Moon Aff

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
Moon Aff (lol)
***1AC***
Inherency
A. Obamas Flexible Path plan cancelled the Constellation program, eliminating the only U.S. program for colonization Halvorson 10
Todd Halvorson, Kennedy Space Center Bureau Chief, April 14, 2010, Florida Today [Andrew Alvarado] Armstrong's crewmate Buzz Aldrin, the second man to stand on the moon, has endorsed the proposal, saying it will "allow us to again be pushing the boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth." Obama's plan would extend International Space Station operations through 2020 and direct NASA to invest $6 billion in the development of commercial space taxi services for astronauts traveling to and from the outpost. But it would kill Project Constellation and the Ares rockets and Orion spacecraft NASA has been developing for six years at a cost of more than $9 billion. "It
appears that we will have wasted our current $10 -plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we have discarded," the former astronauts
said. Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan all said the Ares I and Ares V rockets were patterned after the modular concept Werner von Braun employed for developing the Saturn 1B and Saturn V rockets that took American astronauts to the moon. The three raised serious concerns about the idea of shifting the responsibility for designing, developing and operating the rockets and spacecraft flown by U.S. astronauts from NASA to the private sector. "The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned by the president?s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive that we would hope," the astronauts said. "Without
the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downward slide to mediocrity," they said. "America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal."
Plan
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should establish a permanent human presence on the moon. We reserve the right to clarify.
Advantage 1: Space Leadership

A. China is ramping up their lunar development program Sasha 11
Deng Sasha, Editor for xinhuanet news, 6-9-11, Chinas second moon orbiter Change 2 goes to outer space, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-06/09/c_13920425.htm BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) -- China's
second moon orbiter Chang'e-2 on Thursday set off from its moon orbit for outer space about 1.5 million km away from the earth, Chinese scientists
said Thursday. The orbiter left its moon orbit at 5:10 p.m. and it will take about 85 days for the orbiter to reach outer space, according to the State Administration of Science,Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND). The orbiter had finished all its tasks within its designed life span of six months by April 1. Scientists decided to let it carry out additional exploratory tasks as the orbiter still had fuel in reserve. Traveling into outer space from the moon's orbit is the most important task among five additional ones, according to the SASTIND. "It's
the first time in the world for a satellite to be set off from the moon in remote outer space," said Zhou Jianliang, deputy chief engineer of the Chang'e-2 measure and control system of the Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC). Moon exploration means
about 400,000 km away from the earth, but outer space exploration means 1.5 million km, posing great challenges to the country's technology in measure and control, telecommunications, data transaction and orbit design, scientists said. Before flying away, the orbiter had finished two additional tasks as of May 23. One was to take photos of the northern and southern poles of the moon. The other was to descend again to the perilune orbit, about 15 km away from the surface, to catch high-resolution images of the Sinus Iridum, or Bay of Rainbows, the proposed landing ground for future moon missions. Scientists hope the satellite can continue operations until the end of next year. "We
are developing outer space measure and control stations in outer space and they will be capable to carry out tasks by the end of the second half next year," said an
SASTIND scientist, who declined to be named. At that time, the satellite can be used to test the two stations' functions, the scientist said. Challenges exist as Chang'e-2 was not designed for the additional task and it is now in extended service without extra capacities to deal with abnormal risks, Zhou said. Meanwhile, long-distance brings many problems like weakening signals and difficulties in measure and control, Zhou said. The Chang'e probes are named after a legendary Chinese moon goddess who flew to the moon. Besides
the current operations, China's ambitious three-stage moon mission will include a moon landing and launch of a moon rover around 2012 in the second phase. In the third phase, another rover will land on the moon and return to earth with lunar soil and stone samples for scientific research around 2017. The country has no plan or timetable for a manned moon landing for now. China launched its first lunar probe, Chang'e-1, in October 2007. It became the third country after Russia and the United States to send a person into space in 2003. Two more manned
space missions followed with the more recent in 2008 involving the country's first human space walk.
B. Even the perception of U.S. losing the moon undermines U.S. hegemony Vorenberg 08
Sue Vorenberg,Reported on new science and technology developments across New Mexico. Covered health issues and breaking news on a variety of topics, Scientists: U.S. power at stake in space race, Feb 12, 2008, http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/SpaceTechnology-and-Applications-International-Forum-Scientist ALBUQUERQUE
The underlying political message of space exploration and development is that our nation is powerful and strong, scientists at a space conference here said
Tuesday. Presidential candidates seem focused on using NASA's budget for things other than space exploration, but that would send the wrong message to growing nations like China, said two speakers at the Space Technology and Applications International Forum. The U.S. remains the only country that has landed on the moon.
But under NASA's current budget, China is likely to get there before the U.S. returns. "We must beat the People's Republic of China to the moon," said John Brandenburg, a senior propulsion scientist at Orbital Technologies Inc. in Wisconsin and a former scientist at Sandia National Laboratories. "A race to the moon is not a land war in Asia. And a race to the moon is one we can win." Beating China to the moon might actually stop that country from invading Taiwan, he said, because it will make the U.S. look stronger to the international community. "We can't win a land war in Asia," Brandenburg added. And while the idea of increasing
NASA's budget might not be popular, using NASA to send that sort of message to other countries is something the current crop of political candidates needs to consider, said Tom Taylor, vice president of Lunar Transportation Systems Inc. in Las Cruces. "I worry about some of the politics we see in this election year, and that politicians are looking at NASA's budget as a way to educate the masses rather than to push

forward with space exploration," he said.
Deterring wars is often more psychological than realitybased, Brandenburg said, and a U.S. presence on the moon sends a strong signal that our nation is still a technological powerhouse. "Our efforts in space are an indication of our wealth," Brandenburg said. "If we don't progress in space, people see us as a paper tiger. When we're in space, we're seen as a titanium tiger." Skylab's premature descent through the
atmosphere in July 1979 might have encouraged Iranian militants in November 1979 to take over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and capture hostages, he said, because it appeared that U.S. power was fading.
to happen on Earth," Brandenburg said.
"If we look weak in space, bad things tend
One of the biggest concerns is that the space shuttle program will stop in 2010, and the U.S. will have no way to get to the international space station other than hitching a ride with the Russians for at least four years as
If we're not first to go back to the moon, other countries will get there first in the not-so-distant future, perhaps in the next 20 years or so, Taylor said. And those countries could grab up access to helium 3 a source of clean, powerful fusion energy that could replace the entire power generation structure on Earth. "While it's a little early to speculate, helium 3 is worth about $12 billion per 2,000 pounds if we could mine it on the moon, it would change our entire nuclear industry," Taylor said. "If other countries get there first, I fear that our nation will drop into some lesser status." From
the next generation of U.S. space vehicles comes online, he said. a pure resource perspective, mining helium 3 could turn the U.S. into the top power producer in the world, Brandenburg said. "Once you get helium 3 on the moon, the moon becomes the new Persian Gulf," he said. "It's worth about 5,000 Saudi Arabias." And while in the end, everything comes down to tight budgets in Washington, the two scientists say they still hope politicians will keep the bigger picture in mind
"Resources are always tight in any society," Brandenburg said. "But you have to remember that exploration almost always leads to greater wealth."
and consider the next round of the space race is not something we want to lose.
C. U.S. Hegemony solves warthere is no alternative Kagan, 07 - senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert, End of Dreams, Return of History, 7/19,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html) 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
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
obeisance to international law, the perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value.
stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an Americandominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a
American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond.
Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the
world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today
Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely
6
multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to
a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. 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. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most
of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In
Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that
the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If
the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in
keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In
the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more
powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist

movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
D. Nuclear War multiple long-term biological impacts and extinction Ehrlich et al. 83
(Paul , American biologist and educator who is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, December 23, 1983, Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war, SCIENCE JOURNAL, Vol. 222 no. 4630 pp. 12931300 DOI: 10.1126/science.6658451, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/222/4630/1293.short)
Subfreezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the biological support systems of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or more. Postwar survivors would face starvation as well as freezing conditions in the dark and be exposed to near-lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not affected directly, because of the interdependence of the world economy. In either case the extinction of a large fraction of the Earth's animals, plants, and microorganisms seems possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Advantage 2: Helium 3
A. Helium-3 shortage will endanger US anti-proliferation security measures Dixon 10 (Darius, Danger Room: Whats Next In National Security, Helium-3 Shortage Could Mean Nuke Detection Disaster 4/29 JF) Stopping nuclear smuggling is already tough. But its about to get a lot harder. Helium-3, a crucial ingredient in neutron-particle-detection technology, is in extremely short supply. The helium-3 isotope represents less than 0.0002 percent of all helium. Of that, about 80 percent of helium-3 usage is devoted to security purposes, because the gas is extremely sensitive to neutrons, like those emitted spontaneously by plutonium. Projected demand for the nonradioactive gas in 2010 is said to be more than 76,000 liters per year, while U.S. production is a mere 8,000 liters annually, and U.S. total supply rests at less than 48,000 liters. This shortage wasnt identified until a workshop put on by the Department of Energys Office of Nuclear Physics in August 2008. The shortage is so severe, explained Dr. William K. Hagan, acting director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office at DHS, that even handheld and backpack detectors used by the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and Transportation Security Administration would be affected. According to the hearings charter, U.S. exports of the precious gas have ceased, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has been informed that it must diversify its helium-3 sources used for their nuclear-nonproliferation work. A lack of helium-3 will also adversely affect the oil and gas industry. These detectors are used to locate hydrocarbon reservoirs, and several measurement tools are designed around the use of helium-3, said GE Energy rep Anderson. Other affected industries include cryogenic research and magnetic resonance imaging. B. Helium-3 supply is down because of decreased production of nukeslimits radiation detection for national security Washington University Newsroom 10(Washington University in St. Louis, WUSTL Professor testifies on helium
shortage http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20644.aspx 4/22 JF)
The sudden shortage of a nuclear weapons production byproduct that is critical to industries such as nuclear detection, oil and gas, and medical diagnostics was the focus as a House Science and Technology panel heard testimony today from a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Helium-3is a nontoxic byproduct of producing nuclear weapons. It is a stable isotope with two protons and one neutron in its nucleus, one fewer neutron than the more common form of helium. And that missing neutron gives it special physical properties that have made it essential in cryogenics, medical diagnostics, oil and gas operations and nuclear radiation detection. The helium 3 isotope is relatively rare on Earth, so it is manufactured instead of recovered from natural deposits. It is formed when tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, decays. Only the United States and Russia produce significant amounts of tritium gas. Current supplies of helium-3 are sourced from the refurbishment and dismantlement of the nuclear stockpile. Supplies have dwindled because U.S. nuclear weapons production has come to a virtual halt with the end of the Cold War. But since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, demand has increased for helium-3 because of its use as a neutron detector in radiation monitors for national security, nonproliferation and homeland security applications. C. Radiation detection is key to proliferation prevention Richardson, Yuldashev, and Knapp 6 (Jeffrey, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Bekazhed, Institute of
Nuclear Physics, and Richard, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Improved Technology To Prevent Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism Pg. 1 6/15 JF)

As the world moves into the 21st century, the
possibility of greater reliance on nuclear energy will impose additional technical requirements to prevent proliferation. In addition to proliferation resistant reactors, a careful examination of the various possible fuel cycles from cradle to grave will provide additional technical and nonproliferation challenges in the areas of conversion, enrichment, transportation, recycling and waste disposal. Radiation detection technology and information management have a prominent role in any future global regime for nonproliferation. As nuclear energy and hence nuclear materials become an increasingly global phenomenon, using local technologies and capabilities facilitate incorporation of enhanced monitoring and detection on the regional level. Radiation detection technologies are an important tool in the prevention of proliferation and countering radiological / nuclear terrorism. A variety of new developments have enabled enhanced performance in terms of energy resolution, spatial resolution,
passive detection, predictive modeling and simulation, active interrogation, and ease of operation and deployment in the field.
D. Insufficient detection means terrorists can get nuclear weaponsopportunities, capability, and risk of mass destruction Gard 11
(Robert, Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, A Joint Study On Nuclear Terrorism http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearterrorism/articles/a_joint_study_on_nuclear_terrorism/ JF)
The joint study warns of a persistent danger that terrorists could obtain or produce nuclear explosive devices and employ them with catastrophic consequences, and that the threat is increasing due to globalization and the proliferation of technical knowledge.If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the study
report warns, the question will become not if but when, and on what scale, the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs. The study states that
making a nuclear bomb is potentially within the capabilities of a technically sophisticated terrorist group. But the UN Terrorism Prevention Office warned as early as 2001thatthere were some 130 terrorist groups capable of developing a home-made nuclear bomb if they could obtain highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The catastrophic result of a nuclear attack would not be limited to the resultant loss of life and massive destruction, the study notes, but it also would produce international psychological trauma and widespread political and economic chaos. Both presidents George W. Bush and Barack
Obama have recognized that the greatest threat to U.S. and international security is a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. This prompts the question as to why, especially after 9/11 and the explicit threats posed by terrorist organizations, current
approaches are inadequate, as the report concludes. The study identifies two principal reasons: secrecy on the part of nation states that want to protect their sovereignty and, the most significant barrier, a widespread attitude of complacency. There are dozens of research reactors around the world using highly enriched uranium, the easiest materials for terrorists to use to make explosive nuclear devices, and there are additional reactors using highly enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes. Supplying fuel to these reactors requires transporting to the reactor sites hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, when these materials are highly vulnerable to attack or diversion. In addition, many of these reactors have minimum security measures; they must be shut down and the
highly enriched uranium removed, or converted to low enriched uranium fuel, to be made safe from terrorists.
E. Terrorist nuclear use triggers global nuclear war ending in extinction Morgan 9 (Dennis, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009,
Pages 683-693, World on Fire JF)
10

Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know
about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, theyve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian dead hand system, where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed, it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the
suicidal Samson option against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include
Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could
attacks on Russia and even anti-Semitic European cities In that case, of course, last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any
accident, mistaken communication, false signal or lone wolf act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited
nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the use them or lose them strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to win the war. In other words, once Pandora's Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as
long as large nations oppress groups who seek self-determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
11
Advantage 3: NSEA
A. The National Space Exploration Administration will be created by the United States federal government to implement the plan. NSEA would be more focused. Whittington 11
Mark R. Whittington. May 26, 2011. Writer of space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard. Two Proposals Aim to Reorganize U.S. Space Operations. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110526/sc_ac/8540799_two_proposals_aim_to_reorganize_us_space_operations A new agency would be created called the National Space Exploration Administration ( NSEA), which would
handle space exploration conducted by the United States and its partners. Operations at the International Space Station would also be handled by NASA until its functioning life is completed, then the ISS and NASA would sunset. Other functions of NASA would be distributed among other government agencies. Space science, for example, would go to the National Science Foundation. Earth science would go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Aeronautics and some technology research and development would be assumed by a revived NACA, the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which existed before the creation of NASA. Both proposals, that of the creation of a U.S.
NASA is that it is a polyglot organization with a variety of different and competing functions. Both proposals recognize space
Space Guard and a National Space Exploration Administration, suggest that one problem facing exploration, including the establishment of permanent infrastructure on other worlds, as a vital national interest. In the Space Guard proposal, NASA is downsized, but becomes more focused toward exploration. In the Schmitt proposal, a new agency handles space exploration. How the politics of such a reorganization, on a scale of the original act that created NASA in the late 1950s, is as yet unknown.
B. NASA is focusing on Earth science and de-emphasizing exploration Wakeman 11

(Nick, Editor-in-Chief of Washington Technology FCW, NASA Shifts Funds to New Priorities, Federal Computer Week, 6-8, http://fcw.com/articles/2011/06/08/nasa-budget-priorities-shift.aspx)
As budgets tighten and priorities shift, NASA is cutting $1 billion from its pace operations budget, but spending more on other science and technology areas that will reshape the agency's mission , a new study shows. As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from shuttle operations to human exploration capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs, said Steve Bochinger, president of
Euroconsult North America. The firm and its partner Omnis Inc. have released a new study, NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016, which analyzes NASAs budget. As space operations shrink, the Bochinger said. Among the findings: The
science budget will be redistributed among NASA centers, Science Mission Directorate saw an 11 percent bump in 2011 and will have a $5 billion through 2016. Goddard Space Flight Center and Langley Research Center will
benefit because of the work on Earth science projects. The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will hold steady at about $3.9 billion but
funds will shift away from human exploration activities. C. Only splitting up NASA will allow effective space exploration. G. Ryan Faith. August 31, 2009. Giving NASA a clear mission. . Ryan Faith is an independent technology consultant and Adjunct
Fellow for Space Initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS) http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1456/1
If neither technology-oriented nor destination-oriented objectives seem able to provide a sense of direction to guide the nations efforts in space, then what can? To
leadership. The critical and growth during this period was
approach this question, it is useful to ask why President Kennedys challenge to go to the Moon was so effective in providing NASA with
element of this challenge that, although never explicit, was so important to NASAs health the transformationat least in fact, if not in lawinto an exploration agency. If we wish to see NASA act effectively as a space exploration agency, then the
12
most direct way to do this is to amend the Space Act to explicitly task the agency with the job of space exploration. However, before we do so, we must define what space exploration actually is. Space
exploration is the expansion of human influence in space.
D. Exploration siphons-off funds from NASA climate modeling --- its zero-sum Chameides 9
(Bill, Dean and Nicholas Professor of the Environment Duke University, Is NASA Spacing Out?, The Green Grok, 7-20, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/moonwalk) Do Manned Space Expeditions Make Sense? Now theres a plan afoot to again send humans where only 12 men have boldly gone before. The new mission would first send people to the Moon for weeks and weeks at a time, and graduate to a manned mission to Mars. Cool, just like landing men on the moon was cool back in the 60s and 70s, even to a long-haired college student crisscrossing Europe. But I have to ask, given todays budget crunch and the advancements in robotics, is cool enough of a reason to send humans to the moon and beyond? Dont get me wrong; learning about the planets and stars, dark matter and dark forces is one of humanitys greatest intellectual endeavors. Not only should we fix our gaze on space; we must. But
manned missions are not the only way to learn about our world. Virtually all of the aforementioned
information about the Earth was obtained using unmanned space-borne platforms. And unmanned missions to the planets have provided us with a wealth of information (at a fraction of the cost) for example we've been able to do detailed, complex analyses of soil from Mars without the benefit of a human hand. Deciding
what NASA does with its funds has always been somewhat of a zero sum game . Doing more of one thing generally means doing less of another. And there's a clear trade-off between high-visibility, manned, space exploration and unmanned missions that are able to bring home the scientific bacon without all the hoopla . Already grumbles from my colleagues at NASA indicate that the push to prepare for a Mars mission is siphoning off funds from already beleaguered Earth-observing programs . Given all the issues we face right here at home (did anyone say climate change?), this doesn't make sense. E. Earth science program key to global warming data Werner 10
NASAs Earth science program also is expanding
(Debra, NASA ramping up in Earth observation 12/28/10 http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101228-nasa-ramping-earth-obs.html)
its emphasis on providing long-term climate data records. The administration for the first time gave NASA the mandate to examine how we might contribute to climate continuity, Freilich said. As a result, NASA plans to mount the third-generation Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment on the international space station in 2014, he said. That instrument, which has been stored at NASAs Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., since 2004, is designed to measure ozone, aerosols and water vapor. To maintain ongoing records of climate variables, NASA also is working with the German Aerospace Center to develop a successor to the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment launched in 2002 and with the French space agency to measure ocean
color as part of the Pre-Aerosol Clouds and Ocean Ecosystem mission scheduled for launch in 2018, Freilich said.
F. Global Warming cause mass extinctions Handwerk 6
Brian Handwerk, Senior Writer at National Geographic, 4/12/06, National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0412_060412_global_warming.html
A new study suggests that global warming could threaten one-fourth of the world's plant and vertebrate animal species with extinction by 2050. The report's authors reached their
conclusion after estimating potential changes to habitatsand the resulting loss of speciesin 25 biodiversity "hot spots" around the world.
"These [hot spots] are the crown jewels of the planet's biodiversity," lead author Jay Malcolm of the University of Toronto told the Canadian Press. "Unless we get our act together soon, we're looking at committing ourselves to this kind of thing." The report appears in the current issue of the journal Conservation
Biology. Many Threats Seen Global warming projections are by nature uncertain, and the report includes many variables that significantly affect species' survival rates both for good and for ill. Changes to the rate and degree of warming, as well as the ability of species to migrate or adapt, altered the estimates of species' extinction risk. Climate change is also only one threat to species diversity. Many plants and animals are already
13

feeling the effects of habitat destruction and invasions by non-native species. It is difficult for scientists to take all such factors into account. Still, the study's worst-case scenarios are sobering. They include a
doubling of present carbon dioxide levels (as predicted by many climatologists) and rising temperatures that could potentially eliminate 56,000 plant and 3,700 animal species in the 25 hot spot regions. Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says The report's findings echo those of a 2004 study, in which a team of international scientists suggested that over a million species15 to 35 percent of those they studiedcould be at risk of extinction by 2050. Both the 2004 study and the current research were conducted in part by scientists from Conservation International. "We used a completely different set of methods [from the 2004 study] and came up with similar results," Conservation International's Lee Hannah, co-author of the current study, told Reuters. "All the evidence shows that there is a very serious problem." Hot Spot Species Live on the Edge Stuart Pimm, an expert in extinctions and biodiversity at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, explained that species living in ecological hot spots are at particular risk when their environments change. "That's where
the most vulnerable species are, because they have the smallest geographical ranges," said Pimm, who is not affiliated with the study. Species living high on tropical mountainsides, for example, have nowhere to go if temperatures warm their home turf. In South Africa's Cape Floristic Region, located on the continent's southern tip, species are unable to migrate to lower latitudes to escape the rising temperatures. "There's no question that the poles are experiencing the greatest climatic change," Pimm said. But polar species are far fewer in number and may not face the same extinction risk as those that live in more confined hot spots with greater biodiversity. "While polar bears and caribou are being harmed,
Other experts warn that it's not just the hot spots featured in the new study that face an imminent extinction risk. "Many species are indeed struggling to hold on in locations all over the globe, not just in hot spots," said biologist Terry Root, of Stanford University's Center for Environmental Science and Policy, who was not involved in the study. "This is not some activity that will only be occurring 'overseas.' The likely extirpations and extinctions will also be occurring within a couple hundred miles of all of our back yards."
they are not as vulnerable as the species that live in these hot spots because of [the hot spot species'] very narrow geographic ranges."
14
Solvency
A. Plan key to leadership returning to the moon is the top priority for US national policy Schmitt 2010
(Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University, former NASA astronaut, & former US Senator; April 15, 2010; http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Schmitt_SpacePolicyConstitution.pdf; bh) Since 1957, national space policy, like naval policy in the centuries before, has set the geopolitical tone for the interactions between the United States and its international allies and adversaries. The Presidents FY2011 budget submission to Congress shifts that tone away from leadership by America by abandoning human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars to China and, effectively, leaving the Space Station under the dominance of Russia for its remaining approximately 10-year life. With the Stations continued existence inherently limited by aging, these proposals sign the death warrant for NASA-sponsored human space flight. Until the Space Stations inevitable shutdown, the President also proposes Americans ride into space at the forbearance of the Russians, so far, at a cost of more than $60 million a seat. Do we really want to continue to go, hat in hand, to the Russians to access a Space Station American taxpayers have spent $150 billion to build? What happens as the geopolitical and ideological interests of the United States and an continue to diverge? In spite of funding neglect by the previous Administration and Congresses, a human space flight program comparable to Constellation remains the best way to develop the organizational framework, hardware, and generational skills necessary for Americans to continue to be leaders in the exploration and eventual settlement of deep space. Protecting liberty and ourselves will be at great risk and probably impossible in the long term if we now abandon deep space to any other nation or group of nations, particularly a nondemocratic, authoritarian regime like China. To others would accrue the benefits, psychological, political, increasingly authoritarian Russia economic, technical, and scientific, that accrued to the United States from Apollos success 40 years ago. This lesson from John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. An American space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific discoveries, requires returning to the Moon as soon as possible. Returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars, something we are a long way from knowing how to do. Returning to the Moon, importantly, trains new young Americans in how to work in and with the challenges of exploring and living in deep space. This also continues a policy in which freedom-loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. Even more pragmatically, settlements on the Moon can send badly needed clean energy resources back to Earth for everyones use and that are not under the control of some authoritarian regime.
B. Colonizing the moon solves mining He3 there sets up a new energy source, economy, and global diplomacy Evans 09
[James Assistant Professor of Sociology Mining the Moon: Helium 3 could revolutionalize the world December 5, 2009]
Imagine a world that is not dependent on petroleum and fossil fuels, a world which has taken a giant leap forward towards space colonization. Although this may seem like an impossibility, this utopia is getting closer to becoming a reality and I welcome it with open arms. Currently The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space Colonization Technical Committee is developing plans to have a moon base established as early as 2015 according to a position statement on www.aiaa.org. Aside from the obvious interest of lunar colonization, a rare type of Helium called Helium 3 could be mined from the surface of the moon and then transferred by shuttlecraft to Earth.
He3 is what powers our Sun. Particles of the element are pushed off from the sun and then bombarded by cosmic rays which knock neutrons out of the Helium particles. The particles then combine, forming He3. The
benefits of H3 are unquestionable. The compound can be used a safer fuel for nuclear reactors. Just the concept of safer nuclear power plants excites me. But unfortunately there are only small amounts of He3 on Earth. There is enough to be studied but not be utilized. The Earth-bound He3 burns up in the atmosphere, where as the moon has no atmosphere and is therefore literally coated with the compound. The reason we would want to harness the power of He3 is due to its incredibly low rate of radioactivity. The dangers of a nuclear fusion reactor would be reduced to only minor threats
15

/according to popularmechanics.com. He3
will not wear down nuclear reactors as fast as Uranium, therefore reducing the cost needed to replace the reactors. My question is, why are we not publicizing this? It's a great idea. The ability to colonize the moon and reduce the use of our depleting fossil fuels is an invaluable resource. As long as our Sun exists we would never run out of He3. For the first time the world would be looking at an infinite supply of energy. Aside from the elimination of highlyradioactive reactors and reduction of the use of fossil fuels the moon mining would create a whole new section for the global economy. The AIAASCTC's document asks for the
United States to set up the lunar colony with the help of other international space agencies, so a free-market economy would be created for the area of mining and scientific research. This process would narrow the dividing lines between our country and other countries with spaceexploration programs. I just hope we as a people are able to put our greed aside.
This new development would be a major step forward towards global peace and understanding because of the need for several countries to work as one. Lastly, this would take us closer to the possibility of deep space exploration. It
would be the first steps towards colonizing Mars. Telescopes could be set up on the surface of the Moon to view deeper parts of space with out any interference from an atmosphere. For
these reasons, lunar colonization would launch us into a new area of progress for our economy and civilization. C. Plan solves for trade off through NSEA by taking over the most expensive endeavors of NASA, such as space exploration Schmitt 11
U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt; Former Senator Schmitt Proposes Dismantling of NASA and Creation of a New, Deep Space Exploration Agency; Wednesday, May 25, 2011; Americasuncommonsense.com; http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37176
NSEA would be charged solely with the human exploration of deep space and the reestablishment and maintenance of American dominance as a space-faring nation. The
new Agency's responsibilities should include robotic exploration necessary to support its primary mission. As did the Apollo Program, NSEA
should include lunar and planetary science and resource identification as a major component of its human space exploration and development initiatives. To
organize and manage the start-up of NSEA, experienced, successful, and enthusiastic engineering program and project managers should be recruited from industry, academia, and military and civilian government agencies. NSEA must be given full authority to retire or rehire former NASA employees as it sees fit and to access relevant exploration databases and archives. An almost totally new workforce must be hired and NSEA must have the authority to maintain an average employee age of less than 30. (NASA's current workforce has an average age over 47.) Only with the imagination, motivation, stamina, and courage of young engineers, scientists, and managers can NSEA be successful in meeting its Cold War II national security goals. Within this workforce, NSEA should maintain a strong, internal engineering design capability independent of that capability in its stable of contractors. NSEA would assume responsibility for facilities and infrastructure at the Johnson Space Center (spacecraft, training, communications, and flight operations), Marshall Space Flight Center (launch vehicles), Stennis Space Center (rocket engine test), and Kennedy Space Center (launch operations). Through those Centers, NSEA
would continue to support NASA's operational obligations related to the International Space Station. NSEA should have the
authority, however, to reduce as well as enhance the capital assets of those Centers as necessary to meet its overall mission.
Enabling legislation for NSEA should include a provision that no new space exploration project can be re-authorized unless its annual appropriations have included a minimum 30% funding reserve for the years up to the project's critical design review and through the time necessary to complete engineering and operational responses to that review. Nothing causes delays or raises costs of space projects more than having reserves that are inadequate to meet the demands of the inevitable unknown unknowns inherent in complex technical endeavors.
16
Case Extensions
17
***Advantage 1: Space Leadership***
18
Leadership Declining
US Space Leadership is currently lacking.
Brinton, 09 (Turner, Obama Urged to Tackle US Space Problems, Space News Staff Writer, February 23rd,
2009, Access Date_7/13/11).
Some 30 leaders from across the U.S. military, intelligence, civil and commercial space arenas have come together to urge U.S. President Barack Obama to address the systemic problems they say are now plaguing the entire U.S. space enterprise. The nonpartisan, independent Committee for U.S. Space Leadership, composed of current space industry professionals and former top military and civil space officials, has concluded the U.S. space industrial work force problems, looming gaps in important space-based capabilities and widespread program overreach can only be remedied by increased White House involvement. Failure to act, the group said in a memo to the president, could result in further erosion of U.S. leadership in space. The memo, a copy of which was
provided to Space News, is being circulated on Capitol Hill and among White House officials.
Lack of White House support for US Space leadership.
Brinton, 09 (Turner, Obama Urged to Tackle US Space Problems, Space News Staff Writer, February 23rd,
2009, Access Date_7/13/11).
Committee member James Armor, a retired Air Force major general, said concerns about the erosion of U.S. space capabilities were raised during meetings of the Space Partnership Council, which he hosted as director of the Pentagon's National Security Space Office. The council includes the heads of NASA, Air Force Space Command and the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. "They were starting to see the problems across the board, for example, the ability to do the systems engineering in large, complex systems acquisition," Armor said in a Feb. 19 interview. "They were all concerned about it. "[The Committee on U.S. Space Leadership] quickly converged as a group to understand what was lacking was a vision and leadership from a White House level. When there were stovepipe issues from each domain that cut across other domains and agencies, they just weren't getting resolved at the White House level. The Bush administration issued what I thought was a pretty good [National Space Policy] in 2006, but there was no implementing strategy among all the departments and agencies. So a good policy is necessary, but you have to follow through with a decision-making mechanism." Slash in NASAs budget kills US space leadership.
Houston Chronicle, 10 (Walter, Taking a bite out of NASA: Slashed budget would decimate agency and leave the US no longer the leader in space, February 6th, 2010, Access Date_7/13/11).
President Barack Obama's budget proposal may not be a death knell for NASA, but it certainly would accelerate America's downward spiral toward mediocrity in space exploration. Now it's up to NASA's leaders to put the best face possible on this nail that the administration is trying to hammer into their coffin. This proposal is not a bold new course for human spaceflight, nor is it a fundamental reinvigoration of NASA. It is quite the opposite, and I have no doubt the people at NASA will see it for what it is a rationalization for pursuing mediocrity. It mandates huge changes and offers little hope for the future. My heart goes out to those who have to defend it. NASA has always been a
19
political football. The agency's lifeblood is federal funding, and it has been losing blood for several decades. The only hope now for a lifesaving transfusion to stop the hemorrhaging is Congress. Unclear future for US space exploration and leadership.
Newsleaks, 11 (End of Space Shuttle End to US Dominance of hegemony in Space, July 6 th, 2011, Access
Date_7/13/11).
The flight into space by NASAs space shuttle Atlantis this Friday will mark end of the shuttle era, but many believe it may not also mean the end of US hegemony in the space. Although NASA has led numbers of manned flights into space for three decades, no additional such flights are planned for the moment. Top officials at the space agency, however, maintain this isnt the end of this countrys manned effort in space, rather just the beginning of a new chapter. I dont think this means the end of US crewed
flights, but were in a period of uncertainty and we dont know for how long, Valerie Neal, the official in charge of the shuttle area at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, told Agency. I think that whats a
little disappointing is that we really dont have a clear vision of what it is thats going to come after, Neal said. Theres uncertainty in NASA and among the general public. Launching the final space shuttle marks the end to US space heg.
The Economic Times, 11 (End of Space Shuttle, end of US dominance in space?, July 6th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
WASHINGTON : The flight into space by NASA's space shuttle Atlantis on this Friday will
mark end of the shuttle era, but many believe it may also mean the end of US hegemony in the space. Although NASA has led numbers of manned flights into space for three decades, no additional such flights are planned for the moment. Top officials at the space agency, however, maintain this isn't the end of this country's manned effort in space, rather just the beginning of a new chapter. Major lack of support for NASA and space exploration.
Houston Chronicle, 10 (Walter, Taking a bite out of NASA: Slashed budget would decimate agency and leave the US no longer the leader in space, February 6th, 2010, Access Date_7/13/11).
It is hard to be optimistic. President Obama has apparently decided the United States
should not be in the human spaceflight business. He obviously thinks NASA's historic mission is a waste of time and money. Until just two months before his election, he was proposing to use the $18 billion NASA budget as a piggybank to fund his favored education programs. With this budget proposal, he is taking a step in that direction. NASA is not just a place to spend money, or to count jobs. It is the agency that has given us a better understanding of our present and hope for our future; an agency that gives us something to inspire us, especially young people. NASA's Constellation program was not over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies, as stated in the White House budget plan. The program's problems were due to perennial budget deficiencies. It would have been sustainable for an
annual increase equal to the amount thrown away on the cash for clunkers program, or just a fraction of the tens of billions of dollars expended annually on congressional earmarks. It's debatable whether Constellation
20
was the best solution to President George W. Bush's vision of Moon, Mars and Beyond, but it was far better than the vacuum in which we now find ourselves, and without a viable alternative in sight. US needs to regain Space Leadership after Obamas budget cuts.
Newsleaks, 11 (End of Space Shuttle End to US Dominance of hegemony in Space, July 6th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
Having invested forty years of time and effort in the exploration and colonization of the moon, the Obama administration suddenly and with no other explanation other than cost, decides to abandon the plan. In addition, there are now other plans in the works to privatize other aspects of the space program. Apparently, the current plans just extend out too far into the future to be of any practical value to either the International Space Station or exploration in general. This is just about what is expected from civilian mindset that ignores the military and strategic value of the moon. The White House needs to back up a bit and take a look at history and the very reason why America was the first to reach the moon, and that was the Cold War. About the time
rocketry was reaching the ICBM level, the Soviets launched Sputnik 1, the first orbiting satellite in October of 1957.
The so-called "space-age" was born and the United States found itself lagging in the effort. If at first the Soviets' intentions were to upstage the United States on the highfrontier, as the Air Force called it, the communist bloc soon began to explore the military aspects of space, at first in near-Earth orbit. Status Quo: Current fear of collapse for US space program.
Longsdon, 11 (John M., The US space programs leadership black hole, Professor at the Space Policy Institute, July 11th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
In more than 40 years of close observation of the U.S. space program, I dont think there has ever been more uncertainty and fear of impending program collapse. One result of the current confusion is the too-widespread impression that the final flight of the shuttle means that the U.S. program of human spaceflight has come to an end. This is most certainly not the case. Many American astronauts will be living and working on the International Space Station for the decade to come. And yet equating the end of the shuttle program with the end of human spaceflight is symptomatic of the failure of national leaders to agree on and then communicate a vision of the U.S. future in space. US has lost leadership in Space.
Reid, 11 (Bob, USA No Longer Leader in Space, Contributer to the San Fransisco Political Buzz, July 8th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11).
Today the last space shuttle, Atlantis, lifted off with millions of fans at Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla.and fans all over the world watching TV. The US of A is no longer a leader in Space may be a bit harsh but for old timers who loved the Space Shuttle; took pride in all of our trips to the Moon and knew that the good old US of A was the best; it was a sad day. We remember NASA because It had the best and the brightest scientists and of course had all the money it needed. The Obama administration has been doing many
21
things I heartedly approve of including restructuring our foreign policy away from the use of American force everywhere in the world to picking our fights. We are getting out of the two wars that have consumed our national treasures; the men and women of our armed forces and billions of tax payer dollars that could have been better spent on our own needs. US space leadership slipping now.
Cherry, 11 (Marilyn, Moon Men: US Space Leadership Slipping, Staff Writer for The Houston News, May 29th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11).
However, they continue, today America's leadership in space is slipping. NASA's human spaceflight program is in substantial disarray with no clear-cut mission in the offing. We will have no rockets to carry humans to low-Earth orbit and beyond for an indeterminate number of years. Congress has mandated the development of rocket launchers and spacecraft to explore the near-solar system beyond Earth orbit. But NASA has not yet announced a convincing strategy for their use. After a half-century of remarkable progress, a coherent plan for maintaining America's leadership in space exploration is no longer apparent. Kennedy launched America on a new ocean. For 50 years we explored the waters to become the leader in space exploration. Today, under the announced objectives, the voyage is over. John F. Kennedy would have been sorely disappointed. US needs to work to regain a stable space regime.
MacDonald, 08 (Bruce W., China, Space, Weapons, and US Security, Independent consultant in technology and national security policy management and was the assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and technology on the National Security Council staff, September, 2008, Access Date_7/14/11).
The strategic landscape of this new space era is largely unexplored and poorly understood. Nonetheless,
certain objectives are clearly in the interest of the United States. The risks inherent in space conflict, where vital U.S. interests are at stake, suggest that preventing space conflict should be a major U.S. security objective, and that all instruments of U.S. power, not just military measures, should be drawn upon to this end. The United States needs to deter others from attacking its space capabilities and bolster an international space regime that reinforces deterrence, the absence of conflict in space, and the preservation of space as an environment open to all. Such a regime would allow the United States to continue reaping the critical information and service benefits that U.S. military space assets provide. To achieve this, the United States needs vigorous diplomatic initiatives as well as defense programs and strategy. US Space dominance unlikely.
MacDonald, 08 (Bruce W., China, Space, Weapons, and US Security, Independent consultant in technology and national security policy management and was the assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science
22
and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and technology on the National Security Council staff, September, 2008, Access Date_7/14/11).
Some are attracted to a U.S. posture of dominance in space, and such a vision has superficial appeal. However, this attraction overlooks the serious difficulties that accompany it. Space assets are far more difficult to defend than to attack, and it will be well within Chinas capability in the mid term to prevent the United States from attaining a dominant space position. Already Chinas economy is growing as fast as that of the United States in absolute terms. One may wish otherwise, but the United States will not be able to maintain its near monopoly on space power into the future, though perhaps, with smaller margins, it can remain preeminent in space for many years to come. The United States faces an attractive space future if it does not let the best be the enemy of the good. U.S. space superiority is possible, but space dominance is not likely. Ground-based offensive assets are more survivable, and hence less destabilizing in a crisis, and are also
likely to be less expensive and more reliable. Conversely, space-based offensive assets are vulnerable and have significant potential for crisis instability, offering huge incentives for adversaries to strike first. Thus, what the United States chooses to acquire as its offensive capability should first be evaluated against these criteria, as well as those suggested on page twenty.
US losing leadership hurts US and allies security.
Schmitt, 09 (Harrison H., Geopolitical Context of Lunar Exploration and Settlement, Former NASA Astronaut and PhD. in Physics, July 30th, 2009, Access Date_7/14/11).
If we continue to abandon leadership in deep space to other nations or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic regime, the ability for the United States and its allies to protect themselves and liberty for the world will be at great risk and potentially impossible. To others would accrue the benefits psychological, political, technical, economic and scientific that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollos success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. US legacy in space is on the line.
Pappalardo, 10 (Joe, What happens if NASAs constellation program dies?, Senior Editor at Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine, March 9th, 2010, Access Date_7/14/11).
The legacy of the era could become evident in a decade, when India or China succeeds in returning humanity to the moon. This achievement meant something for national prestige and scientific innovation in the 1960s and it means similar things now. NASA has long been a cradle for innovation as well as innovators. Without the appeal of a human flight program, will fewer aspiring scientists and engineers be lured into the agency and towards military and private space? Will the research end of NASA suffer from this lack of inspirational purpose? What are the geopolitical ramifications, if any, of this waning of American power?
23
Concern about Americas competitiveness in space.
Bacchus, 11 (James, American competitiveness needs space program, a former Member of Congress, from Floridas 15th Congressional District, which includes the Kennedy Space Center. He was one of the principal Congressional sponsors of the International Space Station. He chairs the global practice of the Greenberg Traurig law firm, March 16th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
At a time of growing concern about American competitiveness, does it make sense to throw away the critical mass and the critical skills of thousands of space workers whose labors have secured and sustained Americas comparative advantage in what will surely be one of the key global industries of the coming century?
US must currently work to regain disposition in the global community.
Newton, 11 (Elizabeth K., United States space policy and international partnership, Professor of Physics University of Alabama, Former Administrator for NASA, February, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
Before delving into details, it is worth noting that US space policy is most accurately viewed
as an aggregate of White House issuances and legislative policy making codified in law, as well as of executive branch agencies translation of these broad or narrow directions into programs, operating budgets, and processes. Indeed, agencies deeds are more telling than any White House-level rhetoric about intent. For this reason, it may be that currently we can only judge the potential for the policy to deliver results, allowing sufficient time to see whether policys implementation succeeds or fails. Evaluating whether or not the USAs overall strategic position is improved that is, whether its ability to influence positively the conditions of its existence and play the role it chooses is enhanced can be distilled down to questions about security, political economy, and influence. These three dimensions are coupled, of course, but they can provide a way of disaggregating space policy for closer inspection.
Future US Leadership at risk.
The USA is a majority funder for many space programs and is a technology leader, two features which have provided sufficient motivation for partners to accept US leadership, even when unfortunately high-handed. It is a stunning failure of political
24
will to lack a successor system to the retiring Space Shuttle, and so the US cedes leadership in human spaceflight with its inability to access the ISS independently, for itself or for its partners, until a new commercial capability has been demonstrated. The USA further relinquishes leadership when abandoning years of work on strategic planning and guidance, the evaluation of alternatives, and orchestration of diverse but important contributions that were manifested in the Global Exploration Strategy. Sudden redirections without consultation are not hallmarks of leadership and will no doubt motivate partners to do more unilateral planning and execution, at least for a while. Finally, leadership in the future is at risk : how can the USA hope to influence outcomes and protect interests
strategic, commercial, and cultural on the Moon if it is not present?
No recent actions prove the US cares about the space program.
Dinerman, 10 (Taylor, National Space Policy: From Strength to Weakness, Part 2, Taylor Dinerman is a well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space, July 29th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
The space policy claims that the administration is committed to American space leadership, yet by its actions so far, it has undermined that leadership and put this county on a path to becoming a second rate space power. Previous administrations have got to share some of the blame for this, particularly in the Nixon-Ford-Carter era when the Saturn V Moon rocket program was cancelled and the Shuttle was starved of development funding. For the most part, the best that can be said of this new policy is that it could have been worse.
US budget cuts for space- international controversy.
Dinerman, 10 (Taylor, National Space Policy: From Strength to Weakness, Part 2, Taylor Dinerman is a well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space, July 29th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
There is also the strong possibility that relatively uncontroversial international space science programs will see their budgets cut by the next congress. Constellation was an essential part of the delicate political balance that NASA had achieved. The attempt to destroy it, whether it succeeds or not, has endangered all of NASA's programs. Anything with the label "international" will now be a ripe target for budget cutters, after all foreign space scientists do not vote in US elections.
Presidents budget cut crushed US space leadership.
Bishop, 10 (Rob, Space cuts short-sighted, Rob Bishop is Utah's representative from the 1st District, February 25th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
The Obama budget would cancel the Constellation program, cancel the Ares I rocket for manned space travel, cancel the Ares V rocket for cargo and cancel the Orion manned space capsule. The only apparent replacement for all of this is some
25
nebulous funding for grants to commercialize our space exploration with no tested or proven alternative. It would be one thing if gutting the space program was an attempt to save money. But
it isn't. In fact, the Obama plan does not eliminate wasteful spending. It actually adds an additional $1.5 billion to the NASA budget, but spends it in the wrong places. The president's proposals for NASA will,
however, destroy U.S. leadership in space exploration. Russia and China will control space. Instead of sending 40 or so American astronauts to space each year, we will end up sending four or five. And they will essentially be trying to hitch a ride on a Russian or Chinese rocket.
NASA has no choice but to lose leadership after budget cuts.
Aderholt, 11 (Robert, The Presidents Space Policy Will Compromise American Jobs and American World Leadership, Representative from Alabama, June 29th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
However, the President now wants to severely downgrade the one task which makes NASA unique human exploratory space flight. On February 1, 2010, the Administration
announced a budget which proposes to eliminate the NASA Constellation program. Since that time, NASA has canceled the awarding of contracts or put on hold parts of numerous contracts which were a part of the regular fiscal year 2010 work for the Constellation program, despite the fact that Congress must first approve its termination before it becomes final policy. President Obama and NASA are putting American jobs in jeopardy because of a drastic proposal that isnt even actual law. This plan put forth by the President is simply that a plan, and NASA should not be assuming that this plan will be approved by Congress
Loss of US space leadership- domestic and economic consequences.
Aderholt, 11 (Robert, The Presidents Space Policy Will Compromise American Jobs and American World Leadership, Representative from Alabama, June 29th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
Since February, I have fought the Presidents proposal to cancel Constellation because it will forfeit Americas leadership in space and it will cut thousands of jobs in Alabama and the entire nation. During the last month, contractors, under intense pressure from NASA
regarding contract termination liability, have already begun laying off workers and canceling subcontracts, despite the fact that Congress has not approved the Presidents proposal. Thats why I have introduced the Protecting Human Space Flight Act of 2010 this
week. This bill directs NASA to use FY2010 appropriated funds for what it was intended to do work on the Constellation program, not a termination liability account. President Obama has been saying for
years that the goal of his Administration is to save or create American jobs. With the Presidents new proposal for NASA, he is doing just the opposite.
26
Lack of US leadership now-space dominance being taken over by other countries.
Kislyakov, 11 (Andrei, China gaining ground in space, a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency, May 22nd, 2011, Access Date-7/15/11).
Another project of this kind is the U.S.-Russian International Space Station program. Despite NASA's public
statements, the United States sees the use of Russian spaceships as a forced measure. In addition, NASA has failed to clearly formulate its vision of the ISS future once the Space Shuttle Program is over. Cooperation between Russia and Europe in space is less dramatic and has
not resulted in any impressive joint programs. The declared Roscosmos - ESA program of developing a new space shuttle system has not seen any practical steps yet. Moreover, Europeans consider any dependence
on "the Russians" in organizing manned flights would be unacceptable. However, in terms of finance and technology, space exploration programs are hard to implement without the involvement of other countries. As Andrei Ionin, a corresponding member of the Tsiolkovsky Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, puts it: "Today we must think about who our key partners in space exploration are. This may be the right moment to start looking eastward, rather than westward. Centers of economic, technological and political power have been shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, where China, Japan and South Korea are experiencing dynamic development." Once the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization has advanced to the practical stage, there will be another reason for "looking eastward." Symbolic end for US leadership in space.
Spudis, 11 (Paul, NASAs mission to Nowhere, Paul D. Spudis is a planetary scientist, principal investigator of the Mini-SAR imaging radar on the Chandrayaan-1 mission and author of The Once and Future Moon, February 11th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
For 50 years, America has maintained this ability through an infrastructure of cutting-edge industrial hardware, specialized facilities and a skilled work force. By adopting the new program, we will lose - probably irretrievably - this space-faring infrastructure and, most certainly, our highly trained, motivated and experienced work force. It will be prohibitively expensive and difficult to restart our manned program after five to 10 years of agency navel-gazing, effectively signaling the end of Americas manned space program and our leadership in space.
Americas space leadership on the decline.
Armtrong, Lovell, and Cernan, 11 (Obama grounding JFK's space legacy?, NASA Astronauts; commanded moon missions, May 24th, 2011, Access Date_7/16/11).
The response to Kennedy's bold challenge a half-century ago has led to America's unchallenged leadership in space. We take enormous pride in all that has been accomplished in the past 50 years. And we have the people, the skills and the wherewithal to continue to excel and reach challenging goals in space exploration.
27

But today, America's leadership in space is slipping. NASA's human spaceflight
program is in substantial disarray with no clear-cut mission in the offing. We will have no rockets to carry humans to low-Earth orbit and beyond for an indeterminate number of years. Congress has mandated the development of rocket launchers and spacecraft to explore the near-solar system beyond Earth orbit. But NASA has not yet announced a convincing strategy for their use. After a half-century of remarkable progress, a coherent plan for maintaining America's leadership in space exploration is no longer apparent. Lack of confidence towards the future of US space dominance.
Crisostorno, 10 (Christian, NASA's Constellation Program Planning To Take Initiative For Moon Colonization, Researcher for Open Talk Magazine, November 12th, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11).
It is a massively ambitious project that would have to be well funded to succeed. Unfortunately in February 1, 2010, United States President Barack Obama called for a cancellation of the program; as seen in its exclusion from the 2011 United States federal budget. We are now just left to wonder if the program could ever carry out its vital mission to propel the United States back again as the leader in human space flight. US falling behind in global space race.
Zey, 10 (Michael, As US Abandons Manned Flight, China, Russia, Europe Train For Space Colonization with
Mars500, renowned and thought-provoking keynote speaker on a variety of social, economic, technological, and political trends For over two decades he has keynoted various conferences, professional meetings, and trade shows for organizations such as AT&T, United Technologies, United Airlines, Dow Jones, and the World Future Society, June 7th, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11). Clearly the US is falling behind in the global space race . Recently the Obama
administration decided to direct NASA's funding away from manned space flight to the Moon and beyond. The US is even ending its shuttle program this year. Although the President did give lip service to the goal of colonizing Mars in the mid-2030s, many critics, including Mars Society president Robert Zubrin, were unmoved by this weak and ambiguous commitment to space exploration. "It basically means that they don't have to start working on it while they're in office," Zubrin said. International competitors invading on US space dominance.
Hoffman, 11 (Michael, Boeing Chief: U.S. Should Lead in Space Tech, Defense News, April 8th, 2011, Access Date_7/16/11).
A year after China demonstrated its ability to attack satellites by striking one of its own weather satellites with a ballistic missile, Albaugh said, it's also important to develop methods to protect U.S. space assets. Air Force Space Command officials have said
increasing the Department of Defense's ability to monitor space assets and potential attacks tops their priority list.
Boeing was contracted to help develop the Air Force's Space Based Space Surveillance system back in 2004. "We can clearly see our international competitors fast approaching in the rear view mirror," he said. "This is not the time to take a
28
backseat. If we do, the consequences will be non-recoverable and future generations will judge us harshly." China poses a threat to US space leadership
Garibaldi, 06 (Gabriele, The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Association for Asian Research, December 5th, 2006, Access Date_7/16/11).
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. Chinas control over space-significantly greater than US dominance.
Garibaldi, 06 (Gabriele, The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space, Association for Asian Research, December 5th, 2006, Access Date_7/16/11).
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.
29
Now Key
Now key China is actively pursuing space and will take over US space leadership
Vause 07 [John - CNN correspondent, 11/26/2007, China's ambitious plans in space,

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-26/tech/china.space.race_1_chang-e-helium-3-lunar-orbiter/2?_s=PM:TECH] When China's lunar orbiter blasted off last month, there was not a cheer or smile or a "whoo-haaa" to be had in mission control. Perhaps because for the government scientists, it was just
another small step in an ambitious space program which could ultimately see a Chinese space station orbiting the Earth, a Chinese moon colony and a joint China-Russia explorer on Mars. If all goes well, and so far it has, the Chang'e 1 will spend the next year orbiting the moon, mapping the surface and looking for resources. Next , the Chinese hope to send an unmanned rover to the moon by 2012, with a robotic mission to bring back samples by 2017. Officials have recently backpedaled from goals of putting a taikonaut
(the Chinese version of an astronaut or cosmonaut) on the moon by 2020, but analysts believe that is still a pressing ambition. "If China can go to the moon, eventually with a manned program,
it will represent the ultimate achievement for China in making itself essentially the second most important space power, accomplishing what even the Soviets had not," says Dean Cheng, a China military analyst for CNA, a private research corporation. Watch China's lunar rocket blast off According to Cheng, the Chinese are now embarking on a systematic space program the world has not seen since the 1960's and for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is facing real competition. That may explain why the head of NASA, Michael Griffin, recently warned that "China will be back on the moon before we are . . . I think when that happens Americans will not like it." China's space milestones But there could be a lot more at stake than just lunar boasting rights. It's unlikely the Chinese will land at Tranquility Base and pull down the Stars and Stripes. But the goal could be mining resources. One powerful, potential fuel source is helium-3. Helium-3 originated from the sun and was deposited in the moon's soil by the solar wind. It is estimated there are up to two million tons on the moon, and virtually none on Earth. "If we can ever get helium-3 and helium3 to fuse together it is what we call nuclear power without nuclear waste -there is no radioactivity associated with that reactor," says Professor Gerald Kulcinski,
an expert in helium from the University of Wisconsin. The key though, says Kulcinski, will be developing a fusion reactor, which he says could be done within 15 to 20 years, in tandem with a program to establish a permanent human presence on the moon. Just four tons of helium-3 would be enough to
supply all the power needs for the United States for a year, two shuttle payloads according to Kulcinski. Analysts believe the lure of such potent resources is one of the reasons behind China's exploration of space. State media reported last month details of a new rocket with enough thrust to put a space station into orbit. When it's developed, the Long March 5 will have almost three times the power of existing rockets. China has long wanted to be part of the international space station, but has always been denied, partly it's believed because of U.S. concerns. But that may not be a problem for the Chinese if they can send their own space station into orbit, reportedly by 2020. But again the Chinese are sending mixed messages, saying no firm date has been decided. More immediately, there are plans a for televised space walk by three taikonauts next year, according to the Shanghai Daily. At a recent news conference Pei Zhaoyu from China's space administration repeated
30
at least three times that "China has always adhered to the principle of peaceful use of outer space." But he made no mention of China's satellite killer missile which was tested earlier this year, destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite in low Earth orbit. That and the fact that China's space administration is controlled by the military has many in Washington worried about where the Chinese are heading. Technologically, the Chinese are still behind the United States, but analysts warn that might not be the case for much longer. "The Chinese have the advantage of a centralized decision-making authority where they can say we will do that and we will apply those funds," says Cheng, while pointing out that NASA is at the mercy of Congress, politics and a new president in 2009 who may have new goals and ambitions. China has always insisted that it's not in a space race with any country, especially the United States -- but it is on a slow, relentless march to the moon, and beyond. US needs to get involved in space now to maintain or gain leadership.
Longsdon, 11 (John M., The US space programs leadership black hole, Professor at the Space Policy Institute, July 11th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
Here is where effective leadership is so badly needed, and it can only come from the White House. Barack Obama in public statements has offered his personal support of NASA; as the shuttle lifted off last Friday, he said, Todays launch may mark the final flight of the space shuttle, but it propels us into the next era of our never-ending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space. The president and his senior staff need to back up these words with intense engagement with Congress to reduce the differences between the presidents vision for space and congressional preferences, so that the level of uncertainty can be significantly reduced. Without strong White House support, NASA leaders by themselves cannot achieve that goal. With it, there can be grounds for agreement on a sustainable path forward. Given everything else on the presidents plate and the many other issues dividing the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, suggesting more active high-level White House involvement in space issues may not be very realistic. But it seems the only way out of a deplorable situation. It does no honor to the achievements of the space shuttle program to have its end come with no clear sense of what will follow. Crucial for America to reinvigorate space exploration.
Bacchus, 11 (James, American competitiveness needs space program, a former Member of Congress, from Floridas 15th Congressional District, which includes the Kennedy Space Center. He was one of the principal Congressional sponsors of the International Space Station. He chairs the global practice of the Greenberg Traurig law firm, March 16th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
Thats not how I saw it years ago when I was vice president of the space club at South Seminole Junior High School in Central Florida, and we were reaching for the moon. Thats not how anyone who has ever worked
for Americas space program, or in any way been a part of that program, sees it. As we see it, the space shuttle Discovery was rightly named. If America stands for anything, it stands for discovery. Our historic task as Americans is to discover more. It is to use our freedom to extend as far as we can the ultimate reach of human
31
experience, knowledge, and understanding. To fulfill this task, we must reach for the stars. American needs to act now to regain any space dominance.
Tyoson, 10 (Peter, Buzz Aldrins Timetable for Colonizing Mars, PBS Inside Nova, September 21st, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11).
America should act now, Aldrin says. With the Apollo program 40 years ago, the U.S. gained a dominant position in space exploration. But other countries, including the foursome loosely known as BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, and China have their eyes on space. (You might call them the wannabes of space leadership, Aldrin told me.) Russia,
for one, plans to send a soil-sampling mission to Phobos, one of the martian moons, in 2011. Aboard will be a Chinese satellite to orbit the Red Planet.
Acting now is key to the US taking steps towards the moon.
Crisostorno, 10 (Christian, NASA's Constellation Program Planning To Take Initiative For Moon Colonization, Researcher for Open Talk Magazine, November 12th, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11).
That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. This was former Apollo crew member Neil Armstrongs most famous line as he went down the Eagle lunar module. Since the end of the Apollo program in 1975, man has never attempted to go beyond low-Earth orbit. The quest to go to other celestial bodies in the Solar System literally came to a standstill. That is, until NASA has returned with yet another ambitious mission to send the space program once again back on track. Their latest space program plans to fulfill this mission, and its success would determine the next step towards conquering the moon, and beyond. US space program at a crucial transition period-changes need to be made.
Hoffman, 11 (Michael, Boeing Chief: U.S. Should Lead in Space Tech, Defense News, April 8th, 2011,
Access Date_7/16/11).
While Congress debates how it will fill the gap after the shuttle is retired and a new NASA launch technology is made operational, and military leaders scramble to develop new measures to protect U.S. satellites, Albaugh said, the next decade for the U.S. space program will be its "most crucial" since the 1950s. To keep the U.S. space program ahead of international competitors like China, Albaugh said, advancing space propulsion technologies by cutting its astronomical costs and increasing its efficiency will be critical.
32
Leadership Solves Tech Innovation

The US space leadership is key to jumpstarting space missions, success of the private sector, and technological infrastructure
Coledan 04 [Stefano Coledan aerospace consultant at Radiotelevisione Italiana Mining The Moon, 12-7-04,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056, Popular Mechanics] That vision seemed impossibly distant during the decades in which manned space exploration languished. Yes, Americans and others made repeated trips into Earth orbit, but humanity seemed content to send only robots into the vastness beyond. That changed on Jan. 14, 2004, when President George W. Bush challenged NASA to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." It was an electrifying call to action for those of us who share the vision of Americans leading humankind into deep space, continuing the ultimate migration that began 42 years ago when President John F. Kennedy first challenged NASA to land on the moon. We can do so again. If Bush's initiative is sustained by Congress and
future presidents, American leadership can take us back to the moon, then to Mars and, ultimately, beyond. Although the president's announcement did not mention it explicitly, his message implied an important role for the private sector in leading human expansion into deep space. In the past, this type of public-private cooperation produced enormous dividends. Recognizing the distinctly American entrepreneurial spirit that drives pioneers, the President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy subsequently recommended that NASA encourage private space-related initiatives. I believe in
going a step further. I believe that if government efforts lag, private enterprise should take the lead in settling space. We need look only to our past to see how well this could work. In 1862, the federal government supported the building of the transcontinental railroad with land grants. By the end of the 19th century, the private sector came to dominate the infrastructure, introducing improvements in rail transport that laid the foundation for industrial development in the 20th century. In a similar fashion, a cooperative
effort in learning how to mine the moon for helium-3 will create the technological infrastructure for our inevitable journeys to Mars and beyond. US Space exploration creates national hope and future innovation.
Bell, 11 (Larry, Does the United States Still Care About Space Leadership?, Columnist for Forbes, July 12th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
Yes, space exploration programs produce technological innovations, but even more, dont they produce inspiration for our children, grandchildren and other generations who follow to realize that the sky is literally no limit to what can be achieved with ambitious goals, solid educational foundations and disciplined commitment? They will be the ones that advance future innovation and progress in all fields. Contributions to encourage vision, leadership and competence are vital products that will drive our nations future and theirs as well. Unlimited rewards result from US space exploration and leadership.
Bell, 11 (Larry, Does the United States Still Care About Space Leadership?, Columnist for Forbes, July 12th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
Its difficult to ignore the symbolic and real benefits of international cooperation and national prestige gained through space exploration developments. But I submit that there is something else that our programs represent of equal or even greater value. Namely, it is less important how the rest of the world views us; instead its about how we see ourselves:
33
as a culture willing to take risks in quests for uncertain, yet potentially unlimited rewards; as a nation that recognizes that to not do something presents one of the greatest risks of all; because thats the sort of people we are. US space innovation key to US innovation and world image.
Mason & Dixon Polling and Research, 11 (Sachs/Mason-Dixon Poll Finds Strong Support for Americas Continued Role as Global Space Leader, July 7th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11).
In a dramatic new Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they dont want Americas manned space program to end and they believe the United States should continue to be a global leader in space . The results of the poll follow the recent return of the Space Shuttle Endeavour the penultimate NASA Space shuttle mission. Human space flight symbolizes American ingenuity, innovation and imagination and any effort to ensure our nation remains at the forefront of manned space flight is strongly supported by the American people, said Ron Sachs, President of Ron Sachs Communications. The American people are emotional about maintaining our nations leadership in this important scientific endeavor. US must stay active in space to maintain leadership and gain new tech opportunities.
The competitive international venue remains at the Moon. Returning there now meets the requirements for a U.S. space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific returns and opportunities. Without a lunar focus, the nations human space activity will consist of PowerPoint presentations about what might be done and not about what will be done. Properly conceived and implemented, however, returning to the Moon prepares the way for a new generation to go to Mars.
34
Leadership Solves Cooperation

US leadership promotes international cooperation.
Friedman, 11(Lou, American Leadership, Executive Director and Co-founder of
The Planetary Society and holds a PhD. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from M.I.T., February 14th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
American Leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the United States, as well as in many space policy discussions. It has many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory. The term sometimes arouses antipathy from non-Americans and from advocates of international cooperation. They may find it synonymous with American hubris or hegemony. It is true that American leadership can be used as a nationalistic call to advance American interests at the expense of non-American interests. But more often it may be used as an international call for promoting mutual interests and cooperation. That is certainly true in space , as demonstrated by the International Space
Station, Cassini-Huygens, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Europa Jupiter System Mission, Mars 2016/2018 and Earth observing satellites.
US Space Leadership is key to relations and perception in global society.
Stone, 11(Christopher, American Leadership in Space: leadership through capability, Space policy analyst and strategist from Washing D.C., March 14th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedmans assertion that space is often overlooked in foreign relations and geopolitical strategies. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand
geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to shape the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as The World We Seek. Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of shaping is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. 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. Space leadership benefits US in the international community.
Stone, 11(Christopher, American Leadership in Space: leadership through capability, Space policy analyst and strategist from Washing D.C., March 14th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
35
Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world hegemony or superiority as dirty words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of advancing their security, prestige and wealth through exploration like we do. However, to maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as congested, contested, and competitive; the quest for excellence is just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we
should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space.
US space leadership essential.
Kohut, 11 (Andrew, Majority sees US Leadership is Space essential, President of the Pew Research Center, July 5th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
On the eve of the final mission of the U.S. space shuttle program, most Americans say the United States must be at the forefront of future space exploration. Fifty years after the first American manned space flight, nearly six- in-ten (58%) say it is essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration; about four-in-ten say this is not essential (38%). Looking back on the shuttle program, a majority (55%) say it has been a good investment for the country. However, this is lower than it was in the 1980s; throughout the early years of the shuttle program, six-in-ten or more said the program was a good investment. Majorities in nearly all demographic groups say it is essential that the U.S. continue to be at the vanguard of space exploration. And partisan groups largely agree that American leadership is vital, although this view is more prevalent among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the nation must continue to play an international leadership role in space exploration; smaller majorities of Democrats (54%) and independents (57%) say this. US space leadership good for Americas image. (General Stats)
Kohut, 11 (Andrew, Majority sees US Leadership is Space essential, President of the Pew Research Center, July 5th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
Large majorities say that the space program has helped encourage interest in science, led to scientific advances and contributed to feelings of patriotism. But no more than about four-in-ten say that the program has contributed a lot in any of
36
these areas. Overall, 39% say it has contributed a lot to encouraging interest in science, 35% say it has contributed some while 22% think it has contributed not much or nothing. Nearly as many (38%) say the space program has contributed a lot to scientific advances that all Americans can use, while 34% think it has done a lot for feelings or pride and patriotism.
US Space Leadership key to moral and global perception.
Stevens, 07 (Robert, The Next 50 years of US Space Leadership, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockhead Martin Corporation, April 10th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11).
Let me be clear: Im not advocating reckless endeavors, foolish pursuits, or the abandonment of good process and sound practice. The effective management of modern space programs requires great care. But all tests that dont confirm the hypothesis are not necessarily failures. Some results that were not in keeping with expectations have proven extremely valuable and worthy of our effort. And, most importantly, setbacks are not the product of poor character or lack of integrity by those involved in the process. To characterize it as such would be a
huge disservice to so many who work with complete dedication each day. Think back to 1958, when President Eisenhower approved a top secret program to surveil the Soviet Union from space. Lockheed partnered with the government to create the CORONA satellite system. It took thirteen tries before the CORONA team successfully recovered the film capsule from space. Put another way, CORONA failed 12 times. But we didnt give up. Our customer didnt lose faith. Congress provided the money. And that perseverance paid off many times over as America peered over the Iron Curtain ... verified what we did not trust ... and strengthened our security. I wonder if CORONA would have made it in todays environment. I have my doubts. Lets do our best to realistically describe risks and maintain support for complex programs so we dont abandon capabilities before they can achieve their potential. At the end of the day, this discussion is not about NASA ... its not about the U.S. military ... its not about any single company or segment of the private sector. Its about America who we are as a people, and what we aspire to be as a nation. We cant go back to the noholds barred approach of the 50s and 60s, but we should not wait for the crisis of a modern day Sputnik to unite us and galvanize action. We, here, are the ones who can most make this happen and our countdown has already begun. US involvement in space increases US diplomacy.
Some advocate primarily an arms control approach to the counter- space challenge. The growing multilateral nature of the problems that the United States and others face in space strongly suggests that diplomatic approaches have an important role to play in constructing a space regime that best meets U.S. security needs, perhaps
37
including specific arms control agreements. Unfortunately, Chinas ASAT test, its ongoing
programs, the United States growing military dependence upon space, and the general advance of technology available to many countries indicate that reliance purely on negotiated agreements and defensive measures to protect
U.S. space assets would involve a high degree of security risk. With its ASAT test and its arms control proposal, China appears to have shown that its interest in banning space weapons applies chiefly to space-based, not ground-based, weapons. The latter would be harder to verify in any event.
US Space involvement aids US diplomacy.
Diplomacy has an important role to play in U.S. space security interests, and it is unfortunate that in recent years the United States has not made more use of it. Three broad approaches exist: dialogue, voluntary cooperation regimes, and formal agreements. Dialogue on space weapons has been minimal, though there has been more in non-weapons areas, such as debris. The administration has strongly resisted formal
agreements that legally obligate signatories to comply. The only new restrictions it has supported are voluntary, e.g., debris limitations and best practices on safe space operations. Vigorous U.S. opposition has prevented UN negotiations on a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space (PAROS), though the UN Conference on Disarmament (UNCD) is not an ideal forum for such early discussions because of its unwieldy size.
Expanding US space efforts key to diplomacy.
Hawkins, 11 (William R., Forfeiting US Leadership in Space, consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member, March 7th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has put out its 2011 Strategic Plan. Its first goal is to "extend and sustain human activities across the solar system." As the lead civilization of the current era, it is America's duty to advance human achievement. Yet, there is very little in the NASA plan or budget to fulfill this noble goal . The NASA plan relies first and foremost on "expanding efforts to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory for scientific, technological, diplomatic, and educational purposes and for supporting future objectives in human space exploration." But without the shuttle or a replacement space vehicle, the U.S. will be dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS.
38
Abandoning US Leadership in Space hurts US global credibility.
In spite of the difficulties that have faced Constellation, history tells us that an aggressive program to return Americans to deep space, initially the Moon and then on to Mars, must form an essential component of national policy. The current course of United States in space appears to be to have no national capability to launch its astronauts, at all. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well as devastating to human liberty, if we abandon leadership in deep space to the Chinese, Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating would be loss of access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish on Earth. In the harsh light of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization of a decision to abandon deep space. Space does not represent just another large-scale science arena that can be abandoned limited only to the science leadership consequences the United States has suffered in recent decades.
39
Leadership Solves Hege US space dominance key to hard and soft power. Dinerman, 10 (Taylor, National Space Policy: From Strength to Weakness, Part 2, Taylor Dinerman is a well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space, July 29th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
For decades, America's space programs have been used to project power of both the hard and soft varieties. Allies have long benefited from indirect, and, in rare cases from direct access to the Defense Department's various space systems. Throughout the world, every minute of every day, people use the Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, most of the time without even realizing that they come from a set of US military satellites. In the civilian realm the International Space Station which is now almost complete has been largely built and paid for by US taxpayers. Rebuilding Americans space leadership-essential for security and global perception.
Dinerman, 10 (Taylor, National Space Policy: From Strength to Weakness, Part 2, Taylor Dinerman is a
well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space, July 29th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
The Bush National Space Policy document of August 2006 states that "The United States will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space to extend the benefits of space, enhance space exploration, and to protect and promote freedom around the world." It was a bit more idealistic than the 1959 version, but not at all incompatible with it -- or for that matter with the Clinton era goal to "Promote international cooperation to further domestic, national security and foreign policies." The consistent theme of US space policy has been to use international cooperation as one tool -- among others -to enhance American national power. Rebuilding America's space power in the 21st century is not going to be cheap or easy, but it is absolutely essential if we care about preserving our security and our values. Lack of leadership crushed security, commitment, and global image.
Bishop, 10 (Rob, Space cuts short-sighted, Rob Bishop is Utah's representative from the 1st District, February
25th, 2010, Access Date_7/15/11).
A report to Congress last year pointed out that delays in the NASA Ares program could have "significant negative impact" on the industrial base for missile production. If delays are "significant" an outright cancellation would be overwhelming. We will lose not just our capabilities for space exploration, but our capability to protect our homeland. Our nation will be less secure. Maintaining leadership in space and creating jobs is important, but fulfilling our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense is an absolute must.
40
Leadership Solves Chinese Rise

US Space leadership key to monitoring Chinas ambition.
Quigley, 09 (Erik N., GEO-POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO CHINAS RISE IN SPACE POWER, Advanced Space Research Elective Advisor, April 2009, Access Date_7/14/11).
Once a solid revised national strategy, robust space acquisition funding levels, and GCC contingency plans are in place, US decision makers and warfighters need to know when and how to best employ them. To help dictate the execution of a solid national strategy and application of US space power, US leadership must gain and maintain a constant sight picture into Chinas true military space ambitions . In a similar
light with current US national strategys predominant theme of economic cooperation and partnering with China,
US leadership should also push for open and honest international dialogue on space capability.
41
Plan Solves Space Leadership

US must colonize to maintain leadership
Billings 6
(Linda, research professor at George Washington University, How shall we live in space? Culture, law and ethics in spacefaring society, Space Policy 22 Issue 4, November 2006, DA:7/16/11, MadSu) Today's US civilian space program, borne of the 20th century Cold War, is focused on
planning for a new round of human missions to the Moon and, later, perhaps, to Mars. These plans are intended to realize a vision for 21st century human exploration articulated by President George W. Bush in January 2004 [1]. The US National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) promotes its plans for a new round of human exploration as a way to maintain US leadership in space. Critics argue that the cost of such missions may be prohibitive in the current fiscal environment [2] and [3], and curious observers keep asking: why are we going back to the Moon? Since the turn of this century China has launched people into Earth orbit and announced plans for human missions to the Moon. NASA is phasing out its Space Shuttle system and developing a new crew and cargo transport system but, given the cost and complexity of this enterprise, the USA may be without its own means of human access to space at some point in the next decade, perhaps for several years. Russia has an operating human space flight system
and is also developing a new human-rated space vehicle that government officials have said might begin flying as early as 2013. Canada, India, Japan, and member countries of the European Space Agency (ESA) are among nations interested in collaborating on human missions to the Moon and Mars. Still more
nationssome with their own capabilities to build satellites, robotic spacecraft, and unpiloted space launch vehicles, some without any space capabilities of their ownwould like to have a role in the global enterprise of space exploration and development.
42
US must commit to leadership in space or else others will usurp
Griffin 5
(Michael, NASA Space Adminstrator, speech, Leadership in Space, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18901, speech made 12/2/05, DA: 7/16/11, MadSu) Today, as other countries renew their commitment to space, America has the opportunity, and I would argue the obligation, to maintain our leadership role in space exploration. As we watch other countries commit to developing new exploration systems and technologies to expand into space, we too must remain committed to new advancements, lest we fall behind. In that regard, it may be significant to note that, of today's major spacefaring powers only Russia and China have spacecraft - Soyuz and Shenzhou - that are capable of returning crews from a trip to the Moon. Through the Vision for Space Exploration however, this country has a renewed commitment to maintain our leadership and restore the capabilities we set aside many years ago. The vote by two successive Congresses to support the Vision for Space Exploration outlined by President Bush two years ago offers wonderful evidence of national determination to regain lost ground in space. But beyond those very important congressional votes, there are some very serious challenges that we must face as a nation. We must think carefully about what the world of tomorrow will look like if the U nited States is not the preeminent spacefaring nation. And if we don't like that picture, if we truly want the United States to be the world leader in space now and in the future, there are a number of critical things we simply must decide to do. The Vision gives us the opportunity to take on the leading role in the exploration of space, not just for this century, but for centuries to come. But we have to seize that opportunity, and make it a reality. The first essential step is that American leadership in the exploration and development of the space frontier must be an explicit national goal. There must be continued and sustained bipartisan cooperation and agreement on the importance and necessity of American leadership in space, just as we are determined to be leaders in other areas such as defense, education, and scientific research. There need not, indeed there must not, be partisan debates over whether to have a vibrant space program or not. And we must get beyond revisiting this determination each year, or after an accident, or after a technical problem. In addition to needing national agreement on the importance of American leadership in space, we need to make this a commitment from generation to generation. Space exploration by its very nature requires the planning and implementation of missions and projects over decades, not years. Decades of commitment were required to build up our network of transcontinental railroads and highways, as well as our systems for maritime and aeronautical commerce. It will be no quicker or easier to build our highways to space, and the commitment to do it must be clear and sustaining. To ensure the success of the space program across a wide spectrum of political thought and down the generations, it is essential to have simple but compelling goals. The space community has an obligation to communicate to the country our plans to ensure America's leadership in space exploration. The President's Exploration Vision has established goals that people can understand and support - moving our
space exploration activities beyond low Earth orbit, and returning to the Moon as a stepping-stone to Mars and other destinations beyond, such as the near-Earth asteroids. Broad support for these goals is certainly there. A recent Gallup poll indicated that, with funding levels at or below 1% of the Federal budget, three-quarters of Americans are supportive of our plans to return to the Moon and voyage to Mars. This is amazingly
strong support for any government initiative, and I believe it provides a firm foundation upon which to build in the years ahead. The first step might be to explain that, actually, we're spending only 0.7% of the Federal budget!
Colonizing space key to US repairing space dominance. Zey, 10
(Michael, As US Abandons Manned Flight, China, Russia, Europe Train For Space Colonization with Mars500, renowned and thoughtprovoking keynote speaker on a variety of social, economic, technological, and political trends For over two decades he has keynoted various conferences, professional meetings, and trade shows for organizations such as AT&T, United Technologies, United Airlines, Dow Jones, and the World Future Society, June 7th, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11).
43
Sadly, it appears that Obama plans to expend little energy or resources on the space program for the remainder of his term. He will provide the occasional vote of confidence to private companies such as SpaceX when they successfully launch rockets they have constructed. However, while SpaceXs recent successful launch of Falcon 9 is laudable, many have suggested that the company was merely replicating technological feats NASA achieved half a century ago. The Mars500 program must serve as a wakeup call to the administration and the American public that the rest of the world is about to venture where no man has gone before, and leave America in its space dust in the process. The next Congress must pressure the President to reconsider his decision to decelerate the US space program, and convince him to begin the process of restoring the American space program to its former glory. Making new advancements in space, key to US space leadership. Hoffman, 11
(Michael, Boeing Chief: U.S. Should Lead in Space Tech, Defense News, April 8th, 2011, Access Date_7/16/11).
James Albaugh, Boeing president and chief executive, warned that the United States risks losing a leadership role in space if Congress and military leaders don't reinvest in new space technologies over the next decade. "We can't afford the so-called rebuilding years of our space capability," he said during an April 8 speech at the National Space Symposium, here. "The next decade must be about reaffirming our leadership role in space." American must advance in space exploration to get the edge on space leadership. Stone, 11(Christopher, American Leadership in Space: leadership through capability, Space policy analyst and strategist from Washing
D.C., March 14th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
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 US taking action boosts space leadership.
Newsleaks, 11 (End of Space Shuttle End to US Dominance of hegemony in Space, July 6th, 2011, Access Date_7/13/11).
The White House needs to back up a bit and take a look at history and the very reason why America was the first to reach the moon, and that was the Cold War. About the time rocketry was reaching the ICBM level, the Soviets launched Sputnik 1, the first orbiting satellite in October of 1957. The so-called "space-age" was born and the United States found itself lagging in the effort. If at first the Soviets' intentions were to upstage the United
States on the high-frontier, as the Air Force called it, the communist bloc soon began to explore the military aspects of space, at first in near-Earth orbit. The Soviet Union is dissolved, replaced by the Russian Federated Union .
Fifty-three years later, after the United States outstripped the Soviets, thanks in particular to President John F. Kennedy, in the space race through the highly successful Apollo lunar program, the
44
United States turns away from NASA and to the Russian space launch program to ensure the resupply of the space station, what an irony; and an embarrassment. The US must make efforts in space to maintain leadership.
Olson, 10 (Pete, US must remain the global leader in exploring space, Congressman from Texas, May 4 th, 2010, Access Date_7/14/11).
The president has a voice in this process, but he does not have the final say. His budget was rolled out without congressional consultation, and I think it is fair to say the administration has learned that was not the ideal way to handle a program that means so much to so many. Constellation is the program of record that has hit many milestones for success and can maintain Americas dominance in human space flight . Several of my colleagues have joined with me in requesting that NASA find the means within their budget to continue Constellation. We in Congress should support that request by providing adequate resources for this program. America must remain the global leader on human space exploration. I remain committed to working with the president and my colleagues to make this happen. US must work to maintain international leadership in space.
Stevens, 07 (Robert, The Next 50 years of US Space Leadership, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockhead Martin Corporation, April 10th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11). And not just in defense. Space systems now support almost all our modern conveniences everything from cable TV to cell phones to ATMs and, as such, underpin the strength of our economy. Even as tools like GPS have military applications, they also allow farmers to do precision seeding of their crops rescue teams to locate miners trapped underground and families driving in their cars to get help when an emergency strikes. Search and rescue sensors on NOAAs environmental satellites have helped save thousands of lives. And few Americans appreciate just how many inventions grew out of space technology from kidney dialysis machines to smoke detectors cordless tools and even the Statue
most importantly, American leadership in space has long symbolized our leadership on Earth. I believe this is so because there is a simple, basic, common experience among all people, of almost all ages to look into the nights sky and wonder whats beyond. As successful cosmic voyagers, Americans accomplished feats that others only dreamed of, earning global recognition and prestige that served us across all our global pursuits. Over the years we may have grown somewhat accustomed to U.S. predominance in space but that role has never really been guaranteed. And today, we see increasing challenges to our previously unchallenged leadership.
of Libertys protective coating. Finally, and to me, maybe
US needs space achievement to gain space leadership. Quigley, 09

(Erik N., GEO-POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO CHINAS RISE IN SPACE POWER, Advanced Space Research Elective Advisor, April 2009, Access Date_7/14/11). Therefore, until
the US achieves full, open communication with China, US leadership should posture its military counter-space capability along with its political and economic muscle. By doing so, the US can prepare for the worst-case scenario as recommended in a Dec 2007 report to Congress, mistrust over space goals and mutual uncertainty should result in the need for worst-case planning.33 Furthermore, senior US leaders should re-evaluate their perceptions of Chinas space military threat to avoid contentment with USs space superiority. As described best in astro-politics, the lack of an enemy in space is most assuredly causing complacency in the United States, stunting the expansion of its space capabilities.34 With Chinas aggressive space military build-up, they may be the very enemy that wakes up the US space industry.
45
US must act on a space policy to maintain leadership.

What, then, should be the focus of national space policy in order to maintain leadership in deep space ? Some propose that we concentrate only on Mars. This would be na ve and self-defeating. The country is simply not technically ready to go to Mars at present, and it will be a long time until we are ready to do so. Returning to the Moon, however, provides the fastest path for humans to go to Mars. Without the experience of returning to the Moon, we will not have the engineering or physiological insight for many decades to either fly to Mars or land there. Without lunar water resources, radiation protection for the long voyage to Mars may not be
possible. Without the development of lunar helium-3 fusion technology applied to interplanetary propulsion, we may not be able to reduce the transit time to Mars to an acceptable duration. Without
lunar operational experience, including learning to operate outside of communications with Earth, we vastly increase the risk of early Martian flights. Without lunar oxygen and water, Earth launch payloads to Mars may be prohibitively large and expensive, not to mention the continued uncertainties about sustainable resources on Mars. Without lunar rocket fuel resources, that is, hydrogen, oxygen and/or methane, we may not be able to land on Mars because of complicating presence of just some atmosphere and not a lot. Indeed, without returning to the Moon, future opportunities of leadership, including a much greater potential for international cooperation in scientific endeavors related to the Moon and beyond, cannot be realized. US must work to achieve leadership in space.
We should be diligent in monitoring whether the risks and time-delays created by policy change are proven to be worth the benefits, that is, we need to create a closed loop on the system, to gauge regularly and systematically whether we are achieving what we want. A vision of American excellence and leadership in security, political economy, and influence provides a framework for this evaluation and for the goals that we set for ourselves. While accountability and data are not beloved in the political process, we will not be able to move beyond debates that the majority of Americans view as arcane, unless we zero in on data-driven evaluations of policys performance. Magical thinking might make for good politics, but it makes poor policy. Hope for the US to devise new space operations.
Bacchus, 11 (James, American competitiveness needs space program, a former Member of Congress, from Floridas 15th Congressional District, which includes the Kennedy Space Center. He was one of the principal Congressional sponsors of the International Space Station. He chairs the global practice of the Greenberg Traurig law firm, March 16 th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
It is unclear what -- if anything -- will replace the shuttle as a craft for continued human space flight. NASA has rockets that can send robotic probes to explore outer space. But the shuttle was Americas only way for humans to get there. The hope is that retiring the aging and expensive shuttles will free up federal money for developing a new launch system that can take us beyond the low earth orbit of the station -- just 220 miles up -- and into deep space. The heavy lift of a 21st-century spacecraft could take us back to the Moon, on to Mars, and into the beckoning beyond. The hope, too, is that private U.S. commercial space companies
46
have advanced to the point where they can make smaller spacecraft capable of ferrying people as well as provisions to and from the station. Push for NASA to begin new projects-regain leadership ground. Spudis, 11
(Paul, NASAs mission to Nowhere, Paul D. Spudis is a planetary scientist, principal investigator of the Mini-SAR imaging radar on the Chandrayaan-1 mission and author of The Once and Future Moon, February 11th, 2011, Access Date_7/15/11).
NASA falters without specific direction or a stated destination. The history of the agency is replete with research projects disconnected from flight missions that produced no real hardware or technology. Taking five years (or even one year) to study the technologies of a heavy-lift rocket is not only pointless - it is destructive. We currently possess all the knowledge, technology and infrastructure necessary to build a heavy-lift launch vehicle. In a logical and effective space program, a mission is chosen, a plan for accomplishing the mission is developed, the flight hardware needed to accomplish the plan is identified, and technology is developed as needed to enable the flight hardware. The administration claims it is setting daring goals - the asteroids and Mars - but has posited them so far in the future that no real, focused work needs to be done toward their achievement during this or the next presidential term. Under Vision, we were working on the development of real capabilities, including launch systems, spacecraft and destinations with specific activities and capabilities at these places. If the new path is adopted, we will have exchanged a mission-driven program for a costly stagnation that will take us nowhere. That is the choice before us. Application of new tech- key to US space progress and dominance. Crisostorno, 10
The Constellation program started as a planned successor to the Apollo
(Christian, NASA's Constellation Program Planning To Take Initiative For Moon Colonization, Researcher for Open Talk Magazine, November 12th, 2010, Access Date_7/16/11).
program. It is a multi-faceted project that concentrated on three primary factors: the need to apply improved technologies to current spacefaring technology, the need to go beyond the current achievements in space travel and the need to initiate research to eventually colonize other planets. The program was literally meant to be taken as a first step towards the future human exploration of the entire interplanetary neighborhood. Application of advanced 21st century technology would be crucial for the Constellation programs success. On the navigation and safety part, the Orion crew module and the Altair lunar module will be installed with the most advanced computers to aid astronauts in their journey. Spacesuits will be redesigned and redeveloped to provide astronauts with highly improved mobility during extra-vehicular activity. Numerous fail-safe devices are to be installed to ensure the safety of the crew; even if the mission doesnt turn out to be a success. Various systems are also slated for research and improvement to make the astronauts stay at the moon better and much more pleasant.
47
Plan Popular
Americans want US to maintain Space Leadership role. Carreau, 11 (Mark, Majority Views US Space Leadership As Essential, Aviation Week, July 7th, 2011, Access Date_7/14/11). HOUSTON A majority of Americans even in the midst of a battered economy believe it is essential for the nation to stand at the summit of space exploration, according to a new Pew Research Center poll. The survey, released three days before the scheduled July 8 launch of NASAs final space shuttle mission, suggests that support largely cuts across economic and educational boundaries as well as political affiliation. The findings hint at a bedrock national confidence that space exploration has a positive influence on science and technological achievement in the U.S. and the belief that all Americans derive at least some benefit from the risky pursuit. The survey also found that a small majority of citizens believe that NASAs 30-year shuttle program has been a good investment. The issue has been a popular topic of news media reporting and commentary as the shuttle Atlantis and a crew of four astronauts prepare to fortify the International Space Station for the transition to commercial resupply and crew transportation.
48
**Hege Good**
49
Hege Good - Asian Stability

Primacy is the lynchpin of Asian stabilitydecline risks war, deterrence breakdowns, and prolif Lieber 2005 PhD from Harvard, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown, former consultant to the State
Department and for National Intelligence Estimates (Robert, The American Era, page 158) Parallels between Americas role in East Asia and its involvements in Europe might seem far-fetched. Asias
geography and history are enormously different, there is no regional organization in any way comparable to the European Union, the area is not a zone of peace, conflict among its leading states remains a potential risk, and there is nothing remotely resembling NATO as a formal multilateral alliance binding the United States to the regions security and the regional states to one another. Yet, as in Europe, the United States plays a unique stabilizing role in Asia that no other country or organization is capable of playing. Far from being a source of tension or instability, this presence tends to reduce competition among regional powers and to deter armed conflict. Disengagement, as urged by some critics of American primacy, would probably lead to more dangerous competition or power-balancing among the principal countries of Asia as well as to a more unstable security environment and the spread of nuclear weapons. As a consequence, even China acquiesces in Americas regional role despite the fact that it is the one country with the long-term potential to emerge as a true major power competitor. Global nuclear war most probable scenario
Jonathan S. Landay (national security and intelligence correspondent for the Contra Costa Times) March 10, 2000, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian conflicts Lexis Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even
minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. And Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian
policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There
are elements for potential disaster." In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security
Adviser Samuel Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. And while Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict
between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia
with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
50
Hege Good - Democracy

Heg promotes democracy Thayer 6 (Bradley A., Prof of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University, In Defense of Primacy., National Interest;
Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86, p32-37) Throughout history, peace
and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. 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)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American
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. Second, 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.( n3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once
primacy within the international system
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.
Democracy solves extinction
Diamond 95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html)
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally
51
responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. Heg promotes democracy
Lieber 5 [Robert J., Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 49-50] This aspiration embodied deep-seated themes within American history and evoked long-standing beliefs about foreign policy. In particular, the idea that the exercise of American
power goes hand in hand with the promotion of
democratic principles can be found in the policy pronouncements of U.S. Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton (whose 1993 inaugural address proclaimed, "Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause"). This combination of values reflects both a belief in universal ideals ("The United States," the NSS declares, "must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere") and a judgment that promoting these principles abroad not only benefits citizens of other countries, but also increases U.S. national security by making foreign conflicts less likely because democracies are unlikely to attack one another. The
National Security Strategy committed the United States to "actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world." This objective was driven by the belief that the fundamental cause of radical Islamic terrorism lies in the absence of
democracy, the prevalence of authoritarianism, and the lack of freedom and opportunity in the Arab world. In the past, this idea might have been dismissed as political rhetoric. But after September 11, even the United Nations in its 2002 Arab Human Development Report and in subsequent reports in 2003 and 2005, defined the problem similarly and called for the extension of representative institutions and basic human freedoms to the Muslim Middle East. A Bush speech to the National Endowment for Democracy in November 2003 provided an elaboration that was both moral and strategic in its commitment to democratization, while criticizing half a century of policies that had failed to make this a priority: "Sixty
years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty
52
Hege Good - Deterrence

Heg collapse emboldens rogues it signals weakness Thayer, 06 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University (Bradley A., In
Defense of Primacy, National Interest, November/December, Lexis)
In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing halfpledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from Causes global wars that escalate perception is key Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History @ Hoover Institution, Stanford University) December 2009 Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Answers from Victor Davis Hanson,
http://www.resistnet.com/group/oregon/forum/topics/change-weakness-disaster-obama/showLastReply Dr. Hanson: Obama
is one bow and one apology away from a circus. The world can understand a kowtow gaffe to some Saudi royals, but not as part of a deliberate pattern. Ditto the mea culpas. Much of diplomacy rests on public perceptions, however trivial. We are now in a great waiting game, as regional hegemons, wishing to redraw the existing landscape whether China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. are just waiting to see whos going to be the first to try Obama and whether Obama really will be as tenuous as they expect. If he slips once, it will be 1979 redux, when we saw the rise of radical Islam, the Iranian hostage mess, the communist inroads in Central
America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc. BC: With what country then Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc. do you believe his global repositioning will cause the most damage? Dr. Hanson: I think all three. I would expect, in the next three years, Iran to get the bomb and begin to threaten ever so insidiously its Gulf neighborhood; Venezuela will probably cook up some scheme to do a punitive border raid into Colombia to apprise South America that U.S. friendship and values are liabilities; and Russia
energy bullying of Eastern Europe, while insidiously pressuring autonomous former republics to get back in line with some sort of new Russian autocratic commonwealth. Theres an outside shot that North Korea might do something really stupid near the 38th parallel and China will ratchet up the pressure on Taiwan. Indias borders with both Pakistan and China will heat up. I think we got off the
back of the tiger and now no one quite knows whom it will bite or when. BC: Can Obama get any more mileage from his perpetually played Im not George W. Bush card or is that card past its expiration date? Dr. Hanson: Two considerations: 1) Its hard (in addition to being shameless), after a year, for any president to keep scapegoating a prior administration. 2) I think he will drop the reset/Bush did it throat-clearing soon, as his polls continue to stay below 50 percent. In other words, it seems to be a losing trope, poll-wise. Americans hate whining and blame-gaming. So the
will continue its
apologies and bows dont go over well here at home; one more will be really toxic, politically speaking. Most are starting to see that our relations with Britain, Italy,
Germany, or France are no better under Obama and probably worse than during the Bush administration.
53
Hege Good - Korea

Hegemony is key to stabilize Korea and prevent regional arms races Lieber 2005 PhD from Harvard, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown, former consultant to the State
Department and for National Intelligence Estimates (Robert, The American Era, pages 164-166)
On the Korean peninsula, in one of the worlds most dangerous and most heavily armed regions, the American military commitment has deterred North Korea from seeking to invade the South. Paradoxically, even while they engage in their most important mutual contacts in half a century, the leaders of the two Koreas have called for the United States to remain on the peninsula. In the words of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, as quoted by former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, We are surrounded by big powers Russia, Japan and China so the United States must continue to stay for stability and peace in East Asia .18 At the same time,
there are risks that the United States could be drawn into a major military conflict in Korea. Though Pyongyang has at times been willing to negotiate with the United States, its strategy has habitually combined bargaining, deception, and blackmail. Notably, in the case of the October 1994 Agreed Framework, the North agreed to freeze its existing nuclear facilities, and Washington undertook to assist it in obtaining two new proliferation-resistant light water reactors for producing electrical power (mainly financed by South Korea and Japan) and in the interim to provide heavy fuel oil for free. However, within months of signing the agreement and some seven years before President Bush labeled the regime as part of the axis of evil North Korea began violating its terms by secretly constructing plants for the production of highly enriched uranium. In October 2002, the North privately admitted to U.S. diplomats the existence of this program, and in 2003 it forced the removal of outside inspectors, renounced its signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unsealed 8,000 fuel rods and proclaimed that it would reprocess the nuclear material in them, and announced that it possessed nuclear weapons. For more than a decade, North Korea thus has seemed determined both to negotiate for major concessions from the United States and others in the form of aid and security guarantees and to continue with its nuclear weapons program.19 America faces dangerous choices in dealing with North Korea, but it does not do so in isolation. Because of shared concerns over the Norths behavior and the dangers a nuclear North Korea would pose, four strong regional neighbors China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia have been inclined to cooperate with the United States in six-party negotiations with Pyongyang. The relationships among these countries and with Washington have been complicated and often difficult, and China has sometimes been unhelpful, but all of them would face adverse security consequences from an unrestrained North Korean nuclear program. Based
on past experience it is widely assumed that North Korean weapons and technology would be sold abroad and that a perilous regional nuclear arms race would erupt, with Japan and possibly South Korea going nuclear to deter Pyongyang,20 China reacting by increasing its own nuclear weapons deployment, India expanding its arsenal in response to China, Pakistan seeking to keep up with India, Iran accelerating its nuclear ambitions, and other countries such as Taiwan attempting to acquire nuclear weapons as well.21 The South Korean case also provides evidence of why countries in the region continue to favor the American presence. In December 2002, South
Korea elected a new president, Roh Moo-hyun, representing a new generation of democratic, affluent, and educated voters with little or no memory of the Korean War half a century ago. Roh came to office having pledged to deemphasize the long-standing relationship with the United States and to seek closer ties with North Korea. Anti United States demonstrations in February 2003 seemed to suggest a shift in public sentiment as well. But Roh and his supporters ultimately found themselves closing ranks with America. North Koreas intransigence and its nuclear program provided strong motivation, as did Washingtons mid-2003 unveiling of plans for realignment and rebalancing of its forces in Korea and East Asia. In February 2004, in
an act that symbolized its solidarity with the United States, the South Korean government agreed to dispatch 3,000 troops to Northern Iraq, and the National Assembly approved the measure by a three-to-one margin.22 A few months later, in June 2004,
when Washington announced that one-third of the 37,000 American troops stationed in Korea would be withdrawn and the remainder repositioned to bases less vulnerable to a sudden North Korean attack across the demilitarized zone, the South Korean President, political leaders, and media responded with concern. Anxious about any sign of a weakened U.S. presence, the Seoul government gained Washingtons agreement that the drawdown would take place gradually and would not be completed until 2008. Reactions to this change in American deployment showed how much the U.S. presence is still desired. The realignment plan provided for a smaller and less intrusive footprint and one more appropriate to a democratic South Korean society that had chafed at a conspicuous foreign presence and a large base in the very heart of Seoul. The changes also modernized the foundation for a sustained American regional role by shifting to more flexible force structures with emphasis on high-tech weaponry and long-range precision strikes.
Lash-out and nuclear extinction Africa News 1999 (10-25, Lexis) Lusaka - If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line
54

communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that military
tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. It is

therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea
55
Hege Good - Prolif

Heg solves prolif Brookes 08 Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. He is also a member of the congressional U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter, Heritage, Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might, November 24, 2008
The United States military has also been a central player in the attempts to halt weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile proliferation. In 2003, President Bush created the Prolifera-tion Security Initiative (PSI), an initiative to counter the spread of WMD and their delivery systems throughout the world. The U.S. military's capabili-ties help put teeth in the PSI, a voluntary, multilat-eral organization of 90-plus
nations which uses national laws and joint military operations to fight proliferation. While many of the PSI's efforts aren't made pub-lic due to the potential for revealing sensitive intel-ligence sources and methods, some operations do make their way to the media. For instance, accord-ing to the U.S. State Department, the PSI stopped exports to Iran's missile program and heavy water- related equipment to Tehran's nuclear program, which many believe is actually a nuclear weapons program. In the same vein, the United
States is also devel-oping the world's most prodigious-ever ballistic missile defense system to protect the American homeland, its deployed troops, allies, and friends, including Europe. While missile defense has its crit-ics, it may provide the best answer to the spread of ballistic missiles and the unconventional payloads, including the WMD, they may carry. Unfortunately, the missile and WMD prolifera-tion trend is not positive. For instance, 10 years ago,
there were only six nuclear weapons states. Today there are nine members of the once-exclusive nucle-ar weapons club, with Iran perhaps knocking at the door. Twenty-five years ago, nine countries had bal-listic missiles. Today, there are 28 countries with ballistic missile arsenals of varying degrees. This
defensive system will not only provide deter-rence to the use of these weapons, but also provide policymakers with a greater range of options in pre-venting or responding to such attacks, whether from a state or non-state actor. Perhaps General Trey Obering, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, said it best when describing the value of missile defense in countering the grow-ing threat of WMD and delivery system prolifera-tion: "I believe that one of the reasons we've seen the proliferation of these missiles in the past is that there has historically been no defense against them." Prolif causes nuclear war deterrence fails
Lieber 07 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J. "Persistent Primacy and the Future of the American Era", APSA Paper 2007) In addition to the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology and terrorism, the proliferation
of nuclear weapons could become an increasingly dangerous source of instability and conflict. Over the longer term, and coupled with the spread of missile technology, there is a likelihood that the U.S. will be more exposed to this danger. Not only might the technology, materials or weapons themselves be diverted into the hand of terrorist groups willing to pay almost any price to acquire them, but the spread of these weapons carries with it the possibility of devastating regional wars. In assessing nuclear proliferation risks in the late-Saddam Husseins Iraq, in North Korea, and in Iran, some have asserted that deterrence and containment, which seemed to work during the Cold War, would be sufficient to protect the national interests of the U.S. and those of close allies. Such views are altogether too complacent. The U.S. Soviet nuclear balance took two decades to become relatively stable and on at least one occasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, the parties came to the nuclear brink. Moreover, stable deterrence requires assured second strike capability, the knowledge that whichever side suffered an initial nuclear attack would have the capacity to retaliate by inflicting unacceptable damage upon the attacker, and the assumption that ones adversary is a value-maximizing rational actor. A robust nuclear balance is difficult to achieve, and in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal, a country embroiled in an intense regional crisis may become the target of a disarming first strike or, on the other hand, may be driven by
56
a use-it-or-lose it calculation. Even though American territory may not be at immediate risk within the next five to seven years, its interests, bases and allies surely might be. And control by rational actors in new or recent members of the nuclear club is by no means a foregone conclusion. The late Saddam Hussein had shown himself to be reckless and prone to reject outside information that differed from what he wished to hear. And Iranian President Ahmadinejad has expressed beliefs that suggest an erratic grip on reality or that call into question his own judgment. For example, he has invoked the return of the twelfth or hidden Imam, embraced conspiracy theories about 9/11, fostered Holocaust denial, and called for Israel to be wiped off the map Hege key to solve Prolif Mandelbaum 5 [Michael, Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins The Case for Goliath:
How America Acts As the Worlds Government in the Twenty-First Century, p. 39-41] American forces remained in Europe and East Asia because the countries located in these two regions wanted them there, even if they did not always say so clearly or even explicitly. They wanted them there because the American presence offered the assurance that these regions would
The American military presence was in both cases a confidence-building measure, and if that presence were with-drawn, the countries in both regions would feel less confident that no threat to their security would appear. They would, in all likelihood, take steps to compensate for the absence of these forces. Those steps
remain free of war and, in the case of Europe, free of the costly preparations for war that had marked the twentieth century. would surely not include war, at least not in the first instance. Instead, since the American forces serve as a hedge against uncertainty, some of the countries of East Asia and Europe might well seek to replace them with another source of hedging .
A leading candidate for that role would be nuclear weapons of their own.9 The possession of nuclear weapons equips their owner with a certain leverage, a geopolitical weight that, unless somehow counterbalanced, can confer a political advantage
in dealing with countries lacking them. Like the relationship between employer and employee, the one between a nuclear-weapon state and a nonnuclear-weapon state has inequality built into it, no matter how friendly that relationship may be. During the Cold War, the American military presence, and the guarantee of protection by the mighty nuclear arsenal of the United States that came with it, neutralized the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China accumulated. Russia and China retain nuclear stock-piles in the wake of the Cold War, and with the end of the American military presence in their regions, several of their non-nuclear neighborsGermany, Poland, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for examplemight feel the need to off-set those stockpiles with nuclear forces of their own. Perhaps the process of replacing American nuclear armaments with those of other countries, if this should take place, would occur smoothly, with Europe and East Asia remaining peaceful throughout the transition. But this is not what most of the world believes. To the contrary, the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not already have them is widely considered to be the single greatest threat to international tranquillity in the twenty-first century.
The United States has made the prevention of nuclear proliferation one of its most important foreign policies, and its efforts to this end constitute, like reassurance, a service to the other members of the international
system.
57
Heg Good- Deterrence

U.S. hegemony key to deterrence Cold War proves Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, The Need For American Hegemony, February 20th, 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA Furthermore, U.S. defense policy during the Cold War ensured U.S. security through the security of its allies. This policy guaranteed the peace and safety of democratic societies globally. Additionally, this benign U.S. hegemony was augmented for a time by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them. U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence, for example, dissuaded any Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
58
Hege Good - Genocide

Primacy fills in for powerless institutionskey to solve genocide and mass violence globally Lieber 2005 PhD from Harvard, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown, former consultant to the
State Department and for National Intelligence Estimates (Robert, The American Era, pages 51-52, WEA)
The United States possesses the military and economic means to act assertively on a global basis, but should it do so, and if so, how? In short, if the United States conducts itself in this way, will the world be safer and more stable, and is such a role in Americas national interest? Here, the anarchy problem is especially pertinent. The capacity of the United Nations to act, especially in coping with the most urgent and deadly problems, is severely limited, and in this sense, the demand for global governance far exceeds the supply. Since its inception in 1945, there have only been two occasions (Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1991) when the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force, and in both instances the bulk of the forces were provided by the United States. In the most serious cases, especially those involving international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ethnic cleansing, civil war, and mass murder, if America does not take the lead, no other country or organization is willing or able to respond effectively. The deadly cases of Bosnia (199195) and Rwanda (1994) make this clear. In
their own way, so did the demonstrations by the people of Liberia calling for American intervention to save them from the ravages of predatory militias in a failed state. And the
weakness of the international reaction to ethnic cleansing, rape, and widespread killing in the Darfur region of Western Sudan provides a more recent example. Makes extinction invevitable Kenneth J. Campbell, assistant professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, 2001,
Genocide and the Global Village, p. 15-16 Regardless of where or on how small a scale it begins, the crime of genocide is the complete ideological repudiation of, and a direct murderous assault upon, the prevailing liberal international order. Genocide
is fundamentally incompatible with, and destructive of an open, tolerant, democratic, free market international order. As genocide scholar Herbert Hirsch has explained: The unwillingness of the world community to take action to end genocide and political massacres is not only immoral but also impractical. [W]ithout some semblance of stability, commerce, travel, and the international and intranational interchange of goods and information are subjected to severe disruptions. Where genocide is permitted to proliferate, the liberal international order cannot long survive. No group will be safe; every group will wonder when they will be next. Left unchecked, genocide threatens to destroy whatever security, democracy, and prosperity exists in the present international system. As Roger Smith notes: Even the most powerful nationsthose armed with nuclear weaponsmay end up in struggles that will lead (accidentally, intentionally, insanely) to the ultimate genocide in which they destroy not only each other, but [humankind] mankind itself, sewing the fate of the earth forever with a final genocidal effort. In this sense, genocide is a grave threat to the very fabric of the international system and must be stopped, even at some risk to lives and
treasure. The preservation and growth of the present liberal international order is a vital interest for all of its membersstates as well as non-stateswhether or not those members recognize and accept the reality of that objective interest. Nation states, as the principal members of the present international order, are the only authoritative holders of violent enforcement powers. Non-state actors, though increasing in power relative to states, still do not possess the military force, or the democratic authority to use military force, which is necessary to stop determined perpetrators of mass murder. Consequently, nation-states
have a special responsibility to prevent, suppress, and punish all malicious assaults on the fundamental integrity of the prevailing international order.
59
Hege Good Free Trade

Leadership allows for the free market system to evolve Brown and Stern 11 (Andrew, former director in the Department of International Economic and
Social Affiars at the UN, New York, served as chief economist for the governments of Fiji and Swaziland and head of UN Planning Team for the government of Zambia, Robert, PhD in Economics, Free Trade Agreements and Governance of the Global Trading System, January 3, 2011, http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/78555/1/ipc-113-brown-stern-free-tradeagreements-governance-global-trading-system.pdf, YS)
The postwar transformation in the economic relations of the countries that might formerly have dominated major
trading blocs the US, the larger European countries and Japan greatly diminished that fear. As a group, these countries became quite closely integrated in manufacturing production and trade, in the service industries, in crossborder direct investment, and (as we have recently been made painfully aware) in finance. China, now another potential leader of an East Asian bloc, has also become heavily dependent on access to western markets. The multilateral, and largely nondiscriminatory, character of relations among these countries, moreover, has been institutionally embedded in their national laws and regulations in conformity with their obligations under the GATT/WTO agreements. It was within this changed setting of diminished rivalry that, in the 1980s, a resurgence of interest in regional FTAs took place. The new focus was on the expansion of markets, of possibly promoting broader economic integrations and even as had occurred in western Europe of overcoming political antagonisms. Since the 3
agreements rigorously avoided any raising of trade barriers against third countries, they were not deemed protectionist, at least in intent. Moreover, though there certainly remained a residual fear of the emergence of possible trading blocs, that only acted as an additional stimulus to action. The passage of the Single European Act in 1986, for instance, and the later
trade agreements of the EU with eastern European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union were spurs to the signing of the US FTA with Canada and later, to the formation of NAFTA; and the US also began to entertain the dream of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) while it established an Asia and Pacific Council as
a precursor to another extensive free trade area. Thus, in the new world of globalization and of increasing reliance on unrestricted private enterprise that the 1980s ushered in, the emphasis on nondiscrimination yielded to the search for ways to expand access to foreign markets. And it was but a small step to include bilateral agreements along with regional agreements as an effective instrument. These kinds of arrangements, moreover, had the advantage of not being dependent on the slow pace of multilateral trade negotiations, which were being made more intricate and less conclusive by the growing number and diversity of the participants. Further,
particularly for the US as the leading economic and trading power, the interest in market access was moving beyond the reductions of barriers at the border to
include access to service industries like telecommunications and finance as well as access for investment capital in general.
Securing access to specific markets of interest was thus easier to realize through the negotiation of FTAs. These shifts in attitude of the major trading powers, particularly of the US, interacted with equally complex but different changes affecting the trade policies of many 4 other countries, which were to become the demandeurs in regional or bilateral trade agreements. In the western hemisphere, for example, it was Canada that became the first country to approach the US with a proposal to negotiate an FTA. It was motivated in part by an immediate concern that the US was threatening to introduce new trade defense measures. More profound was the dissatisfaction with the growth performance of Canadian industry. The solution was partly seen in closer and more open trade links with the US to enhance competitiveness. Other countries, both in the developed and the
developing worlds, were also embracing more open trade policies as part of their growth or development strategies. A few, such as Chile, Mexico, and Singapore, began to actively pursue the negotiation of FTAs as a route toward the realization of a universal free trade policy.
60
Heg Good Asian Proliferation

Hegemony solves Asian proliferation Lieber 5 (Robert, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown
University,The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 174) Taken together, these Asian involvements are not without risk, especially vis-a-vis North Korea, China-Taiwan, and the uncertain future of a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Nonetheless, the American engagement provides both reassurance and deterrence and
thus eases the security dilemmas of the key states there, including countries that are America's allies but remain suspicious of each other. Given the history of the region, an American withdrawal would be likely to trigger arms races and the accelerated proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is thus no exaggeration to describe the American presence as providing the "oxygen" crucial for the region's stability and economic prosperity. Heg solves Asian proliferation Wortzel 03 Ph.D VP of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at The Heritage Foundation
(Larry, United States
Military Forces in Asia Maintain the Peace and Advance Democracy)
Americas primary regional security interests are best served by preserving the stability of Northeast Asia, an area plagued by war for most of the past century. Without an American military presence, deep historical animosities and territorial disputes among Russia, China, Japan, and the two Koreas would lead to a major race for military dominance. A delicate balance has existed since the
end of World War Two, when Japan renounced offensive military force and rejected nuclear weapons. Pulling out US troops would destroy that balance.
Americas military presence in Northeast Asia has provided the glue for security arrangements that offered protection to its allies and reassurances that helped avert an arms race among enemies that have fought each other for centuries. Americas bilateral security treaties with Japan and South Korea, respectively, ensure that United States military, political, and economic interests in the region are protected. The forward presence of U.S. troops also serves to protect the democracies of South Korea and Taiwan from hostile threats by Leninist dictatorships in North Korea and China. Japan depends on the presence of U.S. military forces. It maintains its peace constitution, eschews the development of an offensive military force, and feels secure in a nuclear age without a nuclear arsenal because of American security guarantees. For South Korea, the presence of U.S. combat forces has created the conditions that permitted
democracy and a market economy to flourish. In South Korea, the voters elected a candidate that wants to pursue dialogue with North Korea. They elected a candidate who emphasized engaging North Korea regardless of North Koreas reactions or reciprocity. Even though there have been protests, both South Korean presidential candidates, and the majority of the citizens of South Korea, continue to recognize the stability and security that the U.S. presence in Korea provides. It
is imperative for Americans to remember that in the final analysis, the forward deployment of U.S. troops serves American interests even as it advances our values.
61
Hege Good - Humanitarianism

Hegemony is key to humanitarianism only U.S. leadership solves. Thayer 7. (Bradley A., Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at
Missouri State University) ["The Case For The American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 44-46]
If someone were to ask How
many humanitarian missions has the United States undertaken since the end of the Cold War?, most Americans probably have to think for a moment and then answer three or four. In fact, the number is much larger. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War, and while wars like the invasion of Panama or Iraq received considerable attention from the worlds media, most of the fifty actions were humanitarian in nature and received almost no media attention in the United States. The U.S. military is the earths 911 forceit serves as the worlds police; it is the global paramedic, and the planets fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, typhoon, or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. In 1991, when flooding caused by cyclone Marian killed almost 140,000 people and left 5 million homeless in Bangladesh, the
United States launched Operation Sea Angel to save stranded and starving people by supplying food, potable water, and medical assistance. U.S. forces are credited with saving over 200,000 lives in that operation. In 1999, torrential rains and flash flooding in Venezuela killed 30,000 people and left 140,000 homeless. The United States responded with Operation Fundamental Response, which brought water purification and hygiene [end page 44] equipment saving thousands. Also in 1999, Operation Strong Support aided Central Americans affected by Hurricane Mitch. That hurricane was the fourth-strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic and the worst natural disaster to strike Central America in the twentieth century. The magnitude of the devastation was tremendous, with about 10,000 people killed, 13,000 missing, and 2 million left homeless. It is estimated that 60 percent of the infrastructure in Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala was destroyed. Again, the U.S. military came to the aid of the people affected. It is believed to have rescued about 700 people who otherwise would have died, while saving more from disease due to the timely arrival of medical supplies, food, water, blankets, and mobile shelters. In the next phase of Strong Support, military engineers rebuilt much of the infrastructure of those countries, including bridges, hospitals, roads, and schools. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra and killed 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. More importantly, Washington not only contributed a large amount of aid, $350 million, plus another $350 million provided by American citizens and corporations, but alsoonly days after the tsunami struckused its military to help those in need. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention, as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort, and it is important to keep in mind that its costs were separate from the $350 million provided by the U.S. government and other money given by American citizens and corporations to relief organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The generosity of the United States has done more to help the country fight the war on terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving 3 million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the war on terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States provided about $156 million in aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the generosity of the United States, it left a lasting impression about the United States. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the war on terror .
There is no other state or international organization that can provide these benefits. The United Nations certainly cannot because it lacks the military and economic power of the United States. It is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on small matters [end page 45] as well as great ones. Thus, it lacks the ability to speak with
one voice on important issues and to act as a unified force once a decision has been reached. Moreover, it does not possess the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. Simply put, there is no alternative to the leadership of the United States. When
the United States does not intervene, as it has not in the Darfur region of Sudan and eastern Chad, people die. In this conflict, Arab
Muslims belonging to government forces, or a militia called the Jingaweit, are struggling against Christian and animist black Africans who are fighting for independence. According to the State Department, 98,000 to 181,000 people died between March 2003 and March 2005 as a result of this struggle. The vast majority of these deaths were caused by violence, disease, and malnutrition associated with the conflict.
62
Hege Good - Balkan Stability

US hegemony is key to stability in the Balkans power now checks extremists BARDOS, 2006 (Assistant director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University's School of
International and Public Affairs. He also serves as a Balkans analyst for Freedom House.Gordon N., Balkan Gains in Peril, Editorial; B07, Final Edition, The Washington Post, June 25, 2006, lexis.)
All of this suggests how easy it would be, absent strong U.S. leadership, for events to spin out of control and erase 10 years of efforts to stabilize the region. In such an unstable political climate, statements by U.S. policymakers about their eagerness to pull U.S. troops out of the Balkans and turn the job over to the Europeans only embolden extremists. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia are all gearing up for elections, and moderate political forces in these countries need U.S. support now to convince their electorates that the difficult choices being made to adopt economic and political reforms will pay off in the near future, not two or three electoral cycles down the line. The assassination of former Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic in March 2003 is a tragic reminder of the great personal risks reformers throughout southeastern Europe are taking. They need and deserve U.S. understanding and support. By visiting Baghdad this month, President Bush sent a strong personal message to Iraqis that the United States intends to support their country until its transition to democracy is completed. The administration should send a similar message to both extremists and moderates in the Balkans that the United States will actively lead the effort to integrate all the countries of southeastern Europe into both NATO and the European Union -- and that it won't pull out until the job is done.
63
Hege Good - Indo-Pak War

US presence is key to India-Pakistan peace KHALILZAD AND LESSER,1998 (Zalmay and Ian, Ambassador to Afghanistan and Sr. analyst at
RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century, page 161) The fifth driver is Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese perceptions of the role of extraregional powers in any future conflict. Although extraregional powers such as the United States will remain critical and influential actors in South Asia, the nature of their presence and the way their influence is exercised will remain important factors for stability in South Asia. The United States, in particular, contributes to stability insofar as it can creatively use both its regional policy and its antiproliferation strategies to influence the forms of security competition on the subcontinent, the shape and evolution of Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs, and the general patterns of political interaction between India and Pakistan. The nominally extraregional power, China, also plays a critical role here both because of its presumed competition with India and because Beijing has evolved into a vital supplier of conventional and nuclear technologies to Pakistan.
64
Hege Good - Israel-Palestine

Only heg solves a permanent Israel-Palestine solution Lieber 2005 PhD from Harvard, Professor of Government and International Affairs at
Georgetown, former consultant to the State Department and for National Intelligence Estimates (Robert, The American Era, pages 152-154, WEA)
There can be no doubt that
the United States has played an indispensable role in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict and that it is the only effective broker or mediator between the two sides. American diplomats and Presidents helped to negotiate cease-fire and disengagement agreements in the successive wars, hosted the Camp David talks of 1977 that led to peace between Israel and Egypt, provided economic aid to the former belligerents, and stationed troops in the Sinai to monitor compliance. Under President Clinton, the United States provided the venue for the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Agreement in 1993, acted as
indispensable intermediary during the rest of the decade, and led negotiations in the year 2000 that came close to ending the conflict. Following the collapse of those efforts and the coming to office of the Bush administration in January 2001, there was widespread criticism of the United States for its ostensible inaction. However, the administration repeatedly sought to halt the violence and renew the peace talks through a series of measures, including the Mitchell and Tenet Plans. In June 2002, President Bush took a groundbreaking step by calling for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within three years, but conditioned this on the Palestinians achieving new leadership not compromised by corruption and terror. In 2003, together with the U.N., E.U., and Russia, a group known as the Quartet, his administration co-sponsored a new road map for peace. Despite a lesser degree of diplomatic engagement than had been the case in earlier years, there was a fundamental coherence to Bush policies, including the insistence that no progress could be made with Arafat, that Israel had the right to fight terrorism, that Arab neighbors needed to play a constructive role, and that Europeans should use their influence and financial incentives to
With the death of Arafat, followed by genuinely free elections in Gaza and the West Bank in January 2005, progress toward deescalating the conflict and establishing a viable peace process reemerged. The Israel government of Prime Minister Sharon and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas swiftly agreed on a ceasefire and direct
discourage corruption and authoritarianism. In the meantime the United States would stand ready to facilitate peace once the necessary local conditions began to emerge.
negotiations. Egypt and Jordan joined in this effort and returned their ambassadors to Tel Aviv, andWashington made clear its strong support for Israels disengagement from Gaza and for steps to strengthen the newly elected and relatively pragmatic Palestine leader. Daunting obstacles remained, including ensuring a lasting halt to terrorism, improving the living conditions of Palestinians, and grappling with difficult final status issues (borders, right of return, settlements, Jerusalem, security), but the logic of American policies was largely vindicated by these events.
Again and again during the past half-century it has been painfully clear that only the United States has the ability to serve as an effective interlocutor between Israel and its Arab adversaries. This is a direct result of not just Americas power, but especially its long-standing ties with Israel. Other world actors lack sufficient weight, are seen by Israel as tilting toward their adversaries, or in the case of the U.N. so dominated by the weight of the Arab and non-aligned voting blocs in the General Assembly as to be biased against the Jewish state. Any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
inconceivable without Washingtons leadership. All the same, peace requires that each of the belligerents be
primarily from Yasir Arafats ultimate unwillingness to end the conflict.54Although prepared for a lasting peace. In assessing the failure of the peace talks that took place in the year 2000, Dennis Ross, Americas leading negotiator under three Presidents, later observed that although there was some blame on all sides, the tragic failure had stemmed
Americas role makes it the target of intense criticism within the Arab world, the problems plaguing the region occur largely independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The political, economic, and social difficulties of the Middle East
would only secondarily be affected by a Palestinian solution. And some of the worst problems would be totally unaffected, for example, ethnic cleansing and murder in the Darfur region of Western Sudan, misrule by the mullahs in Iran, the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, or the Islamists obsession with overturning existing regimes and imposing puritanical Muslim rule throughout the region. Insofar as Iraq is concerned, the IsraeliPalestine conflict was irrelevant to Saddams invasions of Iran (1980) and Kuwait (1990), his regional ambitions, weapons programs, and defiance of the U.N., his use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds, his era of brutal Baathist rule, and his murder of at least 400,000 Iraqis.
65
Hege Good - NATO

Heg is key to the NATO alliance Thayer 7 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University (Bradley A., American
Empire, Routledge, page 108) What is more, many of the allies of the United States have
become more dependent on the United States for their security than during the Cold War. For many years now, most NATO countries have only spent a fraction of their budget on defense, and it is not transparent how they would defend them-selves if not for the United States did not. Only six of the twenty-ive
than 2 percent. Such
members of NATO (not counting the United States) are spending 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense, while nineteen spend less
a low level of defense spending is possible only because of the security provided by the United States.
66
Hege Good - Prez Powers

Heg is key to prez powers Calleo 9 David P. Calleo (University Professor at The Johns Hopkins University and Dean Acheson Professor at its Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS)) 2009 Follies of Power: Americas Unipolar Fantasy p. 152
Building and exerting American global power adds extra strains on the federal system. Almost inevitably it means enhancing presidential power at home. By the same
in American politics. In other words, there
reasoning, sustaining outsized presidential power relies on maintaining an overbearing prominence for security and foreign policy issues
exists for America a symbiosis between world hegemony and presidential primacy. Conversely, too little conflict in the world seems to threaten presidential
power at home. In the last decades of the twentieth century, for example, detente and ending the Cold War, both which reduced Americas overseas preoccupations, also seriously undermined the presidency and, with it, the stability of the federal system. All three presidencies caught in this process those of Reagan, the first Bush, and Clinton found themselves seriously challenged by Congress and the courts. After several presidencies adrift in detente, the War on Terror allowed the second Bush administration to reassert the old bipolar global model with unprecedented extensions of presidential power the unitary executive, the right to arrest arbitrarily and imprison indefinitely without trial, the official use and defense of torture ideas and practices that draw their inspiration from another age. The constitutionalist tradition, however, remains deeply planted in American political culture. States
still find imaginative ways to resist or bypass federal encroachment and there are recurring campaigns to cut the presidency down to size. Nevertheless Americas huge global military establishment weighs ever more heavily on its constitution. It remains to be seen what new balance will be struck after the elections of 2008. The Congressional elections of 2006 suggested
that a countervailing reaction was building against presidential power. But the election of 2008 may well mean a rehabilitation of that power. In any event, without a determined effort to contain the countrys external role, little change can probably be expected in the long-standing drift toward presidential federalism.
67
Hege Good - Terrorism

Heg solves terrorism Walt 02 professor of international affairs at Harvard (Stephen, American Primacy http://www.nwc
.navy.mil/press/review/2002/spring/art1-sp2.htm))
Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacyand why the United States benefits from its current positionis that international politics is a dangerous business. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive, of course, and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are, and it will be better equipped to resist
the pressures that arise. Because the United States is so powerful, and because its society is so wealthy, it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. At the beginning of the Cold War, for example, its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan, to assist them in developing stable democratic orders, and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order.7 The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s, the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the Wests oil supplies; in 199091 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait. Also, when
the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001, it had the wherewithal to oust the networks Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. Today, U.S. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the focused enmity of the United States (to use William Wohlforths apt phrase), and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. As discussed below, U.S. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places, but anti-American elements are forced to rely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten Americas dominant position. Were American power to decline significantly, however, groups opposed to U.S. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely. The US will respond to the next attack and the world will end.
CORSI 5 Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University [Jerome Corsi (Expert in Antiwar movements and political violence), Atomic Iran, pg. 176-178]
The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom.The perpetrators will
have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists.There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble.Still, the
president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the
a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse
Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after
would be upon us.Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive.
68

Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners
in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America . In
China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the
French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate
York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for
restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New
the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York,
this there would be no effective answer. That
Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For
the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. Heg solves terrorism - deterrence
Thayer, 07 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University (Bradley A., American Empire, Routledge, page 16) Another critical question is not simply how much the United States spends on defense but what benefits it receives from its spending: Is the money spent worth it? the
benefits of American military power are considerable, and I will American people are protected from invasion and attack. The horrific attacks of 9/11 aremercifullyan aberration. The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence community do an outstanding job deterring aggression against the United States. Second, American interests abroad are protected. U.S. military power allows Washington to defeat its enemies overseas. For example, the United States has made the decision to attack terrorists far from Americas shores, and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. Its military power also gives Washington the power to protect its interests abroad by deterring attacks against Americas interests or coercing potential or actual opponents. In international politics, coercion
elaborate on five of them. First, and most importantly, the means dissuading an opponent from actions America does not want it to do or to do something that it wants done. For example, the United States wanted Libya to give up the weapons of mass destruction capabilities it pos-sessed or was developing. As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, I think the reason Muammar Qadhai agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction was because he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein.21
69
AT: Latin American Democracy

US leadership key to democracy- regional powers wont promote democracy Crandall 2011 (Russell, Associate Professor of International Politics at Davidson College, Principal Director for the Western
Thus far, the Chvez-led Hemisphere at the U.S. Department of Defense in 2009 and Director for Andean Affairs at the National Security Council in 2010-11, The Post-American Hemisphere Subtitle: Power and Politics in an Autonomous Latin America, Foreign Affairs, May/June, lexis)
spoilers have been enabled by their more democratic counterparts. Although the democratic leaders enjoy the benefits of elections, a free press, and other signs of democratic vigor in their own countries, they are unwilling to confront other governments that undermine such rights. Many of the otherwise impressive leftist democratic governments in the region, such as those of former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and Lula, have been wary of raising the subject, especially regarding Cuba and Venezuela. These leaders and others like them have been reluctant to speak out because they still share some sort of revolutionary solidarity with Chvez and the Castros and they remain overly sensitive to concerns about violating another nation's sovereignty. Latin American democracy is resilient and leftist turns are moderate Crandall 2011 (Russell, Associate Professor of International Politics at Davidson College, Principal Director for the Western
In recent years, however, Latin
Hemisphere at the U.S. Department of Defense in 2009 and Director for Andean Affairs at the National Security Council in 2010-11, The Post-American Hemisphere Subtitle: Power and Politics in an Autonomous Latin America, Foreign Affairs, May/June, lexis)
America's growth has begun to translate into more prosperous and developed societies. In countries as disparate as Brazil, Mexico, and Peru, the benefits of democracy and open markets are now finally beginning to trickle down to a citizenry that had lost faith in elected governments. This socioeconomic prosperity, in turn, is legitimizing the democratic system -- a sort of virtuous cycle in a region more accustomed to vicious ones. Despite what the fiery rhetoric of leaders such as Chvez might indicate, in today's climate, Latin Americans want results, not blame. Armed revolution is now dead in the region that was once its cradle. In its stead, the
region now has a new brand of leaders who have taken office through the ballot box and have striven to provide education, security, and opportunities for their constituents. Human
capital and economic competitiveness, not rote anticapitalist slogans, are what occupy the thoughts of these politicians. They point proudly
to the fact that 40 million Latin Americans were lifted out of poverty between 2002 and 2008, a feat accomplished largely through innovative and homegrown social programs. It has long been said that when the United States catches a cold, Latin America catches the flu. This has certainly been true in the economic realm, where jitters in the U.S. economy could quickly undermine Latin America's chronically weak financial and fiscal fundamentals. But during the recent global economic crisis, Latin America remained relatively unscathed. At the time, many
predicted that Latin American governments -- especially leftist ones suspected of being more predisposed to fiscal profligacy -- would turn to the seductive tonic of populism. But leftist governments in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, to name a few, responded to the crisis with prudence. They refused to abandon market-friendly policies such as flexible
exchange rates, independent central banks, and fiscal restraint. Some countries, such as Brazil and Peru, even continued to grow at almost China-like rates.
70
AT: Russia War

Russia wont try to counter United States primacy
Sauer 7(Tom Lecturer in International Politics University of Antwerp 2007)
The U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal is, as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press's recent article notes, the most powerful in the world, a situation that is unlikely to change in the coming years.1 Despite this gross imbalance, I argue that neither Russia nor China is likely to undertake significant countermeasures to help close this gap, for three reasons. First, neither country feels directly threatened by U.S. nuclear primacy. Second, leaders in Moscow and Beijing do not believe that the United States will use nuclear weapons again. Third, Russia and China need only a minimum deterrent capability. In the conclusion of this letter, I suggest an alternative explanation for the United
States' pursuit of nuclear primacy following the end of the Cold War
Distrust will not spill-over into open conflict

Sakwa 8 (Richard, h ead of the department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, International Afairs 8, March 2008 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119391506/PDFSTART)
of the Cold War has been repeatedly announced, yet the beast stubbornly lives on.97 Nearly two have once again entered a period of self-reinforcing suspicion and distrust between the major nuclear powers. This does not necessarily mean that the world will enter a period of sustained and institutionalized rivalry between two powers that act as magnetic poles in global affairs. The conditions for a replay of the old Cold War in its classic form are simply not present. Russia and America do not lead rival ideological projects on a global scale; although disagreements over such issues as the appropriate role of multilateral mechanisms do exist, they exist also between NATO allies. Nor are there sustained and entrenched policy differences over such issues
decades after the fall of communism we as nuclear proliferation, global warming or any number of other fundamental issues facing the world. Russia is just one among a number of potential great powers, and therefore old-fashioned bipolarism is a thing of the past, and RussianAmerican
The end
are no longer the axis on which world politics turns. Even the issue that has much exercised the policy
community in Washington, Russias alleged democratic backsliding, is a matter of interpretation, and in any case new leaderships in both countries may provide an opportunity for the regime question to become less sharp.98 The term Cold War, therefore, is a contemporary international relations metaphor for a fundamentally strained relationship that cannot be resolved within the framework of the world views of either party but requires a rethinking of both.
relations
71
**Hege Sustainable**
72
Heg Sustainable
Heg is sustainable US has dominance in all areas of power and its not going anywhere
Brooks and Wohlforth 08 Associate Professor of Government in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College and Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department of Government (Stephen and William, World Out of Balance, pg 27- 31) Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing, historian Paul Kennedy observes: I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close. Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include
economic, technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United spends more on defense than all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D
expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis--vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the
United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from command of the commons that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies.
Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance.Command of the commons
provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posens study of American
military primacy ratifies Kennedys emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential
that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United
States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was
73
EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military
capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, Being Number One at
great cost is one thing; being the worlds single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.
U.S. Hegemony is sustainable The U.S. is dominant in every single sector assumes Obama
Kreft, Senior Policy Advisor at CDU, 2009 (Heinrich Kreft, senior foreign policy advisor to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the german bundestag, The World Today, February 2009, p. 11)
During the presidential election campaign, both Barack Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain expressed the view
that the United States was and ought to remain the guarantor of international stability and the indispensable stabilising power. Against the backdrop of the present financial and economic crisis and rekindled discussion about the decline of US power, it is easy to overlook the fact that America is structurally superior to all other countries and will remain so for the foreseeable future. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITED States, its material resources and human capital, its military strength and economic competitiveness as well as its liberal political and economic traditions, are the ingredients of superiority. It has the capacity to heal its own wounds like no other country. STRENGTHS The US not only possesses large deposits of natural resources and vast areas of productive farmland, but also enjoys favourable medium- and long-term demographic trends. Thanks to immigration and a high birth rate, it has a young population compared to Europe, Japan, Russia as well as China. This makes the burden of providing for an ageing population far less onerous. In spite of the present crisis, the economy, which accounts for more than a quarter of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), is essentially vibrant. Over the past twenty five years, its growth has been significantly higher than Europe's and Japan's; the economy is adaptable and more innovative than any other. It is the most competitive globally, with particular strengths in crucial strategic areas such as nanotechnology and bioengineering. The US has the best universities and research institutes and trains more
engineers in relation to its population than any other major economy. It invests 2.6 percent of its GDP in higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. President
Barack Obama's plan for more educational investment aims to maintain this advantage also against China, which is increasing its higher education investments. In the military domain too, no other country comes close to matching the capability of the US to project its power globally. America accounts for almost half of global military spending, six times more than China, its only potential rival. Current defence spending, however, at 4.2 percent of GDP, is still far below the
double-digit Cold War peak. Even if the cost of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan runs at an annual figure of $125 billion, this is less than one per cent of GDP and hence considerably lower than the cost of the Vietnam war. In contrast to the 'hard power' of military strength, Iraq and the Guantnamo Bay and Abu Ghraib problems have severely dented the image and thereby diminished its 'soft power'. Nevertheless,
the structural components of soft power remain intact, from US mass culture - the dominance of American global communications such as the internet and television - to the unfailing appeal of its universities.
74
Obama is increasing what is already the largest funding of any military in the world
Elrick 09 (John, Politicians should heed words of past war heroes, The Barnstorm Patriot, June 26, 2009)
In fact, as SIPRI points out, the
U.S. spent seven times more on its armed forces than the second-biggest spender, China (at $84.9 billion); and more than the next 14 countries combined. U.S. military spending alone accounted for 42 percent of the total $1.46 trillion spent on arms by governments world-wide. While the growth in military spending has been ongoing for some time, it was the 71-percent growth during the presidency of George W. Bush that caused worldwide arms spending to be 45 percent greater than it was just a decade ago. Its appropriate to ask: Are all these arms necessary and is the U.S. really all that safer after spending so much more than
all the other countries combined? The evidence from around the world would suggest we are less safe. Many on the right have argued, and continue to argue, that such increases in defense spending are necessary to fight the threat of terrorism. But another former war hero from WW II, former senator from South Dakota and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, makes the key point that while the terrorists are a danger, they are not a military problem. As he said in his June 1 Wall Street Journal opinion piece arguing
we could defend ourselves with a military budget half the current size, the terrorist has no battleships, bombers, missiles, tanks, organized armies or heavy artillery. No, the reason we spend so much on the military isnt because we need to for our defense, but rather, not unlike the Drug War, the military-industrial complex has become a jobs program that must be maintained at all costs, even as it is bankrupting the country and making the world a more dangerous place. Just as the prison guard lobby in California supplanted the teachers lobby in size and clout, calling for increased spending on prisons and harsher drug crime sentences to help keep the prisons filled, there are now thousands of jobs in every congressional district that depend on that ever-increasing military budget to maintain those weapon-making jobs and keep all those military bases in the states and around the world open for business. Make no mistake, it is not just Bush and the Republicans who want to keep unnecessarily increasing spending on arms. The Democrats are just as guilty. Even President Obama has proposed an increase in the 2010 military budget that Congress approved. Of course, that didnt satisfy Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who absurdly claimed that President Obama
is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military at a time of war.
Heg is sustainable multipolarity is nowhere on the horizon Brooks and Wohlforth 9 (Stephen, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, William C, Professor
of Government and Chair of the Department of Government at Dartmouth, March/April 2009, Reshaping the World Order, EBSCO)
Only a few years ago, pundits were absorbed in debates about American empire. Now, the
conventional wisdom is that the world is rapidly approaching the end of the unipolar system with the United States as the sole superpower. A dispassionate look at the facts shows that this view understates U.S. power as much as recent talk of empire exaggerated it. That the United States weighs more on the traditional scales of world power than has any other state in modern history is as true now as it was when the commentator Charles Krauthammer proclaimed the advent of a unipolar moment in these pages nearly two decades ago. The United States continues to account for about half the worlds defense spending and one-quarter of its economic output. Some of the reasons for bearishness concern public policy problems that can be fixed (expensive health care in the United States, for example), whereas many of the reasons for bullishness are more fundamental (such as the greater demographic challenges faced by the United States potential rivals). So why has opinion shifted so quickly from visions of empire to gloomy declinism? One reason is
75
that the United States successes at the turn of the century led to irrational exuberance, thereby setting unreasonably high standards for measuring the superpowers performance. From 1999 to 2003, seemingly easy U.S. victories in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq led some
to conclude that the United States could do what no great power in history had managed before: effortlessly defeat its adversaries. It was only a matter of time before such pie-in-the-sky benchmarks proved unattainable. Subsequent difficulties in Afghanistan
and Iraq dashed illusions of omnipotence, but these upsets hardly displaced the United States as the worlds leading state, and there is no reason to believe that the militaries of its putative rivals would have performed any better. The United States did not cease to be a superpower when its policies in Cuba and Vietnam failed in the 1960s; bipolarity lived on for three decades. Likewise, the United States remains the sole superpower today. Another key reason for the multipolar mania is the rise of the rest. Impressed by the rapid economic growth of China and India, many write as if multipolarity has already returned. But such pronouncements mistake current trajectories for final outcomesa common strategic error with deep psychological roots. The greatest concern in the Cold War, for example, came not
from the Soviet Unions actually attaining parity with the United States but from the expectation that it would do so in the future. Veterans of that era recall how the launch of Sputnik in 1957 fed the perception that Soviet power was growing rapidly, leading some policymakers and analysts to start acting as if the Soviet Union were already as powerful as the United States. A
state that is rising should not be confused with one that has risen, just as a state that is declining should not be written off as having already declined. China is generally seen as the country best positioned to emerge as a superpower challenger to the United States. Yet depending on how one measures GDP, Chinas economy is between 20 percent and 43 percent the size of the United States. More dramatic is the difference in GDP per capita, for which all measures show Chinas as being less than 10 percent of the United States. Absent a 1930s-style depression that spares potential U.S. rivals, the United States will not be replaced as the sole superpower for a very long time. Real multipolarityan international system of three or more evenly matched powersis nowhere on the horizon. Relative power between states shifts slowly. This tendency to conflate trends with outcomes is often driven by the examination in isolation of certain components of state power. If the habit during the Cold War was to focus on military power, the recent trend has been to single out economic output. No declinist tract is complete without a passage noting that although the United States may remain a military superpower, economic multipolarity is, or soon will be, the order of the day. Much as highlighting the Soviet Unions military power meant overlooking the countrys economic and technological feet of clay, examining only economic output means putting on blinders. In 1991, Japans economy was two-thirds the size of the United States, which,
according to the current popular metric, would mean that with the Soviet Unions demise, the world shifted from bipolarity to, well, bipolarity. Such a partial assessment of power will produce no more accurate an analysis today. Nor will giving in to apprehension about the growing importance of nonstate actors. The National Intelligence Councils report Global Trends 2025 grabbed headlines by forecasting the coming multipolarity, anticipating a power shift as much to nonstate actors as to fast-growing countries. But
nonstate actors are nothing newcompare the scale and scope of todays pirates off the Somali coast with those of
their eighteenth-century predecessors or the political power of todays multinational corporations with that of such behemoths as the British East India Companyand
projections of their rise may well be as much hype as reflections of reality. And even if the power of nonstate actors is rising, this should only increase the incentives for interstate cooperation; nonstate threats do not affect just the United States. Most nonstate actors behavior, moreover, still revolves around influencing the decisions of states. Nongovernmental organizations typically focus on trying to get states to change their policies, and the same is true of most terrorists. American power flexible and sustainable Joseph Nye Jr., The Future of Power, 2011 (Professor at Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard, former chairman of National Intelligence Council, former Assistant Secretary of Defense 76
EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title for International Security Affairs, US representative to UN Advisory Committee on Disarmament Matters, chaired National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Public Affairs: New York, p.202) On American power relative to China, much will depend on the uncertainties of future political change in China. Barring such political uncertainties, Chinas size and high rate of
economic growth will almost certainly its relative strength vis--vis the United States. This will bring it closer to the United States in power resources but will not necessarily mean that China will surpass the United States as the most powerful country. Even if China suffers no major political setback, many current projections based on GDP growth alone are too one-dimensional and ignore U.S. military and soft power advantages, as well as Chinas geopolitical disadvantages in the internal Asian balance of
power compared to Americas likely favorable relations with Europe, Japan, India, and others. My own estimate is that among the range of possible futures, the most likely are ones in
which China gives the United States a run for its money but does not surpass it in overall power in the first half of this century. Looking back at history, British strategist Lawrence Freedman notes two features that distinguish the United States from the dominant great powers of the past: American power is based on alliances rather than colonies and is associated with an ideology that is flexible . . . to which America can return even after it has overextended itself. And looking to the future, Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that Americas culture of openness and innovation will keep it central in a world where networks supplement, if not fully replace, hierarchical power. The United Sates
is more likely to benefit from such networks and alliances.
77
Brink
Heg now but its declining -- well lose primacy by 2030. Quinn 11 Adam, Lecturer in International Studies. Adam Quinn, University of Birmingham (July 1, 2011,
The Art of Declining Politely, International Affairs Volume 87, Issue 4)
There are several substantive rejoinders to the declinist proposition. Some analysts have noted that the United States present advantage over potential rivals remains very large, making it unlikely that any other power will catch up with it in the near future. 19 Some
highlight the danger of extrapolating unthinkingly from present trends, noting that any prospective alternative leading power, for example China, still has a daunting mountain to climb in terms of financial clout, political will and international legitimacy before it could rival America. 20 Some believe that even as the United States loses its advantage in raw coercive ability, it could continue to reap advantage from the embedded institutional and normative order established during its hegemony. 21 Some, distressed by the spectre of decline, take comfort in the thought that Americas problems stem not from an objective lack of economic capacity, but rather from dysfunctional domestic politics blocking the sound decisions needed to curtail spending in some domestic areas and invest in national security
priorities. 22 Finally, there are those who argue that power must be reconceptualized to take account not only of material resources but of its ideational and relational aspects. This may mean a greater appreciation for the non-coercive face of power, whereby its possession is defined by a nations ability not merely to compel but also to influence, attract and persuade (soft power). 23 Or it may mean moving away from measuring traditional national attributes in favour of something altogether qualitatively different, such as connectedness in an environment defined by networks. 24 Each of these arguments has some merit as a check on any overly crude or complacent presentation of the declinist thesis. But if that thesis is presented with appropriate clarity and care, they serve to add caveats or to qualify it rather than convincingly contradict it. First
there is the question of timing, upon which the true differences may in fact be smaller than the tone of the debate suggests. In Kennedys seminal declinist argument, the process of decline was imagined to unfold over a generational timescale of decades from start to finish. Todays prophets of decline, such as Zakaria, may talk up the pace of Americas slide towards mediocrityto some extent for political effect, to shock the nation into course correctionbut on inspection the argument remains one of change unfolding over decades, not precipitate American collapse over a handful of years. 25 Meanwhile analysts such as Brooks and Wohlforth, who are as confident of the durability
of Americas lead as any serious scholars, argue that the United States will not be replaced as the sole superpower for a very long time, and that relative power between states shifts slowly. 26 It thus becomes apparent that disagreement
may relate not to the fundamental question of the direction in which the United States level of relative power is headed, but rather to the pace of its decline, perhaps even boiling down simply to what each side intuitively understands by a long time and slowly. Any careful statement of the declinist thesis would make it clear that the replacement of the US by another state as a hegemonic power must, even on present trends, be decades away, while true peer competition with, say, China is probably at least two decades off (though with the gap narrowing ever more throughout the intervening years). This might reasonably qualify as either slowly or rapidly depending on ones chosen scale. Is 20 to 30 years sufficiently far in the future that we need not concern ourselves overly with
prognostications as to relative power at that time? There is no objective answer to such a question, and thus the issue begins to seem less a disagreement on the facts than an instance of debating whether the proverbial glass is half-full or half-empty.
One side surveys the geopolitical scene and sees relative decline unfolding over a generation; the other sees Americas relative superiority holding on, albeit shrinking, for a few decades yet.
China rise puts heg on the brink. Quinn 11 Adam, Lecturer in International Studies. Adam Quinn, University of Birmingham (July 1, 2011, The Art of Declining Politely, International Affairs Volume 87, Issue 4)
Second, those who highlight the dangers of unreflective extrapolation from present trends are of course correct. China
has significant hurdles to overcome if it is to maintain economic growth at the same time as remaining stable and politi-cally united, and it must contend with serious
78
environmental and demographic challenges ahead. Even best-case trends from the Chinese perspective point to a long-term shift in relative capacity rather than a sudden overtaking. 27 The United States, meanwhile, retains significant advantages in facing the future. Its economy has an impressive record of fostering innovation, allowing it to play host to the profitable rise of new technologies and new corporations. Its universities currently lead the world in prestige, allowing them to attract the best and brightest students and teachers. 28 Projections of its demographic future are more optimistic than those relating to other parts of the world, so long as it maintains an enthusiastic attitude towards immigration. 29 Yet even while injecting all due circumspection, present trends still represent the imperfect best we have in seeking to envision a plausible future, and those trends portray an American economy struggling to regain consistent forward momentum after the economic crisis of recent years, while China, among other rising powers, continues to motor ahead. During the first decade of the twentyfirst century, real GDP growth averaged 10.5 per cent per year in China and 1.7 per cent in America. According to best guess estimates published by The Economist for the next decade, assuming annual real GDP growth averages of 7.75 per cent for China and 2.5 per cent for the US alongside moderate estimates for inflation and a gradually appreciating Chinese currency, the absolute size of the Chinese economy will overtake that of the United States by 2019. With Chinese growth estimates reduced to 5 per cent, the date moves back to 2022. 30 Given its relatively larger population, it will of course be far longer before Chinas GDP per head can match that of the United States or the average citizen in each country can enjoy an equal standard of living (if, given environmental constraints, that is even possible). From a geopolitical perspective, however, the absolute figures are the more important ones, since it is in the nature of military expenditure that ones absolute capacity matters far more than the scale of ones spending relative to GDP. If this were not so, then both the United States and China would be dwarfed as military powers by
Oman, Saudi Arabia and Timor-Leste, which in 2009 spent 8.7 per cent, 11 per cent and 11.8 per cent of their respective GDPs on the military. 31 Chinese military spending is presently low by world standards as a share of GDP, but rising faster than the nations rate of economic growth. 32 It is always rash to predict without caveats that the future will consist of the uncomplicated transformation of todays projected trends into realized facts. But it is surely bolder still to prognosticate that the future will instead be shaped by decline over the coming decades will require either the discovery of some as yet unknown propulsive engine for revitalizing its own economic growth or some grave breakdown disproportionately afflicting the rising powers. Such a prediction requires laying a bet on the abrupt reversal of present circumstances that seems on the face of it more courageous than any declinist extrapolation. As
regards warnings that China lacks as yet the political and ideological reach of the US, thus hindering the legitimacy of any would-be replacement hegemony, this is surely to demand that the chicken materialize fully formed before the evolution of the egg. The establishment of material power and the extension of political and ideological reach are inextricably intertwined processes. The United States did not first sweep the world gathering recognition for its hegemonic legitimacy and then build material preponderance on the basis of it. In fact, it did something
resembling the reverse: first establishing substantial national wealth while relatively disengaged from global politics, then becoming militarily entangled abroad, and then seeking to establish a framework for ideological hegemony last of all. 33 In any case, predicting Americas relative decline and predicting the establishment of a comparable new hegemony with a single state at its apex are quite different things. More
likely, in the absence of some unforeseen implosion on the part of the United States, is the creation of a world where no single power exercises the level of influence previously enjoyed by the US.
79
Well Always Try/No Restraint

All their turns are inevitable - Zero Chances of willful US restraint well inevitably be engaged globally the only question is effectiveness
Shalmon and Horowitz! 09 (Dan, total badass, Mike, less of a badass, Orbis, Spring) It is important to recognize at the outset two key points about United States strategy
and the potential costs and benefits for the United States in a changing security environment. First, the United States is very likely to remain fully engaged in global affairs. Advocates of restraint or global withdrawal, while popular in some segments of academia, remain on the margins of policy debates in Washington D.C. This could always change, of course. However, at present, it is a given that the United States will define its interests globally and pursue a strategy that requires capable military forces able to project power around the world. Because indirect counter-strategies are the rational
choice for actors facing a strong states power projection, irregular/asymmetric threats are inevitable given Americas role in the global order.24
No Risk of self restraint its politically impossible global engagement is inevitable
Ferguson, 09 (Niall, American Interest, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=335&MId=16) So much for the American predicament. What of Posens alternative grand strategy based on American self-restraint? The terms he uses are themselves revealing. The United
States needs to be more reticent about its use of military force, more modest about its political goals overseas, more distant from traditional allies, and more stingy in its aid policies. Good luck to the presidential candidate who laces his next foreign policy speech with those adjectives: My fellow Americans, I want to make this great country of ours more reticent, modest, distant and stingy! Let us, however,
leave aside this quintessentially academic and operationally useless rhetoric. What exactly does Posen want the United States to do? I count six concrete recommendations. The United States should: 1) Abandon the Bush Doctrine of preemption, which in the case of Iraq has been a policy of preventive war. Posen argues that this applies even in cases of nuclear proliferation. By implication, he sees preventive war as an inferior option to deterrence, though he does not make clear how exactly a nuclear-armed Iran would be deterred, least of all if his second recommendation were to be implemented. 2) Reduce U.S. military presence in the Middle East (the abode of Islam) by abandoning its permanent and semi-permanent land bases in Arab countries. Posen does not say so, but he appears to imply the abandonment of all these bases, not just the ones in Iraq, but also those in, for example, Qatar. It is not clear what would be left of Central Command after such a drastic retreat. Note that this would represent a break with the policy not just of the last two Presidents, but with that of the last 12. 3) Ramp up efforts to provide relief in the wake of natural disasters, exemplified by Operation Unified Assistance after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004. No doubt the American military did some good in the wake of the tsunami, but Posen needs to explain why a government that so miserably bungled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina less than a year later should be expected to be consistently effective in the wake of natural disasters. 4) Assist in humanitarian military interventions only under reasonable guidelines and in coalitions, operating under some kind of regional or international political mandate. Does Posen mean that he would favor sending American troops to Darfur at the same time as he is withdrawing them from other abodes of Islam? He does not say. 5) Promote not democracy abroad but the rule of law, press freedom and the rights of collective bargaining. Here again I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. The government that sought 80
EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title systematically to evade the Geneva Conventions in order to detain indefinitely and torture suspected terrorists as an upholder of the rule of law? 6) Stop offering U.S. security guarantees and security assistance, [which] tend to relieve others of the need to do more to ensure their own security. This is in fact the most important of all Posens recommendations, though he saves it until last. He envisages radical diminution of American support for other members of NATO. Over the next ten years, he writes, the United States should gradually withdraw from all military headquarters and commands in Europe. In the same timeframe it should reduce U.S. government direct financial assistance to Israel to zero, as well as reducing (though not wholly eliminating) assistance to Egypt. And it should reconsider its security relationship with Japan, whatever that means. Again, this represents a break with traditional policy so radical that it would impress even Noam Chomsky, to say nothing of Osama bin Laden (who would, indeed, find little here to object to). Posen, in other words, has proceeded from relatively familiar premises (the limits of American hyperpower) to some quite fantastic policy recommendations, which are perhaps best summed up as a cross between isolationism and humanitarianism.
Only slightly less fantastic than his vision of an American military retreat from the Middle East, Europe and East Asia is Posens notion that it could be sold to the American electoratejust six years after they were the targets of the single largest terrorist attack in historyin the language of self-effacement. Coming from a man who wants to restart mainstream debate on American grand strategy, that is pretty rich.
81
US military engagement inevitable advocates of withdrawal arent even in the debate No turns
Shalmon and Horowitz! 09 (Dan, total badass, Mike, less of a badass, Orbis, Spring)
For the near future, the United States and its military will remain heavily engaged in the world, whether through a direct footprint or over the horizon, meaning the United States has to construct a national strategy and military strategy to help achieve its goals. Given the ongoing financial crisis and the long-term pressure on the
budget created by entitlement program outlays, it is unreasonable to assume that the United States defense budget will continue on its current upward trajectory. American defense spending, in constant dollars, has nearly doubled since 2000.45 Such increases are not sustainable. In a world of limited budgets, there are hard choices to make about where to spend defense dollars today to ensure that the United States can defeat current threats, while simultaneously ensuring long-term security and prosperity. While dollars are fungible and budgets are zero-sum, claims advanced by some COIN advocates that COIN suffers because it lacks budgetary equivalence with conventional war expenditures are a red herring.46 cont At present, the dominant strands of defense strategy debates feature COIN
advocates that wish to transform the American military to focus more on counterinsurgency and irregular wars and traditionalists who seek to return the American military to focusing exclusively on conventional wars. This debate presents a false choice. The national strategy of the United States calls for remaining actively engaged around the world, which will sometimes require using military force abroad. It is
necessary, in a world of limited budgets, to move beyond the COIN v. Conventional War debate, especially because by embracing a zerosum vision of future war, and trading one capability for the other, it makes facing the neglected threat more likely. Given uncertainty about the future security environment and the future character of war in the information age, a hedging strategy seems prudent. By optimizing different aspects of the military for different campaigns, recognizing significant differences in the types of campaigns that are most likely at different levels of intensity, investing in defense systems with applicability to both COIN and conventional campaigns, and bolstering funding for basic defense science research, the United States can ensure that it remains the leading global military power not only for this generation, but also for the next, as well.
82
AT: Defense Spending/Overstretch

Heg sustainable - military presence and spending
Kagan, 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund (Robert, End of Dreams, Return of History, Hoover Institution, No. 144, August/September, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/article/6136)
The worlds failure to balance against the superpower is the more striking because the United States, notwithstanding its difficult interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, continues to expand its power and military reach and shows no sign of slowing this expansion even after the 2008 elections. The American defense budget has surpassed $500 billion per year, not including supplemental spending totaling over $100 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan. This level of spending is sustainable, moreover, both economically and politically. 14 As the American military budget rises, so does the number of overseas American military bases. Since September 11, 2001, the United States
has built or expanded bases in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan in Central Asia; in Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania in Europe; and in the Philippines, Djibouti, Oman, and Qatar. Two decades ago, hostility to the American military presence began forcing the United States out of the Philippines and seemed to be undermining support for American bases in Japan. Today, the Philippines is rethinking that decision, and the furor in Japan has subsided. In places like South Korea and Germany, it is American plans to reduce the U.S.
military presence that stir controversy, not what one would expect if there was a widespread fear or hatred of overweening American power. Overall, there is no shortage of other countries willing to host U.S. forces, a good indication that much of the world continues to tolerate and even lend support to American geopolitical primacy if only as a protection against more worrying foes. 15
83
AT: Decline means stable

Trends of hegemony decline do not prove its unsustainablewe can fix it Zhang* and Shi** 11. (Both MA candidates at Columbia University. *Yuhan, researcher @
Carnegie Endowment for international peace and **Lin, consultant for the World Bank. Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry. January 22nd, 2011) http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-andrivalry/
Paul Kennedy was probably right: the US will go the way of all great powers down. The individual dramas of the past decade the September 2001 terrorist attacks, prolonged wars in the Middle East and the financial crisis have delivered the world a message: US primacy is in decline. This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the worlds largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts.
84
***Advantage 2: Helium 3***
85
Mining Feasible
Mining He3 is not difficult by monetary or physical standards Coledan 04 [Stefano Coledan aerospace consultant at Radiotelevisione Italiana Mining The Moon, 12-7-04,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056, Popular Mechanics] Lunar Mining Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3
concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million. Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3-enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year. Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases
trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.
He3 mining is feasible it retrieves more than enough energy for a round trip to the moon Schirber 11 [Michael LiveScience, MSNBC, How moon rocks could power the future, 8/13/2008, 2011] Such a mining operation would retrieve 300 times more energy than it uses (including all the energy to fly to the moon and back), Kulcinski estimates. In comparison, mining coal returns 15-20 times the energy put in. His team has estimated that it might cost around $800 million to bring back each ton of lunar helium-3. This might sound like a lot, but if you could sell the fusion energy at a price comparable to gasoline based on oil at $100 per barrel, the helium-3 would be worth $10 billion per ton.
86
Colonization Solves Mining

A lunar colony would be able to mine He3 Prado 02 [Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term aka PERMANENT, Mark Prado 2002,
2.4 Moon Bases
The objective of the early lunar base is to get material into orbit so that products and services can be sold to support space development. Some studies have the lunar base making components on the surface of the Moon and blasting them up. However, it may be better to send a minimal lunar base to collect semi-processed minerals, and to locate most of the processing industry in orbital space. There are advantages to industry located in orbit -- continuous
solar energy with no nights for power and thermal energy, huge solar ovens, gravities from zero to whatever a centrifuge will provide, saving the costs of landing and deploying processing equipment on the Moon's surface, and the capability to use the same industry in orbit for processing both asteroidal and lunar material. It seems that beneficiation (discussed in the industrial section) will produce material of high enough quality to launch into orbit. In the early years, waste is generally usable for things ranging from radiation shielding to melt-cast bulk "lunarcrete" walls and light duty structural elements and outfittings. It's
likely that we will adopt space-based industrial processes which will be able to convert almost all of the lunar minerals delivered into very useful final products without much waste. Surface manufacturing capabilities for the purpose of building up the lunar base using local materials would be quite worthwhile, e.g., for making steel and glassceramic structural items. A mobile solar reflector oven could make the landing/launch pad, road surfaces, dome roofs, etc. Most of the base, in terms of weight, will be produced on-site from local materials, not blasted up from Earth. The lunar base will need a landing/launch pad, a power plant (perhaps a solar cell array for daytime "peak" energy and a small nuclear power plant for nighttime), base construction equipment, a spare parts and maintenance garage, a central control and communications center, housing for the people on-site, and life support systems. Of
course, it will also need the mining and beneficiation equipment discussed in other sections. The mining equipment (flail and haulers) and a solar oven would be used in building the initial lunar base before being employed for supplying material for industry in orbital space.
87
Now key
Now is key the first to mine He3 will be the hegemon Lasker 06 [John Lasker. Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel. 12-15-06.
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=all.]
NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020. Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will provide the most
reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper.
"Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first." Russian space geologist Erik Galimov told the Russian Izvestia newspaper that NASA's plan to colonize the moon will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out." Schmitt told a Senate committee in 2003 that a return to the moon to stay would be comparable "to the movement of our species out of Africa." The best way to pay for such a long-term mission, he said, would be to mine for lunar helium-3 and process it into a fuel for commercial fusion . Now is key current energy is almost exhausted DSouza, Otalvaro, Singh 06 [HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Marsha R. DSouza, Diana M. Otalvaro,
Deep Arjun Singh. Februry 17, 2006]
The energy scenario today is governed by uncertainty and fear. Energy demand is expected to increase eight fold by 2020 due to an increase in population and energy requirements, especially on the part of China and India. Alongside an increase in energy demand, oil production is expected to peak within the next decade and, according to conservative estimates, may be exhausted by the middle of the 21st century. Against this reality, alternative energy sources are not only an alternative, but rather a necessity. It is with this necessity in mind that exploration of He-3 fusion as a potential energy substitute or a complement to other energy sources is being investigated. Now key if we act now, we can use He3 in 10 years Moon Daily, 04 [Moon Daily, Moon Could Meet Earths Future Energy Demands: Scientists, Nov. 26, 2004] He warned of the exhaustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas on earth. "By 2050 the whole world will have a major problem. We need to be thinking ahead," Taylor said. "Right now we are not thinking ahead enough. Some of us are. But then the people who make the decisions and put money on the projects are not. They think only about the next elections. "If we set our hearts on the moon and have the money to do it, then we do it pretty fast. However, it could be done well within 10 years if the sources of finance are generated to get this (reactor) going," he said.
88
US Action Key
Only the US has an He3 fusion reactor- International agent CPs cant solve Hedman 06 [Eric R. - chief technology officer of Logic Design Corporation. January 16, 2006. A fascinating hour with Gerald
Kulcinski]
Professor Kulcinskis lab is running the only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world. He has an annual research budget that is barely into six figures and allows him to have five graduate research assistants working on the project. Compared to what has been spent on other fusion projects around the world, the teams accomplishments are impressive. Helium-3 would not require a tokomak reactor like the multibillion-dollar one being developed for the international ITER project. Instead, his design uses an electrostatic field to contain the plasma instead of an electromagnetic field. His current reactor contains spherical
plasma roughly ten centimeters in diameter. It can produce a sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second producing about a milliwatt of power while consuming about a kilowatt of power to run the reactor. It is nuclear power without highly radioactive nuclear waste.
89
HE3 Shortage In Status Quo

Lack of He3 is already a global crisis laundry list of impact Lobsenz 10 [George - Editor at The Energy Daily, Editor at Access Intelligence, The Energy Daily, Defense Daily, Energy and
Environmental Editor at United Press International. July 1, 2010, DOE Helium Shortage Hits Nuke Security, Oil and Gas Industry]
The Energy Department's failure to recognize an impending supply squeeze for helium-3a nonradioactive gas produced in the agency's nuclear weapons complexhas created a national crisis requiring White House intervention and threatening key U.S. nuclear and homeland security programs, a wide range of medical and scientific research activities and development of U.S. oil and natural gas resources, according to testimony before a House subcommittee. The
testimony at the House Science and Technology Committee's investigations and oversight subcommittee revealed that DOE and other federal officials only fully grasped the situation in 2008. Fast-dwindling helium-3 supplies forced the government last year to begin rationing the
gas, which has unique neutron detection and refrigerant capabilities that cannot be provided by other substances in some research and industrial applications. And in a growing snowball of real-world impacts, the sudden helium shortage already has: Disrupted international nonproliferation efforts led by the International Atomic Energy Agency that use helium-based devices to track and safeguard sensitive nuclear materials; Slowed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOE programs to deploy radiation detection machines at airports, seaports and border crossings; Delayed a huge swath of cutting-edge scientific research, ranging from superconductivity to nanotechnology to quantum computing; Curtailed operations at some neutronscattering facilities overseas, although similar DOE facilities such as the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge, Tenn., have sufficient helium for planned operations through fiscal year 2014; Jeopardized progress on new lung imaging techniques that promise better treatment methods for respiratory disease; and Forced oil well services companies to scramble for helium-3 devices that are critical to assessing and developing underground oil and gas reservoirs, including the nation's fast-growing shale gas fields. Officials from all those industrial and research sectors, as well as a General Electric official in charge of that company's radiation detector production unit, said they only learned of the helium-3 shortage last year and now are scrambling to develop alternative technologies and, where possible, recycling methods for helium-3. He3 is running out Shea and Morgan 010 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41419.pdf www.crs.gov Dana A. Shea Specialist in Science and
Technology Policy Daniel Morgan Specialist in Science and Technology Policy December 22, 2010]
The world is experiencing a shortage of helium-3, a rare isotope of helium with applications in homeland security, national security, medicine, industry, and science. For many years the supply of helium-3 from the nuclear weapons program outstripped the demand for helium-3. The
demand was small enough that a substantial stockpile of helium-3 accumulated. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government began deploying neutron detectors at the U.S. border to help secure the nation against smuggled nuclear and radiological material. The deployment of this equipment created new demand for helium-3.
Use of the polarized helium-3 medical imaging technique also increased. As a result, the size of the stockpile shrank. After several years of demand exceeding supply, a call for large quantities of helium-3 spurred federal officials to realize that insufficient helium-3 was available to meet the likely future demand.
90
91
HE3 Solves Colonization

He3 mining makes colonization feasible because it opens up a commercial sector Coledan 04 [Stefano Coledan aerospace consultant at Radiotelevisione Italiana Mining The Moon, 12-7-04,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056, Popular Mechanics]
A Reason To Return Throughout history, the search for precious resources-from food to minerals to energy--inspired humanity to explore and settle evermore-remote regions of our planet. I believe that helium-3 could be the resource that makes the settlement of our moon both feasible and desirable. Although quantities sufficient for research exist, no commercial supplies of helium-3 are present on Earth. If they were, we probably would be using them to produce electricity today. The more we learn about building fusion
reactors, the more desirable a helium-3-fueled reactor becomes. Researchers have tried several approaches to harnessing the awesome power of hydrogen fusion to generate electricity. The stumbling block is finding a way to achieve the temperatures required to maintain a fusion reaction. All materials known to exist melt at these surface-of-the-sun temperatures. For this reason, the reaction can take place only within a magnetic containment field, a sort of electromagnetic Thermos bottle. Initially, scientists believed they could achieve fusion using deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in seawater. They soon discovered that sustaining the temperatures and pressures needed to maintain the so-called deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction for days on end exceeded the limits of the magnetic containment technology. Substituting helium-3 for tritium allows the use of electrostatic confinement, rather than needing magnets, and greatly reduces the complexity of fusion reactors as well as eliminates the production of high-level radioactive waste. These differences will make fusion a practical energy option for the first time. It
is not a lack of engineering skill that prevents us from using helium-3 to meet our energy needs, but a lack of the isotope itself. Vast quantities of helium originate in the sun, a small part of which is helium-3, rather than the more common helium-4. Both types of helium are
transformed as they travel toward Earth as part of the solar wind. The precious isotope never arrives because Earth's magnetic field pushes it away.
Fortunately, the conditions that make helium-3 rare on Earth are absent on the moon, where it has accumulated on the surface and been mixed with the debris layer of dust and rock, or regolith, by constant meteor strikes. And there it waits for the taking. An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.
92
HE3 Solves Resource Wars/Climate Change

Clean energy solves poverty and climate change Schell 11 [Bernhard- Global Geopolitics & Political Economy. Jan. 19, 2011. Combating Poverty with Clean Energy]
Addressing the Fourth World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on January 17, Ban said: "Our challenge is transformation.
We need a global clean energy revolution a revolution that makes energy available and affordable for all." This, he added, is essential for minimizing climate risks, for reducing poverty and improving global health, for empowering women and meeting the Millennium Development Goals (eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline),
for global economic growth, peace and security, and the health of the planet." Ban said that the decisions taken now will have farreaching consequences. The
prevailing fossil fuel-based economy is contributing to climate change and global energy needs are growing rapidly. Several studies point out that in twenty years, energy consumption will rise by 40 per cent, mostly in developing countries, where 1.6 billion people still lack access to electricity, and where 3 billion people rely on traditional biomass fuels for cooking, heating, and other basic household needs. The Secretary-Generals Advisory Group on Energy and
Climate Change, set up in 2009, has recommended two "bold but achievable" targets for 2030 universal access to modern energy sources and a 40 per cent increase in energy efficiency. "To achieve this, we
must invest in the intellectual capital that will create new, green technologies. We need to increase private and public spending on research and development, and Governments need to create the right incentives," said Ban. "So let us pledge to invest wisely. We need to get our priorities right. People everywhere should be able to enjoy the health, educational and social benefits that modern energy sources offer," he said, adding: "We are on the brink of an exciting, sustainable future. Clean energy for all ." Bans call could not have come at a more opportune point in time. In December 2010, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 2012 as the International Year for Sustainable Energy for All with the aim of promoting new and renewable energy technologies, including measures to improve access to such technologies. Climate change causes resource wars, resulting in extinction Klare 6 (Michael T. Klare Ph.D, Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire University, The Coming Resource Wars
http://www.alternet.org/story/33243/the_coming_resource_wars, 3/10/2006)
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant
contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign."
Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital
93
resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House
in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed
With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by
conflict in the decades to come. conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift
is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes . This assessment may not have yet penetrated
the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For
the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will
94
create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries,
struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar
scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource
"haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But
these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the
calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
Lack of He3 destroys the oil and gas industries because their tools need He3 magnifies risk of a resource war Brown 10 [October 2010 Lack of Helium-3 Sounding Alarms, David explorer correspondent.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/10oct/helium1010.cfm] A Critical Need Project areas for Inter-American include New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Kansas. Most helium-rich gas in the United States is found in the mid-continent and southwestern states. Target helium-rich fields indicate an abundance of uranium and/or thorium in basement rock, since their radioactive decay produces helium, and the presence of heavy, deep-seated faulting. The very small amount of helium-3 found with helium-4 can be separated out at considerable cost and in limited quantity. Its in the parts per million. On average in natural gas deposits its 0.2 parts per million of the helium-4 content, Sears said.
Because of the relative abundance of primordial helium-3 in the mantle, geochemists use the helium3/helium-4 ratio as a tracer to identify the presence of a mantle component in petroleum systems, he noted. Sears said Inter-American uses the helium-3 ratio to help define helium-4 potential. Analysis of some gas has found an anomalously high ratio, especially in New Mexico. Helium-3 extraction plants could be built near helium-rich gas fields, but the estimated cost is in the tens of millions of dollars per plant. Yet the helium scarcity is so critical that all options are on the table. At this point in the helium-3 crisis, every little bit helps, Sears said. My concern is that the oil and gas industry will be squeezed out entirely. It could have a horrible effect on the industry, because all neutron tools use helium-3 . Thanks in part to nuclear disarmament, the United States once had a substantial supply of helium-3. Tritium (hydrogen-3) used in nuclear weapons was recovered as the warheads were dismantled. Tritium produces helium-3 as it decays. A declining amount of recovered tritium and a surge in demand in the years following the 9/11 attacks caused the stockpile to dwindle. Because the half-life of tritium is over 12 years, Sears said even if dedicated tritium
production began today, which is cost prohibitive, it would be years before you get any meaningful amount of helium-3.
95
He3 helps find petroleum and medicine Brown 10 [October 2010 Lack of Helium-3 Sounding Alarms, David explorer correspondent.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/10oct/helium1010.cfm] A crucial shortage in the worlds supply of helium-3 could alter the use of an important tool for the oil and gas industry. And thats just
rare helium isotope also is used in applications ranging from cryogenic studies to lung imaging in medicine. Far and away the largest consumer of helium-3 in the United States recently has been the Department of Homeland Security, which uses it in radiation sensors. Think of trying to stop someone whos smuggling a small amount of plutonium for a nuclear weapon. Crisis really is the best word for this situation, said AAPG member Bo Sears, vice president of Inter-American Corp. in Dallas, one of the industrys small number of helium explorers. For oil and gas companies, helium-3 is an essential component in neutron logging tools used worldwide. Helium-3 is used in neutron detectors for neutron porosity tools, which are one of the key instruments used to locate hydrocarbons, estimate petroleum reserves and make production decisions, said Brad Roscoe, scientific advise and nuclear program manager at Schlumberger-Doll Research in Cambridge, Mass. The neutron device is particularly used to establish the rock and fluid parameters which help determine these properties, he added. Downhole neutron tools measure the amount of hydrogen in rock pores as an indication of porosity. Since the neutron porosity measurement is a key measurement, Roscoe said, it is run in almost every oil and gas well in the world. The plethora of He3 spurred lots of competition between the US, Russia, and China Kazen 10 [October 03, 2010 Casey Kazan via newscientist.com Daily galaxy editorial staff.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/10/china-launches-second-moon-mission-is-mining-helium-3-an-ultimate-goal.html] In 2007, shortly after Russia
one problem. The
claimed a vast portion of the Arctic sea floor, accelerating an international race for the natural resources as global warming opens polar access, China announced plans to map "every inch" of the surface of the Moon and exploit the vast quantities of Helium-3 thought to lie buried in lunar rocks as part of its ambitious
space-exploration program Ouyang Ziyuan, head of the first phase of lunar exploration, was quoted on government-sanctioned news site ChinaNews.com describing plans to collect three dimensional images of the Moon for future mining of Helium 3: " There
are altogether 15 tons of helium-3 on Earth, while on the Moon, the total amount of Helium-3 can reach one to five million tons."
96
HE3 Solves Prolif

He3 is key to detecting smuggled nuclear weapons its in high demand Wald 5/28 [Matthew L. - Sr. Executive in the Emerging Technology Industry, Agencies Lack of Coordination Hindered Supply of
Crucial Gas, Report Says, May 28, 2011] WASHINGTON The
United States is running out of a rare gas that is crucial for detecting smuggled nuclear weapons materials because one arm of the Energy Department was selling the gas six times as fast as another arm could accumulate it, and the two sides failed to communicate for years, according to a new Congressional audit. The gas, helium-3, is a byproduct of the nuclear weapons program, but as the number of nuclear weapons has declined, so has the supply of the gas. Yet, as the supply was shrinking, the government was investing more than $200 million to develop detection technology that required helium-3. As a result, government scientists and contractors are now racing to find or develop a new detection technology. According to the Government Accountability Office report, the Energy Departments National Nuclear Security Administration, which gathers the gas from old nuclear weapons, never told the departments Isotope Program about the slowing rate of helium3 production. That is in part because it was secret information that could be used to calculate the size of weapon stockpiles. For its part, the Isotope Program calculated demand for
the gas not in a scientific way but instead on the basis of how many commercial companies called to inquire each year about helium-3 supplies. Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland characterized the situation as gross mismanagement. As the ranking Democrat on the House science committees Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Ms. Edwards was one of the members of Congress who asked the accountability office to study the problem after it was detected in 2008. With so much riding on helium-3, it is shocking to learn that the departments forecast for demand is based simply on a telephone log tracking those who called asking about the availability of helium-3, she said. The report is to be released in the coming week by Ms. Edwards and Representative Brad Miller of North Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the science committees Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Energy Department officials said that since the discrepancy was discovered, they had moved the Isotope Program under the umbrella of the agencys science division and had worked harder to forecast supply and demand for various materials. But they did acknowledge the bureaucratic fumble; the Isotope Program is responsible for the supply of materials it produces, but not for the supply of those it distributes but are produced by other parts of the Energy Department. The helium-3 is considered a legacy material, something that exists only because of past activities. Ms. Edwards pointed out that helium-3
was also used in the oil and gas industry and in research. Because of divided responsibilities and a sudden new source of demand, all of a sudden we realized we had this additional factor and had to come up with something different, Steven Aoki, the deputy under secretary of energy for counterterrorism, said in a telephone interview. He said he was optimistic that new technologies using more readily available materials would be ready in a year or two There are other ways to build equipment to detect smuggled nuclear material, but helium-3 is nontoxic and nonradioactive and is considered more accurate. The neutrons given off by plutonium and uranium are hard to detect, but when helium-3 is hit by a stray neutron, it creates a charged particle, which is readily detected and measured. He3 can prevent nuclear prolif and detect hidden bombs Hedman 06 [Eric R. - chief technology officer of Logic Design Corporation. January 16, 2006. A fascinating hour with Gerald
Kulcinski] One of Professor Kulcinskis graduate assistants is working on a solid-state device to capture the protons and convert the energy in them directly to electricity in a process not too different than a solar cell. We
also discussed the potential for small helium-3 reactors producing the isotope oxygen-15 for medical imaging (PET scans), and as a production source for neutrons for detection of explosive or fissionable materials (delayed neutron emission) to prevent nuclear proliferation. Relatively portable neutron sources can be used to detect landmines and bombs in suitcases.
97
HE3 Solves Fusion

Fusion solves a laundry list of impacts Bilder 09 [Fordham International Law Journal Vol. 33, Issue 2, 2009, Article 1, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the
Moon: U.S. Policy Options, Richard B. Bilder prof. @ University of Wisconsin]
Fusion energy could significantly reduce the world's heavy dependence on fossil fuels, which are associated with environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and global warming-not to mention their rising price and role in recurrent geopolitical and economic tensions. Fusion energy could also provide a safer alternative to many countries' growing reliance on energy generated from nuclear fission reactors, which hold the potential dangers of nuclear accidents, terrorism, weapons proliferation, and radioactive waste disposal. Moreover, in contrast to the prospect of depletion of terrestrial fossil fuels, it is estimated that there is sufficient He-3 present on the Moon to meet humanity's rapidly growing energy needs for many centuries to come. 6 Thus, despite the problematic future of He-3-based fusion energy, it is not surprising that the United States and other major powers are beginning to position themselves to ensure their future access to lunar He-3 resources.
98
HE3 Solves Laundry List

He3 mining has a laundry list of benefits short term and long term DSouza, Otalvaro, Singh 06 [HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Marsha R. DSouza, Diana M.
Otalvaro, Deep Arjun Singh. Februry 17, 2006]
The United States leads the research in He-3. In 2004, President Bush released his new vision of space exploration. He wants to complete the International Space Station by the year 2010. The completion of this project will greatly increase the working research on the lunar mining of He-3 as the astronauts can experiment on different techniques to extract He-3 from the Moons regolith. The International Space stations could be used a trade center for the distribution of He-3 for world wide distribution. Another goal of the current White House administration is that NASA returns to the Moon by 2015 and to have a permanent living settlement for astronauts by 2020. President Bush has allocated 12 million dollars to the Moon Development Initiative. This initiative would help tremendously in the progress in the He-3 research if a permanent colony is established on the Moon (Hurtack, 2004). The developed world would no longer have to depend on the Middle East , where the most of the worlds fossil fuel reserves are located, for its energy supply. American scientists have already declared that the Moon could be the Persian Gulf of the present century. Two liters of He-3 would do the work of more than 1,000 tons of coal (Chowdhuri, 2004). He-3 also has long term and short term benefits for society. In the near term applications, it can help in medical research. A useful product of He-3 fusion reactions is the production of isotopes that are very useful in the biomedical field. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is one such field. This process uses the isotopes from He-3 fusion reaction like He-4 in
its working. He-4 has a much longer half-life and it can be stored for a much longer periods of time compared to other isotopes. By using He-3 isotopes we can reduce the radioactive exposure to patients compared to the regular isotopes that are used in PET that emit radioactive waves (Hurtack, 2004).
It can also be used for environmental restoration, detection of chemical and radioactive wastes, cancer therapy and defense. For intermediate term applications, it can be used for the destruction of toxic fissile materials, to harness space power and to supply energy to remote energy stations. In the long term it can have applications in propulsion technology, hydrogen production, synthetic fuel applications, base load electrical power plants and small electrical power plants (Kulcinski, 2001). The advantage of initially using He-3 fusion for non-energy applications is that the cost base is different for specialized applications and He-3 can be competitive in the short run. This would then open the ground for further cost reduction and prepare He-3 fusion to enter the energy marketplace at competitive prices. He3 solves security, science, and nuclear weapon detection Shea and Morgan 010 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41419.pdf www.crs.gov Dana A. Shea Specialist in Science and
The world is experiencing a shortage of helium-3, a rare isotope of helium with applications in homeland security, national security, medicine, industry, and science. For many years the supply of helium-3 from the nuclear weapons program outstripped the demand for helium-3. The demand was small enough that a substantial stockpile of helium-3 accumulated. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government began deploying neutron detectors at the U.S. border to
99
help secure the nation against smuggled nuclear and radiological material. The deployment of this equipment created new demand for helium-3. Use of the polarized helium-3 medical imaging technique also increased. As a result, the size of the
stockpile shrank. After several years of demand exceeding supply, a call for large quantities of helium-3 spurred federal officials to realize that insufficient helium-3 was available to meet the likely future demand.
100
HE3 Solves Economy

Colonizing the moon solves for poverty through clean energy Hedman 06 [Eric R. - chief technology officer of Logic Design Corporation. January 16, 2006. A fascinating hour with Gerald
Kulcinski]
Imagine a world thirty years from now. NASA has led the way to returning humans to the Moon and is in the final steps of preparing for human exploration and settlement of Mars. On Earth our environment is cleaner with reliable fusion reactors steadily replacing coal-fired plants and fission reactors.
The fuel for these reactors is being mined from the surface of the Moon relegating the mercury, radium and carbon dioxide-laced exhaust from coal-fired plants to the ash heap of history. The growth of highly radioactive waste from fission power plants is following coal into history.
Dependency on highly volatile regions of our planet for energy supplies is steadily diminishing. Clean power is allowing economic development of the world to continue, lifting a higher and higher percentage of the population out of poverty. Is this a possible future for our country and the planet? Professor Kulcinski and his
small team of researchers just might have the answer and NASA might provide access to the key enabling resource.
He3 is a clean energy source now is key Layton, no date [Julia Discovery Channel Energy 365. How can the moon give us clean energy?
http://dsc.discovery.com/energy/energy-power/clean-energy-from-the-moon.html]
A few decades ago, the pursuit of clean energy was "green." Now, it's a necessity. Not only is our power consumption propelling the human race toward a hot, watery, lonely end, but clean energy tends also to be renewable. And renewable energy is the name of the game when current primary power sources are dirty, finite or both. In short , Earth is in an energy crisis, and some experts are looking beyond terrestrial elements for a longterm solution. Some scientists are turning to the moon. Moon energy is not an entirely new concept. One power source already in operation relies on the moon's gravitational pull to spin its generators.
Tidal power plants arranged like hydroelectric dams have been around for decades. They trap water during high tide and then, during low tide, release it through turbines. According to Energy Quest, one plant in France that opened in 1966 still powers hundreds of thousands of homes. Tidal undercurrents can also spin freestanding "tidal turbines" placed strategically on the sea floor. Still in testing stages, one turbine in Norway's Kvalsund Channel began powering 35 homes in 2003, and a project at the bottom of New York's East River is planned to provide thousands of homes with electricity in coming years. Moon-as-energy-source, though, gets a whole lot more sci-fi than that. The helium-3 approach to clean energy, on the books since the mid-1980s, isn't even close to viability, but its promise is hard to discount. The
He3 ions in the moon's upper crust about 1 million metric tons, according to proponents could keep U.S. lights on for about a thousand years, according to Energy Bulletin. All it would take is some nuclear fusion to release the potential. Oh, and a mass-scale mining project on the lunar surface. The possibilities are dramatic. The whole thing starts with a fusion reactor, which isn't yet a viable technology.
The reactor would combine helium-3 ions to produce helium-4 (the regular stuff found on Earth) and energized protons. According to Energy Bulletin, the
process would release no greenhouse gasses. It would, however, produce a whole lot of energy. According to Artemis, the protons produced by a fusion reactor fed with the moon's available He3 could produce 10 times more power than the combustion of every bit of fossil fuel found on Earth. Here's the rub, though. That He3 isn't exactly "available." Many challenges face the potential lunar energy source. First, as of 2010, the United States, for one, isn't going back to the moon to establish a permanent colony. That most likely dampens, or at least postpones, any plans to develop an He3 mining project. What's more, some experts say it's actually pretty difficult to mine He3. It
would require heating lunar soil to extreme temperatures that may simply be prohibitive, as far as lunar-mining goes. And then there's the fact that a large-scale fusion reactor is at least half a century away. Still, the theory persists. He3 could provide more energy, and more-renewable energy, than current power sources. And
all that energy would be so clean, energy
101
credits would be a thing of the past. At least once He3 replaced rocket fuel, anyway. He3 spurs the collaboration of the government and private industry Bilder 09 [Fordham International Law Journal Vol. 33, Issue 2, 2009, Article 1, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the
Moon: U.S. Policy Options, Richard B. Bilder prof. @ University of Wisconsin] Finally, the economic viability of He-3-based fusion power will, of course, depend on its eventual production cost relative to alternative sources of energy such as fossil fuel or other conventional sources of energy, energy produced by nuclear fission reactors, or other forms of fusion energy-all figures difficult to accurately predict at this time. Proponents of He-3 based fusion energy argue that,
notwithstanding the substantial costs involved in developing He-3 fusion reactors, establishing a lunar mining operation, and transporting He-3 back to Earth, He-3-based fusion power will eventually be more than competitive with the cost of other types of energy resources and provide more than sufficient incentive for the participation of both government and private enterprise. 36 But
other commentators are more skeptical, doubting both the technical feasibility of such a complex and challenging development and the likelihood of He-3-based fusion power ever competing successfully with more traditional Earth-based energy systems. 37 Suffice
to say, major space powers currently consider the potential of He-3-based fusion energy sufficiently promising as to warrant their serious interest and to furnish at least an additional rationale for their commitment to programs to establish national stations on the Moon
it
He3 generates more jobs in the oil industry Kulcinski 96 [Gerald L - Associate Dean for Research Grainger Professor of Nuclear Engineering Director, Fusion Technology Institute]
[learning.hccs.edu/faculty/kristine.ervin/engl1302/resources/...of.../file] Some people think that by using Helium 3 will ruin the economy of the country and the world, perhaps they are individuals that have no idea of this subject or even care to know that scientists have been doing studies on this gas for several years. Its existence was first proposed by the Australian nuclear physicist Mark Oliphant while working at Cambridge University's Cavendish Laboratory.
Helium 3 is one of the best industrial gases there is out there, it consist on one neutron and two protons, it is rarely found on earth but it is very common to be found in abundance on the moon. Helium 3 is proposed as a future generation of fuel but not only for cars and planes but also on any type of machinery currently using gasoline, which is mentioned in details on the first category during the body part of the reading. Over the past ten years helium 3 is becoming more attractive to big corporations due to increase in oil prices and also because we are starting to run out of oil; therefore they are investing money and time on doing several researchs and studies on helium 3. Eventually, this gas will generate more jobs and also will keep people employed by their existing employers. The abundance of He3 on the moon will provide mass amounts of money and energy Shimkus 11 (John Shimkus, Expert in Global Mining at Energy Digital, Mining Helium-3 will Transform the Dark Side of the Moon,
http://www.energydigital.com/global_mining/mining-helium-3-will-transform-dark-side-of-the-moon, 5/9/2011)
Most people are unaware that our Moon holds countless resources. Some are familiar: titanium, platinum, silicon, ammonia, mercury, and even water (yes, H20 has been confirmed to be present on the moon). But a more elusive substance, which is a rarity here on Earth, is also found on the Moon: helium-3. Helium-3 is a non-radioactive hydrogen isotope with one neutron and two protons. It is carried through
space via the Suns solar winds, but burns up as it enters Earths atmosphere, making it almost non-existent here on our planet. However, an abundance of helium-3 has built up on the Moons surface over the millennia as confirmed in soil samples collected by the Apollo 17 lunar mission, and it is just waiting to be mined. Why you ask? Because,
helium-3 can fuel non-radioactive nuclear fusion reactions to produce safe, clean, abundant energy, and can completely transform our energy future. Helium-3 nuclear fusion reactions
102
release non-radioactive protons that can be harnessed to create electricity directly. This type of nuclear fusion is safer and far more efficient than the nuclear fission reactions used in nuclear plants today, which use heat to run steam turbines, losing energy in the conversion process and creating radioactive waste as a byproduct. Projections estimate that on a commercial basis helium-3 would be worth around $40,000 per ounce. Roughly 100 tons of Helium-3 could power the entire population of Earth for a year and scientists estimate that the Moon could contain approximately 1 million tons10,000 years worth of energy. But is mining the Moon realistic, and who would spearhead such a risky endeavor? Google
announced the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition in 2007, in which the Internet giant challenged privately funded spaceflight teams from across the globe to send a robot to the moons surface. The first successful team will win $30 million in prizes. As of February 2011, 29 teams from various nations are officially competing for the prize, and several will be launching within the next two years. The US state of Florida is also offering a $2 million prize to the first private spaceflight launched from its soil. NASA is even willing to pay $10 million or more for data collected from private lunar missions. Caterpillara top name in mining machinery and equipmenthas invested in Carnegie Mellon Universitys Astrobotic Technology, a company vying for the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Already having experience in automated machinery, Caterpillar will use the partnership with Astrobotic to propel its own lunar program. Caterpillar Automation Systems Manager Eric Reiners says,Caterpillar makes sustainable progress possible by enabling infrastructure development and resource utilization on every continent on Earth. It only makes sense we would be involved in expanding our efforts to the 8th continent: the Moon. Richard Bransonthe man, the myth, the legendhas started up Virgin Galactic. With his own private fleet of spaceships and a spaceport in New Mexico (USA), Branson is already booking spaceflights for those who can afford the $200,000 ticket price. Initial flights will be sub-orbital, with the goal of eventually setting up a lunar resort, in which the elite can take a vacation to the Moon. While no official statements have confirmed Bransons intentions to mine the Moon, media contacts from Virgin Galactic have hinted that it is not out of the realm of possibility. The
governments of Russia, China and India have all made public comments on exploiting the Moons resources, and the Russian space company RSC Energia has proposed a permanent lunar base to be completed by 2025 as a hub for helium-3 mining operations. According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, Moon mining does not seem to violate any international agreements. However, there is debate over who would own the rights to the materials mined. He3s properties make it extremely useful in many industries Shea and Morgan 010 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41419.pdf www.crs.gov Dana A. Shea Specialist in Science and
Helium-3 has properties that currently make it in high demand. Like all helium, helium-3 is nontoxic. Helium-3 also absorbs neutrons. This property has resulted in its widespread use for neutron detection. Neutron detection is a key component of applications in national and homeland security, industry, and science. For example, the federal government uses radiation portal monitors and other neutron detectors at the U.S. border to prevent smuggling of nuclear and radiological material, and the oil and gas industry uses neutron detectors for well logging.3 Another property that has increased demand for helium-3 in recent years is the ability to polarize its nucleus. For example, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can take advantage of this property to enable real-time visualization of a patients lung capacity and capability. Finally, helium-3 has unique cryogenic properties. Lowtemperature physicists use a mixture of helium-3 and helium-4 to achieve temperatures just a few thousandths of a degree above absolute zero (millikelvins). At
superfluid.
temperatures below 2.5 millikelvin, helium-3 becomes a
103
HE3 Solves Medical Imaging

He3 is key to medical imaging Cho 09 [Helium-3 Shortage Could Put Freeze On Low-Temperature ResearchNovember 6, 2009, Vol 326, The American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Adrian Cho]
Heiblum has fallen victim to a severe shortage of helium-3, the lighter isotope of the most inert element. Two weeks ago, he also lost about 15 liters of helium-3 from an existing fridge when an electronic valve failed. When Heiblum tried to buy more, a supplier in the United States turned him away and a Europe an company wanted an un a f fordable 1300 per liter , up from 100 just 2 years ago. If this continues, then low temperature physics will just disappear, Heiblum says. No end to the shortage is in sight, however. In recent years the supply of helium-3 has dwindled, while the demand has skyrocketed
especially since 2002, when the U.S. Departme n t o f Home l a n d S e c u r i t y (DHS ) a n d Department of Energy (DOE) began deploying thousands of helium-3filled neutron detectors to help prevent the smuggling of plutonium and other radioactive materials into the country. In
the short term, demand will likely top 65,000 liters per year, while supply will hover between 10,000 and 20,000 liters per year, according to a DOE study. The shortfall threatens several research fields, and DOE, the major supplier, is releasing the gas only to researchers
with U.S. funding. Helium-3 also fills neutron detectors at large neutron-scattering facilities used to probe materials, such as the one at the new Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex ( J - PA R C ) i n To k a i . T h e p r o j e c t e d n e e d for that application alone exceeds 100,000 l i t e r s o v e r t h e n e x t 6 y e a r s . J - PA R C researchers need 16,000 liters of helium-3 to complete detectors for 15 of 23 beamlines, says J-PARCs Masatoshi Arai: If we cannot get helium-3 and detectors, [then] we cannot perform sufficiently good experiments f rom the neut ron f a c i l i ty a t J -PARC , f o r which we spent $1.5 billion for construction. Low-
temperature physicists say theyneed between 2500 and 4500 liters of helium-3 per year, primarily to fill new dilution refrigerators. Helium is the only substance that remains liquid at absolute zero, and only by pumping the vapor off a liquefied mixture of helium-3 and heavier helium-4 can physicists achieve steady temperatures below 0.8 kelvin, says William Halperin, a physicist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. If we lose our helium-3 [supply], were totally screwed, s a y s Halperin, who notes that work on quantum computing
and nanoscience often requires extremely low temperatures. Helium-3 also serves a role in medical imaging. When inhaled by a patient, it allows researchers to image the lungs with an MRI.
104
Econ weak
Despite reports of economic growth, data shows that the economy is weak enough for a resilient US economy to collapse
Wighton 8 David, August 28, The Times Newspaper, No, it really is as bad as all that, LexisNexis So did we get it wrong? Did
we try to talk America into a recession that is not going to happen? Washington redid the numbers yesterday and declared that the US economy grew by a very robust 3.3per cent during the second quarter, compared with the initial 1.9per cent
estimate. Wall Street had been expecting about 2.7per cent. The big revision was mainly down to trade. Exports surged during the second quarter as the dollar hit record lows. Wall
Street seized on the unexpected good economic news. Combined with a fall in the oil price it was enough to push the Dow Jones average up almost 2 per cent as traders bet that their inhouse economists have all been far too gloomy. Sadly, there are few pleasant surprises awaiting Americans as they return from their summer vacations. Wall Street chose not to focus on the part of yesterday's data showing that the domestic economy is extremely weak. Domestic demand over the second quarter rose by only 0.4per cent despite the fat $168billion tax rebate cheque from Washington posted to Americans in May and June. Stripping out foreign trade, the economy grew by a very feeble 0.2 per cent. The dollar is now strengthening, which hurts the competitiveness of American goods, and the economies of its biggest trading partners, Britain and the eurozone, are slowing sharply. While US jobless numbers yesterday were also lower than expected, 425,000 Americans are still losing their job a week. Of those economists on
Wall Street who have managed to avoid the jobs cull, most are sticking to their original forecasts that more than 6per cent of the workforce will be unemployed by Christmas. The key remains the housing market. The
S&P/Case-Shiller index - widely seen as the most authoritative measure of home prices - showed this week that the rate of price decline had slowed in the second quarter to 2.3 per cent. But it is far too soon to be confident we are near the turn. Robert Shiller, the Yale University professor who is the index's co-founder, gave warning in April that price falls were likely to double before they recovered, exceeding the 30 per cent losses suffered during the Great Depression. Some fear they could overshoot as badly on the way down as they did on the way up. If they do, even the amazingly resilient US economy will be on its knees. The economy is no longer resilient Consumer spending varies too greatly Economist 8
The Economist Newspaper, November 22, United States: The end of the affair; Spending and the economy, Vol. 389, Iss. 8607, Proquest
An important reason why the American economy has been so resilient and recessions so mild since 1982 is the energy of consumers. Their spending has been remarkably stable, not only because drops in employment and income have been less severe than of old, but also because they have been willing and able to borrow. The long rise in asset prices--first of stocks, then of houses--raised consumers' net worth and made saving seem less necessary. And borrowing became easier, thanks
to financial innovation and lenders' relaxed underwriting, which was itself based on the supposedly reliable collateral of ever-more-valuable houses. On average, consumers from 1950 to 1985 saved 9% of their disposable income. That saving rate then steadily declined, to around zero earlier this year (see chart). At the same time, consumer and mortgage debts rose to 127% of disposable income, from 77% in 1990.
Those forces have now reversed. The stockmarket has fallen to the levels of a decade ago. House values have fallen 18% since their peak in 2006. Banks and other lenders have tightened lending standards on all types of consumer loans. As a consequence, consumer spending fell at a 3.1% annual rate in the third quarter
105

(in part because tax rebates boosted spending in the second), the steepest
since the second quarter of 1980 when Jimmy Carter briefly imposed credit controls. More such declines are likely to follow. Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley projects that in the 12 months up to the second quarter of next year real consumer spending will fall by 1.6%--a post-war record. "The golden age of spending for the American consumer has ended and a new age of thrift likely has begun," he says.
106
Disease
Economic collapse would lead to the spread disease and wars, leading to human extinction
Silk, Professor of Economics at Pace University and Senior Research Fellow, 1993 (Leonard, Professor of Economics at Pace University and Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. "Dangers of slow growth," Foreign Affairs, Wntr v72 n1 p167(16).) In the absence of such shifts of human and capital resources to expanding civilian industries, there
are strong economic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high levels of military production and to sell weapons, both conventional and dual-use nuclear technology, wherever buyers can be found. Without a revival of national economies and the global economy, the production and proliferation of
weapons will continue, creating more Iraqs, Yugoslavias, Somalias and Cambodias - or worse. Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic
hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues. Growth will not solve all those problems by itself But economic growth - and growth alone - creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.
107
US-China War
US economic decline spreads globally, undermining US leadership and making WMD conflict with China inevitable
Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2004 (Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Policy, 4/1/04 pg. Lexis) Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A
collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those
circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a
collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance. THE SUM OF ALL
POWERS? The United States' global economic might is therefore not simply, to use Nye's formulations, hard power that compels others or soft power that attracts the rest of the world. Certainly, the
U.S. economic system provides the United States with the prosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it also encourages other countries to accept U.S. leadership. U.S. economic might is sticky power.
108
A2 Dust turn:
Landing on the moon doesnt raise dust-NASA experiment proves The Guardian 9 (Ian Sample, science correspondent, 10-10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/10/nasa-lunar-crashlanding, 7-9-11, SRF)
Nasa's hope of filming a spectacular crash on the moon was dashed satellite and telescope imagery failed to record the enormous plume of rock and dust that scientists had predicted. The US space agency steered two parts of a spacecraft, called LCROSS, into the moon at more than 5,600 miles per hour, in the final act of a hunt for signs of water. Nasa scientists had anticipated that the impact would throw up a six-milehigh cloud of lunar dust and rock which could be scanned for evidence of frozen water. But after the collision at 12.31pm today, no sign of the plume was spotted, even from the second stage, which crashed nearby four minutes later. Nasa's headquarters
in Washington DC had faced a flood of calls from people objecting to the agency "bombing" the moon, fearing disruption to tides on Earth and even their menstrual cycles. Anthony Colaprete, principal investigator on the LCROSS mission, said of the missing plume: "We haven't been able to see it clearly in our data yet." He added that scientists were working "feverishly" on information sent back.
109
AT: Fusion Problems

Helium-3 fusion is feasible and efficient Barnatt 11
(Christopher Barnatt is a lecturer and professor of computing and future studies at the Nottingham Unniversity, Explaining the future, Helium-3 Power Generation, June 25, 2011, http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html) Helium-3 and Nuclear Fusion To provide a little background -- and without getting deeply into the science -- all nuclear power plants use a nuclear reaction to produce heat. This is used to turn water into steam that then drives a turbine to produce
Current nuclear power plants have nuclear fission reactors in which uranium nuclei are split part. This releases energy, but also radioactivity and spent nuclear fuel that is reprocessed into uranium, plutonium and radioactive waste which has to be safety stored, effectively indefinitely. An overview of this nuclear fuel
electricity. nuclear fission. In
cycle can be found here. For over 40 years scientists have been working to create nuclear power from nuclear fusion rather than
current nuclear fusion reactors, the hydrogen isotopes tritium and deuterium are used as the fuel, with atomic energy released when their nuclei fuse to create helium and a neutron. Nuclear fusion effectively makes use of the same energy source that fuels the Sun and other stars, and does not produce the radioactivity and nuclear waste that is the by-product of current nuclear fission power generation. However, the sotermed "fast" neutrons released by nuclear fusion reactors fuelled by tritium and deuterium lead to significant energy loss and are extremely difficult to contain. One potential solution may be to use helium-3 and deuterium as the fuels in "aneutronic" (power without neutrons) fusion reactors. The involved nuclear reaction here when helium-3 and deuterium fuse creates normal helium and a proton, which wastes less energy and is easier to contain. Nuclear
fusion reactors using helium-3 could therefore provide a highly efficient form of nuclear power with virtually no waste and no radiation. A short wall chart explaining this in more detail can be found here. The aforementioned
fission, fusion and aneutronic fusion nuclear reactions are also illustrated in animations in my Mining Helium-3 On the Moon video. Mining Helium-3 on the Moon One of many problems associated with using helium-3 to create energy via nuclear fusion is that, at least on the Earth, helium-3 is very, very rare indeed. Helium-3 is produced as a by-product of the maintenance of nuclear weapons, which could net a supply of around 15Kg a year.
All their fusion evidence assumes current nuclear processes the aff uses a new fusion reactor recently invented Hedman 6 (Eric, Chief Tech. Officer @ Logic Design, 1-16, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1, accessed 7-7, JG)
Professor Kulcinskis lab is running the
only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world. He has an annual research budget that is barely into six figures and allows him to have five graduate research assistants working on the project. Compared to what has been spent on other fusion projects around the world, the teams accomplishments are impressive. Helium-3 would not require a tokomak reactor like the multibillion-dollar one being developed for the international ITER project. Instead, his design uses an electrostatic field to contain the plasma instead of an electromagnetic field. His current reactor contains spherical plasma roughly ten centimeters in diameter. It can produce a sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second producing about a milliwatt of power while consuming about a kilowatt of power to run the reactor. It is nuclear power without highly radioactive nuclear waste.
110
Helium 3 unrivaled efficiency and safety make it invaluable Hurtack 2004 (Timothy J.; April 8; English 202c Section 3 Helium 3 Fusion and the Development of the
Moon https://www.courses.psu.edu/engl/engl202c_jck14/engineers/timrpt.pdf)
As the worlds natural energy supply diminishes, researchers have been looking for new source of clean energy. Helium 3 seems to be the answer. The substance is almost foreign to Earth; however the Sun produces it in large quantities in a natural fusion reaction. The Helium 3 could be transported to Earth and used in a nuclear reaction that produces no radiation or radioactive waste. The only bi-product is oxygen and water. The technology is not advanced enough to make Helium 3 a plausible alternative yet, but new techniques are improving its efficiency every year. Once the technology has developed into a sustaining energy producer, many see Helium 3 as the perfect answer to the worlds future energy needs. Introduction Energy is the driving force behind the Industrialized United States. Coal,
petroleum, and natural gas power the industries that drive America. Oil has become a key issue in world affairs, especially after the second war with Iraq. Alternative energy sources have been sought after for the last 30 years, first being
fueled by the depletion of coal. During the space race with the Soviets, U.S. astronauts brought back samples of moon rocks that were found to contain the gas Helium 3. Helium 3 research falls in the middle of space colonization, the fight between superpowers for control over special resources. Helium 3 research came to the forefront in 1988 at a convention held by NASA in conjunction with University of Wisconsin-Madison. Helium 3 is significant because it only has 1 neutron instead of two neutrons found in regular Helium. This absence of one Helium 3 Fusion 3 neutron makes the isotope very volatile in a fusion reaction. Scientists discovered Helium 3 in 1939, and astronauts found in on the Moon in 1969. It
wasnt until 1986 that the fusion scientists stumbled across the isotope lunar geologists had been studying for almost twenty years.
The unique chemical properties of Helium 3 make it an ideal substance for nuclear fusion because it produces nearly zero radiation. The fusion reaction of Helium 3 has an efficiency of about 80 percent when it is converted into energy. This efficiency is much greater that current hydrogen fusion reactions that also produce large quantities of radiation. Helium 3 is created in large quantities by the
sun. In its core, the suns huge gravitational pull creates a natural fusion chamber that creates regular Helium into its valuable isotope Helium 3. Standard Helium contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Helium 3 still contains 2 protons but loses one of its neutrons. The
sun naturally produces the isotope and is propelled into space. Solar winds have been carrying Helium 3 throughout the solar system since the birth of the Sun. These solar winds have been depositing Helium 3 in the soils of the Moon for almost the same amount of time. Scientists have been using satellite technology to begin mapping the lunar surface to find the large deposits of Helium 3 that are present. Helium 3 fusion reactions produce extreme amounts of energy that can be converted into electricity. Quantities of Helium 3 have been estimated by K. Kulcinski at around 1,100,000 metric tones. Only 30 tons of Helium 3 gas will produce enough energy to power the entire country for an entire year. With new deposits of Helium 3 being dumped on the Moon from solar winds, the supply of Helium 3 would virtually be endless.
111
AT: Fusion Weapons

The tech for fusion weapons doesnt exist Franceschini & Schaper 6 (Giorgio and Annette, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Nuclear Weapons Research and
Modernization Without Nuclear Testing Pg. 21 JF) The primary role that is assigned to NIF is to maintain the intellectual and technical competency of the U.S. in physics related to nuclear weapons in a more generic sense.31 There are external critics who exaggerate the military potential of the ICF, some even fear that it may lead to the development of pure fusion weapons. 32 It is unclear whether a pure fusion weapon explosion would be banned by the CTBT because no fission would take place. While the
explosion during an ICF experiment is indeed a pure fusion explosion, it is extremely unlikely that a pure fusion nuclear weapon would be possible. The reason is that the release of any significant fusion energy requires an energy input of the highest density. In the foreseeable future, this is possible only with a fission bomb or with high power lasers.33 The latter are huge and bulky. A laser with such high energy that could be delivered like a weapon seems impossible today.34
112
A2 No Infrastructure
Helium-3 Is A Prerequisite To Fusion DevelopmentStatus Quo Fusion Unattractive And Unlikely To Develop. Cheetham, Brad and Pastuf, Dan. 2008. [University at Buffalo, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering. Lunar Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development. http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf The possibility of a Helium-3 fueled lunar economy was mentioned previously. In order for this to be a possibility fusion technology must be advanced beyond the current very small scale reactions being achieved (Schmitt). One problem with this plan of waiting for fusion
technology to develop before establishing a lunar base is that fusion without helium-3 is very much less attractive. Using common deuterium fusion plans, power plants would actually produce
more nuclear waste per kilowatt hour than a nuclear fission plant of comparable size would (Schmitt 41). Thus fusion technology is somewhat dependent on having a large supply of He-3
while at the same time, getting He-3 from the Moon is depending on having large scale fusion plants operational. Only time will tell which occurs first, but with additional funding, and a He-3 source its likely fusion power could be figured out.
113
114
A2 OST
Lunar Mining Legal Under International Space FrameworkTreaties Allow All Actors To Use Space For Peaceful Purposes. Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin
Law School. A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options. Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1. 2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf II. THE CURRENT LEGAL SITUATION The most salient place to look for international rules governing the mining of He-3 or other lunar resources is the growing body of "space law," in particular, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement. However, while each of these sets out general principles relevant to the exploitation of lunar mining, neither provides a detailed legal regime for the conduct of such activities. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty,38 which is legally binding on 100 nations, including all of the principal space powers,3 9 establishes a broad framework for the exploration and use of outer space and is widely regarded as the "charter" of international space law.40 As relevant to possible lunar mining activities, the treaty provides that the state parties may "use" the Moon for peaceful purposes , presumably including not only scientific but other activities as well, but that they have a general obligation to share the benefits of their uses with all countries. 41 The treaty expressly prohibits any national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use or occupation, or by any other means over specific territory on the Moon,42 and forbids depriving "free access" to any area of the Moon or discriminatively excluding any state from the opportunity to explore or use the Moon.43 However, it recognizes that state parties may establish stations and other installations on the Moon,44 and that states have the right to exercise jurisdiction over its installations and personnel. 45 In addition, these activities may be carried out by nongovernmental entities, 46 international organizations, or joint enterprises. 47 Notably, while the Outer Space Treaty ostensibly bars the assertion of exclusive territorial claim to particular lunar mining sites, the treaty appears permissive in allowing a party to make "use" of lunar resources,48 subject to certain general environmental, notification, inspection, and other constraints. 49 Moreover, nothing in the treaty precludes the possibility of lunar mining activities by state parties, intergovernmental organizations, or private enterprises, or ownership over resources removed from the Moon by such entities. 50 The treaty does provide, however, that any
"use" of lunar resources should, in some unspecified sense and to some unclear extent, inure to the benefit and in the interests of all countries. 51 More broadly, the treaty also requires that all lunar activities shall be carried out under the principle of cooperation and with due regard to the interests of all other states parties. 52
115
116
OST will collapsetoo broad to be effective and states are uncertain about its effectiveness. Quinn 8(Adam G. U. Mn. Law School,
accessed 7-9, CJQ) When the Outer Space Treaty was The New Age of Space Law: The Outer Space Treaty and the Weaponization of Space, 2008,
drafted the dominant view was that it barred all property rights, including those of private actors and patents. That view has lost support over time as the changing international environment recognized the necessity to allow some property rights in space. Regardless, the damage was done. The fact that property rights could dramatically change without the treaty text changing indicated one thing: uncertainty. Uncertainty is anathema to investment. The Outer Space Treaty claims to apply to all actors through all of space. Over time, however, the definitions of both actor and space have come under flux. During this time, [*491] domestic courts have been reluctant to make statements regarding outer space . Although courts have been willing to extend
jurisdiction of United States patent law to cover infringement aboard "American vessels on the high seas," they have been unwilling to extend that same principle to United States vessels in outer space. Although the comparison is strikingly clear, courts have stated
that they are awaiting a clear signal from Congress regarding extraterritorial applications of patent law. Moreover, international courts have never enforced Article I against any nation.The lack of faith in the Outer Space Treaty is as great as its purported breadth, making it an insufficient base to develop a substantive set of space laws.
117
118
A2 Ratify Moon Agreement

Ratifying The Moon Agreement Risks Power Struggles And Prevents Future Cooperation Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School. A
Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options. Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1. 2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf It is true, of course, that U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement would involve risks, such as
those raised in the 1980 Senate hearings, based on a pessimistic prediction of the likely outcome of any eventual article 11 and 18 negotiations. 152 Thus, U.S. accession might well encourage wider participation in the agreement by many non-space powers and developing states
countries that might have a different ideology and approach to the exploitation of lunar resources from that of the United States. Conceivably, if these nations constituted a majority of parties to the agreement, they might succeed in imposing a resource regime unacceptable to the United States in any future article 11 and 18 negotiations. In this event, U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement could result in embedding and legitimating a lunar resource regime embodying principles contrary to U.S. interests. Moreover, U.S. accession might, in this case, effectively preclude its pursuit of alternative, more hopeful strategies. While it is true that under the agreement the U.S. is not legally obliged to
agree to any eventual international regime that it does not like, it might by that time be impractical for the United States to either "go it alone" or seek some other agreement.
119
120
A2 No Fusion Technology
Helium-3 Is A Prerequisite To Fusion DevelopmentStatus Quo Fusion Unattractive And Unlikely To Develop. Cheetham, Brad and Pastuf, Dan. 2008. [University at Buffalo, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering. Lunar Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development. http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf The possibility of a Helium-3 fueled lunar economy was mentioned previously. In order for this to be a possibility fusion technology must be advanced beyond the current very small scale reactions being achieved (Schmitt). One problem with this plan of waiting for fusion
technology to develop before establishing a lunar base is that fusion without helium-3 is very much less attractive. Using common deuterium fusion plans, power plants would actually produce
more nuclear waste per kilowatt hour than a nuclear fission plant of comparable size would (Schmitt 41). Thus fusion technology is somewhat dependent on having a large supply of He-3
while at the same time, getting He-3 from the Moon is depending on having large scale fusion plants operational. Only time will tell which occurs first, but with additional funding, and a He-3 source its likely fusion power could be figured out.
1. Only a risk plan solvesHelium-3 is more efficient than existing forms of energy production. Thats Coledan 4.
121
AT:Feasibility
Mining for Helium 3 feasible easy to extract and not relatively expensive Schmitt 2004 (Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University & former NASA astronaut, October; Popular
Mechanics: Mining the Moon pg 60; bh)
Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million. Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large mounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year. Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines, perhaps like those shown in the illustrations on pages 56 and 57, might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.
122
123
Moon is relatively easy to mine current technology meets requirements. Bilder 2009
(Richard, J.D., Harvard University Law School & has served as Vice-President of the American Society of International Law; Fordham International Law Journal: Vol. 33 Issue 2, Pgs. 254-255 A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options; bh)
How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth? 29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface-probably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar surface; and (4) return with the collected He3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. The collected He-3 gas could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles. 3 2 Importantly, this type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3-based power program. However, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface immediately after processing. 34
124
***Advantage 3: NSEA***
125
NASA fails at exploration

NASA is no longer functioning, the NSEA would be created in order to further space exploration. Harrison H. Schmitt. May 25, 2011. (Former United States Senator, aerospace and private enterprise consultant, geologist and
former Apollo Astronaut, member of the new Committee of Correspondence). Former Senator Schmitt Proposes Dismantling of NASA and Creation of a New, Deep Space Exploration Agency. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37176 Is there a path forward for United States' space policy? When a new President takes office in 2013, he or she should propose to Congress that we start space policy and its administration from scratch. A
new agency, the National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA), should be charged with specifically enabling America's and its partners' exploration of deep space, inherently stimulating education, technology, and national focus. The existing component parts of NASA should be spread among other agencies with the only exception being activities related to U.S. obligations to its partners in the International Space Station (ISS). Changes in the Space Act of 1958, as amended, to accommodate this major reinvigoration of the implementation of space and aeronautical policy should be straightforward. Spin-off and reformulation of technically oriented agencies have precedents in both the original creation of
NASA in 1958 by combining the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and the creation of the United States Air Force in 1947 from the Army Air Forces. The easiest change to make would be to move NASA Space Science activities, including space-based astronomical observatories, into the National Science Foundation (NSF). At the NSF, those activities can compete for support and funding with other science programs that are in the national interest to pursue. Spacecraft launch services can be procured from commercial, other government agencies, or international sources through case-by-case arrangements. With this transfer, the NSF would assume responsibility for the space science activities of the Goddard Space Flight Center and for the contract with Caltech to run the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Also, in a similarly logical and straightforward way, NASA's
climate
and other earth scienceresearch could become part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA could make cooperative arrangements with the NSF for use of the
facilities and capabilities of the Goddard Space Flight Center related to development and operation of weather and other remote sensing satellites. Next, NASA
aeronautical research and technology activities should be placed in a re-creation of NASA's highly successful precursor, the NACA. Within this new-old agency, the Langley
Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Dryden Flight Research Center could be reconstituted as pure aeronautical research and technology laboratories as they were originally. The sadly, now largely redundant Ames Research Center should be auctioned to the highest domestic bidder as its land and facilities have significant value to nearby commercial enterprises. These
actions
would force, once again, consideration of aeronautical research andtechnology development as a critical but independent national objective of great economic and strategic importance. NASA itself would be downsized to accommodate these changes. It should sunset as an agency once the useful life of the International Space Station (ISS) has been reached. De-orbiting of the ISS will be necessary within the next 10 to 15 years due to escalating
maintenance overhead, diminished research value, sustaining cost escalation, and potential Russian blackmail through escalating costs for U.S. access to space after retirement of the Space Shuttles. NASA itself should sunset two years after de-orbiting, leaving time to properly transfer responsibility for its archival scientific databases to the NSF, its engineering archives to the new exploration agency, and its remaining space artifacts to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Finally, with the recognition that a second Cold War exists, this time with China and its surrogates, the
President and Congress elected in 2012 should create a new National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA). NSEA would be charged solely with the human exploration of deep space and the re-establishment and maintenance of American dominance as a space-faring nation. The new Agency's responsibilities should include robotic exploration necessary to support its primary
126
mission. As did the Apollo Program, NSEA should include lunar and planetary science and resource identification as a major
component of its human space exploration and development initiatives. To organize and manage the start-up of NSEA, experienced, successful, and enthusiastic engineering program and project managers should be recruited from industry, academia, and military and civilian government agencies. NSEA must be given full authority to retire or rehire former NASA employees as it sees fit and to access relevant exploration databases and archives. An almost totally new workforce must be hired and NSEA must have the authority to maintain an average employee age of less than 30. (NASA's current workforce has an average age over 47.) Only with the imagination, motivation, stamina, and courage of young engineers, scientists, and managers can NSEA be successful in meeting its Cold War II national security goals. Within this workforce, NSEA should maintain a strong, internal engineering design capability independent of that capability in its stable of contractors. NSEA
would assume responsibility for facilities and infrastructure at the Johnson Space Center (spacecraft, training, communications, and flight operations), Marshall Space Flight Center (launch vehicles), Stennis Space Center (rocket engine test), and Kennedy Space Center (launch operations). Through those Centers, NSEA would continue to support NASA's operational obligations related to the International Space Station. NSEA should have the authority, however, to reduce as well as enhance the capital assets of those Centers as necessary to meet its overall mission. Enabling legislation for NSEA should include a provision
that no new space exploration project can be re-authorized unless its annual appropriations have included a minimum 30% funding reserve for the years up to the project's critical design review and through the time necessary to complete engineering and operational responses to that review. Nothing causes delays or raises costs of space projects more than having reserves that are inadequate to meet the demands of the inevitable unknown unknowns inherent in complex technical endeavors.
127
NASA Shutdown
NASA is facing shut down once again. Wall 11 Senior Writer for SPACE.com (Mike, April 06). NASA Braces for Possible Government Shutdown.
http://www.space.com/11344-nasa-government-shutdown-500-workers.html
NASA is once again bracing for a potential shutdown of the federal government, which
could begin this weekend if Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't agree on a budget. U.S. lawmakers have yet
to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011, which began in October. As a result, the government has been operating under a series of stopgap funding
measures called continuing resolutions. The latest of these is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. EDT Saturday (April 9). NASA expressed hope that Democrats and Republicans can reach an agreement in time to
but they're not necessarily counting on it. "Given the realities of the calendar, however, prudent management requires that we plan for an orderly shutdown should Congress be unable to pass a funding bill," NASA chief Charlie Bolden wrote in a recent memo to agency employees that was posted online by the website SpaceRef.com today (April 6). Furloughs could be coming At this point, Republicans are seeking deeper cuts in federal spending than
Democrats are willing to concede. If the two sides can't come together by Friday, the federal government could shut down for the first time since 1995. Federal activities deemed essential to the nation's safety and economic well-being such as air-traffic control and food inspection would continue to receive funding. But many other operations would be suspended, and many federal employees furloughed. NASA and employees would
officials forestall a government shutdown
has now begun the process of trying to figure out which of its operations be affected. "Our contingency planning for the potential funding lapse includes determining which
agency functions are excepted from a furlough," Bolden wrote. "Should it become necessary to implement our contingency plans, you will receive formal notice from your manager no later than Friday, April 8th regarding the designation of your position and furlough status." "Essential" employees exempt from a furlough would almost certainly include anyone involved with keeping astronauts safe and
healthy in space, NASA officials said not to mention the astronauts themselves. Keeping astronauts safe There are two NASA
astronauts in space today Cady Coleman and Ron Garan. They are two of the six spaceflyers making up the International Space Station's Expedition 27 crew. Coleman and two crewmates are currently living on the station. Garan and two other crewmembers will arrive at the orbiting laboratory tonight. They launched into space Monday aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft. "We will take the steps necessary to ensure the safety of our astronauts on the International Space Station and our other missions," said NASA spokeswoman Katherine Trinidad. "Critical personnel will remain in place." Engineers and technicians actually operating the various NASA spacecraft flying through the solar system could probably stay on as well, experts have predicted. Researchers analyzing spacecraft data, on the other hand, might have to go home for a spell along with large numbers of support staff, from cafeteria workers to office managers. NASA's next space shuttle flight Endeavour's STS-134 mission to the space station is slated to launch April 29. The space agency is looking into how a government shutdown might complicate preparations for that flight, the shuttle program's second-to-last before it retires later this year. "NASA is still assessing the potential impact to orbiter processing and the upcoming STS-134 mission," Trinidad told SPACE.com. It's happened before This
is not the first time a possible government shutdown has loomed. Just last month, for example, lawmakers avoided a potential shutdown by passing another continuing resolution. And in November 1995, President Clinton and congressional Republicans led by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich couldn't come to an agreement in time. A shutdown ensued right in the middle of the space shuttle Atlantis' STS-74 mission to Russia's Mir space station. NASA
employees considered essential to that mission stayed on. But many other workers were furloughed, including NASA's public affairs office. The 1995 shutdown dragged on for three weeks. While NASA officials hope lawmakers can avert such an incident this time around, they're firming up employees' resolve just in case. "Your contributions touch people's lives in so many significant ways, and I want you to know how deeply I appreciate your dedication and your expertise," Bolden wrote in the memo. "We're a determined and resilient team and we'll get through this!"
NASA is becoming weak and ineffectual. Vieru 11 Writer on Softpedia, Background in biology, chemistry, and physics ( Tudor, May 26th)
Vieru. Apollo Astronaut: Replace NASA with New Agency. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apollo-Astronaut-Replace-NASA-with-NewAgency-202414.shtml
The last Apollo Program astronaut ever to set foot on the Moon, Harrison Schmitt, is proposing that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration be shut down entirely, and replaced with a new agency, that could be called the National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA). The move would have the sole purpose of furthering the United States' involvement in space, the former astronaut said in an article he published
128

online yesterday, on May 25. The main point of his proposal is that NASA has become stagnant. Schmitt was a member of the Apollo 17 mission, which flew to the Moon in 1972. After completing his space career, he became a US Senator for a term. At this point, he says,
has become just a shadow of its former self. The agency has literally lost its focus, as demonstrated by the hectic path it's had over the past few years. Unfeasible planning by the Bush Administration and the unwillingness to commit of the Obama Administration have drove the once-powerful agency aground. Rather than having a strong leadership in space, NASA is now reduced to working with the private sector in order to get to the InternationalSpace Station, has no manned spacecraft of its own (once the shuttles are retired), and needs Russian space capsules to sent men to the station. It is also allowing China, the emerging space power, to take over initiative. The Asian nation plans to
NASA finish constructing its first spacestation which will also be used for military applications by 2020, and to put a man on the Moon by 2025. Schmitt, 75, says that a new direction is needed for space exploration in the US, since NASA
overcome the new challenges. I don't blame NASA as much as I blame various administrations for not recognizing the
geopolitical importance of space, he tells Space. The lack of focus on exploration is something that several Apollo astronauts complained about over the past decade or so. Even
is obviously unable to
now, NASA's 2012 budget features negligible sums for this aspect. After a half-century of remarkable progress, a coherent plan for maintaining America's leadership in space exploration is no
longer apparent, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan wrote in USA Today on May 24. This is not just a competition between nations; it's a competition between freedom and tyranny, Schmitt added, obviously referring to China. The United States is the only power on Earth today that has in its DNA a protection of liberty, and if we decide to back off from space or any other major human endeavor, then we put that liberty in jeopardy, he added. The Obama administration has basically said that they won't pursue an exceptional space program for the United States and that they're just as happy to have China move forward into deep space, and be dependent on Russia for transport to the International Space Station, he concluded.
NASA Falling Behind China and Russia Ian O'Neill. June 30, 20 08. BA, MSc, PhD. Aldrin Warns that NASA will fall Behind Russia and China in Space Exploration
http://www.universetoday.com/15325/aldrin-warns-that-nasa-will-fall-behind-russia-and-china-in-space-exploration/
The world knows the huge potential China and Russia have for space exploration.
Russia is maintaining a strong presence in space with their sturdy Soyuz program and China has set its sights on having their very first taikonaut EVA at the end of this year. But where does this leave NASA? The US space agency has spearheaded the exploration of space for the last 50 years, but amongst could the glory days be coming to an abrupt end? In May, the legendary astronaut John Glenn spoke out against Shuttle decommissioning and last week, US Senator Bill Nelson called a meeting at Cape Canaveral to raise concerns about announced job cuts in 2010. Now, the most famous NASA ex-employee and second man on the Moon, Buzz
all the talk about NASA setbacks, overspending and delays,
Aldrin has voiced warnings that the US could lose its grip on space and begin to be left behind by Russia and China On July 20th, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot waited for Neil Armstrong to make the first footprint
in the lunar dust. Soon after, Buzz Aldrin joined Armstrong on this momentous step and making world history, setting the world alight with optimism that man was just about to embark on the next phase of evolution: leaving Earth and exploring the stars. Unfortunately this dream was only realised for three years (until 1972) after six successful lunar landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17), and to
this day the Apollo 17 missiontouch-down (December 15th, 1972) remains the last time we landed on the Moon. Although we may not have revisited our natural satellite for the best part of four decades,
that NASA is gaining momentum for the next giant leap for mankind? Many
we have been busy with our focus on the robotic exploration of the Solar System. But work has started on the Shuttle replacement, the Constellation Program, with the promise of sending man back to the Moon by 2020 and then Mars soon after, can we begin to get excited
prominent figures are now worried that the light is beginning to dim for the future of NASA. NASA prides itself on developing
new technologies, spearheading the push into space, but what happens when the funding dries up and other nations pick up where they left off? One voice that cannot be ignored is that of Buzz Aldrin who has voiced his grave concern that NASA, and indeed the USA,
risks falling behind China and Russia in the space race if efforts were not redoubled by future US governments. With the US presidential elections looming, Aldrin has vowed to lobby both
Barack Obama and John McCain to retain the vision for space exploration, not only to maintain, but increase NASA funding. During an interview with the UKs Sunday Telegraph newspaper he said, If we turn our backs on the vision again, were going to have to live in a secondary position in human space flight for the rest of the century. And he is not alone with this concern. Both fellow retired astronaut John Glennand US Senator Bill Nelson have recently spoken out about their concerns for NASAs future, ensuring the space exploration debate will remain alive over the coming months. Although Russia has a long and proud history in human space flight, the
Chinese are
129
showing their thirst for a big push into space, with a manned mission to the Moon on the cards. All the Chinese have to do is fly around the Moon and back, and theyll appear to have won the return to the Moon with
humans. They could put one person on the surface of the Moon for one day and hed be a national hero, Aldrin added. Plus, Russias Soyuz program could be extended for manned missions beyond Earth orbit he pointed out. There
is a real worry in NASA that the US could lose its foothold in the leadership of space exploration, so it is hoped big
voices within the ranks of legendary astronauts might begin to get the future government thinking about how important space exploration is to the US. NASA doesnt have support Jeff Foust. August 18, 2003. The gaps in NASAs support. Senior analyst with the Futron Corporationin Bethesda, Maryland, focusing on various aspects of the space industryhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/41/1
Its long been assumed that support for NASA in the United States is widespread. From a political standpoint, NASA enjoys a degree of bipartisan support (or, perhaps more accurately at times, bipartisan neglect) not seen in many
from the American people as a whole. While
other government agencies. A typical NASA program is less likely to become a political football for one party or the other than programs at the Defense Department, EPA, or even the Department of Education. Along the same lines, NASA appears to have widespread support
there is a fraction of the public is always critical of the space agency (a fraction that tends to fluctuate depending on NASAs publicized successes or failures), its never seemed obvious that this opposition to NASA is polarized along political, racial, income, or other lines. Upon closer examination, however, that belief is not necessarily true. In late June and early July Zogby International
conducted a poll for the Houston Chronicle regarding the American publics opinions about NASA, the space shuttle, and other programs the agency is undertaking. The Chronicle published those results in its July 21 issue, focusing on the overall numbers. Those results
showed that the American public, in general, remained supportive of NASA despite the Columbia accident and its aftermath. A majority of those polled, though, thought that the shuttle should remain grounded until the space program is redefined in some fashion. The Chronicle, to its benefit, provided not just a written summary of the
poll results, but thefull final report submitted by Zogby. The Chronicle also included the crosstabs, a detailed breakdown of the poll results, question by question. The crosstabs include data on how different segments of the populationbroken down by age, race, gender, education, income, political preference, and moreanswered the questions. Its
these data that reveal that NASAs support, as well as support for space exploration in general, among the American public is not universal. NASA has no purpose G. Ryan Faith. August 31, 2009. Giving NASA a clear mission. . Ryan Faith is an independent technology consultant and Adjunct
Fellow for Space Initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS) http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1456/1
The purpose of National Aeronautics and Space Act Of 1958 (the Space Act), which created NASA, was to provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes. Unfortunately, this mandate provides no particular sense of direction or reason to carry out such activities. However, this vagueness of purpose wasnt fully apparent when NASA was created, and wouldnt be for many years. Shortly after its creation, NASA was tasked by President Kennedy on May 25, 1961 with
the very specific mission of achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. This concrete, if difficult, task became, at least in fact, NASAs reason for existence until July 24, 1969. On that date, the
crew of Apollo 11 safely returned to Earth after making a successful landing on the lunar surface, answering President Kennedys challenge. However, once NASA had met this challenge, the agency lost, at least in fact even if not in law, its specific reason to exist. How did we get here? NASAs precursor
organization, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), was established in 1915 to help America achieve and maintain technological leadership in aviation. NACAs role in achieving this objective was to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view to their practical solutions. At the dawn of the Space Age, it was entirely unclear whether or not it was even possible to send living creatures into space, let alone humans, and most certainly whether or not humans could successfully work and live in space. Given this basic uncertainty about whether or not human spaceflight was even possible, NASAs focus on research and technology development matched both its mandate and circumstances. Even after Alan Shepard became the first American in space with his May 5, 1961, suborbital flight, NASA was still addressing fundamental questions about the possibility of flight outside the earths atmosphere as directed in the Space Act. Yet, twenty days later, President Kennedy gave a speech to a special joint session of Congress and called upon America to land a man on the surface of the Moon and return him safely to Earth before 1970, transforming NASA from a technology development agency into the de facto national space exploration agency. The clarity and simplicity of this directive was critical in giving NASA a guiding star to follow. But the exclusive focus of Kennedys challenge on a specific destinationthe Moon meant that as of July 24, 1969after Apollo 11 successfully had achieved the goal of landing [men] on the Moon and returning [them]
130

safely to the EarthNASAs guiding star disappeared. Its
mandate as the de facto national space
exploration agency had expired. The exclusive focus of Kennedys challenge on a specific destinationthe Moon
meant that as of July 24, 1969after Apollo 11 successfully had achieved the goal of landing [men] on the Moon and returning [them] safely to the EarthNASAs guiding star disappeared. The expiration of that de facto mandate confined NASA to its existing de jure purpose: to provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earths atmosphere, and for other purposes. Given the nebulous nature of this directive, focus shifted to the list of nine benefits to be obtained from the fulfillment of NASAs research into the problems of flight within and outside the earths atmosphere. Lacking
any clear overarching direction for their activities, NASA directorates developed a measure of schizophrenia yielding ultimately to parasitic competition and senseless cannibalism. Should NASA focus on
sometimes, be possible to make some of these things fit together in a complementary fashion. However, NASA
preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology or cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations? Which is a higher priority, the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth or improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles? It may, at least
has generally been given insufficient policy or legislative guidance in determining which of the list of benefits to be obtained given in the Space Act can be compared, combined, balanced, or differentiated. Given the absence of any single clear objective, and faced with an ever-expanding list of new
top priorities that the agency has been assigned over the years, it is no great surprise that the United States has not sent a person beyond low Earth orbit since 1972.
NASA failing-Air Force can pick up slack Rand Simberg. aerospace engineer and manager as well as a commenter on space policy. October 3, 2007. NASA vs. the far-out
space nuts. http://www.latimes.com/la-op-dustup3oct03,0,4382440.story I certainly wouldn't dispute that some
of the capabilities of the current private space industry have been spun off from NASA, but very few came from the manned space program, and I'd argue that many more of them came from the military. The early Delta, Titan, and Atlas
launchers, which later became commercial, were all derivatives of ICBMs there is no commercial equivalent of a Saturn or a shuttle (though NASA did support the development of the Delta from the Thor). The current Launch Vehicles
Atlas and Delta Evolved Expendable (EELVs) were developed with private and Air Force money NASA played no role whatsoever. In fact, by refusing to use them in its planned lunar architecture, and instead expending its scarce
resources developing what many consider entirely unnecessary new, expensive and low-flight-rate vehicles for its lunar missions, NASA is at extreme variance with the national policy goal of increasing the EELV flight rate to reduce costs and increase reliability, and satisfying one of the key "vision for space exploration" goals of enhancing national security. This has forced Boeing and Lockheed Martin into a marriage to keep them profitable, resulting in a new launch monopoly. Yes ,
projects like Telstar helped kick off the communication satellite industry, but it was also aided by military comsats. I
find it revealing that the only example you offer of "technological pump priming" is not by NASA but the development of a military rifle by the Army. And you're right that NASA has to know when to get out of the way. Unfortunately, history illustrates that it doesn't. In justifying the shuttle, NASA had to grab the entire launch market, including all commercial satellite launches, which precluded competition for launch from the private sector. This policy was reversed only after the Challenger disaster for the dumb reason that astronauts shouldn't "risk their lives to launch a satellite" (forget about the multibillion-dollar, essentially irreplaceable orbiter at risk), not because taking business away from private industry with a government-subsidized system was viewed as a bad idea. When the private Industrial Space Facility (ISF) was proposed in the 1980s as a way to provide a near-term research facility in low-Earth orbit and close the gap until the space station was completed, NASA lobbied Congress (successfully) to kill it because the agency (perhaps correctly) saw it as a threat to the station program rather than an augmentation or stop-gap solution. For decades, whenever an entrepreneur would attempt to raise money for some space venture, it was all too easy for a naive investor doing due diligence to go find someone at NASA to tell him that it wouldn't work, even when the NASA employee had no particular expertise in the matter. But he worked for NASA, so he must know all about this space stuff, right? In the 1990s, after the spectacular X-33 debacle over which it presided, the director of your former employer, the Marshall Space Flight Center, declared that that program had proved that we didn't have the technology for reusable launch vehicles, when drawing such a conclusion from a single flawed data point was logically absurd. As you can imagine, Homer, that did wonders for the fundraising ability of people who wanted to build such vehicles. NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, or NACA, did for the aviation industry exactly what you say that NASA should (and can?) do for space. It worked closely with private industry, determining its technology needs, and funded and executed research programs to advance those needed technologies such as wing design, cowling shapes, jet engine parameters, propeller characteristics, etc. But
the vast majority of NASA's funds do not go to such basic research anymore they go to developing operational (sort of) systems for NASA's own use. And because it is riskaverse, NASA avoids advanced technologies in such systems to the degree possible, so there's no incentive for it to develop them for itself or anyone else. In putting all of its
131

resources into redoing Apollo, the space program of 40 years ago,
NASA has starved of funding essentially all of its advanced research, including shutting down completely the NASA Institute for Advanced Conceptsin August.
132
NSEA solvency
NSEA increases US dominance throughout the world. SQUO NASA cant do that. Wolchover
Natalie Wolchover. 25 May 2011. Nix NASA Completely, Apollo Astronaut Says. http://www.space.com/11789-nasa-replacing-apolloastronaut-jfk-moon.html
Schmitt believes refocusing on space exploration is crucial for the United States to maintain its status as a superpower. [Photos: John F. Kennedy's NASA Legacy] "This is not just a competition
liberty in jeopardy. "The
between nations; it's a competition between freedom and tyranny," Schmitt said. "The United States is the only power on Earth today that has in its DNA a protection of liberty, and if we decide to back off from space or any other major human endeavor, then we put that
Obama administration has basically said that they won't pursue an exceptional space program for the United States and that they're just as happy to have China move forward into deep
Republican from New Mexico, says China's
space, and be dependent on Russia for transport to the International Space Station." Schmitt, who was elected to the Senate in 1976 as a
domination of deep space and Russia's domination of near-Earth space would lower America's international standing of the U.S. in the same way the Soviet Union winning the space race would have changed the outcome of the Cold War. On top of the perceptions and politics, Schmitt argues that deep-space exploration is necessary for controlling space resources ? in particular, a fusion fuel called helium-3 that comes from the
sun and is preserved in lunar soils. "Under certain financial constraints, helium-3 can be economically viable as a fuel for fusion power reactors here on Earth, and to have that dominated by another power such as China I thinkwould be very dangerous for us. That's just another aspect of the geopolitical significance of exploration," Schmitt said.
133
Uniqueness Yes Earth Science Focus

NASA is focusing on Earth science and de-emphasizing exploration Wakeman 11
(Nick, Editor-in-Chief of Washington Technology FCW, NASA Shifts Funds to New Priorities, Federal Computer Week, 6-8, http://fcw.com/articles/2011/06/08/nasa-budget-priorities-shift.aspx)
As budgets tighten and priorities shift, NASA is cutting $1 billion from its pace operations budget, but spending more on other science and technology areas that will reshape the agency's mission , a new study shows. As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from shuttle operations to human exploration capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs, said Steve Bochinger, president of Euroconsult North America.
The firm and its partner Omnis Inc. have released a new study, NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016, which analyzes NASAs budget. As space operations shrink, the Among the findings:
science budget will be redistributed among NASA centers, Bochinger said.
The Science Mission Directorate saw an 11 percent bump in 2011 and will have a $5 billion through 2016. Goddard Space Flight Center and Langley Research Center will benefit because of the work on Earth
science projects. The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will hold steady at about $3.9 billion but
funds will shift away from human
exploration activities.
The new Space Technology Directorate will get $1 billion a year from 2012 to 2016. Langley, Glenn and Ames research centers will benefit because of their work on new technologies for exploration and robotic spaceflight. NASA is restructuring the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate to focus on fundamental aeronautics and development of technologies for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. The study also predicts that NASAs business practices will have to change with a shift from cost-plus contracting to more fixed-price contracting.
Spending on exploration is down --- NASA is redirecting money to Earth science Space Travel 11
(NASA Spending Shift to Benefit Centers Focused on Science and Technology, 6-8, http://ww w.spacetravel.com/reports/NASA_Spending_Shift_to_Benefit_Centers_Focused_on_Science_and_Technology_9 99.htm) Euroconsult along with the consulting firm Omnis have announced the findings of a study foreseeing
a significant shift in NASA spending toward Earth science and R and D programs and away from legacy spaceflight activities. According to the report "NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016," NASA's budget, which will remain flat at around $18.7 billion for the next five years, will also be characterized by significant shifts from space operations to technology development and science. With the shift in budget authority, NASA Centers focused on Earth observation , space technology, and aeronautics will see increases in funding , while those involved in human spaceflight will see major funding reductions. Indeed, the termination of the Space Shuttle program will lead to a budget cut over $1 billion
for Space Operations, resulting in a 21% budget cut for the Johnson Space Center. Overall, the agency's budget for R and D will account for about 50% of all NASA spending. "Budget allocation across Centers will vary greatly," said Steve Bochinger, President of Euroconsult North America. "As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from Shuttle operations to Human Exploration Capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the
budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs. Likewise, as NASA shifts its science mission focus away from space science to Earth science, the science budget will be redistributed among centers." This shift in NASA's priorities will also affect the agency's contract spending. As large legacy programs end, new research and development programs will be initiated. This turnover of programs should provide many new contracting
opportunities over the next five years, especially at Research Centers. The Euroconsult/Omnis report details these changes. "The uniqueness of this report is that it brings together in one picture NASA's budget, spending and contracting, providing insights into opportunities created by the new NASA direction," said Bretton Alexander, Senior Consultant for Omnis.
134
Earth Science DA Internal Link Stability

Link threshold is low --- even budgetary instability risks disrupting Earth science Moore 5 (Berian III, Director Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New
Hampshire, NASA Earth Science, House Hearing Before the Committee on Science, 4-28, http://www.access.gpo.gov/congr ess/house/pdf/109hrg/20736.pdf) Q2b. Is it expected that NASA will continue with the GEOSS initiative in FY 2006 and beyond? At what funding levels?
A2b. NASAs plans for research and development of Earth observation systems include support for national and international priorities and goals, including the U.S. IEOS and International GEOSS. The GEOSS is architected to benefit from the full scope of the results of NASA research and development programs, flight missions and applied sciences partnerships on benchmarking enhancements to integrated system solutions for the
the response above, the NASA budget for Earth science is the U.S. contribution to the research and development efforts that contribute to the goals and objectives of serving society as documented in the GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan.
nine societal benefit areas. Per Q2c. To date, what role has NASAs Earth Science program played in the Administrations new GEOSS initiative? A2c. NASA leadership contributed to developing and refining the framework and architecture of the U.S. IEOS and International GEOSS plans. The plans provide guidance in the direction for evolving research capacity (including NASA contributions) to enable improved future operational systems. NASA contributes to the national interagency activity through participation in the U.S. Group on Earth Observation, a subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). NASA senior officials serve in the roles of Co-Chair and other positions of the USGEO and as alternate Co-Chair for the Architecture SubGroup of the international Group on Earth Observations. NASA missions (e.g., Terra, Aqua, and Aura), program plans (e.g., Earth Science strategies and implementation plans) and results (e.g., collaboration with EPA on enhancing the national air quality Nowcasting system) are recognized through the USGEO and GEO as contributions to the IEOS and GEOSS. Q3. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administrations changes to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same fashion at the Administrations request, NASA has decided to combine the Earth Science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission Directorate. a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will sustain the most drastic cuts? b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASAs Earth Science program is a good idea or a bad idea? Why? c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of NASAs Earth Science program? A3a,b,c. The combination of the former Earth Science Enterprise and Sun-Earth Connection theme of the Space Science Enterprise into a single unified Earth-Sun System Division has not led to cuts in any Earth science projects. Significant reductions were made between FY 2004 and FY 2005 Presidents budgets. In FY 2006, the budget submit using the new structure, resulted in no significant reductions to Earth science. The creation of a single unified Science Mission Directorate and the grouping of the former Earth Science Enterprise and the Sun-Earth Connection theme of the former Space Science Enterprise into a single unified Earth-Sun System Division was done to better position us to take advantages of potential synergies between formally different organizations. However, the time elapsed since the agency transformation that
effected these changes is too short to determine whether the benefits are being achieved. NASAs Earth Science budgets are managed overall effectively. We feel that one of the most important
things that can be done to improve management is to assure the stability of the program. Firming up of budgets early in the fiscal year is also very important, as it allows for early establishment of targets.
135
Earth Science DA Internal Link Funding Key

Even small funding cuts crush the effectiveness of NASAs programs Conley 10 (Richard, Professor of Political Science University of Florida, The Perils of Presidential Leadership
on Space Policy: The Politics of Congressional Budgeting for NASA, 1958-2008, APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1642810)
The situation is that much more problematic given NASAs size. NASA is a small agency. Even relatively small cuts to the agencys budget requests have considerable ramifications for ongoing and future programs. Figure 2 shows changes in NASA personnel since
1958. The first y-axis traces the number of civilian employees. The second y-axis tracks the percent annual change in NASA civilian personnel. The data show relative stability in the agencys workforce at approximately 21,000 in the last four decades. But the upshot is that a cut of $1 billion to the presidents NASA budget request equates to an annual loss of $47,000 per employee. The ramifications are also highly significant for NASA contractors in the private sector, who typically number about 40,000 twice the agencys personnel. The data accentuate the mismatch between human and financial resources necessary for long-term, large scale space programs and congressional appropriations. It is rare that any NASA program that can rely on one years worth of funding. The reality is that the vast majority of space exploration projects require years of commitment while the budgeting process occurs on a yearly basis. Sharp cuts to a projects budget in the middle of its lifetime can mean drastic cuts to a programs capabilities or results . The space shuttle is a prime example of this phenomenon. Combined with the tendency of elected representatives to consider their ability to justify programs to their constituents on a two year (House) or six year (Senate) electoral cycle, highly technical and long-term projects within NASA regularly face unstable budgets (Kay 1995).
136
Earth Science DA Internal Link Satellites Key

Satellite observations are critical to effective monitoring --- calculated models fail Huetteman 11 (Emmarie, Medill National Security Reporting Project, Blind to the Threat, 1-25,
http://global-warning.org/main/satellites/) If the launch had been successful, OCO would have been the first satellite dedicated to measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and tracking emission reduction efforts, offering crucial insight into the earths changing climate. This information is needed not only by scientists monitoring the environment but also federal officials struggling to understand rising threats of those climate changes to national security. Heres a key variable for understanding climate change, the only satellite in the world that will do the kind of global collection we need, [and it] crashes, said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of an influential report on climate observation. And we havent thought about how to replace it. The short, unproductive life of OCO and the lack of a backup plan marked another chapter in the long-running story of the nations teetering climate observation system. For two decades, the U.S. constellation of earth science satellites has been beset by competing priorities, shrinking budgets and mismanagement, even as intelligence and military officials express serious concerns about the national security threats posed by climate change and the need for accurate data to help assess those threats. In a world where the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica is intact one day and collapses into the sea the next, scientists say the need for continuous, reliable satellite observation is vital . It enables more accurate projections, allowing policymakers to decide, for example, whether to build a military base in an area that will flood as sea levels rise; more accurate data also warns the U.S. military that it may have to evacuate people before a devastating tsunami, like the one that killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia in 2004. Dr. Berrien Moore III, who co-chaired a National Research Council committee on space-based observation, said calculated climate change predictions failed to capture how fast sea ice would decline, a problem that experts say will threaten national security as it causes mass flooding from rising sea levels. But satellites caught what the models missed . Thank God for the [satellite] observations because otherwise we wouldnt have known this is going on, said Moore, vice president for weather and climate programs at the University of Oklahoma.
Ground observations leave gaps and cant mobilize support for responding to pollution --- satellites are key Hoff 9 (Raymond M., Professor of Physics University of Maryland, and Sundar A. Christopher, Professor of
Atmospheric Science University of Alabama, Huntsville, Remote Sensing of Particulate Pollution from Space: Have We Reached the Promised Land?, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 6-1, Lexis)
Strengths of satellite measurement are found in emissions identification (fires especially), event tracking and transport, definition of boundaries of large-scale pollution features, and providing some evidence for profiles of pollutants well above the surface. Satellite observations fill gaps in areas where there are no ground sensors (e.g., much of the third world). Satellite measurements have been very useful in defining production, oxidation, and evolution processes from biomass burning. Satellite imagery can provide iconic views of major events such as forest fires, volcanic plumes, and stagnant haze masses over highly industrialized areas. In conveying the extent of pollution to the public, visual imagery from space is important.
137
Satellite observations are necessary for effective sensing --- ground measurements alone cant fill in Hoff 9 (Raymond M., Professor of Physics University of Maryland, and Sundar A. Christopher, Professor of
Atmospheric Science University of Alabama, Huntsville, Remote Sensing of Particulate Pollution from Space: Have We Reached the Promised Land?, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 6-1, Lexis) The recent literature on satellite remote sensing of air quality is reviewed. 2009 is the 50th anniversary of the first satellite atmospheric observations. For the first 40 of those years, atmospheric composition measurements, meteorology, and atmospheric structure and dynamics dominated the missions launched. Since 1995, 42 instruments relevant to air quality measurements have been put into orbit. Trace gases such as ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, water, oxygen/tetraoxygen, bromine oxide, sulfur dioxide, and formaldehyde, glyoxal, chlorine dioxide, chlorine monoxide, and nitrate radical have been measured in the stratosphere and troposphere in column measurements. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) is a focus of this review and a significant body of literature exists that shows that ground-level fine particulatematter ([PM.sub.2.5]) can be estimated from columnar AOD. Precision of the measurement of AOD is [+ or -]20% and the prediction of [PM.sub.2.5] from AOD is order [+ or -]30% in the most careful studies. Theair quality needs that can use such predictions are examined. Satellite
measurements are important to event detection, transport and model prediction, and emission estimation. It is suggested that ground-based measurements, models, and satellite measurements should be viewed as a system , each component of which is necessary to better understand air quality.
138
Earth Science DA Internal Link NASA Key

NASA data is key --- its indispensible and funds private-sector research Busalacchi 11 (Tony, Director and Professor of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center University
of Maryland, CQ Congressional Testimony, 3-11, Lexis) In 2007, the National Academies issued the report, "Earth and Science Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond." The report found that between 2000 and 2009, funding for Earth Sciences (ES) had fallen substantially. ES research is absolutely critical to understanding climate change, such as the decline of Earth's ice sheets and the health of the global oceans. For this reason, BOAC is heartened by the Administration's request for NASA's expanded and enhanced science mission. Past
investments in NASA's science mission have funded university research that has resulted in the development of new instruments and technologies and in valuable advances in weather forecasting, climate projections, and understanding of Earth ecosystems. Without the tools developed at NASA or with agency support, oceanic, atmospheric, hydrologic and earth-system scientists and the nation would have only a fragmentary picture of the interconnected functioning of the planet's oceans, atmosphere and land. The NASA data archive is a treasure trove of environmental information that researchers have come to depend upon . Through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the NASA science mission supports innovation . BOAC supports the NASA budget and applauds the special
attention that the White House has paid to the restoration of NASA science. We also hope that Congress will fund NASA to lead in developing and implementing a scatterometer mission; with fast community access to the data, capability to distinguish between wind and rain and a higher orbit for coverage of Alaskan waters.
Err Neg --- experts agree Zuber 8 (Maria T., Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NASA at 50: Past and Future, CQ Congressional Testimony, 7-30, Lexis) Likewise there are numerous challenging questions about workings of Earth that are appropriate for study by NASA. There seems to be a spectrum of opinion both within and outside the agency as to how much NASA should be involved in Earth science. As head of a pre-eminent Earth Science Department with a view on the most challenging questions in contemporary Earth and atmospheric science and oceanography, I have a strong opinion on this topic. The Earth is a complex, dynamic, system of systems that requires detailed in situ study combined with precise global views over time to unravel its workings. From the point of view of remote observation, no other agency is capable of developing the
kind of state-of-the- art sensors and observation strategies that only NASA can provide. NASA simply must play a role in the essential mission of understanding our Earth. Especially true for environmental monitoring --- NASA does the bulk of the work Bolden 11 (Charles, Administrator NASA, Fiscal 2011 Appropriations, CQ Congressional Testimony, 3-23,
Lexis)
At present, NASA Earth-observing satellites provide the bulk of the global environmental observations used for climate change research in the U nited S tates and
139
abroad. This year, analyses of NASA satellite measurements quantified the rates of ground water depletion since 2003 in California and in India's Indus River valley rates that are unsustainable for the future. NASA conducted the first ICEBridge airborne campaigns in both Arctic and the Antarctic, to maintain the critical ice measurements during the gap in time between the ICESAT-1 and -2
satellites.
Other agencies depend on NASA --- cant produce their own sensing equipment Zuber 8 (Maria T., Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NASA at 50: Past and Future, CQ Congressional Testimony, 7-30, Lexis) NASA's contributions toward understanding the state and workings of our Earth has a tremendously rich history.
The most innovative approaches used in remote satellite observation were developed by NASA or by the scientific and technological community under the auspices of NASA support. Satellites and analysis tools originally conceived and built by NASA are commonly distributed to other , more operational, government agencies , such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association of the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior. Among numerous accomplishments NASA
can claim credit for the first measurements of the steady but miniscule motions of the Earth's tectonic plates, characterization of the ozone hole, the three-dimensional structure of hurricanes, the general circulation of the oceans, biological ocean productivity, rainfall patterns in the tropics, and the global wind pattern over the oceans and its relationship to wave distribution and height. Efforts are ongoing to study changes on the Earth on decadal time scales - sea level rise, the surface ice volume, and measurement of changes in water reservoirs.
140
Earth Science DA Internal Link A2: Satellites Fail

NASA satellite measurements are empirically effective --- multiple examples prove Zuber 8 (Maria T., Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NASA at 50: Past and Future, CQ Congressional Testimony, 7-30, Lexis)
NASA's contributions toward understanding the state and workings of our Earth has a tremendously rich history . The most innovative approaches used in remote satellite observation were
developed by NASA or by the scientific and technological community under the auspices of NASA support. Satellites and analysis tools originally conceived and built by NASA are commonly distributed to other, more operational, government agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association of the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior. Among numerous accomplishments NASA can claim credit for the first measurements of the steady but miniscule motions of the Earth's tectonic plates, characterization of the ozone hole, the
three-dimensional structure of hurricanes, the general circulation of the oceans, biological ocean productivity, rainfall patterns in the tropics, and the global wind pattern over the oceans and its relationship to wave distribution and height. Efforts are
ongoing to study changes on the Earth on decadal time scales - sea level rise, the surface ice volume, and measurement of changes in water reservoirs.
NASA's studies of the Earth's plasma environment have been central in understanding the phenomenon of "space weather", as well as the magnetic character of the Sun and the
nature of the solar atmosphere.
The contribution of NASA to scientific knowledge is truly impressive . The respected

publication Science News indicates that 5-10% of all scientific discoveries, worldwide, over the past decade, can be traced to NASA. I routinely tell my students that there has never been a better time to be a space or Earth scientist. The web page of NASA's Science Mission Directorate lists nearly a hundred missions currently operating or in development studying the Earth, our solar system, the heliosphere and beyond. With this record of scientific achievement is it any surprise that the rest of the world aspires to be like us?
141
Earth Science DA Impact Global Environment

NASA Earth sciences are key to global environmental monitoring --- solves multiple threats Abdalati 11 (Waleed, Chief Scientist NASA, Investing in Federal Research and Development to Spur U.S.
Job Growth and Innovation, Congressional Documents and Publications, 3-17, Lexis) Earth Science
The view from space allows scientists to study planet Earth as a complex system with diverse interacting components: the oceans, atmosphere, land, ice, and life. NASA assets observe processes that are global in nature with local impacts, and that are local in nature with global impacts. By observing the interactions of these various components, we are able to develop a comprehensive picture of how the Earth works, how it is changing, why it is changing, and ultimately, what these changes mean for life on Earth. The knowledge we derive from this comprehensive picture, which is essential for ensuring our well-being as a society, can only be realized when the Earth is viewed in the context, scale, and perspective afforded by these space-based capabilities. From quantifying the impacts of melting ice on sea level, to understanding the inner workings of hurricanes and tropical storms, to assessing the health and amount of global vegetation, NASA Earth Science provides advances in understanding that positively benefit the lives of billions of people all over the world . In addition to the scientific research and the new knowledge that NASA investments provide, NASA Earth Science also has real-time direct applicability to many national needs. Through our
partnerships with other agencies (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) that maintain forecasting and decision support systems, we ensure complementary, not duplicative activities. The result of these partnerships is improved national capabilities for climate predictions, weather, and natural hazards; the management of resources; and development of environmental policy. NASA's Earth Science is an essential part of the national and international efforts to understand the global environment and use Earth observations and scientific understanding in service to society. There are too many examples of the direct societal benefits gained from NASA's Earth Science missions to list them all here today. However, I would like to highlight a few for your consideration. Once such example is the use of the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), currently flying on the Landsat 5 and 7 spacecraft and now in development for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission. TIRS plays an important role in the water management efforts in the western United States. In particular, TIRS measurements are used operationally by state agencies to monitor snowpack runoff and water consumption on a field-by-field basis in nine western states (Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota). State water managers call TIRS's data the "gold standard" for the cost-effective administration of water transfer agreements, and an irreplaceable tool for western water managers. In 2012, NASA will begin to work with the Department of the Interior to develop successor Landsat satellites, through an operational program funded by USGS. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiameter, or MODIS instrument, on the Terra and Aqua spacecrafts provides data for the MODIS Rapid Response System developed to provide daily satellite images of the Earth's landmasses within a few hours of acquisition. This capability makes the system a valuable resource for organizations like the U.S. Forest Service and the international fire monitoring community, which use the images to track fires; the United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, which monitors crops and growing conditions; and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Air Force Weather Agency, which track dust and ash in the atmosphere. As a final example, NASA-sponsored investigations have developed and demonstrated reliable and accurate detection of volcanic ash clouds using data from instruments on NASA Earth Science satellites, including the MODIS, MISR, OMI, and CALIOP instruments on the Terra,
142

Aqua, Aura, and Cloudsat NASA research missions. The proven utility of these data led to their operational use by the NOAA National Weather Service to formulate Volcanic Ash Advisories. These products were used extensively during the Iceland volcano eruption in April 2010 and more recently, NASA satellite data were used to produce volcanic ash advisories for aviators across the Gulf of Mexico during the February 1 eruption of the Popocatepetl volcano in Mexico. These practical benefits are not only realized here at home, but also abroad as is currently the case for the recent devastating earthquake in Japan. As with the previous earthquakes in Chile, Haiti, and elsewhere, NASA has been collecting and analyzing data from multispectral, multi-angle, and multiple resolution sensors to support damage assessment and response activities. We will continue the vital work to
expand our abilities to observe our planet Earth and make those data available for decision makers and international partners.
143
Earth Science DA Impact Biodiversity Outweighs

Extinction results from species loss --- outweighs survivable nuclear war Tobin 90 (Richard, Professor of Political Science SUNY-Buffalo, The Expendable Future: U.S. Politics and the
Protection of Biological Diversity, p. 13-14) Every time a human contributes to a species extinction, a range of choices and opportunities is either eliminated or diminished. The demise of the last pupfish might have appeared inconsequential, but the eradication of other species could mean that an undiscovered cure for some cancers has been carelessly discarded. The extinction of a small bird, an innocent amphibian, or an unappealing plant might disrupt an ecosystem, increased the incidence and areal distribution of a disease, preclude the discovery of new industrial products, prevent the natural recycling of some wastes, or destroy a source of easily grown and readily available food. By way of analogy, the anthropo-genic extinction of a plant or animal can be compared to the senseless destruction of a priceless Renaissance painting or to the burning of an irreplaceable book that has never been opened. In an era when many people believe that limits to development are being tested or even breached, can humans afford to risk an expendable future, to squander the infinite potential that species offer, and to waste natures ability and willingness to provide inexpensive solutions to many of humankinds problems? Many scientists do not believe so, and they are fearful of the consequences of anthropogenic extinctions. These scientists quickly admit their ignorance of the biological consequences of most individual extinctions, but widespread agreement exists that massive anthropogenic extinctions can bring catastrophic results . In fact, when compared to all other environmental problems, human-caused extinctions are likely to be of far greater concern. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible ecological change that humans can cause. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions, extinct species can never be replaced. From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet, Norman Meyers observes, no other
form of environmental degradation is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of humancaused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoingthat will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats. David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and
the need for a solution: We are masters of extermination, yet creation is beyond our powers Complacency in the face of this terrible dilemma is inexcusable. Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire urgency. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the near future, then a concerted and effective response to humancaused extinctions is essential. The chapters that follow evaluate that response in the United States.
Species loss shreds ecosystem resiliency --- risks crossing an invisible threshold of collapse and human extinction Diner 94 (Major David N., Judge Advocate General's Corps United States Army, The Army and The
Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis) D. The Value of Biological Diversity 1. Why Do We Care? -- No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. 67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival . Like all animal life, humans live off of other
144
species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 68
2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control , 70 oxygen production, sewage
treatment, and biodegradation. 71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. 73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The
spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant
extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
145
Earth Science DA Impact Biodiversity Outweighs Asteroids

DA comparatively outweighs asteroids --- the impact is 40,000 times as probable Boslough 10 (Mark, Mitigation Panel Member of Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard
Mitigation Strategies, Minority Opinion, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, pp 126-127, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12738) The original draft of the table entitled Expected Fatalities per Year, Worldwide, from a Variety of Causes (Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 of this final report) included the World Health Organization (WHO)1 estimate of 150,000 deaths per year from climate change. The steering committee made a decision to remove the climate data, giving as reasons (1) caution about having any debate on climate change distract from the issue at hand and (2) irrelevance of climate change numbers to the near-Earth object (NEO) threat. The first reason is inappropriate. Data should not be removed from a report to avoid the potential for political controversy. The second reason is incorrect. Climate change is more relevant than the other causes in the table, for several reasons: The portion of the threat above the global catastrophe thresholdwhich in the model we quote2 constitutes about one half of the expected annual death rateis primarily a climate change threat. Estimates of deaths from a large impact are largely based on our model-derived scientific understanding of climate change. The 91 deaths per year assumes a catastrophe threshold significantly lower than the current best estimate (3 kilometer-diameter asteroid). It implicitly assumes a high-sensitivity climate and/or strong dependence of death rate on climate change.
Asteroids and climate change are the only two threats in the original table that can have abrupt and global consequences, and to which everyone on the planet is exposed, regardless of their lifestyle or personal behavior. They are also both to some extent preventable, and in both cases mitigation requires international agreements and cooperation. The climate change death rate is therefore more appropriate to compare to the asteroid death rate than the other threats are. Climate can and has changed abruptly. Evidence from Greenland ice cores and other
paleoclimate data show that these spontaneous changes take place much more frequently than do large impacts and on time scales that can exceed human adaptive capacities.3 Asteroids and climate change are the only two threats in the original table that include global catastrophe as a possibility. The best estimate of the global catastrophe threshold diameter for an asteroid is 3 km, but according to Alan Harris,4 all NEOs above this threshold, except for longperiod comets, have been discovered. The best estimate of the probability of a global catastrophe this century from an asteroid impact is therefore zero . If Earth and its inhabitants are assumed to be much more sensitive to global change, then a low threshold of 1.5 km (a factor of 8 lower in kinetic yield) can be assumed. Harris estimates around 30 undiscovered asteroids larger than 1.5 km. The probability of impact by one of these before the end of the century is 0.0005 percent. However, recent models5,6 suggest a 2 percent probability of global catastrophe from anthropogenic
climate change this century, assuming realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and a threshold temperature change or sensitivity of 8C. If the threshold sensitivity is 4C, the probability of global catastrophe exceeds 20 percent . With sensitive assumptions, it is therefore 40,000 times more probable that Earth will be faced with an anthropogenic climate change catastrophe than with an asteroid catastrophe . With best
assumptions it is infinitely more probable.
The WHO climate change estimate of 150,000 deaths per year is a lower bound,
because of its conservative assumptions that do not include increasing temperatures since 2000. It also does not consider the probability of global catastrophe from human-triggered abrupt climate change comparable to the speed or magnitude of the Blling/Allerd or Younger Dryas boundaries, which are not impact related.7 The Harris (2009) asteroid estimate of 91 deaths per year is an upper bound, because it assumes a low catastrophe threshold. The inclusion of these figures for intercomparison is the only way to provide policy makers
146

with an objective basis for the prioritization and allocation of resources that is commensurate with the relative threat from various causes.
147
Earth Science DA Impact Environment Turns War

Environmental destruction leads to a global wars Homer-Dixon 98 (Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict
Studies Programme University of Toronto, World Security Challenges for a New Century, p. 342-343) Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a fairer share of the worlds wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global environment, or that free-ride by letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution.6 A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. In general, many experts have the sense that environmental problems will ratchet up the level of stress within states and the international community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflictfrom war and rebellion to trade disputesand undermining possibilities for cooperation.
148
Earth Science DA Impact Oceans 2NC

Marine biodiversity is key to human survival Davidson 3 (Founder Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 4751)
But surely the Athenians had it backward; its the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue
Destroy all life on land; the ocean creatures will survive just fine. Given time, theyll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the
planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassas power.
organisms that inhabit the oceans and all life on land is doomed. Dust to dust, says the Bible, but water to water is more like it, for all life comes from and returns to the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to seawater. Every carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill slits form and then fade during our development in the womb. The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity,
and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral reefs, often called the rain forests of
the sea. Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly a third of all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down to the hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around superheated plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isnt surprising given that the sea was, as already mentioned, the crucible of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the primordial soup of nucleic acids (which can self-replicate, but are not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to 3.9 billion years ago. A spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago, an evolutionary experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasnt until 100 million years later that the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed out of the ocean. After this head start, its not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of the sea. Of the thirtythree higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.
149
Earth Science DA Impact Ozone 2NC

NASA-led monitoring key to continued ozone recovery Aerospace Daily 95
(7-21, Lexis)
NASA-funded research results showing a marked decline in an ozonedepleting chemical since an international treaty limiting its production come at an opportune time for agency lobbyists. Researchers at MIT reported in the journal Science last week that methyl chloroform concentrations have dropped at a rate of about 2% a year since mid-1990, the first measured decrease in an ozonedepleting atmospheric chemical since the Montreal Protocol was established as an attempt to protect stratospheric ozone levels. NASA, which faces a determined attack by House Republicans on its Earth Observing System (EOS), was quick to issue a press release highlighting its role in the MIT research. Both the ground-based methyl chloroform study and EOS are funded through NASA's Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) effort. "Continued monitoring of ozone and the chemicals involved in ozone depletion will be crucial over
the next several decades to ensure that the treaties continue to work, so that ozone levels ultimately recover," Robert Harriss, head of the Science Div. in the MTPE headquarters office, said
in the agency press release yesterday.
Ozone depletion causes extinction Greenpeace 95 (Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer -- A
Greenpeace Report with contributions from Ozone Action, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html) When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between c hloro f luoro c arbon s and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.
150
Earth Science DA Impact Warming

Warming causes extinction Brandenberg 99 (Dr. John, Physicist, Dead Mars, Dying Earth, p. 232-233)
The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Lets imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occursa major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia Suddenly, the gradual climb in global
temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go
down as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean! Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost as is its waterbecause of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon
dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving .
151
Earth Science DA Impact Warming A2: Inevitable

NASA Earth sciences are key to effective adaptation Balstad 11 (Dr. Roberta, Trustee University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, CQ Congressional
Testimony, 3-11, Lexis) National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Science Mission Directorate. The research conducted and data collected by NASA's Science Mission Directorate are essential to atmospheric sciences research and global Earth observations. Through the use of space observatories, satellites, and other probes, NASA helps us achieve a deeper understanding of Earth, including answers to how the Earth's long-term weather patterns may be changing. We urge the Subcommittee to support the President's FY 2012 budget request of $5.017 billion for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, including $1.653 billion for Earth Science. As the federal government and NASA prioritize among competing priorities, the National Academy of Sciences decadal survey, Earth and Science Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, released in 2007, continues to provide a critical set of recommendations of the most compelling needs in Earth observation in the years to come. After years of study and risk reduction, we commend NASA and Congress for enabling the implementation of this report and with it the measurements, science, and applications needed to meet societal needs. The anticipated launches in 2011 and ongoing development of new satellites as recommended by the scientific survey will contribute to essential support of national priorities regarding the mitigation, assessment, and response to catastrophic natural hazards on the rise globally as well as environmental change observations needed to develop appropriate national and regional responses in the future. Given the critical importance of these measurements to scientists, state and city planners, first responders, and governors, the nation must not allow any further delay in the deployment of these resources needed for our states and localities
to wisely and appropriately adapt in the decades to come.
152
Earth Science DA Impact Climate Leadership 2NC

NASAs Earth science missions are critical to effective climate modeling --- boosts U.S. competitiveness and leadership on warming NAST 8 (NASA Aeronautics Support Team (Non-Profit Organization of Community Leaders, Business Leaders,
and Former NASA Officials), NASAs Role in the 21 st Century, Fall, http://nastus.org/documents/NASARole.21st Century.pdf) 2) Monitoring and predicting climate change and the impact of mitigation strategies Climate change is likely to be a dominating global issue for the rest of this century. NASAs Earth science
program is already the global leader in the measurement and prediction of climate change. The focus of climate change science/studies is now shifting to better prediction of its evolution and impacts, and developing and monitoring effective mitigation strategies. NASA
must next be challenged with dramatically improving its climate prediction capability as well as taking on the new challenge of accurately predicting the impacts of climate change on our civilization and the biosphere. Additionally, there are already many speculative proposals for climatechange mitigation strategies which attempt to introduce climate forcing that acts opposite to the greenhouse effect or which attempt to capture or reduce existing greenhouse gases. Given the complex feedbacks in the climate system, understanding the possible unintended consequences of such mitigation strategies will become more important Impact on Innovation & Competitiveness: NASA is uniquely positioned to take on this challenge of predicting the efficacy of potential mitigation strategies and monitoring their effectiveness once implemented. Innovation will be supported by the development of enormous supercomputing resources needed to both crunch data, and also to model the earths climate and atmosphere. Given the massive amounts of national and international wealth that may be invested in mitigation strategies, global competitiveness will either be harmed or
advanced by shifting budgetary resources to deal with global warming, or saving those global leadership position in this most vital effort of our civilization for the remainder of the century8.
expenditures if little action is warranted. Taking on such a role will provide the US a
Climate leadership is key to overall hegemony Walter 2 (Norbert, Chief Economist Deutsche Bank Group, The New York Times, 8-28, Lexis)
At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment
the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to
send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But
environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions
when a country that emits 25 percent

153
of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad . The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. Leadership sustains U.S. global engagement this solves terrorism, economic collapse, spread of disease, proliferation, and WMD conflict Reiss 8 (Mitchell B., Vice Provost of International Affairs College of William & Mary, Restoring America's
Image: What the Next President Can Do, Survival, October, 50(5)) But first, there is another question to be answered: why should Americans care if the U nited S tates is liked or not? After all, foreign policy is not a popularity contest. Policies that are controversial today may look better in a few years. Perhaps America's unpopularity is just the price that must be paid for being the world's most powerful country. Yet Americans do care, and their desire to be respected by the world has been reflected in the campaign rhetoric of both McCain and Obama. This desire extends beyond the normal, near-universal human wish to be liked, or at least not misunderstood or hated. Americans still believe in John Winthrop's description of America as a 'shining city on the hill' and want others to view the United States that way as well. But there is another, larger reason for caring about the rise of anti- Americanism, one that is related to the U nited S tates' status as the world's only superpower. No one country can defeat today's transnational threats on its own. Terrorism, infectious disease, environmental pollution, weapons of mass destruction, narcotics and human trafficking - all these can only be solved by states acting together. If others mistrust the U nited S tates or actively work against it, building effective coalitions and promoting a liberal international order that benefits both Americans and hundreds of millions of other people around the world will be far more challenging. Ultimately, if the U nited S tates has to go it alone or bear most of the costs while others are seen as free riders, the American people are unlikely to sustain engagement with the world with the same intensity, or even at all. The history of the last century demonstrates that when the U nited S tates retreats from the world, bad
things happen. The United States rejected the League of Nations and turned inwards in the 19 20s and 1930s, contributing to the Great Depression and the onset of the Second World War. After the Vietnam War, a weakened and inward-looking America prompted some Asian countries to start their own nuclear-weapons programmes, emboldened Islamic fundamentalists to attack
American interests, and encouraged the Soviet Union to occupy Afghanistan. While there are some who say this couldn't happen today, that America couldn't pull up the drawbridge and retreat behind the parapets, recent opinion polls in the United States reveal a preference for isolationism not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. It is hard to imagine any scenario in which an isolated, disengaged U nited S tates would be a better friend and ally to other countries, better promote global prosperity, more forcefully endorse democracy, social justice and human dignity, or do more to enhance peace and security.
154
Earth Science DA Impact Economy 2NC

NASA climate monitoring is key to economic growth Williamson 2 (Ray A., Space Policy Institute, The Socio-Economic Value of Improved Weather and Climate
Information, December, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Socio-EconomicBenefitsFinalREPORT2.pdf)
Virtually all economic sectors and many public and private activities are affected in some measure by changes in weather and climate. Uncertainties in the scope and severity of these changes pose financial and social risks for individuals, businesses, and government agencies. Hence, achieving more accurate weather and climate forecasts contributes to well being and the economy by reducing risk and creating new opportunities. Over the past four decades the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have made considerable scientific progress towards enhancing the accuracy of weather and climate predictions. Improved predictions made possible by global satellite data have led to numerous social and economic benefits, including more effective management of energy resources; enhanced natural disaster planning, mitigation, and response; cost savings in aviation, agriculture, and other industries; and in the effectiveness of the U.S. military. Sophisticated instruments on future observation satellites
will continue the trend toward achieving a better understanding of Earths climate and establishing a continuing basis for expanding domestic and global socio-economic benefits.
Economic collapse causes global nuclear war Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman Resident Fellow
American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187) What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
global
chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice
of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets . Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2
155
A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.
million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe.
156
Earth Science DA Impact Hegemony

Earth science is key to hegemony --- otherwise, sun storms will knock out communications and GPS, crippling the military Busalacchi 11 (Tony, Director and Professor of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center University
of Maryland, CQ Congressional Testimony, 3-11, Lexis)
Advances derived from solar, atmospheric, oceanic, hydrologic, environmental, and data and information harvesting have and will drive expansion of the U.S. economic enterprise. Space weather research and forecasting is a jewel at the NOAA Space Environment Center. Sun storms interfere with the normal operation of communications, can cause large-scale blackouts and could shut down the nation's GPS satellite system and thus the U.S. spatial referencing network. Without research advances in Space Weather, the Nation's military defenses and security , transportation systems, commerce and competitiveness will be severely compromised.
Recently, a NASA scientist developed a new mathematical method to process non-linear and non-stationary data in his basic research and opened up an entire new field of data analysis and information harvesting. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy. However, the scientist has chosen to retire from NASA and has joined a university in Taiwan where the success rate for research proposals is 80 - 90% vs. U.S. rates of 10%. The U.S. has lost a National Academy member to a foreign country because of scarce U.S. research dollars.
While recognizing that difficult budget decisions that must be made for the nation's fiscal health, the President's proposed budget for these three agencies will serve the nation well in advancing science and technology which will subsequently undergird the economy, security and well being of the citizenry of the United States. Outlays in the natural and earth systems' science and technology programs of NOAA, NSF, and NASA will serve to improve and make the nation's surface, air and marine transportation safer and more efficient, advance energy technology, provide the scientific and
technological advances to help the defense industry better meet its technology needs, contribute to advances in public health, make the country more resilient to environmental hazards, provide agricultural, energy and
transportation sectors with seasonal outlooks, and create the knowledge base upon which society can make wise environmental management decisions. Environmental data collected and distributed by NASA, NSF and NOAA represent a national resource and are used by universities for research, education and outreach and especially by private industry to produce products and services.
Global nuclear war Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor Russia in Global Affairs, Is a New
Cold War Imminent?, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)
However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the
collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke
similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kievs sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russias strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other centers of power would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China
would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance,
157
either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly . International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant
separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of
nuclear strikes between them . Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one
or several major capitals of the world.
158
Earth Science DA Impact Food Shortages

Earth science cuts disrupt the ability to adapt to food shortages --- risks global conflict Colleton 11 (Nancy, President Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and Executive Director Alliance
for Earth Observations, Budget Cuts Put Environmental Intelligence At Risk, Space News, 4-20, http://spacenews.com/commentaries/110418-cuts-environmental-intelligence-risk.html)
The timing of this potential dumbing down of environmental intelligence couldnt be worse in light of the upward trend in natural disasters, like the recent catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in Japan and last years deadly Russian heat wave. The United States alone experienced a record 247 natural disaster events in 2010, according to Munich Re. Meanwhile, international competition is increasing as China has announced a plan to launch 13 weather satellites in the coming
report after report cautions about the destabilizing impacts of increasingly insufficient water resources, given the linkages between drought, wheat production, the world food crisis and civil unrest.
decade. And, Theres no doubt that tough choices must be made in tough economic times. These choices, however, must not compromise our nations ability to collect and deliver accurate and timely information about our world that enables governments, communities, companies and individuals to make sound decisions that save lives, protect and grow the economy, strengthen national security and improve our quality of life.
Environmental intelligence is the result of a critical but fragile supply chain that begins with science and observations ground sensors, ocean buoys, stream gauges, satellites, etc. and ends with actionable information that allows decision-makers to better respond and adapt to a changing planet. That supply chain is threatened, however, by broad cuts to the nations Earth-observing programs.
Most of us benefit from the environmental information supply chain almost every day in the form of that cherished weather report we consult before going to work or sending the kids off to school. The weather information supply chain begins with NASA research and development, which leads to technology that is transit ioned to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for operational purposes. NOAA satellites and other instruments collect and store environmental data that are fed into complex computer models. That model output fuels forecasts provided by NOAAs National Weather Service and the $1.7 billion private-sector weather services industry, which in turn delivers value-added weather information and alerts to media outlets, farmers and agricultural companies, transportation authorities, and even directly to your smartphone. What many people do not realize is that the supply chain process that produces that much-valued weather report is years to decades in the making and is threatened by looming gaps in critical data due in large part to funding deficits combined with satellites operating beyond their planned lifetimes, with replacements either not ready or not planned. These same gaps also threaten a similar supply chain process sometimes involving different players such as the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey that produces a variety of vital information products related to oceans, drought, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, forests, polar ice, climate and more.
, each time Earth science investment is reduced, the nations ability to monitor and forecast tornadoes and tsunamis, for example, or provide data for the emerging wind energy market is threatened. And its not just the satellites
Therefore and other instruments that monitor the planet that are jeopardized by slash-and-burn budget cuts, but also critical improvements in computing capabilities, efforts to integrate data sets across numerous federal agencies whose formats are incompatible with one another, and the mechanisms by which the public and private sectors deliver data to users and decision-makers in a timely manner. Significant sacrifices are an unfortunate reality in the face of hard economic challenges. But the proposed U.S. budget cuts lack a nuanced approach that recognizes potential long-term impacts and costs that would far outweigh the benefit of any short-term savings. They also illuminate another important issue: No long-term
vital programs that enable us to see how the planet is changing to capture and deliver information needed military planners to prepare for friction caused by drought-induced food shortages, or government officials to respond to disasters such as the
national vision exists for these by energy companies to better manage resources, emergency workers to respond to a hurricane or earthquake, Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Perhaps the question shouldnt be what can we cut, but rather how do we better invest to better protect our citizens and grow the economy?
cutting too deep or without care or a plan will almost certainly lead to inadequacies in the information needed to make sound decisions related to our environment, which impacts every sector of the U.S. economy, today and for many years and decades to come.
In a time of national budget woes, its fantasy to think that any one agency or program is immune to cuts. We must beware, however, that
That escalates and risks extinction Klare 6 (Michael, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies Hampshire College, The Coming Resource
Wars, 3-11, http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=53710&keybold=water%20 land%20conflict)
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a
"
159
Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves"
greater stock of vital resources. " and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the risk of "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more
resulting
state collapse, civil war and mass migration.
"In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation
deadly weapons. as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate,
no society, however affluent, will
escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
160
Exploration leads to Trade off

NASA funding is zero-sum --- exploration robs funds from Earth science Robinson 8 (Michael, Professor of History Hillyer College, Before We Send a Man to Mars We Should
Remember the Wasted Efforts Spent Finding the North Pole, History News Network, 7-7, http://hnn.us/node/5138 6)
But Wellmans story is worth taking seriously, especially as the United States gears up to replace the aging shuttle fleet. NASAs course, like Wellmans, has been shaped by tragic events. The destruction of Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003 brought about much soul searching, and strengthened the agencys commitment to safety. Yet NASA has focused most of its attention on improving the methods of exploration, rather than assessing its merits. Like Wellman, they have chosen to honor their fallen comrades by focusing on the construction of better machines, not the development of better missions. Consider President Bushs 2004 speech A Renewed Spirit of Discovery, in which he lays out his vision for the U.S. space program. The document runs a little over 1400 words. Boiled down, it says this: send Americans back into space, first to the moon, then Mars. NASA now proceeds accordingly, gearing up, as Americans did a century ago, to send very brave people to very distant places.
But space exploration is a
zero-sum game . Sending astronauts to Mars (a planet now studied quite efficiently by rovers, orbiters, and, as of late May, the Phoenix Lander) requires an enormous investment that will come at the expense of smaller, more useful, scientific projects . Already NASA plans to cut millions of dollars from the space science budget over the next five years. The savings will help cover a portion of the staggering costs of the Constellation Program, an initiative to design and produce a new generation of launch vehicles (Ares)
and crew exploration vehicles (Orion).
Exploration missions are massively expensive --- forces internal trade-offs with Earth science NAST 8 (NASA Aeronautics Support Team (Non-Profit Organization of Community Leaders, Business Leaders,
and Former NASA Officials), NASAs Role in the 21st Century, Fall, http://nastus.org/documents/NASARole.21st Century.pdf)
The budget needs of the Human Space Flight program (shuttle support, ISS development and assembly and now CEV/Orion) have forced significant reductions in the budgets of its other missions . Aeronautics in particular has been hollowed out (it historically has comprised about 10% of NASAs budget, but has been slashed by almost 70%, to 3% of the agencys annual outlay), while the space and Earth science areas are just now also experiencing some of that same budget pain. The economic
challenges faced by the US in the 21st century include the rapid development of innovation-driven economies in Europe and Asia, and the restructuring of our energy supply driven by the convergence of peak oil and climate change. Given the right grand challenges and sufficient funding, NASA can help the US maintain
its global preeminence by providing the investor/early adopter role in the key technologies that will shape the development of civilization in the coming decades. In that context, our
proposed set of grand challenges for NASA is: 1) Intelligent, robotic exploration of the solar system and universe. 2) Monitoring and predicting climate change and the impact of mitigation strategies. 3) Stimulating the reinvention of the US air transportation system into an environmentally friendly, safe and energy efficient system. 4) Development of the replacement for the Space Shuttle and continuation of human space exploration. 1) Intelligent, robotic exploration of the solar system and universe There is still the spirit of exploration in much of what NASA does today, no more so than the programs that produce the robotic explorers of the universe. While no one disputes that exploration and discovery in our universe and beyond must remain a key part of NASA, it is a very real question as to how best to achieve the
maximum amount of exploration/discovery given real budget, technology and time constraints . Given that human space exploration is massively expensive , one should
161
ask the obvious question, Should NASAs continued exploration of the Moon, Mars, and other worlds involve just a handful of humans (astronauts), or should this exploration program be
restructured so that it will provide the opportunity for all humans to explore? Robotic explorers will increasingly
provide, through the technologies of machine intelligence,8 virtual reality, and high bandwidth communication, a near-real-time space exploration experience to all citizens, making everyone a virtual astronaut instead of a privileged few. Further, not requiring the development and fielding of future exploration systems that protect humans from the harsh environment of space will radically reduce the cost and time required to explore other worlds. With current projections showing that machine intelligence will begin to rival human intelligence by the beginning of the third decade of this century, the argument that human intelligence is required as the primary emphasis in space exploration is greatly diminished.
Cost overruns will cause funding raids on Earth science accounts --- devastates the program Chyba 11 (Christopher, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs Princeton University,
Hearing on Contribution of Space to National Imperatives, Space Ref, 5-19, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37102) Second, the report insists on scientific integrity. Each option presented for consideration was examined for its impact on science, and all else being equal options that did a better job furthering science were rated more highly. But human spaceflight should not be justified with exaggerated claims about its scientific payoff. Exploration with astronauts can have significant scientific benefits in several areas beyond the tautological justification of studying what happens to humans in space. As was emphasized by scientists' testimony to the committee, astronauts have a tremendous advantage over robot spacecraft when it comes to field geology in particular. The ability to pick up a rock, turn it over, expose a fresh surface with a hammer and then use geological expertise to decide whether to move on or instead to "dig in" and examine the current site in detail is a human capability that far exceeds anything robot rovers can currently do. In a similar way, the ability to service and repair spaceobservatories that face unanticipated problems favors the astronaut over the robot. But astronauts are also far more expensive than robot spacecraft or rovers, and have their greatest advantage in the most complex environments and circumstances. Mars is the most complicated surface environment we will face in the foreseeable future, so it is where astronauts will provide the greatest advantage. But it will be decades before humans walk on that world--if we are lucky--and for most other science in space, humans often get in the way. Moreover, if NASA's space science budget is not protected, it could be raided to fund cost
overruns in the human program. Human spaceflight, if it is to be justified and sustained, needs to be aligned with national priorities. Were key space-based research to be cut to fund human spaceflight, human spaceflight would be put into opposition with those priorities. This would serve neither science nor the future of human spaceflight well. Overall NASA budget is extremely tight --- new exploration missions trade-off with Earth science NAST 8 (NASA Aeronautics Support Team (Non-Profit Organization of Community Leaders, Business Leaders,
and Former NASA Officials), NASAs Role in the 21st Century, Fall, http://nastus.org/documents/NASARole.21st Century.pdf) From its humble beginning as NACA in 1915 to its glorious period of moon landings, to its post cold-war doldrums, the agency has had one singular calling card, innovation in aerospace contributing to the economic and military superiority for the United States. In recent years, a new exploration vision has been launched, but it requires little innovation, and the science missions that have generated the most new knowledge and innovation within NASA have declined due to budget cuts. In the process the internal capacity of the agency to innovate has seriously eroded. It is time to reawaken NASAs spirit of innovation in aerospace before it is no longer possible. In so doing, NASA will once again become a vital contributor to our national capacity to innovate, the only sure way to maintain our global economic and military leadership in a world
162

economy rapidly evolving into innovation and knowledge driven economy. The reawakening of NASAs spirit and capacity to innovate will involve a major reinvention and reconstitution of the Agency. A major challenge
that must be faced in such a reinvention is commitment of the bulk of the Agencys budget to replacement of the Space Shuttle through the Constellation program, so as to be able
to guarantee nearterm full utilization of the International Space Station for meaningful scientific research. Current plans also call for a lunar landing by the end of the next decade (c. 2020). It is clear that the next President will review the strategic value and operational challenges to make that objective the next critical milestone beyond the Shuttles retirement. Whether the next Administration decides to continue on the current path of the moon first and then on to Mars for human exploration, it is critical that this mission plan not come at the
expense of NASAs other historical and continually relevant missions in space science, Earth science, and aeronautics, which form the core of NASA knowledge creation and innovation. As a result, the next evolution of space policy should carefully assess how these multiple missions can progress so that NASAs core missions are not compromised by the evolution of the Agencys human exploration objectives1. Exploration siphons-off funds from climate modeling --- its zero-sum Chameides 9 (Bill, Dean and Nicholas Professor of the Environment Duke University, Is NASA Spacing
Out?, The Green Grok, 7-20, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/moonwalk) Do Manned Space Expeditions Make Sense? Now theres a plan afoot to again send humans where only 12 men have boldly gone before. The new mission would first send people to the Moon for weeks and weeks at a time, and graduate to a manned mission to Mars. Cool, just like landing men on the moon was cool back in the 60s and 70s, even to a long-haired college student crisscrossing Europe. But I have to ask, given todays budget crunch and the advancements in robotics, is cool enough of a reason to send humans to the moon and beyond? Dont get me wrong; learning about the planets and stars, dark matter and dark forces is one of humanitys greatest intellectual endeavors. Not only should we fix our gaze on space; we must. But manned missions are not the only way to learn about our world. Virtually all of the aforementioned information about the Earth was obtained using unmanned space-borne platforms. And unmanned missions to the planets have provided us with a wealth of information (at a fraction of the cost) for example we've been able to do detailed, complex analyses of soil from Mars without the benefit of a human hand. Deciding what NASA does with its funds has always been somewhat of a zero sum game . Doing more of one thing generally means doing less of another. And there's a clear trade-off between high-visibility, manned, space exploration and unmanned missions that are able to bring home the scientific bacon without all the hoopla. Already grumbles from my colleagues at NASA indicate that the push to prepare for a Mars mission is siphoning off funds from already beleaguered Earth-observing programs . Given all the
issues we face right here at home (did anyone say climate change?), this doesn't make sense.
163
***Solvency***
164
Technology Exists Now

No need for technological breakthroughs lunar infrastructure will created by adapting existing technologies Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. 117, p. SpringerLink, MV)
The global settlement of the Moon will require electric power and communications as well as transportation networks (the lunar utility infrastructure), on and below the lunar surface. Without these elements in place, the exploration of the Moon and other large-scale tasks would be difficult. When in-situ resource utilization capabilities begin producing infrastructure components, such as solar cells, bricks, metal structures, and electric cable, the placement of a permanent global utilities infrastructure on the Moon will commence. Although technological advances and innovation are expected as a by-product of lunar development, virtually all of the infrastructure needs of the Moon can be satisfied by simply adapting existing Earth-based technologies to the lunar environment. There is no need for technological breakthroughs.
Moon colonization is feasible resources and technology exists Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. 80-81, p. SpringerLink, MV) As shown in the previous chapters, the
Moon has the energy and material resources that are needed to sustain permanent human colonies, and the technology exists to undertake large-scale lunar development projects. The question of whether it is possible to colonize the Moon has been answered in the affirmative. The first step on the road to a globally-inhabited Moon will be to establish an unmanned robotic outpost. From these, extensive analysis and research (including mining and manufacturing experiments) will be performed and the first elements of a global utilities infrastructure will become operational. These activities will prepare the way for colonization to follow. The polar regions of the Moon are probably the best locations for initial lunar base activities. Evidence of hydrogen (implying water-ice deposits) was discovered by the Lunar Prospector mission. Due to favorable topography, EarthMoonSun geometries, and access to resources, Mons Malapert in the south polar region is an excellent location for the first lunar base.
165
Self-sufficiency
Generating self-supporting habitation facilities will be easier than doing so on the ISS Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. 101-103, p. SpringerLink, MV) Reliable life-support systems must be developed for permanent human habitation. They need air, food, and water to survive, as well as regenerative waste management systems (see Figure 6.4). Manned
space missions such as the International Space Station are partially-closed life-support systems, in which water and oxygen are recycled, but food is periodically supplied from Earth and solid wastes are stored for later removal. However, it will be easier to create self-supporting human habitations on the Moon than in Earth orbit! The reason is that the Moon has local material resources that can be used to support human missions, whereas Earth-orbiting stations are dependent upon re-supply missions from the Earth.2 As noted earlier, the lunar base will also be safer than Earth-orbiting stations because the habitats on the Moon can provide higher levels of protection for the crews from the hazards of space.
As the term implies, ECLSS provides the crew with the basic conditions for life functions and comfort parameters that directly impact crew survival and productivity, Therefore, a safe and reliable environmental control and life-support system is essential to the successful operation of a crewed lunar base. Two
approaches exist in the design of ECLSS to date. They are physio-chemical systems and biological biospheric systems. 6.4.3 Physico-chemical (non-biological) systems Expendable or regenerative chemicals can be used to recycle air and water. By circulating the effluents through a variety of chemical filters and processes, it is possible to maintain the atmosphere and the water in the proper constitution for life.
The operational characteristics of these systems are well understood and routinely employed in spacecraft today. They are dependable,
for permanently-manned lunar bases, the material resources needed to operate such systems must be replenished at
show highly predictable behavior, and are rather easy to operate. However, considerable expense. While small physico-chemical systems are adequate for short-term missions and activities, more capable regenerative systems will be needed to sustain the operations of a lunar base that supports tens to hundreds of people over long periods of time. 6.4.4 Biological-biospheric systems Biospherics
is a newly-evolving discipline that studies and emulates the environmental, ecological, and life-support system of planet Earth. Advances in biospherics show much promise in the development of CLSS that can be applied to long-duration habitats on the Moon, and eventually Mars. By introducing biological systems such as plants and animals into a cycle that resembles an ecological system on Earth, a symbiotic, balanced, and efficient ECLSS can be evolved. Such systems can be designed to regenerate food supplies (something that physico-chemical systems do not do) through complex feedback loops that are being developed and tested now with encouraging results. The result is a system that can imitate the functions of the Earth by regenerating the air, water, and food within the enclosure with only minimal additional input. Such a system is
referred to as a sustainable ecological life-support system (SELSS). Current experimental life-support systems show promise but are quite complex in their layout and function, and their performance has not been consistent, However, as experience with these systems increases, so will reliability and case of operations. The
long-term goal of the ECLSS community is to

166
produce a fully-closed system that can regenerate all of the water, air, and food without adding anything to the system
after startup. This ideal3 system is often referred to as the closed ecological life- support system or CELSS. 6.4.5 Medical care Humans will need medical care on the Moon, and the first crews to return to the Moon will include physicians. The crews that are selected for trips to the Moon will have no pre-existing medical conditions and will be in excellent physical condition. Their health status will be monitored regularly, as in human spaceflight today, by Earth-based medical specialists on a minimum interference basis. However, there is an inevitable element of risk of injuries and other acute medical problems on lunar missions, and plans must be made for emergency medical treatment. The Moon is only three days' travel time from the Earth and a crew member who develops appendicitis or other serious medical conditions can be flown back to Earth for treatment. For less serious conditions (e.g., infections and minor injuries), medical problems will be handled on the Moon by the crew, using limited medical facilities and supplies, As more tools and equipment are delivered to the Moon with each crew, however, an increasingly-sophisticated on-site medical diagnosis and treatment capability will evolve, and it will become possible to treat more serious problems such as burns and broken bones on the Moon without curtailing lunar missions. Telemedicine techniques will also allow Earth-based physicians to assist in medical diagnostic and treatment procedures on the Moon (Figure 6.5). Moon has all the resources needed for human civilization it possesses all the elements found on earth
Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. 49-50, p. SpringerLink, MV) 3.1 INTRODUCTION The
Moon has more than sufficient resources for all phases of lunar
development. It also has access to the vacuum of space from the lunar surface, low gravity (as compared with the Earth), and other unique features that will enhance exploration and development projects on and from the Moon. The present chapter reviews the resources that the Moon offers for future exploration and settlement. 3.2 ELEMENTS The cost of transporting payloads from the Earth to the Moon is greater than U.S. $20,000 per kilogram. Lunar activities will be greatly facilitated if the materials that are needed for exploration and settlement are obtained directly from the Moon. The Moon possesses all of the elements that are found on Earth. From these elements a global infrastructure that supports all human activities on the Moon can be constructed. The elemental composition of the
Moon is usually described in two categories major elements and trace elements. In general. a major element is one that constitutes more than 1 percent of the total. Table 3.1 lists the major elements found on the Moon, based on analysis of lunar samples. Trace amounts of other important elements that are present in the regolith are listed in Table 3.2. Many of the lighter
elements in Table 3-2 are delivered to the lunar regolith by the solar wind. As previously mentioned, iron, aluminum, and titanium will be used for construction materials, while silicon is used in the production of computer chips, photovoltaic (solar) cells, fiber-optic cables, mirrors, and lenses. The trace elements will be used to produce fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and sugars that are needed for life-support systems,1 as well as plastics. The inert elements such as helium and neon will be used for compressed gas and other applications. The lighter isotope of helium (He-3) is present in greater concentrations on the Moon than on the Earth, and it has significant economic potential as a fuel for future atomic fusion reactors (see Appendix H).
Moon contains all the raw materials needed for colonization and technology exists to exploit them
Schrunk, 99
167

(Space: beyond 1999 Chemistry & Industry, 20 December, The Moon: resources, future development and colonization David Schrunk, Burton Sharpe, Bonnie Cooper & Madhu Thangavelu) If only we'd listened to Gerry Anderson, we'd be living there by now. His Space:1999 television series was based in Moonbase Alpha, the first permanent lunar colony, staffed by a multinational team of scientists and military personnel in space-age fashions. Or, to take a slightly more high-brow example from science fiction, Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: a space odyssey showed industry taking its first steps into space, with Pan-Am flying to orbiting hotels and the mineralogical exploration of the lunar surface. What these visions of the near future assumed was that the impetus of the US Apollo programme would continue past the initial goal of sending a couple of test pilots for a lunar walkabout and round of golf, into serious long-term colonisation and exploitation of the near extraterrestrial environment. What they didn't count on was the collective failure of nerve that saw funding slashed and the grand project abandoned. Once the glory was won, this government-driven project fell to fundamentally political pressures, from a Congress jealous of the billions of dollars sequestered by NASA and from a disillusioned public, who, at a time of social turmoil at home and unpopular military intervention overseas, came to view the space programme as a grotesquely grandiose extension of US foreign policy. But is the time now right to return to the Moon - not, this time, in a politically driven, publicly funded national gala, but in a long-term multilateral industrial venture based on solid commercial and scientific returns? David Schrunk, Burton Sharpe, Bonnie Cooper and Madhu Thangavelu believe it is, and this book is their manifesto. A multidisciplinary team who met by chance at a 1994 conference on lunar exploration, the authors have a vision of the Moon as the ultimate out-of-town science park.
Virtually all of the raw materials needed by any lunar colony are already there, they argue. And the technology needed to exploit them is available today. All that appears to be missing is the will. Chemistry and the chemical industry would inevitably play a leading role in the colonisation and exploitation of the moon. Importing materials from Earth is prohibitively expensive, thanks to the $10,000/lb cost of carrying mass away from the home planet's gravitational clutches. But all the elements needed for colonisation are available hidden in the regolith - the rubble of rock fragments and dust that covers the lunar surface. The challenge is the universal challenge of chemistry: how to manipulate those elements into useful molecular forms. The need to live off the land would fuel the development of a uniquely lunar chemical industry. The regolith contains metals, minerals and oxygen, and inert elements such as helium and neon, useful for compressed gas and other applications. And a high concentration of helium-3 promises plentiful fuel for fusion reactors. While few of the organic feedstocks of the terrestrial industry are available on the Moon, trace elements including carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are constantly delivered by the solar wind. As earlier researchers noted, one cubic metre of regolith contains the chemical equivalent of lunch for two, with plenty of carbon and nitrogen left over. The regolith can therefore provide the building blocks for the fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, sugars, water and oxygen needed to support life, and for the whole portfolio of polymers and plastics. A series of inorganic reactions can create simple organic molecules such as ethene and formaldehyde, which can then be built into basic foodstuffs and plastics. A small-scale industry encompassing organic chemistry, biochemistry and plastics could be founded in the first stages of colonisation - perhaps with automated production units landed on the surface to ensure a supply of these chemicals for the first human settlers. Water is another basic requirement of any colony, and recent studies indicating the presence of up to six billion tonnes of ice bode well for colonisation plans.
Moon has a wealth of resources that can be used for construction and operation of a base
168

Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. xl, p. SpringerLink, MV) I.2.2 Availability of energy and material resources The
Moon, which lacks an atmosphere, receives abundant, energy from the Sun. Sunlight can be converted into electricity with lunarmade solar panels to supply the Moon with all of the power needed for global exploration and development. Sunlight could also be used for operating solar ovens, heat engines, and thermal management systems . The Moon has a wealth of raw materials that can be applied to the construction and operation of lunar bases. The lunar soil (regolith) contains iron, aluminum, calcium, silicon, titanium, and oxygen, as well as trace amounts of lighter elements such as carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen. Increased concentrations of hydrogen, detected by the Lunar Prospector Satellite, suggest the presence of water ice in the polar regions. With due precautions to preserve important geologic information, the lunar regolith will become the feedstock for lunar base industrial processes that manufacture wires, lenses, solar cells, and construction materials.
169
Cost Effective
Recycling equipment makes Moon colonization cost-effective in the long-term Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. 90, p. SpringerLink, MV) 5.6.8 Growth of the lunar base Over
a period of several years, re-supply missions will deliver additional consum- ables, replace or upgrade old equipment, and add new capabilities, until full-scale industrial operations are established. Ideally, all new equipment would be designed with interchangeable parts so that they can eventually be cannibalized for use in other applications. Getting to the Moon costs a lot, but operating things that are already there should cost far less. Once things are there, they do not go away, so recycling and refurbishing the old tools and materials will be an important element in the lunar machine life cycle, The increasing capability and sophistication of industrial activities will enable operators on Earth to direct the construction of lunar pathways and shelters in preparation for the return of humans to the
Moon.
170
Fast Timeframe
Moon colonization is affordable and can be accomplished on reasonable time scales Spudis and Lavoie 2010 (Paul, Lunar and Planetary Institute, and Tony Lavoie, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return, December 19, http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Affordable_Lunar_Base.pdf.)
This return to the Moon is affordable and can be accomplished on reasonable time scales. Instead of single missions to exotic destinations, where all hardware is discarded as the mission progresses, we instead focus on the creation of reusable and extensible space systems, flight assets that are permanent and useable for future exploration beyond LEO. In short, we get value for our money. Instead of a fiscal black hole, this extensible space program becomes a generator of innovation and national wealth. It is challenging enough to drive technological innovation yet within reach on a reasonable timescale.
171
Launch Mechanisms
Shuttle is not the only option - Soyuz spacecraft can work for the Moon empirically worked for the Soviets Foust 4 editor and publisher of The Space Review (8/2/04, Jeff, operator of SpaceToday.net and the Space Politics weblog, The
Space Review, Soyuz to the Moon? http://www.thespacereview.com/article/199/1, MV)
Conventional wisdom over the last several months has been that any human return to the Moon will notbarring an unlikely crash Chinese programtake place for a decade or more. The
shuttle, obviously, is not capable of such a mission, and its successor, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), is not planned to enter service before about 2014, assuming all goes as planned. That would indicate that it will be at least that long, and perhaps longer, before humans again venture beyond low Earth orbit. The
shuttle, however, is not the only means of carrying people into orbit; the Soyuz spacecraft has performed that duty for over three decades. The Soyuz today is seen exclusively as a taxi and lifeboat for crews on the International Space Station, but a few see an expanded role for the venerable spacecraft. At a presentation during the Return to the Moon conference in Las Vegas July 17, David Anderman, chief operating officer of Constellation Services International (CSI), offered an innovative approach that could turn the Soyuz from an ISS ferry to a circumlunar spacecraft with potential commercial applications. A Soyuz lunar architecture At first glance it seems unlikely, even preposterous, that a Soyuz spacecraft could be sent to the Moon and back. However, with the right approach, and the right additional hardware, Anderman believes that every Soyuz launched to the ISS is a potential lunar spacecraft. The key to this Lunar Express approach is addition of a new component, a logistics module, to the Soyuz. In the strawman mission architecture Anderman outlined in his
conference presentation, the logistics module and an upper stage are launched into an ISS orbit by a generic launch vehicle. Anderman stressed that the logistics module was not tied to a specific launch vehicle to aid in the flexibility of the mission design; in an animation he showed at the conference the module was launched by a rocket bearing a NASA logo but resembling neither an Atlas nor a Delta. Once
the module and upper stage were in orbit, a Soyuz spacecraft that had completed its half-year stay at the ISS would undock from the station and dock with the logistics module. The upper stage attached to the other end of the logistics module then fires, sending the complete spacecraft on a free-return circumlunar trajectory. The upper stage is
jettisoned after the translunar injection burn, leaving the Soyuz and logistics module to complete the six-day round-trip mission. Back at Earth, the Soyuz return module separates from the rest of the spacecraft, as normal, and performs a double-dip reentry to handle the higher velocity of returning from the Moon. A similar approach could be used to recycle Progress cargo spacecraft at the end of their ISS missions. Instead of allowing the spacecraft to burn up in the Earths atmosphere, they could be docked with a logistics module and upper stage. In this case, instead of sending the spacecraft around the Moon, the Progress spacecraft would be sent to the Earth-Moon L1 point. Several such spacecraft could be docked together there, Anderman suggested, creating a supply depot and perhaps the core of an eventual human base that would be used a staging point for missions to the lunar surface or beyond. The linchpin to both architectures is the logistics module, a spacecraft that doesnt yet exist. As envisioned by Anderman, the logistics module would be a simple cylindrical module with docking interfaces at either end, one for the Soyuz or Progress and the other for the upper stage. The module would be equipped with a docking radar and communications system designed to work at lunar distances. The module would also carry the food, water, and other supplies needed for a manned circumlunar mission, and provide additional habitation volume. Perhaps most importantly, though, Anderman said, is that the module would carry a new toilet: the toilet currently used on Soyuz missions, located in the orbital module, is designed to support three people for only two to four days. Anderman gave no estimates about how long it would take to develop this module, or at what cost. Given that CSIs focus to date has been on commercial resupply missions to the ISS, the implication was that the logistics module might be derived from vehicles the company would develop to carry supplies to the station.
While sending a Soyuz to the Moon might seem novel, Anderman noted that it had already been done, in a sense. In the late 1960s the Soviet Union sent several
172
stripped-down unmanned Soyuz spacecraft, called Zond, to the Moon in a bid to develop a
manned lunar vehicle that could beat the Americans to the Moon. The Zonds, superficially similar to todays Soyuz but lacking an orbital module, suffered some problems during their flights, including guidance problems, and the program was canceled before any manned missions could fly once the US beat the USSR to the Moon. The Soyuz spacecraft used for Lunar Express missions would have to carry the heavier heat shields developed for the Zond program, incurring a 300-kilogram mass penalty. However, Anderman suggested that this mass could be recouped as more powerful variants of the Soyuz booster enter service in the years to come.
173
Location/Habitats
Moons polar regions are ideal for a base capable of receiving solar power 90% of the year
Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. xxii, p. SpringerLink, MV)
The polar regions of the Moon will likely play a strategic role in the first phases of lunar exploration and development. The summit of Mons Malapert, according to our
calculations, always has the Earth and Shackleton Crater (at the lunar south pole) in view for direct and continuous high-bandwidth communications. Moreover, it may
receive sunlight for solar power generation for as much as 90 percent of the lunar year. These favorable characteristics will have to be verified by analysis of imaging data from
satellites (such as SMART-l and the planned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter), and by lander missions that obtain "ground truth information. If our calculations are confirmed, Mons
Malapert would offer great advantages for establishing a permanent foothold on the Moon. Lunar lava tubes are ideal for space bases - protects against temperatures, UV radiation, and meteors CNN.com 10
(January 1, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-01/tech/moon.lava.hole_1_lunar-base-lava-flows-lunar-surface)
Building a home near a moon crater or a lunar sea may sound nice, but moon colonists might have a much better chance of survival if they just lived in a hole. That's the message sent by an international team of scientists who say they've discovered a protected lunar "lava tube" -- a deep, giant hole -- that might be well suited for a moon colony or a lunar base. The vertical hole, in the volcanic Marius Hills region on the moon's
near side, is 213 feet wide and is estimated to be more than 260 feet deep, according to findings published in Geophysical Research
More important, the scientists say, the hole is protected from the moon's harsh temperatures and meteorite strikes by a thin sheet of lava. That makes the tube a good candidate for further exploration or possible inhabitation, the article says. "Lunar lava tubes are a potentially important location for a future lunar base, whether for local exploration and development, or as an outpost to serve exploration beyond the Moon," writes the team, led by Junichi Haruyama, a senior researcher with the Japanese space agency JAXA. "Any intact lava tube could serve as a shelter from the severe environment of the lunar surface, with its meteorite impacts, high-energy UV radiation and energetic particles, and extreme diurnal temperature variations." Lava tubes have previously been discovered on the moon, but the scientists say the new hole
Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. is notable because of its lava shield and because it does not appear to be prone to collapse. Lave tubes exist on Earth and also have been found on Mars. The cylinder-shaped caverns can be carved out by lava flows, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity or ground collapse resulting from meteoroid strikes. The scientists used high-resolution images from a Japanese moon orbiter called SELENE to discover this lunar lava tube. The findings were published November 12, but they grabbed the attention of the public this week. NASA is reportedly working on plans to return to the moon by 2020 and to set up a temporary lunar colony by 2025 as part of the
174

Constellation Program. Funding for the program, however, remains somewhat in question. The American space agency could not be reached for comment.
175
Off-Case Answers
176
A2 Privatization CP w/ Perm
1. Perm: Do counter plan then do plan. This way NSEA can take advantage of any technological advances made in aeronautics and space by private companies. 2. Perm do both: The private sector cant do it alone, government involvement is key Singla 11 (Vinita, Masters @ City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, master's in
political studies @ Queen's University, NASA Takes a New Route in Space Leadership, CNBC.com, 8 Jul 2011, http://www.cnbc.com/id/43470129, CGW) Again, critics disagree. "In order to retain our capabilities we need both commercial and federally-led efforts," says Dr. Mark Lewis, a professor at the University of Maryland and former chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force. Private industry can't go it alone. It would be
like expecting private industry to develop a private fighter jet on its own. It's too expensive and would require too much speculative investment. Space is certainly a modern growth industry, but it is a very broad one, which complicates the discussion of the space race. The global space sector grew for the fifth
straight year in 2010, up 7.7 percent to $276.52 billion, based on the Space Foundation's annual study. The industry is expected to grow 5 percent annually until 2020, according to the UK Space Agency. The bulk of that money is from the private sector and for commercial purposes. For every orbital launch in 2010, there were 13 active satellites, a growing number of them dedicated to serving the broadband internet connectivity hardly a great technological leap into the unknown. Total government spending is only a quarter of the money involved.
3. Private development fails without Government involvement Empirically proven through the Soviet Unions attempt to force economic utility. Dudley-Flores and Gangale in 07 [Marilyn Dudley-Flores, CEO/Chief Research Scientist of
AIAA, and Thomas Gangale, Executive Director of AIAA, AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition, 18 - 20 September 2007 The Globalization of Space The Astrosociological Approach p. 14-16, PN]
This may sound like a chicken-and-egg problem. Private
enterprise is ill-positioned to develop infrastructure that it requires to thrive. Technocracygovernment-directed technological developmenthas its limits, and may be politically motivated to develop capabilities that have little or no economic utility. A case in point is the depopulation of Siberia that has been occurring since the collapse of communism. The Soviet Union built infrastructure and forcibly moved population in a massive effort to colonize Siberia and extract its natural resources. Under a command economy, it was not clear that this was an uneconomical project, but as Russia has transitioned to a market economy, an increasing number of people have found that they cannot make a decent living in Siberia despite its vast natural wealth. There are enormous costs associated with extracting those resources in the extreme environment, and furthermore, there are considerable costs attached to transporting goods out of this remote region of the Earth to market. So, millions of Russians are abandoning the frontier to return to the bosom of Mother Russias European heartland. Now, Siberia is paradise next door compared to the distant and forbidding Moon and Mars, yet here private enterprise is retreating from an ecology that government established. Private enterprise only recently duplicated Alan Shepards 1961 suborbital flight. How
credible is it that private enterprise is going to blaze trails to the planets in our lifetime?
177
A2 Space Debris DA
SQ Solves- Detection Madison et al 11
(James Mason, Jan Stupl, William Marshall, Creon Levit, Cornell university space physics author Orbital Debris-Debris Collision Avoidance http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1690, March 9th, CJD) We focus on preventing collisions between debris and debris, for which there is no current, effective mitigation strategy. We investigate the feasibility of using a medium-powered (5 kW) ground-based laser combined with a ground-based telescope to prevent collisions between debris objects in low-Earth orbit (LEO). The scheme utilizes photon pressure alone as a means to perturb the orbit of a debris object. Applied over multiple engagements, this alters the debris orbit sufficiently to reduce the risk of an upcoming conjunction . We employ standard
assumptions for atmospheric conditions and the resulting beam propagation. Using case studies designed to represent the properties (e.g. area and mass) of the current debris population, we show that one could significantly reduce the risk of nearly half of all catastrophic collisions involving debris using only one such laser/telescope facility. We speculate on whether this could mitigate the debris fragmentation rate such that it falls below the natural debris re-entry rate due to atmospheric drag, and thus whether continuous long-term operation could entirely mitigate the Kessler syndrome in LEO, without need for relatively expensive active debris removal. SQ Efforts Solve Space Debris
Periscope 11 (news website, Space is full of our junk, Space Fence needed, http://www.periscopepost.com/author/periscope/, July 12th 2011, CJD) News that NASAs final space shuttle Atlantis successfully docked with the International Space Station on Sunday delighted space enthusiasts. But its not all plain sailing in space. A series of alerts sounded
on the International Space Station over the last few weeks have highlighted the problem of how much space debris there is out there and how much of the human-made litter is not picked up by radars until it is dangerously close to colliding with satellites or space stations. Plans are already afoot to build a $3.5 billion Space Fence scanner to track the estimated 500,000 pieces of space debris bigger than half-an-inch long that are believed to be in orbit. Existing tracking systems can fail to pick up smaller debris, which although small, is potentially life-threatening. At orbital speeds of up to 17,500mph, even an inch-wide piece of debris could destroy a satellite or damage the space station if it struck in the wrong place,
noted the MSNBC Cosmic Log blog. This month marks the end of an era in American space exploration: After 30 years of ferrying materials and people from earth to space stations, repairing satellites, performing scientific studies, and all other manner of space maintenance, NASA, the nations space agency, is shuttering its shuttle programme. Read more here. Latest near squeak. One of the alerts, on June 28, came so late that the station didnt have time to get out of the way and the six astronauts living aboard the orbital outpost had to take shelter in Russian Soyuz lifeboats while debris of unknown origin zoomed past at a distance of just 850 feet (260 meters), warned MSNBC Cosmic Log blog. The other alert came Sunday, just as the space shuttle Atlantis was beginning its last visit to the space station. Dodging space junk. Kenneth Chang of The New York Times flagged up what happens when theres a space junk alert: Usually, when NASA gets a warning, several days in advance, that something that might come too close to the station, it moves the station by firing thrusters. Or, if a space shuttle happened to be visiting at the time, the shuttle would nudge the station out of danger. That has happened 12 times. Lockheed Martin is competing with Raytheon for the
Space Fence contract. The Air Force aims to have the system up and running by 2015. Watch their tub-thumping
videos below. We are heavily reliant on space. This issue has always been on the minds of people who are trying to use space for all the things that its used for today. We really are heavily reliant on space, John Morse, director of Lockheed Martins Space Fence Program, told Discovery News. Space and commerce. Throughout the past ten years, space has become inextricably linked
178
to all aspects of human life. Just try to imagine one day without essentials like ATM machines, GPS devices, DirectTV and Weather.com. Both private activity and global commerce largely depend on communication, remote sensing and navigation satellites from space, reminded
Scott Spence, Director, Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems.
No impact to space debris, other countries will fill in David 11

(Leonard, Space.com, How to Clean Up Space Junk: DARPA's Orbital Catcher's Mitt, http://www.space.com/11657-space-junk-orbital-debris-cleanup-darpa.html, AD)
Although space is not an ecosystem per se, the problem is dependent on the cumulative effects of human activity over and above the ability of the nature system to balance like any other environmental challenge," Pulliam said. Additionally, Pulliam
advised that the constraints on finding an agreeable, cost-effective solution are remarkably similar to other current environmental issues. Specifically, the orbital debris problem can be characterized as a "tragedy of the commons." The problem can also be explained by what is called "common but differentiated responsibility," which is also seen in other worldwide environmental challenges such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and global warming, Pulliam pointed out. "It
is likely new space-faring nations will make a similar argument if current mitigations efforts prove to be insufficient to forestall the deterioration of the low-Earth orbit environment and an international agreement on debris removal is required," Pulliam advised. There is a "therefore" to Pulliam's view: That is, if you are one that believes that debris has become a risk which will soon make operations difficult in low-Earth orbit, then a top-priority has to be in continued research into cost-effective methods to remove debris mass already in orbit. That's because this mass is what will cause the future growth in the debris population.
179
A2 Space Race
1. Non U: US militarization inevitable Pentagon pushing Space Daily 05
[SpaceDaily today is a network of inter related sites covering the earth sciences, energy technologies, military technologies and disaster news. Established with an international perspective from its earliest days, SpaceDaily.com has grown into a database of over 100,000 articles, Washington, The U.S. Military Wants Weapons in Space, April 16, 2005, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-05k.html] The Bush administration is advocating the weaponization of space to sustain the global dominance of the U.S. military. While the aggressive new policy aimed at making U.S. satellites capable of striking enemy targets both on the ground and in orbit may be scuttled by controversy or prohibited by cost, elements within the White House and the Pentagon will continue
to stress the military's increasing dependence on satellite technology and the dangers associated with sharing more and more outer-space real estate with other nations not always in synch with U.S. interests, the Christian Science Monitor reported. "Because we depend so heavily on space capabilities, we must be prepared when
directed to confront adversaries on the high ground of space," former Air Force Secretary Peter Teets told Congress in March. "If (diplomatic or non-lethal) measures fail, we reserve the right under international law to take defensive action against an adversary's space capability." With nations like China and Russia actively pursing treaties that would outlaw the deployment of space-based weapons, analysts say cosmic battlefields will only flourish if the president extends his policy of pre-emptive military action to the heavens.
"They will go there if we go there," says Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. "If somebody else did go first, we could go second very quickly and probably better." 2. No I/L: Russia wont militarize because of US Space Daily, 5
(Russia Fully Opposes Militarization Of Space - Foreign Ministry http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-05zc.html Moscow (SPX) May 23, 2005 Russia is active in preventing the placement of weapons in outer space, official spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Yakovenko restated last Friday, according to RIA Novosti. Yakovenko was commenting on statements - published in The Financial Times - made by Yermakov, the senior counselor of the Russian embassy in Washington, who allegedly said
Russia would consider using force if the United States put weapons in outer space. "Essentially, our position is that at different international forums Russia actively pursues a policy line in favor of preventing the placement of armaments in space. It is our consistent and principled position," stressed the official
spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Alexander Yakovenko restated what the Russian diplomat said at the Washington conference: "Our policy is not aimed at creating situations that could
lead to a confrontation. If we cannot find understanding with the administration of the United States and find ourselves in a situation when we have to react, we'll certainly do it." All the rest beyond the framework of this utterance is "the
daily's interpretation," Alexander Yakovenko said. In the opinion of the first deputy of the Russian defense minister, and chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, Yuri Baluevski, the United States President George Bush would not allow the militarization of space. "Today's generally recognized
international norms for representatives of all the leading powers prevent the militarization of space," Baluevski told RIA Novosti in an interview on Wednesday, May 18. He
said that this issue has been discussed many times in the United Nations and not a single state, including the United States, has so far officially declared a violation of the moratorium on the militarization of space."
180
3. No Impact: A Race into Space wouldnt escalate: other countries dont perceive it to be territorial expansion Dolman 5 Everett C. Dolman Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies US Air Force School
of Advanced Air and Space Studies, A Case for Weapons in Space, September 2010
It is an even more difficult dilemma for those who oppose weapons in general, and space weapons in particular. Ramifications for the most critical current function of the
Army, Navy, and Marinespacification, occupation, and control of foreign territoryare profound. With the downsizing of traditional weapons to accommodate heightened space expenditures, the ability to do all three would wane significantly. At a time when many are calling for increased capability to pacify
and police foreign lands, in light of the continuing commitments to the occupation and stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq, space weapons proponents must advocate reduction of these capabilities in favor of a system that will have no direct potential to do so. Hence, the argument that the unilateral deployment of space weapons will precipitate a disastrous arms race is further eroded. To be sure, space weapons are offensive by their very nature. They deter violence by the omnipresent threat of precise, measured, and unstoppable retaliation. But they offer no advantage in the mission of territorial occupation. As such, they are far less intimidating to the international environment than any combination of conventional weapons employed in their stead. What would be more
threatening to a state in opposition to American hegemony: a dozen lasers in space with pinpoint accuracy, or (for about the same price) a dozen low-tech infantry divisions massed on its border? A state employing offensive deterrence through space
weapons can punish a transgressor state, but it is in a poor position to challenge that states sovereignty. A transgressor state is less likely to succumb to the security dilemma if it perceives that its national survival is not at risk. Over time, the world of sovereign states may recognize that the United
States could not and would not use space weapons to threaten another countrys internal self-determination. The United States would still maintain the capacity to
challenge any attempts to directly intervene in the politics of others, and it would have severely restricted its own capacity to do so. Judicious and non-arbitrary use of a weaponized space eventually
could be seen as a net positive, an effective global police force that punishes criminal acts but does not threaten to engage in an imperial manner
181
A2 OST DA
1. N/U Russians Phobos Mission will tear up the OST by the end of 2011 DiGregorio 11 (Barry E., director of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return and
author of Mars: The Living Planet (North Atlantic Books), Dont send bugs to Mars, January 2011, http://io9.com/5721723/dont-send-bugs-to-mars DA; 6/24/11) Early spacecraft had to be thoroughly and expensively sterilised before they could be sent to the moon or planets. However, over the years this requirement has been watered down. The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) in Paris, France, has been charged with making adjustments based on new data. COSPAR now allows spacecraft to bypass any sterilisation as long as they are not carrying life-detection instruments or landing on areas of Mars designated as "special regions" - areas where liquid water could exist for short periods that might support terrestrial microbial growth. The problem with these policy changes is that they are premature: our knowledge about the survivability of life on Mars is constantly changing with each spacecraft mission. Numerous reports have debated whether terrestrial spores might be able to replicate and spread on Mars. We still don't know the answer, so why risk contaminating the most Earth-like planet in our solar system? Now a mission slated to launch in the second half of 2011 will
effectively tear up the treaty. The Russian Federal Space Agency's Phobos Sample Return Mission (formerly known as Phobos-Grunt) will send not just microbial spores but live bacteria into the solar system for the first time. If this isn't a direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty then what is? 2. N/U -Atlas rocket made clear that US intends to violate the OST Presscore 10 (US launches a first strike military spacecraft - the X-37B, 4/28/10, PressCore,
http://presscore.ca/nbg/index.php?entry=entry100428-214754 DA: 6/22/11)
On April 22, 2010 an
unmanned Atlas rocket carrying a miniature space shuttle blasted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The US military has built and launched an unmanned military aircraft in orbit around Earth, in direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The unmanned spacecraft can stay in orbit for months on end. It was built as a first strike spacecraft. The latest unmanned spacecraft launched by the US has triggered
concerns in China over a new arms race in space as the small shuttle is reported to have platforms to launch various types of missiles. The US could position this spacecraft over any country, open its cargo bay doors and launch a nuclear, biological or any other WMD.
This spacecraft gives the US the capacity and capability to launch missiles from space and with the aid of Earths gravity and the zero gravity of space, a missile being launched can achieve Mach 7 or faster. The
US has been very secretive about this mission. Perhaps it is because the X-37B is carrying a missile or missiles or the spacecraft itself is a weapon. No matter, on October 10, 1963.
the US has made it be known that it is its intention to militarize space in violation of the Outer Space Treaty - a treaty ratified by ninety five nations and entered into force 3. N/U Chinese ASAT test violated the OST Listner 11 (Michael, prolific writer for the Space Review, Space Policy Examiner, Indias ABM test: a
validated ASAT capability or a paper tiger?, March 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1807/1 DA: 6/24/11)
Chinese ASAT test and seeds of Indias ASAT interest The
Chinese government surprised the international community with the intentional destruction of its weather satellite Fengyun 1C on January 11, 2007, using its SC-19 ballistic missile to carry a kinetic kill vehicle4. The test was the first successful test of Chinas ASAT, and it was performed without warning to the international community and likely constituted a technical violation of Chinas obligations under the Outer Space Treaty5. Aside from international criticism, China suffered no sanctions for the test and the resulting debris cloud
182
4. N/L - OST cant stop conflicts in space militarization and changes in the nature of warfare ensure threats will continue Lewis 7 (James A., Director and Senior Fellow at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) for
the Technology and Public Policy Program, US/China: the Dynamics of Military Space, February 2007) Space weapons have been contemplated from the start in 1945, Army Air Force Commander Hap Arnold recommends to the Secretary of War that the United States (US) pursue the development of long range missiles and space ships capable of launching missiles against terrestrial targets. IN the 1950s, the Soviet Union threatened to launch nuclear weapons from satellites, leading both superpowers to being develop antisatellite weapons and, in the case of the Soviets, armed orbital vehicles. While the UN Outer Space
Treaty calls for the peaceful use of space and forbids the use of weapons of mass destruction, it does not forbid military use of space nor does it restrict the use of other kinds of weapons in space. But focusing on space weapons is unhelpful to understand the context for military conflict in space. If space weapons were banned, there would still be military conflict in space. More importantly, a simple ban along the lines of the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty would not improve US security. Two trends help explain this. The first is the change in the larger strategic environment. The second is the changes in the nature of warfare. In combination, these two trends guarantee that conflict and attack will continue to form part of the fabric of space activities.
183
A2 Spending DA
1. From the argument we wouldnt spend any money to stop any impacts from occurring and do anything because we are worried about their impact
184
A2 EU CP: Perm
1. Perm- the US should invite international partners to explore- solves better for science and tech
MIT 8 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Human Spaceflight, December, http://web.mit.edu/mitsps/MITFutureofHumanSpaceflight.pdf YS)
The primary objectives of exploration, national, and international prestige do not dictate exclusively national programs. Human spaceight is sufciently difcult and expensive that international collaboration may be the only way to accomplish certain goals. Although most countries space programs contain nationalistic rhetoric, most also recognize the benets of cooperation. The United States has a long history of collaboration with the European, Japanese, Canadian, and other space agencies, which should of course continue. International partnerships in human spaceflight represent the best use of science and technology to advance broad human goals and bring nations together around common
values, hence they are a primary objective. The 1975 Apollo -Soyuz Test Project, for example, showcased an international gesture of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union at a time of tension between the nations. Through these and similar means, human spaceight can be an effective instrument of global diplomacy. United States should reafrm its long standing policy of international leadership in human spaceight and remain committed to its existing international partners. In a signicant shift from current policies, such leadership should not be dened only as rst, largest, and in charge. Leadership should also represent foresight in building new relationships and collaborations, and in setting an example for human spaceight as a civilian enterprise. Given the public enthusiasm for human spaceight around the globe, a clear perception of the United States as collaborating with other countries to accomplish goals in space would have far reaching benets. The United States should invite international and to build a truly global exploration effort, with signicant cost sharing.
commercial partners to participate in its new exploration initiatives 2. Perm do Both: International cooperation is key permutation solves EC, 2011, European Commission, Executive Body of the European Union,
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS TOWARDS A SPACE STRATEGY FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT BENEFITS ITS CITIZEN, <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/files/policy/comm_native_com_20 11_0152_6_communication_en.pdf>
International cooperation is vital when it comes to space. Increasingly, space
endeavours are no longer a matter for individual nations alone and in many cases can only be efficiently achieved by pooling technological and financial capacities. International cooperation should also serve as a market opener for the promotion of European technology and services in the space field and so help strengthen this strategic industrial sector. International cooperation in space should also support the promotion of European
values through space-based projects focused on environmental protection, climate change, sustainable development and humanitarian action. The
EU, in close collaboration with the ESA, will continue

185
to maintain and strengthen its "space dialogues" with its strategic partners i.e. the United States and Russia with a view to increasing cooperation. These dialogues seek to identify areas where there is mutual benefit in cooperation; they cover a broad range of activities including Earth observation and Earth science, Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Space Science and space exploration. The EU will also
propose that space dialogues, the scope and objectives of which will be set out in appropriate bilateral arrangements, be established with other existing and emerging space powers, in particular the People's Republic of China; the EU will seek constructive solutions to issues of cooperation and sharing open frequencies in the field of satellite navigation.
3. International Fiat Bad
International fiat is a voting issue1. Limits theres an infinite number of entities and combinations without literature which makes affirmative preparation impossible. 2. Its anti-educational deciding between the counterplan and the plan is not a real world choice. No agent has jurisdiction over all nation and they eliminate understanding motives. 3. Plan focus- we dont talk about implementation and there isnt comparative literature. This forces debates to be about net benefits which narrows affirmative strategic choice. 4. Relations Disadvantages and potential net benefits solves back all their education claims.
Multi-actor fiat is a voter
4. Multiple Actor Fiat Bad
It's not reciprocal - we only get one actor, they should too. It's not predictable - it forces us to research an infinite number of counterplans Not real world. Multiple actors never enact the same policy at the same time, there's no literature than answers this contingency The ESA is multi-actor fiat- we should be able to say things like Italy will say no- fiating the organization bypasses the literature instead of accessing it
Science 2008 (Cloudy Future for Europe's Space Plans, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5905/1180.full)

With the dark cloud of a global economic crisis overheadGermany, for example, last week confirmed that it was in a recessionministers will gather in The Hague, the Netherlands, next week for the latest such meeting. The air of uncertainty leading into this gathering contrasts starkly with the last, which was held in Berlin in 2005, when ESA got almost everything it asked for (Science, 16 December 2005, p. 1749). This
time round, governments are tightening their belts, and the run-up to The Hague conference has seen wrangling over funding for even well-established ESA programs. Earlier in the
year, it looked like this meeting would be straightforward. Now it looks to be a very crucial and very tricky one, says space scientist Mark Sims of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. Economic times are difficult. In contrast to NASA, whose budget is set by the U.S. Congress every year, ESA works on a roughly 3-year cycle. This gives projects added stability, if approved, but it also means that a lot rides on each ministerial budget meeting. Getting
18 different governments, with differing priorities, to agree on something can be like herding cats. Germany and Spain are the most ambitious at the moment and want bigger roles. Other countries are retrenching, says Mike Healy, head of earth observation, navigation, and science with the
186
The wildcard in the pack is Italy, which contributed generously in 2005 but has since had a change of government and consequently a new chief for the Italian Space Agency, industrialist Enrico Saggese. Apparently following a
aerospace company EADS Astrium. shift in emphasis ordered by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Saggese has so far emphasized national space projects, and it
looks as though he will not have a lot of new money to put on the table in The Hague. Italy's and other nations' reluctance to increase their contributions to ESA means that next week's negotiations will be tense. At risk
will be some high-profile future missions, including ExoMars, an ambitious mission to the surface of the Red Planet, and Kopernikus, an effort to turn environmental monitoring into an operational service. Ministerials sometimes bring surprises, both pleasant and unpleasant ones, says Sims. We all cross our fingers and hope our missions will survive.
5. ESA sucks-faces major challenges
Hollanders, 08 (Hugo, UNU Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, Sectoral Innovation Systems in Europe: The Case of the Aerospace Sector, Europe Innovation Watch, 4/2008, http://archive.europeinnova.eu/docs/SIW_SR_Aerospace_20080509.pdf, LH)
The Aerospace industry is one of the few sectors where it may be claimed that military purposes are still a driver for technological development. The European problem is that on the defence side of the sector, Europe is spending only one-eighth of the US R&D budget and, even worse, these funds are not centralized but national. The
US is thus capable of financing and executing larger and more focused programs. The major challenges for the European Aerospace industry include: the development of one single European internal market, in particular for the defence sector; the need to open up the world market, in particular the US market; the requirement for stricter environmental regulations by developing new technologies and pan-European policies; the need for higher skill level of the workforce; the requirement to meet increased need for safety and security in civilian aviation by developing new technologies and pan-European policies; and the development of a more coherent approach to public funding in both 6. CP causes U.S. lashout Pasco 06 (Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique
(FRS), "Technology, Space and Security" Department, A European Approach to Space Security, Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program, July 2006, http://mail.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/pasco2006.pdf) [Crystal Hou]
So far, though,
the defence and space sectors.
the increasing desire by new actors to use space for civilian and military purposes has stirred up defensive military postures from existing space powers that tend to focus on new dangers that would result from these developments. In particular, it has led the United States to engage in a new military space doctrine that promotes the right to develop antisatellite weapons in order to protect its space assets, defend against any space-based attack, and deny other countries the ability to use space to enhance their own military power. Over the last few years, this Space
Control doctrine has begun to stir up debate in international fora such as the Disarmament Conference in Geneva and the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS). These debates remain centred largely around a few countries, namely the United States, China, and Russia, which tend to disagree on the legal latitude afforded by the existing treaties vis--vis the deployment of orbital weapons.
187
7. US solves best it is in the lead on Asteroid technology now.
Huffington Post 10/29/10 (Astronauts: Asteroid Threat Calls For Teamwork,

Earth, scientists and former astronauts said Friday. NASA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/astronauts-asteroid-threa_n_775975.html) Countries around the world must team up to help prevent an asteroid, or giant speeding rock, from slamming into
has tracked nearly 7,000 nearEarth objects that are bigger than several feet across. Of those, 1,157 are considered
"potentially hazardous asteroids." "We can't escape the conclusion that one could happen tomorrow," former
NASA astronaut Thomas D. Jones said of a possible asteroid strike. "If it happens in the wrong place, it can be deadly. But we now have the technology to prevent them from happening." To the experts, risky asteroids are those that come within 4.6 million miles of Earth's orbit.
NASA says that currently none of these is near enough or big enough for public concern. Jones spoke at the European Space Agency's operational center in Darmstadt, Germany, where former NASA astronauts and scientists from space agencies across the globe pushed for international space agencies to band together to address the issue from within the U.N. Jones and his colleagues proposed that a group involving the world's space agencies be established to pool resources to prevent such an asteroid's impact and to better inform the public of the possible threat. Russell Schweickart, a former Apollo 9 astronaut, compared the asteroid threat to that of space debris hitting the International Space Station, which he said is "small enough that we can move it out of the way." The technology exists that would effectively allow scientists to send a craft into space to rear-end an asteroid, and slightly change its velocity. "We can't move the Earth, (so) we have to go up and change the orbit of the asteroid," Schweickart said. "It's the same problem, all relative motion, but it's a massive undertaking." So
far, NASA is the only space agency that spends any substantial funds on asteroid research, $4
million a year, but follow-up research also is conducted by other space agencies. Any attempt to intercept an asteroid would require the approval of many nations. "It threatens all parts of the planet, so the solution involves crossing international borders," Jones said.
188
A2 Topicality: Development
We Meet: Counter Interpretation: Space development means putting actual objects in space Space Development Promotion Act of the Republic of Korea 2005
http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/library/space/Korea/Laws/33jsl175.pdf
cited in the Space Law Journal Definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows:
(a) The
term space development means one of the following: (i) Research and technology development activities related to design, production, launch, operation, etc. of space objects; (ii) Use and exploration of outer space and activities to facilitate them; We Meet C/I: We develop and deploy colonization spacecraft into space. Counter Standards: - Ground: None lost; neg block - Limits: Topic is clearly in case limits - Breadth v. depth: Aff does not explode topic Nonvoter: Fairness and Education; Drop the Argument not the Team
189
A2 Topicality: Increase
We Meet: Other Programs for moon exploration have existed in the past. Counter Interpretation: Increase requires pre-existence.
Brown, 2003 (US Federal Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Elena mark and paul Gustafson v. Valley Insurance Company and Valley Property and Casualty, July 17, lexis)
FCRA does not define the term "increase." The plain and ordinary
meaning of the verb "to increase" is to make something greater or larger. 4 Merriam-Webster's [**22] Collegiate Dictionary 589 (10th ed. 1998). The
(i.e., larger) the price demanded for insurance. An
"something" that is increased in the statute is the "charge for any insurance." The plain and common meaning of the noun "charge" is "the price demanded for something." Id. at 192. Thus, the statute plainly means an insurer takes adverse action if the insurer makes greater
not exist previously. The statutory definition of adverse action, therefore, clearly anticipates an insurer must have made an
insurer cannot "make greater" something that did
initial charge or demand for payment before the insurer can increase that charge. In other words, an insurer cannot increase the charge for insurance unless the insurer previously set and demanded payment of the premium for that insured's insurance [**23] coverage at a lower price.
We Meet C/I: There have been programs to go to the moon i.e. Apollo and Constellation and extend Halvorson 10. Counter Standards: - Ground: None lost; neg block - Limits: Topic is clearly in case limits - Breadth v. depth: Aff interpretation does not explode topic No Voter: Fairness and Education; Drop the argument not the Team
190
A2 Topicality: Exploration
We Meet:
C/I: Exploration is a trip into unfamiliar regions Collins English Dictionary 9 (2009, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploration) And/or means one, the other, or both Words & Phrases 7 (Permanent Edition, 2007, vol 3A, p.220)
C.A.1 (Mass.) 1981. Words "and/or,"
3. an organized trip into unfamiliar regions, esp for scientific purposes; expedition for contract purposes, commonly mean the one or the other or both.Local Division 589, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Com. of Mass., 666 F.2d 618, certiorari denied
Local Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union AFL-CIO v. Massachusetts, 102 S.Ct. 2928, 457 U.S. 1117, 73 L.Ed.2d 1329. Contracts 159.
We Meet: We explore to the moon and that is viable Counter Standards: - Ground: None lost; neg block - Limits: Topic is clearly in case limits - Breadth v. depth: Aff does not explode topic No Voter: Fairness and Education; Drop the argument not the Team
191
A2 Framework I (Standard)
A. Our interpretation is that the affirmative should be able to weigh the advantages of the plan against the kritik alternative, which must be enacted by the United States federal government. B. Violation they dont let us weigh the aff and their alt is not enacted by the USFG C. Vote Aff 1. Plan focus we allow for a stable locus for links and comparison of alternatives. Their framework makes confusion and judge intervention inevitable. 2. Ground they access a massive amount of K frameworks, links, and impacts. They can leverage framework to moot the 1AC. We can never predict what we will have to compare the plan to. Even if we get ground, its bad and unpredictable. 3. Topic education their framework encourages generic Ks that get rehashed every year. We change the topic to learn about new things. Apolitical alternatives fail Rorty 98
(prof of philosophy at Stanford, Richard, 1998, achieving our country, Pg. 7-9)JFS
people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them
Such think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf
When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast
War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. movies after between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes.
Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's
first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as
The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from politics. But William James
we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectators hip which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and
192
The kind of protoHeideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noself-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. blest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2
193
A2 Framework II (Standard)
Our interpretation is that the negative gets a competitive policy option or the status quo Reasons to Prefer 1) Plan focus our framework ensures a stable locus for links and the comparison of alternatives. Alternative frameworks which do not ensure that the plan is the starting-point of the debate make confusion and judge intervention inevitable. 2) Ground there are an infinite number of unpredictable K frameworks. Forcing the aff to debate in the neg framework moots the 1AC. Their framework destroys aff ground because we can never predict what well have to compare our plan to. Even if theres some ground for us to respond to their arg, its not good or predictable. 3) Topic-specific education only debates about the plan translate into education about the topic. There would be no reason to switch topics every year if not for planfocus debate. K frameworks encourage ultra-generics like the state bad K that are stale and uneducational. Failure to engage the political process turns the affirmative into spectators who are powerless to produce real change. Rorty 98 (prof of philosophy at Stanford, Richard, 1998, achieving our country, Pg. 7-9)JFS Such people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests,
and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses.
When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and
national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as we shall see, did a great deal to
The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from politics. But William James
shape this rhetoric. thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectators hip which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The
kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams

194
cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are
bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2
195
A2 Framework III (Methodology)

Our interpretation is that the affirmative should be able to weigh the advantages of the plan against the kritik alternative and the methodology, which must be enacted by the United States federal government. Plan represents DA to K. If we prove better methodology we win. Framework excludes various methods of debate and discussion necessary for policy making and analysis. Framework is a waste of time and a lame excuse for not knowing about an argument. This is a voter for education due to the damage caused by framework debates to it. ODonnel No Date
(Timothy M. ODonnel, Director of Debate, University of Mary Washington And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate)
What is so tragic about all of this is that a
debater could go through an entire debate career with very little effort to go beyond meta-argument or arguments about argument (i.e. debate theory). The sad fact is that, more often than not, the outcome of any given debate today hinges less on the substantive issues introduced by the affirmatives first speech, than it does on the resolution of these meta-arguments. These so-called framework debates about what the question of the debate ought to be, while somewhat interesting, have little practical application to the circumstances of our times and in my judgment, at least, are less intellectually rewarding than their counterparts. In fact, in a situation where the merits of the
public policy issues staked out by the years resolution along with the critical issues that those policies raise are no longer the focus of
The disastrous implications of this trend in academic debate are appearing at the very moment that the academy is being urged to take seriously the goal of educating citizens.
the debate because the negative can shift the question why have a resolution at all?
Policy makers should weigh methodology along with policy. Exclusivity prevents effective policy making. Perm solves.
Relevant Academic theorizing requires real world relevance Nye Professor 2008 Joseph, University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, Bridging the Gap between Theory and Policy, Political Psychology, Volume 29, issue 4, HC My experience of a fruitful interaction between theory and practice may be subjective, but it is not unique. As Ezra Vogel has written: when I went to Washington and first had to write one-page briefs, I despaired of substituting sound bites for real thinking. I came to appreciate, however, that one pagers can force intellectual discipline. Such space limits impel us to think about what is the absolutely most
important idea or two that we want to communicate, and to decide how to communicate those ideas in the most effective way. As a result, I returned to the university
and began to encourage students to spend more time compressing their thinking and to work harder to express ideas in a precise and concise way (2006, p. 34). If such experiences serve as an existence theorem that academic theory and policy practice can interact fruitfully in both directions, what could be done to increase it and bridge the widening gap? On the official side, former ambassador David Newsom advised his colleagues to broaden State Department research grants, to increase scholar-diplomat programs, and to encourage senior officials to participate in scholarly association meetings. The Intelligence community, particularly the National Intelligence Council, holds regular unclassified seminars and conferences with academics. Internships and exchanges such as the Foreign Affairs fellowships
196

sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (that Alex George extolled in his book) have also helped to introduce young American academics to a policy environment, though of the dozen or so annual fellowships, the percentage from universities has declined over time. Increased lateral entry at middle levels would be good both for the civil service and for the academy, but this is particularly difficult in countries with a strong civil service tradition. The internet and blogs also provide new opportunities for scholars to become involved in policy debates on a global basis. On the university side, Stephen Walt argues for a conscious
effort to alter the prevailing norms of the discipline. Departments should give greater weight to real-world relevance and impact in hiring and promotion decisions, and journals could place greater weight on relevance in evaluating submissions. Universities could facilitate interest in the real world by giving junior faculty greater
incentives for participating in it (Walt, 2005, p. 41). Scholars could avoid choosing research topics that are so manageable that they wind up saying more and more about less and less (which is a current academic affliction). They would do better to heed the advice of Robert Putnam: Better an approximate
answer to an important question than an exact answer to a trivial question (2003, p. 251). They would also do well to follow the example of Alex George with his long-term concern about the importance of bridging the gap between theory and practice, between scholar and citizen. In 1966, while still a member of the RAND
Corporation, I saw the need to supplement efforts to formulate general theories of international relations with theories that are more relevant for the conduct of foreign policy (1993, p. xxi). We are all in his debt that he did.
197
A2 Condo I
Conditionality is bad this is a voting issue 1. It skews 2AC time and strategy advocacies become no-risk options for the negative which means they can arbitrarily moot our offense and 2AC strategic choice. 2. Its infinitely regressive because it justifies reading 20 counterplans as a way to avoid clash. 3. It teaches the negative to be squirrely rather than prepared. This outweighs advocacy skills are key to education they ran multiple contradictory positions that we couldnt strategically concede. 4. Limited Dispositionality solves their offense they can still read multiple advocacies and test the plan.
198
A2 Condo II
1. Not reciprocal- we cant run multiple plans to find the best example of the resolution. 2. Time and strat skew: They could read 14 CP texts and wed have to at least cover them all so they dont develop one in the block. 3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness as well as education, we dont know what the issues in the debate are until the 2NR. 4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and Ive never seen a senator unroll a list of 30 bills he/she might advocate that day 5. Makes for sloppy debate- Instead of creating effective strategies, negs can just guess and check 6. Voter for fairness and education
199
A2 Capitalism K
1. Perm - do both solves better using capitalism to fight itself is more effective Rothkrug 90 (Paul, Founder Environmental Rescue Fund, Monthly Review, March, 41(10), p. 38) No institution is or ever has been a seamless monolith. Although the inherent mechanism of American capitalism is as you describe it, oriented solely to profit without regard to social consequences, this does not preclude significant portions of that very system from joining forces with the worldwide effort for the salvation of civilization, perhaps even to the extent of furnishing the margin of success for that very effort. 2. Rejection wont dislodge capitalism no critical mass exists Grossberg 92 (Lawrence, Professor of Communication Studies UNC-Chapel Hill and Chair of the
Executive Committee of the University Program in Cultural Studies, We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture, p. 388-389)
If it is capitalism that is at stake, our moral opposition to it has to be tempered by the realities of the world and the possibilities of political change. Taking a simple negative relation to it, as if the moral condemnation of the evil of capitalism were sufficient (granting that it does establish grotesque systems of inequality and oppression), is not likely to establish a viable political agenda. First, it is not at all clear what it would mean to overthrow capitalism in the current situation. Unfortunately, despite our desires, "the masses" are not waiting to be led into revolution, and it is not simply a case of their failure to recognize their own best interests, as if
we did. Are we to decide-rather undemocratically, I might add-to overthrow capitalism in spite of their legitimate desires? Second, as much as
capitalism is the cause of many of the major threats facing the world, at the moment it may also be one of the few forces of stability, unity and even, within limits, a certain "civility" in the world. The world system is, unfortunately, simply too precarious and the alternative options not all that promising. Finally, the appeal of an as yet unarticulated and even unimagined future, while perhaps powerful as a moral imperative, is simply too weak in the current context to effectively organize people, and too vague to provide any direction. 3. No link-Space technology can be peaceful and be used for humanitarian purposes Dickens 10 (Peter Dickens Visiting Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex The
Humanization of the Cosmos To What End? November 2010 .< http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/thehumanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end> L.F.)
Most obviously, the
technology allowing a human presence in the cosmos would be focused mainly on earthly society. There are many serious crises down here on Earth that have urgent priority when considering the humanization of outer space. First, there is the obvious fact of social inequalities and resources. Is $2 billion and upwards to help the private sector find new
forms of space vehicles really a priority for public funding, especially at a time when relative social inequalities and environmental conditions are rapidly worsening? The military-industrial complex might well benefit, but it hardly represents society as a whole. This
is not to say, however, that public spending on space should be stopped. Rather, it should be addressed toward ameliorating the many crises that face global society. Satellites, for example, have helped open up phone and Internet communications for marginalized people, especially those not yet connected by cable. Satellites, including satellites manufactured by capitalist companies, can also be useful for monitoring climate change and other forms of environmental crisis such as deforestation and imminent hurricanes. They have proved useful in coordinating humanitarian efforts after natural disasters. Satellites have even been
200

commissioned by the United Nations to track the progress of refugees in Africa and elsewhere So outer
space technology can be used for tackling a number of immediate social and political issues. But these strategies do not add up to a philosophy toward outer space and the form humanization should take. Here again, the focus should be on the development of humanity as a whole, rather than sectional interests. First, outer space, its exploration and colonization, should be in the service of some general public good. Toward this end, the original intentions of the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty
should be restored. Outer space should not be owned or controlled by any economic, social, and political vested interest. The cosmos should not, in other words, be treated as an extension of the global environment, one to be owned and exploited. We have seen enough of this attitude and its outcomes to know what the result would be. Spreading private ownership to outer space would only reproduce social and environmental crises on a cosmic scale.
4. Alternatives to capitalism will inevitably collapse Taylor 94 (Jerry, Director of Natural Resource Studies Cato Institute, The Challenge of Sustainable
Development, Regulation, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-taylor.html)
The free, competitive marketplace creates not only human capital but natural capital as well. That is because capitalism is the most productive engine of intellectual and technological advance, and it is that stock of human knowledge and technology that turns the earth's material into useful
commodities. "Humans are the active agent, having ideas that they use to transform the environment for human purposes, observes economist Thomas De Gregori. "Resources are not fixed and finite because they are not natural. They are a product of human ingenuity resulting from the creation of technology and science." David Osterfeld adds that "since resources are a function of human knowledge, and since our stock of knowledge has increased over time, it should come as no surprise that the stock of physical resources has also been expanding." Closed societies and economies
under the heavy hand of state planning are doomed to live within the confines of dwindling resource bases and eventually experience the very collapse feared by the proponents of sustainable development. 5. No alternative to capitalism --- even socialists agree Erik Olin Wright 7, Vilas Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin,
Guidelines for Envisioning Real Utopias, Soundings, April, www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Guidelines-soundings.pdf
To be a radical critic of existing institutions and social structures is to identify harms that are generated by existing arrangements, to formulate alternatives which mitigate those harms, and to propose transformative strategies for realising those alternatives. There was a time when many intellectuals on the left were quite confident in their understanding of each of these: theories of class and political economy provided a framework for identifying what was wrong with capitalism; various contending conceptions of socialism provided models for alternatives; and theories of class struggle and socialist politics (whether reformist or revolutionary) provided the basis for a transformative strategy. Today there is much less certainty among people who still identify strongly with left values of radical egalitarianism and deep democracy. While left intellectuals remain critical of capitalism, many acknowledge - if reluctandy - the necessity of markets and the continuing technological dynamism of capitalism. Socialism remains a marker for an alternative to capitalism, but its close association with statist projects of economic planning no longer has much credibility, and no fully convincing alternative comprehensive model has become btoadly accepted. And while class struggles certainly remain a central source of conflict in the world today, there is no longer confidence in their potential to provide the anchoring agency for transforming and transcending capitalism. 6. Capitalism is resilient itll bounce back Foster 9 (JD, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of fiscal policy Heritage Foundation, "Is
Capitalism Dead? Maybe," 3-11, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101694302)
201
Capitalism is down. It may even be out. But it's far from dead . Capitalism is extremely resilient. Why? Because here, as in every democratic-industrial country around the world, it has always had to struggle to survive against encroachments both benign and malevolent of the state. At the moment, capitalism is losing ground most everywhere. But when the economic crisis passes, capitalism and the freedoms it engenders will recover again, if only because freedom beats its lack. It is said that the trouble
with socialism is socialism; the trouble with capitalism is capitalists. The socialist economic system, inherently contrary to individual liberties, tends to minimize prosperity because it inevitably allocates national resources inefficiently. On the other hand, a truly capitalist system engaged in an unfettered pursuit of prosperity is prone to occasional and often painful excesses, bubbles and downturns like the one we are now experiencing globally. When capitalism slips, governments step in with regulations and buffers to try to moderate the excesses and minimize the broader consequences of individual errors. Sometimes these policies are enduringly helpful. Severe economic downturns inflict collateral damage on families and businesses otherwise innocent of material foolishness. Not only are the sufferings of these innocents harmful to society, but they are also downright expensive. A little wise government buffering can go a long way. The trick, of course, is the wisdom part. A good example of a wise government buffer is deposit insurance at commercial banks. Without it, depositors would have withdrawn their funds en masse, leading to a rapid collapse of the banking system. It happened in years gone by. But today, deposits have flowed into the banking system in search of safety, helping banks staunch their many severe wounds. Yet for every example of helpful government intervention, there are many more that do more harm than good. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leap to mind. These congressional creatures helped create, then inflate the subprime market. When that balloon popped, it triggered a global economic meltdown.
capitalism on its back foot. Government ownership of the largest insurance company, the major banks, and Fan and Fred are awesome incursions into private markets. But, as President Obama has underscored, these incursions are only temporary. In time, these institutions even Fan and Fred will be broken up and sold in parts. It will leave government agents with stories to tell their grandkids, and taxpayers stuck with the losses. But the power of the state will again recede, and another new age of freedom and capitalism will arrive and thrive until we repeat the cycle again sometime down the road. 7. No collapse capitalism will reform to sustain itself AFP 8 (Atlantic Free Press, Creative Destruction - The Madness of the Global Economy, 2-5, Lexis)
In 1997, a major financial crisis erupted, starting in East Asia. Currencies collapsed, businesses went bankrupt and millions of people lost their jobs. Many Asian enterprises were subsequently snapped up at rock-bottom prices by corporations and investors in the West. Soon after, in 2000, the speculative bubble of investment in internet-related companies burst spectacularly. This dot-com bust saw a lengthy recession ensue in the
The current financial crisis clearly has
capitalisms inevitable and damaging business cycles. However, this should not be confused with the resiliency of capitalism; the system has demonstrated a repeated capacity to reform itself sufficiently to allow renewed growth and to survive further rounds of business cycles. So it would be wrong to assume that the whole capitalist system, unstable and unfair as it always will be, is on the verge of total collapse.
developed world. Historical evidence shows, then, that governments have been largely powerless to combat
8. Capitalism is too engrained rejection causes extinction Korten 99 (David C., MBA and Ph.D. Stanford University Graduate School of Business and Former Visiting Professor Harvard
University, The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism, p. 262) Virtually the same is true for the capitalist cancer. Capitalism, however, is
more insidious than a conventional cancer. By establishing its control over our jobs, investments, food, medical care, clothing, transportation, energy sources, and increasingly even our schools and prisons, it makes us depend on its presence and then blackmails us to yield to it ever more of our life energies as the price of our survival . If we had the means simply to remove its institutions from our midst by some equivalent of radical surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, our economy would collapse and we would be left with no means of sustenance. 9. Capitalism prevents conflict through information Gartzke 7- PhD- associate professor of political science at UC San Diego
202

(Erik, The Capitalist Peace, 1/5/07, http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzke_ajps_07.pdf)
While policy differences or resource competition can generate conflict, they need not produce contests if states can resolve differences diplomatically. Liberal theory emphasizes the pacifying effect of cross-border economic linkages. Markets are arguably most relevant as mechanisms for revealing information, however, rather than for adding to the risks or costs of fighting (Gartzke and Li 2003; Gartzke, Li, and Boehmer 2001). Competition creates incentives to bluff, to exaggerate capabilities or resolve. Anarchy makes it difficult for states to compel honest answers from one another except through the threat or imposition of harm. Contests inform by being costly, forcing actors to choose between bearing the burden of competition and backing down. Of course, one can signal by
burning money, expending valuable resources autonomously, but such acts create a relative as well as absolute loss. Tactics that impart costs only as a byproduct of imposing costs on an opponent can produce relative gains, while tactics such as burning money only harm the initiator. States with
economies integrated into global markets face autonomous investors with incentives to reallocate capital away from risk. A leaders threats against another state become costly when threats spark market repercussions. Participants learn from watching the reactions of leaders to the differential incentives of economic cost and political reward. Two economically integrated states can more often avoid military violence, since market integration combines mechanisms for revelation and coercion. An economically integrated target can be coerced by the threat of losing
valuable exchange, but a nonintegrated initiator cannot make its threats credible or informative. Conversely, a globalized initiator can signal but has little incentive to hamper its own markets when a nonintegrated target does not suffer (Gartzke 2006b).
10. The expansion of capitalism makes war less likely Griswold 5- Director of the Cato institute center for trade policy studies
(Daniel, Peace on earth? Try free trade among men, 12/28/05, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5344) First, trade
and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies don't pick fights with each other. Freedom to trade nurtures democracy by expanding the middle
class in globalizing countries and equipping people with tools of communication such as cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet. With trade comes more travel, more contact with people in other countries, and more exposure to new ideas. Thanks in part to
globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies -- a record high. Second, as national economies become more integrated with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government,
but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Third, globalization allows
nations to acquire wealth through production and trade rather than conquest of territory and resources. Increasingly, wealth is measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Those are assets that cannot be seized by armies. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. Of course, free trade and
globalization do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive. Trade wars in the 1930s deepened the economic depression, exacerbated global tensions, and helped to usher in a world war. Out of the ashes of that experience, the United States urged Germany, France, and other Western European nations to form a common market that has become the European Union. In large part because of their intertwined economies, a general war in Europe is now unthinkable.
203
A2 Security K
1. Perm: Do plan then do alt. Violent conflict blocks transition to their alternative Linklater 90 (Andrew, Senior Lecturer in Politics Monash University, Beyond Realism and Marxism:
Critical Theory and International Relations, p. 32) These theoretical disagreements with Marxism generate major differences at the practical level. It is necessary to conclude that a post-Marxist critical theory of international relations must concede that technical and practical orientations to foreign policy are inescapable at least at this juncture. Such an approach must appreciate the need for classical realist methods of protecting the state under conditions of insecurity and distrust, and recognise the importance of the rationalist defence of order and legitimacy in the context of anarchy. It is important to take account of the rationalist claim that order is unlikely to survive if the major powers cannot reconcile their different national security interests. In a similar vein, a critical approach to international relations is obliged to conclude that the
project of emancipation will not make significant progress if international order is in decline. One of its principal tasks would then be to understand how the community of states can be
expanded so that it approximates a condition which maximises the importance of freedom and universality. In this case, a critical theory of international relations which recognises the strengths of realism and Marxism must aim for a political practice which deals concurrently with the problem of power, the need for order and the possibility of emancipation through the extension of human community.
Lott 4 Anthony, professor of political science at St. Olaf College, Creating Insecurity, p. 157
Similarly, studies
2. Only the perm allows us to reconfigure our relationship to IR while hedging our bets against catastropheerr aff
employing political constructivism cannot be considered complete renditions of national security issues. Their emphasis on identity and culture, and their alternative forms of analysis, provide a necessary understanding of ideational threats and an emancipatory moment for changing state securitization. However, these reflexive critiques do not demonstrate an understanding of the role that material threats play in national security matters or the negative consequences of ignoring those material threats. Their alternative analytic focus often rejects the traditional state security dilemma and its corresponding policy needs. The consistent deconstruction of identity performances and cultural givens may provide an opportunity for the emergence of a more democratic ethos, but the state is often marginalized in the process, Such an occurrence does not fulfill the requirements of a security framework that seeks theoretical rigor and policy relevance. It is a necessary (but insufficient) component of a more comprehensive understanding of security. The potentially positive political vision that emerges from political constructivism balances the negative vision provided by realism and suggests an opportunity to overcome culturally constructed threats. 3. No Alt: Mere declaration of an alternative does nothing they have no mechanism to enact their worldview Murray 97 (Alastair J.H., Professor of Political Theory University of Edinburgh, Reconstructing
Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics, p. 188-189) Realists, however, would be unlikely to be troubled by such charges. Ashley needs to do rather more than merely assert that the development of global threats will produce some universal consensus, or that any number of less exclusionary world orders are possible, to convince them. A universal threat does not imply a universal consensus, merely the existence of a universal threat faced by particularistic actors. And the assertion that indeterminate numbers of potentially less exclusionary orders exist carries little weight unless we can specify exactly what these alternatives are and just how they
204
might be achieved. As such, realists would seem to be justified in regarding such potentialities as currently unrealisable ideals and in seeking a more proximate good in the fostering of mutual understanding and, in particular, of a stable balance of power. Despite the adverse side-effects that such a balance of power implies, it at least offers us something tangible rather than ephemeral promises lacking a shred of support. Ultimately, Ashley's demand that a new, critical approach be adopted in order to free us from the grip of such 'false' conceptions depends upon ideas about the prospects for the development of a universal consensus which are little more than wishful thinking, and ideas about the
existence of potentially less exclusionary orders which are little more than mere assertion. 50 Hence his attempts, in 'Political realism and human interests', to conceal these ideas from view by claiming that the technical base of realism serves only to identify, and yet not to reform, the practical, and then, in 'The poverty of neorealism', by removing the technical from investigation altogether by an exclusive reliance on a problem of hermeneutic circularity.
4. Securitization is emancipatinggiving marginalizes issues like human rights visibility Huysmans 2

Jeff Huysmans, Lecturer in politics at the department of government at Open University, Alternatives Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security Feb 2002 p. 59-60.
There is no solution for the normative dilemma in the social-constructivist security analyses defined above. The particular understanding of language makes any security utterance potentially securitizing. Consequently, enunciating security is never innocent or neutral. Of course, this does not have to result in a normative dilemma; it does so only if one wants to or has to utter security in a political context while wanting to avoid a securitization of a particular area. Someone may also employ security language with
the intention of securitizing an area. This does not necessarily require a conservative interest in keeping the status quo or in establishing law and order. Securitization can also be performed with an emancipatory interest. Given the capacity of security language to prioritize questions and to mobilize people, one may employ it as a tactical device to give human-rights questions a higher visibility, for example. It is also possible to
mobilize security questions in nonsecurity areas with the intention to change the conservative bias of the security language. This would require a positive concept of security that defines liberation from oppression as a good that should be secured.
5. Objective dangers exist --- the alt is complicit with mass violence Lora 94 (Ronald, Professor of History, Emeritus University of Toledo, American Historical Review,
99(1), February, p. 330) Campbells work is useful because it reminds us of the need to reconsider the process by which states define themselves; yet problems remain. Radical skepticism of the sort expressed in this book based too much on international relations theory and too little on primary documents, at times takes
on the tone of one who has never faced a gunman in a dark parking lot. Nowhere is it seriously considered that Soviet control over Eastern Europe and the Baltic states was an oppressive objective reality, or that the conduct of Joseph Stalin was so abnormal as to preclude some traditional ways in which nations conduct business with each other. What the United States should have done in Cold War foreign policyand what now it should do with drugs, terrorism, and Japanese competitionis not the explicit concern of this book. Campbell displays great zeal in drawing analogies, but it is a dubious undertaking to insist that the modern states concern with security
205
replicates the churchs concern with salvation, that the church, like the state, employs an evangelism of fear to ward off threats to its legitimacy. To argue thus necessitates a tortuous reading of Thomas Hobbess Leviathan. Moreover, from the angle
of the church and of the state, Campbells reading of the texts is insensitive to genuine religious concern with salvation on the one hand, and to the democratic states wish to respond to citizens needs on the other.
Schweller 2004 (randall, associate professor in the department of political science at the ohio state
university, international security, 29.2)
6. Threat construction is goodconsensus that a particular hostile threat exists is necessary to prevent appeasementtheir alternative would always appease hostile powers
Balancing behavior requires the existence of a strong consensus among elites that an external threat exists and must be checked by either arms or allies or both. As the proximate causal variable in the model, elite consensus is the most necessary of necessary causes of balancing behavior. Thus, when there is no elite consensus, the prediction is either underbalancing or some other nonbalancing policy option. Developing such a consensus is difficult, however, because balancing, unlike expansion, is not a behavior motivated by the search for gains and profit. It is instead a strategy that entails significant costs in human and material resources that could be directed toward domestic programs and investment rather than national defense. In addition, when alliances are formed, the state must sacrifice some measure of its autonomy in foreign and military policy to its allies. In the absence of a clear majority of elites in favor of a balancing strategy, therefore, an alternative policy, and not necessarily a coherent one, will prevail. This is because a weak grand strategy can be supported for many different reasons (e.g., pacifism, isolationism, proenemy [End Page 171] sympathies, collective security, a belief in conciliation, etc.). Consequently, appeasement and other forms of underbalancing will tend to triumph in the absence of a determined and broad political consensus to balance simply because these policies represent the path of least domestic resistance and can appeal to a broad range of interests along the political spectrum. Thus,
underreacting to threats, unlike an effective balancing strategy, does not require overwhelming, united, and coherent support from elites and masses; it is a default strategy.
7. Must back up non-violence with the threat of violence action of MLK and Malcolm X prove this solves best
Livermore National Laboratory, Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb, 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html,
J. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence
Even when non-violence does succeed, it does so by rallying the majority of the population toward whom it is directed to stop the direct perpetrators of injustice by force the force of law in the form of the police, the prisons, and the polls force that necessarily includes the threat of violence. In other words, nonviolent resistance harnesses (or co-opts), rather than eliminates violence. In fact, non-violence is sometimes even helped by the threat of violence to achieve its objectives. The non-violence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was complemented by the willingness to use "any means necessary" of Malcolm X. These two men were sending white America the same message concerning justice and racial equality. If whites failed to respond to the message stated gently, whites would be given the opportunity to respond to it stated violently. It took both statements to achieve the progress made thus far.
206
A2 Nuclearism
Anna M. Agathangelou, Dir. Global Change Inst. And Womens Studies Prof @ Oberlin, and
Yet, ironically if not tragically, dissident IR also paralyzes itself into non-action. While
1. Pure rejection reproduces sovereignty and exploitation. Only political action can end global oppression
L.H.M. Ling, Inst. For Social Studies @ Hague, Fall 19 97, Studies in Political Economy, v. 54, p 7-8
it challenges the status quo, dissident IR fails to transform it. Indeed, dissident IR claims that a "coherent" paradigm or research program - even an alternative one - reproduces the stifling parochialism and hidden power-mongering of sovereign scholarship. "Any agenda of global politics informed by critical social theory perspectives," writes Jim George "must forgo the simple, albeit self-gratifying, options inherent in ready-made alternative Realisms and confront the dangers, closures, paradoxes, and complicities associated with them.t'-' Even references to a
"real world," dissidents argue, repudiate the very meaning of dissidence given their sovereign presumption of a universalizable, testable Reality." What dissident scholarship opts for, instead, is a sense of disciplinary crisis that "resonates with the effects of marginal and dissident movements in all sorts of other localities.">
Despite its emancipatory intentions, this approach effectively leaves the prevailing prison of sovereignty intact.f It doubly incarcerates when dissident IR highlights the layers of power that oppress without offering a heuristic, not to mention a program, for emancipatory action." Merely politicizing the supposedly nonpolitical neither guides emancipatory action nor guards it against demagoguery. f At best, dissident IR sanctions a detached criticality rooted (ironically) in Western modernity. Michael
Shapiro, for instance, advises the dissident theorist to take "a critical distance" or "position offshore" from which to "see the possibility of change."? But what becomes of those who know they are burning in the hells of exploitation, racism, sexism, starvation, civil war, and the like while the esoteric dissident observes "critically" from offshore? What
hope do they have of overthrowing these shackles of sovereignty? In not answering these questions, dissident IR ends up reproducing, despite avowals to the contrary, the sovereign outcome of discourse divorced from practice, analysis from policy, deconstruction from reconstruction, particulars from universals, and critical theory from problemsolving. 2. There is nuclear speaking in the status quo so why hasnt their impacts occurred yet
207
A2 Virilio K
Perm Do plan then Alt Social change is hopeless if we resist technologyembrace the space program to revitalize the Left HUGHES 2006
(James, Ph.D., Public Policy Studies at Trinity College, Democratic Transhumanism 2.0, Last Mod Jan 26, http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm)
Luddism is boring and depressing; it has no energy to inspire movements to create a new and better society. The Left was built by people inspired by millenial visions, not by people who saw a hopeless future of futile existential protest. Most people do not want to live in a future without telecommunications, labor-saving devices, air travel and medicine. The Next Left needs to rediscover its utopian imagination if it is to renew itself, reconnect with the popular imagination, and remain relevant. The Next Left needs visionary projects worthy of a united transhuman world, such as guaranteeing health and longevity for all, eliminating work, and colonizing the Solar System. Virilios theory is flawed his analogies are flawed and he makes incoherent, baseless statements Sokal and Bricmont 98
*Professor of Physics at NYU AND **Belgian theoretical physicist, philosopher of science and a professor at the Universit catholique de Louvain (December 1998, Alan and Jean, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, pg. 169170) MGM
Third, Left
The writings of Paul Virilio revolve principally around the themes of technology, communication, and speed. They contain a plethora of references to physics, particularly the theory of relativity. Though Virilio's sentences are slightly more meaningful than those of Deleuze-Guattari, what is presented as "science" is a mixture of monumental confusions and wild fantasies. Furthermore, his analogies between physics and social questions are the most arbitrary imaginable, when he does not simply become intoxicated with his own words. We confess our sympathy with many of Virilio's political and social views; but the cause is not, alas, helped by his pseudo-physics. Let us start with a minor example of the astonishing erudition vaunted by Le Monde: Recent MEGALOPOLITAN hyperconcentration (Mexico City, Tokyo ... ) being itself the result of the increased speed of economic exchanges, it seems necessary to reconsider the importance of the notions of ACCELERATION and DECELERATION (what physicists call positive and negative velocities [vitesses positive
et negative selon les physiciens]) ... (Virilio 1995, p. 24, capitals in the original 220)
Here Virilio mixes up velocity (vitesse) and acceleration, the two basic concepts of kinematics (the description of motion), which are introduced and carefully distinguished at the beginning of every introductory physics course. 221 Perhaps this confusion isn't worth stressing; but for a purported specialist in the philosophy of speed, it is nonetheless a bit surprising.
208
Here is Virilio, comparing women to space exploration Wilbur, 94

Wilbur, Professor, Vancouver Island University, 94 (Shawn, Dromologies: Paul Virilio: Speed, Cinema, and the End of the Political State, http://records.viu.ca/~soules/media301/dromologies.htm)
Virilio explains portions of his dromological narrative in terms of the development of "vehicles," although he uses this term in rather novel ways. At various times, Virilio speculates on the "first vehicle," which he most often identifies with "woman." Both in sexual intercourse, when "mounted" by man, or in the relation of support characteristic, he believes, of the human heterosexual couple, the woman in some sense "carries" the man. The couple constitues the simplest "war machine." Of course, since every mode of carriage brings along its own accident, we should note here then "little death" of orgasm as the fatal accident of this particular vehicular relationship. Beyond this are more conventional forms of vehicles, beginning with the riding animal and beast of burden and extending through various wheeled, tracked and winged forms, then becoming strange again as various telecommunications forms begin to "carry" us afar in a variety of ways.
That many of these earlier forms of communication techniques were in fact vehicular technologies only becomes more obvious in an era where we take certain forms of tele-presence for granted. The obvious differences in these modes of transportation point to essential changes in the world, as it is organized by vectors of time-space-speed. We
can fairly easily trace the "conquest of space" that involves an acceleration form the nearly static travelling of sexual intercourse to the escape velocity of spacecraft. It is harder to comprehend the subsequent "conquest of time" which telepresence, "live" satellite braodcast, and other "technologies of ubiquity" have nearly accomplished. When the time of transportation or transmission is relative, depending not on distance but on where you want to go, distant points become both nearer and sooner than those closer in strictly spatial terms. Virilio argues that what we are left with is finally only speed, the ability to manipulate the space-time matrix. This certainly seems to be the case in the virtual spaces of the internet,
where speed of transmission--and the consequent ability to process greater "bandwidth"--has become the guiding criteria for nearly all hardware and software development decisions.
209
***Add-Ons***
210
Food Shortages
Moon colonization solves imminent global food shorages by creating closed-cycle ecological systems Siegfried 3
Program Manager of McDonnell Douglas SEI team with system design that featured common Lunar/ Mars systems (W. H., Space ColonizationBenefits for the World http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf)
SPACE COLONIZATION MUST HAVE LOW-WATER, LOW-PESTICIDE PLANT GROWTH AND WASTE AND WATER PURITY CONTROL Two of the items listed here represent major concerns of most developed nations and are emerging concerns in developing nations.
technological revolution is needed to address food shortages to allow adequate nutrition for our exploding world population in concert with ever-growing water shortages, and a growing realization that our current pesticide methods are polluting our planet. While previous short-duration human space programs have depended on open-loop life support systems, Space Colonization cannot. Development of a closed-cycle bioregenerative controlled ecological life support system (CELSS) would lead to world benefits. Areas of CELSS development are listed in Table 2. Many long-term (and pressing short-term) world problem solutions can be approached by reaching for the stars. For example, Shimizu Corporation is most interested in bio-regenerative systems as a path toward solution of
Tokyos waste management problems.
211
HIV
Moon colonization solves HIV through a better understanding of immune systems Siegfried 3
SPACE COLONIZATION MAY LEAD TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY, AGING, AND DISEASE AMELIORATION Many current human problems are the result of failures of the bodys natural immune system. We can diagnose many of these problems and have made
understanding immune system function and enhancement is seminal. Both United States and Russian long-term space missions have induced similar red blood cell and immune system changes. Hematological and immunological changes observed during, or
great strides in ameliorating the symptoms, but to date, after, space missions have been quite consistent. Decreases in red cell mass were reported in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Soyuz, and Mir programs probably due to diminished rates of erythrocyte production.
Space flight at microgravity levels may produce changes in white blood cell morphology and a compromise of the immune system. Skylab studies indicated a decrease in
the number of T lymphocytes and some impairment in their function. Certain United States and Russian findings suggest that space flight induces a transient impairment in immune system function at the cellular level.
Space flight offers a clinical laboratory unlike any place on Earth that may lead to an improved understanding of the function of the human immune system. Perhaps cures of aging, HIV, and other immune functionrelated illnesses can result from a comprehensive approach to Space Colonization.
212
Asteroids
Moon colonization allows for detection and deflection of NEO asteroids solves extinction Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. 36, p. SpringerLink, MV)
Telescopes based on the Moon will be able to provide a comprehensive survey of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and of "nearEarth objects" (NEOs), which are the asteroids and tailless (or "burned-out) comets that approach or cross Earths orbit. A survey of the asteroids and comets in the Kuiper Belt (which extends from the orbit of Neptune, at 30 AU to 50 AU14 from the Sun and contains tens of thousands of celestial bodies) and the Oort Cloud (which extends from 50 AU to three light years from the Sun) will also be possible. The NEOs are of vital interest for two reasons. First, the collision of a onekilometer diameter or larger NEO ( of which there are an estimated two thousand) with the Earth could conceivably destroy all human life here. Therefore, it is imperative that the orbits of all the larger NEOs be known with certainty. If it is determined that the Earth is threatened by the pending collision of an asteroid or comet, measures could then be taken to alter the orbit of the threatening object so that a collision can be avoided. The second reason for the interest in NEOs is that they are composed of valuable resources
2.3.3.3 Asteroids, comets, and NEOs including metals, hydrocarbons, and water. When mining operations of NEOs become possible in the twenty-first century, the Earth and the Moon, for practieal purposes, will have access to a virtually inexhaustible supply of raw materials (see Chapter 10).
Moon colonization solves asteroids through platforms for early warning and deflection Siegfried 3
Over the last decade a large mass of evidence has been accumulated indicating that near-Earth-object
SPACE COLONIZATION CAN HELP PROTECT EARTH FROM ASTEROID AND METEORITE HAZARDS (NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT IMPACTS)
constitute a real hazard to Earth. Congress held hearings on the phenomenon in 1998, and NASA created a small NEO
crater was recently discovered in the North Sea.
(NEO) impact events
program. Since 1988, a total (as of 7 August 2002) of some many thousand near-Earth objects (of which about 1,000 are larger that 1 km in diameter) have been catalogued that are potentially hazardous to Earth. New discoveries are accelerating. In just the last few months, a 2-mile-wide crater was discovered in Iraq dating from around 2000 to 3000 B.C. This impact was potentially responsible for the decline of several early civilizations. A similar
Major events have occurred twice in the last hundred years in remote areas where an object exploded near the Earths surface bur did not impact (such as in Russia). If either of these events had occurred over a populated area the death toll would have been enormous. Our armed forces are concerned that an asteroid strike could be interpreted as a nuclear attack, thus triggering retaliation.
What higher goals could Space Colonization have than in helping to prevent the destruction of human life and to ensure the future of civilization? The odds of an object 1 km in diameter impacting Earth in this century range between 1 in 1,500 and 1 in 5,000 depending on the assumptions made. A 1km-diameter meteoroid impact would create a crater 5 miles wide. The death toll would depend on the impact point.
A hit at Ground Zero in New York would kill millions of people and Manhattan Island (and much of the surrounding area) would disappear. The resulting disruption to the Earths environment would be immeasurable by todays standards. A concerted Space Colonization impetus could provide platforms for early warning and could, potentially, aid in deflection of threatening objects. NEO detection and deflection is a goal that furthers
international cooperation in space and Space Colonization. Many nations can contribute and the multiple dimensions of the challenge would allow
213
The Moon is a natural laboratory for the study of impact events. A lunar colony would facilitate such study and could provide a base for defensive action. Lunar and Mars cyclers
participation in many waysfrom telescopes for conducting surveys, to studies of lunar and other planet impacts, to journeys to the comets.
could be a part of Space Colonization that would provide survey sites and become bases for mining the NEOs as a resource base for space construction. The infrastructure of Space Colonization would serve a similar purpose to the solar system as did that of the United States
Interstate Highway system or the flood control and land reclamation in the American West did for the United States development. In short, it would allow civilization to expand into the high frontier.
214
Lunar Mining
Conquering the moon first is key to securing the Helium-3 resources Lasker 6 (John Lasker, Freelance Journalist-Major contributor for magazines (eg. Wired & Christian Science Monitor), Race to the Moon for
Nuclear Fuel, http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=all, 12/15) "After four-and-half-billion years, ," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's influential NASA Advisory Council, its preeminent civilian leadership arm. The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3. Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through theTaurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico). The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which targets Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong. Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters. At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced smallscale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one milliwatt of power on a continuous basis. While still
there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon
Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away. The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some
theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year. NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but
America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020. Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first." Establishing a lunar base is key to Helium-3 it wont have a negative effect on the environment Bilder 9
(Richard B. Bilder is Foley & Lardner-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, educated at Williams College and Harvard University Law School, was a Fulbright Scholar at Cambridge University in England, served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 33: issue 2, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&seiredir=1#search=%22moon%20bases%20before%20mining%22)
How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth?29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In one proposed scenario, once
a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surfaceprobably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the collected regolith to the temperatures
necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3)
discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar surface; and (4) return with the collected He-3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. The collected He-3 gas could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles.3 2 Importantly, this type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He-3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3based power program. However, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components
215
from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the Lunar colonization is prerequisite for mining and development Ad Astra 2k2
(Niklas Jarvstrat has a PhD in the area of Solid Mechanics and Strength of Materials, Master of Science in Applied Physics and Electrical Engineering, is the Associate Professor of Materials technology at University West, and Head of the Department of Technology, Lunar Colonization: Why, How and When, Ad Astra, March-April 2002, pg online @ http://moon-isru.com/information/AdAstra2002.pdf // sc)
There are many commercial and scientific reasons for establishing a lunar base. Some examples put forward as potentially profitable are the manufacture of raw materials and structures for use in Earth orbit and deep space, training for deep-space missions, energy generation, tourism and entertainment. Scientific reasons include research concerning biology and low-gravity manufacture, research about the Moon itself and the solar system, and the potential to use telescopes to observe deep space in the radio-shadow of the lunar far side. The main
motivation for a lunar colony, however, is purely the human instinct to move on and settle new land. The Moon is the ideal place for the first space colony because the psychological step is smaller than for any other location; you can see it from Earth and there will be solid ground under the colonists feet. On the other hand, the psychological step of going from the Moon to other locations in space is much smaller than first leaving the Earth gravity. Thus a lunar colony will become a first bridgehead in the peaceful conquest of space a stepping stone for the expansion of humanity into space. A lunar colony by definition would consist of a large group of people permanently living on the Moon. And a genuine colony would not need
All necessary goods should be produced from raw lunar materials in factories on the Moon. This self-sufficiency is needed for psychological rather than economic reasons. If you
materials or technology from Earth.
knew you would die if the supply ship did not arrive, you would quickly start thinking about following the next one back to Earth. If, on the other hand, you knew that you would be able to survive by your own work, you would take pride in expanding the colony to make room for your children. Thus, even if all space funding from Earth stops for some reason, once the lunar colony can sustain itself, human nature will ensure that it will also grow.
Control of helium-3 resources are key to avoiding resource wars that culminate in human extinction Lasker 10
(John Lasker, Freelance Journalist-Major contributor for magazines (eg. Wired & Christian Science Monitor), "Technoir", http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1363174/pg1, 4/4) Back
in 1998, representatives from Halliburton and Shell met with officials from NASA to talk, practically in They met over the prospects of drilling on Mars and the Moon. From that meeting, Halliburton the oilfields technology and services corporation once ran by Dick Chaney came away with the idea of building a drill specifically for our two closest celestial bodies. Why build a drill for the Red Planet and the Harvest Moon? And why No-bid Halliburton? Which still has a strong connection
secret. At Los Alamos, NM, no less, home to some of the most radical and exotic US military research ever. to one of its greatest beneficiary's, Dick Chaney, of course. Yes, that US Vice President, the one who tricked the world into thinking the US needed to invade Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bruce Gagnon, the space weapons expert who runs The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear
To monopolize the untold resources Mars and the Moon might offer? The question nearly answers itself, says Gagnon. Theres going to be a scramble for the moon by the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans. This is real. Theres going to be a conflict over it, he says. Who controls the moon is going to be rich by unimaginable amounts. Perhaps those cards are in the future for mankind. But certainly mankind
Power in Space, asks a rhetorical question: Why do you think Halliburton is building a drill for Mars and the Moon? has history on its side as a warning. History in the form of an Iraqi insurgency. The Iraq insurgency erupted, in part, over Dick Chaney and his neocons plans to privatize all of Iraqs industries, including oil, which would be taken over by American oil giants such as Shell and Exxon. And while some may think that thousands of US troops and Iraqi civilians died in vain due to the Iraqi insurgency, perhaps their souls won't allow Chaneys legacy and his offspring to trick us again. Hopefully on this planet and beyond. This doesnt mean, however, there wont be a future when man goes to war on the
man has already predicted such a conflict will take place. In 1995, in a New York Times op-ed written by science writer Lawrence Joseph, he asks the question, Will the Moon become the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century? And if the US does not take action in regards to the Moon, the nation could slip behind in the race for control of the global economy, and our destiny beyond. Coincidently, late in 2009, a
very surface and within the orbits of Mars and the Moon so to control the resources that can be mined and flown back to Earth. In fact, US Air Force recruiting commercial claiming their technology isn't science fiction, shows US troops tactically moving across a red and barren
Resource wars will either end when the human race becomes extinct, or rage on forever and ever as humans migrate across the universe. A migration Carl
landscape that looks too much like Mars. Sagan predicted will undoubtedly occur because of mans unwaivering desire to survive, he theorized. But Sagan also conceded that our collective
216

stupidity might do us in before we even migrate off the planet. The irony is, it might just be
a resource war that ends the
human race.
217
SPS
Cost of producing and exporting lunar solar energy is extremely low Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. 407, p. SpringerLink, MV)
If the energy needs of the Earth in the following decades were to be generated on the Moon by photovoltaic (solar) cells that are constructed from lunar materials, and beamed to Earth by microwave energy, the pollution "cost" of electricity production would be negligible. The dollar cost of producing and exporting solar electric power on the Moon at the 20-terawatt level over an 80-year period has been estimated to be as low as U.S.$0.002/kW-hr (Criswell, 1991), which offers a high profit potential. The combined advantages of virtually-zero pollution, low production costs, and steadily-increasing energy markets on the Earth (as well as on the Moon and other locations in space) will assure the success of lunar electric power companies. Lunar electric power will be popular with consumers, environmentalists, and investors alike. Solar cell energy will exceed moons needs and supply a major proportion of the Earths energy requirements Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute;
Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. xlvi, p. SpringerLink)
lt is possible to generate terawatts of electric power on the Moon from solar cells that are made from lunarderived materials. The power levels will meet or exceed all of the needs of the lunar civilization, and excess energy will be available for export to other areas in the solar system, including the Earth. The method for transferring energy from one site to another is to convert the electric energy in
the lunar power grid into microwave or laser beams, which are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. The beamed energy is then reconverted into electric energy at the receiving site. As explained in Chapter T', nominal advances
in beaming technologies are expected to allow terawatts of microwave energy to be delivered from the Moon to the Earth to supply a major proportion of the future energy needs of the Earth. Lasers convert electric energy into coherent beams of light. The laser beam is able to transmit energy over interplanetary distances at high eff1ciencies.8 The Moon will be an excellent site for the operation of lasers that transmit power to other sites in the solar system. This will make it possible to supply the electric power that is needed for exploration and development projects, such as the exploration of the moons of Jupiter and mining operations on nearEarth objects (NEOs). In addition to the transmission of electric energy, the laser beam can be used as the energy source for solar/laser thermal rockets and for augmenting sunlight propulsion for solar sails on interplanetary missions. Laseraugmented solar sails will be the highperformance interplanetary transports of the twentyfirst century; they will be able to
carry payloads from the EarthMoon system to Mars, for example, in less than a month. When the lunar industrial base is able to construct lasers for lower transmission. the high levels of electric power in the lunar electric grid will be made available for extensive exploration programs throughout the solar system.
218
Solar power on the Moon would be efficient and effective Schrunk et al. 7 Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws
Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. 119-120, p. SpringerLink, MV) 7.2.2 Solar electric power The
second option for the production of electric power on the Moon is photovoltaic (solar) cells. The Moon has an abundant supply of energy in the form of sunlight; it is constant,1 unobstructed, and virtually inexhaustible, and it can be converted into electric power by solar cells. Solar cells have been a source of electric power for longduration spacecraft for several decades, and they have been used successfully on the Moon. The first stages of a functioning lunar electric power supply will therefore be established by simply transporting "offthe-shelf" solar arrays from the Earth to the base camp on the Moon. One potential drawback with sunlight as a source of energy is that it is not available during the lunar night.2 Consequently, some
form of energy storage device,3 such as batteries or flywheels, will be needed to provide power for nighttime lunar operations. The incorporation of energy storage devices substantially increases the mass, cost, and complexity of solar power
systems, and for this reason solar cells have been regarded as less attractive as a primary power source for lunar operations than nuclear reactors. Nevertheless, as noted in Chapter 3, the
lunar regolith is an abundant supply of materials that can be used as feedstock for the Moon-based manufacture of solar cells. If a number of Earth-made solar arrays were placed on the lunar surface and connected into an electric power grid, the grid would supply the power required for solar cell fabrication equipment to make solar cells from the lunar regolith. Another possibility is a solar-powered mobile robotic factory that "paves" the lunar surface with additional solar cells (see Appendix A). The lunar-made solar cells would be added to the electric grid, and steadily increasing power levels on the Moon would thus be realized. The combination of
inexhaustible sunlight that is unobstructed due to the lack of an atmosphere (and only rarely obstructed by the Earth during an eclipse of the Sun) and the local availability of lunar regolith feedstock for the construction of solar arrays has given rise to a substantial body of literature on the subject of generating electrical power on the Moon.
219
SETI
Moon is an ideal site for scientific activities, including SETI Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. xli-xlii, p. SpringerLink, MV) I.2.5 Science opportunities A
lunar base will be a superb platform for scientific activities of, on, and from the Moon. For example, the Moon is a much more stable platform for the operation of space telescopes than Earth orbit or free space, and the lunar regolith can be used to shield instruments from ionizing radiation, micrometeorites, and temperature extremes. Interferometry, the high-precision telescopic technique that yields images of very high resolution in optical and longer wavelengths, can be fully exploited on the Moon. The far side of the Moon is also free from all radio interference from the Earth, and is therefore the ideal site in the solar system for the operation of radio telescopes, including the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). The Moon will eventually become a coordinated astronomical observatory that will greatly expand humankinds knowledge of the universe. The Moon is also a treasure trove of information on the geologic history of the solar system, and a global program of
geologic exploration of mountains, rilles, maria, and lava tubes will commence with the permanent return of humanity to the Moon.
220
Water Scarcity
Moon colony produces desalination tech and boosts living standards worldwide Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, p. xliii, p. SpringerLink, MV) 1.2.8 Earth benefits The
construction of the first lunar base will provide business opportunities and jobs for people on the Earth in many diverse fields such as aerospace, robotics, and environmental sciences. In addition to their economic benefits, these efforts will yield advances in virtually every science and engineering discipline, thus directly benefiting the quality of life of people on the Earth. The establishment of a Moonbased solar power system will potentially deliver abundant, low-cost, clean solar power to every region of the Earth, thus improving the living standards of all people, especially those in developing nations. Living standards will also increase with the delivery to Earth of high-value elements and materials that are mined from near-Earth objects. Quality of life standards will benefit from the use of excess electric power from space to clean up pollution, desalinate ocean water, and pump the desalinated potable water to arid regions of the world (discussed in Chapter 10). The delivery of energy and materials to the Earth from space has the promise of dramatically reducing the need for mining operations on Earth and the consumption of fossil fuels (that release greenhouse gases) and nuclear
fission fuels.
Water scarcity threatens extinction NASCA 4

[Water shortages only a matter of time, National Association for Scientific and Cultural Appreciation, http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html] Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no
water, no life! This becomes all the more worrying when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we
protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst droughts on record. These conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy answer. The
spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will
acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in future years countries
rich in water will enjoy an

221
importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In the long term
the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no obvious answer.
222
Astronomy Study
Moon is the ideal site for astronomy study Schrunk et al. 7
Faculty Member of the Kepler Space Institute (Dr. David G., author and Founder of the Quality of Laws Institute; Madhu Thangavelu, works with the Department Of Aerospace Engineering & School of Architecture at the University of Southern California, lecturer for a graduate seminar in Extreme Environment Habitat Design as part of the USC School of Architecture, former Conductor of the Space Exploration Architectures Concept and Synthesis Studio in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in the School of Engineering at USC, former Space Projects Director for the Calearth Institute, Advisory Board Member for the Los Angeles Section of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Burton L. Sharpe, participant in mission operations planning and execution of the Gemini, Apollo, and Viking NASA space programs; Dr. Bonnie L. Cooper, from Oceaneering Space Systems in Houston; The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement, 2nd edition, pp. 28-31, p. SpringerLink, MV) 2.3 ASTRONOMY FROM THE MOON The
Moon has many advantages as a location for making astronomical observations and measurements, and it is very likely to become humankinds principal scientific base for astronomy. For this reason alone, the Moon should be given a high priority for human development. From the time of Galileo until the beginning
of the twentieth century, the primary means by which astronomers derived knowledge of the universe was by making telescopic observations of the visible light that was emitted or reflected by objects in space. Significant advances in astronomy were made from these telescopic observations; however, the data that were gathered were incomplete because visible light represents only a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum from which the universe may be observed. In the twentieth century, technical advances have allowed astronomers to expand their investigations to include the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum, thus greatly expanding our knowledge of the universe. The divisions and characteristics of the electromagnetic spectrum from which astronomical observations may be made are listed in Table 2.1. 2.3.2 Astronomy from Earth orbit The most effective method for eliminating the deleterious effects of the atmosphere on astronomical observations is to move telescopes into space. Because technological advances have made access to space possible, telescopes dedicated to the observation of every major segment of the electromagnetic spectrum have been placed in Earth orbit, creating whole new bodies of knowledge about the universe. For example, orbiting observatories such as the IRAS and Compton Gamma Ray telescopes have made extensive observations of the sky in the infrared and gammaray segments of the electromagnetic spectrum, respectively, that would not have been possible by means of Earth-based observatories. The Hubble Space Telescope operates primarily in the visible-light region of the electromagnetic spectrum; it has greater resolving power4 than, and its images far exceed the quality of, Earth-based telescopes. However, Earth orbit is again not the ideal location for an observatory. A telescope in Earth orbit is not a completely stable platform for making observations because it moves through, and is displaced by, the EarthMoonSun gravitational fields. Furthermore, it is subject to other disturbing forces such as sunlight and the tenuous atmosphere of the Earth that extends several hundred miles into space. Although the errant motion of orbiting telescopes can be minimized by devices such as gyroscopes or reaction control jets, the resolving power of Earth-orbiting telescopes is compromised by motions induced from destabilizing and corrective forces. Observations of celestial objects are also disrupted whenever the orbit of the telescope causes the Earth to eclipse the object that is being studied. Telescopes in Earth orbit are difficult to maintain and their useful lifetimes are limited, especially if they use consumable materials such as liquid helium5 for their operations. They are also subjected to damage from micrometeorites, thermal stress (moving in and out of the Earths shadow), cosmic rays,6 solar flares, and high-energy photons (X-rays and gamma rays). Finally, it is expensive to transport telescopes into space, and the number of telescopes that are available for making observations from space is consequently far fewer than desired. 2.3.3 Moon-based astronomy
The Moon is the ideal site in the solar system for the study of astronomy. It has a very low level of seismic activity, and is thus a much more stable platform for astronomy than either Earth-based or Earth-orbiting observatories. Because there is negligible atmosphere on the Moon, the entire electromagnetic spectrum that arrives through interstellar space is available for observation from the Moon without distortion or attenuation. The regolith of the Moon can be used to shield telescope instrumentation from ' temperature extremes, micrometeorites, and ionizing radiation. Shielding can virtually eliminate thermal stresses7 in telescopes, except for those telescopes that directly view the Sun. X-ray and gamma-ray telescopes, which, by definition, are designed to detect high-energy photons, can be placed several meters below the level of the lunar surface to eliminate the background radiation of space. In this manner, below-ground telescopes will "see only the primary X-ray and gamma-ray radiation which comes from the small solid angle of the sky that contains the object being observed (Figure 2.1); all other primary and secondary8 ionizing radiation will be attenuated by the Moon.9
223
Human Evolution
Colonizing space creates an open environment that fosters human evolution beyond present-day materialism and war-mongering Collins and Autino 8
(Patrick, econ professor-Azabu University, Japan and a Collaborating Researcher with the Institute for Space & Astronautical Science, and Adriano, President of the Space Renaissance International, What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could_contribute_to_employment_econ omic_growth_environmental_protection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml) Healthy societies can revitalise themselves. An
interesting explanation of the potential of space travel and its offshoots to revitalise human civilisation is expressed in the idea that "The Earth is not sick: she's pregnant" [35]. Although this idea may seem strange at first sight, it is a
surprisingly useful analogy for understanding humans' current predicament. According to the "Pregnant Earth" analogy, the darkening prospect before humanity is due to humans' terrestrial civilisation being "pregnant"and indeed dangerously overduewith an extra-terrestrial offspring. Once
humans' space civilisation is safely born, the current stresses on the mother civilisation will be cured, and the new life may eventually even surpass it's parent. This idea not only illuminates many aspects of humans' present
problems described above, it also provides detailed directions for how to solve these problems, and explains convincingly how successfully aiding this birth will lead to a far better condition than before the pregnancy . A young couple may be happy in each other's company, but their joy is increased by the birth of children and life with them, from which many new possibilities arise. Likewise, the
birth of humans' coming extra-terrestrial civilisation will lead to a wide range of activities outside our planet's precious ecosystem. This evolution will solve not just our material problems, by making the vast resources of near-Earth space accessible, but it will also help to cure the emptiness of so-called "modern" commercial culture -- including the "dumbing down" by monopolistic media, the falling educational standards, passification by television, obesity, ever-growing consumption of alcohol, decline in public morality, pornography, narcotics, falling social capital, rising divorce rates, and youths' lack of challenge and lack of "dreams". It will do this by raising humans' sights to the stars, and showing that the door to them is unlocked, and has been for decadeswe have only to make a small effort to push it open forever. In addition, re-opening a
true geographical frontier, with all its challenges, will in itself be of inestimable value for the cultural growth of modern civilisation. The
widespread sense that we live in a closed world which is getting more and more crowded will be replaced by an open-ended, optimistic vision of an unlimited future. Access to the cornucopia of space resources that await humans' exploitation can clearly make a unique contribution to this. To the extent that leaders of major industries are
motivated by ambition in business competition, they will welcome this opportunity to extend their activities to new fields in the far wider arena of space. However, to the extent that they are motivated by the attempt to achieve monopolistic control and profits, they may try to hinder development in space, even at the cost of preventing its wide benefits, since this could be more profitable to them. Implementing and start
the "Pregnant Earth" agenda can prevent this cultural regression a true world-wide Renaissance, an unprecedented owering of civilisation of which human culture has been in need ever since the inspiration of the Italian Renaissance was followed by a decline into progressive materialism and warmongering [35].
224

Moon Aff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moon Aff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Moon Aff (lol)

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Advantage 1: Space Leadership

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

to happen on Earth," Brandenburg said.

"If we look weak in space, bad things tend

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

B. NASA is focusing on Earth science and de-emphasizing exploration Wakeman 11

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

(Debra, NASA ramping up in Earth observation 12/28/10 http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101228-nasa-ramping-earth-obs.html)

F. Global Warming cause mass extinctions Handwerk 6

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

***Advantage 1: Space Leadership***

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Lack of White House support for US Space leadership.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

US losing leadership hurts US and allies security.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Concern about Americas competitiveness in space.

US must currently work to regain disposition in the global community.

Future US Leadership at risk.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

No recent actions prove the US cares about the space program.

US budget cuts for space- international controversy.

Presidents budget cut crushed US space leadership.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

NASA has no choice but to lose leadership after budget cuts.

Loss of US space leadership- domestic and economic consequences.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Lack of US leadership now-space dominance being taken over by other countries.

Americas space leadership on the decline.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Vause 07 [John - CNN correspondent, 11/26/2007, China's ambitious plans in space,

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Acting now is key to the US taking steps towards the moon.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Leadership Solves Tech Innovation

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Leadership Solves Cooperation

Friedman, 11(Lou, American Leadership, Executive Director and Co-founder of

US Space Leadership is key to relations and perception in global society.

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

US space leadership essential.

Advantage 1: Space Leadership