US Leadership Aff

2011 Experienced Core Files p.
Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. LEADERSHIP AFFIRMATIVE Inherency
Currently, Americas space program is stalled. Budget pressures have forced President Obama to radically redesign NASA and focus it on more modest goals. The budget for the organization is flat or declining over the next five years. While there are strong pockets of support in Congress for the space program, namely from space towns like Orlando, FL and Houston, TX, there is no broad willingness in Congress for increasing the space program. Congress has insisted on funding a rocket program for a project that is canceled. The President has proposed to eliminate or delay many important space programs, such as his cancellation of Constellation, a project designed to return America to the Moon. One alternative to NASA that is often mentioned is the private space sector. Indeed, there are many companies that are invested in developing space launch technology. President Obamas plan hopes to use private space launches for American missions into outer space. Many experts believe that private companies are nowhere near ready to take on such a complex project. It also runs the risk that a catastrophic accident, as we have seen before in the government space program, would completely undercut the private sector programs as investors fled the failure. As a result of these choices, American leadership in human space flight may not continue. Today, the U.S. capability remains ahead of the Chinese by all measures of experience, technology, industry and partnerships. But the continuation of that is uncertain. Major American programs such as the shuttle and International Space Station are winding down. We have abandoned plans to send humans to the Moon or Mars. Meanwhile, China has been ramping up its human space flight capabilities. The Department of Defense has reported that China is expanding its space-based intelligence, surveillance, navigation and communication power. Chinas military leadership, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) has increased its involvement in its space program and put to use those intelligence and communication capabilities. Harm/Advantages United States space leadership prevents wars. The U.S. relies on space for its military hegemony because satellites can provide fast, accurate information on enemy strengths and deployment patterns. This type of intelligence is crucial for modern war strategy and targeting. China is working to neutralize that advantage through its own space program. They are developing space weapons that can shoot down or disable American satellites. This capability is referred to as Anti-Satellite weapons, or ASATs. China is aware of the U.S. superiority of ground forces and sees the ability to neutralize them as fundamental to challenging American forces in Asia and around the globe.
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 -1-
2011 Experienced Core Files p. Space Leadership Affirmative
Americas leadership in ground force capability has enabled the U.S. to keep the peace and advance U.S. interests around the world. This preeminence has produced many benefits for America including reducing the risk of direct attack. Our ability to project our power wherever and whenever we need to has prevented major wars from developing and escalating. Were the U.S. to lose that capability, not only would American interests be in jeopardy, but conflicts in regions like South Asia, Korea and the Middle East might flare up and get out of control with no power available to decisively resolve them. Further, Chinese advances in space put the two nations on a collision course for a space war. Whoever dominates space will dominate the international system on earth. American space capabilities are needed to match that threat and deter Chinese space aggression. If China successfully develops a Moon base, it could harvest resources and the strategic high ground there to challenge American supremacy. Those who believe Chinas space program is intended solely for economic advancement, not strategic superiority ignore many warning signs, especially PLA involvement in those programs. China is seizing on the opportunity created by Americas pause to engage in a successful space race. If anything, we underestimate their goals. Solvency The United States should increase its exploration and development of outer space by greatly increasing Americas space program, including new goals such as human flight to the Moon or Mars. Capabilities in space have always been the crucial measure for American leadership. If we want to retain our leadership in space we must maintain our edge in capabilities and use that strength to enhance our international prestige and influence. Increasing our unilateral power in space would stop the space arms race. If we seize the initiative while we still have the dominant space infrastructure, we could deny any attempt by other nations, such as China, to place assets in space. Our strength in space would make space war less likely, not more. If we as a nation demonstrated commitment to space leadership, why would any other nation spend the resources to challenge us when that would ultimately prove to be futile?
2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative
p. 1 of 48
SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

I. INHERENCY
DESPITE PRESIDENT OBAMAS EARLY PROMISES, AMERICAN SPACE EXPLORATION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN GUTTED Lou Friedman, former Executive Director, The Planetary Society, March 7, 2011 [The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1795/1] Eleven months ago fans of space exploration cheered as President Obama, for the first time since John Kennedy, went on the road to support a program for a new venture of human exploration: Well start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. Then Congress went to work and, today, we have no coherent human space exploration goals, objectives, or program. We instead have a weak jobs program, spending money on a cancelled project and ordering a new rocket-to-nowhere project. In that same speech the president said, We will ramp up robotic exploration of the solar system and We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world. In his very next budget submission last month, with still no budget passed by Congress for the current fiscal year, he proposed elimination of robotic precursor missions, a decrease in planetary science funding, and delays of vitally needed Earth science missions (a need which just increased as a result of the loss of Glory). All of the proposed increases that were submitted to Congress last year (and which they failed to act upon) are eliminated. In addition, the budget submission ignored the James Webb Space Telescope and the future Mars programkicking the can of their consideration down the road. NASA is now not just paralyzed, but its vital signs are weakening. THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS NOT READY TO TAKE OVER FOR GOVERNMENT SPACE PROGRAMS David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010 [Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6] What, then, could the Obama administration have been thinking when it announced this past February that NASA should essentially get out of the manned-spaceship business and turn it over to private industry? Under the plan, NASA will write off most of the $9 billion invested so far in Constellation, the program to develop a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle capable of ferrying astronauts and supplies to the space station and, eventually, to the moon. Instead the agency will provide seed money to start-ups such as SpaceX, then agree to buy tickets to the space station on their rockets. It is a naive and reckless plan, a chorus of voices charged. Among the loudest was that of former astronaut and space icon Neil Armstrong, who was quick to scoff at the notion that the private sector is ready to take over from NASA. "It will require many years and substantial investment to reach the necessary level of safety and reliability," he stated. Leaving orbital ferrying in the hands of private companies, Armstrong and others insisted, would at best be setting the clock back on manned space exploration. And were private enterprise to drop the ball, perhaps even catastrophically, as many believe it would, the entire grand enterprise of sending people into space National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 -1-
p. 2 of 48
might come to a long-term or even permanent halt. Once NASA's massive manned-spaceflight machine is dismantled, rebuilding it might take far more time and money than anyone would want to spend. Yet despite these concerns, Congress reluctantly agreed to the plan this fall.
p. 3 of 48

THE U.S. LEAD IN HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT MAY NOT CONTINUE Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, GWU, May 11, 2011 [Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] On balance, Chinese civil space capabilities can be expected to increase in the future. China will be able t o undertake unilateral and international space projects of increasing complexity that will in turn increase commercial, military, and diplomatic opportunities at times and places of Chinas choosing. Today, U.S. human space flight capabilities remain considerably ahead of China by all measures or experience, technology, industrial base, and partnerships. Unfortunately, the continuation of the current balance is uncertain. The United States has failed to develop an assured means for U.S. Government human access to space, the International Space Station is reliant on the Russian Soyuz and unproven commercial providers wit h a consequent risk of loss of the Station should there be a major accident onorbit, and finally, the United States has failed t o engage its existing international partners in a program of exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Plans for a human return to the Moon are on hold and no other human exploration missions are in work. All of these factors increase t he odds that the United States will not be a global leader in human spaceflight after the end of the International Space Station sometime in the next ten years or so. CHINA IS ACCELERATING ITS MILITARY POWER IN SPACE Michael Chase, The Jamestown Foundation, March 25, 2011 [http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37699&tx_ttn ews[backPid]=25&cHash=e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244] In keeping with this emphasis on the importance of space systems in contemporary military operations, China is making major strides in improving its own space capabilities. According to the 2010 DoD report, "China is expanding its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, and communications satellite constellations". As China places more satellites into orbit, the PLAs reliance on space systems is growing. Chinas military is becoming more dependent on space capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation and positioning, as well as communications.
p. 4 of 48

II. US LEADERSHIP PREVENTS WARS
CHINAS INTEREST IN SPACE IS TO NEUTRALIZE AMERICAN GROUND SUPERIORITY Baohui Zhang, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Lingnan Univ, Feb. 2011 [Asian Survey, vol. 51, number 2, p.312] Richard J. Adams and Martin E. France, U.S. Air Force officers, contend that Chinese interests in space weapons do not hinge on winning a potential U.S.-Chinese ASAT battle or participating in a space arms race. Instead, they argue, Chinas military space program is driven by a desire to counter the space-enabled advantage of U.S. conventional forces. This perspective implies that given the predicted U.S. superiority in conventional warfare, China feels compelled to continue its offensive military space program. Inevitably, this perspective sees China as the main instigator of a possible space arms race, whether implicitly or explicitly. THE U.S. RELIES ON SPACE FOR ITS MILITARY HEGEMONY AND CHINA IS WORKING TO CHALLENGE THAT Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 29] This is the context in which the world now exists. The relatively stable global hegemony of US dominance since 1945, punctuated by limited wars and shifting balances of opposition, has relied on technology-dominant global power projection. Today, that technology is wholly integrated and inextricable from space support, and no state relies more on space power for its economic and security well-being than the US. Any effort to deny space capabilities would be a direct challenge to its hegemonic power, and the United States must confront the usurper or abdicate its leadership position. To be sure, Chinas increasing space emphasis and its cultural antipathy to military transparency suggests that a serious attempt at seizing control of space is in the works. A lingering fear is the sudden introduction of an unknown capability (call it Technology X) that would allow a hostile state to place multiple weapons into orbit quickly and cheaply. The advantages gained from controlling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any other state, and the concomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to Americas already-dependent military forces could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the United States dithers on its military responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize lowearth orbit before America is able to respond.
p. 5 of 48

PREEMINENCE HAS GAINED MUCH FOR THE U.S. Richard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011 [ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p. 59 ] To say that the end of unquestioned preeminence may be good for the United States is counterintuitive. Power matters in international politics, and preeminence has produced a number of benefits for the United States (and its allies): security, especially from attack by other states, and the absence of power competition more generally; relative order and stability, particularly the decreasing frequency of inter-state war; prosperity and unparalleled wealth creation, and greater freedom of action and influence over events. Preeminence, by definition, entails few constraints to the projection of power and influence abroad. By virtue of its position, other countries naturally look to the United States for leadership, on everything from Middle East peace to climate change. All other things being equal, preeminence clearly is preferable to a position of subservience, lack of agency, and weakness. U.S. WITHDRAWAL INCREASES THE RISK OF REGIONAL WARS THAT ESCALATE INTO GREAT WARS Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136] The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. THE U.S. AND CHINA ARE ON A COLLISION COURSE FOR A SPACE WAR Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 1] The coming war with China will be fought for control of outer space. The stakes are high. The side that prevails will have a clear path to domination of the international system. Although its effects will be far-reaching, the conflict itself will not be visible to those looking up into the night sky. It will not be televised. Most will not even be aware that it is occurring. It may already have begun. And yet, this new kind of remotely-controlled proxy war will not be so different that it is unrecognizable. The principles of war and the logic of competition remain as they always have. Only the context has changed. When perceived through this mind-set, via the tenets of traditional realist and geopolitical theories that have survived millennia in their basic forms, the unavoidable conclusion is that the United States and the Peoples Republic of China are on a collision course for war. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 -5-
p. 6 of 48

AFFIRMATIVE PLAN
p. 7 of 48

III. SOLVENCY
CAPABILITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP THAN IS INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Christopher Stone, space policy analyst and strategist, Space Review, March 14, 2011 [The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1] Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example. EXPLORATION CAPABILITY IS NECESSARY FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP Christopher Stone, space policy analyst and strategist, Space Review, March 14, 2011 [The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1] If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the advancement of its national security, prestige and wealth by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives worthy of a great nation. INCREASED U.S. UNILATERAL POWER IN SPACE WOULD STOP THE SPACE ARMS RACE Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 31] Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is dominant in space infrastructure, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 -7-
p. 8 of 48
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD

AMERICAN SPACE EXPLORATION HEADED FOR OBLIVION Lou Friedman, former Executive Director, The Planetary Society, March 7, 2011 [The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1795/1] We will not search nearby worlds for signs of extraterrestrial life, and well accept a new era with fewer missions and less science. Human space exploration was torpedoed last year. This year the robots are being fired upon. It is my view that without space explorationnew adventures to new worlds and scientific discovery about our universethere will be little reason for NASAs existence and the space agency will wither as its public support diminishes. I am not sure about the European reaction to the diminishing of plans for the joint Mars lander program and Outer Planets Flagship, but I am not optimistic about Europes independent ability to take over space exploration. Interfax reported this week that Russia has developed a space strategy that includes the exploration and development of the moon, Mars, and beyond. (Was this a reaction to my criticism of last week? I wish I had that power.) Maybe the tide will turn againfor as I said, things change quickly. Right now it seems that America is headed for exploration oblivion. RISING LAUNCH COSTS COULD LIMIT NASA MISSIONS Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, April 4, 2011 [http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1104/04launchcosts/] Already faced with a potentially flat budget over the next half-decade, scientists and managers overseeing NASA's robotic science probes worry rising and volatile rocket launch prices could further limit the agency's ability to explore the solar system and maintain crucial climate research. Rising launch costs could claim a larger slice of a mission's budget, increasing the price of projects geared for planetary science, astrophysics and Earth observations, according to senior NASA officials. With the federal government's spotlight on spending cuts, it isn't likely NASA will get a budget boost to offset the launch costs, which experts say are triggered by inefficient rocket buying practices, an eroding commercial market, and uncertainty about the future of the space program. That leaves NASA with just one option: fly fewer missions. PRESIDENT OBAMAS BUDGET ELIMINATES THE CONSTELLATION PROJECT John Matson, Scientific American, February 1, 2011 [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cancel] President Obama delivered his budget request for fiscal year 2011 to Congress on Monday, proposing sweeping changes to NASA's spaceflight program while increasing the agency's overall budget. As had been rumored for days, Obama's blueprint for NASA would cancel the Constellation program, the family of rockets and hardware now in development to replace the aging space shuttle, and would call instead on commercial vendors to fly astronauts to orbit. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 -8-
p. 9 of 48
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD

U.S. FUTURE SPACE EXPLORATION IN GREAT DOUBT Marcia Smith, Space Policy Online, February 1, 2011 [SpacePolicyOnline.com, Commentary, Eight Years After Columbia, Nation Still Lacks Consensus on Vision for Future Human Spaceflight, p.2] Today, the program spawned by that speech, Constellation, is on its way to being terminated and the future of the U.S. human spaceflight program is considerably in doubt. Government efforts to build a successor to the shuttle over the past three decades -- the National Aerospace Plane, X33/Venturestar, the Space Launch Initiative, the Orbital Space Plane -- all failed. The 2010 NASA authorization act directs NASA to try again. The agency is to build a new space transportation system and crew vehicle while at the same time funding the commercial sector to do the same thing. The policy is in place, but the funding is not and with the country's economic situation in turmoil, human spaceflight advocates worry that NASA will continue to be expected to do too much with too little and fail to reach the goal line yet again. THE U.S. IS GIVING UP ITS SPACE CAPABILITIES The Economist May 19, 2011 [http://www.economist.com/node/18712369?story_id=18712369&fsrc=rss] What the shuttles did provide, however, was a way for America to carry people into low-earth orbit. Once the fleet is grounded, America will for a while have no means of its own to deliver men and women to any part of space. After the usual energetic lobbying by aerospace companies and other vested interests, Congress has ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to build a mighty new rocket, bigger than Apollos Saturn V, capable of lifting a manned vehicle into deep space. But Mr Obama has cancelled plans to revisit the moon, no other destination has been specified, and this rocket to nowhere will not be ready until 2016 at the very earliest. In the meantime, American spacefarers bound even for low-earth orbit will have to hitch a ride on a Russian craft or one of the as yet unproven vehicles under development by the private sector.
p. 10 48 of
PRIVATE SECTOR SPACE WILL FAIL

FREE-MARKET SPACE IS UNREALISTIC Gregg Easterbrook, Reuters columnist, Aril 15, 2010 [http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/04/15/get-over-the-moon-we-need-nasa-tosave-the-earth/] Obamas plan to encourage free-enterprise rocketry sounds great, but is extremely unrealistic. Only one company, Sea Launch, has ever succeeded in placing a large, privately funded rocket into orbit, and right now Sea Launch is in Chapter 11. The capital requirement for reaching space is very high, the customer base modest. PRIVATE ENTITIES DONT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR AN EFFECTIVE SPACE PROGRAM Gregg Easterbrook, Reuters columnist, Aril 15, 2010 [http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2010/04/15/get-over-the-moon-we-need-nasa-tosave-the-earth/] The White House would provide $6 billion over five years to encourage development of private rockets, but this is a drop in the bucket. The new Boeing 787 and its engines cost about $13 billion to develop, and the 787, while beautiful, is just an airplane. A new human-rated multiple redundant systems rocket capable of carrying significant payloads to orbit could easily require $25 billion or more for development. No private company will be able to raise such a sum without a long-term guaranteed NASA contract, at which point you might as well just have NASA develop the next rocket. (Private flight to orbit will happen someday, but absent a major breakthrough, perhaps not for decades. The winged spaceship being developed by Richard Branson is not a spaceship; it will fly higher than conventional aircraft, but not reach orbit.) PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IS VERY UNCERTAIN AND UNPROVEN David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010 [Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6] SpaceX's successful rocket tests are encouraging, but they are really the only hard evidence so far that private industry might succeed. The only other new player gearing up now to produce an orbital vehicle is Orbital Sciences in Dulles, Va., although at present it has little to demonstrate. Both are hiring some of the space industry's most highly regarded managers and engineers, but it is impossible to know if either company will ultimately be able to come up with a good vehicle under reduced budgets and without hordes of NASA engineers providing detailed design specs.
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 10 -
p. 11 48 of

PRIVATE SPACE ENTERPRISES ARE UNRELIABLE LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN NASA PROGRAMS David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010 [Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6] Hopes are high. In theory, early government support of daring entrepreneurs could jump-start a vibrant economy centered on space travel, with competition pushing prices ever lower. Risks are, too. Yet no one knows if start-up companies will be able to deliver safe, affordable, reliable spacecraft. If they fail, human exploration of space could be set back by decades. TWO YEARS AGO DECEASED STAR TREK ACTOR JAMES "SCOTTY" DOOHAN WAS GRANTED one last adventure, courtesy of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. SpaceX, a privately funded company based in Hawthorne, Calif., had been formed in 2002 with the mission of going where no start-up had gone before: Earth orbit. In August 2008 SpaceX loaded Doohan's cremated remains onto the third test flight of its Falcon 1, a liquid oxygen- and kerosene-fueled rocket bound for orbit. Yet about two minutes into the flight Doohan's final voyage ended prematurely when the rocket's first stage crashed into the second stage during separation. It was SpaceX's third failure in three attempts. Well, what did you expect? sneered old NASA hands, aerospace executives and the many others who hew to the conventional wisdom that safely ushering payloads and especially people hundreds of kilometers above Earth is a job for no less than armies of engineers, technicians and managers backed by billions in funding and decades-long development cycles. Space, after all, is hard. A small, private operation might be able to send a little stunt ship wobbling up tens of kilometers, as entrepreneurengineer Burt Rutan did in 2004 to win the X-Prize. But that was a parlor trick compared with the kinds of operations NASA has been running over the years with the space shuttle and International Space Station. When you're going orbital, 100 kilometers is merely the length of the driveway, at the end of which you'd better be accelerating hard toward the seven kilometers a second needed to keep a payload falling around Earth 300 kilometers up.
p. 12 48 of

PROFIT MOTIVE CANT DRIVE EFFECTIVE PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010 [Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6] The prospects for a thriving orbital economy would rise considerably if zero-gravity manufacturing looked as if it could be profitable. Today, though, the signs are not encouraging. The near absence of gravity--well, there is plenty of gravity, but objects in orbit are in free fall and don't "feel" it--enables the production of unusually large and pure crystals, perfect ball bearings and other spherical products, and perfectly heterogeneous mixtures of chemicals. Regardless of the price premium such unusual products and substances might command, the cost of setting up and operating a plant in the sky and of getting supplies up and finished products back down, would wipe out that premium thousands of times over, at least for anything discovered so far. "Even if there were an asteroid made out of diamond somewhere nearby, the cost of getting to it, mining it and bringing the pieces back probably wouldn't be justified as a business," says Lon Levin, co-founder of XM Satellite Radio and president of SkySevenVentures, a Washington, D.C., venture capital fund that invests in spacerelated and other start-ups. SPACE TOURISM IS EXTREMELY RISKY, ONE FAILURE WOULD DOOM THE INDUSTRY David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010 [Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6] Levin and other observers also point out a darker roulette wheel at play: the chance that a budding orbital-tourism industry will suffer a mishap at some point and kill one or more of its customers. Should that happen, the space tourism business would instantly evaporate, asserts Sherman McCorkle, CEO of the investment consulting firm Technology Ventures in Albuquerque--just 150 miles north of where the state of New Mexico is building a $300-million "spaceport" in anticipation of a bustling spaceflight industry. "If the seventh tourist flight to orbit fails, there's a high probability there will not be an eighth one for many, many years," McCorkle says. "Entrepreneurs are used to dealing with failure by tenaciously fixing the problems after they come up, but that won't work with space tourism the way it works with satellite communications."
p. 13 48 of
U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP IS BEING THREATENED

U.S. PRIMACY IN SPACE IS BEING THREATENED Yasuhito Fukushima, National Institute for Defense Studies, January 2011 [Space Policy, volume 27 pp. 3-6] The current US primacy in space is, however, no longer secure and is challenged by budget pressures and growing competition. The push for more budget cuts is especially apparent in the national security space sector. In June 2010 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced his intention to save over $100 billion of the defense budget over a five-year period starting from fiscal year 2012 and this is where the space-related budget is expected to suffer.6 In addition, the proliferation of space activities has intensified heated competition in space. For example, the US Global Positioning System (GPS) has been widely used as the gold standard for space-based positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) and generated huge positive economic effects.7 Nevertheless, other countries have recently been preparing their own global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Russia is rebuilding its Glonass constellation, which aims to be fully operational by the end of 2010.8 European countries are funding the Galileo system, which is scheduled to be partially operational in 2014.9 China is also constructing the Beidou/Compass system, which is intended to achieve global coverage by around 2020.10 These systems are designed to be dual-use and are sure to have great impact on related markets. U.S. MAY GET LEFT OUT IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF SPACE Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010 [http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html] All in all, China's space accomplishments are gaining worldwide notice. "To the rest of the world, China's working very eagerly and aggressively," Johnson-Freese said. "Canada, Europe and Russia are all banging on the door for China to work with them. I certainly have a concern that the U.S. is going to end up the odd man out in terms of the globalization of space."
p. 14 48 of
U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO OVERALL DOMINANCE

SATELLITES ARE THE KEY TO AMERICAN MILITARY DOMINANCE Megan Ansdell, Space Policy Institute, GWU, Spring 2010 [Journal of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, vol 21, p8] Furthermore, satellite-enabled military capabilities such as GPS precision-guided munitions are critical enablers of current U.S. military strategies and tactics. They allow the United States to not only remain a globally dominant military power, but also wage war in accordance with its political and ethical values by enabling faster, less costly war-fighting with minimal collateral damage (Sheldon 2005; Dolman 2006, 163-165). Given the U.S. militarys increasing reliance on satellite-enabled capabilities in recent conflicts, in particular Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, some have argued that losing access to space would seriously impede the ability of the United States to be successful in future conflicts (Dolman 2006, 165). AMERICAN POWER DEPENDS ON DOMINATING SPACE Gabriele Garibaldi, Association for Asian Research, 2006 [The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Part II, December 5, 2006 http://asianresearch.org/articles/2979.html] The relation between the space dimension and the imperialistic dimension (with Manifest Destiny echos) of the USA, is sealed by the conclusions of a book written in 1996 by arms experts George and Meredith Friedman: Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European experience of power would be its domination of the global seas, it does not take much to see that the American experience of power will rest on the domination of space. Just as Europe expanded war and its power to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war and its power into space and to the planets. Just as Europe shaped the world for a half a millennium [by dominating the oceans by its fleets] so too the United States will shape the world for at least that length of time - by dominating Space. THE U.S. HEAVILY RELIES ON SPACE FOR MILITARY POWER Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 3] No state relies on space power and space support more than the US. Since at least the mid- 1980s, its armed forces have undergone a radical transformation. Space intelligence and observations, high bandwidth communications, and navigation support have created the most deadly combat force in history. America can engage targets anywhere in the world, in all weather, day or night, with extraordinary precision and lethality, and with a minimum of collateral damage. The progress of this transformation has been stymied with the continuing emphasis on ground forces occupation duties in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the American military is operating more effectively and efficiently today with the smallest percentage of its population actively engaged in military service since the post-WWII demobilization. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 14 -
p. 15 48 of
U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO OVERALL DOMINANCE

SPACE OFFERS NUMEROUS CRUCIAL MILITARY ADVANTAGES Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Increasingly sophisticated spacebased systems expand PLA battlespace awareness and support extended range convent ional precision strike systems. Space assets enable the monitoring of naval activities in surrounding waters and the tracking of air force deployments into the region. The PLA is investing in a diverse set of increasingly sophisticated electrooptical (EO), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and electronic reconnaissance assets. Spacebased remote sensing systems also provide the imagery necessary for mission planning functions, including automated target recognition technology that correlates preloaded optical, radar, or infrared images on a missile systems computer with real time images acquired in flight. A constellation of small electronic reconnaissance satellites, operating in tandem with SAR satellites, could provide commanders with precise and timely geolocation data on mobile targets. Satellite communications also offer a survivable means of linking sensors to strike systems, and will become particularly relevant as PLA interests expand further from PRC borders. Authors publishing in authoritative journals have advocated accelerating and expanding Chinas spacebased surveillance system to cover targets operating out to a range of 3000 kilometers from the shoreline. CONTROL OF SPACE PROVIDES THE U.S. CRUCIAL MILITARY ADVANTAGES Bruce MacDonald, United States Institute of Peace, May 11, 2011 [Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Committee, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] PLA officers have noted the great U.S. dependence upon space assets and capabilities and the way they multiply U.S. force effectiveness. Just recently, they saw how U.S. special forces, and the military and civilian leadership that commanded them, heavily depended upon satellite photographs, spacederived weather and electronic intelligence, GPS, other spaceenabled information, and satellite communications in executing the strike against Osama bin Ladens compound in Pakistan. This brilliantly successful operation was built on a firm foundation of information in which space played a vital role in creating.. Is it any wonder that the PLA would want the capability to interrupt these rivers of information and services that our space assets provide? This information allows our military decision-making, our weapons, and especially our warfighters to be far more effective than in the past, vital advantages across the spectrum of potential conflict. These spaceenabled information ser vices lie at the heart of U.S. military superiority. The PLA certainly wants to be able to greatly weaken U.S. military power in wartime, and I believe t he PLA could do so within a decade using its kinetic kill and other ASAT weapons if it chose t o deploy them in large numbers, and thus pose a serious threat to U.S. space assets. China is also pursuing ot her programs that have important ASAT implications, and other nations are interested in ASAT as well, such as India and Russia. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 15 -
p. 16 48 of
CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS SUCCESSFUL

CHINA IS MOVING FORWARD WITH A MANNED SPACE STATION AND TRAVEL TO THE MOON Christopher Mims, Journalist, Washington DC, Fast Company, April 27, 2011 [http://www.fastcompany.com/1750093/what-chinas-new-space-station-means-for-chinaand-the-world] Human space exploration requires mastery of a succession of tasks: getting a human home from space safely. Spacewalks. Docking in orbit. Living in space for extended periods. The Chinese space program has accomplished all of these goals except the last; the space station completes the country's maturation as the world's current leading space power. The step beyond this program program would be the most public and visible demonstration imaginable of the country's ascendancy: it would mean reproducing the United States' most singular moment of scientific and military triumph, a boot-print on lunar soil. CHINAS SPACE STATION HAS OVERCOME OBSTACLES AND IS ON TRACK David Cyranoski, Nature News, Nature Magazine, May 4, 2011 p. 14-15 [http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110504/full/473014a.html] The International Space Station (ISS) is just one space-shuttle flight away from completion, but the construction boom in low-Earth orbit looks set to continue for at least another decade. Last week, China offered the most revealing glimpse yet of its plans to deploy its own station by 2020. The project seems to be overcoming delays and internal resistance and is emerging as a key part of the nation's fledgling human space-flight programme. At a press briefing in Beijing, officials with the China Manned Space Engineering Office even announced a contest to name the station, a publicrelations gesture more characteristic of space programmes in the United States, Europe and Japan.
p. 17 48 of
CHINESE MOON BASE THREAT

CHINA COULD USE A MOON BASE TO DOMINATE THE U.S. UNLESS WE MATCH THEM Mark Whittington, Houston-based writer and author, October 28, 2010 [http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5946740/chinas_militarization_of_space_a_long _pg2.html?cat=15] Further in time, George Friedman, who runs the national security website Stratfor, suggests a chilling scenario in a recent book, "The Next Hundred Years." A war breaks out in the middle of this century. An enemy launches space weapons from a base on the far side of the Moon, disguised as space junk and/or meteors. The weapons proceed to targets in low Earth orbit by eccentric orbits, timed to take out those targets, which would include American reconnaissance, communications, and navigation satellites, and also whatever commercial space facilities might exist a few decades from now, effectively blinding and immobilizing American military assets on Earth. A Pearl Harbor strike from the Moon around the year 2050 could spell the end of America as a super power and the rise of China in her place. That history-changing disaster could happen unless America as well as China occupies the celestial high ground of the Moon. That means reversing Barack Obama's decision to abandon the Moon and make Earth's nearest neighbor once again the focus of America's initial return to space exploration.
p. 18 48 of
CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT TO THE U.S.

CHINAS AMBITIOUS SPACE PROGRAM MAY SURPASS THE U.S. Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010 [http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html] China is shifting its space program into high gear, with recently announced goals to build a manned space station by 2020 and send a spacecraft to Mars by 2013 ? all on the heels of its second robotic moon mission this year. Yet some space analysts worry that China's ascendancy in space means the waning of American superiority in spaceflight. The United States is retiring its storied space shuttle fleet in 2011 and plans to rely on commercial spaceships for orbital flights, once they're available, while planning future deep-space missions. "Certainly [the Chinese] see it as an opportunity to garner prestige at a time when the U.S. space program is in what some people call turmoil, and what others call regrouping," said Joan Johnson-Freese, chairwoman of the department of national security studies at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and an expert on China's space program. Among Americans, she said, "there is the perception that China is somehow getting ahead, that the U.S. is sliding behind."
p. 19 48 of
CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: ONLY ECONOMIC

CHINAS MAIN GOAL FOR SPACE PROGRAM IS NOT ECONOMIC Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Proponents of the space program since many decades emphasize its potential contribution to economic development. Taking a systemic view of the economy, they argue that space-sector development can pull along other sectors. Political elites see the economic, security, and prestige benefits of space activities as inter-related and mutually reinforcing. However, even though the space program has had these economic goals and impacts, concrete development benefits, as we usually think of them, have not provided the main rationale for the program itself or for decisions within it. THE GOAL OF CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS PRESTIGE, NOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] The governments allocation of resources in civil space has not been consistent with developmental priorities since 1992, when the human spaceflight program formally began. The areas of space technology known to generate the most direct and reliable contributions to economic development are those with concrete applications, such as telecommunications satellites and remote-sensing satellites for resource management and weather monitoring. The Japanese and Indian space programs, especially in earlier periods, were designed to serve these developmental priorities. In China, over the past two decades, resources devoted to civil space have been concentrated not in these relatively productive areas, but in a costly human spaceflight engineering program of no evident direct benefit to the national economy. The symbolism of human spaceflight has been an important driver of this effort. CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM NOT TIED TO CONDITION OF ITS ECONOMY Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Because of the space sectors special status, macroeconomic and other aggregate national-level indicators are weak predictors of Chinas space performance. Prospects for the space sector cannot be directly inferred from the growth of Chinas gross domestic product or gross national income. Nor can they be read off demographic data, such as characterizations of the workforces age structure or estimates of the numbers of new scientific and technical university degree holders. Each of these factors will matter, but the relationships between these factors and space-sector outcomes are likely to be non-linear. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 19 -
p. 20 48 of
CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: EXAGGERATED

CHINA IS ENGAGED IN A SPACE RACE The Telegraph (UK) April 27, 2011 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8475779/China-to-build-its-own-spacestation.html] More than half-a-century after the space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, China has poured billions into its own space programme in competition with India. If everything goes according to plan, China will send a man to the moon by 2025 according to Ye Peijin, the commander in chief of the Chang'e (lunar landing) programme. Plans are also afoot to send probes to both Mars and Venus. The plan for a 60-ton, three-module space station is the third and final phase of Project 921, a project that began in 1992 and which has already seen China become the third country to launch a man into space. In 2008, China carried out its first space walk, which was broadcast live to a huge audience on national television. CHINAS SPACE GOALS ARE UNDERESTIMATED Clara Moskowitz, Space.Com Senior Writer, December 2010 [http://www.space.com/10431-china-lofty-goals-space-station-moon-mars-exploration.html] Although the country has not officially announced plans to send people to the moon, many experts say that's where they're heading, and that the space station project, lunar surveyors and robotic landers are merely the setup for that goal. "They're very conservative about laying out their goals," Johnson-Freese told SPACE.com. "They have not announced an official manned lunar program. They want to have all the building blocks in place for success before that's announced." In addition to its moon programs, China has also drawn up a technical plan for a spacecraft to orbit Mars, Xinhua reported. That mission would build upon the technology developed for the two moon missions. The earliest possible launch date for the Mars orbiter is 2013. Meanwhile, the country has launched a record total of 14 rockets in 2010 so far, beating the record for most Chinese space missions in a single year. A number of these payloads were Chinese Beidou navigation satellites and Yaogan military spacecraft.
p. 21 48 of
CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: NOT HOSTILE

CHINA IS STRONGLY COMMITTED TO MILITARY ADVANTAGES IN SPACE Baohui Zhang, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Lingnan Univ, Feb. 2011 [Asian Survey, vol. 51, number 2, p.311] Indeed, in the wake of Chinas January 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test, many U.S. experts have attempted to identify Chinas motives. One driver of Chinas military space program is its perception of a forthcoming revolutionin military affairs. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) sees space as a new and critical dimension of future warfare. The comment by the commander of the Chinese Air Force captures this perception of the PLA. In addition, Chinas military space program is seen as part of a broad asymmetric strategy designed to offset conventional U.S. military advantages. For example, as observed by Ashley J. Tellis in 2007, Chinas pursuit of counterspace capabilities is not driven fundamentally by a desire to protest American space policies, and those of the George W. Bush administration in particular, but is part of a considered strategy designed to counter the overall military capabilities of the United States. MILITARY AMBITION IS AT THE CENTER OF CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] While political and economic considerations contribute to Chinas ambit ions in space, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) plays a prominent if not central role. Aerospace power the strategic and operational application of military force via or aided by platforms operating in or passing through air and space is emerging as a key instrument of Chinese statecraft. The PRC understands the potential role that aerospace power can play in pursuing military goals. Control over the skies over a particular region is a critical enabler for dominance on the surface. Effective application of spacebased systems, and denying a potential adversarys effective use of space assets, offers the PLA greater flexibility in conducting operations around the countrysperiphery and greater confidence in it s nuclear deterrent. An ability to hold at risk adversarial space systems also may deter attacks on Chinese space systems, or complicate the ability of regional powers to operate in the AsiaPacific region should deterrence fail.
p. 22 48 of

CHINAS REAL AIMS IN SPACE ARE HOSTILE, DESPITE THEIR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS Gabriele Garibaldi, Association for Asian Research, 2006 [The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Part II, December 5, 2006 http://asianresearch.org/articles/2979.html] As the situation currently stands, it is clear that the expression to assure our continued access to space and deny the space to others if necessary - recurrent, with little variations, in the US military plans - is specifically directed towards China. The Pentagon believes that China has the same intention towards the ousting the United States from Space, and considers its polemic declarations about the rumoured US plans of space weaponization - expressed in front of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space - as the weapon to diplomatically damage and slow down the action of the USA, while actively working in secret towards the same objective. According to Larry Wortzel, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, the introduction by the Chinese of a draft treaty devised to act against the US's intent to develop space weapons is misleading (because theyre developing their own space-based weapons...), having no other purpose than to diplomatically damage the USA and thus delay their Theater Missile Defense plan, while China continues with its own plans. According to Richard Fisher of The Jamestown Foundation, the People's Liberation Army is aware that the control of space concept - as theorized by the US military - is an objective that China must achieve: China needs to be able to deny to the United States access and use of space, as they themselves exploit space to support their own forces.
p. 23 48 of

CHINA AND THE U.S. WILL MAKE PEACE IN EVERY AREA BUT ONE: SPACE Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 2-3] Less venerable theories of conflict and cooperation are more favorable toward long-term peace. Economically, the US and PRC are tightly bound. Chinese markets are opening and the productivity of PRC manufacturing has allowed the US to move into a post-industrial economy. Trade is increasing substantially, and much of Americas foreign debt is held by China, to the point that it is not to either states fiscal advantage to engage in a conflict that will sever or (even just weaken) these ties. Culturally and historically, the Chinese and American people are inclined toward mutual admiration and respect. Despite the political differences between Chinese Communism and Western Liberal Democratic Capitalism, human connections and government rapprochement are valued by both sides. An appreciation of American technological innovation and Chinese work and spiritual ethics imbues the still-developing relationship. Both sides seem willing to work together and sustain a world system in which each nation-state has its place and its independence. In every sphere but one, it seems, the two great powers are building toward peace. In every sphere of competition, with one exception, there is room for negotiation and mutually beneficial outcomes. That one incompatible, uncompromising realm is outer space. SPACE IS A KEY SECURITY ISSUE BETWEEN CHINA AND THE U.S. Baohui Zhang, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Lingnan Univ, Feb. 2011 [Asian Survey, vol. 51, number 2, p.311] Chinas military space program and its strategies for space warfare have caused rising concerns in the United States. In fact, Chinas military intentions in outer space have emerged as one of the central security issues between the two countries. In November 2009, after the commander of the Chinese Air Force called the militarization of space a historical inevitability, General Kevin Chilton, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, urged China to explain the objectives of its rapidly advancing military space program.
p. 24 48 of

THE U.S. MUST TAKE CHINAS SPACE THREAT SERIOUSLY Gabriele Garibaldi, Association for Asian Research, 2006 [The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Part II, December 5, 2006 http://asianresearch.org/articles/2979.html] According to Robert Walker, former president of the Commission on the future of the American aerospace industry, China is engaged in an aggressive space program focused on a Moon landing, followed by establishing a permanent base within a decade (according to Japanese experts, China will be able to reach the Moon within three to four years) and eventually aiming for Mars. It will be sufficient for it to spend 1% of its GDP over the next few years in order to provide the financing for a significantly competitive space program. The USA, on the other hand, at least according to Walker, is no longer able to repeat the Moon mission of thirty-five years ago. This inability to compete in a new Moon race is more than an issue of national pride: it also raises serious strategical questions over China's rising potential as a lunar power. China, if it succeeded in its goal, would acquire enormous international prestige. However, most significantly, by establishing permanent bases on the Moon, China would gain the ability to exploit lunar resources and therefore gain important technological advantages over other nations (including nuclear fusion, using the helium 3 isotope), with concrete consequences on Earth's activities. Walker's conclusion is that the Chinese space program has yet to be taken seriously by American politicians. Nevertheless, it represents a serious challenge to the US leadership in Space. The US must answer such a challenge by developing new technologies (for instance, the nuclear plasma propulsion system) in order to reach the Moon and Mars faster than currently possible, and to travel more frequently and thriftily into Earth's low orbit.
p. 25 48 of
AT: CHINESE LEADERSHIP TURN

SPACE ACHIEVEMENTS STRENGTHEN THE CURRENT CHINESE LEADERSHIP Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2001 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Chinese leaders and policymakers stress that domestic political stability is a precondition for sustainable economic development. Both proponents and critics of the space program say that it serves an increasingly important domestic political function by bolstering the legitimacy of the regime which created it and by serving as a national achievement in which Chinese, often divided on other issues, can share pride. CHINAS SUCCESSFUL SPACE PROGRAM LEGITIMIZES THEIR SOCIETY Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 4] Chinas current space program is readily imagined as a New Age Great Wall. Competing with the West in the highest technological endeavors, and doing so despite significant capital disparities, enhances the legitimacy of the communist party. Chinas domestic population rationalizes lower per capita income as the state completes its rise among nations to superpower status. International audiences are awed by the accomplishments, conveying further legitimacy to the state. They acknowledge Chinas domestic right to self-determination, but more importantly give credence to the capacity of Chinese manufacturing to produce quality high technology goods. This perception helps to increase the sale of advanced Chinese- made products abroad. SPACE IS A BIG SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE IN CHINA Washington Post January 23, 2011 [www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203747.html] There is also the matter of prestige. As with other grandiose projects - high-speed rail, the world's biggest airport in Beijing, staging the 2008 Olympics - China's Communist leaders view the space program as a way to show citizens that they can produce successes, thus fostering patriotism and support for the party's continued rule. "National pride will increase," Xu said. "It's a selling point used by leading scientists."
p. 26 48 of
AT: CHINESE LEADERSHIP TURN

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM INCREASES PRESTIGE AND BOOSTS LEGITIMACY OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] The PRC has embarked upon an ambitious dualuse, civilmilitary space program that is predominantly driven by the desire to stand among equals in the international community. However, as in most space programs, there is a military stake. Chinas motivations for investing significant resources into space programs may differ little from other spacefaring nations. From a political perspective, Beijing seeks to elevate its status and prestige internationally. National pride resulting from successes in space may enhance the domestic legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. From an economic perspective, China benefit s from space technology spin offs, commercial applications of space systems, and revenue generated by international satellite launch services. THE U.S. CANT DO MUCH TO INFLUENCE CHINESE NATIONALISM David Shambaugh, Director, China Policy Program, GWU, Winter, 2011 [Washington Quarterly, volume 34. number 1, Winter 2011 p. 22] Policy implications flow from these schools individually and collectively. Individually, it is important to recognize that Nativist voices exist and that nationalist sentiments are growing, yet their influence should not be overstated. They cause a lot of thunder but little rain (leisheng da, yudian xiao), according to an ancient Chinese proverb. Although the United States should be sensitive not to antagonize and provoke these elements in the Chinese polity, neither can the United States really do much to damp down this xenophobia, as it has its own domestic dynamic.
p. 27 48 of
AT: CHINESE INSECURITY

THE PLA IS USING SPACE FOR PROJECTING POWER NOW Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] The PLA is expanding it s ability to project military power vertically into space and horizontally beyond its immediate periphery in order to defend against perceived threats to national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Over time, the PRCs defense establishment may gain a limited ability to conduct new historic missions to enforce a broader set of security interests beyond Chinas immediate periphery. PLA observers view air and space as merging into a single operational medium of the future, with the English term aerospace best describing the linkage between the two domains. SPACE PROGRAM ASSETS ARE LINKED INTO CHINESE TARGETING SYSTEMS NOW Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] As its persistent sensor, data fusion, and command and control architecture increases in sophistication and range, the PLAs ability to hold at risk an expanding number of targets throughout the western Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and elsewhere around its periphery is expected to grow. In line wit h the PLAs informationization goals, precision guidance enjoys a high R&D priority. For high altitude target acquisition of moving targets at sea, Chinas defense R&D community appears to be investing significant resources into developing a missile born SAR capability that would be integrated with satellite positioning and inertial navigation systems. Existing and future data relay satellites and other beyond line of sight communications systems could transmit targeting data to and from theater command elements. Developments underway suggest that the PLA is improving it s ability to quickly download, process, and disseminate information obtained from space systems. Spacebased assets have been integrated into Blue Force ballistic and ground launched cruise missile operational training exercises. THE PLA PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM NOW Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2001 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Critical space infrastructure, including existing launch facilities, and the day-to-day management of civil space operations, especially in the human spaceflight program, are the responsibility of PLA organs. Within the PLA, the General Armaments Department (GAD) plays the most important role in space activities. In civil space, the GAD acts mainly in and through the Manned Space Engineering Office, the entity responsible for the human spaceflight program. The PLA Air Force plays a role in astronaut training and medicine. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 27 -
p. 28 48 of

THE PLA HAS ENORMOUS INFLUENCE OVER CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Within a broad and fragmented part y and government policy framework, the PLA plays a central role in coordinating, defining, and managing national space requirements. Functional offices within the General Staff Department (GSD) shape operational requirements for militarily relevant spacebased sensors, aerospace surveillance systems, and communications satellites. The GSD, as well as the Chinese Air Force, Navy, and Second Artillery Force, also are primary customers of spacebased systems. For example, the GSD Operations Department appears to manage reference stations and at least one laser ranging system supporting the countrys expanding navigation satellite network. Other GSD departments operate sites for processing and distributing downlinked imagery and electronic reconnaissance information. CHINESE STRATEGISTS SEE SPACE AS THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLEFIELD IN THE FUTURE Michael Chase, The Jamestown Foundation, March 25, 2011 [http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37699&tx_ttn ews[backPid]=25&cHash=e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244] Chinese strategists regard space as a crucial battlefield in future wars. Chinese military publications characterize space as the high ground that both sides will strive to control in informatized local wars because of its influence on information superiority and its importance in seizing the initiative in a conflict. Chinese analysts write that space systems serve as key enablers by providing support in areas such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), early warning, communications, navigation and positioning, targeting for precision weapons, surveying and mapping, and meteorological support. Chinese analysts also portray space systems as force multipliers that support joint operations and enhance the effectiveness of ground, air, and naval forces. CHINA IS MODERNIZING ITS WEAPONS SYSTEMS NOW Christopher Twomey, Asst Prof National Security, Naval Postgraduate School, 2011 [Asia Policy, Number 11, January 2011 p. 59] Additionally, it is important to highlight that Asian states are modernizing weapon delivery systems across the board. Some modernizations will likely stabilize power dyads, but most will not (as discussed in the next section). China has begun to develop a secure second-strike force. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) already has fielded long-range solid fueled missiles that can be launched in minutes rather than hours. These DF-31A systems are also deployed on mobile launchers, further enhancing their immunity from a potential first strike to disarm them by Russia, the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 28 -
p. 29 48 of
United States, or, potentially, India. The PLA Navy is also in the process of deploying new ballistic missilelaunching submarines (Chinas boomers are the Type-94 Jin-class boats). At some point, these will be equipped with a modern missile, the JL-2, which has long been in development.
p. 30 48 of

SPACE MISSIONS WILL PROVIDE CHINA CRUCIAL MILITARY CAPABILITY TO COUNTER THE U.S. EVEN IF WE DONT INCREASE OUR SPACE PROGRAM Mark Stokes, Executive Director, Project 2049 Institute, May 11, 2011 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] The PLA is investing in aerospace capabilities that may offset shortcomings in the face of a more technologically advanced adversary. Long range precision strike assets could offer the PLA a decisive advantage in resolving conflicts on terms favorable to PRC interests. Extended range convent ional precision strike assets, supported by sensor architecture that is inclusive of space based surveillance assets, could facilitate attainment of air superiority in the event of disputes over territorial or sovereignty claims around China's periphery. In a future contingency requiring U.S. intervention, spaceenabled long range precision strike assets could seek to suppress U.S. operations from forward bases in Japan, from U.S. aircraft battle groups operating in the Western Pacific, and perhaps over the next five to 10 years from U.S. bases on Guam. PRC interests may expand beyond its immediate periphery.
p. 31 48 of
SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS
HISTORY SHOWS THAT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP BEFORE THE U.S. CAN GAIN INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP Christopher Stone, space policy analyst and strategist, Space Review, March 14, 2011 [The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1] The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community.
p. 32 48 of
SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS
IF THE U.S. GETS TO SPACE FIRST, IT WILL DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM TRYING Everett Dolman, Prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 31] Moreover, if the United States were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non- arbitrary, and efficient, such an action would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems. It could also set the stage for a new space regime, one that encourages space commerce and development. Should the United States use its advantage to police the heavens and allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of LEO could be viewed as a global public good. In much the same way the British maintained control of the high seas in the nineteenth century, enforcing international norms of innocent passage and property rights, and against slavery, the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst of economic expansion.
p. 33 48 of
SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS
DEPLOYMENT OF SPACE WEAPONS WOULD GREATLY ENHANCE U.S. MILITARY POWER Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 32] There is little reason to believe the United States will forego the capacity to influence decisions and events beyond its borders, with military force if necessary. Whether that capacity comes from space as well as the other military domains is undetermined. But, the operational deployment of space weapons would increase that capacity by providing for nearly instantaneous force projection worldwide. This force would be precise, unstoppable, and deadly. SPACE WEAPONIZATION WOULD COST SO MUCH IT WOULD CONSTRAIN OUR GROUND FORCES, MAKING THE U.S. LESS OF AN IMPERIAL THREAT REDUCING FEAR OF US Everett Dolman, prof., Comparative Military Studies, US Air Force, September 2010 [The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment, September 2010, p. 32] At the same time, the United States would forgo some of its ability to intervene directly in other states because the necessary budget tradeoffs would diminish its capacity to do so. A space-heavy American military would structurally limit potential American imperial ambitions while simultaneously extending its global leadership role. The need to limit collateral damage, the requirement for precision to allay the low volume of fire, and the tremendous cost of space weapons will ensure they are used for high-value, time-sensitive targets. An opposing states calculation of survival no longer would depend on interpreting whether or not the United States desires to be a good neighbor; whether it will invade and occupy its territory. Without sovereignty at risk, fear of a space-dominant American military will subside. The United States will maintain its position of hegemony as well as its security, and the world will not be threatened by the specter of a future American empire.
p. 34 48 of
CHINESE SOFT POWER SCENARIO

CHINA IS USING ITS ADVANCED SPACE PROGRAM TO WIN GLOBAL INFLUENCE THROUGH SOFT POWER Radhakrisha Rao, Space Technology and Soft Power, December 10, 2009 [Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies, http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/space-technology-andsoft-power-3025.html] Economically resurgent and technologically vibrant China is steadily and quietly expanding its influence over a large part of the developing world by making available its expertise, services and hardware for building and launching satellites. Chinas spreading influence - courtesy of space technology is quite evident in many third world countries. Nearer home, China, which has all along been assisting Pakistan in developing its space programme, has signed an agreement with Pakistan, granting US$ 200 million for a satellite project. On its part, the oil rich Nigeria has signed a US$157million agreement with China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), the primary marketing arm of Chinese aerospace industry, for replacing its NIGCOMSAT-1 domestic satellite. China, which is going great guns in Latin America, has assured Bolivia of its assistance in developing an indigenous space programme and also getting its first satellite off the ground. Media reports also suggest that China is building and launching a communications spacecraft for Laos. With a view to attract more customers to its commercial launch service, China is now building its fourth launch complex in Hainan island. All the three currently operational Chinese launch bases are landlocked and have no access to sea. Against this backdrop, Ajay Lele, Research Fellow at the New Delhi based Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) has suggested that India should take a leaf out of Chinese experience to expand its soft power by using space technology as a tool. CHINAS INFLUENCE IS BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR GROWING ECONOMIC POWER Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February 2011 [The Soft Notion of Chinas Soft Power, Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03 http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/] This brings us to the final form of Chinas non-hard power. Even after three decades of reform, it is still not so much what China has become that is the focus of attention, as what it will become in the future. The word will is deliberately used instead of might, as Chinas future rise has been taken for granted by many. As a result, there has long been a tendency to develop policies towards China today based on the power that it is expected to have in the future. Thus China has been empowered by the way in which others think about it; perceptions have altered realities. But these external perceptions of China are not based on the supposed soft-power attraction of culture and values. Rather, Chinas imagined power is typically built on assessments of growing material power and clout particularly Chinas future economic power.
p. 35 48 of

THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF FUTURE CHINESE ECONOMIC POWER GIVES THEM INFLUENCE THAT OVERCOMES THE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February 2011 [The Soft Notion of Chinas Soft Power, Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03 http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/] But the main intention of this paper was not to evaluate the extent of Chinese soft power, but to question the efficacy of deploying ill-thought-out and catch- all definitions. Quite simply, if we want to understand the potential sources of why other countries act in relation to China, making a simple division between hard and soft power is a very blunt instrument. In particular, while there are indeed ideational and normative drivers for the way in which others treat China, to think that this is a reflection of a growing admiration of (and attraction to) the current Chinese political and social order might be going too far in many cases. Attraction to the Chinese economic record (and a desire to emulate the positive elements of it) is another matter altogether. And the desire to become tied to Chinas inevitable economic future is even more important. In short, it is easy to infer soft power, as a number of studies and policy analyses seem to have done, when harder material sources of influence have arguably been more important. SUCCESS IN SPACE BOOSTS CHINAS PRESTIGE AND SOFT POWER Alanna Krolikowski, Visiting Scholar, Space Policy Institute, GW Univ., May 11, 2001 [Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] Chinese scholars and policymakers believe it helpful to cultivate Chinas soft power, especially among developing countries. Highly visible civil space activities, such as human spaceflight, serve this goal, though they have at times also alarmed Chinas neighbors and cost it some soft power. Success in space brings China international prestige. Achievements in space are an implicit endorsement of Chinas political and economic model. Space capability is a marker of modernity and technological progress, signalling that China has overcome a legacy of colonialism and what many in China regard as historical weakness.
p. 36 48 of

CHINAS INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM EARNS IT POLITICAL BENEFITS Dr. James Clay Moltz, Naval Postgraduate School, May 11, 2011 [Testimony for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] In recent years, China has also begun to engage in considerable commercial space exports. It has sold satellite laserranging equipment to Argentina and ground stations and satellites to Venezuela, Pakistan, and Nigeria, among others. While Chinas space enterprises are seeking profits abroad, China also uses space exports for politicalpurposes. Its space deals wit h Nigeria and Venezuela, for example, were motivated by Chinese interests in longterm energy security. In both cases, these deals for Chinese built and launched geostationary communications satellites were officially commercial, but on very favorable credit terms to the purchasing countries, with China providing some costs and offering low or zerointerest rates on its loans. China also provided technical training to each countrys space scientists, as well as building ground stations on their territories. This strategy offers political benefits but imposes costs on the Chinese government and the space industry. SPACE COULD HELP CHINA ADVANCE ITS FOREIGN POLICY GOALS Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, GWU, May 11, 2011 [Testimony for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] One possible use for Chinese human space flight would be to advance Chinese foreign policy objectives. The Soviet Union and the United States both used flights of foreign astronauts as symbolic means of aiding allies and creating good will. China could do the same as well as using such flights to support economic growth by securing supplies of raw materials and access to markets. Chinese space cooperation agreements in Africa (e.g., Nigeria) and Lat in America (e.g., Brazil, Venezuela) have reportedly included offers of technology, training, loan guarantees, and other inducements to trade.
p. 37 48 of

CHINA HAS USED SPACE TO INCREASE ALLIANCES IN ASIA Dr. James Clay Moltz, Naval Postgraduate School, May 11, 2011 [Testimony for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/hr11_05_11.php] China has also used space to pursue its foreign policy goals. In 1992, it founded the AsiaPacific Multilateral Cooperation in Space Technology and Applications (AP MCSTA). This group, which included Pakistan, Thailand, and a number of other developing countries, eventually began cooperating in several areas, including in the joint development of satellites based on Chinese technology. In 2008, China led a subset of this group to establish the AsiaPacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO)a formal, membershiponly group modeled on ESA. The APSCO organization now includes seven duespaying members: China, Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, and Thailand. China has high hopes for APSCO, but it has yet to attract more accomplished space powers to the group. APSCO engages in joint research and data exchange efforts, as well as formal training courses for scientists and engineers from the AsianPacific region in space technology and remote sensing. Through these efforts, China has been able t o portray itself as a purveyor of space knowhow and technology to lesserdeveloped states in Asia and elsewhere. One target of interest has been Indonesia, which recently received satellite ground stations and communications equipment from China, as well as visit by Chinese taikonauts. CHINA IS MAKING HUGE INROADS INTO LATIN AMERICA WITH SPACE PROGRAM Evan Ellis, The Jamestown Foundation, July 9, 2010 [China Brief, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=36602] Chinas space cooperation with Latin America is transforming the region. For the new generation of space technicians in Venezuela and Bolivia, Chinese workers, equipment, and training are becoming part of the culture, just as Soviet equipment, technology and personnel shaped the experience of a generation of Cubans and Nicaraguans. Moreover, it is likely that the Venezuelan and Bolivian precedents, in combination with other Chinese investments, will eventually open up the Chilean and Argentine space markets, even as Chinese space diplomacy builds inroads in Peru, possibly Mexico, and eventually in other nations such as Colombia. Each of these developments will advance the PRCs presence in the technical infrastructure of Latin American while moving it toward an ever more capable, multidimensional space capabilitya reality to which the United States and other global players will have to adjust.
p. 38 48 of

A MOON LANDING WOULD GIVE CHINA A HUGE AMOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE Mark Whittington, Houston-based writer and author, October 28, 2010 [http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5946740/chinas_militarization_of_space_a_long _pg2.html?cat=15] China has made no secret of its desire to attempt a manned lunar landing around 2020. With President Obama's abandonment of the Moon as a goal for American explorers, a Chinese lunar landing would have immense propaganda value for the People's Republic of China. While America would be too much in decline to explore the Moon, China would forge ahead. The message would be unmistakable. The 21st Century would not be an American Century, but rather a Chinese one.
p. 39 48 of
AT: COOPERATION CP
KNOWING THE OTHER SIDES INTENTIONS DOESNT DEFUSE THE DILEMMA Baohui Zhang, Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Lingnan Univ, Feb. 2011 [Asian Survey, vol. 51, number 2, p.315] According to Robert Jervis, The heart of the security dilemma argument is that an increase in one states security can make others less secure, not because of misperceptions or imagined hostility, but because of the anarchic context of international relations. In this context, Even if they can be certain that the current intentions of other states are benign, they can neither neglect the possibility that the others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves will remain peaceful. Inevitably, when one state seeks to expand its military capability, others have to take similar measures.
p. 40 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS STILL STRONG

AMERICAN HEGEMONY IS VULNERABLE AND SO FAR OBAMA HAS MAINTAINED OUR PURSUIT OF PRIMACY Allan Watson, Department of Geography, Staffordshire Univ, 2010 [Antipode, Volume 42, No. 2 pp. 242-247] Currently, US hegemony looks extremely vulnerable, and it is less in command of a world that looks entirely more closed and hostile to American values. This condition is in part due to a legacy of isolation from the international community and European allies, relationships which Obama must rebuild if he truly wishes to build a new American age. Obama has spoken openly about the task of relationship rebuilding, but while his words may suggest a multilateral approach, his focus has been very much on US global leadership. THIS IS A CRUCIAL MOMENT FOR AMERICAN HEGEMONY Allan Watson, Department of Geography, Staffordshire Univ, 2010 [Antipode, Volume 42, No. 2 pp. 242-247] We appear to have reached a turning point in American hegemony. The election of a new American president, Barack Obama, combined with global financial crisis, have left us in uncertain times. While the 9/11 attacks were a defining moment for the USA and its relationship with the rest of the world, as the pretext for a more aggressive and contradictory hegemony (Anderson 2003), the events of late 2008 could arguably prove to have more fundamental and far-reaching consequences.
p. 41 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS LOSS NOT INEVITABLE

THE INEVITABLE DECLINE OF AMERICAN HEGEMONY HAS BEEN OVERSTATED THE U.S. REMAINS TOP DOG Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136] These American traditions, together with historical events beyond Americans control, have catapulted the United States to a position of pre-eminence in the world. Since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of this unipolar world, there has been much anticipation of the end of unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar world in which the United States is no longer the predominant power. Not only realist theorists but others both inside and outside the United States have long argued the theoretical and practical unsustainability, not to mention undesirability, of a world with only one superpower. Mainstream realist theory has assumed that other powers must inevitably band together to balance against the superpower. Others expected the post-Cold War era to be characterized by the primacy of geoeconomics over geopolitics and foresaw a multipolar world with the economic giants of Europe, India, Japan, and China rivaling the United States. Finally, in the wake of the Iraq War and with hostility to the United States, as measured in public opinion polls, apparently at an all-time high, there has been a widespread assumption that the American position in the world must finally be eroding. Yet American predominance in the main categories of power persists as a key feature of the international system. The enormous and productive American economy remains at the center of the international economic system. American democratic principles are shared by over a hundred nations. The American military is not only the largest but the only one capable of projecting force into distant theaters. Chinese strategists, who spend a great deal of time thinking about these things, see the world not as multipolar but as characterized by one superpower, many great powers, and this configuration seems likely to persist into the future absent either a catastrophic blow to American power or a decision by the United States to diminish its power and international influence voluntarily. THE UNITED STATES IS STILL THE GLOBAL LEADER BUT OTHER NATIONS ARE TRYING TO CHALLENGE US Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136] The world has not been transformed, however. Nations remain as strong as ever, and so too the nationalist ambitions, the passions, and the competition among nations that have shaped history. The world is still unipolar, with the United States remaining the only superpower. But international competition among great powers has returned, with the United States, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India, Iran, and others vying for regional predominance. Struggles for honor and status and influence in the world have once again become key features of the international scene. Ideologically, it is a time not of convergence but of divergence. The competition between liberalism and absolutism has reemerged, with the nations of the world increasingly lining up, as in the past, along ideological lines. Finally, there is the fault line between modernity and tradition, the violent struggle of Islamic fundamentalists against the modern powers and the secular cultures that, in their view, have penetrated and polluted their Islamic world. National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 41 -
p. 42 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS PRIMACY GOOD IMPACT

AMERICAN PRIMACY REDUCES THE RISK OF WAR Bradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006 [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86] In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL MAKES WAR WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS MORE LIKELY Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136] The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.
p. 43 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS PRIMACY GOOD IMPACT

HEGEMONY CREATES THE CONDITIONS FOR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FREEDOM Bradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006 [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86] Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." AMERICAN POWER SPREADS LIBERALISM Bradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006 [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86] American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism: Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States.
p. 44 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS AT: IMPACT TURNS

AMERICAN PRIMACY HAS ITS FLAWS, BUT THOSE ARE VASTLY OUTWEIGHED BY ITS BENEFITS Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Reviw No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136] This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world s powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. U.S. POWER IS STILL AN INDISPENSABLE FORCE FOR GOOD Thomas Henricksen, senior fellow, Stanfords Hoover Institution, November 3, 2009 [http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/30/berlin-wall-09-anniversary-cold-war-nato-opinionscontributors-thomas-h-henriksen.html] Instead of a diminished U.S. role, the post-Wall stretch has witnessed the expanded indispensability of American power and diplomacy. Without the prodigious U.S. economic capacity and military might, regional troublemakers and local conflicts would have gotten out of hand. An American-led coalition turned back Iraq's conquest of Kuwait. Washington's intervention stopped the turmoil in Haiti and the horrific atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s, while Western Europe dithered. When Bill Clinton failed to lift a finger to staunch Rwanda's genocide, hundreds of thousands died in the Central African country, testifying to the need for U.S. engagement.
p. 45 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS AT: SOFT POWER KEY

HARD POWER KEY TO SOFT POWER James Traub, NYT Syndicated Columnist, NYT MAGAZINE January 30, 2005 p. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine] The problem with the hard-soft dichotomy itself is that it fails to take account of the soft-power potential of military helicopters and aircraft carriers. We live in an era not only of globalized information but also of the nearly $450 billion defense budget. The United States military is now an instrument of absolutely everything -- warfare, diplomacy, social policy, humanitarianism. It just depends how we deploy it. The critical attributes that make the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln an instrument of persuasion rather than of coercion are, first, that it is being put to nonlethal use and, second and no less important, that it is advancing humanitarian ends -- that it is not directly serving American selfinterest. ''This was an act of God,'' the Jakarta Post reporter quotes an American serviceman. ''We are here and happy to help.'' SOFT POWER IS NOT REALLY SEPARABLE FROM HARD POWER Kazuo Ogoura, Pres. Japan Foundation, Center for Global Partnership, October 2006 [http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=article&task=default&articleid=341] If all of the above points are considered together, it is clear that soft power as an actual political theory is loaded with ideology and riddled with contradictions and hypocrisy. Religion and ideology, for example, are seen by some as potent examples of soft power. Looking back through history, however, one cannot fail to notice that whenever religion and ideology have spread around the world, they have invariably been accompanied by military might. History teaches us that soft power needs to be backed by hard power, and this is something that many soft power theorists are now recognizing. It is possible, therefore, to see soft power as no more than a means of rationalizing the exercise of hard power. Describing the use of military force as a war on terror is a deft use of soft power. Labeling the use of force with the ideology of a righteous struggle against terrorism is a means of legitimizing military action undertaken without the consent of the international community. To put it another way, we need to be aware that soft power can be a subtle way of rationalizing military action that lacks international legitimacy by bringing into play the concept of good and evil. In this light, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the concept of soft power is a kind of hypocrisy.
p. 46 48 of
U.S. LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS AT: SOFT POWER KEY

HARD POWER IS A PRECONDITION FOR SOFT POWER Ilhan, Niaz, faculty, history, Quaid-i-Azam Univ, Islamabad, January 10, 2010 [http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/in-papermagazine/encounter/the-mirage-of-soft-power-in-a-globalised-world-010] Historically, therefore, power is power. A vast empire that possesses a sound economy, a powerful military, a competent administrative elite and a pragmatic leadership with enough political will to deal effectively with challenges, can also enjoy cultural prestige and charisma. Depending on the duration and success of that empire, its intellectual and cultural legacy may well outlast its physical dominion. This, however, does not alter the terms of causation for the imperial legacy is an effect of hard power control.

US Leadership Aff

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

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

US Leadership Aff

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2011 Experienced Core Files p.

Space Leadership Affirmative

2011 Experienced Core Files p. Space Leadership Affirmative

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

SPACE LEADERSHIP 1AC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

PRIVATE SECTOR SPACE WILL FAIL

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 10 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

PRIVATE SECTOR SPACE WILL FAIL

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 11 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

PRIVATE SECTOR SPACE WILL FAIL

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 12 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP IS BEING THREATENED

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 13 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO OVERALL DOMINANCE

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO OVERALL DOMINANCE

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS SUCCESSFUL

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 16 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINESE MOON BASE THREAT

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 17 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT TO THE U.S.

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 18 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: ONLY ECONOMIC

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: EXAGGERATED

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 20 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: NOT HOSTILE

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 21 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: NOT HOSTILE

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 22 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: NOT HOSTILE

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 23 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative

CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM IS A THREAT AT: NOT HOSTILE

National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Core Files 2011-12 - 24 -

2011 Experienced Core Files Space Leadership Affirmative