECURITY: THE NEED FOR A NEW WAY OF THINKING TO ENHANCE THE LEGAL
REGIME FOR SPACE,” Houston Journal of International Law, http://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdf
The simplest argument for space weaponization (inevitability) may also be the most reckless because of its self-fulfilling
nature. Proponents of the inevitability of space weaponization have proffered multiple theories as to why the realm of space
will eventually become weaponized. According to the logic of these inevitability proponents, the United States should lead
the way rather than be left in the dust as military technology continues to rapidly develop. However, while the inevitability
argument may have some merit, its true danger lies in its unverifiable nature until weaponization actually occurs.
Moreover, it is important to note that this premise is driven not only by American insecurities, but also by the need for the
United States to control its own future. Since the ideological divide between “space doves” and those who believe space
weaponization is inevitable is not likely to be bridged soon, the international community must recognize the need for a
legal regime for space with teeth—or, put another way, a legal regime that goes beyond simply establishing a set of norms
that have little to no consequences.
39
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Prolif

US space weaponization leads to space prolif
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 won’t 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.
Proliferation leads to extinction.

Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 02,
“Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, Survival
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles
against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small
arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels
unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or
abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will
have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless
nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late
1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place
than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole
nations.
40
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Accidental Attack

Russia would misinterpret space debris as accidental US attack
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 first phase of a U.S. attack?
Most Russian early-warning satellites are in elliptical Molniya orbits (a few are in GEO) and thus difficult to attack from the
ground or air. At a minimum, Moscow would probably have some tactical warning of such a suspicious launch, but given
the sorry state of Russia’s 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 difficult orbital
plane and any warning systems moot. The unpleasant truth is that the Russians likely would have to make a judgment
call.
Russian perception of accidental attack leads to extinction

Dean Babst, retired government research scientist and Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Accidental Nuclear War
Studies Program, February ’02, “Preventing an Accidental Armageddon,”
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2000/02/00_babst_armageddon.htm [Tandet]
Although international relations have changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the U.S.
continue to keep the bulk of their nuclear missiles on high-level alert. The U.S. and Russia remain ready to fire a total of
more than 5,000 nuclear weapons at each other within half an hour. These warheads, if used, could destroy humanity
including those firing the missiles. A defense that destroys the defender makes no sense. Why then do Russia, the U.S., and
other countries spend vast sums each year to maintain such defenses? Since 400 average size strategic nuclear weapons could
destroy humanity, most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. have set for hair-trigger release, present
the world with its greatest danger -- an enormous overkill, the potential for an accidental Armageddon.
41
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – International Law

Space weaponization is illegal under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967
Thomas Graham, President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security and US ambassador, March/April ’02, “International Law
and the Military Uses of Space,” Disarmament Diplomacy, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd63/63op1.htm [Tandet]
Some have suggested that the basis for such a regime already exists. Indeed, international law - including efforts to control
weapons - is no stranger to the space environment. The Outer Space Treaty, signed in 1967, bans the deployment of
weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, or in orbit around any celestial body, or elsewhere in space. It also limits
the use of the moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes.
The Outer Space Treaty joined the Antarctic Treaty and later the 1972 Seabed Arms Control Treaty, which limits the
deployment of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof, in a unique class of arms control
agreements sometimes referred as "non-armament treaties". These agreements were intended to - and have been successful in
- preventing the deployment of weapons in areas where they have not previously been present. Today, after more than
three decades, space, the ocean floor and the Antarctic all remain free of weapons of mass destruction.
International law is essential to avert planetary extinction

Malaysian Medical Association, 10-6-02 “11TH SEPTEMBER - DAY OF REMEMBRANCE,”
http://www.mma.org.my/current_topic/sept.htm
Our world is increasingly interdependent and the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors and individuals transcend
national boundaries. Weapons of mass destruction, landmines, small arms and environmental damage have global consequences,
whether they be deadly armed conflict, nuclear testing or climate change from global warming. The risk of nuclear war continues
to threaten human survival. The casualties resulting from even a single explosion would overwhelm the medical facilities in
any city in the world. The use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible, and the International Court of Justice has declared their
use and threatened use illegal. Yet, nuclear weapons remain part of the military strategy of many nations. Nuclear war must be
prevented. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated. Ongoing violations of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian
and human rights law and increasing poverty and preventable disease continue to fuel violence. World military expenditure, estimated
at US$839 billion in 2001, prevents governments from meeting the social needs of their citizens and the global proliferation of
armaments has caused unspeakable carnage. We call on all governments to place their foreign and domestic policies and their
behaviour under the scrutiny of international law and international institutions. Each government must take primary
responsibility for ending its own contribution to the cycle of violence. As citizens, we are expected to abide by the law. We expect
no less from governments. This is a necessary part of honouring the lives of so many men, women and children whose deaths are
commemorate. At a time when global problems should be solved by cooperating and complying with multilateral legally-
binding treaties, and by embracing the rule of law as valuable instruments for building common security and safe-guarding
the long-term, collective interests of humanity, there are unmistable signs that powerful states are taking unilateral action,
setting aside international treaties, and undermining international law. The principle of the rule of law implies that even the most
powerful must comply with the law, even if it is difficult or costly or when superior economic, military and diplomatic power may
seem to make compliance unnecessary. The destruction of the symbols of American economic power and military might on 11th
September is a salutary reminder that military power, including the possession of nuclear weapons, does not deter terrorists or confer
security or invulnerability. It has prompted the Bush administration to declare "war on terror" and convinced it that a military
response is the best way to fight terrorism on a global scale, without considering alternative, more effective ways of combating
terrorism, such as addressing the root causes of terrorism. The greatest betrayal of those who died on 11th September 2001 would be
to not recognise that there are non-violent ways of resolving conflict. This is a difficult, uncertain path to take, whereas violence and
war are easy, predictable options. The lesson of 11th September is that our collective survival depends upon forging cooperative,
just and equitable relationships with each other; in rejecting violence and war; and in pursuing non-violent resolutions to
conflict. The alternative is a world perpetually divided, continually at war, and possibly destroying itself through
environmental degradation or the use of weapons of mass destruction.
42
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – US-Russia Relations

Space weaponization leads to space prolif – it demonstrates the feasibility of space weapons, nuclear
prolif proves
David W. Ziegler, colonel in the US Air Force, June ’97, “Safe Heavens: Military Strategy and Space Sanctuary Thought,”
published by the USAF Air University, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=1299[Tandet]
Today, an early US nuclear monopoly continues to erode with every additional nation that acquires nuclear weapons. It can not
be ignored that the growing American vulnerability to such weapons is in part compliments of the United States. It was the
United States that demonstrated the feasibility of nuclear weapons and paid the tremendous nonrecurring development
costs to do so. It was from the United States that atomic secrets leaked to its chief adversary. In general, the growing
fraternity of nuclear powers benefited from American hindsight and experience. It ought to be expected that the same
thing could be repeated should the United States accelerate development of advanced space weapons.
Space weaponization tanks US-Sino and US-Russian relations

The likely consequences of a dynamic, but uneven, space warfare competition are not hard to envision. Potential
adversaries are likely to perceive American initiatives to weaponize space as adjuncts to a U.S. military doctrine of
preemption and preventive war. Depending on the scope and nature of U.S. space warfare preparations, they could also add
to Chinese and Russian concerns over the viability of their nuclear deterrents. U.S. initiatives to extend military
dominance into space are therefore likely to raise tensions and impact negatively on U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations
at a time when bilateral relations have some promising, but tenuous, elements. Cooperative relations with both countries will
be needed to successfully combat proliferation, but Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to tender such cooperation if they
perceive that U.S. strategic objectives include the negation of their deterrents. Under these circumstances, proliferation of
weapons in space would be accompanied by terrestrial proliferation.
That turns case – US-Russian relations key to space exploration
Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Testimony before the House of International Relations
Committee, March 18, 2004, http://www.ransac.org/Official%20Documents/U.S.%20Government/Department%20of
%20State/492004121756PM.html
Another area of cooperation is in space. Since the loss of the shuttle Columbia, Russian capability to lift payloads has
supported the operations of the International Space Station. As we define future challenges in space, we believe that
continuing our cooperation and combining Russian and American resources, technology and experience will benefit
both nations and accelerate space exploration.
43
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Terrorism

Space weaponization increases terrorism by collapsing diplomatic relationships and collapsing the war
on terrorism
Bruce M. Deblois, Director of Systems Integration at BAE SYSTEMS, 7-5-03, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics,
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Bergman_11ast03.pdf [Tandet]
Beyond adversarial responses, allies and partners abroad might also react unfavorably. Any unilateral decision to
weaponize space might have negative consequences for diplomatic relationships worldwide. The European Union has
been a consistent and vocal critic and, as validated by multiple resolutions in the UN regarding the prevention of an arms
race in outer space (PAROS), reflects the opinions of the larger international community. In response to proposed US tests
of its mid-infrared advanced chemical laser (MIRACL), an official from the European Space Agency commented: 'The world
space community is confused as to the need for the US to develop space weaponry now, and is dismayed that the US is
planning to test a high-powered laser against a satellite target'. Although it is unlikely that weapons in space would threaten or
sever strong existing diplomatic ties, simple unpopularity might prompt a shift in the international center of gravity.
Countries opposing or alienated by one states' space policy might gravitate to other alignments, possibly creating an
international coalition to oppose the space-weaponizing country on these and other issues within international organizations
such as the UN or the World Trade Organization (WTO). 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.
Terrorism leads to extinction

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, political analyst for the ‘Al-Ahram’ newspaper, Fall ’04, “Extinction!”,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from
certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear
technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a
stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where
anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify
anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the
allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would
rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different
type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners
and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
44
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Soft Power

Space weaponization decreases US soft power
Christopher A. Coffelt, Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, June ’05, “The Best Defense: Charting the Future of US Space
Strategy and Policy,” https://research.maxwell.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=5293[Tandet]
Weaponizing space also decreases the United States’ ability to influence adversaries and achieve policy objectives short of
military action (soft power). It undermines the legitimacy of the United States’ actions and its role as the leader of the
free world. How can the United States assume the mantle of world leadership if it continues to act unilaterally at the
expense of the international cooperation, peace, and interests it claims to value? Putting weapons in space is the ultimate
unilateral act and affords no opportunity to form “coalitions of the willing.” The United States currently enjoys a
significant superiority in air/land/sea combat power, robustly enhanced and enabled by space capabilities. In this position of
advantage, it makes little strategic sense to disrupt the status quo with the deployment of destabilizing, offensive weapons in
space. Putting weapons in space or pursuing an offensive space strategy upsets an advantageous status quo and overplays the
United States’ hand, shortening the period of advantage. Moreover, if, as some believe, the world is on a path to the
inevitable weaponization of space, there are clear advantages in assuming the follower role.
45
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Space Prolif

Space arms race leads to pre-emptive strikes, global war, and accidental attacks.
Theresa Hitchens, Director of the Center for Defense Information, 3-1-08, “Space Wars – Coming to the Sky Near You?”,
Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=space-wars-coming-to-the-sky-near-you [Tandet]
Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of
global conflict. In such headlong competition—whether in space or elsewhere—equilibrium among the adversaries would
be virtually impossible to maintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no
guarantee that both sides would perceive it to be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the
first side would be strongly tempted to launch a preemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same
would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained an advantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike
first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons race would ratchet up the chances that a mere
technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliably distinguishing an intentional act from
an accidental one would be highly problematic.
War in space causes accidental nuke strikes, pollution, economic collapse and collapse of military
readiness – turning case
Steven Lee Myers, journalist for the New York Times, 3-9-08, “Look Out Below: The Arms Race In Space May Be On,” New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09myers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [Tandet]
It doesn't take much imagination to realize how badly war in space could unfold. An enemy -- say, China in a confrontation
over Taiwan, or Iran staring down America over the Iranian nuclear program -- could knock out the American satellite
system in a barrage of antisatellite weapons, instantly paralyzing American troops, planes and ships around the world.
Space itself could be polluted for decades to come, rendered unusable.
The global economic system would probably collapse, along with air travel and communications. Your cellphone
wouldn't work. Nor would your A.T.M. and that dashboard navigational gizmo you got for Christmas. And preventing an
accidental nuclear exchange could become much more difficult.
.
46
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Accidental Attack

Space weaponization increases risk of accidental attack
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 En- ergy Department tractor trailer
overturned in a Nebraska blizzard carrying “classified cargo” – later confirmed to be several nuclear warheads Fortunately,
the weapons were recovered un- damaged after several hours.41 These kinds of accidents are more likely to happen when
forces are kept on alert and moved around.
Misperception creates accidental wars – space debris is indistinguishable from attack

David Ritchie, IT Business Relationship Manager at SELEX S&AS, ’82, Spacewar, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1768/ [Tandet]
Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the militarization of space is that of war by accident. At any given time, several
thousand satellites and other pieces of equipment -- spent booster stages and the like -- are circling the earth, most of them
in low orbit. The space immediately above the atmosphere has begun to resemble an expressway at rush hour. It is not
uncommon for satellites to miss each other by only a kilometer or two, and satellites crashing into each other may explain
some of the mysterious incidents in which space vehicles simply vanish from the skies. One civillian TV satellite has been
lost in space; it never entered its intended orbit, and no signals were heard from it to indicate where it might have gone.
Collision with something else in space seems a reasonable explanation of this disappearance. Even a tiny fragment of metal
striking a satellite at a relative velocity of a few kilometers per second would wreck the satellite, ripping through it like a
Magnum slug through a tin can. Now suppose that kind of mishap befell a military satellite -- in the worst possible
situation, during a time of international tension with all players in the spacewar game braced for attacks on their spacecraft.
The culpable fragment might be invisible from the ground; even something as small and light as a paper clip could
inflict massive damage on a satellite at high velocity. Unaware of the accident, a less than cautious leader might interpret
it as a preconceived attack. Wars have begun over smaller incidents.
47
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. International Law

Cold War treaties prohibit development of space weapons
Jonathan Dean, Adviser on Global Security Issues at the Union of Concerned Scientists, ’02, “Defenses in Space: Treaty Issues,”
Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs, Center for Non-Proliferation Studies,
http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1677/ [Tandet]
A sixth treaty is relevant to space weapons. The concept of non-interference with national technical means of
verification first appeared in the SALT I Treaty of 1972 and was taken over into the START I Treaty, which has been
prolonged to 2009. Similar projections are imbedded in the INF Treaty and the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE)
Treaty. The intent of these measures is to preserve from attack or interference satellites involved in verification. As I read it, it
would be a violation of the provisions on noninterference with national means of verification in the START I and INF
treaties to use weapons against any early warning, imaging, or intelligence satellite and, by extension, against any ocean
surveillance, signals, intelligence or communications satellite of the U.S. or Russia. This obligation was made multilateral in
the CFE Treaty.
48
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russian Relations Key To Space

US-Russian cooperation is necessary to US space programs
Steven Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Testimony before the House Science Committee,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, June 11, 2003, “The U.S. and Russia: Space Cooperation and Export Controls,”
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/space03/jun11/pifer.htm
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. It is an honor to appear before you with my colleague from NASA. We at the
State Department consider it a privilege to work together with John Schumacher and his colleagues at NASA to further one of
America's loftiest goals -- the mission of human space flight. At State, our contribution to this mission is to facilitate relations
with our international partners in space exploration while safeguarding our broader national security interests. Although we
cooperate closely with many space agencies around the world, any conversation about the U.S. space program would be
incomplete if it did not note the unique and historic partnership we share with Russia in the field of human space flight.
Space cooperation between the United States and Russia remains one sof the most visibly successful elements of the
U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship.
49
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russia Relations Good

US-Russian relations solve world stability, terrorism, nuclear war, nuclear, chemical, and biological
terrorism, and oil dependence
Dmitri Simes, President of the Nixon Center, FDCH Political Testimony, 9-30-03,
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/108/sim093003.htm
The proper starting point in thinking about American national interests and Russia—or any other country—is the candid
question: why does Russia matter? How can Russia affect vital American interests and how much should the United States
care about Russia? Where does it rank in the hierarchy of American national interests? As the Report of the Commission on
American National Interests (2000) concluded, Russia ranks among the few countries whose actions powerfully affect
American vital interests. Why? First, Russia is a very large country linking several strategically important regions. By
virtue of its size and location, Russia is a key player in Europe as well as the Middle East and Central, South and East
Asia. Accordingly, Moscow can substantially contribute to, or detract from, U.S. efforts to deal with such urgent
challenges as North Korea and Iran, as well as important longer term problems like Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Russia
shares the world’s longest land border with China, an emerging great power that can have a major impact on both U.S. and
Russian interests. The bottom line is that notwithstanding its significant loss of power after the end of the Cold War, Moscow’s
geopolitical weight still exceeds that of London or Paris.
Second, as a result of its Soviet legacy, Russia has relationships with and information about countries that remain
comparatively inaccessible to the American government, in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere. Russian
intelligence and/or leverage in these areas could significantly aid the United States in its efforts to deal with current,
emerging and still unforeseen strategic challenges, including in the war on terrorism.
Third, today and for the foreseeable future Russia’s nuclear arsenal will be capable of inflicting vast damage on the
United States. Fortunately, the likelihood of such scenarios has declined dramatically since the Cold War. But today and as far
as any eye can see the U.S. will have an enduring vital interest in these weapons not being used against America or our allies.
Fourth, reliable Russian stewardship and control of the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads and stockpile of nuclear
materials from which nuclear weapons could be made is essential in combating the threat of "loose nukes." The United
States has a vital interest in effective Russian programs to prevent weapons being stolen by criminals, sold to terrorists and
used to kill Americans.
Fifth, Russian stockpiles, technologies and knowledge for creating biological and chemical weapons make cooperation
with Moscow very important to U.S. efforts to prevent proliferation of these weapons. Working with Russia may similarly
help to prevent states hostile to the United States from obtaining sophisticated conventional weapons systems, such as missiles
and submarines.
Sixth, as the world’s largest producer and exporter of hydrocarbons (oil and gas), Russia offers America an opportunity to
diversify and increase supplies of non-OPEC, non-Mid-Eastern energy.
50
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier

Space war spills over to earth, culminating in global nuclear war
Space weapons are destabilizing for other reasons, as well. Space warfare is unlikely to be confined to space, since the
platforms that would be primary targets for attack support terrestrial military operations. Civil societies have worked
diligently to affirm laws of war to limit dangers to noncombatants. The dictates of international law that warfare be
pursued in a discriminating and proportional fashion --guidelines that are reinforced by the "revolution in military affairs"
pursued by the United States -- are undercut by space warfare, since satellites subject to attack provide essential services to
noncombatants as well as to armies, navies, and air forces. Their destruction is likely to make orbital swaths unusable for
commercial and military purposes because, even if extreme care is taken by the stronger party to employ non-destructive
techniques of satellite warfare, the weaker foe is unlikely to abide by such niceties. Moreover, the destruction of satellites by
whatever means is likely to trigger vigorous, but less precise military actions by the armies, navies and air forces
adversely affected.
Space warfare escalates regional conflicts that go nuclear

The simple unilateral posturing of space weapons creates global instability in the form of encouraging adversaries to
respond symmetrically or asymmetrically, heightening tensions, while at the same time crippling alliances. In this less
stable global environment, there is also the prospect of space weapons causing less stable regional environments.
Integrating space weapons into military operations could have unexpected consequences for the progression of conflict
situations, prompting significant regional instability. In most war games that include space assets, commanders discover that
preemptively destroying or denying an opponent's space-based assets with space weapons is appealing, yet often leads to
rapid escalation into full-scale war, even triggering nuclear weapons use. One commander commented: '[If] I don't know
what's going on, I have no choice but to hit everything, using everything I have'. That this conclusion surprised strategists
suggests that the full implications of space weapons have not yet been fully explored. What is common knowledge, derived
from years of experience in futuristic war games, is that permanently based space weapons invite pre-emption and
escalation. Local to a specific situation of heightened tensions, the existence of space weapons on one side, the other, or
both could be the determining catalyst for escalatory war.
51
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier

Space weaponization hurts America the most – we’re the most vulnerable
[Tandet]
The core fear is that any conflict in space would cause the most injury to America since America has the most to lose.
Damaged planes crash to the ground and destroyed ships sink to the bottom of the sea. But the weightlessness of space means
that debris keeps spinning around the Earth for years, if not centuries. Each destruction of a satellite creates, in effect,
thousands of missiles zipping round randomly; each subsequent impact provides yet more high-speed debris. At some point,
given enough litter, there would be a chain reaction of impacts that would render parts of low-Earth orbit—the location
of about half the active satellites—unusable.
As matters stand, ground controllers periodically have to shift the position of satellites to avoid other objects. This month,
NASA was tracking about 3,100 active and inactive satellites, and some 9,300 bits of junk larger than 5cm, about 2,600 of
them from the Chinese ASAT test. Given their speed, even particles as small as 1cm (of which there may be hundreds of
thousands) are enough to cripple a satellite.
For America, then, avoiding a space war may be a matter of self-preservation. The air force has adopted a doctrine of
“counterspace operations” that envisages either destroying enemy satellites in a future war or temporarily disabling them. But
for the most part, America's space security relies on passive measures: sidestepping an attacker by moving out of the way of
possible strikes; protecting the vital organs of satellites by “hardening” them against laser or electromagnetic attack; replacing
any damaged satellites; or finding alternative means to do the job, for example with blimps or unmanned aircraft.
52
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Bad – AT: Solves Prolif

Space weaponization only encourages prolif – China and Russia won’t stop stockpiling missiles
Space weapons are frightening to potential opponents – this presents both opportunities and dangers. On one hand,
proponents of space weapons focus on the ability of such weapons to dissuade potential opponents from developing
certain military capabilities and deter them from threatening U.S. interests. Although space weapons may dissuade some
states from investing in, for example, ballistic missiles, two states – Russia and China – are unlikely to get out of the
business of nuclear deterrence. Both states are the subject of extensive nuclear war planning by the United States,
despite political rhetoric from Washington about “moving beyond” the Cold War. Far from leaving behind such concerns,
the most recent Nuclear Posture Review recommends sizing the U.S. nuclear forces for “immediate and unexpected
contingencies.”30 The NPR identifies China as “a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential
contingency” and notes that “a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected.”
53
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Good

Space weaponization key to military readiness
Everett C. Dolman, Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space
Studies, 9-14-05, “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” http://www.e-
parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf [Tandet]
With such demonstrated utility and reliance, there is no question the US must guarantee
space access if it is to be successful in future conflicts. Its military has stepped well over
the threshold of a new way of war. It is simply not possible to go back to the violently
spasmodic mode of combat typical of pre-space intervention. The United States is now
highly discriminating in the projection of violence, parsimonious in the intended breadth
of its destruction. For the positive process of transformation to continue, however, space
weapons must enter the combat inventory of the United States.
Military readiness deters global war

Jack Spencer – is a research fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies; 9-15- 00; “The Facts About
Military Readiness” The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United
States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against
American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is
more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby
preserving peace.
54
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Good

Space weaponization key to hegemony
This rationality does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space
would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in
extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. This would
clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased
competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than any other
state doing so.
Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an
attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the
current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at
least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable,
even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power
arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time.
Hegemony key to prevent global nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior assisnant at RAND Institute and former U.S. ambassador Spring, 1995, The Washington Quarterly,
Rethinking Grand Strategy, Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, Lexis
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.
55
Gabrielle
Space Weaponization Good – AT: Arms Race

Space weapons won’t lead to an arms race – they’re only a deterrent. Other countries will realize we’re
not a threat.
Hence, the argument that the unilateral deployment of space weapons will precipitate a disastrous arms race is
misplaced. To be sure, space weapons are offensive by their very nature. They deter violence by the omnipresent threat of
precise, measured, and unstoppable retaliation. They offer no advantage if the target set considered is not global. But they
also offer no advantage in the mission of territorial occupation. As such, they are far less threatening to the international
environment than any combination of weapons employed in their stead. A state employing offensive deterrence through
space-weapons can punish a transgressor state, but is in a poor position to challenge its sovereignty. The transgressor state is
less likely to succumb to the security dilemma if it perceives its national survival is not at risk. Moreover, the tremendous
expense of space weapons inhibits their indiscriminate use. Over time, the world of sovereign states will recognize that
the US does not threaten self-determination internally, though it challenges any attempts to intervene militarily in the
politics of others, and has severely restricted its own capacity to do so.
No risk of a space arms race – other countries can’t afford it for decades
And America would respond … finally. But would another state? If America were to
weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it
rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too
high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take
to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide
more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter
preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be
worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments in
kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how
aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race
in space should the US deploy weapons there—at least for the next few years—is
extremely remote.
56
Gabrielle
Heg Bad
Hegemony causes terrorism
James M. Lindsay and Ivo H. Daalder,senior fellows in the Brookings Foreign Policy Studies program, Brookings Review,
Winter ‘03, http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6330# [Tandet]

Worse, for the United States, is that its power makes it a magnet for terrorism. As Richard Betts has argued, America's
power "animates both the terrorists' purposes and their choice of tactics.... Political and cultural power makes the
United States a target for those who blame it for their problems. At the same time, American economic and military power
prevents them from resisting or retaliating against the United States on its own terms. To smite the only superpower requires
unconventional modes of force and tactics [which] offer hope to the weak that they can work their will despite their overall
deficit in power." Worse still, other weak countries might decide to buy their security by turning a blind eye to terrorist
activities on their soil, thereby increasing the risk to the United States.
Terrorism leads to extinction

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, political analyst for the ‘Al-Ahram’ newspaper, Fall ’04, “Extinction!”,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from
certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear
technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a
stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where
anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify
anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the
allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would
rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different
type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners
and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
57
Gabrielle
Heg Bad
Hegemony allows the US to wage pre-emptive war, violating international laws
Stephen Lendman, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, 4-30-06, “Failed States: Comments on Noam
Chomsky’s New Book,” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12889.htm [Tandet]
Chomsky sees the US as an out of control predatory hegemon reserving for itself alone the right to wage permanent war
on the world and justify it under a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" or preventive war. The Bush administration
claims justified in doing so against any nation it sees as a threat to our national security. It doesn't matter if it is, just that
we say it is. Sacred international law, treaties and other standard and accepted norms observed by most other nations
are just seen as "quaint (and) out of date" and can be ignored. It hardly matters to those in Washington that in the wake of
WW II, the most destructive war ever, the UN was established primarily "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war" and possibility of "ultimate doom." Although it was left unstated at the time, it was clear that language meant the
devastation that would result from a nuclear holocaust.
International law is essential to avert planetary extinction

Malaysian Medical Association, 10-6-02 “11TH SEPTEMBER - DAY OF REMEMBRANCE,”
http://www.mma.org.my/current_topic/sept.htm
Our world is increasingly interdependent and the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors and individuals transcend
national boundaries. Weapons of mass destruction, landmines, small arms and environmental damage have global consequences,
whether they be deadly armed conflict, nuclear testing or climate change from global warming. The risk of nuclear war continues
to threaten human survival. The casualties resulting from even a single explosion would overwhelm the medical facilities in
any city in the world. The use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible, and the International Court of Justice has declared their
use and threatened use illegal. Yet, nuclear weapons remain part of the military strategy of many nations. Nuclear war must be
prevented. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated. Ongoing violations of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian
and human rights law and increasing poverty and preventable disease continue to fuel violence. World military expenditure, estimated
at US$839 billion in 2001, prevents governments from meeting the social needs of their citizens and the global proliferation of
armaments has caused unspeakable carnage. We call on all governments to place their foreign and domestic policies and their
behaviour under the scrutiny of international law and international institutions. Each government must take primary
responsibility for ending its own contribution to the cycle of violence. As citizens, we are expected to abide by the law. We expect
no less from governments. This is a necessary part of honouring the lives of so many men, women and children whose deaths are
commemorate. At a time when global problems should be solved by cooperating and complying with multilateral legally-
binding treaties, and by embracing the rule of law as valuable instruments for building common security and safe-guarding
the long-term, collective interests of humanity, there are unmistable signs that powerful states are taking unilateral action,
setting aside international treaties, and undermining international law. The principle of the rule of law implies that even the most
powerful must comply with the law, even if it is difficult or costly or when superior economic, military and diplomatic power may
seem to make compliance unnecessary. The destruction of the symbols of American economic power and military might on 11th
September is a salutary reminder that military power, including the possession of nuclear weapons, does not deter terrorists or confer
security or invulnerability. It has prompted the Bush administration to declare "war on terror" and convinced it that a military
response is the best way to fight terrorism on a global scale, without considering alternative, more effective ways of combating
terrorism, such as addressing the root causes of terrorism. The greatest betrayal of those who died on 11th September 2001 would be
to not recognise that there are non-violent ways of resolving conflict. This is a difficult, uncertain path to take, whereas violence and
war are easy, predictable options. The lesson of 11th September is that our collective survival depends upon forging cooperative,
just and equitable relationships with each other; in rejecting violence and war; and in pursuing non-violent resolutions to
conflict. The alternative is a world perpetually divided, continually at war, and possibly destroying itself through
environmental degradation or the use of weapons of mass destruction.
58
Gabrielle
Heg Bad
Hegemony empirically fails – counterbalancing is inevitable
Christopher Layne, associate professor in the School of International Studies at the University of Miami, 10-6-02, “The Power
Paradox,” http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/06/opinion/op-layne6 [Tandet]
There is a problem with this picture, however. The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has
been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim of states in international politics is to survive and
maintain their sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful–becomes a hegemon–the imbalance of power in its
favor is a menace to the security of all other states. So throughout modern international political history, the rise of a would-be
hegemon always has triggered the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states.
History is littered with the wreckage of states that sought hegemony, and were defeated by such alliances–the
Hapsburg Empire under Charles V and Philip II, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Victorian Britain, Germany under
Hitler. The big question is whether the same fate will befall a hegemonic America, or whether the United States somehow is
exempt from the lessons of history.
59
Gabrielle
Heg Bad – Ext. Terrorism

Hegemony leads to terrorism
Terrorist attacks like Sept. 11 are also, in themselves, a form of blowback against American geopolitical preeminence .
Despicable and brutal though they were, Al Qaeda’s actions were coolly calculated to achieve well-defined geopolitical
objectives: the removal of the U.S. military presence from the Persian Gulf (and in particular from Saudi Arabia) and an
alteration of the U.S. stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, Al Qaeda’s goal was to undermine
U.S. hegemony.
60
Gabrielle
Heg Bad – AT: Benign Hegemon

Whether America sees itself as benign is irrelevant – other countries will only perceive our hard power
and respond in kind
U.S. strategists believe that “it can’t happen to us,” because the United States is a different kind of hegemon, a benign
hegemon that others will follow willingly due to the attractiveness of its political values and culture. While flattering, this self-
serving argument misses the basic point: Hegemons are threatening because they have too much power. And it is
America’s power–not the self-proclaimed benevolence of its intentions–that will shape others’ response to it. A state’s
power is a hard, measurable reality, but its intentions, which can be peaceful one day but malevolent the next,
are ephemeral.
61
Gabrielle
AT: NASA Key

NASA has no jurisdiction over SPS – it shouldn’t be in charge
[Tandet]
Well, space solar power was a pretty good fit for NASA in the 1990s—when the Agency’s “Human Exploration and
Development of Space” had as one of its goals the promotion and R&D that could enable new space industries such as space
solar power. However, at the turn of the century, NASA’s goals were changed to focus more strictly on human space
flight, space science and aeronautics. A wide range of small programs—such as the Centers for the Commercial
Development of Space—were cancelled, as was NASA’s modest R&D investment in space solar power technology and
studies. Of course, at the U.S. Department of Energy, the focus is on energy technology for terrestrial markets—including coal,
oil, natural gas, nuclear power, energy efficiency renewable (ground) energy technologies, etc.—and also a range of basic
energy sciences research topics. There are modest DOE responsibilities for nuclear batteries (called Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generators) for use in the outer solar system—but not for space energy in general, and certainly not for space
solar power satellites. So, in a very real sense, after the studies in the 1990s were terminated, space solar power did “fall
through the cracks”.
NASA is ineffective and bureaucratic – slow tech development

C. Blake Powers, Director of Outreach for NASA’s Space Product Development Program, 8-24-03, “A Time for Everything,”
http://laughingwolf.net/archives/000400.html [Tandet]
The fact is, however, that NASA truly has gone from a fairly lean can-do agency into a bureaucracy where career
maintenance and growing the budget is far more important than doing the job. Personal and program power are
driving factors, as is the push to grow Centers and Center budgets no matter what it may do to the official goals of the
agency or other parts of same. It is an agency that is very protective of what it regards as its turf, from launch services to
science.
The best and the brightest are still drawn to NASA, and I have been privileged to work with a number of people who fall in this
category. I have seen them struggle to do the right thing, to make the system work despite itself. And, I have seen the face of
the enemy, those who are wedded to a system, the book, or their own personal agendas rather than to the dream and the stated
goals of the agency.
The former are, in my opinion, the minority at NASA. NASA has become a moribund culture where any advancement
takes not just years, but decades. Technology development is slowed to a crawl, and now almost always features the same
people, the same companies, and the same basic ideas. Tremendous amounts of paper are generated, but little else. If you
don’t think this is true, take a look at NASA’s efforts to develop a new launch system, and advance the technology to get us
into orbit. Look at how many names the program has had, how much paper has been generated, and how little metal has
actually been cut. Look very hard at how when failure was hit on some of the technology advances, work stopped and paper
took over.
62
Gabrielle
AT: NASA Key

NASA is too bureaucratic – it needs infusion of new ideas.
This is perhaps the most important of all; Without a transformation of NASA, this journey won't even begin. Frankly, the
NASA of today is not the same as the NASA of Apollo. The historic time of the 1960's, now referred to as the "Golden Age
of Space", has created an agency that rested on its laurels almost as soon as the original organizational goal of landing on the
Moon by 1970 was achieved.
I personally don't feel that NASA should be dismantled as an agency, but certainly all options should be on the table for
whoever will lead the transformation. Closing some of the sacred field centers, which are relentlessly guarded by congressmen
fearing angry voters in their local districts, should certainly be an option. However, there is likely a way to do this fundamental
reorganization by preserving existing brick & mortar institutions but changing the mentality and methodologies of the people
who work in them.
NASA has become a giant bureaucracy, inhabited by career bureaucrats which are retiring at a record rate. NASA
needs a dramatic infusion of youthful talent, much like the dot-com culture that existed in the late 90's but mostly
evaporated when the Internet bubble burst. Many of those same talented young technophiles are still unemployed. The
government should provide a wide range of incentives to get these young men & women reemployed, working for
NASA and other space-related government agencies & companies.
63
Gabrielle
T – Incentives
A. Interpretation – government incentives are limited to tax incentives – Facilities Net 95
“Alternative Energy: Green Incentives and Options on the Rise,” http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id=3177
In addition to finding that projecting an environmental image helps win customers, facility executives who use alternative
power technologies discover the cost can be less than expected. A bevy of financial incentives exist to help organizations
take some of the burn out of purchasing wind, solar and other alternative power technologies. Utilities offer rebates. States
offer grants. The federal government offers tax incentives.
B. Violation – The plan doesn’t give tax incentives – federal government agencies don’t pay taxes
C. Standards
1. Brightline – our interp provides a clear brightline, either something is a tax break or it’s not
2. Contextuality – our evidence has the intent to define, it’s from an article detailing government policies
on alternative energy
3. Limits – their interpretation allows anything that is an incentive, allowing affs that use virtually any
solvency mechanism – our interp limits down to one incentive while still allowing different kinds of alt
energy – and you evaluate limits first; limits are the key internal link into predictability and fairness
D. topicality is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education
64
Gabrielle
Bizcon DA Link
Businesses will perceive the plan as a move that stimulates foreign satellite markets
Dr. James Clay Moltz, associate professor at the Center for Contemporary Conflict in the Department of National Security Affairs,
April ’02, “Breaking the Deadlock on Space Arms Control,” Arms Control Today,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/moltzapril02.asp [Tandet]
It is not surprising, therefore, that risks associated with weaponizing low-Earth orbit do not sit well with many members
of Congress, who want to see U.S. military, scientific, and commercial leadership in space protected. According to defense
analyst Theresa Hitchens, U.S. satellite providers are already nervous about possible future U.S. government decisions to
try to shut off foreign access to U.S. communications satellites in times of crisis and to shoot down U.S. and foreign
satellites providing such access. They fear that this may lead foreign customers to develop their own satellite industries to
ensure the availability of spares, thus stimulating competition and cutting into existing U.S. market share.
65
Gabrielle
Spending DA Link
Plan will cost over $1 billion
Lara Farrar, CNN Staff Writer, 6/1/08, “How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html [Tandet]
But a number of obstacles still remain before solar satellites actually get off the ground, said Jeff Keuter, president of the
George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington-based research organization. "Like any activity in space, there are enormous
engineering challenges," he said.
One major barrier is a lack of cheap and reliable access to space, a necessity for launching hundreds of components to
build what will be miles-long platforms. Developing robotic technology to piece the structures together high above Earth will
also be a challenge. Then there is the issue of finding someone to foot what will be at least a billion-dollar bill.
"It will take a great deal of effort, a great deal of thought and unfortunately a great deal of money," Keutersaid. "But it is
certainly possible."
66
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Congress Hates Plan

Congress hates the plan – key Democrats oppose and empirically slash space funding.
Dr. James Clay Moltz, associate professor at the Center for Contemporary Conflict in the Department of National Security Affairs,
April ’02, “Breaking the Deadlock on Space Arms Control,” Arms Control Today,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/moltzapril02.asp [Tandet]
The same Congress that boosted funding for missile defenses by 57 percent to $8.3 billion last year also cut significant
chunks out of Bush proposals for space-based elements of national missile defense. Indeed, the final House-Senate
conference committee eliminated $120 million from the president’s proposed $170 million appropriation for the Space-
Based Laser. It also eliminated funds entirely for the Space Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low), a satellite-based
early-warning system. These actions suggest that space weapons are vulnerable to congressional challenges.
Also, the full impact of the change in the Senate’s leadership has not yet been felt. Key Democrats have come out in
strong opposition to space weapons, including Senators Tom Daschle (SD), Joseph Biden (DE), and Carl Levin (MI).
Except for the unprecedented budget unity brought on by the September 11 events, cuts would likely have been made in the
missile defense budget for fiscal year 2002,9 forcing even harder choices regarding space defenses. Such debates are beginning
for fiscal year 2003. Conservative Democrat Robert Byrd (WV) warned on the Senate floor against “a headlong and fiscally
spendthrift rush” to deploy space weapons, concluding, “That heavy foot on the accelerator is merely the stamp and roar of
rhetoric.”
Space weapons are uniformly unpopular – even within the military

Nina Tannenwald, director of the International Relations Department at Brown University, Summer ‘04, “Law Versus Power
on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, Center for International and Security Studies at
Maryland, http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/display.php?id=44 [Tandet]
Although SPACECOM and its supporters aggressively assert their views, advocates of weapons in space may be in the
minority, even in the Pentagon. As many observers recognize, the interests of the United States in space are much broader
than SPACECOM presents. U.S. testing and deployment of orbital weapons could make using space for other military and
commercial purposes more difficult. Many in the military, especially those involved in crucial military support activities, are
quietly aware of this, as are officials at NASA and the international space station, and their supporters in Congress.
Congressional support for antisatellite (ASAT) programs does not appear to be deep or widespread. Serious questions
remain as to whether the threats to U.S. assets in space are really as great as SPACECOM argues, and whether, even if
the threats were real, expensive and difficult space-based weapons would really be the most effective way to deal with
them. In many cases, those wishing to hurt the United States will likely find it much easier, and more effective, to attack
terrestrial targets.
67
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Congress Hates Plan

Congress hates the plan – other funding takes priority and Democrats block space programs
James Clay Moltz, associate professor at the Center for Contemporary Conflict in the Department of National Security Affairs,
November ’07, “Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First 50 Years of Space Security,” Space Policy,
http://spacedebate.org/argument/1271/ [TANDET]
But the combined impact of sharply elevated defense spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a series of now-familiar
technical problems in developing space-based missile defenses, and the unwillingness of most Democratic and many
Republican members of Congress to move hastily into the weaponization of space before understanding its likely costs and
geopolitical implications, led to the scaling back of many of these programs by mid-2006. In November 2006, the
Democrats' seizure of both houses of Congress in the mid-term elections seemed to end any realistic prospects for near-
term deployment of space weapons. Or did it? China's successful test of an ASAT weapon in January 2007 shocked the US
political establishment. Proponents of space defenses, like Republican Senator Jon Kyl, argued for near-term deployment of
orbital ASAT weapons, seeing China's action as the start of a space arms race that the USA could not afford to lose. But his
calls fell upon deaf ears even among most of his fellow Republican members of Congress, as other defense priorities
dominated their attention and the new Democratic majority all but eliminated prospects of significant new funding.
Previous, rosy predictions of an era of unchallenged US "space dominance" now seemed hopelessly unattainable after just one
Chinese test.
Congress despises the plan – they think space funding is mismanaged, empirically proven
Michael Katz-Hyman, Research Assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy
and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, March ’06, “U.S. Space Weapons: Big Intention, Little Focus,” Non-
Proliferation Review, http://spacedebate.org/argument/2729/ [Tandet]
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current space acquisition efforts will cost between $10 billion and $14 billion a
year by 2010. Congressional appropriators have stated clearly that the Pentagon must reduce its request for space
systems. In the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, Congress slashed funding for two of the Air Force's 'transformational'
space acquisition efforts -- Space Radar and the Transformational Satellite System -- to emphasize this point. Congressional
concerns have also led to the restructuring of a pair of classified spy satellite programs. Senator Wayne Allard, Republican-
Colorado, a long-time supporter of military space programs, expressed the frustration of many members of Congress: "I
strongly believe the continued mismanagement of our space acquisition programs is a far greater threat to our space
dominance than any external danger
Congress empirically cuts requested funding for NASA – doesn’t approve of exploratory goals
The Planetary Society, 1-31-07, “Congressional Appropriators Cut NASA Funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and
Science All Cut,” http://www.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html [Tandet]
The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for
NASA was cut by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February.
The $16.2 billion budgeted for NASA for 2007 is the same as the amount approved for 2006. To become law, the
Appropriations Committee’s proposal still must be approved by the full House and Senate.
The Planetary Society strongly opposed the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2007 because it had slashed science
programs in order to increase funding for the shuttle, the space station, the new Ares and Orion launch vehicles, and lunar
programs. The House Appropriations plan accepts the funding cuts to all of these areas, and adds to them even more
cuts to space science and to the NASA Exploration programs.
It’s a double whammy,” said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society. “First the science underpinnings
to the NASA exploration architecture were removed; now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.”
68
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Congress Loves Plan

Congress overwhelmingly approves of NASA funding – recent budget hikes prove
Orlando Sentinel, 7-1-08, “We think: NASA shouldn’t blow the support it’s getting in Congress,”
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed01108jul01,0,7748081.story [Tandet]
For NASA, after years of struggling for more funding, the planets finally may be aligning. It's vital that the agency not do
anything to squander this chance.Last week a Senate committee recommended a big boost of $2.6 billion in NASA's
budget, including an extra $1 billion to speed up its next manned space program, Constellation. The full House approved
the same increase in legislation it overwhelmingly passed earlier in the month.
69
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Plan Bipartisan

There’s bipartisan support for the plan in Congress
Andrew Lawler, staff writer for Science magazine, 7-1-05, “Can Congress Save NASA Science?”, Science,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/37 [Tandet]
In a remarkable show of bipartisan concern, U.S. lawmakers have ordered NASA not to sacrifice research programs to
pay for President George W. Bush's vision of humans on the moon and eventually Mars. But at the same time, they may have
compounded NASA's problems by giving a tentative green light to Bush's plans while providing little relief for an impending
budget crunch in science.
Last week, a Senate funding panel told NASA to spend an additional $400 million in its 2006 budget to fix the Hubble
Space Telescope and bolster the flagging earth sciences effort. But the panel added only $134 million to NASA's $4 billion
science budget to do so. Likewise, the House version of the spending bill, passed 2 weeks ago, is sympathetic to science but
provides a relatively paltry $40 million increase over the president's request, most of which would go to saving the Glory earth
science project. Reconciling the two pieces of legislation, one NASA manager says, "is sure to be difficult and confusing."
Compounding the problem are a spate of cost overruns in research projects and growing pressure to divert money to efforts like
a new human space launcher to replace the space shuttle, which is due to return to flight later this month.
70
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Plan Popular

The public and space advocates overwhelmingly like the plan
Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in
the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development
Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or
participated in events related to this subject during the study period. here 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 polled—twice the support for the
second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the
current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%).
The public loves the plan – multiple polls prove

Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation, 2-12-07, “Just how full
of opportunity is the moon?”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 [Tandet]
Depending on the poll, and how the poll was conducted, support for NASA’s programs is usually high. However, most
polls indicate that the “general public” knows few details about NASA’s programs and the size of its budgets that use their
tax dollars. Interest among the young in our space program, in general, appears to be especially low, and when questioned
about returning to the Moon show little enthusiasm about the program.
71
Gabrielle
Politics DA Link – Plan Unpopular

The plan is unpopular with the public – less than half approves of NASA funding
Leonard David, senior space writer for space.com, 5-10-02, “Poll: Public Support for NASA Slipping,”
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_poll_020510.html [Tandet]
NASA's got some explaining to do if it wants to keep the taxpaying public interested in bankrolling its space exploits.
The National Science Board of Washington, D.C. has issued an assessment of public attitudes regarding science and
technology. The report is the fifteenth in a series of biennial "Science Indicators" studies, released though the National Science
Foundation (NSF).
Titled, Science and Engineering Indicators - 2002, the report looks at key aspects of the scope, quality, and vitality of
America's science and engineering enterprise. The document includes a section on public attitudes toward space exploration.
Slip sliding away
The newly released document states that public support for space exploration rose during the 1990s, then slipped in 2001.
The most recent data show 45 percent of the public agreeing that the benefits of space exploration outweigh the costs,
down from 49 percent in 1999.
72
Gabrielle
Politics DA – Plan Not Salient

Americans are ambivalent about space exploration – they focus on other issues
USA Today, 8-18-03, “Public support could prove crucial for NASA,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-18-inside-
shuttle_x.htm [Tandet]
Like many Americans, Kenny Maroney of Tampa is fascinated by space travel. "We love the shuttle. The shuttle's cool," he
says.
Maroney, 33, also typifies the kind of ambivalence many people feel about space exploration, particularly when asked
whether they're willing to spend more money on it. "At this time," he says, "it's not a top priority."
His view — and those of millions of other Americans — may prove critically important to the future of NASA. Six months
after seven astronauts died as the space shuttle Columbia broke apart while re-entering the Earth's atmosphere Feb. 1, the space
agency that put men on the moon is under fire. (Related story: NASA support up after tragedy)
Next week, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board will release its findings on what happened to Columbia and the role
NASA played in the shuttle's demise. Its report is expected to criticize NASA's safety practices. Congress plans to hold
hearings on the accident next month.
The report also will call for numerous improvements in shuttle safety that will almost certainly require additional funding for
NASA. At the same time, it is likely to say that budget cuts during the 1990s contributed to the accident.
The call for more funding makes public support for the program all the more crucial. Without it, the government might be
unwilling to allocate the sort of money needed to keep the nation in space.
Since the Columbia disaster, Americans have rallied behind the space program. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows
support for increasing NASA funding to levels not seen since the 1980s.
Such numbers can be misleading. Throughout NASA's history, political battles and uncertainties over the value of
putting humans in space have fostered a public ambivalence. "The American people have at best a rooting interest in
the space program," says Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a space policy group.
"They find it very exciting. But if you ask them to line it up against Social Security or their parents' Medicare or
veterans' medical benefits, they're going to pick one of those other things," he says.
73
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – 1NC Shell

China is going to ratify the CTBT soon - Chinese ratification key to CTBT efficacy
Dawn News, Pakistani-circulated English newspaper, 9-4-03, “China may soon ratify CTBT, says official,”
http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/04/int16.htm [Tandet]
China “seems ready to ratify” the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Wolfgang Hoffmann, the secretary general of
the three-day meeting, said.“They seem ready to ratify. I got this impression from talks I had last July in Beijing with both
sides, civilian and military,” he added.China is one of 12 countries, including the United States, whose refusal to sign or
ratify the treaty is preventing it from entering into force.“The question is no longer whether China will sign the ratification
document, but when,” a source close to the conference said. “If they do this, it will be a big step towards ensuring that the
treaty enters into force.”But diplomats warned that the treaty could yet collapse if Pyongyang and Washington — neither
of whom sent delegates to the conference — continue to snub it.
US move into space causes China to withdraw its support for the CTBT
Hui Zhang, Associate Professor of School of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering, December ’05,
“Action/Reaction: US Space Weaponization and China,” Arms Control Today, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-cvr.asp
[Tandet]
A U.S. move into space could also lead China to reconsider its support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
China signed the CTBT in 1996 and has not yet ratified it, partly because it was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1999. However,
U.S. missile defense and space weaponization plans would make Chinese ratification even more difficult. China may feel
the need for additional nuclear tests if the need to counter a missile defense drives Beijing to develop new warheads that
include decoys or maneuverable warheads. Already, China faces concerns from some experts who think that the CTBT
will put more direct constraints on China’s nuclear weapons program than on the weapons programs of other states.
74
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – 1NC Shell

CTBT prevents proliferation – states can’t test weapons
Richard L. Garwin, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, and IBM
Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division, 10-7-99, “In Support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/in-support-of-the-ctbt.html [Tandet]
The costs to the United States include constraining the United States from testing nuclear weapons. The benefits come from
constraining other countries from testing nuclear weapons. So let's look first at the benefits. The greatest benefit of the CTBT
arises from its contribution to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It does this directly by preventing
nuclear tests and indirectly by keeping nations on board the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States does not
want additional states to have nuclear weapons, and the members of the NPT don't either.
It is possible to build simple nuclear weapons without nuclear explosion tests, but there will always be a nagging doubt
whether or how well they will perform. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs each weighed about 9000 pounds, with a yield
of 15 to 20 kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb used artillery-gun assembly of 60 kilograms of enriched uranium, which was not
tested before its use. The Nagasaki bomb, tested three weeks beforehand in the New Mexico desert, contained some 6
kilograms of plutonium. Compare these weapons with a two-stage thermonuclear bomb tested in 1957 that weighed some 400
lbs with a yield of 74 kilotons; its diameter was a mere 12 inches, with a length of some 42 inches.
Without nuclear tests of substantial yield, it is difficult to build compact and light fission weapons and essentially
impossible to have any confidence in a large-yield two-stage thermonuclear weapon or hydrogen bomb, which can readily
be made in the megaton class. Furthermore, even in the yield range accessible to fission weapons, thermonuclear weapons are
attractive because of their economy of fissile material, their compact size, and their improved safety. Just for example, a pure
fission weapon, which is the best a sophisticated proliferator could do without verifiable testing, of 200 kilotons yield would
require some 60 kg of plutonium or U-235. And the chemical explosive might weigh 4000 to 8000 lbs. That amount of fissile
material would suffice for 10 thermonuclear weapons, each of which could be in the megaton class and weigh less than 1000
lbs. However, such H-bomb type weapons would require testing that would be readily detected and would therefore be
prevented by the CTBT. This limits greatly the destructive power that can be wielded by newly nuclear states such as
India and Pakistan.
Proliferation leads to extinction

Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 02,
“Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, Survival
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles
against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small
arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels
unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or
abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will
have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless
nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late
1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place
than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole
nations.
75
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – China Wants Peace

China is committed to peaceful space cooperation
Simon Collard-Wexler, PhD candidate in political science focusing on international relations, and Thomas Graham, President
of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security and US ambassador, July ’06, “Space Security 2006,”
http://www.spacesecurity.org/publications.htm [Tandet]
China maintains a public commitment to the peaceful use of outer space in the interests of all mankind. While China
actively promotes international exchanges and cooperation, it has stated that such efforts must encourage independence and
self-reliance in space capabilities. The Chinese White Paper on space also emphasizes that, while due attention will be given to
international cooperation and exchanges in the field of space technology, these exchanges must operate on the principles of
mutual benefit and reciprocity. China has emphasized Asia-Pacific regional space cooperation, which in 1998 led to the
signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Small Multi-Mission Satellite and Related Activities with
Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, South Korea, and Thailand. China has also pursued space cooperation with at least 12 states, and
is collaborating with Brazil on a series of Earth resources satellites.
Chinese government officially opposes space weaponization

John E. Hyten, Director of Requirements, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, April 2000, “A Sea
of Peace or a Theater of War: Dealing with the Inevitable Conflict in Space,”
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Hyten/html/cover.html [Tandet]
The United States blocked the formation of such a committee, but the Canadians have not been alone in their desire to pursue
the formation of such a committee in the pursuit of multilateral treaties. In 1995, the Chinese government published a white
paper on arms control and disarmament. In the paper, they clearly stated, "China opposes the arms race in outer space."
They went further in discussing the history of their opposition. Since 1984, the paper went on, China has time and again
proposed to the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament resolutions to prevent an arms race in outer space.
China maintains that outer space "belongs to all mankind and should be used for peaceful purposes. No country should
develop any kind of weapon to be used in outer space: outer space should be kept "weapon free."
76
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – China Key To CTBT

CTBT isn’t effective without Chinese ratification
Asia News, 5-1-00, “China likely to speed up ratification of CTBT,”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2000_May_1/ai_61968607 [Tandet]
Sun predicted that after ''discussion and investigation,'' the National People's Congress (NPC), China's legislature, would
accelerate its approval of the treaty, marking a significant change in Chinese policy.
With the NPC's governing Standing Committee currently in session, ratification could be swift.
Although China signed the treaty in 1996, the NPC has yet to ratify it.
Of the ''big five'' nuclear powers, ratification has come from Britain, France and Russia. The U.S. Senate failed to approve the
treaty late last year, although President Bill Clinton's administration has vowed to uphold it.
The treaty cannot be implemented without China's approval, although Beijing is bound by another international treaty to
respect any agreement it has already signed.
77
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – AT: CTBT Hurts US Nukes

Turn – CTBT improves US nukes
The US laboratories under the CTBT will maintain weapons safe and reliable by the Stockpile Stewardship Program, but
they will also maintain and improve the capability to design and build nuclear weapons. It is clear that this capability
could not be exercised under a CTBT in the form of newly produced weapons, but should the CTBT regime ever collapse, it
would avoid a delay of many years before new-design nuclear weapons could be produced.
CTBT doesn’t hurt the US – most components don’t require explosive testing
The US does not need tests banned by the CTBT to maintain full confidence in its weapons stockpile. The vast majority
of components in a nuclear weapon can be examined and tested and upgraded without nuclear explosions. The nuclear
(or physics) package itself can be remanufactured to original specifications should surveillance reveal deterioration. The
stockpile stewardship program will further enhance our high confidence in our stockpile, which is now certified each
year by the weapon builders, together with the military who will have to use the weapons.
CTBT doesn’t affect the US – no weapons need to be tested anyway

Our review of the US nuclear tests and of defects discovered in stockpile weapons revealed many defects that were detected
in the routine surveillance process -- i.e., not by nuclear explosion tests. Defects observed by nuclear explosion tests were
associated with weapons that had been put into the stockpile without the normal development testing and a production
verification test. Today we have no such weapons; and we will have none in the future. All weapons in the enduring
stockpile have been fully tested.
78
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – AT: CTBT Collapses Heg

Ratifying the CTBT ensures US heg
Charles D. Ferguson, a physicist and former United States naval officer, is a senior research analyst with the Federation of
American Scientists, 5-24-99, “Ratify Test Ban Treaty to Help Protect Nuclear Secrets,”
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/news/990524-ctb-fas.htm[Tandet]
Ratifying the CTBT, however, does not imply unilateral disarmament as some critics contend. Instead, the CTBT will
lock in the US advantage in nuclear weapons, while curtailing the deployment of new weapons.
The United States has the most advanced nuclear weapons in the world and can rely on its science-based stockpile
stewardship program to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear arsenal without nuclear explosive testing.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the directors of the three nuclear weapons labs have given their unanimous endorsement to
the CTBT and have fully certified the United States nuclear arsenal since nuclear explosive testing stopped in 1992.
Ever since President Dwight Eisenhower, three out of four Americans have consistently supported a nuclear test ban. This
support is truly bipartisan. And Senate ratification will appeal strongly to voters, especially during this post-impeachment time
when Democrats and Republicans need to rally behind bipartisan issues.
While the United States must protect its secrets and upgrade its security systems, it would provide even greater world
security by ratifying the CTBT this year.
79
Gabrielle
China CTBT DA – AT: Can Cheat CTBT

Countries won’t cheat on the CTBT – no purpose
Russian nuclear weapons experts have expressed interest in fission weapons with yields no bigger than a few tons. These
might be built without testing, or might be tested unobserved by US sensors, with or without a CTBT. In no case would
the US react by testing its own nuclear weapons, and the inhibition posed by a CTBT on a Russia that wishes to remain
engaged with the rest of the world would be substantial. The possibility of Russian programs of this type is not a valid
argument against the CTBT.
In other words, one can cheat on the CTBT without being discovered by the International Monitoring System, but to what
end? Useful national security information would not be acquired, and the bragging rights are not worth much if one
can't tell anyone. For instance, a clandestine test cannot be used to intimidate other states.
80
Gabrielle
Space Militarization DA Uniqueness

No space militarization now
[Tandet]
Yet the Bush administration has stopped short of taking the fateful step of “weaponisation” in space. Perhaps it is too
preoccupied with Iraq, and certainly the downfall of Mr Rumsfeld removed a powerful champion of space weapons. A year
after China's ASAT shot, the defence budget passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress did not provide any money for a
missile defence “space test-bed”.
No SPS now – government barriers prevent any progress

David Boswell, keynote a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference, “Whatever happened to solar power
satellites?”, 8-30-04, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1
In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government
has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the
development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power
satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money
available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes
the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is
not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically
more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct
or indirect government intervention in the capital market.”
81
Gabrielle
Space Militarization DA Link

Interest in going into space is an excuse for space militarization
Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice, 12-13-03, http://avenueoreiCornmunityIA~encicsCCBJoctober.html
Perhaps you’ve heard about Bush’s recent interest in reinvigorating the U.S. space program by pushing for new manned
lunar expeditions. Mostly the mainstream media have framed this seemingly new interest (it’s been in the works for some time)
as the JFK-like will of a President who has a vision of America being the vanguard nation of human progress and
accomplishment. Or. In some cases, journalists, op-ed writers and editorialists have chalked it up to wanting to make sure
China doesn’t best the U.S. with ‘heir burgeoning space program. One view that hasn’t gotten much mainstream coverage,
though, is that it’s mostly (if not all) about military dominance of the rest of the world: turning the heavens into the next
battleground and making sure the U.S. controls it. Star Wars and missile defense are just a piece of the pie. The lunar
expeditions, conducted under the auspices of NASA, could be a Trojan horse to slip in the military and it’s objectives of
“Full Spectrum Dominance” of the globe.
82
Gabrielle
Private Sector CP – 1NC Shell

Text: The 50 states and territorial governments should fully fund private sector companies for the
development and implementation of space based solar power. We’ll clarify.
Observation 1 – Competition – the counterplan is non-topical and competes through net benefits
Observation 2 – Solvency
Private sector solves the aff – it’s key to commercial space development and international cooperation
Lawrence Roberts, Chair of NSS Policy Committee setting forth latest position paper from Policy Committee 6/10/ 99, “memo”
(http://www.nsschapters.org/policy-cmte/files/SPSOLARP_906.pdf)
An appropriate combination of public and private sector funding can encourage SPS development. In the near term, government
agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy can lower the technological risk by funding technologies such as efficient solar
cells, wireless power transmission, advanced space transportation systems, and space resource utilization. Whenever feasible, existing
assets such as the International Space Station can be used. As the technologies are proven, private industry can then lead the way
toward commercial development of space. SPS research and development will thus foster international cooperation in the
short term, while increasing the wealth of nations and protecting the Earth's environment in the longer-term. As the quality of
life on Earth improves, near-Earth space can be opened up to private citizens, while deep-space scientific missions can be made
more affordable.
83
Gabrielle
Private Sector CP Solvency

The private sector can pay for the plan
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that adequate capital exists in the private sector to finance construction,
however private capital is unlikely to develop this concept without government assistance because the timeframe of
reward and agree of risk are outside the window of normal private sector investment. Capital in the energy and
other sectors is available on the level needed for such a large project, but capital flows under fairly conservative
criteria, and SBSP has not yet experienced a suitable demonstration, nor have the risks been adequately
characterized to make informed business plan decisions.
84
Gabrielle

Plan is ineffective without private sector – no economic viability or large-scale production
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP systems are unlikely to become economically
competitive, nor produced on the scale that is needed to help solve global energy and environmental
problems unless the systems are manufactured, owned, and operated by private industry. This finding
is consistent with the U.S. National Space Policy that advocates space commercialization.
Private sector solves SBSP – it has the creativity and motivation

The private sector should be engaged. The new space companies working on reusable launch,
space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the
traditional large aerospace companies. Both may have the vision, creativity and drive necessary to
help make SBSP happen.
85
Gabrielle

Private sector is more effective than NASA – empirically proven that they can solve faster and cheaper
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 nothing and caused their funding opportunities to dry up.
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 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.
Private sector should take over the space industry – government only needs to provide initial funding
Mark Prado, founder of Permanent Inc. and head of law division thereof, ’02, “How the Government Can Help the Private Sector,”
http://www.permanent.com/ep-ghelp.htm [Tandet]
It is clear that the private sector will take over once the initial startup costs and basic infrastructure are overcome.
Government will not be the entity making products and services in space, except possibly a few products in the initial
years.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to cite other examples of government initiated research and development (and joint
ventures with government contractors) which became purely private sector realms of high profitability, e.g.,
communications satellites, internet, various energy technologies, but business readers and government program leaders may
want to study some of those case histories.
86
Gabrielle
Private Sector CP – AT: Perm Do Both

1. Perm still links to __________ - there’s no net benefit to the perm
2. NASA antagonizes private sector – they have an interest in preventing private sector development
C. Blake Powers, Director of Outreach for NASA’s Space Product Development Program, 8-24-03, “A Time for Everything,”
http://laughingwolf.net/archives/000400.html [Tandet]
At the same time, NASA has not exactly been a friend to commercial space enterprises. This is particularly true for efforts
to develop alternative manned space access. NASA has a great deal invested in being the only way to get people into space,
from hardware and infrastructure to an internal culture that claims that only career NASA civil servants can be called
astronauts. All those others who fly, or meet the international guidelines for being called such, can not be called such in any
NASA publication.
NASA has for years tried to block the development of manned commercial access. Just take a look at the regulatory
environment for such and NASA’s role in it. NASA has bitterly resisted any suggestion that any other launch service be
used, unless it was completely under their control. There are many other examples, for those who care to go do the
homework and look them up.
It’s official support of commercial activities has been limited. Despite various actions by Congress and its own charter, the
agency has not been supportive of commercial research and development. Just go take a look at the history of the Space
Product Development Program, which has managed to do some very important and good things with industry, for a good example.
Take a good look at the so-called commercialization efforts of Dan Tam, or the idea that Headquarters had that companies would
pay for large portions of the ISS without being able to display logos or use their sponsorship in advertising. Those ideas were
patently ridiculous, obvious to anyone who had any real-world experience, and beloved by top NASA management who should
have known better.
87
Gabrielle
Private Sector CP – AT: Plan Solves

Plan raises space insurance costs, making the commercial space sector INACCESSIBLE
Beyond the use of weapons in space, the satellite insurance business is extremely volatile. In the last four years, satellite
insurance rates have risen by 129 per cent, driven by increasing complexity and anomalies of satellite systems. The mere
presence of weapons poses a risk, and insurance companies structure their rates on risk estimates. The resolution approach
for the insurers will be to strengthen their exclusion clauses for acts of war -- pass the risks to the financiers, who will have
to decide to go to space without such insurance coverage, or not go at all. The combination of weapons posturing and/or use
may well cause increasing debris, expensive hardening and increasing risk (perceived by insurers and/or assumed by
financiers), all producing an inaccessible international commercial space environment.
88
Gabrielle
Private Sector CP – AT: Plan Solves

NASA doesn’t catalyze private sector development – private sector develops tech first
Jim Grichar, professor of economics who formerly worked for the federal government, 1-21-04, “Wielding the Budget Axe: It’s
Time to Abolish NASA,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.html [Tandet]
But NASA technology, like any technology developed in government-funded research and development programs, is
generally not useful to the private sector in bringing new goods and services to the consumer. Over the years, in response to
prodding by members of Congress and various administrations, federal laboratories – those operated by the military and
civilian arms of the government – have repeatedly been put under pressure to transfer technologies developed with public
funds to the private sector. While a few examples of success exist, the general rule is that the private sector wants nothing
to do with technologies developed in federal labs. And this is true for several reasons. The technologies – while sounding
promising – are often not tailored to bringing specific goods and services to consumers. To make new technologies into new
products attractive to consumers, private firms would probably have to spend additional funds on research and
development – possibly huge amounts, and even then most firms prefer to use proprietary or patented techniques or
technologies in order to earn a better profit. In other words, why use some technology available to every other business, unless
you can couple it with some proprietary technique to give you an edge over the competition?
And then there are historical examples of advanced technologies being developed and fielded by the private sector
before the federal government, or anyone in a federal laboratory, even thought of them. For instance, anyone old enough
to remember knows that the old AT&T – in its Bell Laboratory subsidiary – paid for the launch of the world’s first
telecommunications satellite, Telstar, in 1962, and that proved to be such a commercial success that Ma Bell launched others
like it. It was only many years later that the Defense Department decided it needed its own set of communications satellites for
running a U.S. military deployed around the world. I would concede that government-developed rockets were used in
launching Telstar, but that same scientific and engineering talent – had it not been monopolized by the government – might
well have developed commercial launch vehicles to meet private sector demands at around the same time. In other words,
commercial demand was the real spur to the development of useful and economical satellite launch vehicles.
89
Gabrielle
DoD CP – 1NC Shell

Text: The United States Department of Defense will…
Observation 1 – Competition. The counterplan competes through net benefits.
Observation 2 – Solvency
DoD solves the plan – most credibility and biggest benefits

SBSP needs a champion. The benefits it can provide are benefits to the military in Scenario 1 but
also to society as a whole though the development of clean safe energy from Space in Scenario 2.
Some feel it should be an effort led by many government departments but DoD has taken that
lead. It sees the value that applies to the many sectors of the economy, and to the country as a
whole. These efforts by DoD have lead to a higher credibility for this solution than has existed
thus far and it continues to build. The short term benefits under Urgent Need are more valuable
to DoD than to anyone else. Taking the leadership role, providing manpower and financing to
further research and study SBSP, and to encourage product development is work that DoD must
continue to initiate and support. One path would be to define and fund a series of the smallest
meaningful demonstrations related to wireless power transfer, SPS assembly, and SPS operations
leading to a 5 MWe pilot for remote base support.
90
Gabrielle
DoD CP Solvency
The DoD should catalyze the plan
SBSP needs a champion. The benefits it can provide are benefits to the military in Scenario 1 but also to society as a
whole though the development f clean safe energy from Space in Scenario 2. Some feel it should be an effort led by
many government departments but DoD has taken that lead. It sees the value that applies to the many sectors of
the economy, and to the country as a whole. These efforts by DoD have lead to a higher credibility for this
solution than has existed thus far and it continues to build. The short term benefits under Urgent Need are more
valuable to DoD than to anyone else. Taking the leadership role, providing manpower and financing to further
research and study SBSP, and to encourage product development is work that DoD must continue to initiate and
support. One path would be to define and fund a series of the smallest meaningful demonstrations related to wireless
power transfer, SPS assembly, and SPS operations leading to a 5 MWe pilot for remote base support.
DoD business is key to SPS viability

Linda Shiner, editor of Air & Space Smithsonian magazine, 7-1-08, “Where the Sun Does Shine,” Air & Space Smithsonian,
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html
Why them? For one thing, supplying electricity to forward bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is hugely expensive—more than
a dollar a kilowatt-hour. (The average cost Stateside last year was under nine cents a kilowatt-hour.) If some organization
could deliver between five and 50 megawatts for less than a dollar a kilowatt-hour, the National Security Space Office
says, the Pentagon could be an anchor customer.
That’s just the kind of guaranteed business a space power system would need to become viable, according to experts
involved in the study. At a press conference last October, the National Space Society, one of several space advocacy groups whose
members contributed to the report, announced a new coalition to promote space solar power: the Space Solar Alliance for Future
Energy. The organization hopes to convince policymakers that space power deserves government funding—at least to build a
demonstrator—because of its potential to produce electricity cleanly, in vast amounts.
91
Gabrielle
DoD CP Solvency
The DoD has interest in SPS - the military needs alternative energy
Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst and editor/publisher of The Space Review, 8-13-07, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?”, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1 [Tandet]
In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat unlikely
quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study about the
feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic and
national security.
Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote” Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar power at the
NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that
identified energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st
century.” If the United States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said,
“that will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal.”
At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious
appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops deployed in places
like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their
devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply
chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in
attacks on convoys shipping the fuel.
“The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with
some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power,
something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject
to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of
space solar power.
The DoD has the funding to do the plan

The U.S. Military should be willing to spend the big bucks to develop new launch systems, since they will ultimately be
dual-use vehicles that the military will want to use, even if NASA were to develop them independently. Plus, I recognize based
on the current national situation, that the US Military budget will likely not be cut anytime soon, and they have far more
resources than NASA does or likely ever will. Spending 30-50 billion to develop new launch technologies over several years
for the Pentagon is relatively minor in their whole scheme. That said, they should be made to share any breakthroughs with
NASA and private industry, so that everyone can benefit from cheaper access to space.
92
Gabrielle
Japan CP – 1NC Shell

Text: Japan should…
Observation 1 – Competition. The counterplan is non-topical and competes through net benefits.
Observation 2 – Solvency.
Japan has sufficient tech and infrastructure support to do the plan
Michael Schirber, writer for LiveScience, 6-18-08, “How Satellites Could Power the Future,”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html [Tandet]
The Japanese space agency, JAXA, has been providing steady support over the past decade for their Space Solar Power
System (SSPS). The goal is to launch a geostationary satellite by 2030 that could supply 500,000 homes on Earth with a
gigawatt of power.
Currently, JAXA researchers are looking at both microwaves and lasers as possible options for beaming the energy down.
"The technology for microwave transmission is more advanced, since it is based on current communication satellites," said
Susumu Sasaki, a manager at JAXA's Advanced Mission Research Group.
But to transmit huge amounts of power in a focused beam, the transmitting antenna in space needs to be roughly 2 kilometers
(1.2 miles) wide. A receiving antenna of similar size or bigger must be built on Earth.
The alternative would be a laser. Japanese scientists have been working on metal alloy plates that can absorb sunlight and
directly convert it into an infrared laser beam.
The advantage is that the transmitting and receiving devices can be about 10 times smaller than for microwaves, Sasaki said.
Lasers also do not carry the risk of interfering with communication networks that use microwaves.
93
Gabrielle
Japan CP Solvency
Japan is planning on establishing SPS by 2040
Takahiro Fukada, writer for Space Daily, 1-31-01, “Japan Plans to Launch Solar Power Satellite in Space by 2040,” Space Daily,
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html [Tandet]
Undaunted by its less than glorious track record in space, Japan's ministry of economy, trade and industry (METI) has
ambitious plans to launch a giant solar power station by 2040.
"We are starting research for a solar power generation satellite from fiscal year 2001 in April," Osamu Takenouchi, of
METI's airplane, weapons and space industry division told AFP.
"We are planning to start operating the system in 2040," Takenouchi added.
94
Gabrielle
Japan CP Solvency
JAXA has SPS technology now
Mashesh Bashantani, staff writer for Inhabitat News, 2-18-08, “New JAXA Technology Captures Solar Energy in Space,”
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/18/round-the-clock-solar-energy-from-space-solar-power-system/ [Tandet]
Instead of doing the old-fashioned solar power thing, and capturing the sun’s rays as they hit the Earth’s surface, the Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Osaka University Institute of Laser Engineering is bolding going where no
space station has ever gone before - in terms of solar power. Pioneering scientists at Jaxa have found a way to harness
solar power even closer to the source- from outer space! The Space Solar Power System (SSPS) technology would capture
solar rays in space and transport the energy to be used here on the ground. A single unit placed in space would generate
enough energy to power 500,000 homes!
95
Gabrielle
Japan CP – AT: Perm Do Both

Cooperation slows down the process and creates disagreements – unilateral action is best
There are multiple values to be balanced with respect to international cooperation. The various
goods to be optimized include efficiency, speed of development, cost savings, existing
alliances, new partnerships, general goodwill, American jobs and business opportunities,
cooperation, safety & assurance, commercial autonomy, and freedom of action. Adding more
and new partners may increase goodwill, but add additional layers of approval and slow
development. Starting with established alliances and shared values fulfills some expectations
and violates others. The spectrum of participation ranges from beginning with a demarche
before the UN General Assembly, to privately approaching America’s closest allies, to arranging
multi‐national corporate conferences. Many participants felt the International Space Station
(ISS) overvalued cooperation for cooperation’s sake, and took mutual dependency too far.
96

64 CM Solar Powered Satellites Case Neg

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

64 CM Solar Powered Satellites Case Neg

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Solar-Powered Satellites Neg

DDI 2008 – Clark/Martin Lab

Failed States F/L......................................................................................................................................23

Fossil Fuels F/L........................................................................................................................................24

Lunar Materials F/L................................................................................................................................27

Military Readiness F/L............................................................................................................................28

Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 32

AT: Space Weaponization.......................................................................................................................37

AT: NASA Key.........................................................................................................................................62

Private Sector CP – 1NC Shell............................................................................................................... 83

Private Sector CP Solvency.....................................................................................................................85

12. International cooperation is key to solve – U.S. alone isn’t as efficient

Solvency – Ext. #1 – International Backlash

Solvency – Ext. #4 – Cyber Terrorism

Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris

Solvency – Ext. #6 – Space Debris

Solvency – Ext. #7 – Technical Barriers

Solvency – Ext. #10 – Timeframe

Solvency – Ext. #13 – Alt Causes

2. US dominance is inevitable – we’ll always be ahead in space

Competitiveness – Ext. #3 – Heg Inevitable

Failed States F/L

Fossil Fuels F/L

Lunar Materials F/L

Military Readiness F/L

2. Alt cause – smoking impairs readiness

3. Alt cause – equipment shortfalls impair readiness

Military Readiness F/L

Military Readiness – Ext. #1 – Readiness Low Now

Space Colonization F/L

Space Colonization F/L

Space Colonization F/L

7. Public won’t support – means no colonization

Space Colonization – Ext. #3 – Extinction Not Inevitable

Space Colonization – Ext. #5 – Infeasible

AT: Space Weaponization

AT: Space Weaponization

4. SPS is too expensive – the military would look to cheaper options

AT: Space Weaponization Inevitable

Space Weaponization Bad – Prolif

Proliferation leads to extinction.

Space Weaponization Bad – Accidental Attack

Russian perception of accidental attack leads to extinction

Space Weaponization Bad – International Law

International law is essential to avert planetary extinction

Space Weaponization Bad – US-Russia Relations

Space weaponization tanks US-Sino and US-Russian relations

That turns case – US-Russian relations key to space exploration

Space Weaponization Bad – Terrorism

Terrorism leads to extinction

Space Weaponization Bad – Soft Power

Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Space Prolif

Space itself could be polluted for decades to come, rendered unusable.

Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Accidental Attack

Misperception creates accidental wars – space debris is indistinguishable from attack

Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. International Law

Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russian Relations Key To Space

Space Weaponization Bad – Ext. Russia Relations Good

Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier

Space warfare escalates regional conflicts that go nuclear

Space Weaponization Bad – Space War Impact Magnifier

Space Weaponization Bad – AT: Solves Prolif

Space Weaponization Good

Military readiness deters global war