325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

DDI ’08 AFF Wave 3
Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie 1/59
SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III
SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III...............................................................................1

U.S. Weaponizing Now......................................................................................................3
Pentagon increasing Space Offense..................................................................................5
U.S. blocking space weapons treaty..................................................................................7
All armed forces sectors weaponizing..............................................................................8
China Weaponizing Now.................................................................................................10
Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing.........................................................12
Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power...........................................................13
U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization..................................................15
A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S..............................................................17
Information Good............................................................................................................18
Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good......................................................................................19
A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE.............................................20
2AC DoD Counterplan....................................................................................................22
No Solvency.......................................................................................................................23
Militarization Turn..........................................................................................................24
Taiwan War Turn.............................................................................................................25
DoD F22 Tradeoff DA......................................................................................................26
Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease ..............................................................................28
NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable........................................................................................30
Non Unique- NASA Spending Now................................................................................31
NASA Satellites Solve Oceans.........................................................................................32
Lol Politics........................................................................................................................34
Poverty Impacts...............................................................................................................35
Now is Key........................................................................................................................37
Extinction Inevitable........................................................................................................38
Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation................................................................40
Extinction Inevitable- Vaccines.......................................................................................41
Extinction Inevitable- Tech.............................................................................................42
1
Extinction Inevitable- Resource Scarcity.......................................................................43
Colonization key to solve Extinction..............................................................................44
Satellites Solve Colonization...........................................................................................45
A2: States Fund Private Companies CP........................................................................46
A2: States Fund NASA CP..............................................................................................50
Politics Agenda Link Turns- Bush Bad..........................................................................52
Bush Bad- Bipart opposition...........................................................................................53
Bush Bad- Weapons unpopular......................................................................................54
Bush Good- Public support.............................................................................................55
Bush Good- Military Lobby............................................................................................56
Bush Good- funding bipartisan......................................................................................57
Bush Good- Popularity....................................................................................................58
Note:
The Aff’s getting pretty solid. Good Job lab. Props to Junaid for some pretty good
cards against the DOD CP and much more. Stay strong for the tournament.
-Anuj
p.s.- The indexing came out a little weird spacing-wise
2
U.S. Weaponizing Now
Congress gave Pentagon funding for new space weapon program
Walter Pincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November
12, 2007, “Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding”, Washington Post Page A19,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra]
While wrestling with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon is preparing weapons to
fight the next battle from space, according to information in the 621-page, House-Senate
conference report on the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill.
The $459 billion bill, which awaits President Bush's signature, provides $100 million for
a new "prompt global strike" program that could deliver a conventional, precision-guided
warhead anywhere in the world within two hours. It takes funds away from development
of a conventional warhead for the Navy's submarine-launched Trident Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile and from an Air Force plan for the Common Aero Vehicle.
The new program, dubbed Falcon, for "Force Application and Launch from CONUS,"
centers on a small-launch-vehicle concept of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency. The agency describes Falcon as a "a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV)
capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from
[the continental United States] in less than two hours."
Hypersonic speed is far greater than the speed of sound. The reusable vehicle being
contemplated would "provide the country with significant capability to conduct
responsive missions with quick turn-around sortie rates while providing aircraft-like
operability and mission-recall capability," according to DARPA.
The vehicle would be launched into space on a rocket, fly on its own to a target, deliver
its payload and return to Earth. In the short term, a small launch rocket is being
developed as part of Falcon. It eventually would be able to boost the hypersonic vehicle
into space. But in the interim, it will be used to launch small satellites within 48 hours'
notice at a cost of less than $5 million a shot.
3
Conferees are funding Bush’s counterspace weapon systems
Conferees added $100 million above the Bush administration's request for nearly $200
million to accelerate "space situational awareness." That is code for protecting U.S.
satellites in space and being able to attack the enemy's satellites.
"Enhancing these capabilities is critical, particularly following the Chinese anti-satellite-
weapons demonstration last January," the conferees wrote in their report. They were
referring to a Jan. 11 incident in which a Chinese guided missile destroyed an aging
weather satellite in orbit.
"Counterspace systems" that would warn of impending threats to U.S. satellites, destroy
or defend against attackers, and interrupt enemy satellites are in the Bush budget for $53
million. Conferees gave them another $10 million.
4
Pentagon increasing Space Offense
Pentagon is increasing offensive counterspace systems
One research project of $7 million in that category is directed at "offensive

counterspace," described in the Pentagon's presentation to Congress as designing "the
means to disrupt, deny, degrade or destroy an adversary's space systems, or the
information they provide."
Another $18 million would go for research into a second-generation counter-satellite-
communications system; it would explore and develop capabilities "to provide disruption
of satellite communications signals in response to U.S. Strategic Command
requirements," according to the Pentagon congressional presentation. The first-generation
system is already operational, and an upgrade of those capabilities is in production.
The conferees want to increase funds for the Rapid Identification Detection and
Reporting System, which already had $28 million in the Bush budget. This system is
designed to provide "attack detection, threat identification and characterization, and
support rapid mission impact assessments on U.S. space systems."
Its first-generation system is scheduled for initial operation at the end of next year, while
the new funds will allow continuation of research on a second generation, which began
this year.
5
Bush and the pentagon are developing anti-satellite laser and missiles
The Associated Press, January 25, 2007, “Russia Slams U.S. Space Weapon Plans”, The
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
China confirmed the test on Tuesday, but didn't provide details. Aviation Week, which
first reported the test, said the satellite was hit by a kinetic kill vehicle launched from a
ballistic missile.
Analysts said the test represented an indirect threat to U.S. defense systems by raising the
possibility that its spy satellites could be shot down. The threat wouldn't affect the anti-
missile system, which relies only on ground-based radar.
The U.S. military has had the capability to shoot down satellites since the 1980s. In
October, President Bush signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny
adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.
"The first such test was conducted back in the late 1980s and we also hear it today about
the U.S. military circles considering plans of militarization of space. We must not let the
genie out of the bottle," Putin said.
Bush also has pushed an ambitious program of space-based missile defense and the
Pentagon is working on missiles, ground lasers and other technology to shoot down
satellites.
6
U.S. blocking space weapons treaty
U.S. blocks Russian-Chinese space weapons treaty, wants to use space
Nick Cummin-Bruce, New York Times journalist, February 13, 2008, “U.N. Weighs a
Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects”, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html [Bapodra]
GENEVA — The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a

Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference
on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.
Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, a
threat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites.
Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and
therefore no need for a treaty, Mr. Lavrov instead submitted a draft on “prevention of the
placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space
objects.”
“Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction,”
Mr. Lavrov warned. “And this in turn is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race, both
in space and on the earth.”
The draft treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further exploration
and use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control, Mr. Lavrov said. It is
time “to start serious practical work in this field,” he said.
The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed any
treaty that sought “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.”
Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said such a treaty would also be
impossible to enforce. “Any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon
if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object,”
she said in an e-mail message. “This makes treaty verification impossible.”
Instead, she said, the White House favored “discussions aimed at promoting transparency
and confidence-building measures.”
7
All armed forces sectors weaponizing
The United States is on the verge of deploying energy space weapons
Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, “E-Weapons: Directed Energy
Warfare In The 21st Century”, Space.com,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra]
LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching--and
at the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may well
signal a revolution in military hardware--perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.
Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle
beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using
the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary
wavelengths too.
That's the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book: The E-
Bomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will
Be Fought in the Future (Da Capo Press, October 2005).Beason previously served on the
White House staff working for the President's Science Advisor (Office of Science and
Technology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations.
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a
new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser,
the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL).
8
All sectors of the Armed Forces are weaponizing
Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, “E-Weapons: Directed Energy
Warfare In The 21st Century”, Space.com,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra]
Though considerable work has been done in lasers, high-power microwaves, and other
directed-energy technologies, weaponization is still an ongoing process.
For example, work is on-going in the military's Airborne Laser program. It utilizes a
megawatt-class, high-energy chemical oxygen iodine laser toted skyward aboard a
modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft. Purpose of the program is to enable the detection,
tracking and destruction of ballistic missiles in the boost phase, or powered part of their
flight.Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) in White
Sands, New Mexico has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket warheads,
blasting them with enough energy that causes them to self-detonate. THEL uses a high-
energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile THEL also demonstrated the ability
to kill multiple mortar rounds. Then there's Active Denial Technology--a non-lethal way
to use millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter, and turn back an advancing
adversary. This technology, supported by the U.S. Marines, uses a beam of millimeter
waves to heat a foe's skin, causing severe pain without damage, and making the adversary
flee the scene. Beason also pointed to new exciting research areas underway at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory: Free-electron laser work with the Navy and a new type of
directed-energy that operates in the terahertz region.
9
China Weaponizing Now
China is developing methods to counter U.S. space dependence
Dr. Phillip C. Saunders, Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University’s
Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2007 “China’s Future In Space: Implications for
U.S. Security,”
http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html?submit.x=94&submit.y=10
&submit=submit
Chinese strategists view U.S. dependence on space as an asymmetric vulnerability that

could be exploited. As one defense analyst wrote: "for countries that can never win a war
with the United States by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space
system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice." Chinese strategists have
explored ways of limiting U.S. use of space, including anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons,
jamming, employing lasers to blind reconnaissance satellites, and even using electro-
magnetic pulses produced by a nuclear weapon to destroy satellites. A recent article
highlighted Iraq's efforts to use GPS jammers to defeat U.S. precision-guided munitions.
Chinese scientists have conducted theoretical research relevant to ASAT weapons,
including the use of lasers to blind satellite sensors, kinetic kill vehicles, computations for
intercepting satellites in orbit, and maneuvering small satellites into close formation.
Efforts to develop high-powered lasers and mobile small-satellite launch capabilities
involve technologies with both commercial and ASAT applications. China probably
already has sufficient tracking and space surveillance systems to identify and track most
U.S. military satellites. The extent to which interest in exploiting U.S. space dependence
has translated into actual ASAT development programs remains unclear. Some reports
claim that Beijing is developing microsatellites or direct-ascent weapons for ASAT
purposes, but the open source literature does not provide definitive proof. However,
based on Chinese strategic writings, scientific research and dual-use space activities, it is
logical to assume China is pursuing an ASAT capability.
10
China is developing ground-based energy weapons to destroy satellites
E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, “The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,”
High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20,
http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141
It is highly likely China is developing ground-based directed energy weapons with the
capability to temporarily disable, damage, or even destroy a satellite. With roughly 300
organizations, 3,000 engineers, and 10,000 total personnel participating in laser-related
efforts, Beijing's aggressive pursuit of advanced directed energy technology has given its
program world-class status. As early as 1994, the Chinese successfully tested a free
electron laser with a 140 megawatt output. They have since pursued miniaturization of
laser systems, perhaps to enable a mobile system. According to other reports, China is
seeking to build an ASAT system using a high-energy deuterium fluoride laser,
mimicking the US Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) design.
China has the intent and growing capacity to threaten US space systems for Taiwan
E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, “The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,”
High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20,
http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141
China possesses both the intent and a growing capability to threaten US space systems in
the event of a future clash between the two countries. The PLA's development of ASAT
weapons is primarily not a reaction to US space control initiatives. It is driven instead by
very practical considerations of regional security and influence, and the desire to conduct
asymmetric warfare against a superior foe if conflict arises. First, Beijing seeks to offset
the dominance of US conventional forces by exploiting their dependence on spaceborne
information assets. Second, China hopes to guarantee the viability of it's nuclear deterrent
by holding the critical space-segment of American missile defense systems at risk. Both
of these goals are deeply rooted in the issue of Taiwanese reunification and the potential
for armed conflict over the status of the island. China's growing capability to attack
American satellites could play an important role in a future military confrontation over
Taiwan.
11
Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing
China’s call for a space ban is only to allow time for space weapon construction
Nader Elhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy and
international security, February 5, 2007, “Making sense of China’s weapons test”, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra]
Nonetheless, there has been little effort to actually put the anti-satellite weapons test into
context, though this test seems to beg for exactly that. After all, China has for the last five
years been calling for a new treaty to ban the placement of weapons in space, and
specifically the kind of explicit anti-satellite capability it has just tested. Additionally,
there are its continued assertions that it does not want an arms race in space, even after
the test. There is ample reason to distrust pacifistic claims by any government, but this
may be true for the time being: China is not in a position to run, let alone win, such a
race. There seem to be two possible explanations for this contradiction. One, favored by
arms control skeptics, is that China’s talk of a treaty was just an attempt to hobble the
United States either until it catches up economically and technologically, or to ameliorate
its disadvantage while it secretly works on the very systems restricted by the treaty. After
all, China recognizes that the US will likely retain a military edge for decades, and that in
the event of conflict it may be able to narrow the gap by attacking the satellites
supporting US forces. The other explanation is that China is hedging its bets, developing
a counterspace capability in the likely event that it fails to get a treaty that it has good
reason to want. Even if China may see attacking American satellites as a way of
undermining US military power, China, too, is a space power, the world’s third largest,
and like all the rest dependent on constellations of weather, navigation, communications,
and intelligence satellites. This dependence, military as well as civilian, will only grow
with time, and should it attack another country’s systems, it will only raise the risk that its
systems will be attacked in kind.
12
Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power
Chinese space weapon tests are a direct counter to U.S. military power
Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007,
“China's Space Weapons”, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment For
International Peace,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=z
gp&proj=zsa [Bapodra]
On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile slammed into an aging
weather satellite in space. The resulting collision not only marked Beijing's first
successful anti-satellite (ASAT) test but, in the eyes of many, also a head-on collision
with the Bush administration's space policies.
As one analyst phrased it, U.S. policy has compelled China's leaders to conclude "that
only a display of Beijing's power to launch . . . an arms race would bring Washington to
the table to hear their concerns." This view, which is widespread in the U.S. and
elsewhere, misses the point: China's ASAT demonstration was not a protest against the
Bush administration, but rather part of a maturing strategy designed to counter the overall
military superiority of the U.S.
Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese strategists have been cognizant of the fact that the
U.S. is the only country in the world with the capacity -- and possibly the intention -- to
thwart China's rise to great power status. They also recognize that Beijing will be weak
militarily for some time to come, yet must be prepared for a possible war with America
over Taiwan or, in the longer term, over what Aaron Friedberg once called "the struggle
for mastery in Asia." How the weaker can defeat the stronger, therefore, becomes the
central problem facing China's military strategy.
13
Chinese space weapon development is to combat U.S. space dependency and

preparation for future conflict
Chinese strategists have struggled to find ways of solving this conundrum ever since the
dramatic demonstration of American prowess in Operation Desert Storm. And after
carefully analyzing U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan, they
believe they have uncovered a significant weakness.
The advanced military might of the U.S. is inordinately dependent on a complex network
of space-based command, control, communications, and computer-driven intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that enables American forces to detect
different kinds of targets and exchange militarily relevant information. This network is
key to the success of American combat operations. These assets, however, are soft and
defenseless; while they bestow on the American military definite asymmetric advantages,
they are also the source of deep vulnerability. Consequently, Chinese strategists
concluded that any effort to defeat the U.S. should aim not at its fundamental strength --
its capacity to deliver overwhelming conventional firepower precisely from long
distances -- but rather at its Achilles' heel, namely, its satellites and their related ground
installations.
Consistent with this calculus, China has pursued, for over a decade now, a variety of
space warfare programs, which include direct attack and directed-energy weapons,
electronic attack, and computer-network and ground-attack systems. These efforts are
aimed at giving China the capacity to attack U.S. space systems comprehensively
because, in Chinese calculations, this represents the best way of "leveling the playing
field" in the event of a future conflict.
14
U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization
Space dominance is the most effective option against China’s space weaponization
Nader Elhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy and
international security, February 5, 2007, “Making sense of China’s weapons test”, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra]
That said, the question of how the United States could respond remains, and there are
three obvious options. One is to do nothing. The demonstration can be taken as just that, a
show that gets China’s message across, but does not change the basic facts of the
situation. The United States simply continues on its current path, moving from
technological research and debates over military theory to the development of battle-
ready combat units—as has already happened at the level of electronic warfare, as with
the 76th Space Control Squadron.
The second is to step up America’s current pursuit of space dominance. With various
degrees of publicity, American policymakers can start new programs or restart old ones,
enlarge budgets and perhaps stage tests of its own. (While the US has not used a missile
in such a test in over twenty years, it apparently tested a chemical laser against a satellite
in 1997. Many more such systems exist today.) In the meantime, rudimentary
counterspace units may be cobbled together as quickly as possible, perhaps using older
equipment designs. (For example, an F-15 squadron could be assigned to the
counterspace mission and armed with the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle, the anti-
satellite missile demonstrated back in 1985.) Of course in the near term this would be
more a matter of sending a political signal than anything else. However, these moves may
be read as a sign that the US was intimidated by the Chinese test rather than an
expression of tough-mindedness, even if it motivates greater restraint on China’s part in
the future.
History also suggests that this growing military power will be a factor in China’s relations
with the rest of the world. But exactly how it will figure into those relations remains an
open question.
The third is to engage China on the issue. Of course, the timing of such a shift in policy is
far from ideal now. It would look as if China’s test had successfully intimidated the
United States and its allies, as the hawks will no doubt point out, on top of all of the other
arguments they have raised against the arms control process. Nonetheless, such
considerations do not change the fundamental case for or against engagement, even if
they affect the timing of such engagement. (John Pike of the Federation of American
Scientists recently observed that the test “will make it very difficult for the US to talk
about space cooperation with China anytime soon.”)
15
The U.S. must secure its space assets in order to challenge China’s counterspace
tech
Beijing's attitude toward space arms control will change only given a few particular
developments. China might acquire the capacity to defeat the U.S. despite America's
privileged access to space. Or China's investments in counterspace technology might
begin to yield diminishing returns because the U.S. consistently nullifies these
capabilities through superior technology and operational practices. Or China's own
dependence on space for strategic and economic reasons might intensify to the point
where the threat posed by any American offensive counterspace programs exceed the
benefits accruing to Beijing's own comparable efforts. Or the risk of conflict between a
weaker China and any other superior military power, such as the U.S., disappears entirely.
Since these conditions will not be realized anytime soon, Washington should certainly
discuss space security with Beijing, but, for now, it should not expect that negotiation
will yield any successful agreements. Instead, the U.S. should accelerate investments in
solutions that enhance the security of its space assets, in addition to developing its own
offensive counterspace capabilities. These avenues -- as the Bush administration has
correctly recognized -- offer the promise of protecting American interests in space and
averting more serious threats to its global primacy.
16
A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S.
Russia and China are already space militarizing
James Oberg, March 4, 2008 “Sense, Nonsense, and Pretense about the Destruction of
USA 193,” The Space Review, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1139
Myth #8: Russia and China will be “forced” to respond by developing corresponding
weapons. This “blank check for the bad guys” claim seems to be a view espoused by
spokesmen for DC lobby groups, for foreign governments, and for other associations who
seem to favor one spin in common: any foreign action allegedly sparked by anybody’s
worries about US actions is excusable, while any US action sparked by activities of
another nation is dangerously paranoid. But China has already “pre-responded” with its
own test a year ago—a weapon with far greater capability (and leaving far worse space
pollution) than the US missile. As for Russia, it’s had its space-capable anti-missile
defense shield deployed around Moscow for decades, and recently reopened a mothballed
missile test range at Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan to test-fire upgraded missiles. They are
probably launched so far only against imaginary missile or space targets, or potentially
against real ones with no final impacts. Even if one of them is soon used in a
demonstration against a satellite, it will represent nothing new in their arsenal, only the
exercise of a latent capability that had always been there.
17
Information Good
Space information systems prevents flawed attack detections
Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S.
satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-
edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites [Bapodra]
Ultimately, the protection of the capabilities facilitated by space assets is needed. For
instance, having a fiber-optic backup system for certain high-value communication
satellites is much smarter than maintaining many expensive, ineffective bodyguard
satellites. Alternate redundant non-space systems, whenever possible, are the smartest
defense. The United States could also have redundant satellites ready to replace any
losses in those satellites for which no land-based backups exist. Temporary and reversible
electronic countermeasures that could throw off the guidance systems of incoming ASATs
are another sensible defense. Better "Space Situational Awareness" is also badly needed,
if for nothing else, than to properly tell apart a satellite attack from a satellite malfunction
or natural interference such as a strong solar flare or debris impact.
18
Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good

Space defense weapons are useless
Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites
[Bapodra]
Directed-energy weapons such as lasers may be available in the future, but they run on chemicals
as the source of the laser energy, which also are subject to the limited magazine problem if the
laser is in orbit. And if the laser is ground-based, its range of lethality is limited to a small fraction
of the globe in the ground-station's vicinity. Furthermore, ground-based systems must use
complicated and expensive adaptive optics to compensate for the natural broadening and
dimming of the laser light as it traverses the atmosphere, something that has not yet been publicly
demonstrated over hundreds of kilometers for a high-power laser. Of course, the laser ground
stations are hostage to conventional ground attack, and, more prosaically, cloud cover.
Thus, the much feared "Space Pearl Harbor" can happen with or without space weapons, as they
provide little, if any, effective defense. In fact, introducing weapons into space that are
offensively potent yet defensively ineffective may actually make a "Space Pearl Harbor" more
imminent. In the eyes of potential adversaries, the only distinction between defensive and
offensive space weapons would be the unknowable intention behind their use. A bodyguard
satellite, for instance, could easily be reconfigured to attack other satellites instead of defending
against incoming ASATs.
Fielding offensive space weapons for the sake of deterrence also doesn't make sense because the
United States relies much more heavily on its satellites than any of its adversaries. A better way to
deter attacks on U.S. satellites would be for Washington to make clear that any attack on its space
assets would be considered an attack on U.S. soil and result in a heavy conventional retaliatory
attack.
Space weapons are detrimental to U.S. interests

Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites
[Bapodra]
Most importantly, the United States should be leading the charge to have an overarching
international policy that restricts the weaponization of space. The United States possesses the
greatest military and civil space investment; thus, it has the most to lose in an offensive space
war. And since Washington is the most reliant on its space assets, an arms race in space would be
disproportionately detrimental to U.S. interests.
Instead of relying upon expensive, provocative, and defensively useless space weapons, the
incoming administration would do well to invest in any of the other approaches listed above to
improve our space security.
19
A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE

1. SPERM SWIM BY FLAGELLA—GRAVITY ISN'T KEY
Michael Livington, PhD, owner of Medical-Health Info site, 08 http://www.medical-

health.info/the-beginning-of-life-conception/
The sperm have tails, called flagella, that push them forward. Actually, sperm look very
much like miniature tadpoles, and they move forward like tadpoles by wiggling their tails
from side to side. When they reach the cervix, the sperm must swim through a mucous
barrier that covers the entrance to the inside of the uterus. Tens of millions of sperm are
unable to do this, and are lost. Those sperm that pierce the cervix then swim up the three
to four inches of the inside of the uterus to find the two exits at the upper ends where the
Fallopian tubes begin. Tens of millions more sperm are lost before they get to the
Fallopian tubes. Those that do survive swim into the narrow passageway of the Fallopian
tube where they may finally meet an egg. But this meeting can take place only during two
to three days of each month.
2. TURN: SEX IN SPACE IS BETTER; Microgravity causes faster impregnation
Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASA
researcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function during
fertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization."
http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu]
Sperm are activated to swim after they emerge from the testes. The proteins that initiate
movement in the "tail" of the sperm undergo a chemical process called phosphorylation,
making them active and activating the sperm's tail. The tail begins to move and the sperm
swims toward the egg. In the Shuttle experiments, phosphorylation of proteins was
measured in the sperm that flew in space and controls maintained on the ground. Tash
found that the phosphorylation process occurred three to four times faster in microgravity
than in the Earth's gravitational environment. This means that the sperm are activated for
movement much more quickly in microgravity than on Earth.
20
3. MICROGRAVITY ENHANCES FLAGELLAR PROTEIN—MEANS

FERTILIZATION IS MORE LIKELY IN SPACE
Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASA
researcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function during
fertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization."
http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu]
Additional studies of sperm function in altered gravity environments are needed to

answer what Tash calls the "$64,000 question": Why is sperm activation enhanced in
microgravity and impeded in hypergravity? Tash has isolated flagellar proteins—proteins
that reside in the tail of the sperm cell and contribute to its motility- that may help answer
this question. Since it is these proteins that are altered in microgravity and hypergravity,
they may therefore be the key to understanding sperm tail activation on the molecular
level and exactly what role gravity plays in this system.
21
2AC DoD Counterplan

1. Links to net benefit- Privatizing or deferring department responsibilities destroys its
capabilities
John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm
There are two ways to close down a federal department. The first is simply to shift the
department's responsibilities to other agencies and throw the old letterhead into the
trash. The alternative is to eliminate, devolve, or privatize responsibilities whenever
possible, and transfer only essential responsibilities to other departments. This latter approach
is the one that should be used with the Department of Energy. DOE's history of failure and
ineffectiveness demands nothing less.
2. Perm- do both- solves NASA DA because it loosens burden- normal means would
allow DoD to naturally take the bulk of solvency because NASA lacks capability as
per their evidence
<You Can Insert Perm Solves Disease if they read that impact in the DA>
3. No solvency- NASA has the initial stages of tech and research- only funding is key
in the aff's instance- the DoD needs more than just funding – their evidence only
states they should act
4. DoD does not have the resource capacity to do the plan
Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1
But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. 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 DoD’s 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.
5. <Insert Disad>
22
No Solvency
Space will be on the backdrop of DoD agenda on all levels-

making solvency impossible
Add to this the way in which the NSSO’s solar power satellite study
was pursued—the study itself had no budget. In Washington, studies
cost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say,
options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the
study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their
existing advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the
work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers,
there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and other
expenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the
many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million
dollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had no
actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. This
reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the
Pentagon leadership.
23
Militarization Turn
DoD Militarizes space- Civilian sectors of government like NASA solve
National Security Space Office, 10-10-07
The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically and
internationally, that a SBSP system could be used as a “weapon in space,” which will be
amplified because of the interest shown by the DoD in SBSP. Mitigating these concerns,
developing trust, and building in verification methods will be key to political consensus
for sustainable development of SBSP. The SBSP Study Group recommends that the
federal government should take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that SBSP
systems cannot be utilized as space‐based weapons systems, and to dissuade and deter
other nations from attacking these strategic power sources, including but not limited to:
Tasking a civilian federal agency to be the lead agency responsible for federal
investments in SBSP and in the demonstration of key technologies needed by industry.
24
Taiwan War Turn

A. CP leads to war with Taiwan
William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, Naval
War College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003
Second, the military use of space has profound implications for the un-easy stalemate in the Taiwan Strait,
which has always presented the possibility of a major confrontation between Washington and Beijing. One
argument is that U.S. capabilities allow the United States to project power near Taiwan, while the space-
based sensors and weapons for missile defense could blunt China’s arsenal of ballistic missiles aimed at
Taiwan. Moreover, the prospect of transfers of missile defense systems to Taiwan, which could
usher in a period of unprecedented military cooperation between Taipei and Washington, no doubt deeply
troubles Beijing.
China, for its part, will increasingly need military space capabilities if it is to improve its ability to coerce
Taiwan in a conflict and
counter U.S. intervention to defend the island in a crisis or conflict.
B. Global Economic Collapse and War
William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, Naval
War College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003
What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like?
Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of China’s economy and military could become
increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not
improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing could
increasingly hold each other’s space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of
crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both
capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might
be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other’s space systems before the onset of
hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already
evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space.
Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is
the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to
position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, one
that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready to
launch a first strike on a moment’s notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or
jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of
missile launches. Imagine, for example, Washington’s reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning
satellites or vice versa. In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the
misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space
assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in
the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of
conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international community, would be extraordinary given
that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.
25
DoD F22 Tradeoff DA

Turn – DoD Budget Tradeoff
A. DoD needs to balance budget –new spending would lead to tradeoff with
F-22s
Dr. Cindy Williams, Visiting Fellow, MIT Security Studies Program Can We Afford a
Revolution?, March 31, 1999, http://
web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_99spring/williams.html//JS
Alternatively, the Defense Department can attempt to find the resources it will
need within the defense budget. There are four potential sources of additional
funding: 1) existing C3I and information systems; 2) modernization; 3) force
structure; and 4) infrastructure. Deep cuts would be needed in each of these areas to
generate the level of savings that would be needed to close the budget gap and
fund the RMA. For example, the Defense Department has encountered strong
resistance to its plans to introduce newer, joint systems that would reduce the cost of
C3I. With regard to modernization, cutting tactical aircraft programs (the F-22, F/A-
18 E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter) can be expected to save only $4-6 billion per year
because these programs will have to be replaced by either a service life extension
program or additional production of existing aircraft. Force structure reductions also
yield savings that are lower than one might expect. For example, cutting active Army
combat units by 30 percent will produce savings of only $4 billion per year. Finally,
severe reductions in infrastructure would be needed to generate a large amount of
resources. Closing 50 additional military bases will save only $3 billion per year.
Other infrastructure reductions, such as closing military hospitals (saving $2
billion per year) or eliminating the $1 billion subsidy for military commissaries,
would release more funds. However, such measures are likely to encounter fierce
opposition.
All of this suggests the difficulty of finding the resources needed to cover the coming
$40 billion shortfall between current plans and projected budget levels, let alone the
additional $25 billion needed for RMA programs. Coming up with the funding
necessary to exploit the RMA is therefore likely to require either a sea change in
public attitudes toward defense spending or a substantial downsizing of the military
force structure and its modernization programs
26
B. Key to heg
Daniel Goure, 1/28/05, Ph.D., vice president of the Lexington Institute. “Capitol Hill Conference on
Fighters and the Future of Joint Warfighting”. Lexington Institute.
U.S. air power will be the key to success in the initial period of any future war. But in order to
employ air power effectively, the U.S. military must grain and maintain not just air superiority but
real air dominance. Air dominance means the ability to go anywhere and do anything while denying
the adversary the benefit of operating in or through the third dimension.
Our future adversaries probably have learned the lessons of recent wars too.
They seek to deny the United States access to their airspace because they
know that if the United States can achieve air dominance and employ our
airpower freely, they will lose the war. They know with air dominance, the
United States will be able to win the initial period of the war, thereby
determining its course and outcome. In effect, they know the correlation of
forces is not in their favor. Therefore, they are likely to be deterred. This brings
me to the role of the F/A-22. Simply put, the F/A-22 is essential to the ability
of the United States to deter conflict, or should one occur, to win rapidly and
decisively. It may be the single most important capability that the U.S. Air
Force could deploy in the next twenty or thirty years. My logic is simple: The
ability of the U.S. to win future conflicts rapidly and decisively is the best
deterrent. This is a reflection, if you will, of a positive correlation of forces for
the United States.
Winning rapidly and decisively means dominating in the initial period of conflict,
thereby helping to determine the course and outcome of hostilities. Winning
rapidly and decisively requires, inter alia, exploiting the U.S. superiority in air
power. Exploiting that air power advantage requires achieving rapid air
dominance. Achieving rapid air dominance will be more difficult in the future
than heretofore as a result of adversaries' efforts to deny the United States
access to their air space. The F/A-22 can ensure the ability to achieve rapid air
dominance. The F/A-22 is essential to everything the U.S. military seeks to
achieve: dissuasion, deterrence or defeat of adversaries.
27
Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease

NASA- DoD Satellite cooperation key to solve Disease
Pharma Business Week, 11-19-07, http://www.newsrx.com/library/topics/West-Nile-

Virus/1324.html
With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s (NASA) Applied Sciences Program, scientists have been able
to observe the Earth’s environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease
outbreaks around the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists in
predicting the outbreak of some of the most common and deadly infectious diseases
today such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious
diseases to thrive depends on changes in the Earth’s environment such as the
climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. Through orbiting satellites, data is collected
daily to monitor environmental changes. That information is then passed on to agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict and
track disease outbreaks and assist in making public health policy decisions. “The use of this technology is
not only essential for the future of curbing the spread of infectious diseases,” explains John Haynes, public
health program manager for the NASA Earth Science Applied Sciences Program. “NASA satellites are also
a cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are already in orbit and in use by scientists to
collect data about the Earth’s atmosphere.”
28
Diseases have the potential to cause global economic chaos from overreaction
Kaletsky 2003 (principal economic commentator and an Associate Editor of The Times;
New Zealand Business Roundtable, July
2003)
It is perhaps because the stakes are so high today that investors and businessmen have
become so sensitive to every possible threat to world economic growth – terrorism, war,
stock market instability and, most recently, even the spread of an obscure disease. But
this hypersensitivity to bad news also suggests that the world economic cycle is probably
about to turn. It is a typical feature of cyclical troughs that relatively minor risks are
exaggerated out of all proportion. The Sars outbreak was a perfect example. The Iraq war
had just ended without unleashing the widely expected disasters, but here was another
potential trigger for economic and financial Armageddon. It was as if investors and
businessmen were in the mood to panic and any excuse would do. But the Sars outbreak
was not just any old pretext for financial panic. Sars shared another characteristic with
the previous panics about terrorism, the "war between civilisations" and the dot-com
crash. All these phenomena were linked clearly to globalisation. They seemed to be
caused by the way that capitalism was drawing the world together, often against the
wishes of the peoples and countries involved. And globalisation was the means of
disseminating these evils, as well as their cause. Like terrorists, the Sars germs had turned
symbols of globalisation – mass travel and jet aircraft – into sinister weapons. As in the
dot-com crash and the clash between the West and Islam, the effects of the Sars virus
seemed to be vastly magnified by instant electronic communications that penetrated
every corner of the world.
Nuclear War
MEAD ’92 Senior Fellow in American Foreign policy @ the Council on Foreign
Relations [Walter Russell, World Policy Institute, 1992]
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international
market economy. They and their leaders have embraced the international market
economy – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe the system can work for
them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In
that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, rich
against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their
nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan
did in the ‘30s.
29
NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable

Budget cuts inevitable by next fiscal year
These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in
November—to make some hard decisions in
the years to come about discretionary spending. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA will
somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. A budget cut in the next
Administration that is equivalent to last decade’s cut would result in reduction of NASA’s
budget of over $3 billion per year. If that happens, it will be difficult, if not impossible,
for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling its current
form and schedule. It will be significantly delayed, radically altered, or even cancelled.
30
Non Unique- NASA Spending Now
Massive NASA funding bill now
AIP ,American Institute of Physics, 1-8-08, Space Ref,

http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewsr.html?pid=26640
The final FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration at $17.3 billion, less than earlier
amounts recommended by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, but meeting the budget proposal of President Bush. While
the funding is a 5.2% increase over FY 2007 and respectable given the
overall restrictions on the federal budget, the spending focus is heavy
on manned space programs and light on science.
Congress planning on funding new programs now
Mark K. Mathews, Washington Beareau, 6-25-08, OrlandoSentinel,

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.story
WASHINGTON - Congress gave NASA another boost Tuesday when a U.S. Senate
committee recommended a $2.6 billion increase in the space agency's budget next year to
accelerate its plans to return astronauts to the moon.The $20.2 billion mirrors the amount
included in a similar bill that passed the U.S. House 409 to 15 last week. Both measures
also require that NASA add another shuttle flight to deliver a physics experiment to the
international space station
31
NASA Satellites Solve Oceans
NASA Satellites solve oceans- monitoring
Science Daily, 6-23-08,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm, Junaid
NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched June 20 from Vandenberg

Air Force Base, Calif., on a globe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, a vital
indicator of global climate change. The mission will return a vast amount of new data that
will improve weather, climate and ocean forecasts. With a thunderous roar and fiery glow,
the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite arced through the blackness of
an early central coastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing into space atop a
Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later, OSTM/Jason 2 separated from the rocket's
second stage, and then unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Ground controllers
successfully acquired the spacecraft's signals. Initial telemetry reports show it to be in
excellent health. "Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," said Michael
Freilich, director of the Earth Science Division in NASA's Science Mission Directorate,
Washington. "Precision measurements from this mission will improve our knowledge of
global and regional sea-level changes and enable more accurate weather, ocean and
climate forecasts." Measurements of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography,
reveal the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell scientists how much of the sun's
energy is stored by the ocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key to
understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at least
three years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in
1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, or
CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the two
agencies on Jason 1 in 2001.
32
NASA satellites solve the root problem of oceans
NASA, National Aeronautics Space Administration,

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05042_bio_problem.html, 2-10-05
NASA and university scientists have made a breakthrough in using satellites to study the
tiny, free-floating ocean plants, called phytoplankton. The plants form the base of the
ocean food chain and produce half of the oxygen in the air we breathe. The development
opens the door to solving a problem that has stymied ocean biologists for more than a
century, and is revolutionary to our understanding of how ocean biology and ecosystems,
as well as carbon cycling, respond to climate variability and change. Data about the
growth rate of the ocean plants can be derived from space and incorporated into global
estimates of their life processes. New, accurate information on phytoplankton will greatly
advance understanding of marine ecosystems and how they function, including issues
related to fisheries, water quality, and harmful algal blooms. This research contributes to
improved computer models that enable predictions of how climate change will alter
ocean ecosystems and the Earth system. Despite their minute size, the growth and
photosynthesis of phytoplankton collectively accounts for half of the carbon dioxide, a
major greenhouse gas, absorbed annually from Earth’s atmosphere by plants.
33
4
Lol Politics
Obama and NASA=lol
News Press, 7-29-08, http://www.news-

press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his

commitment to NASA in a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the
agency on its 50th anniversary. The declaration may surprise many NASA supporters.
Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would rather see money budgeted for
Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward education
reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. “I believe we
need to revitalize NASA’s mission to maintain America’s leadership, and recommit our
nation to the space program, and as President I intend to do just that,” he said. Obama
took aim at the current Washington establishment — and the Bush administration — for
failing to give NASA the sufficient support it has needed.
34
Poverty Impacts
POVERTY KILLS MORE THAN A NUCLEAR WAR

Mumia Abu-Jamal, former Reporter and Death Row inmate, 1998, [“A QUIET AND
DEADLY VIOLENCE,” 9/19/98, http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm]
The deadliest form of violence is poverty. -- Ghandi

It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the
thousands of cases of social and communal violence that occurs daily in the nation. Every
year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill
themselves. Add to this the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other,
and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence. But, as
remarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most
violent feature of living in the midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a
deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kind
that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official
and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of
death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by
those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of
them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's
collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These
are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the
non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals
against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare,
capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National
Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the
majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its
invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:
"[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as
would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year,
two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed
by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent
of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the
weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse
still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on
the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught
to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social
order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial
violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each
other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media,
uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer
in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes
damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence
may be called The War on the Poor.
35
STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE OUTWEIGHS—IT'S THE ROOT CAUSE OF WAR, GENOCIDE,
AND OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR
James Gilligan Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a
member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence 96 "Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic
and its Causes", p. 191-196
The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill
our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded
of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about
their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliest
form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their
violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence,
especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons
and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only
microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill
them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence
needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively
few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those
structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human,
standpoint. By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those
who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced by
those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a
function of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of society's collective human choices,
concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am
contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence," by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries
that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we
attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs
from behavior violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate
continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of
behavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of
individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose
decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible,
because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. [CONTINUED] The finding that
structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country.
Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities
on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structural
violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death
rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life
expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million
deaths a year could be attributed to the "structural violence" to which the citizens of all the other nations
were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have
increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violence
compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from
structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World
War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide – or about eight
million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam
war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and
the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence,
which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die
because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period.
This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, and accelerating, thermonuclear war, or
genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically
significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two
forms of violence – structural or behavioral – is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are
inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.
36
Now is Key
We need to act NOW- over time, technology projects will be abandoned and we will
be trapped on Earth
Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01,

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html
"Spreading out into space gives us more chances," he says. And the time is now: History
instructs that technological hay should be made while the economic sun shines. "There is
a danger we will end the human space program at some point, leaving us stranded on the
Earth," Gott warns. "History shows that expensive technological projects are often
abandoned after awhile. For example, the Ancient Egyptians quit building pyramids. So
we should be colonizing space now while we have the chance."
37
Extinction Inevitable
Multiple tragedies in the future make extinction inevitable

Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/
Man is particularly susceptible to such a tragedy compared to the crustaceans, amphibians, insects, and the
countless other hardy families. Only his superior brain has enabled him to successfully compete despite a
relatively fragile constitution. Should we succeed in our self-destruction, it's doubtful that nature could
once again turn the trick of creating another highly advanced being out of any primitive life remaining on
earth. By whatever philosophical standards one bases his thinking, one must conclude that life is better than
no life at all. Man's first thought must be to preserve the human race at all costs. It must not be allowed to
come to an end, and specifically, it mustn't be allowed to destroy itself. In the far distant future, it appears
that man will be doomed by the lack of available energy (the 2nd law). This may not come about for 100's
of billions of years. Before that, a collapsing universe may put an end to all life. And before that, our sun
will become a red giant, probably ending all life in our solar system. But even that won't come about for
several billions of years. Whether these problems can be solved isn't known, but man has plenty of time to
think about them. More imminent, not in billions of years, but maybe in just a fraction of a decade, is the
end of all life on earth that man himself has the capability to bring about!
Extinction inevitable unless we colonize space
Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist, Professor of Math, University of

Cambridge, Quotes Oscar Falconi, 10-16-01, http://www.nutri.com/space/
"The human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus . . . unless we set up colonies in space.
Although Sept. 11th was horrible, it didn't threaten the survival of the human race like nuclear weapons
do," said the Cambridge University Scientist. "In the long term, I'm more worried about biology. Nuclear
weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. The danger is that, either
by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us. I don't think the human race will survive . . unless
we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet." All of the above
concerns were expressed a quarter century ago in this following article by Mr. Falconi. BUT, the "original"
concept of escaping from earth in order to back up and preserve our civilization, as expressed by Mr.
Falconi, was preconceived by over a quarter-century in the following prophetic paragraph: "We must keep
the problems of today in true proportions: they are vital - indeed of extreme importance - since they can
destroy our civilisation and slay the future before its birth. The crossing of space may do much to turn
men's minds outwards and away from their present tribal squabbles. In this sense, the rocket, far from being
one of the destroyers of civilisation, may provide the safety valve that is needed to preserve it."
38
We are due for an asteroid on top up multiple inevitable disasters on Earth- makes
extinction inevitable
Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01,

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html
It's no secret. Sooner or later, Earth's bell will be rung. A giant asteroid or comet will slam
into the planet, as has happened many times before, and a deadly dark cloud will envelop
the globe, killing much of whatever might have survived the initial impact. "We live on a
small planet covered with the bones of extinct species, proving that such catastrophes do
occur routinely," says J. Richard Gott, III, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton and
author of "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." Gott cites the presumably hardy
Tyrannosaurus rex, which lasted a mere 2.5 million years and was the victim of an
asteroid attack, as an example of what can happen if you don't plan ahead. But space
rocks may not be the only threat. Epidemics, climatological or ecological catastrophes or
even man-made disasters could do our species in, Gott says. And so, he argues, we need a
life insurance policy to guarantee the survival of the human race.
39
Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation

Genetic research will cause extinction- colonization solves
But is a moratorium on experimentation in genetic manipulation the answer? Can one

really believe that Russian, Israeli, or Chinese researchers will abide by such an
agreement? Can you picture a German or Indian scientist, on the verge of a spectacular
breakthrough, stopping his research? Of course not! He'll merely postpone publication.
The final result of any such agreement is that the United States will have unilaterally
disarmed itself in the field of genetic manipulation. What's more, American scientists
will no longer be in the position to lead an orderly, safe, development of the field.
Advances will now be taking place clandestinely in backroom labs worldwide. Most
scientists have the best intentions, but when God, country, or career enter the scene,
nearsightedness can prevail. In just the 4 years since the previous edition of this book, the
progress made in genetic engineering and gene-splicing technology has been absolutely
startling. The "miracle" of the creation, by man, of primitive life from mere inorganic
chemicals is just around the corner. Also possible is the total destruction of intelligent life
by some means that could never be predicted - and only understood in hindsight. So we
have ourselves a dilemma: On the one hand we must carry on genetic research, and on
the other hand we must stop. How do we resolve this situation? The only answer seems to
be that we allow genetic research to continue, as it would anyway, but that we take
immediate steps to construct a backup colony away from earth in the event the genetic
experiments get out of control.
40
Extinction Inevitable- Vaccines
The use of vaccines will inevitably destroy the planet

It's quite clear that any promising new vaccines should be tried on only a very limited number of humans,
and for at least several generations, before subjecting our entire population to a genetically unproven
vaccine. Measles, for instance, is peculiar to humans and therefore a measles vaccine cannot be exonerated
by animal tests. Incidentally, thalidomide was animal tested - and passed! Today, vaccines can be used in
the prevention of 18 diseases. The vaccines used to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles)
have been developed only in the past several years, and the polio vaccine just a few years earlier. And yet
the U.S. Public Health Department recommends that ALL children have their polio and rubella shots when
they're just one year old. The mumps shot is recommended for children approaching puberty! Already over
80% of all Americans between 1 and 20 have had 3 or more polio shots. God help us if we've overlooked
some effect. We should be finding out in a few years - BUT only if the effect is dominant. It should be
noted that thalidomide was caught quickly only because of its effect on the 1st generation. The mutation
was dominant and HAD to appear in the 1st generation. If the mutation was recessive, the effects could not
have been detected until the 2nd generation, by which time a tragic, and possibly fatal, blow may have been
inflicted to our gene-pool. If we continue to indiscriminately subject the whole population to every
promising advance, be it vaccine, food additive, drug, etc., then the chances are not negligible that in some
decade in the near future the U.S. or world population will be decimated or destroyed.
Pollution will become lethal and wipe the planet clean- drastic action key
Simple pollution will never kill off mankind. As the pollution level becomes lethal, the population
decreases, and so does the pollution. A population-pollution equilibrium is thus established. However, we
know very little about the complicated, non-linear interplay between the various pollutants and the
environment. Increasing the concentration of some pollutant over and above an unknown threshold level
might start a runaway reaction that quickly increases some lethal factor's level until all human life on earth
is dead. We just don't know! For instance, though he often tends toward abrasive exaggeration and
incitement, Dr Paul Ehrlich may be right when he says that the SST (Supersonic Transport) may have
ended all life on earth had the U.S. gone ahead with it. Exaggeration and incitement have been avoided in
this discourse, but, in fairness to Dr Ehrlich, they might be justified in order to shock America and the
world to the dangers around us.
41
Extinction Inevitable- Tech

The chase for advanced tech will cause the inevitable demise of society
It goes without saying that man's present state of knowledge and understanding is primitive. We have little
idea of the fundamental relationships of time, space, action at a distance, life, and so on. There may be a
"universal law" stating that research by an advanced civilization progresses in such a logical way that some
test or experiment is normally performed that exceeds some limit and unexpectedly causes the civilization
to be wiped out before it's had a chance to colonize outside its own planet or solar system. Science in the
last few decades has progressed at a phenomenal pace. If there is a limit that we mustn't exceed, we're fast
approaching it. We are now performing experiments wherein the value of certain parameters are seldom
surpassed in the entire universe. For example, by means of the laser, recent techniques have produced
magnetic and electric fields, energy densities, and temperatures that are found only at the center of our sun.
Within decades we'll greatly surpass nature itself in many domains. Are we absolutely sure that some
obscure physical effect won't chain react the earth right out of existence? A further example - the race for
the biggest high-energy particle accelerator could easily be the mechanism by which all life on earth is
ended. After all, even back during World War II, farsighted people in the Manhattan Project made a cursory
examination into the possibility that the 1st atomic bomb at Alamagordo might set off a chain reaction in
the atmosphere. Such studies probably aren't being made today. The rush to publish and the need to cut
corners, time-wise and money-wise, are the reasons.
42
Extinction Inevitable- Resource Scarcity

Resource Scarcity due to skyrocketing populations makes extinction inevitable
Sylvia Engdahl, 2003, “Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of
Colonizing Space,” http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm
The question of resources raises an even more crucial reason for expansion into space
than the danger of Earth’s destruction. It’s obvious that this planet cannot support an
expanding population forever. Most people who recognize this fact advocate population
control to the extent of “zero population growth.” I do not; I believe it would be fatal not
only for the reason explained above, but because if it could be achieved it would result in
stagnation. I do not want a world in which there can be no growth; growth leads to
intellectual and artistic progress as well as to material survival. Furthermore, I do not
believe it could be achieved. The built-in desire for personal descendants is too strong;
that is why our species has survived this long, why it has spread throughout the entire
world. Moreover, the biological response to threatened survival is to speed up
reproduction, as we can see by the number of starving children in the world. If we tried to
suppress population growth completely, we would have either immediate violent
upheaval or a period of dictatorship followed by bloody revolution. Ultimately, we would
reduce the population all right; we would decimate it. That may be “survival” but it’s
surely not the future we want. We do not want even the present restriction on resources.
Currently, some nations live well while others are deprived, and it’s asserted that even
those with the best access to resources should stop using them up—the underdeveloped
nations, under this philosophy, are not given the hope of a standard of living
commensurate with the level our species has achieved. Will the Third World tolerate such
a situation forever? I surely wouldn’t blame them for not wanting to. And neither do I
want the rest of the world reduced to a lower level of technology. Even if I had no other
objection to such a trend, the plain fact is that a low level of technology cannot support
the same size population as a high level; so if you want to cut back on technology, you
have
43
Colonization key to solve Extinction

Colonization of space is the ONLY way to prevent extinction- time frame is
irrelevant
Life on earth will certainly cease to exist some day, but can we predict how soon?
Unfortunately, every science (except mathematics) is based upon laboratory and field
observations of the world as it's handed to us. The experimentalists are usually far ahead
of the theorists who spend the great majority of their time trying to explain what has been
observed. It's clear, since we're almost always one step behind in our understanding of the
facts, that no advance warning of our imminent demise can be expected from the
theorists. Since our scientists can't enlighten us, what about our politicians? Can they
somehow control the geometrically increasing indicators (population, energy, etc.) and
peacefully level them out to a stable plateau? Or will there be some sort of earthly "big
bang"? One might only predict from the manner in which world leaders have solved their
problems in the past, and by judging the caliber of our leadership in the world today. It
may be that the only way we can have of predicting the time by which we should set up
our colony is to look at the curves that depict these geometrically increasing indicators of
impending disaster. These rates of increase surely cannot be maintained for many years -
and so we must get on with the construction of space colonies - Now! For many present-
day decision makers, the argument that immediate space colonization may save 10-to-
the-60th man-years in the future may not be as persuasive as an argument that space
colonization can solve problems of the moment and that taxpayers and constituents will
be benefitted now or in the near future. Well, space colonization CAN solve other
problems here on Earth, and can actually save a far greater amount of money than the
amount required for this project.
44
Satellites Solve Colonization

Solar Satellites will create sustainable colonies and prevent the rise of conflict
A method has emerged for the efficient colonization of space which can be implemented quickly,
economically, and in addition be very tangibly beneficial to man. Gerard K O'Neill, a professor of physics
at Princeton, has devoted years to perfecting a design for satellite colonies that would orbit the earth about
every 2 or 4 weeks. Each of these early colonies, constructed from easily obtained lunar material, would
orbit between 100,000 and a quarter million miles from earth, would initially support in fine style about
10,000 men, women and children, and would soon be self-sufficient. These 1000's of pioneers would be put
to work constructing solar-collecting satellites, hundreds of them, that would be placed in earth orbit 22,290
miles above sea level at the equator. At that height, these satellites would orbit the earth exactly once a day
and remain above the same point of the equator. These solar collecting satellites would gather vast amounts
of the sun's energy, convert it into microwaves, and beam it down to stationary receivers on earth where it
would be again converted into the form of electrical energy we can use in the home. All this is done with
surprising efficiency, day and night, rain or shine. No breakthroughs are required - the technology is here -
and both NASA and Congress are having a hard look at the benefits vs. costs of Prof. O'Neill's Satellite
Solar Power System.** O'Neill has shown that the power obtained would, in just a couple decades,
completely pay for all the development and construction of all the space colonies, solar-collecting satellites,
and ground stations, including the interest on the capital investment. A number of different configurations
have been proposed for the colony. Preliminary estimates indicate costs would only be several hundred
billion dollars spread over two decades or so. Remember that this money would be spent here in the United
States where we would benefit in the many ways previously listed. After such a venture, the U.S. would
undoubtedly find itself in a powerful economic, technical, and political position, well worth the expenditure
of just a small fraction of one year's GNP. And to achieve all this, there'll be no need to fight a war. In fact,
a disastrous war may well be prevented and our civilization rescued.
Zero Sum resource scarcity makes extinction inevitable
Sylvia Engdahl, 2003, “Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of
Colonizing Space,” http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm
One big reason why they should not is the “narrow window” concept. The other is that
they could not. I have explained why I believe the problem of war can’t be solved without
expansion. The problem of hunger is, or ultimately will be, the direct result of our
planet’s limited resources; though it could be solved for the near-term by political
reforms, we are not likely to see such reforms while nations are playing a “ zero-sum
game” with what resources Earth still has. Widespread poverty, when not politically
based, is caused by insufficient access to high technology and by the fact that there aren’t
enough resources to go around (if you doubt this, compare the amount of poverty here
with the amount in the Third World, and the amount on the Western frontier with the
amount in our modern cities). Non-contagious disease, such as cancer, is at least partially
the result of stress; and while expansion won’t eliminate stress, overcrowding certainly
increases it. The problem of atmospheric pollution is the result of trying to contain the
industry necessary to maintain our technology within the biosphere instead of moving it into
orbit where it belongs.
45
A2: States Fund Private Companies CP
1. Perm: Do Both
a. Not severance – states funding private companies and federal
government funding NASA.
b. Double solvency – solves better than the CP due to double funding
2. Federal government coordination and incentives only way to catalyzes SBSP.

That’s 1AC solvency sub-point A Hamilton.
a. tech is more feasible today than ever before
b. government-led proof-of-concept-design essential to catalyze private
investment
c. coordinated program with “high-level leadership” is necessary
3. SBSP needs be taken on by NASA
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space

Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the
House Committee on Science,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that space solar power (SSP) is
"precisely what NASA as an agency should be all about" - the development of
opportunities in space which are uncovered during NASA's missions. He stated that
NASA's lack of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed, "cries out
for further research," may be because NASA wants to focus on human space flight, "in
hopes of reclaiming the glory days of Apollo." He feels that SSP is just as exciting -- or
even more so -- as sending an astronaut to Mars, and is closer to NASA's mission. He
cited the Next Generation Internet project as an example where NASA funding is
enabling competition for the private sector, similar to what the SSP project could be. He
wants NASA to take the next measured step in research, and believes that this
visionary approach would reap huge public support for NASA. The space station, he
said, is a tremendous engineering project with direct benefit to people on Earth; SSP can
provide great benefits as well. Ranking Minority Member Cramer discussed the fact that
SSP is not a new issue, but requires a long term focus. SSP requires a radical reduction in
cost of access to space, which NASA is already investing in.
4. Federal government must accomplish 3 key incentives. That’s 1AC solvency

sub-point B NSSO.
a. Complete a space-borne proof-of-concept demonstration in order to
lower the risk for private development
b. Facilitate instruments to create partnerships between commercial and
government agencies
c. Sign the DoD on as an anchor tenant customer of SBSP
46
5. Only through NASA and federal incentives will private industry begin to
invest in solar tech research.
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar
Power: A Fresh Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
Chairman Rohrabacher started the questioning by asking how much SSP would cost and who should pay. Mr.
Mankins responded that preliminary studies showed that the first platform of the Sun Tower model would
cost between $5-7B after the technology has been developed and would produce 400 megawatts of energy,
enough to supply a small city. The Chairman then asked if SSP would have a detrimental impact on the
environment, specifically the ozone layer. Gregg Maryniak answered that the Earth receives radio beams and
microwaves every day. The energy density is what matters, and the center of SSP is less dense than sunlight.
Space solar power is therefore possible, he stated, without detrimental effect. It could be used to help
underdeveloped countries to industrialize while creating a new industry. Congressman Lampson asked about
the 1980's Office of Technology Assessment report that cited economic obstacles to SSP. Mr. Mankins replied
that it was the goal of the Fresh Look study to resolve those obstacles. The finding of the study was that costs
have been drastically reduced since then; basic technologies have been developed. For example, at the time of
the OTA report, the shuttle wasn't operating. The problem with space transportation, added Mr. Maryniak, is
that there is not enough of it. Congressman Lampson then asked what NASA is doing in SSP now and what it
needs to do. Mr. Mankins cited the Fresh Look study completed last year, and listed ongoing R&D programs
under the Office of Space Flight and the Office of Space Science. Congressman Weldon's questions focused
on industry's interest and support of SSP and the possibility of working with the satellite industry. Other
questions focused on the amount of research and cost necessary to get SSP underway, and how much market
interest and industry support there would be for SSP, considering that fossil fuels are a finite, pollution-
causing resource. Congressman Bartlett asked about how much new technology would be needed; Mr.
Mankins replied that 8-10 major areas of technology needed to be advanced technologically, although all
were between an order of two and five improvement over current technology and would cost substantially
below $10B for technology maturation. Mr. Bartlett explained that while he doesn't believe in "greenhouse
gases" he'd be "willing to ride that horse" if that's what it would take to get funding for SSP. Chairman
Rohrabacher stated that he had spoken recently with the Speaker and Joint Taxation Chairman Archer about a
proposal to make manufacturing in space a tax free endeavor in order to raise private sector resources, and
that they expressed interest. He wants to get NASA to focus on SSP as a long term project, rather than human
travel to Mars. He asked if the witnesses had talked with anyone at NASA about this. Mr. Mankins testified
that there have been a number of discussions, but at this time in the context of the real struggle to
make the books work on the Balanced Budget Agreement, NASA is not making SSP a priority at
this time. Mr. Maryniak stated that he had had conversations with the Administrator and believed
that he personally was interested in SSP. Dr. Grey suggested that the Subcommittee discuss the
possibility of using some of the overlap technology between what NASA is already engaged in,
such as reduced cost of space transportation, and SSP technology requirements to begin an
SSP program at NASA. Mr. Rohrabacher replied that Mission to Planet Earth might be a good
place to put such a project. He said NASA may eventually get an astronaut on Mars, and he
isn't against it, but that SSP should come first because of the benefit to mankind that could be
derived from SSP. Mr. Lampson asked if anything could be accomplished now without additional
funding. Mr. Mankins replied that there is technology work being conducted at NASA now that
is applicable to SSP, including low cost of space transportation, which is the third goal of
NASA's strategic plan. Mr. Lampson then asked if the electric companies could be expected to
contribute funding to the project; Dr. Grey said that there is some support and that the
interest level of the utilities would depend on the risk of the technology advancement, and
that the reduction of this risk was a perfect role for the Federal government to fill. The
Chairman closed the hearing by expressing his agreement with the other members that "this has
been a fascinating hearing and I look forward to further discussion on the subject."
47
6. NASA tech key for lowering cost of SBSP
John Gartner, 6/22/04, “NASA Spaces on Energy Solution”,

www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913
"It has fallen neatly through the cracks, as it has for decades," Mankins said. He
said that NASA's development of space solar power would likely determine
whether or not satellites ever send energy to Earth. "Given how critical
NASA is to all the space and related technologies required, it's hard for me to
see how it could happen" without NASA. Arthur P. Smith, a physicist who has
written about solar power from space for the American Physical Society (PDF),
said that interest in beaming solar power from satellites has waxed and waned
since it was first proposed more than 30 years ago. Smith said that research
funding was highest during the oil crisis in the Carter administration, but after gas
prices retreated the program was shelved for almost 20 years. Pursuing solar
power from space "should be part of our plan for energy independence,"
Smith said. He said that if NASA invested $10 billion in research over the next
10 years, the technology would likely become cost-effective enough to begin
launching satellites.
7. Perm: Do the Plan and have all United States state governments and relevant
US territories, except California, give money to private companies.
8. [Insert California DA]
48
9. Explicit incentives must be given in order for SBSP to be successful

Space Frontier Foundation, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanity’s
Energy, National Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs,”
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-
frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews SBSPReport10Oct07.pdf+
anchor+tenant+customer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
In order to close the business case, and begin the development of SBSP, the Foundation urges
the Administration and the U.S. Congress to enact the following specific recommendations by
the NSSO-led study report. 1. DoD as Anchor Tenant Customer: The key to every business is
having dependable and reliable customer(s). The availability of a dependable anchor tenant
customer, who is willing to pay $1 or more per kilowatt hour for large amounts of power, is a
major step forward. • The SBSP Study Group recommends that the DoD should immediately
conduct a requirements analysis of underlying long-term DoD demand for secure, reliable, and
mobile energy delivery to the warfighter, what the DoD might be willing to pay for a SBSP service
delivered to the warfighter and under what terms and conditions, and evaluate the appropriateness
and effectiveness of various approaches to signing up as an anchor tenant customer of a
commercially- delivered service, such as the NextView acquisition approach pioneered by the
National GeoSpatial-imaging Agency. 2. Extend Federal Incentives for Other Carbon-Neutral
Energy Technologies to SBSP: The U.S. Government is providing major incentives to many
other energy technologies, in support of energy independence and clean renewable energy
objectives. The Space Frontier Foundation believes it is completely reasonable to ask for
consistency in policy, and quite reasonable since the potential pay-off of SBSP is so large. • The
SBSP Study Group recommends that consistent with the U.S. Government incentives provided
to other carbon-neutral energy technologies, it is critical for the U.S. Government to provide
similar incentives to encourage private U.S. industry to co-invest in the development of SBSP
systems. Specifically, the following incentives should be provided to U.S. industry as soon as
possible to encourage private investment in the development and construction of SBSP systems: •
Carbon/Pollution Credits and Offsets: The Space Frontier Foundation believes that it should be
rather straight-forward for the U.S. Congress to clarify, to the extent necessary, that existing law
and policy on carbon/pollution credits and offsets also apply to SBSP. o Legislation at both the
federal and state level that specifies — and clarifies existing law as specifying — that SBSP is
eligible for all pollution credits, carbon credits, and carbon off-sets that are available to other clean
and renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, ground solar, and nuclear • Extend Loan
Guarantees to SBSP Developers & Operators: The nuclear power industry has been given loan
guarantees by the U.S. federal government. The Space Frontier Foundation urges the
Administration and the U.S. Congress to extend the same incentives to the SBSP industry. o A
federal loan guarantee program of up to 80% should be created for U.S. companies engaged in the
business of developing, owning and operating SBSP systems. This program should either be an
extension of, or modeled after, the existing loan guarantee program provided to the nuclear power
industry. 3. Low-Cost and Reliable Access to Space (LCRATS): The Space Frontier Foundation
agrees with the NSSO-led study that the “U.S. needs Low-Cost and Reliable Access to Space
(LCRATS)”, and that “LCRATS will also deliver significant benefits to U.S. national security and
American economic competitiveness, independent of SBSP.” We urge the U.S. Congress to adopt
the study reports recommendation “The nation ... must significantly increase its investments in …
LCRATS and ubiquitous on-orbit space operations for national security and economic purposes.”
o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends the enactment of legislation to
create transferable investment tax credits for private industry investments in reusable
Earth-to-orbit space transportation systems and in commercially-owned and operated space
infrastructure for orbit-to-orbit transfer, on-orbit assembly systems, orbital fuel depots, and
orbital repair, maintenance and upgrade systems
49
A2: States Fund NASA CP

1. Perm: Do Both
a. Not severance – states and federal government both fund NASA
b. Double solvency – solves better than the CP due to double funding
2. Congressional legislation essential for developing SBSP and private sector

spillover
Space Frontier Foundation, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanity’s
Energy, National Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs,”
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-
frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews SBSPReport10Oct07.pdf+
anchor+tenant+customer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
In order to close the business case, and begin the development of SBSP, the Foundation urges
the Administration and the U.S. Congress to enact the following specific recommendations by
the NSSO-led study report. 1. DoD as Anchor Tenant Customer: The key to every business is
having dependable and reliable customer(s). The availability of a dependable anchor tenant
customer, who is willing to pay $1 or more per kilowatt hour for large amounts of power, is a
major step forward. • The SBSP Study Group recommends that the DoD should immediately
conduct a requirements analysis of underlying long-term DoD demand for secure, reliable, and
mobile energy delivery to the warfighter, what the DoD might be willing to pay for a SBSP service
delivered to the warfighter and under what terms and conditions, and evaluate the appropriateness
and effectiveness of various approaches to signing up as an anchor tenant customer of a
commercially- delivered service, such as the NextView acquisition approach pioneered by the
National GeoSpatial-imaging Agency. 2. Extend Federal Incentives for Other Carbon-Neutral
Energy Technologies to SBSP: The U.S. Government is providing major incentives to many
other energy technologies, in support of energy independence and clean renewable energy
objectives. The Space Frontier Foundation believes it is completely reasonable to ask for
consistency in policy, and quite reasonable since the potential pay-off of SBSP is so large. • The
SBSP Study Group recommends that consistent with the U.S. Government incentives provided
to other carbon-neutral energy technologies, it is critical for the U.S. Government to provide
similar incentives to encourage private U.S. industry to co-invest in the development of SBSP
systems. Specifically, the following incentives should be provided to U.S. industry as soon as possible to
encourage private investment in the development and construction of SBSP systems: • Carbon/Pollution
Credits and Offsets: The Space Frontier Foundation believes that it should be rather straight-forward for the
U.S. Congress to clarify, to the extent necessary, that existing law and policy on carbon/pollution credits and
offsets also apply to SBSP. o Legislation at both the federal and state level that specifies — and clarifies
existing law as specifying — that SBSP is eligible for all pollution credits, carbon credits, and carbon off-sets
that are available to other clean and renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, ground solar, and nuclear
• Extend Loan Guarantees to SBSP Developers & Operators: The nuclear power industry has been given loan
guarantees by the U.S. federal government. The Space Frontier Foundation urges the Administration and the
U.S. Congress to extend the same incentives to the SBSP industry. o A federal loan guarantee program of up
to 80% should be created for U.S. companies engaged in the business of developing, owning and operating
SBSP systems. This program should either be an extension of, or modeled after, the existing loan guarantee
program provided to the nuclear power industry. 3. Low-Cost and Reliable Access to Space (LCRATS):
The Space Frontier Foundation agrees with the NSSO-led study that the “U.S. needs Low-Cost and Reliable
Access to Space (LCRATS)”, and that “LCRATS will also deliver significant benefits to U.S. national
security and American economic competitiveness, independent of SBSP.” We urge the U.S. Congress to adopt
the study reports recommendation “The nation ... must significantly increase its investments in … LCRATS
and ubiquitous on-orbit space operations for national security and economic purposes.” o Recommendation:
The SBSP Study Group recommends the enactment of legislation to create transferable
investment tax credits for private industry investments in reusable Earth-to-orbit space
transportation systems and in commercially-owned and operated space infrastructure for
50
orbit-to-orbit transfer, on-orbit assembly systems, orbital fuel depots, and orbital repair,
maintenance and upgrade systems
3. The federal government is essential to providing 3 key incentives to allow for

commercial SBSP tech to occur.
National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an
Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-
assessment-release-01.pdf, pg. 3
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low‐
cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space
access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that
include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement
to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just
purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review
finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze
SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be
accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space-
borne proof-of-concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10
MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second cha
llenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to cr
eate the partnerships and relationships (commercial‐commercial, governmentcommercial, and government‐
government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct
early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other
renewable energy systems coming on‐line today.
4. Perm: Do the plan and have all United States state governments and
relevant US territories, except California, give money to NASA.
5. [Insert California DA]
6. Counterplan will be struck down –violations of multiple clauses ensure

Robert K. Huffman, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown University Law Center, a partner at the law
firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, Adjunct Professors at the
Georgetown University Law Center, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at MidAmerican
Energy Holdings Company, Winter 08, “Climate Change and the States: Constitutional Iss ues Arising fr
om State Climate Protection Leaders hip”,http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/
Conclusion State governments continue to demonstrate leadership in combating climate change— from
adopting energy efficiency standards to enacting renewable portfolio standards to developing cap-and-trade
programs aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, often as part of regional compacts. At the same time,
the Congress is in the process of developing national climate change legislation and agencies in the
Executive Branch are defining their roles. As the federal and state governments begin regulating the same
areas of the economy and the environment, the potential for conflicting programs arises. State programs are
potentially vulnerable to a variety of constitutional challenges, including through the Commerce,
Compacts, Supremacy, and Foreign Affairs clauses. As the federal government solidifies its approach to
global climate change over the next several years, the likelihood for preemption of state programs will
become more evident. It is apparent now, however, that state programs are in serious jeopardy if the federal
government actively seeks to restrict state authority. If the current or future President does not want states
to play an active role in climate change regulation, he or she will have several constitutional tools at their
disposal to handicap the states’ abilities to create programs that reduce GHG emissions.
51
Politics Agenda Link Turns- Bush Bad
A. Plan drains political capital
Leonard David, special correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07

(http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html)
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.
B. Political capital is critical to agenda support
Lee 2005 The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna
College – Presented at the Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference
[Andrew, “Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in
the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://a-
s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf] [Bapodra]
No single alternative theory can entirely explain the use of veto threats under President
Bush’s first term. For example, the president would not be able to invest political capital
without having the opportunity of increased legislation created by the legislative cycle. It
is more likely that a combination of these factors produced the data in the first Bush
administration. During periods of high legislative activity, the Congress, divided during
the 107th Congress, anticipated more credible veto threats due to high political capital.
Congress constructed legislation that was favorable to the president, and the president
invested his political capital by decreasing his veto threats and opposition to legislation.
Congress creates legislation that is more favorable to the president, and the president
supports Congress in order to invest his political capital. Ultimately, this means that
Congress and the president are inadvertently working to create agreeable legislation
during times of high political capital. Conversely, when political capital decreases, the
president gradually increases his opposition language.
52
Bush Bad- Bipart opposition

A. Bipartisan opposition to NASA funding
Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The Space
Review), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military space
efforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]
Going through my notes from last week’s address at the National Space Symposium by
Rep. Ken Calvert, I picked up a theme that relates to some recent discussions in the
comments of previous posts, where some were trying to hang blame on one party or
another for NASA’s FY07 funding woes. Calvert noted that one of the House members
who voted against the 2005 NASA authorization bill is the current appropriations
chairman, David Obey (although Calvert didn’t mention him by name, only by title).
“This is a problem as NASA finds itself in a precarious time, trying to ramp up spending
to move America beyond low Earth orbit while also meeting the demands of the agency’s
diverse portfolio of missions.”
Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No.
“There is a dangerous trend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress,” he
said. He mentioned two amendments to the original FY07 appropriations bill on the
House floor last summer that would have either prevented NASA from spending any
money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred NASA funds
to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out,
since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing
resolution), “The reality is that members of both parties supported these amendments, and
by a large margin.”
That doesn’t bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. “You can bet that
NASA will be the target again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding
against grabs from other areas.”
B. Bipart is key to the agenda
Steven Shull, Professor of Political Science, 2k “PRESIDENTIAL-CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS,” p. 15. [Bapodra]
Presidential leadership and/or congressional followership clearly provide an inadequate

picture of modern presidential-congressional relations; rarely is either dominant or
submissive. Increasingly, divided government does make institutional conflict more
likely, but policy deadlock is not inevitable. Neither actor completely sets the agenda on
its own, and cooperation is nearly always necessary for agenda ideas to be adopted
subsequently.
53
Bush Bad- Weapons unpopular

A. Plan will be perceived as a space weapons program in congress. That’s
unpopular
Theresa Hitchens, Vice President, Center for Defense Information, 9-14-05,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/hitchens-05_12_01_/hitchens-
05_12_01_en.pdf [Bapodra]
What I can also say is that even if the new presidential policy blesses the Pentagon’s space warfare
strategy, it remains unclear whether Congress will be willing to fund it much beyond basic technology
research. Space is an exceedingly expensive place. To fully implement the capabilities necessary to
fight “in, from and through” space, hundreds of billions would have to be dedicated to developing
new weapons, launching thousands of new on-orbit assts, and maintaining those systems once they
are deployed. With launch costs remaining at $22,000 per kilogram, and current satellites in LEO
weighing up to 4,000 kilograms, the price tag rapidly becomes exorbitant – hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars. Further, Congress is already expressing concerns about the costs of today’s Air
Force space programs that have nothing to do with controversial ASAT or space-strike systems.
Programs such as the Transformational Satellite System designed to replace current military
communications satellites, and the Space Radar to replace aging U.S. early warning satellites, are
years behind schedule and tens of millions dollars over budget. Congressional reaction to Air Force
budget requests for new space weapons programs based on unproven and yet undeveloped
technologies may well not be all that favorable. In addition, space weapons remain controversial
politically and the concept unpopular with broad U.S. public opinion – and a unilateral move by the
United States to weaponize space is likely to also face harsh international political resistance and
possible backlash as other nations seek to compete with their own space weapons programs. Indeed,
recognizing these facts, the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, which is
responsible for the military space budget, plans to hold hearings sometime in June on the question of
“space control” and space weaponization.
B. Agenda success increases as public support increases
Bond & Fleisher, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996 (Jon R. and
Richard. "The President in Legislation" p.24)
Edwards (1980) was the first to test this theory systematically with quantitative data. In a study of presidential-
congressional relations for the period 1953 through 1976 (Eisenhower through Ford), Edwards found high correlations
between presidential popularity and congressional support. His most important finding was that members of
Congress are less responsive to the president's overall popularity and more responsive to his popularity among
subgroups in the public that are part of their own electoral coalitions-i.e., Democrats in Congress respond to the
president's popularity among Democratic voters, and Republicans respond to his popularity among Republican
voters (Edwards 1980, 92-93). Based on this analysis. Edwards concludes "that a president "should be concerned with his
prestige among members of both parties, because all members of Congress respond to his prestige, particularly his
popularity among their electoral supporters" \ 109)
Rivers and Rose (1985) argue that Edwards's analysis understates the extent to which presidential success in Congress depends
on the president's popularity with the public. Their analysis suggests that there is a simultaneous relationship between
presidential program formulation and success in Congress-- i.e ., success at one point in time tends to be associated with
increased requests in subsequent years, which then leads to lower approval rates. Because of this simultaneity, bivariate
correlations between presidential popularity and success in Congress, as in Edwards's (1980) analysis, will understate the true
relationship. Controlling for simultaneity, Rivers and Rose (1985, 193-95) find that a 1 percent increase in public
approval of the president leads to about a 1 percent increase in congressional approval of presidential
requests. They conclude that public opinion is a more important source of presidential success than indicated by
previous studies.
54
Bush Good- Public support
A. Public supports the plan
O. Glenn Smith, former manager of science and applications experiments for the
International Space Station at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, 7/23/08, “Harvest the Sun
from Space”, New York Times Opinion Section,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html [Bapodra]
Over the past 15 years, Americans have invested more than $100 billion, directly and
indirectly, on the space station and supporting shuttle flights. With an energy crisis
deepening, it’s time to begin to develop a huge return on that investment. (And for those
who worry that science would lose out to economics, there’s no reason that work on
space solar power couldn’t go hand in hand with work toward a manned mission to Mars,
advanced propulsion systems and other priorities of the space station.)
In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our space program, NASA should
realize that the American public would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to
meet critical energy needs here on Earth.
B. Public support translates directly to congressional success, especially in an

election year
Spitzer 93 Prof of Poli Sci, State University of New York [Robert J., President and Congress: Executive
Hegemony at the Crossroads of American Government]
An important empirical study of the relationship between the President’s public standing
and presidential support in Congress concluded that the two are inextricably linked.
Presidents who manage to satisfy public expectations are rewarded by high and stable
public support. In turn, public support translates directly into success for the President in
Congress. According to the data analysis of political scientists Charles Ostrom Jr., and
Dennis Simon, “the cumulative rate of roll-call victories [for the President in Congress]
will decline by three points for every ten-point drop in [public] approval.” In turn,
“Presidential effectiveness in the legislative arena is an important component in
maintaining public support.” Naturally, many factors that influence the President’s
standing are beyond direct control, such as the onset of a sharp economic downturn at the
start of an administration. But Ostrum and Simon conclude that a shrewd President can
influence public support and that the typical long-term decline in a President’s public
standing is by no means inevitable.
55
Bush Good- Military Lobby

A. Military Lobbies Love The Plan
Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,”
August 13, 2007)
The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can
provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One
way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow
officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to
Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to
commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.
B. Military can use political influence channels to achieve its needs
Harper's Magazine 2006 (Harper's Magazine “American Coup D'Etat”, A. J.

Bacevichhttp://www.harpers.org/AmericanCoupDEtat.html April 2006. )
BACEVICH: But this does bring up another crucial reason there could never be a
military coup in the United States: the military has learned to play politics. It doesn’t
need to have a coup in order to get what it wants most of the time. Especially since World
War II, the services have become very skillful at exploiting the media and at manipulating
the Congress—particularly on the defense budget, which is estimated now to be equal to
that of the entire rest of the world combined.
DUNLAP: I agree, though I wouldn’t characterize it negatively. The military works
within the system to achieve its needs.
LUTTWAK: A few years back, the president of Argentina told the country’s air force that
its budget for the next year would be $80 million. Now, Argentina has a fairly large air
force; $80 million was enough for one base, basically. But the air force had no recourse,
no back channels to Congress, no talk shows to go on. That could never happen in the
United States.
BACEVICH: Right. Our military doesn’t need to overthrow the government, because it
has learned how to play politics in order to achieve its interests.
56
Bush Good- funding bipartisan

A. Strong Congressional bipartisanship for NASA funding
STEWART M. POWELL, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent, 6/11/2008, “White
House rejects call to boost NASA shuttle funding: Houston-area lawmakers lash out at administration”,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html [Bapodra]
The White House also took umbrage at the legislation requiring NASA to deepen international
cooperation in the next generation of manned U.S. space operations, saying that the provision
ordering international outreach "directly infringes upon the president's authority to conduct
foreign affairs." President Bush's strong criticism of a program dear to Texas lawmakers left Lone
Star State Republicans in a tough political position. Some, like Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said
they would push for additional NASA funding, with or without White House approval. Rep. Michael
McCaul, R-Austin, whose district includes parts of Harris County, disagreed with the White House
contention that the additional missions would jeopardize the 2010 retirement date. "The contingency flights
are necessary to make sure the space station is fully equipped entering that period when the U.S. will have
no spaceflights," he said. There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate,
which will act after the House gives its funding plan final approval. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a
member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not directly address the White House threats. But she
said she considers completion of the space station an issue of "utmost importance" and will continue
working "to increase NASA funding so we may close the gap in continuous spaceflight," said spokesman
Matt Mackowiak.
B. Bush can’t get anything done without bipartisanship

Joseph A. Pika and John Anthony Maltese, Prof and Acting Chair Dept of Pol Sci and Int’l Rels @
University of Delaware and Assoc. Prof @ University of Georgia, 2004, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th
Edition.
Because presidents cannot rely on full support from their own party members, they must build coalitions by
obtaining support from some opposition members. Coalition building is especially important when the
opposition controls one or both houses—the situation for most presidents since 1969. Several factors other
than party membership influence congressional voting decisions, including constituency pressures, state
and regional loyalty, ideological orientations, and interest group influence. On many occasions, presidents
have received crucial support from the opposition. Eisenhower successfully sought Democratic votes on
foreign policy matters; Republicans contributed sizable pluralities to the enactment of civil rights
legislation in the 1960s; conservative Democrats, mainly from the South, often supported the domestic
policy proposals of Nixon and Ford; conservative Democrats in the House were essential to Reagan’s 1981
legislative victories; Clinton depended on Republican support for the passage of NAFTA and GAT’T; and
George W. Bush received critical, though limited, support from Democrats on his tax-reduction and
education-reform proposals.
57
Bush Good- Popularity

A. Space based solar power receiving strong support from congress
National Space Society, 2-28-08, “Space Exploration Alliance Members Press Congress
For Full Authorized Levels of NASA Funding”,
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:mNyybCscXG8J:www.nss.org/news/releases/pr20080228.html+spac
e+exploration+congress+support&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Other issues discussed during the meetings included continued support for NASA's
robotic science missions and the integral role that space exploration plays in solving
Earth's pressing energy and environmental needs. Several Congressional offices
explicitly requested more details about the National Security Space Office's recent
study of space-based solar power solutions, which noted that “[a] single kilometer-
wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year
to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable
conventional oil reserves on Earth today.”
B. Popularity boosts political capital
ROBERTS 11 – 9 – 04 Political Science BA, University of New Mexico

[Dane, “Democrats need sharp vision,” Daily Lobo, via University Wire]
"Political capital" might be described as good will and a willingness to accommodate, if

not support, a leader. His previous political capital came from Sept. 11, after which his
approval ratings soared, and Congress gave him broad power, not the 2000 election in
which he lost the popular vote. What does it mean to "spend" this capital? It means to
use your popularity to push otherwise unlikely or unpopular initiatives. Bush certainly
spent his little capital in his first term. Among other robust but not-quite-popular actions,
his war on Iraq and extensions of budget-busting tax cuts resulted in a steady erosion of
his approval ratings. This time around, according to the White House, there is broad
support for Bush's agenda. The voters gave him a mandate. Why, then, will Bush have to
spend his capital? If his policies are the will of the people, getting them done will
increase, not decrease, his political capital.
58
C. Political capital is critical to agenda support
Lee 2005 The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna
College – Presented at the Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference
[Andrew, “Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in
the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://a-
s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf]
No single alternative theory can entirely explain the use of veto threats under President
Bush’s first term. For example, the president would not be able to invest political capital
without having the opportunity of increased legislation created by the legislative cycle. It
is more likely that a combination of these factors produced the data in the first Bush
administration. During periods of high legislative activity, the Congress, divided during
the 107th Congress, anticipated more credible veto threats due to high political capital.
Congress constructed legislation that was favorable to the president, and the president
invested his political capital by decreasing his veto threats and opposition to legislation.
Congress creates legislation that is more favorable to the president, and the president
supports Congress in order to invest his political capital. Ultimately, this means that
Congress and the president are inadvertently working to create agreeable legislation
during times of high political capital. Conversely, when political capital decreases, the
president gradually increases his opposition language.
59

325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DDI ’08 AFF Wave 3

Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie 1/59

SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III

SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III...............................................................................1

p.s.- The indexing came out a little weird spacing-wise

U.S. Weaponizing Now

Congress gave Pentagon funding for new space weapon program

Conferees are funding Bush’s counterspace weapon systems

Pentagon increasing Space Offense

Pentagon is increasing offensive counterspace systems

One research project of $7 million in that category is directed at "offensive

U.S. blocking space weapons treaty

U.S. blocks Russian-Chinese space weapons treaty, wants to use space

GENEVA — The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a

All armed forces sectors weaponizing

The United States is on the verge of deploying energy space weapons

All sectors of the Armed Forces are weaponizing

China Weaponizing Now

China is developing methods to counter U.S. space dependence

Chinese strategists view U.S. dependence on space as an asymmetric vulnerability that

China is developing ground-based energy weapons to destroy satellites

Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing

Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power

Chinese space weapon development is to combat U.S. space dependency and

U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization

A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S.

Russia and China are already space militarizing

Space information systems prevents flawed attack detections

Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good

Space weapons are detrimental to U.S. interests

A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE

Michael Livington, PhD, owner of Medical-Health Info site, 08 http://www.medical-

2. TURN: SEX IN SPACE IS BETTER; Microgravity causes faster impregnation

3. MICROGRAVITY ENHANCES FLAGELLAR PROTEIN—MEANS

Additional studies of sperm function in altered gravity environments are needed to

2AC DoD Counterplan

4. DoD does not have the resource capacity to do the plan

Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

Space will be on the backdrop of DoD agenda on all levels-

Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

National Security Space Office, 10-10-07

Taiwan War Turn

B. Global Economic Collapse and War

DoD F22 Tradeoff DA

Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease

Pharma Business Week, 11-19-07, http://www.newsrx.com/library/topics/West-Nile-

NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable

Space Review, 4-14-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1106/1

Non Unique- NASA Spending Now

Massive NASA funding bill now

AIP ,American Institute of Physics, 1-8-08, Space Ref,

The final FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the National

Congress planning on funding new programs now

Mark K. Mathews, Washington Beareau, 6-25-08, OrlandoSentinel,

NASA Satellites Solve Oceans

NASA Satellites solve oceans- monitoring

Science Daily, 6-23-08,

NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched June 20 from Vandenberg

NASA satellites solve the root problem of oceans

NASA, National Aeronautics Space Administration,

Obama and NASA=lol

News Press, 7-29-08, http://www.news-

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his

POVERTY KILLS MORE THAN A NUCLEAR WAR