China Tics Disad 1

1NC
China bashing is coming via revaluation talk congressional action inflames relations and guts the economy Palmer 11 (Doug, journalist for the Reuters, August 11, 2011, Wider trade gap could popel China currency bill, Reuters) Few government data on Thursday showing the U.S. trade gap with China grew nearly 12 percent in the first half of 2011 is likely to fuel efforts in Congress to get tough with China's currency practices. But that drive could fall short again, sparing President Barack Obama a major diplomatic headache as he prepares to host Chinese President Hu Jintao and other regional leaders at an annual summit in Honolulu in November, analysts said. The bilateral trade gap totaled $133.4 billion for the six months through June, compared to $119.4 billion in the same period last year, despite repeated U.S. and Chinese government pledges to bring trade into balance. The deficit with China for June alone was $26.7 billion, largest since September 2010 and the fifth largest on record. Many U.S. lawmakers and manufacturers blame the huge deficit on unfair Chinese trade practices. They complain that China deliberately undervalues its currency to give its companies a big price advantage in international trade. "Cracking down on unfair trade practices -- including currency manipulation -- should be at the top of
the trade agenda. Instead, it's been sidelined and there are no clear indications from House or Senate leaders that it is a legislative priority," said Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. In a sign China could be about to shift its yuan policy to contain domestic inflationary pressures, the People's Bank of China Wednesday and Thursday allowed the biggest two-day rise in the yuan reference rate since February 2008. Still, Paul complained that China has taken only "baby steps" since loosening its currency from a peg against the U.S. dollar over a year ago. Just before Congress adjourned for its August recess,

Senator Charles Schumer said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised a vote on China currency legislation this year. Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, also argued Congress should consider China currency legislation in conjunction with expected votes on three trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. "The issue of currency dwarfs these three trade agreements combined, and I think we have an obligation to our American
workers and our American prosperity to address it," Schumer said during Senate Finance Committee work on the pacts. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill treating "undervalued currencies" as an export subsidy. The bill, which died in the Senate, would have allowed U.S. companies to seek countervailing duties on a case-by-case basis against imports that benefit from China's currency practices. Since then, control

of the House has switched from Democrats to Republicans, whose leaders have shown little enthusiasm for China currency legislation. Plan saps political capital Powell 09(Stewart M, writer for Chron.com, September 12, 2009, NASAs mission for billions more may be an uphill battle, chron.com)
NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs

an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them, said Scott Lilly,
a scholar at the Center for American Progress. Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make those trades. Rep.

Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, said wrangling the additional $3 billion a year would be an enormous challenge but one I am prepared to win. Political capital is key to blocking pushes for currency revaluation Palmer 11 (Doug, journalist for the Reuters, September 2, 2011, Analysis: Obamas trade legacy in a crucible this fall, Reuters) After a slow start that has frustrated U.S. business groups, the next four months could be important to President Barack Obama's legacy on trade. Obama has a goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2014 but he has not moved as
aggressively as his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, to open markets abroad. This month business groups expect Obama at long last to submit three Bush-era free trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama to Congress for approval. "We're quite confident" that Congress has the votes needed to approve the pact, said Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers. Successful passage by Congress would burnish Obama's free trade credentials and boost talks on a regional free trade agreement that the White House hopes will establish "21st Century" trade rules in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region. The plan is for Obama and leaders of the eight other "Trans-Pacific Partnership" countries to shake hands on the broad outlines of a deal in November when the United States hosts the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. The proposed pact would build existing U.S. free trade deals with Australia, Chile, Singapore and Peru into a regional free trade pact that includes Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. Japan,

China Tics Disad 2

Canada, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand have also expressed interest in eventually joining the pact. Still,

Congress' approval of the South Korea, Colombia and Panama deals is not assured. Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO labor
federation which opposes the deals, boasted on Wednesday that opponents may have the votes to stop the pacts, which they see as a threat to

In addition to the challenge from organized labor, Obama must persuade Republicans focusing on spending cuts to renew a retraining program for displaced workers known as Trade Adjustment Assistance. This is critical to gaining enough Democratic votes in the Senate to approve
U.S. jobs. "I think we have a real shot at it," Trumka said. the trade pacts. Republican opposition to TAA "makes our job, quite frankly, a little bit easier, because no one is going to support those trade agreements without TAA," said Trumka. Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and

Senator Charles Schumer also have signaled plans to push for a vote on legislation to pressure China to revalue its currency in conjunction with the free trade pacts. That would inflame relations with Beijing and possibly trigger tit-for-tat trade retaliation if Obama does not expend political capital to block it. The early start of the 2012
U.S. election campaigns, however, may dampen Obama's appetite to lead aggressively on trade. But "if the administration spends the effort and actually finishes the job (the trade deals) with Congress, that will send a very positive signal," said Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

China bashing starts the mother of all trade wars undermining global growth Carmosky 11 (Janet, contributor, 9/08/200, China Bashing Season Officially Kicks Off, Forbes) In the past 24 hours both Mitt Romney and House Democrats have unleashed the threat of labeling China as a Currency Manipulator. There is talk of employing sanctions, of taking steps to launch the mother of all trade wars. Lets be
clear: in the event of a divorce of the G2, everyone suffers. Its primary season, though. Republican or Democratic, the rhetoric implies we have a moral imperative to punish China for its economic success. Although we bought the goods that gave China a trade surplus, and sold the T-Bills that allow them to hold 8% of our total deficit, the

implication is that Beijing has foisted an agenda hostile to the USA upon us, and must be stopped from continuing, even if stopping them destroys US-China relations. No place in this narrative for the fact that China is by far the USAs fastest growing export partner; nor that a faster devaluation of the Yuan raises the risks of a financial crash in both nations, hence the world overall. The two nations are in this together. A trade war would be damaging all around. Will the satisfaction of having a clear
enemy (that isnt us) be worth it? Moral indignation may play well on the podium; recognize however, that to the extent we view economics as moral philosophy, we must also allow that it is subject to different interpretation in different cultural contexts. Namely, in the Chinese view, a) capitalism is not morally superior to socialism, it just works better and b) democracy isnt better than single party rule because it liberates individual thought, but there is evidence that allowing election mechanisms (where all candidates are qualified to lead, of course) correlates to regime longevity. Chinas

partial and inconsistent implementation of western economic and financial disciplines is self-serving, but it isnt proof that the USA has the moral high ground. The Wealth of Nations, the original capitalist manifesto, proposes that market mechanisms are conducive to a prosperous society. Thing is, in the Western view, society is more about individuals than governments. Chinese, by contrast, in 5000 years of history, have lived through almost 2000 years of of war - international and civil and come to the conclusion that the existence of a strong State
correlates to freedom from starvation and invasion, to good infrastructure and a healthy population. Bottom line, Chinas success would hurt less if we had a plan. Weve been running the economy on consumption and now the middle class is broke. Weve been creating wealth through financial markets, but our markets ended up facilitating wealth destruction for the general population. China

may have been part of getting us to this point but Im pretty sure it takes two to tango. Chinas currency policy, nor its actions as a whole, are not responsible for the USAs lack of effective industry incentives, infrastructure investment programs, or a long term energy or development strategy. They may be the
beneficiaries of a public sector that serves to create national wealth, but they are not responsible for the gridlock in our political system, or for the Tea Party-led civil war against our public sector. Thats all us. Heres an idea. Lets take a page on self-preservation from the ultimate survivors the Chinese, that nation that is out-performing us economically. If we really want to regain ground relative to China, if we want to stand up

to the Chinese in self-preservation, invest more in America. Deficit spend on jobs and infrastructure. Like a trade war, a higher deficit will force a rise in the Yuan, and create all kinds of global financial backlash. But at least well have something to show for it like jobs and investment promotion programs. Chinese trade conflicts is the most likely scenario for military conflict Landy 07 (Ben, director of research and strategy at the Atlantic Media Company, publisher of the Atlantic Monthly, National Journal, and
Government Executive magazines and serves in various research and project management positions at Brookings and CSIS , 03/04/07)

China Tics Disad 3 The greatest threat for the 21st century is that these economic flare-ups between the US and China will not be contained, but might spill over the realm of military aggression between these two world powers. Economic conflict breeds military conflict. The stakes of trade override the ideological power of the Taiwan issue.
Chinas ability to continue growing at a rapid rate takes precedence, since there can be no sovereignty for China without economic growth. The United States role as the worlds superpower is dependent on its ability to lead economically. I have a little doubt that protectionist

policies on both sides greatly increase the likelihood of conflict-far more than increases in military budgets and ASAT tests. Extinction STRAITS TIMES 2000 *June 25, No one gains in war over Taiwan,+ THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a fullscale SinoUS war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The

US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding
nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military

leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. "Just when everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu, the Chinese troops suddenly appeared," he recalled. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and North Korea, and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the Americans). "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not do this or that," he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press

China Tics Disad 4

Coop Unpopular China

The Bill is unpopular China cooperation is rejected by multiple scenarios Pennington, 7/16 [ Associated Press, US lawmaker wields budget ax over China space ties article for associated press
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/us-lawmaker-wields-budget-1019535.html] WASHINGTON

A Republican lawmaker is looking to make the Obama administration pay a price for what he sees as its defiance of Congress in pursuing cooperation with China in science and space technology. A proposal by Rep. Frank Wolf, a fierce critic of Beijing, would slash by 55 percent the $6.6 million budget of the White House's science policy office. The measure was endorsed by a congressional committee this week, but faces more legislative hurdles, and its prospects are unclear. President Barack Obama has sought to deepen ties with China, which underwrites a major chunk of the vast U.S. national debt and is emerging a challenge to American military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. Among the seemingly benign forms of cooperation he has supported is in science and technology. Last year NASA's administrator visited China, and during a high-profile state visit to Washington by China's President Hu Jintao in January, the U.S. and China resolved to "deepen dialogue and exchanges in the field of space." Wolf,
R-Va., argues that cooperation in space would give technological assistance to a country that steals U.S. industrial secrets and launches cyberattacks against the United States. He says Obama's

chief science adviser, John Holdren, violated a clause tucked into budget legislation passed this year that bars the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA from technological cooperation with China. He says Holdren did so by meeting twice with China's science minister in Washington during
May. "I believe the Office of Science and Technology Policy is in violation of the law," Wolf told The Associated Press, adding that cutting its budget is the only response available to him. Wolf chairs a House subcommittee that oversees the office's budget. The

punishment he proposes reflects his deep antipathy toward China, which he accuses of persecuting religious minorities, plundering Tibet
and supporting genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan by backing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. He described the Obama administration's policy toward the Asian power as a failure and railed against the president for hosting Hu at the White House. Caught

at the sharp end

is Holdren's office, whose mandate is to develop sound science and technology policies by the U.S. government
and pursue them with the public and private sectors and other nations. Holdren told a Congressional hearing chaired by Wolf days before his May meetings with Chinese Science Minister Wan Gang that he would abide by the prohibition on such cooperation with China, but then spelled out a rather large loophole: that it did not apply in instances where it affected the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. At another Congressional hearing shortly afterward, Wolf's annoyance was clear. He

threatened to "zero out" Holdren's office. Space cooperation between the two world powers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union pursued in the Cold War still seems a long way off. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. visited China in a little-publicized trip in October and
discussed "underlying principles of any future interaction between our two nations in the area of human space flight," but no specific proposals. China sent an astronaut into space in 2003, and plans to send the first building block of a space station into orbit this year, but it

still has comparatively limited experience. Another constraint on cooperation is that its manned space program is dominated by its military, whose other capabilities most clearly demonstrated by a 2007 test that destroyed an orbiting satellite have alarmed American officials. But one benefit of basic forms of cooperation, such as sharing
data and basic design criteria, could be to learn a little more about China's opaque space program. Since 1999, the U.S. effectively banned use of its space technology by China. That

also has a commercial downside for American producers in an increasingly globalized marketplace. "Renewing civil and commercial space cooperation with China ... is not a blank check
and need not provide China with sensitive technologies," wrote James Clay Moltz of the Naval Postgraduate School in testimony at a congressional hearing on China's civilian and military space programs in May. Wolf has included the prohibition on cooperation with China by NASA and the White House science policy office in the bill approved Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee. The bill budgets $50.2 billion for a raft of federal agencies involved in law enforcement, trade promotion, space and science for the fiscal year starting in October. The

55 percent reduction faced by the science policy's office far exceeds the overall 6 percent cut in spending across all government agencies covered by the bill. Holdren's office could not be reached for comment Friday. The bill now goes to the Republican-led House of Representatives for approval. A version also must pass the Democratled Senate, and the two bills would have to be reconciled before legislation can be sent to Obama to be signed into law.

China Tics Disad 5

Coop Unpopular China

Foreign cooperation is unpopular Wolf clause proves Young 7/11 *Connie, writing for the CBS news service 7/7/11 Can U.S. afford to snub China in space quest?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20077462-503543.html Beijing was deeply offended when two journalists from China's state-run Xinhua news agency were barred from covering the historic launch of the shuttle Endeavour in May, the second-to-last mission for the U.S. shuttle program. Endeavour

blasted off from Florida's Kennedy Space Center on May 16, carrying an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 particle detector - a $1.5 billion apparatus developed, in part, by Chinese scientists. It became a source of national pride in China. Banned from covering the launch, the government mouthpiece lashed out in a report two days blasting "discriminative" new U.S. legislation which bans any of NASA's government-apportioned funding being used in partnership with, to support or host any entity of the Chinese government. The Xinhua article refers to a clause added by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House committee which oversees NASA's budget - and a fierce critic of China's human rights record, to an emergency
national budget bill passed in April to keep the U.S. government running for six months. Xinhua's article claimed "even Americans themselves" viewed the so-called "Wolf Clause" as discriminatory. The

emergency budget averted a government-wide shutdown, and has been little talk in Washington specifically about the clause on space cooperation with China, and no U.S. lawmakers have
it was passed in spite of vocal objections by members of both parties to many of the restrictions included. However, there publicly labeled it "discriminative," as Xinhua suggested. "Obviously, the 'Wolf Clause' runs counter to the trend that both China and the United States are trying to push ahead their exchanges and cooperation in science and technology," said the Xinhua article. In remarks to the House Appropriations subcommittee explaining his stance, Wolf

made it clear China's dismal record on human rights was behind the legislation blocking any NASA interaction with China's military-run space program. "Consider our differing worldviews," said Wolf. "The U.S. was founded on the premise that liberty is a birthright, that individual human life is sacred, that the freedom to worship according to the dictates of your conscience is paramount. The Chinese government operates antithetically to these beliefs." "There is no clearer indication of the gulf that exists between our two
countries than the Chinese government's treatment of its own people." But experts in U.S.-China relations accuse Wolf of seeking to "ram through a potentially unconstitutional assault on the president's ability to conduct scientific diplomacy." Gregory Kulacki, a Beijing-based global security analyst and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in the journal "Nature" that the

restrictions placed on NASA may, in part, be partisan U.S. politics threatening to further exacerbate a relationship already fraught with distrust. The scientist tells CBS News that Wolf's amendment was "prompted by efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to the Chinese (on space cooperation) even though the Bush Administration had been doing the
same thing for years." "The ban should be lifted," wrote Kulacki bluntly. "The progress of Chinese space activity during the previous US administration suggests that the prohibitions that have stifled Sino-American scientific cooperation for decades have not achieved their aims, and have arguably been counterproductive. China has shown that it has the talent and resources to go it alone. The sanctions have only severed links between the countries and made a new generation of Chinese intellectuals resentful and suspicious of the United States. And they stand in contrast to the tradition of scientists strengthening diplomatic relations."

China Tics Disad 6

Coop Popular International

Cooperation is accepted as a necessity by the government Albrecht 7/6 * Mark J. GAmericas space program is crashing PhD from the Rand Graduate School
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/6/americas-space-program-is-crashing/] The system has become adept at resisting reprioritization and powerful in protecting itself and the status quo. The only successful initiatives to alter the direction of our space efforts at the national level since the end of the Cold War have been negative. Cuts count; they force change. President Clinton dramatically reoriented and redefined the space station by cutting its budget in half and threatening to cancel it outright.

President Obama has changed the human spaceflight program by letting the shuttle fly out, commercializing operations of the space station and canceling the Constellation program. His intention, properly, is to use the savings to underwrite new developments. Even in the best of times this would be difficult, but current fiscal realities are likely to push Congress to harvest much of the savings for deficit reduction. Worse, the presidents space team is sending conflicting signals about its commitment to his plan. For decades, America introduced
inventions to the world, such as high-speed and personal computers, robotics, satellite telecommunications, lasers, solar panels, laparoscopic surgery, nanomachines and nuclear medicine, and built industries and high-tech jobs around each of them in a seemingly unending cavalcade of spinoff technologies developed by our space programs. Will

space remain an economic and technological catalyst for

America in the coming decades, or is our future in innovations like Facebook and Twitter? The conventional wisdom in the federal
bureaucracy is that you can reduce spending or you can restructure, reprioritize and reorganize. You can cut programs or start new programs. But you cant do both. Now,

our backs are to the wall. To re-establish our leadership in space, we must defy conventional wisdom and cut spending, start new initiatives and radically restructure a mature agency all at the same time. It wont be pleasant, and it wont be easy, but neither was putting a man on the moon.

China Tics Disad 7

Link: Earth Sciences Unpopular

EARTH SCIENCE SAPS CAPITAL. DINERMAN 11. *Taylor, journalist, NASAs continuing problems The Space Review -- April 18]
NASAs $5-billion science budget is almost certainly going to be cut. Many in Congress are suspicious of its earth science programs since not only do they seem to have little to do with the agencys core space exploration mission, but the programs are so intertwined with the controversies and political battles over global warming that cutting them or putting them on pause would seem logical. At the very least many of the new earth observation satellites will be delayed while Congress examines the role of earth sciences at NASA.

EARTH SCIENCES WILL BE SPUN AS CLIMATE CHANGE -- SPARKS GOP BACKLASH SMITH 10. *Marcia, editor, What the Election Means for NASA Space Policy Online Nov 3+
NASA's space science programs are very popular with Congress and the public, but earth

sciences have been a political football for a long time. Many Republicans do not believe that climate change is human-induced and question why NASA needs to invest so much in earth science research. With the White House and Senate still in Democratic hands, and Senator
Barbara Mikulski still in the Senate to champion Goddard Space Flight Center and its earth science research programs, the news is not entirely gloomy. Still, the President's requested increase for NASA's earth science program may encounter rough seas ahead instead of the smooth sailing it enjoyed this year.

China Tics Disad 8

NMD Unpopular - Congress

Missile Defense being cut in the Status Quo congressional scrutiny magnifies the link Dimascio 6/10 *Joe, reporter for politico, Defense Bill Boosts Missile Defense Scrutiny
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38334.html]

As Congress, prodded by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, casts a more watchful eye on Pentagon spending and contracting procedures, even missile defense programs may no longer get a free pass. In fact, come next year, Congress may boost scrutiny of the Pentagons missile defense initiatives in a way both political parties can support. In the defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee has included two new provisions one to increase oversight of the entire agency and another focused on a key program that Republicans want to ensure remains viable. The first requires the Missile Defense Agency to start laying down a baseline, or an initial figure, for how much each of its programs should cost. Its something lawmakers and the Government Accountability Office have sought for years and that taxpayers might be surprised doesnt already exist. Creating objective assessments of the costs and progress of the missile defense program brings MDA closer in line with other defense acquisition programs, said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who leads the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. It adds accountability *and+ transparency and improves efficiency, which is good for the missile defense program and good for taxpayers. The agency is no small backwater. The MDA manages the research, development and testing of all the nations missile defense systems, commanding an annual budget of roughly $10 billion. The agency asked for $8.4 billion next year, up several hundred million dollars over 2010, but it may have even more to spend. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed a defense authorization bill that will allow the agency to spend $10.2 billion, and the House voted for $10.3 billion. The agency oversees everything from the colossal Ground-based Midcourse Defense System giant interceptors buried in Alaska and California designed to pick off enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles to the administrations new
phased, adaptive approach to defending Europe, first from sea-based interceptors and later from land and high-tech projects that remain the subject of research. The agency, created by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 as a successor to the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, was initially

a research and development entity, a move that shielded it

from the acquisition rules that apply to most defense weapons programs. And for most of the Bush administration, the MDA enjoyed a

light touch when it came to oversight. When a programs cost grew, for example, the agency just asked for more money for the
program the next year, said one congressional aide. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, described the problem during a 2009 speech at a missile defense conference at a time when the administration was focused on reining in Pentagon programs in which cost growth had escalated by nearly $300 billion. For the last eight years, MDA programs have been exempt from many of the most basic requirements of the DoD acquisition system, Levin said.

MDA programs have suffered from extensive schedule delays and from billions of dollars of added costs. Unfortunately, we have not been in a position to say how bad these problems are because, unlike other acquisition programs, MDA programs are not required to establish firm baselines for cost and schedule, not required to measure their performance against those baselines
and not subject to Nunn-McCurdy requirements to identify and address troubled programs.

China Tics Disad 9

NMD Unpopular Obama

Obama doesnt want the plan other missile defense programs come first Spring 09 [Baker, Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/08/Obama-Missile-Defense-Proposal-Numbers-Matter]

It is assumed that the Obama Administration is going to fill any gaps in U.S. and allied vulnerability to long-range missile strikes with follow-on systems to the GMD interceptors. This is a dangerous assumption.
Space-Based Interceptors While future sea-based interceptors derived from the Navy's Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors could be given the capability to intercept long-rang missiles, it however, is that the

is far from certain that the Obama Administration will take this step.[6] What is certain, Obama Administration is not going to support the development of even more effective space-based interceptors. The Obama Administration has requested a $577 million increase in research and development funding for sea-based missile defense, which it claims is in part for countering long-range missiles.[7]
The sea-based program is to field roughly 220 anti-missile interceptors through 2015, but it is unclear what number of those will be capable of countering long-range missiles.[8] On

the other hand, the Administration has mounted no visible opposition to a provision in the House Defense Appropriations Bill to cut $50 million out of the program. Further, the Obama Administration has moved to end the Multiple Kill Vehicle program. This program was slated to assist in the fielding of new generations of Standard Missile-3 interceptors. The termination of the program could both delay and make more expensive the effort to give the sea-based missile defense system the ability to counter long-range
missiles. The logical alternative for follow-on systems to counter long-range missiles is space-based interceptors.[9] In this case, 1,000 interceptors located in orbit would provide a robust defense against rogue state missile attack. Yet the Obama Administration's missile defense program provides no funding for the development of space-based interceptors.

China Tics Disad 10

NMD Unpopular Flip Flop

Obama is focused on land missile defense and missile defense cuts Eaglen 10 [Mackenzie, Research Fellow for National Security Studies at the heritage foundation, Why Missile Defense for the Heritage
foundation http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/08/why-missile-defense] President Obamas

phased adaptive approach for missile defense has some merits but also has unnecessarily slowed the program while the threat has remained the same. Iran may be capable of launching a long-range missile by 2015, yet the U.S. missile defense program will not be capable of defeating this type of threat until 2020. The Department of Defense has requested $9.9 billion in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the missile defense program, with
$8.4 billion of that going to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). One notable improvement is the $2.2 billion request for the sea-based Aegis ballistic missile defense system an 11 percent increase over the previous year. While the MDA budget shows an increase over the previous years request, it

still falls nearly $1 billion short of President Bushs final request in fiscal year 2009. The administrations plan for missile defense has four stages that continue through 2020. The program includes both land and sea-based interceptors. Ultimately, the fourth phase would move the system beyond regional defense and protect the entire U.S. homeland against an ICBM attack. Unfortunately, the administration has cut back on other integral parts of the comprehensive program. The number of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California has been cut from 44 to 30, the planned third site for missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic was cancelled, and funding has been eliminated for space-based interceptors. For a truly effective and comprehensive system, the land, sea
and air components must be strengthened. First, the administration should reinstate the original plan to field 44 ground-based midcourse defense interceptors in Alaska and California. As the number of countries that possess ballistic missiles grows alongside the size of many arsenals, additional interceptors are necessary. Congress should add $200 million to the missile defense budget to begin restoring the planned interceptors here in the U.S. Iran may be capable of launching a long-range missile by 2015, yet the U.S. missile defense program will not be capable of defeating this type of threat until 2020.

China Tics Disad 11

NMD Unpopular international

International deployment is contentious key senators and Russia VOA 09 * Voice of America, prominent news organization Congress Continues Criticism of US Missile Defense System in Europe
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-03-23-voa66-68797992.html]

Two key members of Congress raised questions on Monday about the U.S. missile defense plan for Europe, saying that the system is untested and would not protect key American interests from an attack by Iran. And a leading Senator called for more cooperation with Russia. The most controversial part of the U.S. missile defense system involves putting a sophisticated tracking radar in the Czech Republic and anti-missile missiles in Poland to
intercept any Iranian launch aimed at Europe. While some missile defense technologies have had numerous successful tests, including seabased interceptors and warheads designed to destroy long-range missiles over the ocean, the

medium-range system planned for Europe has not been tested and is the subject of much criticism. At the same time, Russia claims the Polandbased missiles would threatened its defenses. U.S. officials deny that. But Russia has made the issue a central obstacle to the kind of improvement in relations the Obama administration says it wants. The Chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, indicated Monday he believes the European part of the missile defense system should be dropped in favor of a new approach that would not antagonize Moscow. "It appears that the

door to cooperation between the United

States and Russia is gradually opening, and missile defense could become a tool for positive change rather than an impediment to better relations," he said. Levin said although cooperation with Russia on missile defense seems unlikely in the current environment, it is "worth a try" because it could be what he called "a geopolitical game changer." "U.S.-Russian cooperation on
missile defense against Iranian missiles, even if we were just to begin serious discussions on the subject, would send a powerful signal to Iran," he said. "Iran would face in a dramatic way a growing unity against her pursuit of dangerous nuclear technology." The senator says the downside of such an approach would be minimal, although some experts express concern about the United States backing out of plans it has pressed Poland and the Czech Republic to accept. Experts also point out that the Bush

administration tried to work with Russia on missile defense, but concluded that it was not a realistic possibility. At the same conference for missile defense officials and contractors, another member of Congress pointed out a different shortcoming of the European missile defense plan. Representative Ellen Tauscher said that even if the system can work, it would not protect U.S. allies in the Middle East or U.S. troops deployed there against Iran's large arsenal of shorter-range missiles. "These systems are currently capable
of targeting U.S. forces and our allies throughout the region," she said. "And guess what? The proposed interceptor in Poland would have little, if any, capability to counter the existing threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles." Tauscher, who announced last week she will leave Congress to take the top arms control post at the State Department, also chided the Pentagon for not yet proving the system planned for Europe works. "The world is a very dangerous place. Non-state actors and rogue nations are working to develop missile technology to do harm to America, American interests and our forward-deployed troops," she said. "That is why we need missile defense systems that work."

Speaking on a computer link from his headquarters in Colorado, the head of U.S. Northern Command, Air
Force General Gene Renuart, who is responsible for defending the United States, told the meeting he has confidence in the missile defense system, but acknowledged there

is still much work to do. "I am a strong supporter of the system and the program and the current have to continue to stay focused on those key elements of both operational test and operational employment." The Obama administration has not said what it will do with the controversial
regimen on," he said. "However, we do European missile defense system, but it has said it wants to "reset" U.S. relations with Russia. The issues are under review, and the results are expected soon.

China Tics Disad 12

NMD Popular Kyl

SBMD Popular 5 million for study, senator kyl, and the pentagon
Gertz 08 [Bill, National security editor at Washington times, CIA, FBI, and brookings lecturer, for the Washington times Space Based Defense http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/16/insidethe-ring/?page=1 Congress voted recently to approve $5 million for a study of space-based missile defenses, the first time the development of space weapons will be considered since similar work was canceled in the 1990s. Appropriation of the money for the study was tucked away in a little-noticed provision of the Continuing Resolution passed recently by Congress and followed two years in which Congress rejected $10 million sought for the study. < Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and a key supporter of missile defenses, said approval of the study highlights the need to provide comprehensive protection from the growing threat of missile attack and to limit the vulnerability of vital satellites to attack. We have the potential to expand our space-based capabilities from mere space situational awareness to space protection, Mr. Kyl said in a Senate floor speech. In the past 15 years, the ballistic missile threat has substantially increased and is now undeniable, he said on Sept. 29. A total of 27 nations now have missile defenses, and last year, over 120 foreign nations fired ballistic missiles, he said. North Korea and Iran both are developing missiles and selling the technology for them, he added. Mr. Kyl also said the Pentagons annual report expressed concerns about accidental or unauthorized launches of long-range missiles from China and about the growing vulnerability of vital satellite systems to attack by anti-satellite weapons, as shown by Chinas 2007 anti-satellite weapons test. Mr. Kyl said he hopes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who will choose what government or private-sector agency will conduct the study, will choose the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded research center, to carry out the
study. A Senate report on the study stated that independent groups that could produce it include Energy Department national laboratories, or scientific and technical organizations. A

defense official said space-based missile defenses were last considered during the first Bush administration as part of its Global Protection Against Limited Strike, or GPALS, a missile-defense plan focused on then-Soviet missiles using a combination of ground-based interceptors, sea-based missiles and space-based interceptors. The Clinton administration canceled all work on space-based missile defense and focused instead on tactical defenses
against short-range missiles. The current Bush administrations missile-defense program is limited to the deployed ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California and ship-based interceptor missile defense. The defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said spacebased defenses are needed for global, rapid defense against missiles. Its really the only way to defend the U.S. and its allies from anywhere on the planet, the official said.

China Tics Disad 13

NMD Popular Republicans

NMD is popular Republicans empirically approve Spring 07 *Baker, Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation Measuring the Candidates on Missile Defense
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2007/05/Measuring-the-Candidates-on-Missile-Defense] Russia's test of a new long-range missile -- one that a Kremlin official insisted can penetrate any American shield -- ought to wake up anybody who believes missile defense is an issue that went out with the Cold War. If

anything, missile defense is more important now, in an age of terrorism, than it was during our legendary rivalry with the Soviet Union. Although the U.S. is committed to building a missile defense, progress takes time. And, let's not forget, the project was needlessly delayed for years by politicians who
falsely asserted that it would spark an arms race. As the 2008 presidential race heats up, voters ought to use missile defense as one yardstick to gauge how serious the candidates are about protecting the United States from attack. Mere rhetoric isn't enough, though. A better way is to consider if the candidates support the principles behind three key amendments, all related to missile defense, that came up during the recent debate over military spending. Any presidential candidate who truly favors fielding effective missile defenses for the U.S. should unequivocally support what the following amendments are designed to achieve: 1. Missile-defense funding. Rep.

Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to restore $764 million that the House Armed Services Committee cut from the missiledefense program. The most severe cuts came in the programs meant to intercept ballistic missiles in their "boost phase," shortly after they're launched. The most problematic cut this amendment would have restored was $10 million needed to conduct conceptual studies for a space-based defense against ballistic missiles. Space-based defenses, including missile interceptors, would be the most effective element of an overall missile-defense system. The Franks amendment lost narrowly, but any presidential candidate who supports restoring these needed funds understands the need for robust missile-defense funding, and space-based defenses in particular. 2. Missile-defense cooperation with our allies. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) offered an amendment to strengthen the U.S.-Israel cooperative missile-defense program. Israel and the U.S.
have collaborated on missile defense for quite a while now. Indeed, it has long been U.S. policy to field missile defenses to protect U.S. forces deployed abroad and U.S. friends and allies, as well as U.S. territory. Such cooperation isn't limited to Israel. We have cooperative programs in place with Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, among others. A new arrangement is being negotiated with the Czech Republic and Poland. The Hunter amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House. Any candidate who tries to facilitate cooperation with our allies on this issue can fairly be described as a genuine supporter of missile defense. 3. Operational status for missile defenses. Finally,

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) offered an amendment clarifying a provision in the defense-funding bill that could have prevented the president from putting still-developing missiledefense systems on operational alert. As the Russian missile test makes clear, the effort to develop and deploy effective defenses
lags well behind the threat. It's important, as our missile defenses develop, that the president be able to put elements of the system on-line as they're completed. No

genuine supporter of missile defense would deprive a future president of the option of putting the system on alert, a step President Bush took when North Korea launched a salvo of missiles in July 2006. The Sessions amendment passed, ensuring that future presidents won't find their hands tied when deciding how best to protect the American people. These three amendments provide important guideposts for judging presidential candidates when it
comes to missile defense. True supporters of missile defense will seek to include space-based systems in the overall defense, will seek widespread missile-defense cooperation with the friends and allies of the U.S., and will preserve the option of putting developmental missiledefense systems on operational alert. When weighing the merits of the candidates on missile defense, don't just take into account what they say. When crucial votes come up, consider what they do.

China Tics Disad 14

NMD Popular Republicans

SBMD is a key republican issue 37 confirmed support Grego 11 [ Laura scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program, is an expert on space security issues, writing for
TheHill on 2/16/11 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/144607-space-code-of-conduct-a-good-start] Currently, the leading diplomatic effort to establish such norms is the Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, an effort shepherded by the European Union and being considered by a number of spacefaring nations, including the United States, whose final decision is expected soon. However, pushback

from missile defense partisans may threaten to derail that step. On February 2, a group of 37 Republican senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing concerns about how such norms might impact US activities, most notably missile defense. The senators have asked Secretary Clinton to brief the relevant Senate committees and for her "personal response" to their questions. They want to know what impact signing the Code might have on a U.S. decision to deploy missile defense interceptors in space; whether it would affect the development, test or deployment of an anti-satellite weapon; or if it would affect the possibility of putting weapons in space meant to counter anti-satellite weapons. In fact, the voluntary Code does not mention space weapons of any kind, nor would it meaningfully limit their development. It reaffirms what is already agreed
in the Outer Space Treaty; declares that subscribing states will refrain from damaging outer space objects unless for debris mitigation, selfdefense, or public safety reasons (the nominal motivation of the U.S. destruction of a failed spy satellite); and will promote efforts toward the prevention of an arms race in outer space. While should be seeking more, not less.

the senators are exercising their duty and right to be asking questions, inhibiting these initial efforts to establish norms is shortsighted and counterproductive. We

China Tics Disad 15

NMD Popular Congress

Missile Defense is popular congress funding increases prove Spring 07 *Baker, Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation Is congress turning the corner on missile
defense http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/14/is-congress-turning-the-corner-on-missile-defense/]

Congress may be turning the corner on missile defense. It is reported that the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces added $361.6 million to the Obama Administrations inadequate $9.9 billion request for the overall missile defense program in fiscal year 2011. This is a significant departure from last year, where Congress, with the notable exception of the valiant effort by House Republicans to oppose it, acquiesced in the Obama Administrations $1.6 billion reduction in the broader program. The increase in funding is to go to the following components of the broader missile defense
program: 1) the Patriot PAC-3 interceptor; 2) the AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar; 4) the Standard Missile-3 interceptors; 5) the Airborne Laser; and 6) the U.S.-Israeli missile defense cooperation program. The

increases, in large measure, were paid for by reductions in funding for a number of satellite programs. While the increase in funding for missile defense in fiscal 2011 from the Presidents request may mark in change in Congress views on the program, the overall program will
remain inadequate. A robust commitment to defending the U.S. homeland against long-range missile attack is not to be found. The additional funding for the Airborne Laser is welcome, but it will not provide a stand-by operational capability for the system. Most importantly, the missile defense program, even with the increases approved by the House Strategic Force Subcommittee, does not include a program for placing missile defense interceptors in the location where they can be most effective. This is in space. All told, a truly robust missile defense program in fiscal 2011 would include roughly $1 billion more than what the House Subcommittee approved.

China Tics Disad 16

SPS Unpopular Capital

SBSP takes political capital (Leonard DAVID 2008, Research Associate Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer Space.com, Space-Based Solar Power Harvesting Energy from Space, CleanTech, 5-15, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx? ArticleId=69)(jimmy) Space Based Solar Power: Science and Technology Challenges Overall,

pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis
Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But

the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.
Support is crucial- Politicians dont want SPS (Eva-Jane Lark; September 2009; Vice-President and Investment Advisor with BMO Nesbitt Burns; POLICY AND FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR SPACE SOLAR POWER; https://sites.google.com/site/siliconvalleyspaceclubsite/space-solarpower/policy-and-financial-considerations-and-prospects-for-space-solar-power)(jimmy) Some SSP proponents feel the only way for an SSP system to be built is for the government to take the initiative and build it. The costs and complexity are enormous, and are considered to be on the scale of the Apollo Program,60 Manhattan Project61 or construction of the transcontinental highway or railroad systems. Since the government was responsible for these accomplishments, a government project model is most frequently cited, expected and lobbied for by SSP advocates. Such a project may be conducted by a government outright or a new agency may be created for that sole purpose. This model will likely be the model of choice for those countries without extensive capital markets where costs could be shared, or funded exclusively by the private sector. Political support is crucial. For SSP to become a

successful reality, support must be widespread and lasting or the effects of election cycles would kill it in the midst of its development. At this time, there does not appear to be the overwhelming need or desire from any government to spend the substantial resources necessary for Space Solar Power when other issues are more critical.

China Tics Disad 17

SPS Unpopular Congress

No Congressional support
(Dwayne A. DAY 2008 , Program Officer Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, Knights in Shining Armor, The Space Review, 6-9, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)(jimmy) If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the

economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per
kilowatt hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The

other is an institutional avatarone of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly falls through the cracks because neither NASA nor the Department of Energy wants responsibility . If the
military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home. But theres also another factor at work: navet. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoDs less-public record is far worse, and military

space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim that the military supports space solar power based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

China Tics Disad 18

SPS Unpopular Budget

Politicians wont be on board- Budget constraints prove (Eva-Jane Lark; September 2009; Vice-President and Investment Advisor with BMO Nesbitt Burns; POLICY AND FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR SPACE SOLAR POWER; https://sites.google.com/site/siliconvalleyspaceclubsite/space-solarpower/policy-and-financial-considerations-and-prospects-for-space-solar-power)(jimmy) There are a variety of models proposed for the organizational structure of an SSP endeavor. While these will be explored in greater depth later in this paper, policy, funding and the model to be used in SSP development are significantly related. In the case of a fully government funded project or a public/private partnership, support from policymakers and politicians is crucial. The financial considerations

and upfront costs of such a project are substantial. Regardless of department or policy area, aligning goals and priorities within budget constraints is often a problem. When those goals and priorities bridge several departments and are not the exclusive domain of one, it can be an even greater problem. When programs involve risk, few policymakers are willing to take those risks and make decisions. Space Solar Power involves all of these. One of the
challenges for Space Solar Power is that it can fit into the mandates of many government departments yet it is exclusive to none. While any nation may explore the idea of building solar power satellites to harvest solar energy from space, it is most likely to be accomplished by those nations who are already spacefaring. However any country or nation could be a customer and be indirectly responsible for the creation of such a system without already having a presence in space, or space launch capability.

Even if they prove they prove no health issues to Waves- still links to politics- its controversial and costs tons
(DEPT. OF ECE; 2011; SOLAR POWER SATELLITES & MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION http://www.scribd.com/doc/54368555/Solar-PowerSatellites-Ieee)(jimmy) The amount of power available to the consumers from one SPS is 5 GW. the peak intensity of microwave beam would be 23 m W/cm. So far,

no non thermal health effects of low level microwave exposure have been proved, although the issue remains controversial. SPS has all the advantage of ground solar, plus an additional advantage; it generates power during cloudy weather and at
night. In other words SPS receiver operates just like a solar array. Like a solar array, it receives power from space and converts it into electricity. If the satellite position is selected such that the Earth and the Sun are in the same location in the sky, when viewed from the satellite, same dish could be used both as solar power collector and the microwave antenna. This reduces the size and complexity of satellite. However, the

main barrier to the development of SPS is social, not technological. The initial development cost for SPS is enormous and the construction time required is very long. Possible risks for such a large project are very large, pay-off is uncertain. Lower cost technology may be developed during the time required to construct the system. So such a large program requires a step by step path with immediate pay-off at each step and the experience gained at each step refine and improve the risk in evolutionary steps.

China Tics Disad 19

SPS Unpopular Health

SPS controversial in politics- microwave exposure proves
(DEPT. OF ECE; 2011; SOLAR POWER SATELLITES & MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION http://www.scribd.com/doc/54368555/Solar-PowerSatellites-Ieee)(jimmy) The price of implementing a SPS includes the acceptance of microwave beams as thelink of that energy between space and earth. Because of their large size, SPS would appear as avery bright star in the relatively dark night sky. SPS in GEO would show more light than Venusat its brightest. Thus, the SPS would be quite visible and might be objectionable. SPS posses many environmental

questions such as microwave exposure, optical pollution that could hinder astronomers , the health and safety of space workers in a heavy-radiation (ionizing) environment, the potential disturbance of the ionosphere etc. The atmospheric studies indicate that these problems are not significant , at least for the chosen microwave frequency

China Tics Disad 20

A2 SPS Unpopular - Health

Microwave transitions dont link to politics- no backlash
(DEPT. OF ECE; 2011; SOLAR POWER SATELLITES & MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION http://www.scribd.com/doc/54368555/Solar-PowerSatellites-Ieee)(jimmy)

The use of microwave transmission of power has been the most controversial issue in considering any SPS design, but any thought that anything which strays into the beam's path will be incinerated is an extreme misconception.
Consider that quite similar microwave relay beams have long been in use by telecommunications companies world wide without such problems. At the earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity, at its center, of 23 mW/cm 2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm 2 outside of the rectenna fenceline (10 mW/cm 2 is the current United States maximum microwave exposure standard). In the United States, the workplace exposure limit (10 mW/cm 2 ) is at present, per the

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) [50] , expressed in voluntary language and has been ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement.

China Tics Disad 21

SPS Popular Congress

Congress encouraging NASA to work on SPS Dinerman 8 (Taylor, 5/8/8, Space Review, NASA and space solar power http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1) NASA has good reason to be afraid that the Congress or maybe even the White House will give them a mandate to work on space solar power at a time when the agencys budget is even tighter than usual and when everything that can be safely cut has been cut. This includes almost all technology development programs that are not directly tied to the Exploration Missions System Directorates Project Constellation. Not only that, the management talent inside the organization is similarly under stress. Adding a new program might bring down the US civil space program like a house of cards.

China Tics Disad 22

Mining Unpopular Budget

Asteroid mining is unpopular: is not a budgetary priority (Jones 95 Eric M. Jones , 1995, Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal,
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Date of Access 6/25/11, JK)(jimmy)

The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the beginning. The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that
plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to change, of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards. If, for example,

people began to think that there was a real possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might well become available. The space community talks hopefully about asteroid mining, about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3 mining on the Moon but, unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money. Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper
transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them, we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs.

Obama change in direction- ticks off congress (Watson 6/28/10, USA Today, Landing on an asteroid: Not quite like in the movies
http://www.physorg.com/news196920110.html)(jimmy) In February, Obama took steps toward killing Bush's moon program, which was beset by technical troubles and money woes. Two months later, in a speech at Cape Canaveral, Fla., Obama announced that the astronauts' next stop is an asteroid. So far, the Obama administration has been quiet on the need for a major sum of money to accomplish his goal. And unlike Kennedy, who used Russian spacecraft missions known as Sputnik to promote the moon mission, Obama doesn't have a geopolitical imperative to justify the scheme. Congress is resisting Obama's change of direction, which could delay investment in the program.

China Tics Disad 23

Mining Unpopular - Mars

Plan makes congress mad- they want Mars centerpiece

Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer Lexington Institute, Human Spaceflight, April,
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf) The two most important elements in any

human spaceflight program that proposes to go beyond low-Earth orbit are an evolvable heavy-lift launch vehicle and a multi-purpose crew vehicle. Congress has directed that NASAs future work on both systems should focus to the maximum degree possible on technologies already under development for the Constellation program. By applying those technologies to a human spaceflight agenda focused on the ultimate destination of Mars, NASA can preserve its investment in a highly skilled space workforce and related infrastructure. Failure to make Mars the centerpiece of future exploration efforts will probably doom the human spaceflight program to a further erosion of political support at a time when its survival is already in question

China Tics Disad 24

Mining Unpopular Capital

Plan passage tanks support- Mining wont sustain political support

Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer Lexington Institute, Human Spaceflight, April,
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf) This all makes sense from a budgetary and scientific perspective. Whats missing is a grasp of the rationale required to sustain political support

exploration of the Moons far side or nearby asteroids may have major scientific benefits, those benefits are unlikely to be appreciated by politicians struggling to reconcile record deficits. NASAs current research plans do not connect well with the policy agendas of either major political party, and the flexible path will not change that. To justify investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in human
across multiple administrations. While spaceflight over the next 20 years while entitlements are being pared and taxes are increasing, NASA must offer a justification for its efforts commensurate with the sacrifices required. Mars is the only objective of sufficient interest or importance that can fill that role. Thus, the framework of missions undertaken pursuant to the flexible-path approach must always be linked to the ultimate goal of putting human beings on the Martian surface, and the investments made must be justified mainly on that basis.

The American public can be convinced to support a costly series of steps leading to a worthwhile objective, but trips to the Moon and nearEarth objects arent likely to generate sustained political support during a period of severe fiscal stress

China Tics Disad 25

Mining Popular Obama

Obama likes plan- in his path of space exploration (John Matson | Jan 29, 2010; Speculation about NASA's future swirls in advance of Obama's budget request; Sceintific American;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=speculation-about-nasas-future-swir-2010-01-29) But what's the rush to get back to the moon, anyhow? The U.S. won that race and won it decisivelywhatever nation reaches the moon next, whether Russia, China or some other contender, it likely won't do so within 50 years of Apollo 11.

Many have argued that Constellation's moon deadline was a misguided goal from the start and that a more forward-thinking blueprint for space exploration would involve unprecedented feats, such as a manned mission to a nearEarth asteroid. Obama is said to favor this "flexible path" to space exploration.

China Tics Disad 26

Winners Lose
Cant get a win resources are more important than popularity
Boulie, BA, Political & Social Thought, Writing Fellow of The American Prospect, 5/5 Political Capital, http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2011&base_name=political_capital , 5/5/11, [Stolarski]
Indeed, for liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital, its worth noting that approval-spikes arent necessarily related to policy success. George H.W. Bushs major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success. George W. Bush was able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic initiatives to begin with. To repeat an oft-made point, when it comes to domestic policy, the presidency is a limited office with limited resources. Popularity with the public is a necessary part of presidential success in Congress, but its far from sufficient.

Winners lose
Andres et al, Dutko Group, Griffin -- Griffin, Johnson, Dover and Stewart, and Thurber, '2k American University, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30:3) [Stolarski]
Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build winning coalitions. Unfortunately, most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places, in the world of trade-offs. Winning in one arena may cause a major loss in another. Presidents Bush and Clinton, for
example, faced divided party government conditions during mostor in the case of Bush, throughouttheir administrations. Each could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators policy position and bargained or offered other inducements to win a simple majority. Yet, that model was unrealistic because of the trade-offs facing both presidents. The most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. This was a constant struggle for President Bush and his team. Throughout his administration, legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Savings and Loan Recapitalization Act, and fast-track trade legislation required bipartisan support from Democratic Party committee chairs and rank-and-file members to generate majority support for his policies. Bushs own party members often met discussions with the Democratic Party leadership with apprehension and suspicion. The White Houses task during these exercises was to balance the needs of the presidents party members for consultation and attention with the demands of the majority to compromise and move legislation forward. Although President Bush could have negotiated with Democratic Party members in furthering his legislative agenda, the need to build and promote his own partys particular policies and preferences were limiting factors. President Clinton faced similar trade-offs during the last six years of his administration, confronting a Republican majority in Congress. Trade-off problems for a president are not isolated to his own party, however. The trade-off issue faced the Bush administration when he advocated legislation that was more ideologically conservative and attempted to build coalitions with the more moderate Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. The White House targeted many U.S. House districts represented by conservative Democrats as the best places to pick up additional seats. On several occasions during the height of a White House lobbying push on legislation, conservative Democrats routinely noted to presidential aides as represented in the following quote from one House member: Ill consider voting with you on this bill, but you need to talk to (an administration political representative) and tell him that he cant come down to my district and campaign against me this weekend. You guys have got to understand that you cant ask me for my vote today and then try to beat my brains in politically tomorrow.

China Tics Disad 27

Losers Lose
Failure spillsover, crushes rest of agenda Kuhn 2009
David Kuhn, High Stakes for Obama in Health Care Fight, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, 62209,
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/22/obamas_power_rises_or_falls_with_health_care_97109.html

It began to sink into the political class last week that Barack Obama's push for health care reform could
fail. If it does indeed fail, it would be a stunning knockdown blow to Obama's presidency. He would likely never be as powerful thereafter. A president's bully pulpit is only as powerful as the perception of that power. The history framing Obama, from the first he embodies to the economic collapse, strengthened Obama early on. It also meant that his stature was fragile. His strength was

rooted in hope, not accomplishment. And hope can quickly fade without success. Health care reform represents Obama's first major legislative battle. Obama has already won a successful stimulus package. But he faced little real opposition. Health care reform will be far more difficult. And the president realizes it. This Wednesday Obama holds a one-hour "town hall" on his health care agenda, broadcast on ABC News from the White House. A Democratic vision of success likely includes a government-backed health insurance program. Passage would leave Obama politically stronger. Over the long haul it would likely improve the public's perception of government, an existential interest of the political left. In the near term, a successful health care overall would offer momentum to other legislative efforts, from energy to immigration reform. But the converse is no less true. It was four years ago that George W. Bush's effort to reform Social Security began to sink. That year he gave more speeches on Social Security than the Iraq war, all to no avail. The bully was lost from Bush's pulpit. By cause or coincidence--certainly the war in Iraq was the greatest long-term albatross--it was at this point that Bush's approval rating began to slide from bobbing around 50 percent to the low 40s by autumn, and on downward. But it's the lessons of Bill Clinton's failure that consume this White House. There is a tendency in Washington to overestimate the providence of a moment. And in 1993, there was a great deal of hyperbole about Clinton's moment. The Washington Post's David Broder offered a more sober voice. He wrote in September 1993 that Clinton's push for national health care represented the "most ambitious domestic undertaking by a chief executive in many a generation." Broder added that, "The financial, political and lobbying barriers are formidable." Those barriers held. Clinton's failure was not the first, only the most damaging. Health care reform trails back nearly a century. Teddy Roosevelt called for national health care in the 1912 campaign. By 1945 Harry Truman, in a special address to Congress, became the first sitting president to publicly push for a national health care program. The opposition proved too strong for Truman. By 1961, a young Ronald Reagan, as advocate for the American Medical Association (AMA), recorded a roughly 10minute record arguing that even the partial nationalization of health insurance was an "excuse" to implement "socialized medicine." Today the AMA, like other powerful commercial interests, opposes a public option that competes with private insurers. And its possible real reform could depend on the outcome of this private-public debate. The United States is the only industrialized nation without a universal health care system. Americans are not, on average however, healthier than citizens of most other wealthy nations. There were some 37 million Americans without insurance when Clinton pushed for universal health care. That number has risen to 46 million today. At least six presidents have sought some version of health care reform. But only Clinton made it his first major legislative effort. And he lacked the power of Obama. Clinton won with 43 percent of the vote, 10 percentage points less than Obama. He got sidetracked with the debate over gays in the military. And his staff went about reform badly. The overhaul was privately prepared. The bill came out of the White House and not Congress. Clinton did not strongly push for deadlines on the issue. By contrast, Obama left the plan to Congress. He is pushing for legislation this summer. He also benefits from the ongoing nature of the health care debate over the past decade. Many incremental policy battles are fought and resolved. Obama is also, unlike Clinton, not governing in a conservative era. Events of the day, from this recession to issues abroad, also offer Obama moments to appear more presidential and therefore more powerful. But it's also expensive. Last week a government estimate placed the tab at $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The cost caught Democrats off guard. Trimming and tailoring is underway. More problems are likely ahead. The most successful active state presidents of the twentieth century never attempted heath care reform. Not Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson. Johnson vested early political capital into Medicare and Medicaid. But in time, Vietnam sunk the momentum of Johnson's domestic agenda. This president is more prudent than gambler. He is not Johnson. He won't go all in. And yet he chose health care to make his first big fight. And Obama's later legislative ambitions now ride on his success. Obama has already slipped with

China Tics Disad 28

the public. His job approval rating, based on the RealClearPolitics average, is now below 60 percent.

Any ebb in popularity makes legislative failure all the worse for Democrats. Obama and Democrats have much to gain by significant reform. Therefore Republicans have much to win by a Democratic defeat on any bill of this magnitude. Obama's Democratic majority in Congress, like Clinton, makes
success more possible. But it also adds more pressure. Failure would look like another Democratic president unable to corral his party. "That might make the fall that much more severe," as Columbia

University political scientist Robert Shapiro put it. And yet the potential fall means compromise is likely. This White House wants some bill to be law. The outcome may be more painkiller than cure. But thats health care reform, like the industry its politics involve the cold calculus of high risk and trauma.

Agenda losers lose Light 99

Light (Director, Center for Public Service) 99 [Paul C., The Presidents Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, p. 223] Moreover, in the current political environment, Presidents are encouraged to adopt the "move it or lose it" approach. Domestic agenda setting has become a vicious circle: each failure breeds greater pressure for action, which in turn leads to more failure.

Defeats create a climate of agenda weakness Hunt 97

HUNT (staffwriter) 11/11/97 [Terence, Trade Vote Loss Sparks Talk of Clinton as a Lame Duck, Chattanooga Times, LN] "When you can't prevail on one where you've had weeks to convince recalcitrant lawmakers to go along, then it has implications for the future," Ornstein said. "Just as victories breed victories,
defeats can generate the opposite kind of climate."

Losers lose loss of political clout will crush presidential agenda Ornstein Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute fellow and political analyst, 1993 (Norman J., Roll Call,
Clinton Can Still Emerge a Winner; Here's What to Do, May 27, p. Online) But the converse is also, painfully, true. If a president develops a reputation for being weak or for
being a loser - somebody who says, "Do this!" and nothing happens, who is ignored or spurned by other interests in the political process - he will suffer death by a thousand cuts. Lawmakers will delay jumping on his bandwagon, holding off as long as possible until they see which side will win. Stories about incompetence, arrogance, or failure will be reported always, and given prominence, because they prove the point. Gerald Ford's supposed clumsiness became a metaphor to the press for

his weakness; never mind that he had been an All-American football star and was probably the best athlete to occupy the White House in decades. Jimmy Carter's encounter with the "killer" rabbit and his collapse while jogging also became metaphors for presidential bad judgment and weakness.

Presidents lose support when their agenda isnt moving Cohen and Collier 99
COHEN & COLLIER (Prof., Political Science, Fordham Univ. & Prof., Univ. of Kansas) 99 [Jeffrey, Presidential Policymaking, p.
48]

All presidents enter office being able to draw upon the natural resource reserves the office bestows on them. But as the administration ages, more and more judgment about the president is based upon the incumbent's experiences, not the office's attributes. When
presidents lose the reputation as effective leaders, especially in agenda-setting activities, they may become quite vulnerable. They may look presidentially "incompetent"; "; consequently, they may be less able to influence the public's agenda

Congress abandons losers Light 99

Light Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, New York University; Founding Director, Brookings Center for Public Service; Senior Adviser, National Commission on the Public Service; Senior Adviser, Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative

1999 (Paul, The Presidents Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, p. 29)

China Tics Disad 29

How does reputation affect presidential capital? According to Neustadt, professional reputation is a "cardinal factor in the President's own power to persuade": When men in government consider their relationships with him it does them little good to scan the Constitution or remind themselves that Presidents possess potential vantage points in excess of enumerated powers. Their problem never is what abstract Presidents might do in theory but what an actual incumbent will try in fact. They must anticipate, as best they can, his ability and will to make use of the bargaining advantages he has. Out of what others think of him emerge his opportunities for influence with them. If he would maximize his prospects for effectiveness, he must concern himself with what they think (Neustadt 1960, p. 60). For Neustadt, the "greatest danger to a President's potential
influence with [Congress] is not the show of incapacity he makes today, but its apparent kinship to what happened yesterday, last month, last year. For if his failures seem to form a pattern, the consequence is bound to be a loss of faith in his effectiveness 'next time (p. 61).

Losers lose its a downward cycle.

Brody 91
Brody emeritus professor of political science at Stanford University, won the American Political Science Associations 1992 Woodrow Wilson award as the best Political Science book of 1991 19 (Richard, Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support, p. 24)

91

presidential policy missteps lead to increased public disapproval. Incremental weakness in public support strengthens the opposition of political elites. For example, it reduces the president's capacity to persuade members of Congress that support for his legislative program is withheld at their political peril. It also encourages foreign leaders to take actions that are contrary to the interests of the United States or, at least, the president's foreign policy. In turn, elite policy opposition increases presidential policy failure and, with it, increased public disappointment at the president's incapacity to fulfill expectations. This directly lowers public approval of presidential performance and sets into motion the next cycle of strengthened elite resistance, faltering presidential program, and reduced public support.
A spiral decline in presidential popularity could work as follows: after a brief "honeymoon,"

Policy defeats create a cycle of falling power just like wins do The Hotline 03
The Hotline (nqa) 1/30/03 [staffwriter, Bush: Walking and Chewing Gum? LN] But presidents "ultimately get rewarded for success, not effort. Policy victories, like defeats, can create virtuous or vicious cycles of rising or falling White House power."

China Tics Disad 30

Political Capital Key- A2: Dickinson

Presidential leadership shapes the agenda Kuttner 11 (Robert, Senior Fellow Demos and Co-editor American Prospect, Barack Obama's
Theory of Power, The American Prospect, 5-16, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)

As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work , Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the essence of a president's power is "the power to persuade." Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents
amass power by making strategic choices about when to use the latent authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress. In one of Neustadt's classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As

Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a president possesses several points of leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda.