Military Affirmative

Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Military Aff CM
Military Aff CM.....................................................................................................................................................1
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................5
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................10
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................11
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC .......................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................16
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................17
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................18
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................19
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................20
1AC (Plan)............................................................................................................................................................21
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................22
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................23
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................24
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................25
1AC........................................................................................................................................................................26
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................27
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................28
...............................................................................................................................................................................28
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................29
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................30
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................31
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................32
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................33
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................34
1
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................35
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................36
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................37
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................38
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................39
...............................................................................................................................................................................40
Competitiveness- Oil Bad....................................................................................................................................40
Alt Energy Key Competitiveness/Military key to alt. E...................................................................................41
Alt Energies Key Competitiveness/Gov. Key.....................................................................................................42
Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness.............................................................................................................43
3. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................43
Alt fuel key to readiness......................................................................................................................................45
...............................................................................................................................................................................47
...............................................................................................................................................................................47
Oil kills readiness.................................................................................................................................................49
Oil kills readiness.................................................................................................................................................50
Overstretch now...................................................................................................................................................51
Solar planes key readiness...................................................................................................................................52
Alt. E key to Air Force.........................................................................................................................................53
4/25/2008 - GENEVA (AFPN) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne championed Air Force
alternative energy initiatives at the Third Aviation and Environment conference on Apr. 22.
Speaking on a panel on carbon emissions with senior leaders in the aviation industry, Secretary Wynne
described the problems faced by the Air Force in regard to aviation fuel. "Today the petroleum market is
controlled by a small handful of producers. This leads to higher costs and less price stability," he said.
Part of the Air Force's response, he said, has been to diversify its supplier base for energy needs. This
includes seeking out alternative sources of aviation fuel and encouraging new suppliers to enter the
market. "Our goal is not to become a producer of synthetic fuels. It is to provide a stable market for fuel
that will entice industry to develop the means to produce it for us," Secretary Wynne said. He highlighted
that the B-52 Stratofortress long-range bomber was certified to fly on a synthetic fuel blend as of August
2007. He also noted that certification to fly the B-1 Lancer and C-17 Globemaster III on synthetic fuel
blends is currently underway. The Air Force has not yet found a single perfect solution. "The search for
new fuel sources must be treated holistically," he said. "We must find the right mix of fuels that provides
2
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
us with greater energy independence and meets our need to lower our carbon footprint." Secretary
Wynne stated that as a consumer of nearly $6B in aviation fuel annually, the Air Force considers the full
life cycle of aviation fuel -- from extraction to processing to consumption -- in its decision-making. He
said fiscal and environmental considerations are different at each step in the life cycle.
................................................................................................................................................................................53
Solvency – alternative energy / solar power key to air power..........................................................................54
Air Force key Readiness/Heg..............................................................................................................................55
Air Force key Readiness/Heg..............................................................................................................................56
Air power key to heg/readiness..........................................................................................................................57
Adv. Air key to heg/readiness..............................................................................................................................58
Air tech. key to Navy...........................................................................................................................................59
...............................................................................................................................................................................60
Solvency—air force..............................................................................................................................................61
FT safe...................................................................................................................................................................62
Biofuel Good.........................................................................................................................................................63
................................................................................................................................................................................63
Oil kills Econ/Runs out........................................................................................................................................64
Econ Impact—war ..............................................................................................................................................65
Econ Impact- Oil Competition............................................................................................................................66
Oil Impact—nukes ..............................................................................................................................................67
Oil Impact—econ collapse/war..........................................................................................................................68
Adv. Peak oil = econ collapse..............................................................................................................................69
Smooth Econ transition.......................................................................................................................................70
Air Force key to alt. E..........................................................................................................................................71
...............................................................................................................................................................................71
...............................................................................................................................................................................71
...............................................................................................................................................................................71
Military dev. key...................................................................................................................................................72
Solvency – AFRL world leader...........................................................................................................................73
U.S. military key...................................................................................................................................................74
Solvency—Military..............................................................................................................................................76
Solvency - Alt energy has multiplier effect .......................................................................................................76
Solvency – Air starting point...............................................................................................................................77
3
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Military tech. spills over......................................................................................................................................78

Solvency – DoD leadership key for gov and commercial sectors.....................................................................79
Military Spillover.................................................................................................................................................80
Solvency—plan fast..............................................................................................................................................81
Plan solves fast......................................................................................................................................................82
...............................................................................................................................................................................82
...............................................................................................................................................................................82
...............................................................................................................................................................................82
...............................................................................................................................................................................82
Plan cheap.............................................................................................................................................................83
...............................................................................................................................................................................83
...............................................................................................................................................................................83
...............................................................................................................................................................................83
...............................................................................................................................................................................83
Solvency Add On—Airships...............................................................................................................................84
A2- Economic Recession......................................................................................................................................85
...............................................................................................................................................................................85
...............................................................................................................................................................................86
A2 Ground Forces................................................................................................................................................86
A2 Ground Forces................................................................................................................................................88
...............................................................................................................................................................................88
...............................................................................................................................................................................88
...............................................................................................................................................................................88
...............................................................................................................................................................................88
Plan Bipart............................................................................................................................................................88
Plan Bipart............................................................................................................................................................90
4
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Air force is the single largest consumer of energy in the US
THOMAS D. CROWLEY et al, PRESIDENT of L. E. Peabody & Associates, Inc., APRIL
2007, TRANSFORMING THE WAY DOD LOOKS AT ENERGY AN APPROACH TO
ESTABLISHING AN ENERGY STRATEGY, REPORT FT602T1,
http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_404_FT602T1_Transforming%20the%20
Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy_Final%20Report.pdf, 1-1
Over the past several decades, the United States has become increasingly reliant on imported energy, primarily from
petroleum. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) forecasts that U.S. dependence on petroleum imports will
increase to 68 percent by 2025. DoD, the largest U.S. consumer of energy, also relies on foreign supplies of crude oil
and the finished transportation fuels (such as military jet fuel) that are derived from it. Fuel represents more than
half of the DoD logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into
position for battle.1 The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day to operate around the globe, and the Air
Force—the largest DoD consumer of fuel—uses even more.
5
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
To combat rising oil costs, the Air Force is pioneering effective alternative
energy technologies including alternative biofuels created from algae and
soybeans. To this end, the Air Force has set a goal of halving jet fuel use by
50% by 2016.
Daniel Carson [staff writer for the News Herald, Panama City, FL], 6/22/08, “Alternative energy
projects on the rise,”
http://www.newsherald.com/news/energy_4589___article.html/florida_renewable.html
Coppola called the U.S. military "fully engaged" in its search for renewable and alternative energy sources.
He said the U.S. Air Force has a goal to have 50 percent of its jet fuel come from alternative or synthetic
energy sources by 2016. For the conversion process, crop oils can be derived from soybean, peanut and
cotton seed found in Florida. A process called catalytic hydrothermolysis converts the oils into biofuels. Based
on data found in the Florida Agricultural Statistical Discovery, Li said there is potential to grow up to 70,000
soybean acres in the state. Li said ARA also is interested in applying the process to algae, which has been
researched as another possible feedstock for biofuels.
"We're hoping that our technology can also be used for that," he said. Li's hydrothermal approach for cellulosic
ethanol production involves using high temperature water in a process called hydrothermal saccharification. That
process converts cellulose to fermentable sugars for a more efficient production of cellulosic ethanol, Coppola said.
6
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
This goal will not be met however, because despite the importance of
alternative oils today, funding allocated to ALL alternative energies remains
only at 10 billion dollars, less than for the Manhattan Project or Apollo Moon
missions.
Nader Elhefnawy, writer for the U.S. army war college, 2/23/06, Energy Bulletin, “US: Army
War College on Energy Security”, http://energybulletin.net/node/13481, [Dan Powers]
The resistance to planning that left the United States without an industrial policy has resulted in a $700 billion
annual trade deficit, caused in large part by American imports of manufactured products once made at home. With
the beginning of the end of the oil age possibly around the corner, the United States cannot afford to be without an
energy policy. A logical starting point is a program to nurture renewable sources and conserve fossil fuels on a scale
far more ambitious than anything previously attempted or currently being considered. Even the aforementioned $10
billion figure is modest in comparison with the sums spent on major national projects like the Manhattan Project and
the Apollo moon missions in much shorter periods of time, adjusting for inflation and economic growth. For that
matter, it is modest in comparison with public R&D spending generally, which exceeds $100 billion a year—despite
the continuing decrease of federal spending as a share of the country’s total R&D funding.38
7
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Contention 2: Advantages
Subpoint A: Readiness
American air power is the lynchpin of American military readiness- high

mobility and flexibility, low risk of casualties or error, proven efficiency against
the Taliban, Iraq, and Afghanistan, precision strikes, and no chance of ground
force atrocities makes the Air force the definitive U.S. weapon of the 21st
century.
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., (Deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force; more than 30
years' service; distinguished graduate of the National War College), 2006, Armed Forces Journal,
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/09/2009013
So where does that leave us? If we are smart, we will have a well-equipped high-technology air power capability.
Air power is America’s asymmetric advantage and is really the only military capability that can be readily applied
across the spectrum of conflict, including, as is especially important these days, potential conflict. Consider the
record. It was primarily air power, not land power, that kept the Soviets at bay while the U.S. won the Cold War.
And it was not just the bomber force and the missileers; it was the airlifters, as well. There are few strategic victories
in the annals of military history more complete and at so low a human cost as that won by American pilots during
the Berlin airlift. Armageddon was avoided. And the flexibility and velocity of air power also provides good-news
stories in friendly and low-threat areas. For example, huge U.S. transports dropping relief supplies or landing on dirt
strips in some area of humanitarian crisis get help to people on a timeline that can make a real difference. Such
operations also illustrate, under the glare of the global media, the true American character the world needs to see
more often if our strategic goals are to be achieved. Air power also doesn’t have the multi-aspect vulnerabilities
that boots on the ground do. It can apply combat power from afar and do so in a way that puts few of our forces at
risk. True, occasionally there will be a Francis Gary Powers, and certainly the Vietnam-era POWs — mostly airmen
— became pawns for enemy exploitation. Yet, if America maintains its aeronautical superiority, the enemy will not
be able to kill 2,200 U.S. aviators and wound another 15,000, as the ragtag Iraqi terrorists have managed to do to our
land forces. And, of course, bombs will go awry. Allegations will be made (as they are currently against the Israelis)
of targeting civilians and so forth. But the nature of the air weapon is such that an Abu Ghraib or Hadithah simply
cannot occur. The relative sterility of air power — which the boots-on-the-ground types oddly find distressing as
somehow unmartial — nevertheless provides greater opportunity for the discreet application of force largely under
the control of well-educated, commissioned officer combatants. Not a total insurance policy against atrocity, but a
far more risk-controlled situation. Most important, however, is the purely military effect. The precision revolution
has made it possible for air power to put a bomb within feet of any point on earth. Of course, having the right
intelligence to select that point remains a challenge — but no more, and likely much less so, than for the land forces.
The technology of surveillance is improving at a faster rate than is the ability to conceal. Modern conveniences, for
example, from cell phones to credit cards, all leave signatures that can lead to the demise of the increasing numbers
of adversaries unable to resist the siren song of techno-connection. Regardless, eventually any insurgency must
reveal itself if it is to assume power, and this inevitably provides the opportunity for air power to pick off individuals
or entire capabilities that threaten U.S. interests. The real advantage — for the moment anyway — is that air power
can do it with impunity and at little risk to Americans. The advances in American air power technology in recent
years make U.S. dominance in the air intimidating like no other aspect of combat power for any nation in history.
The result? Saddam Hussein’s pilots buried their airplanes rather than fly them against American warplanes. Indeed,
the collapse of the Iraqi armed forces was not, as the BOTGZ would have you believe, mainly because of the
brilliance of our ground commanders or, in fact, our ground forces at all. The subsequent insurgency makes it clear
that Iraqis are quite willing to take on our ground troops. What really mattered was the sheer hopelessness that air
power inflicted on Iraq’s military formations. A quotation in Time magazine by a defeated Republican Guard
8
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
colonel aptly captures the dispiriting effect of high-tech air attack: “[Iraqi leaders] forgot that we are missing air
power. That was a big mistake. U.S. military technology is beyond belief.” It is no surprise that the vaunted
Republican Guard, the proud fighting organization that tenaciously fought Iran for years, practically jumped out of
their uniforms and scattered at the sound of approaching U.S. aircraft. This same ability to inflict hopelessness was
even more starkly demonstrated in Afghanistan. For a millennium, the Afghans have been considered among the
toughest fighters in the world. Afghan resistance has turned the countryside into a gigantic military cemetery for
legions of foreign invaders. For example, despite deploying thousands of troops, well-equipped Soviet forces found
themselves defeated after waging a savage war with practically every weapon at their disposal. So what explains the
rapid collapse of the Taliban and al-Qaida in 2001? Modern air power. More specifically, the marriage of precision
weapons with precise targeting by tiny numbers of Special Forces troops on the ground. The results were stunning.
Putatively invulnerable positions the Taliban had occupied for years literally disappeared in a rain of satellite-
directed bombs from B-1s and B-52s flying so high they could be neither seen nor heard. This new, high-tech air
power capability completely unhinged the resistance without significant commitment of American boots on the
ground. Indeed, the very absence of American troops became a source of discouragement. As one Afghan told the
New York Times, “We pray to Allah that we have American soldiers to kill,” adding disconsolately, “These bombs
from the sky we cannot fight.” Another equally frustrated Taliban fighter was reported in the London Sunday
Telegraph recently as fuming that “American forces refuse to fight us face to face,” while gloomily noting that
“[U.S.] air power causes us to take heavy casualties.” In other words, the Taliban and al-Qaida were just as tough as
the mujahideen who fought the Russians, and more than willing to confront U.S. ground forces, but were broken by
the hopelessness that American-style air power inflicted upon them.
9
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Rising costs of oil means that the military won’t be able to sustain current Air
Force and response capabilities.
Bryan Bender [staff writer, Boston Globe], 5/1/07, “Pentagon study says oil reliance strains
military,”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_r
eliance_strains_military/
WASHINGTON -- A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil
-- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots
around the world "unsustainable in the long term."
10
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
This lack of readiness encourages global conflict that the U.S. won’t be able to
respond to
Thomas Moore, Heritage Analyst, 1997, HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORTS, “Maintaining
an Effective Military in a Budget Straitjacket”, Lexis Nexis
Today, this historic pattern of a lack of vigilance and concern about foreign policy and defense is being repeated,
even in Congress and among those for whom such concerns used to be paramount. The unifying and clarifying
threat of the former Soviet Union is gone -- even though a variety of other lesser threats continues to grow. But the
strong-defense community is not vocal or persuasive enough to overcome the force of this historical pattern. The
downward spiral of defense spending cuts continues for the time being, and the choice between Democrats and
Republicans is simply one of how steep and how fast the downward spiral will go. In fact, congressional Democrats
have pointed out -- correctly, one must add -- that the Republicans' "front-loaded" defense budget may spend more
in the near term, but actually provides less in future years than the planned Clinton budget for the same period.
Furthermore, the 105th Congress may be tempted to cut defense even more to pay for promised tax cuts. The result:
Today, the United States has too few forces to fight two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts, and too little money
to pay for the inadequate forces. There is, however, more to the historical pattern than neglect and turning inward.
The lack of vigilance abroad after winning a war always has encouraged new aggression for which the United States
was unprepared. It is safe to predict that today's Age of Chaos will be no exception. Greed, passion, and folly are
immutable parts of human character; and somewhere, someday, a new dictator, having observed the lack of U.S.
military preparedness, will embark upon some mad venture that threatens America's vital interests or its allies.
Sooner or later, there will be another major conflict -- or multiple conflicts -- that will draw in the United States. In
fact, the forces of conflict already are building up steadily around the world -- great power competition, unbridled
nationalism, ethnic strife, religious fanaticism, and hunger for newly discovered or diminishing natural resources.
When the inevitable crisis -- whether a single event or a succession of converging regional crises -- erupts again in
the world, the historic pattern shows the American people will rally and do what is needed. Today's apathy and lack
of interest in national security will evaporate overnight. But the American people rely on their elected leaders to
maintain the tools they will need to do the job. If they find the neglected military instrument rusty and brittle in their
hands, they will hold accountable those who let our defenses decline. The blood of their sons, brothers, husbands,
and fathers who die unnecessarily will demand it. This is where the strong-defense community can -- and must --
play a vital role. If experts from this community cannot stop or reverse the historic pattern of postwar neglect, at
least they can concentrate their efforts on preserving a military that will remain relatively effective even while
wearing a budget straitjacket.
11
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Subpoint B. Economy
Dwindling oil supplies will cause a global economic downturn that will
exacerbate national problems and cause state failure.
Increased Disorder
Resource conflict, however, is likely to be confined within particular regions. The economic effects of an oil
shortage would be global. With less energy at their disposal, societies and governments everywhere will have more
difficulty coping with problems likely to be of a more severe character—burgeoning populations, climate change,
and shortages of such critical resources as water and arable land. The problem of the salinated and damaged
farmland on which a third of the world’s crops is presently grown is a case in point. Aside from expensive repair,
costly methods like drip-irrigation will be needed to keep such lands arable, necessitating more, not less energy.19
Another likely ramification of such an energy shock is a new wave of debt crises and state failures. As in the 1970s,
those most vulnerable would be developing nations short on hard currency and dependent on oil imports, which
might see their development progress strangled by a spike in prices. If the prospect of 2050s America resembling a
Mad Max movie is far-fetched and extreme, it is not so for less fortunate regions where such regressions have
already happened, as in Somalia.20 Lacking appropriate or adequate capital, institutions, and technical knowledge,
their situations will much more readily degenerate to the point of collapse.21 And, as events in recent years have
demonstrated, advanced nations will not easily insulate themselves from these problems, given the refuge for
criminal activity and terrorism such areas will provide, as well as the waves of refugees they may generate. It may
even be possible for practitioners of a radical ideology to seize power in a major state. Even without that happening,
we could see an inward turn on the part of major powers seeking to establish self-contained economic empires, as
happened during the Great Depression.22
12
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Economic collapse causes nuke war
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 8/23/92, World Policy Institute
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and
their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our 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: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these
countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than
Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
13
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
U.S. production of alt energies will revitalize the U.S. economy and reestablish
American economic power. As the U.S. becomes a leader in alt energy
technologies, oil-consuming nations will need to trade with the U.S. for
alternate energy technologies.
Beyond research and development, every reasonable effort should be made to facilitate the mass production of these
technologies and adopt them at home and abroad, including carefully thought-out tax credits and buyback rates for
net-excess power. Should American companies seriously enter the market in new types of energy and conservation
technologies, the broadening of effort, greater production and increased competition could drive prices down further.
Purchases of the relevant technology can be subsidized, and government and military facilities can assist by
purchasing their power from such sources, boosting the market. Protectionist measures, however, are uncalled for as
a way of bringing about this end. Indeed, cooperation would be a preferable approach, given that this already belated
process might be disrupted by very little interference. Such a project also could be a basis for collaborating with
allies irked by a perceived lack of US concern for the natural environment. Moreover, it must be remembered that
the greatest increases in oil consumption are coming not from the developed nations, but from developing ones like
China and India. These represent perhaps an even more promising market than developed nations for the technology
in key respects. Precisely because their energy consumption is growing more rapidly than anywhere else, their
infrastructures are still being built; according to one estimate, a third of the world’s population is still unconnected to
an electric grid. Additionally, their energy consumption will be lower for the foreseeable future, making at least
some of their demand more easily met through renewables. Sales of the technology can be facilitated through
foreign aid programs, and such an action shouldn’t be viewed as charitable. To the extent that the access of other
nations to this technology will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, conserve the fossil fuel supplies which will
continue to meet much of America’s energy needs for decades to come, expand the market for US companies
working in this arena, and diminish the security burden resulting from a scramble for cheap oil, then doing so will be
very much in the national interest of the United States.
14
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Subpoint C: Competitiveness
Europe and Japan are now developing alternative energy technologies, giving
them a competitive advantage over the U.S.
Nader Elhefnawy, writer for the U.S. army war college, 2/23/06, Energy Bulletin, "US: Army
War College on Energy Security", http://energybulletin.net/node/13481
A Return to 1973? Moreover, it must be noted that the pain of a shock will not be felt evenly. Efficient energy users
will suffer less, and vice-versa. At present, that would be to the disadvantage of the United States relative to other
developed nations like Germany.24 Correspondingly, states which derive a higher proportion of their energy from
renewables would be less vulnerable economically, a condition easier to achieve if energy use is already efficient.
This raises another issue of particular concern for the position of the United States, one generally given short shrift.
The hype about information technology in the 1990s contributed to a complacent assumption of American
technological dominance, which is simply baseless where renewable energy is concerned.25 The small but rapidly
growing world market in photovoltaics, fuel cell-based vehicles, and wind turbines is dominated by Europe and
Japan, where the most promising research continues. In fact, America's profile has actually shrunk in this area, with
its share of the world market in photovoltaics falling to 11 percent in 2004 from 25 percent just five years earlier.26
15
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Despite the efficiency of the U.S. air force, other nations are developing
counters and new technology is needed.
Barry R. Posen, (Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
a member of its Security Studies Program), 2003, International Security, Command of the
Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony, 28.1, 21, muse
Perhaps the most contested element of U.S. command of the commons is command of the air. Here, the air force
buys weapons as if the principal challenge is adversary fighter aircraft. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine
advantage in air-to-air combat is nearly overwhelming, however. It will be easier for others to challenge U.S. access
above 15,000 feet with ground-based Surface-to-Air Missiles of advanced design. The late-Cold War Soviet designs,
and their follow-on systems, the so-called double-digit SAMs (with the SA-10 the best known and most lethal
system) can offer real resistance to the U.S. military. 52 Fortunately for the United States, these systems are
expensive, and Russian manufacturers sell only to those who can pay cash. China has purchased a significant
number from Russia, and other countries will likely follow. 53 U.S. SEAD capabilities do not seem to be keeping up
with this threat, much less staying ahead of it. The Pentagon needs to put more effort into SEAD if it hopes to retain
command of the air.
16
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
New solar technology is critical to preserving air power
Military and Aerospace Electronics, 8/12/05,

http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=234408
By utilizing a polymeric substrate rather than stainless steel, new space cells will be developed that have a specific
power density greater than 1,000 watts per KiloGram (W/kg), which is significantly higher than what is currently
available. A high specific power density is required for airship application. The radiation hardness and superior high-
temperature performance of amorphous silicon make it an attractive material for space application. "This award
provides us with yet another opportunity to continue our successful collaboration with the Air Force to develop our
ultralight solar cells. This is a valuable technology that will be very beneficial to AFRL and to our nation's security,"
said Subhendu Guha, president and COO of United Solar Ovonic.
17
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
State of the art airpower is key to deterring U.S. challengers

At the same time, America’s pre-eminence in air power is also the best hope we have to dissuade China — or any
other future peer competitor — from aggression. There is zero possibility that the U.S. can build land forces of the
size that would be of real concern to a China. No number of troops or up-armored Humvees, new radios or advanced
sniper rifles worries the Chinese. What dominating air power precludes is the ability to concentrate and project
forces, necessary elements to applying combat power in hostile areas. As but one illustration, think China and
Taiwan. Saddam might have underestimated air power, but don’t count on the Chinese to make the same mistake.
China is a powerful, vast country with an exploding, many-faceted economy with strong scientific capabilities. It
will take focused and determined efforts for the U.S. to maintain the air dominance that it currently enjoys over
China and that, for the moment, deters them. Miscalculating here will be disastrous becasue, unlike with any
counterinsurgency situation (Iraq included), the very existence of the U.S. is at risk.
18
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Retaining U.S. tech dominance is key to U.S. leadership

Zalmay Khalizad, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., 95, The Washington Quarterly, “Losing the
Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War”
U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher priority
to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the aim of U.S.
dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on how to project U.S.
systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies.
The Persian Gulf War gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances
in military technology, where the United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and
organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current U.S.
lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are likely to be
very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined nation making the right
choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous challenge by exploiting
breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less effective by comparison.
19
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
The collapse of U.S. hegemony will lead to an apolar dark age filled with
terrorists, chaos, and pirates
(Nialls Ferguson, prof. finance and history, 9/7/04, Foreign Policy, "A World Without Power",
http://www.niallferguson.org/publications/A_World_Without_Power_as_published_in_Foreign_
Policy.pdf)
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These
are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of
course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For
the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—meaning that friction between the world's disparate
"tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not
merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has
upgraded destruction, too; it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards
throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil
war. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic
stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates,
say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to
work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the
E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An
economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that
undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home
were preferable to the risks of default abroad. THE WORST EFFECTS OF THE NEW DARK AGE WOULD BE
FELT ON THE EDGES OF THE WANING GREAT POWERS. THE WEALTHIEST PORTS OF THE
GLOBAL ECONOMY—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—WOULD BECOME THE TARGETS OF
PLUNDERERS AND PIRATES. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers,
aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure.
Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and
Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek
solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and
malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to
many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all
these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs
of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its fragile self-image dented by minor
setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era
of multipolar harmony or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The
alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And
far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
20
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC (Plan)
Plan Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative
energy incentives in the United States by providing funding to the Air Force Research
Laboratory for alternative energy technology development.
21
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Contention 3: Solvency
The Air Force Research Laboratory is empirically effective at developing new

technologies
Air Force Link, April 08, “AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABRATORY”,
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=148
History
The laboratory and its predecessors have overseen more than 80 years of critical research efforts for the Air Force
and DOD. Its technology breakthroughs can be found in all of today's modern aircraft and weapons systems,
including the F-117 stealth fighter, B-2 bomber, C-17 airlifter and the F-22 fighter. It has contributed to significant
advancements in modern communications, electronics, manufacturing, and medical research and products.
22
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Military use of alternate energies will spill over to the civilian world
Bryan Bender [staff writer, Boston Globe], 5/1/07, “Pentagon stdy says oil reliance strains
military,”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_re
liance_strains_military/
The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence
broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing
chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a
serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of
the country," Copulos said.
23
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Government can save the alternative energy industry, empirically proven

BusinessWeek, 2/11/08, "America's Green Policy Vacuum,"
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id20080211_334519.htm
Silicon Valley didn't become a global tech leader thanks to private equity alone. From the funding of the Arpanet, the
granddaddy of the Internet, to Research and Development tax credits, the federal government helped the technology
industry grow. The green economy envisioned by the ASES report will never be realized unless the government
takes a similar approach. Despite condemning "America's addiction to oil" and promoting the importance of
alternative energies in his State of the Union addresses, President Bush has consistently failed to follow through on
his promises to fund for alternative energy research. He's generous with the green rhetoric, just not with actual
greenbacks.
"Every robust energy technology has existed because of government support and tax subsidies," says Joel Makower,
editor of GreenBiz.com. "But there hasn't been the appetite [in Washington] to do that for clean energies."
24
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
Developing new solar and other alternate energy technologies would be both
cheap and quick with proper funding.
The second problem with such predictions is their built-in assumption that the relevant technologies will be static.
Future improvements cannot be taken for granted, but are a near-certainty nonetheless, given the prolonged drop in
the price of solar- and wind-generated energy since the 1970s, and the prospects for both continued Research and
Development and mass production. The already low price of wind power can drop further still, given the potential of
innovations like flying wind generators. Capable of exploiting the jet stream and returning the electricity to the
ground through a tether, a few clusters of six hundred each could meet the entire energy needs of an industrial nation
like Canada.10 There are even strong indications that electricity produced by photovoltaic solar cells will, assuming
sufficient effort, become competitive in price with even subsidized, deceptively cheap oil and gas in a matter of
years rather than decades. This may be due to new, low-cost materials; designs which use a greater part of the
electromagnetic spectrum; more efficient use of their surface area; easily installed, self-assembling liquid solar cell
coatings; and architectural structures maximizing output.11 Several of these developments could be flashes in the
pan, something to which energy production has sadly been prone; for half a century fusion power has been “30 years
away.” Nevertheless, given the long-term trend of improvement and the number of directions from which the
problem is being attacked, some approaches will likely pay off. A third problem is the tendency to view the matter
as a choice between the outright replacement of fossil fuels or nothing at all. The reality, however, is that partial
solutions can provide a cushion until a more complete transition can be brought about. This being the case, it matters
little if renewable energy production will at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells and wind
turbines will be made in factories powered by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are
unrealistic is nonsense. The energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just
as the oil-based economy was built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a
hydrogen economy involve the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by
traditional electricity sources like oil, coal, and nuclear generators. Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted
directly from water through photoelectrochemical processes or electrolysis, which could be powered by cheap wind
and solar energy.12 The problem, then, is less the “technical ingenuity” needed to produce these technologies than
the “social ingenuity” which will implement the technologies on a national and global basis.13 Renewable energy
technology can potentially do the job; what is really at issue is whether or not good use will be made of that
potential. Nonetheless, the political problem posed by the demise of the fossil fuel era is not limited to the challenge
of constructing a new energy base.
25
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
1AC
The AFRL is the world leader on alternative energy technologies, making it an

ideal starting point for their mass development
Laura Lundin [Air Force public affairs], 11/9/06, “Research Lab leads way to test, certify new
fuels,” http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123031621
11/9/2006 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio -- As an integral partner in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense Assured Fuels Initiative, the Air Force Research Laboratory is
leading the investigation for suitable, domestically produced alternative fuels for military use. AFRL is now
certifying suitable fuels for the Air Force fleet, as part of the Air Force's comprehensive energy strategy.
Efforts stem in part from successful flight tests in September wherein two of a B-52's engines ran on a
synthetic fuel, made from a 50-50 blend of traditional crude-oil based fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch fuel derived from
natural gas, while the remaining six engines ran on traditional JP-8 fuel. The tests occurred at Edwards AFB, Calif.
According to William Harrison, senior advisor for the OSD Assured Fuels Initiative and an engineer with AFRL's
Propulsion Directorate, "AFRL's involvement has been to look at the science and technology behind the FT
fuels, focusing on the fundamental lab work and basic fuel properties while exploring the suitability and
feasibility of using them to meet Air Force needs. Now that the two-engine flight tests are complete, we will focus
on the certification of the fuel for all Air Force aircraft and ground-support and look at how the fuel will work with
the Air Force's existing logistic infrastructure." Mr. Harrison added that developing an organized, streamlined
certification process for the FT fuel is a collaborative effort involving a team from AFRL, the Air Force
Materiel Command Engineering Office, and the Aeronautical Systems Center. The Air Force is also looking for full
interchangeability in the marketplace, and, Mr. Harrison said the certification will be on the 50/50 blend.
"However, we will keep researching the possibility of increasing the blend ratio as well, and with the successful
flight tests and the preliminary data, we know that we have a proven range that works," said Mr. Harrison. "With the
50/50 blend, we took a very conservative and methodical approach to the research, allowing ourselves the best
options," Mr. Harrison continued. "The 50/50 blend is the closest to the JP-8 fuel that is currently used," In addition
to the fuel certification, AFRL is continuing to research the suitability of using FT fuels in other military aircraft
applications such as hypersonics and unmanned aerial vehicles. Through these efforts, the Air Force has taken an
innovative approach to find domestically-produced alternative fuels that will lead to greater fuel efficiency
and help alleviate dependence on foreign energy sources.
26
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
The U.S. military currently uses millions of gallons of fuel daily. This use of oil
is costly and inefficient and puts U.S. soldiers at risk.
Nathan Hodge, writer for Jane’s defense weekly, July 08, Foreign Policy,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=21&sid=01917ec2-5954-4892-8b39-
f30b502ad6a5%40SRCSM1, “Army of Green”, [Dan Powers]
Forget beans and bullets. Modern armies run on batteries and barrels of oil. The average U.S. soldier consumes 88 AA batteries
during a five-day mission. Sights for thermal weapons, GPS receivers, and night-vision equipment require a lot of juice. Early in
the Iraq war, the U.S. Army burned through 100,000 large-volume lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries, which power everything from
radios to anti-tank missile launchers, each month. And when soldiers aren’t changing batteries, they’re filling the gas tanks of
Humvees, Abrams tanks, and armored personnel carriers. The U.S. military guzzles some 2.4 million gallons of fuel every day in
Iraq and Afghanistan; around two thirds of the gross tonnage that soldiers cart around in combat is fuel. There is a high cost, in
both lives and treasure, of getting energy to the battlefield. So, the Pentagon is pushing for renewable energies with an urgency that
would make even Al Gore smile. The Army, for instance, plans to soon field the Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Station, a
mobile generator that combines solar panels, a wind turbine, a diesel generator, and storage batteries. The most notable push for
green power occurred last year, when Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, a top U.S. Marine commander in Iraq, put in a “Priority 1”
request (the most urgent) for solar panels and wind turbines. Why? Reducing the Marines’ dependence on fossil fuels, Zilmer
argued, would save lives. Every gallon of fuel delivered to his forward operating bases had to be trucked in via vulnerable ground
convoys. In fact, when all of the costs are factored in—storage, transportation, and security—getting just a single gallon of fuel
delivered to the battlefield costs hundreds of dollars. That has the Pentagon taking a hard look at much of its battlefield
equipment, too. Among other things, the armed services are taking aim at the gas-guzzling Humvee, the all-purpose military
transport. Humvees get abysmal gas mileage in peacetime. Load one down with protective armor in combat, and it’s even worse.
The Army and Marine Corps are currently studying options for a successor to the Humvee that may include a hybrid engine, which
is quieter and consumes less fuel. The Pentagon is also researching fuel cells that could provide off-board power to run the
military’s electronic systems and command posts. The bottom line is, as John Young, the Pentagon’s director of defense research
and engineering, puts it, every time the price of oil “goes up [by] $10 a barrel, there’s a billion dollars in things we don’t get to
do.” Increasingly, that’s a price many commanders aren’t willing to pay. --- Nathan Hodge
27
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
Air force working with Alt energies now

By Lewis Page, 21st 12/21/2007, US air force, Boeing press on with alternative jet fuel tests,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/21/us_airforce_boeing_synthetic_biofuel_testing/
Boeing, manufacturer of much of the world airliner fleet, is to test the feasibility of using biofuels derived from non-standard
feedstocks in its aircraft. Meanwhile, the US air force effort to develop domestically-supplied fuels continues. Flight International
reports that Boeing's environmental strategy chief, Bill Glover, believes that usable aviation biofuels could be produced from
diverse sources around the world. Algae was specifically mentioned, which may offer an explanation for Shell's recent decision to
look again at green-scum seawater fuel farming. Apparently, Glover can foresee a future economic model where many different
biofuel makers using separate methods and feedstocks contribute to the world supply, rather than the present petroleum model fed
by a few monolithic global producers. Speaking to Flight, he likened the coming shift to the distribution of computing power
outward from mainframes into PCs. Meanwhile, on Monday a US air force C-17 heavy transport aircraft flew across America
from Washington to New Jersey powered by a synthetic fuel blend produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The C-17 was merely
the latest USAF plane to be cleared for synthetic juice; the B-52 bomber was the first, during the summer. The service plans to
check out its whole fleet over the next few years. US air force secretary Michael Wynne is keen to free the US military from
dependence on fuels largely sourced from suspect overseas regimes: a desire in which he is not alone. At present, though, the
Fischer-Tropsch synthetics being used are derived from fossil sources - coal or natural gas - which are easily obtained in the US.
They aren't biofuels, but at least you don't have to buy them from Saudi Arabia. However, the Pentagon is also seeking technology
which could produce jet fuel from "crops produced by either agriculture or aquaculture (including but not limited to plants, algae,
fungi, and bacteria) ..." This seems to chime with Glover's Boeing vision of many different, probably non-food biofuel sources, all
producing interchangeable fuel to a common standard. According to Flight, the aerospace behemoth plans biofuel-powered test
flights next year, using 747 jumbo jets lent by Virgin and Air New Zealand (with General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines
respectively). Initiatives such as this probably won't cut carbon emissions immediately. Fischer-Tropsch juice is just liquefied
fossil fuel, and biofuel production methods of today involve emissions and energy use which rob them of carbon-neutral status.
However, these plans could well see less of the developed world's money flowing into Saudi coffers. In time, fuel made from non-
food sources like algae using new processes might very well cut into carbon emissions significantly, too. And this would avoid
driving up food prices or requiring unfeasibly large amounts of cropland. That said, one reason more normal alternate fuels such as
corn ethanol have gained some traction is the huge political clout wielded by the US farm lobby rather than any more high-minded
factors. Still, corporations like Boeing, Virgin and Shell - not to mention government arms like the US airforce - also have a lot of
muscle. They could push this type of plan just as hard if they really wanted to. First, however, the technology needs to be proved
feasible. Once that's done, the commitment of the various groups will - or won't - become clear.
28
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
The Army is currently pioneering alt energy development with hybrids

US Army News Release, 8/15/2007, Army Unveils First Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System for New
Combat Vehicles, http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/08/15/4424-army-unveils-first-hybrid-electric-
propulsion-system-for-new-combat-vehicles/
The Army is using hybrid-electric power because the more modern FCS BCTs have much greater electrical power requirements
than the current-force Heavy BCTs. Hybrid-electric vehicles provide the requisite electrical power because they employ a
rechargeable energy storage system. An ancillary benefit of the hybrid-electric vehicles is improved fuel economy and less reliance
on oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. The Army has long been at the forefront of developing hybrid-electric vehicles. In fact,
the Army's hybrid-electric vehicles are significantly more robust and more powerful than commercial hybrid vehicles. The first
hybrid-electric MGV variant, the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), will commence production in late 2008. "The MGV
drive train is unique," said Colonel Bryan McVeigh, product manager for MGV systems integration. "The traditional engine has
been de-coupled from the drive train architecture and is designed only to recharge the energy storage system and power the
vehicular systems. "The hybrid drive system alone," he added, "literally will move the vehicle. This is a new and better way of
moving across the battlefield."
29
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
AFRL currently researching alternative energy

Eva Blaylock, Space Vehicles Directorate, 5/6/2008 AFRL Advances SBIR-Developed Solar Cell
Technology http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123097480
KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- Engineers from AFRL and United Solar Ovonic, LLC, established a new program
geared towards expanding technology developed under previous Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects. As part
of implementing this venture, AFRL signed an 18-month contractual option outlining the development of new solar cell
technology tailored for space and airship vehicle use. The option, which carries a price tag under $2 million, will facilitate
efforts to engineer next-generation solar arrays designed specifically for Air Force (AF) missions. These cutting-edge arrays
will be lighter, more stowable, and less costly than the products currently in use. The AF need for high-efficiency,
ultralightweight amorphous silicon (a-Si) solar cells prompted AFRL to leverage United Solar Ovonic's existing product in
creating one conducive to space use. The product--a terrestrial solar cell optimized for use on earth and deposited on a heavy, 5
mil stainless steel substrate--reflects the company's UNI-SOLAR technology. UNI-SOLAR space photovoltaic (PV) products
offer an ultralight, low-cost alternative to conventional space PV modules made of crystalline silicon or gallium arsenide.
Originally developed for terrestrial applications, UNI-SOLAR features triple-junction modules constructed of a-Si-based thin-
film alloys and deposited on a 5 mil flexible stainless steel substrate. Space cells employing polymeric substrates have already
demonstrated specific powers exceeding 1000 W/kg, a significant improvement over current capability. Since high specific
power, radiation hardness, and superior high-temperature performance are all requirements for space applications, the inherent
properties of a-Si make it an attractive material for space and airship vehicle use. Solar cells deposited on thin stainless steel
foil are currently undergoing test in AFRL missions such as TacSat-2, an experimental satellite that launched in December
2006, while solar cells deposited on the new polymer substrates will fly as components of upcoming experimental missions.
30
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
THE AIR FORCE IS THE LARGEST OIL CONSUMER IN THE DOD, BUT CAN THE WAY
IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECH
Mark Schanz [associate editor, Air Force Magazine], June 2007, Vol. 90 No. 6, “The Fuel War,”
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.ASP
The Air Force is the largest single consumer of energy in the Department of Defense. That would still be
the case even if the United States were not engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, but it is, and the
demands of that worldwide conflict have pushed fuel use to new heights.
Last year, the Air Force’s total energy bill came to $6.7 billion, the bulk of it related to air operations. When USAF’s budgets
began to sag under the weight of rising oil prices, worried Air Force leaders began closely examining the service’s energy costs
and planning for reforms. The fuel problem became undeniable nearly two years ago. USAF already was burning lots and lots
of fuel as a result of the war. Then, in September 2005, USAF deployed many aircraft to the Gulf Coast to assist in evacuation,
search and rescue, recovery, and other operations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The effort was enormous and costly. It also
highlighted the vulnerability of the nation’s domestic energy supply, according to Michael A. Aimone, Air Force assistant
deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations, and mission support. The Department of Defense, as the government’s largest
fuel user, accounts for 93 percent of overall federal energy costs. Yet even with such a huge fuel bill, the Pentagon accounts for
about two percent of the nation’s entire energy use. In the fight to control costs, the Air Force has moved heavily into
renewable energy usage. The Air Force led the federal government in the amount of renewable energy purchased last year and
the year before. In fact, USAF is the fourth largest purchaser of renewable energy in the nation.
31
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
Current oil military oil use is inefficient and expensive.

(Kip Nygren et al, West Point prof., 11/27/06, U.S. Military Academy,
http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/Environment/PDFs31/Army%20energy%20strat
egy%20for%20the%20end%20of%20cheap%20oil.pdf)
1.2.1. The True Cost of Energy Today
The military services maintain huge infrastructures to ensure fuel delivery at the right time and place. Large and small surface
trucking organizations, naval fleet tankers and aerial refueling aircrnaft, along with the associated substantial maintenance and
logistics organizations contribute to considerable overhead costs. Increases in fuel efficiency would correspondingly shrink this
overhead burden, enabling savings through reductions in logistics requirements far in excess of the investment. These savings
accrue largely during peacetime, and represent opportunities to shift financial resources from logistics to operations, or from
“tail to tooth”, over time. The Defense Science Board (DSB) published a report in 2001 that showed the true cost of energy for
the Army was several times higher than that accounted for in the planning, programming and budgeting process which
determines the allocation of resources within the Army and DOD. In their opinion, this is a flawed process since it does not
provide incentives for increased fuel efficiency in any Army vehicles or other power generation equipment. This oversight
results in a logistics system where, “over 70 percent of the tonnage required to position today's U.S. Army into battle is fuel.”xix
In 2000, the Army directly purchased $200 million of fuel. However, when the cost of 20,000 POL related soldiers in the active
force and the 40,000 in the reserve forces are included, the cost increases to $3.4 billion without including the purchase and
operating cost of the required fuel handling and distribution equipment.xx These real energy costs are never directly included in
resource allocation decisions, but are significant costs to the Army and DOD overall given the requirements of the Air Force
and Navy to transport the Army.
32
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
The U.S. alternative energy industry is in stagnation. Lack of government

support and funding ensures lack of real progress.
Nader Elhefnawy, writer for the U.S. army war college, 2/23/06, Energy Bulletin, “US: Army War College
on Energy Security”, http://energybulletin.net/node/13481, [Dan Powers]
The simple fact is that US energy policy traditionally aimed at an expansion of oil and gas production, while investing heavily in
nuclear energy. There was a brief enthusiasm for renewable sources and conservation in the 1970s, but the economic reforms of
the 1980s are generally considered to have ended this. Research and development funding for energy was substantially reduced,
and tax credits and regulations were abandoned to the end of creating a “free market” in energy.28 The nascent alternative energy
industry was not only left to sink or swim among more mature competition, but as a net result of assorted tax policies and
subsidies it was put at a disadvantage, and it withered. When considering the character of the energy business, it is hardly
surprising that they did not pick up the slack. Energy firms invest relatively little in R&D, about 0.5 percent of revenue, compared
with 10 percent in high-tech fields, the figure actually declining in the 1980s and 1990s.29 Moreover, the emphasis has not been on
“system-shattering” research, but on “conservative innovations able to pay off in the short term,” a category which generally has
excluded renewables.30
All of this made alternative energy an especially poor candidate for the free-market path, though to be fair, previous energy
technologies typically required massive government support before becoming sustainable. Of some $150 billion spent subsidizing
solar, wind, and nuclear energy between 1947 and 1999, more than $145 billion went to nuclear (96 percent of the total).31 This
may seem appropriate, given how much more energy nuclear generators are producing today compared with wind and solar.
Between 1947 and 1961, however, federal subsidies toward nuclear energy on a per-kilowatt basis were 40 times those provided to
wind (which had then been comparably important), and it is difficult to imagine nuclear energy’s comparative efficiency having
come about without such massively disproportionate early investment.32 Since then research dollars have continued to favor fossil
fuels and nuclear energy, arguably beyond a point of diminishing returns.33 R&D spending for renewables has been about $10
billion, compared with $20 billion and $40 billion for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, respectively.34 While that figure still appears
large, it is less impressive when broken down by area. American spending on hydrogen fuel in the 1970s, for instance, totaled a
paltry $24 million and represented only a third of Western Europe’s spending on the same area of research.35 The quality of that
research spending also has been questionable, as the spectacular success of Denmark’s much smaller R&D program in wind
turbine technology demonstrates.36 In short, renewables were never given a proper chance because of a conventional wisdom that
says “let the market do it,” no matter how unwilling the market proves to be, and the disinterest of the powerful oil, gas, and
nuclear lobbies, which have continued to receive the lion’s share of government support.37 The progress of sources like wind and
solar energy since the 1970s occurred not because of but in spite of the policies of the last quarter-century, and, given political
realities, this seems unlikely to change. Nevertheless, with each passing year it becomes harder to deny that change is called for,
and that the arguments against a change simply do not hold water.
33
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
Airforce currently trying to reduce energy

Tech Sgt. Cohen A. Young, Air Force Print News, 3/10/2007, Air Force kicks off energy forum
3/10/2007 - ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNEWS) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne, welcomed members of the energy
industry to the Air Force Energy Forum at the Crystal Gateway Marriott here March 8. "The interesting thing that we are looking
for in the Air Force is to actually change the environment that we operate in so that we can operate from a position of ultimate
strength, knowing full well that our economy and our industry, as well as ourselves are working from domestic resources," said
Secretary Wynne. Also participating in the forum were representatives from the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy and Energy.
as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and the Federal Aviation Administration. "I'm proud
to say the Air Force leads the way in using alternative and renewable energy sources and finding new ways to conserve," said
Secretary Wynne. "But, as anyone with a tough boss knows, that's great, but, "What have you done for me lately?" To that end,
Secretary Wynne said the Air Force is testing synthetic fuels in order to move towards being self reliant for energy sources,
because of the fluctuating oil prices and rise in fuel costs in the last few years. "The forum will focus on energy issues from both
the supply and demand side, as it relates to infrastructure, vehicles and aircraft," said Secretary Wynne. The secretary discussed
his vision to create a culture where Airmen incorporate energy consideration into everything they do. His September Letter to
Airmen focused on energy conversation and is now incorporated into Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century. "Under the
auspices of AFSO 21, I have asked every Airman to make energy a priority and to bring ideas forward on how we can be more
energy efficient," said the secretary. The secretary urged all Airmen to make energy a priority and to work closely with the Air
Force's outside partners.
34
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
THE DOD IS READY AND WILLING TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY OPTIONS

FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Science Daily, , 4/24/07, “ Synthetic Fuels From Alternative Energy Sources Can Power the US
Military,” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423100221.htm
The U.S. military, searching for a synthetic alternative to imported petroleum-based fuel, can power its 21st Century
vehicles with the same chemical technology Germany used to produce its gasoline during World War II, according to a
study scheduled for the May 16 issue of ACS' Energy and Fuels, a bi-monthly journal.
In the study, Sasol Technology's Delanie Lamprecht points out that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has been seeking
alternative ways of obtaining "Jet Propulsion 8" (JP-8). DoD uses that single kerosene-type fuel, virtually identical to
commercial aviation fuel, for almost all its gas turbine and tactical diesel engine applications. The defense department also
wants an alternative route to JP-5, a slightly different fuel used on aircraft carriers.
Invited to participate in the effort to develop alternatives, Lamprecht studied use of so-called Fischer-Tropsch technology.
Sasol is a pioneer in use of the technology to produce synthetic fuels from coal. It can convert coal, natural gas, or biomass
into a synthesis gas and thereafter into a Fischer-Tropsch syncrude suitable for refining into JP-8, JP-5 and other liquid fuels.
The study concluded that it is feasible to use the process, together with current refining technology, to produce a "battlefield
fuel of the future" that could power the military without reliance on imported oil. THE DOD IS THE SINGLE
35
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
LARGEST CONSUMER OF FOSSIL FUELS IN THE US – THEY'RE DEVELOPING

SYNTHETIC JET FUEL NOW BUT NEED MORE FUNDING TO MASS-PRODUCE IT TO
MAKE IT CHEAPER THAN OIL
Wall Street Journal, 5/21/08, "US Military Launches Alternative Fuel Push,"
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121134017363909773-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMTMyNDEwWj.html
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of
oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer. In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named
Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using
synthetic jet fuel. A similar formula -- a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum -- has been used in some South
African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
"The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas," Capt. Fournier said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane's thrusters
during the test flight. "But you won't know unless you try."
With oil's multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping -- crude futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in
New York trading -- energy security has emerged as a major concern for the Pentagon. The U.S. military consumes 340,000
barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in
2006, the latest figure available -- almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the
past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2
billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost
far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced.
36
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
Airships are almost here but need research

Anthony Colozza, Analex Corporation Brook Park, James L. Dolce, Glenn Research Center, NASA; 02-
2005 High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Airships for Coastal Surveillance
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf, p8
In November 2002, the Power and On-board Propulsion Division of NASA’s Glenn Research Center undertook a study of the
performance capabilities and power and propulsion technology needs for a renewable, high-altitude airship (ref. 17). The
study evaluated state-of-the-art technology levels for two observation missions: west coast and east coast surveillance. The study
showed that maintaining station at 42° east coast latitude in winter required one of the following: a very large airship; lighter, more
powerful energy systems; or clever operating protocols. Overall, the study concluded that long-duration, high-altitude coastal
surveillance airships powered by renewable energy technology:
1. Are feasible using state-of-the-art power system technologies. 2. Can provide coastal surveillance for both east and west
coasts. However, winter operation at 42° latitude on the east coast is a problem. 3. Have significant payload advantages over
vehicles that derive lift from propulsion through the atmosphere. 4. Require unprecedented 300 kW, flight-rated, renewable
power systems. 5. Require focused development of specific renewable energy technologies to guarantee that they are
effective in such a large-scale application. 6. Have many engineering challenges.
37
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
Current wide area surveillance projects inefficient

Anthony Colozza, Analex Corporation Brook Park, James L. Dolce, Glenn Research
Center, NASA; 02-2005 High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Airships for Coastal
Surveillance http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf , p2
There has been an increase in high altitude endurance with the introduction of unmanned air vehicles (UAV). Examples of
these are the Condor from the late 1980’s and the present day Global Hawk. These aircraft are designed for surveillance and
loitering over a particular site. They are shown in figures 2a and 2b, respectively. The Condor had limited use and was an
experimental aircraft. It was propeller driven and capable of flights up to 21 km (~67,000 ft) (ref. 3). The Global Hawk is the
latest in high altitude UAV development. It is capable of flight at 20 km (65,000 ft) with a cruise speed of 643 km/hr (400
mph) and endurance of 35 hours (ref. 4). The Global Hawk pushes the high altitude flight duration limits of fuel-driven aircraft.
To extend the duration beyond this, one must consider a renewable power system. The only current endeavor in renewable
power for flight is Aerovironment’s Helios. The Helios, shown in figure 3, is a solar powered aircraft with a regenerative fuel
cell system for energy storage. The craft’s performance is estimated to be to 21 km altitude (~70,000 ft) for month-long
durations (ref. 5). If successful, the Helios will be capable of extended duration over a desired site. Its main drawback is a very
limited payload capacity – 250 kg – coupled with a requirement to distribute the payload along the wing.
38
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Inherency
High oil consumption by the Air Force currently
Wall Street Journal, 5/21/08, "US Military Launches Alternative Fuel Push,"
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121134017363909773-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMTMyNDEwWj.html
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer
of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer.
39
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Competitiveness- Oil Bad
Current oil military oil use is inefficient and expensive.

http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/Environment/PDFs31/Army%20energy%20
strategy%20for%20the%20end%20of%20cheap%20oil.pdf)
1.2.1. The True Cost of Energy Today
The military services maintain huge infrastructures to ensure fuel delivery at the right time and place. Large and small
surface trucking organizations, naval fleet tankers and aerial refueling aircraft, along with the associated substantial
maintenance and logistics organizations contribute to considerable overhead costs. Increases in fuel efficiency would
correspondingly shrink this overhead burden, enabling savings through reductions in logistics requirements far in excess
of the investment. These savings accrue largely during peacetime, and represent opportunities to shift financial resources
from logistics to operations, or from “tail to tooth”, over time.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) published a report in 2001 that showed the true cost of energy for the Army was
several times higher than that accounted for in the planning, programming and budgeting process which determines the
allocation of resources within the Army and DOD. In their opinion, this is a flawed process since it does not provide
incentives for increased fuel efficiency in any Army vehicles or other power generation equipment. This oversight results
in a logistics system where, “over 70 percent of the tonnage required to position today's U.S. Army into battle is fuel.”xix
In 2000, the Army directly purchased $200 million of fuel. However, when the cost of 20,000 POL related soldiers in the
active force and the 40,000 in the reserve forces are included, the cost increases to $3.4 billion without including the
purchase and operating cost of the required fuel handling and distribution equipment.xx These real energy costs are never
directly included in resource allocation decisions, but are significant costs to the Army and DOD overall given the
requirements of the Air Force and Navy to transport the Army.
40
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alt Energy Key Competitiveness/Military key to alt. E
The U.S. military is a key starting point for alternative energy technology’s.
Renewable energy for conflicts, incentives for innovation, and new alt energy
technologies will be key to U.S. readiness and leadership.
(Nader Elhefnawy, writer for the U.S. army war college, 2/23/06, Energy Bulletin, “US: Army War College
on Energy Security”, http://energybulletin.net/node/13481, [Dan Powers])
Whatever its precise size, this program ideally should be aimed not only at making the United States a world leader in the field of
renewable energy sources, but at reducing America’s fossil fuel consumption below present levels in absolute terms before 2020
and eliminating fossil fuel dependence no later than 2040 and preferably earlier. To that end, the United States should pursue a
broad range of approaches, not only hydrogen (the production of which should be delinked from fossil fuels and rare minerals to
the extent possible), but also photovoltaics, wind, ethanol, biomass, and, while they are more dependent on geography, tidal and
geothermal. The characteristics of some of these energy sources offer a variety of practical benefits, making them worthy of
military R&D dollars.
One advantage is the potential that renewable sources offer for distributed power.39 Given the prospect that US forces will
increasingly be based in less-developed regions like the Middle East, Central Asia, and even sub-Saharan Africa, not being
dependent on local power grids can be an advantage. For example, at present the self-sustaining Navy base at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, has a wind turbine installation which produces 5 to 12 percent of its energy during the spring, and up to 25 percent during
the windy period of the fall months, reducing diesel imports by 650,000 gallons annually.40
At the same time, the unique needs of military programs make them a logical starting point for at least some research in this area.
Running information-age campaigns with industrial-age logistical systems is already problematic, and renewable energy sources
or conservation technologies might provide a partial solution. The Army is presently funding a program to develop flexible solar
panels that may ultimately be woven into the fabric of tents or uniforms to supply power for communications equipment,
computers, and other electrical appliances.41 A hydrogen fuel cell able to get more miles per gallon could be a considerable boon to
mechanized Army units, to say nothing of Navy and Air Force units, which may see benefits even sooner. Submarines using fuel
cells are not only possible, but, in the form of the Type 212A, are already entering service with the German navy.42
Research into technologies facilitating conservation also would play a role in a balanced strategy, since more efficient energy use
makes it easier for still-developing renewable energy power sources to meet a given need—and, in any event, these are seen by
many observers as more promising in the near term. Energy savings can come from sources less familiar than the typical examples
of hybrid or electric cars, more efficient appliances, and solar water heating. The use of strong, ultralight materials such as new,
carbon-based ceramics can reduce fuel consumption. A car made out of carbon nanotubes, for instance, would weigh 50 pounds,
and while a 50-pound car may be unattractive for one reason or another, it demonstrates the potential for very large fuel
economies. The development of substitutes for oil in products like plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals also can assist, as can
improved mass transit systems, a modern rail system, modernized power grids, support for zero-energy housing, and practical
superconductors.43
41
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alt Energies Key Competitiveness/Gov. Key
U.S. government support of alt energies is key to the success of alt energies
and U.S. leadership in alt energies. Empirically proven with the space race.
Meeting the Challenge
The most obvious response, at least from the perspective of traditional national security, is to take the dangers described above into
account in threat planning. In other words, in the event of a new energy crisis, there may be more state failures, weapons
proliferation, and resource conflict. Nonetheless, military force is inadequate to deal with the larger problem of relieving the
dependence on finite fossil fuels—although government research and development (R&D), military as well as civilian, can play
(and already is playing) a role in creating a path out of that dependence.
The predominance of neoliberal economic theory makes it easy to forget the degree to which key economic innovations have been
pioneered and supported by government.27 While it is the robber barons who are celebrated, the railroads of the 19th century were
built with massive government assistance in the form of loans, land grants, and other subsidies. In the 1950s, no one waited for the
private sector to step in and provide a highway system. Modern computers, the internet, and space technology all benefited
immeasurably from government research, and indeed may have been inconceivable without government efforts.
The job of government is precisely to step in where a need exists when the private sector is either unwilling or unable to satisfy it.
This is the case at present with renewable energy, and at this point it is worthwhile to reflect on America’s history in this area. “Big
Science” in the United States has been most successful when explicitly oriented toward a particular goal, as with the early space
program. The Soviet launch of the first Sputnik satellite was a profound shock, but America responded effectively with massively
enlarged investment in scientific education and research. Half a century later the United States is in a dominant position in space,
its satellite networks a cornerstone of its unprecedented military superiority.
Where energy is concerned, the “Sputnik moment” has long since come and gone. The project of freeing the American economy
from oil dependence arguably deserves the same priority the moon mission enjoyed 40 years ago, speaking as it does to a far more
central national interest, and it is worthwhile considering why the results achieved to date have been so modest.
42
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness
Replacing oil usewith Alternatives in the military is a nessecity for readiness

3. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Military leaders must understand the approaching end to cheap, abundant oil and its impact on our organization; the
vital need to change the ways we use energy in the military and in society. We must start the effort to change the culture
by mandating energy efficiency in all of our requirements and by highlighting the crucial importance of energy efficiency
for leaders, Soldiers and civil servants at all levels.
2. Solutions can only come from a comprehensive systems view of energy. Account for the total cost of energy in force
and equipment design decisions in terms of the Soldiers, equipment and training necessary to distribute the fuel at all
levels in the supply chain. The savings are larger than a cursory review might indicate and can result in a distinctly more
effective expeditionary and campaign capable military force. Decision makers at the highest levels must be made aware
of the design tradeoffs involving energy in the acquisition of military systems and we recommend that investment
decisions be based on the true cost of delivered fuel and on warfighting and environmental benefits.
3. Require a comprehensive integrated design process to be able to make systems of systems, life cycle design tradeoffs.
This might involve the extensive use of high quality simulations in the force and equipment design process to permit
tradeoff analyses to be conducted in a life cycle and systems of systems context.
4. Develop techniques to motivate the reduction of fuel needs throughout the DoD. The creation of energy markets
involving contractors within the military acquisition community might have value to reduce energy needs as in integral
part of the design and acquisition process.
5. Ensure at least 10% of RDT&E funding is specifically targeted at fuel efficiency improvements. Analyze this allocation
of research funding within the systems of systems design process to improve the design knowledge of the proper
apportionment of research funding. Integrated Product Teams for Power and Energy should take the lead for determining
metrics.
6. Empower the Power & Energy Integrated Product Team of RDE Command to coordinate with the Department of
Energy, the Department of Transportation and other organizations to develop a comprehensive “Future Energy
Alternatives for Transportation” project that would use the Army to pilot the wide-ranging changes that society will have
to make to accommodate the end of the era of cheap energy for transportation.
7. Explicitly include fuel efficiency in requirements and acquisition processes. Establish an energy budget just as all
current systems include weight, size and cost budgets.
8. Establish clear goals for installations to reduce per capita energy consumption by sharing cost savings.
43
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>

Alternative energy is uniquely key to increasing military efficiency and
reducing costs
Technology Changes. Many opportunities exist in the Science & Technology base to improve fuel efficiency and reduce
the logistics burden. Propulsion and power generation systems as well as new materials to reduce the weight of armored
protection are obviously the first technology to consider. However, no single technology offers a solution across a broad
range of platforms. High efficiency hybrid propulsion systems are the place to begin and should ultimately lead to
efficient electric drives. Further increases in fuel efficiency will result from the reduced weight of materials that can still
provide the desired armor protection and these materials are rapidly becoming easier to design and manufacture.
Advanced engine technologies such as OPEC,xxviii variable displacement engines, waste heat utilization, advanced
lubricants, advanced control systems, light weight materials, advanced batteries and low temperature combustion should
all be considered.
Fuel cells, although they currently have had a poor track record of development and performance, are of particular
interest since they have the potential for double the energy efficiency of current power systems. The initiation of a
hydrogen fuel cell demonstration pilot program by the Army would provide an opportunity to become a unique laboratory
for the nation to learn how to make the move to a substitute fuel.
Although renewable energy sources will not be able to provide for all of society’s or an expeditionary Army’s energy
needs, they will be important contributors to an overall strategy for energy production. Renewable energy sources are
primarily solar and wind, but also include wave, tidal and ocean thermal inclination methods. Photovoltaic solar power
could be a valuable energy source for forces in the field, particularly to reduce the significant battery supply problem.
Only a ten percent reduction in liquid fuels means a greater than ten percent reduction in fuel distribution requirements
for deployed military forces.
Finally, it may be necessary to reconsider the very essence of how priorities are set and resources allocated for the end of
the era of cheap, accessible energy via oil. W. Wayt Gibbs in a Scientific American article entitled, “How Should We Set
Priorities?” contended that society uses essentially two kinds of imperfect social mechanisms, governments and markets,
to set rational priorities and consistently adhere to them.xxx Maybe in the U.S. military, it is time to consider some
variation on the use of markets to motivate the achievement of expeditionary and campaign quality goals. The creation of
markets to reduce power plant sulfur dioxide emissions, regulate fisheries, control the release of carbon into the
atmosphere, and restore wetlands, among others, has met with some success over the past decade. The Army leadership
might consider establishing a market in the energy needed to train, deploy, and sustain brigades. Every item of equipment
within the unit would be provided an energy budget, which could be sold or traded by equipment builders and the services
to most efficiently reduce the overall energy requirements of the total force. It is not easy to create an efficient and
effective market, but new ideas are vitally needed.
44
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alt fuel key to readiness
Alternative fuel is key to military readiness and national security

Marc V. Schanz, Associate Editor, June 2007, The Fuel War
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.html Vol. 90, No. 6
The result is reduced funding for flying hours to train aircrews. Flying commands have set minimum requirements for aircrew
training, according to John Cilento, an ACC flying hour program analyst.
"It is an issue," said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, ACC commander. "It's always an issue."
Col. Eric Best, chief of ACC flight operations, told Norfolk's Virginian-Pilot that pilots are encouraged to land when a training mission
is completed, even if it ends early, rather than continue flying until allotted time expires.
In addition, said Best, operators are being encouraged to make more frequent use of simulators, though everyone realizes the systems
can replicate only part of the flight experience.
Indeed, the Air Force Flying Hour Program budget is slated to be reduced by around 10 percent each year from Fiscal 2008 until 2013.
One big reason is high fuel cost. The result, ACC officials say, is less training and lower combat readiness.
The Air Force is engaged in an ambitious project aimed at using natural gas as a jet fuel, hoping that, over the long term, dependence
on JP-8 could be reduced.
The project today is in the test phase, and the central element is a B-52 bomber used as a test article. It was sent from Edwards AFB,
Calif., to Minot AFB, N.D., on Jan. 17, its goal being to perform cold-weather testing while using a mix of synthetic fuel derived from
coal shale. (See "Aerospace World: B-52 Flies on Synthetic Fuel Blend," February, p. 27.)
USAF procured 100,000 gallons of US-manufactured blended synthetic jet fuel, which it successfully tested on the ground and in the
air. The 5th Bomb Wing bomber earlier had flown with a mix of synthetic fuel and regular aviation fuel, eventually flying tests with
synthetic fuel in all eight engines. USAF researchers are analyzing test data now.
Gen. Bruce Carlson, head of Air Force Materiel Command, explained that the Air Force chose a B-52 because "it has eight engines,
so, if this is a catastrophic failure, we'll shut down two and land and won't even declare an emergency." The bomber experienced no
unusual problems.
The Air Force is working toward full certification of a 50-50 blend in the B-52 by early 2008.
Carlson indicated that with good results, the program may expand to other aircraft. "We'll probably go on and fly maybe a [KC-135],
maybe a T-38, and move on from there."
The Air Force leadership is already pushing fuel experimentation on the mobility fleet, given that it is a source of high fuel costs. "If
we want to get the biggest bang for the buck, I suggest we go into the transports," Aimone said.
Carlson said he first caught wind that change was coming during a meeting with Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. Not long
after he took office, Wynne informed Carlson that he wanted "to look at a program to wean us off oil" and it had to start "right now,"
recalled Carlson.
Wynne made it clear that he meant business. In a September 2006 letter to airmen, he said moving toward energy independence is a
critical element to ensuring US economic and national security in the long run.
45
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Energy alternatives are crucial for military readiness and planning but are
currently unutilized.
Policy changes. The conclusions and recommendations of the 2001 Defense Science Board Reportxxvi are even more
important in 2005. Presently, the real cost of fuel in the Army is invisible to decision makers and, therefore, fuel
conservation measures have no apparent value in the decision making process. To change its culture, the U.S.
military must first account for the true cost of energy in the planning, programming and
budgeting process. The leadership must then provide guidance with tangible motivations for
increasing energy efficiency and set aggressive but realistic goals for unit and installation
commanders that provides for the sharing of energy savings. An unpublished study of the
processes and goals instituted by private industry to reduce their energy needs demonstrates
that a serious approach to energy conservation has produced substantial savings in a wide range
of industries.xxvii
However, the most important national security reason for the reduction of energy use is to
decrease the weight requirements for the deployment and resupply of Army Units. The Army
desires to be an expeditionary and campaign quality force, and its ability to attain these goals
resides to a great extent with the ease of deployment and the logistics requirements to maintain
that force in a remote area of the world. Therefore, the requirements process must be stimulated
to acquire equipment and vehicles that include fuel efficiency constraints on the design process
to optimize not only weapon system performance, but also the ability to achieve the
expeditionary and campaign quality strategic Army goals. The design tradeoffs necessary to
realize these competing goals in a complex system of systems context can probably only be
accomplished through the use of high fidelity war-game and security operations simulations that
include the fully integrated logistical support processes that accounts for the entire system of
systems life cycle costs.
In the interim, cultural change must begin. Developers of new weapon systems must make
design decisions within the integrated context of Corps, Division and Brigade Combat Teams. A
weapon system can no longer be designed without regard to every aspect of the environment in
which it will operate. The role of energy efficiency in the design process must be viewed through
the design tradeoffs in the size, quantity and cost of the Navy and Air Force fleets necessary for
deployment of the expeditionary force in the desired time and then for logistically maintaining
the deployed units during an extended campaign.
46
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alternative energy use will become crucial to military readiness

Kip Nygren et al, West Point prof., 11/27/06, U.S. Military Academy,
strategy%20for%20the%20end%20of%20cheap%20oil.pdf
For the Military. The consequences for the military in general and the Army in particular will be similar to those faced by
society as a whole, except that national security issues will not permit liquid fossil fuel deprivation for operational missions.
However, training would be curtailed due to cost and public perception at a time when much of the American public would be
cutting back their energy consumption. Government imposed rationing of gasoline and diesel fuel to support the military
services may become necessary. The first three options listed above must be incorporated into the military’s culture as rapidly
as possible, because today these are not near the top of any military leader’s priority list.
Life style changes include revisions to unit training that place more reliance on simulation, which has been very successful in
the Army aviation community, particularly in the area of procedural training. Part of the reason that the American solider
requires 16 times the energy of a World War II solider, is the creation of the U.S. standard quality of life in the nations to which
the military is deployed. If we adopted the life style of the populace in the deployed nation, not only would energy be
conserved, but the U.S. military would live in better harmony with the culture and the people, whose respect and trust they are
trying to earn.
The eventual fuel substitution for oil products that society will in all likelihood make for transportation is hydrogen. However,
before hydrogen can become a fully operational alternative fuel development efforts should be increased at least tenfold, and
the most obvious technology area to be given top priority is increased fuel efficiency. But, this increase in development alone
will not be sufficient. Intermediate substitutions for fossil fuels, such as biofuels, must also continue to be studied and
implemented in an expeditious manner.
Due to the ripple effect discussed earlier, saving a gallon of fuel in our tactical vehicles results in more than a gallon of fuel
saved overall. This savings at the end user is compounded by the savings in the distribution system, not just in terms of fuel
required to transport fuel, but also in the people who operate and administer the distribution of fuel from the well to the
battlefield. Since it is estimated that 70% of the initial deployment and the resupply weight required by an Army unit is fuel,
this cascading effect may be as large as 1.5 gallons saved overall for each gallon saved due to increased fuel efficiency in a
tactical vehicle.
47
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
The U.S. military is a key starting point for alternative energy technology’s.
Renewable energy for conflicts, incentives for innovation, and new alt energy
technologies will be key to U.S. readiness and competitiveness.
Whatever its precise size, this program ideally should be aimed not only at making the United States a world leader in the field of
renewable energy sources, but at reducing America’s fossil fuel consumption below present levels in absolute terms before 2020
and eliminating fossil fuel dependence no later than 2040 and preferably earlier. To that end, the United States should pursue a
broad range of approaches, not only hydrogen (the production of which should be delinked from fossil fuels and rare minerals to
the extent possible), but also photovoltaics, wind, ethanol, biomass, and, while they are more dependent on geography, tidal and
geothermal. The characteristics of some of these energy sources offer a variety of practical benefits, making them worthy of
military R&D dollars.
One advantage is the potential that renewable sources offer for distributed power.39 Given the prospect that US forces will
increasingly be based in less-developed regions like the Middle East, Central Asia, and even sub-Saharan Africa, not being
dependent on local power grids can be an advantage. For example, at present the self-sustaining Navy base at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, has a wind turbine installation which produces 5 to 12 percent of its energy during the spring, and up to 25 percent during
the windy period of the fall months, reducing diesel imports by 650,000 gallons annually.40
At the same time, the unique needs of military programs make them a logical starting point for at least some research in this area.
Running information-age campaigns with industrial-age logistical systems is already problematic, and renewable energy sources
or conservation technologies might provide a partial solution. The Army is presently funding a program to develop flexible solar
panels that may ultimately be woven into the fabric of tents or uniforms to supply power for communications equipment,
computers, and other electrical appliances.41 A hydrogen fuel cell able to get more miles per gallon could be a considerable boon to
mechanized Army units, to say nothing of Navy and Air Force units, which may see benefits even sooner. Submarines using fuel
cells are not only possible, but, in the form of the Type 212A, are already entering service with the German navy.42
Research into technologies facilitating conservation also would play a role in a balanced strategy, since more efficient energy use
makes it easier for still-developing renewable energy power sources to meet a given need—and, in any event, these are seen by
many observers as more promising in the near term. Energy savings can come from sources less familiar than the typical examples
of hybrid or electric cars, more efficient appliances, and solar water heating. The use of strong, ultralight materials such as new,
carbon-based ceramics can reduce fuel consumption. A car made out of carbon nanotubes, for instance, would weigh 50 pounds,
and while a 50-pound car may be unattractive for one reason or another, it demonstrates the potential for very large fuel
economies. The development of substitutes for oil in products like plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals also can assist, as can
improved mass transit systems, a modern rail system, modernized power grids, support for zero-energy housing, and practical
superconductors.43
48
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Oil kills readiness
The Military is now the largest consumer of oil and is thereby vulnerable to oil price
changes.
THOMAS D. CROWLEY et al, PRESIDENT of L. E. Peabody & Associates, Inc.,
APRIL 2007, TRANSFORMING THE WAY DOD LOOKS AT ENERGY AN
APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING AN ENERGY STRATEGY, REPORT FT602T1,
http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_404_FT602T1_Transforming%20t
he%20Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy_Final%20Report.pdf, 1-1
In FY05, the United States consumed about 20 million barrels per day. Although the entire
federal government consumed a mere 1.9 percent of the total U.S. demand, DoD, the largest
government user of oil in the world, consumed more than 90 percent of all the government’s
petroleum (liquid fuel) use.12 Although DoD is highly dependent on petroleum and is the largest
single petroleum user, it cannot by itself, drive the market. However, because DoD’s operations
(the capabilities, costs, and the strategy that define them) rely so heavily on the petroleum
market, they are vulnerable to the price and supply fluctuations affecting the petroleum market.
Examining the impact of the future energy environment on DoD, and the options available to
react to this environment, requires an understanding of the DoD energy consumption profile
(how and where is energy being consumed).13 Energy consumption falls into two categories:
facility energy use and mobility energy use.
49
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Oil kills readiness

The U.S. military will need to transfer away from oil use to maintain U.S. military
readiness
THOMAS D. CROWLEY et al, PRESIDENT of L. E. Peabody & Associates, Inc.,
he%20Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy_Final%20Report.pdf, 1-1
Recent experience indicates that the nature of the threat facing the United States is changing. Today, we cannot be
sure in advance of the location of future conflicts, given the threat of dispersed, small-scale attacks inherent in
warfare with rogue nations and insurgent forces. In addition, the U.S. military must be prepared to defend against
single strikes capable of mass casualties. This complex security environment—an environment in which a wide
range of conventional and unconventional attacks can come from unpredictable regions of the world and the risk of
a single attack is high—requires the United States not only to maintain a force that is forward and engaged on a
daily steady-state basis, but also to ensure that it is ready for quick, surge deployments worldwide to counter, and
deter, a broad spectrum of potential threats. Department-wide and service-specific strategy documents have
identified solutions to navigating in this new environment. The solutions have three general themes (described in
Appendix B): Theme 1. Our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that
they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world.
Theme 2. We must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces
from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks.
Theme 3. We must be persistent in our presence, surveillance, assistance, and attack to defeat
determined insurgents and halt the organization of new enemy forces. To carry out these
activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of
the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system. Considering
the trend in operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this “new” force
employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting. Simply put,
more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which
will result in increased energy consumption. Therefore, DoD must apply new energy
technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects
of military operations.
50
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Overstretch now
US Military is overstretched
Peter Walker, reporter for guardian.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, and agencies, Monday 7-14-2008, “Obama to meet
Palestinian president Abbas on Middle East tour“
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.uselections2008/print
"I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban by invading a
country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks," Obama wrote. "Since then, more than 4,000
Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face – from
Afghanistan to al-Qaida to Iran – has grown." Obama stressed that his opinion had not been changed by the so-called "surge" tactic to
reduce the levels of violence in the country, although he argued that US soldiers had "performed heroically" during it."[T]he same
factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," he wrote. "The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan
has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200bn more in Iraq than we had budgeted.
51
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solar planes key readiness
Long endurance high altitude solar planes possible

Enrico Cestino; Turin Polytechnic University Department of Aerospace Engineering, 07-09-2006, Design of
solar high altitude long endurance aircraft for multi payload & operations,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VK2-4KB107H-1-
1&_cdi=6110&_user=4257664&_orig=search&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2006&_sk=999899993&view=c
&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkzS&md5=a1fe23aec9cddf54ce8b2a1240681ac9&ie=/sdarticle.pdf, Received 9 June
2005; received in revised form 31 May 2006; accepted 1 June 2006, Available online 3 July 2006
The results of this preliminary study show that it could be possible to obtain a very long
endurance high altitude platform for Earth observation and telecommunication applications,
at least for low latitude sites in Europe and for several months of continuous operation.
52
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Alt. E key to Air Force
New fuel sources key to air force fuel supplies

Air Force Link, 4/25/2008 , SECAF discusses alternative energy initiatives at conference,
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123096037
4/25/2008 - GENEVA (AFPN) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne championed Air Force alternative energy
initiatives at the Third Aviation and Environment conference on Apr. 22.
Speaking on a panel on carbon emissions with senior leaders in the aviation industry, Secretary Wynne described the problems
faced by the Air Force in regard to aviation fuel. "Today the petroleum market is controlled by a small handful of producers.
This leads to higher costs and less price stability," he said. Part of the Air Force's response, he said, has been to diversify its
supplier base for energy needs. This includes seeking out alternative sources of aviation fuel and encouraging new suppliers to
enter the market. "Our goal is not to become a producer of synthetic fuels. It is to provide a stable market for fuel that will
entice industry to develop the means to produce it for us," Secretary Wynne said. He highlighted that the B-52 Stratofortress
long-range bomber was certified to fly on a synthetic fuel blend as of August 2007. He also noted that certification to fly the B-
1 Lancer and C-17 Globemaster III on synthetic fuel blends is currently underway. The Air Force has not yet found a single
perfect solution. "The search for new fuel sources must be treated holistically," he said. "We must find the right mix of fuels
that provides us with greater energy independence and meets our need to lower our carbon footprint." Secretary Wynne
stated that as a consumer of nearly $6B in aviation fuel annually, the Air Force considers the full life cycle of aviation fuel --
from extraction to processing to consumption -- in its decision-making. He said fiscal and environmental considerations are
different at each step in the life cycle.
53
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency – alternative energy / solar power key to air power
Solar power key to new air force technology and effectiveness

(Environment News Service, 12/26/07, “Air Force Switches on Largest Solar Power Plant”,
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-26-093.asp)
"The best way to secure a healthy and prosperous economy is to develop our affordable, reliable local resources,"
said Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, who flipped a switch marking full operation of the system.
"With these 14 megawatts, Nellis Air Force Base is leading the country in solar energy deployment, a move that is
good for the environment and our nation's energy security alike," he said.
Covering 140 acres of land at the western edge of the Nellis base, the photovoltaic system is made up of 72,000
solar panels.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada congratulated the Air Force, saying, "Nevada and the United
States have the technology and natural resources to serve our growing power demand with clean, renewable energy."
"Solar power is the fastest growing energy resource to help meet our escalating power demand, generating reliable,
affordable power without creating emissions or waste," said SunPower CEO Tom Werner. "We are proud that
SunPower was selected by the Air Force to design, supply, and build this hallmark project."
54
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Air Force key Readiness/Heg
The Air Force remains the most effective tool in the U.S.’s military arsenal with
fast and efficient striking capabilities. However, some groups still call for
increased ground troop use over air power and air power and to stay effective,
American air dominance will need to be highly maintained.
BLUNDERING BOTGZ
Yet despite these realties, the BOTGZ are waging a relentless campaign against air power. A favorite tact is to denigrate
air power as “Cold War weaponry.” (Query: What then, is a tank, a rifle or, for that matter, a soldier?) They exhibit all the
imagination of World War I generals who, befuddled by the implications of machine-gun technology, nevertheless called
for more boots on the ground as the all-purpose solution to every military problem. Millions died in the ensuing battles.
Even so, these neo-Luddites obsess about air power and wield their keyboards to fire op-eds, journal articles and letters to
the editor in a frantic effort to turn back the scientific revolution in favor of their beloved ground formations. They gasp
their attacks on talk shows and symposiums at every opportunity. Unexplained is the fact that, despite the awesome
personal valor and energy of the troops, U.S. land forces have yet to begin to dominate their domain the way American air
power does its domain. Air power is not only America’s most flexible military capability, it is also the best hope to
present a truly show-stopping impediment to the nefarious schemes of her enemies.
The BOTGZ want to believe that human nature will change, that peer competitors will not arise and that the rest of the
world will not attempt to challenge U.S. air power with inventions of their own. Thus, they believe that American air
power can be allowed to atrophy toward obsolescence in favor of, you guessed it, more boots on the ground.
Unfortunately, there is every indication that, regardless of whatever changes the land forces may make, they will be of
little strategic import in the next war — the one we ought to be thinking about and planning for now.
Of course, we will always need land forces (although it is becoming more difficult to see why we need both an Army and
a Marine Corps). Among other things, land forces can provide vital targeting information and also corral enemy forces
into killing fields vulnerable to the air weapon. Ground forces employed in support of air campaigns can produce many
synergies eminently in the interest of the nation. And, yes, the country also needs a large National Guard ground force for
domestic emergencies and as a strategic reserve. To be clear, it is beyond question that America will always need a
powerful ground component.
The point is how much of our air power — our most effective national security component — do we want to sacrifice to
maintain large active-duty formations of ground forces useful only in selected contexts? Does anyone truly believe
America will do a nation-building “Iraq” again anytime soon? Are we likely, with the benefit of our experience in
Vietnam and now Iraq, to attempt yet another hearts-and-minds campaign the BOTGZ seem to desire? Or is the more
likely scenario one in which the need is to destroy an adversary’s capacity to project power that damages U.S. interests? If
so, air strikes to demolish enemy capabilities, complemented by short-term, air-assisted raids and high-tech Air Force
surveillance platforms, are the answer, not colossal boots-on-the-ground efforts.
No one debates the classic romanticism of the land warrior. Cavalry formations were also splendid formations in their
day, and provided real combat power. Yet things do change, and the technology and capability of the air weapon has
changed dramatically. That said, it is, of course, true that military force is often (but not always) most effective when
conducted in a joint and interdependent way. When war does happen, it is especially important for U.S. land forces to
have confidence in the skies above them, as it has been more than half a century since any soldier or Marine suffered an
enemy air attack.
In the sober analysis of the zero-sum calculus of national security decision-making, the weight of the effort must go to
America’s asymmetrical advantage, that component of the national security establishment that has the most flexibility,
effectiveness and deterrence value — as well as cultural compatibility. It’s about putting our resources into the odds-on
favorite, the component that best fits the needs of America’s democracy in the 21st century. The stakes are enormous, and
the risks to our air power advantage are very, very grave.
55
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Air Force key Readiness/Heg
The U.S. air force is highly advanced and effective and is a cornerstone of U.S.
power projection.
Barry R. Posen, (Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
a member of its Security Studies Program), 2003, International Security, Command of the
Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony, 28.1, 15-16, muse
Command of the Air
An electronic flying circus of specialized attack, jamming, and electronic intelligence aircraft allows the U.S
military to achieve the "suppression of enemy air defenses" (SEAD); limit the effectiveness of enemy radars,
surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and fighters; and achieve the relatively safe exploitation of enemy skies above
15,000 feet. 37 Cheap and simple air defense weapons, such as antiaircraft guns and shoulder-fired lightweight
SAMs, are largely ineffective at these altitudes. Yet at these altitudes aircraft can deliver precision-guided munitions
with great accuracy and lethality, if targets have been properly located and identified. The ability of the U.S. military
to satisfy these latter two conditions varies with the nature of the targets, the operational circumstances, and the
available reconnaissance and command and control assets (as discussed below), so precision-guided munitions are
not a solution to every problem. The United States has devoted increasing effort to modern aerial reconnaissance
capabilities, including both aircraft and drones, which have improved the military's ability in particular to employ air
power against ground forces, but these assets still do not provide perfect, instantaneous information. 38 Confidence in
the quality of their intelligence, and the lethality and responsiveness of their air power, permitted U.S. commanders
to dispatch relatively small numbers of ground forces deep into Iraq in the early days of the 2003 war, without much
concern for counterattacks by large Iraqi army units. 39
The U.S. military maintains a vast stockpile of precision-guided munitions and is adding to it. As of 1995, the
Pentagon had purchased nearly 120,000 air-launched precision-guided weapons for land and naval attack at a cost of
$18 billion. 40 Some 20,000 of these weapons were high-speed antiradiation missiles [End Page 15] (HARMs),
designed to home in on the radar emissions of ground-based SAM systems, a key weapon for the SEAD campaign.
Thousands of these bombs and missiles were launched in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but tens of thousands more
have been ordered. 41
The capability for precision attack at great range gives the United States an ability to do significant damage to the
infrastructure and the forces of an adversary, while that adversary can do little to harm U.S. forces. 42 Air power
alone may not be able to determine the outcome of all wars, but it is a very significant asset. Moreover, U.S. air
power has proven particularly devastating to mechanized ground forces operating offensively, as was discovered in
the only Iraqi mechanized offensive in Desert Storm, the battle of al-Khafji, in which coalition air forces pummeled
three advancing Iraqi divisions. 43 The United States can provide unparalleled assistance to any state that fears a
conventional invasion, making it a very valuable ally.
56
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Air power key to heg/readiness
U.S. air power is uniquely key to U.S. power projection and readiness
(Eric Margolis, foreign correspondent and defense analyst and columnist, 7/30/07, blog,
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/07/the_us_air_forc.php)
The US has also developed reconnaissance capability of formidable capacity and coverage. US satellites can read license
plates through clouds, smoke, rain or foliage, and track human infrared signatures. Drones, U-2 spy planes and a fleet of
electronic warfare aircraft provide unblinking, 24/7 `eyes in the sky’ over almost all of Afghanistan and Iraq. The flood of
data from all these sensors is consolidated and distributed to field commands or shared with HQ units in what is called
`actionable’ information.
The US Air Force has become to the American Imperium what the Royal Navy was to the British Empire, the source of its
might, and means of power projection.
While the Royal Navy ruled only the waves and littoral regions, the USAF can today reach and strike any point on the globe
with devastating accuracy, speed and force. It is the mightiest, most technologically accomplished military force in history.
57
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Adv. Air key to heg/readiness
Air power is the best means of U.S. power projection

(Mark A. Gunzinger, Deputy assistant secretary of defense, 1993, School of Advanced Air
Power Studies, “Power Projection: Making the tough choices”,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/saas_Theses/SAASS_Out/Gunzinger/gunzinger.pdf)
Abstract: This study concludes airpower will play an increasingly dominant role in future US contingency
responses. Power projection is defined as the finite application of military power by national command authority to
achieve discrete political ends outside the borders of the United States, its territories, and possessions. Power
projection contingencies are characterized as wars and operations short of war, but not conflicts that are global or
total in nature. Future contingencies that demand a US response may occur without warning, be time sensitive, and
require short duration deployments. US forces may not have immediate access to or a previously established
presence in potential theaters of operation. Due to the changing nature of the international environment and domestic
priorities, the President defined a new National Secunty Strategy that emphasizes projecting military forces in
response to regional conflicts. The military services are currently modifying their doctrine and force structures to
reflect the shift towards power projection. The services agree power projection forces must be lethal, flexible,
deployable, mobile, and capable of surviving an increasingly hostile threat environment. Comparing force
characteristics reveals airpower has greater flexibility, deployability, mobility, and is better able to survive future
threat environments than surface forces. New domestic imperatives have also forced the services to engage in a
healthy competition to preserve their share of a shrinking defense budget. In terms of efficiency, apportioning
resources according to an arcane formula that does not reflect force capabilities or the future utility of primary
service functions is illogical. Building a strong power projection capability requires a thorough evaluation of the
relative efficacy of air, land, and sea power to perform the power projection mission.
58
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Air tech. key to Navy
Air tech key to naval power

Emily O. Goldman, PhD from Stanford, 2003, The Diffusion of Military Technology and Ideas, P. 272-276,
edited by Amily O. Goldman and Leslie C. Eliason
From the end of World War I until the end of World War II, the role of the aircraft carrier in naval warfare was dramatically
reformulated from a vision of carrier as a reconnaissance and support element to the main battle line, to carriers as independent
strike platforms, massed together to maximize offensive firepower and defensive protection. On the eve of World War II. The right
mix of offensive potential and defensive safety was hotly contested. The proper mix would change midway through the Pacific
war with the resurgence of tactical defense in 1942 because of developments in radar and shipboard antiaircraft. Three episodes of
carrier air power provided key demonstrations of the new weapon system’s potentially revolutionary impact: Britain’s attack on
the Italian fleet at Taranto on 11 November 1940; Japan’s attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 194; and Japan’s
defeat at the Battle of Midway on 4 June 1942. The British attack on the Italian naval base at Taranto was the first time an assault
was made on a large, heavily defended harbor facility, and the first time that such an attack was carried out with carrier-based
planes. Although the Swordfish biplanes used in the attack were virtually obsolete, the British succeeded in inflicting a major blow
against the Italian fleet and overturning conventional wisdom that ships could not be torpedoed inside their own harbor at night.
The attack, some have speculated, may have made an impression on Isoroku Yamamoto, commander in chief of the Combined
Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy, who had long been thinking about how to neutralize the U.S, fleet at Pearl Harbor. Taranto
indicated that a fleet in a shallow, heavily defended harbor could be sunk by carrier attack. Whether or not Taranto directly
inspired Yamamoto, the potential revealed at Taranto was realized one year later and twelve thousand miles away at Pearl Harbor.
Midway represented an important turning point in the tactics for operating carriers. Attempting to lure the U.S. fleet into a decisive
battle, Yamamoto dispersed his fleet over the North Pacific, ultimately leaving it vulnerable to a weaker U.S. force, which
decisively defeated it. By 1942 the balance had shifted in favor of ship defense, making concentration of the striking force
essential to sink a carrier while maximizing defensive firepower. Midway also signified a conceptual shift, as the aircraft carrier
came to be seen as the primary capital ship in Britain, the United states and Japan. The British continued work on Vanguard but it
was their last battleship; the Japanese converted the incomplete Shinano to a carrier; in the United states, the Montana-class
battleships were canceled in favor of carrier construction. While all navies of the day realized that air power had an important
defensive role to play in spotting, scouting, and reconnaissance, the real issue was whether carrier air power could operate
effectively as an offensive strike element, and whether the target of such an attack should be the battle like or the enemy’s carriers.
Collectively, Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and Midway compelled naval leaders to revise how they viewed the relationship between the
battleship, battle line, and aircraft carrier. The carrier had a vital role to play operating independently of the battle line. Moreover,
the battleship should protect the carriers rather than vice versa. This required overturning the big ship-big gun doctrine that had
been deeply entrenched in naval thinking since the days of Mahan. This conceptual shift proved difficult for naval leaders in all
countries to accept so long as battleships could survive an air attack. At the tactical level, the question was the proper balance
between concentration and dispersal in order to provide sufficient defenses without compromising the weight of attack.
Concentrated forces permitted the massing of air attack and maximized offensive potential. Yet privileging offense at the expense
of defense could prove disastrous. Carriers were the Achilles’ heel of a system for waging offensive war. Only after the protection
problem was solved would it be possible to realize the carrier’s offensive potential. The solution was threefold: concentration,
whereby several carriers operating in one concentrated tactical formation could mutually defend each other against air attack with
a greater volume of anti-aircraft fire; protection of carriers by battleships; and increasing the number of antiaircraft batteries on
carriers, escorting cruisers, and destroyers. Exploitation of a new method of warfare also depended upon organizational reforms.
Carriers could assume a new and central role in the system for waging naval war to the extent that naval aviators had
representation in the highest administrative and civilian echelons, wielded significant influence of the prosecution of war, and had
a career path that allowed them to advance professionally. Air-centered naval warfare also benefited to the extent that naval
aviation was free from oversight and control by land-based air organizations. Certain design elements facilitated realization of the
carriers’ potential. Chief among them were those relating to carrier capacity. Certain tactics were viable only if a carrier had a large
capacity which U.S. carriers did by virtue of Washington Naval Treaty provisions of carrier conversion. They allowed the U.S.
Navy to convert two huge, uncompleted battle cruisers, Lexington and Saratoga, displacing thirty-three thousand tons each, into
carriers. By contrast, the British were strapped with smaller carriers of World War I vintage. The British preference for greater
protection on their carriers, given the need to operate in close proximity to enemy land-based air, also limited carrier capacity, as
did their practice, shared by the Japanese, of stowing aircraft in hangars. The U.S practice of deck storage, on the other hand,
maximized carrier capacity. “Usable flight deck area was inevitable much greater than hangar area, so the aircraft complement of a
carrier which permanently parked her aircraft on deck could greatly exceed that of a carrier limited to hangar stowage.” Aircraft
performance was also critical. The Japanese Zero was far superior to any U.S. fighter until the introduction of the Hellcat in 1942/
59
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
a comparison between the attack craft used by the British at Taranto – the Fairey Swordfish- and those used by the Japanese at
Pearl Harbor – the Val and Kate- show dramatic differences in speed, maximum range, and maximum ceiling. British aircraft were
inferior because they were designed to be multipurpose. The United States, though it entered the war with inadequate aircraft,
eventually produced planes that were far superior to their British counterparts and to most shorebased aircraft because they were
single duty. Table 10.2 summarizes carrier design, doctrine, and practices adopted in five navies and captures differences in the
scope and pace of adoption. Three different institutional responses to naval air power are evident. The Americans and Japanese
adopted the offensive carrier air power paradigm. They made air power the centerpiece of their navies, transitioned to air-centered
naval organizations and operations, and concentrated and operated carriers independently in carrier battle groups. The British
grafted air power onto existing doctrine, keeping the carrier in a defensive role, subsubordinate to and part of the battle line. They
used carriers to hunt down enemy raiders and supply ships, escort convoys, attack special land targets, conduct ocean sweeps and
patrols, and ferry land-based aircraft to fighting zones. They never developed the offensive potential of naval air power hinted at in
their raid on Taranto. The Italians failed to see any role for naval air power until very late in the war, convinced that Italy was an
unsinkable carrier and that land-based air could adequately support fleet operations. German views about the role for the carrier
evolved from that the fleet reconnaissance, escort, and coastal patrol to a view of the carrier as an offensive strike element. But like
the Italians, German realization of the offensive potential of the aircraft carrier came too late for any carriers to enter service in
World War II.
60
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency—air force
Airships reduce military stress on coasts

Surveillance http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf, p5
The best approach for all-weather, coastal surveillance is to use strategically stationed radars.
Radar positioned at high altitudes permits viewing a large area with few stations. A stratospherically stationed airship’s radar
can observe approximately 500 km in any direction. With this viewing ability, a fleet of six airships could provide
continuous coverage of the entire east coast. Because of the airship’s excellent lifting capacity, it can carry payloads that
other types of high-altitude, long-endurance vehicles cannot – a radar system for example. Radar systems have unmatched
observational capability. They can penetrate clouds and rain and provide continuous observation of a selected area. Radars work
equally well during day or night.
61
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
FT safe
FT fuel is safe.
Jansson, Rickard; graduate student, Linkopings Universitet Institute of Technology; 2/13/08; Master’s thesis
“An Assessment of Biofuels and Synthetic Fuels as Substitutions of Conventional Diesel and Jet Fuels”,
Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Due to time restrictions with the master’s thesis, the evaluation of the Fischer-Tropsch fuels is
not as detailed as the biodiesel evaluation. Following conclusions were however made
concerning the FT-fuels:
_ The flash point, cloud point and cold filter plugging point of Paradiesel (a FT-diesel)
must be considered real good in comparison to limits set in Swedish MK1 diesel
standard, SS 15 54 35. The fuel can be considered safe, according to the flash point. It
should be no problem using the fuel in cold weather due to the low cloud point and
CFPP.
38
The density of Paradiesel (799.2 kg/m3) is lower than the limit of a density between
800 and 820 kg/m3 in SS 15 54 35. This should however not lead to any trouble in fuel
performance during usage.
_ Of the evaluated properties of EcoFly, the only parameter outside limits is the density,
which is below the minimum 775 kg/m3 set in AFQRJOS (see appendix A), for the
pure sample. The parameters of the 50/50 blend of EcoFly and regular petroleum Jet
A1 all manage to cope with the limits in AFQRJOS.
62
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Biofuel Good
Biofuels not a panacea, other factors must be accounted for

Other factors must also be accounted for, said Secretary Wynne. For instance, he encouraged the audience to consider how using
bio-fuels on a large scale could affect food prices, land use and water resources. He also suggested that much is unknown about
how various synthetic fuels affect aircraft engine life. For instance, due to residual deposits and gumming problems, bio-based
fuels increase maintenance costs. However, cleaner burning coal-to-liquid based fuels can substantially reduce maintenance costs.
During his remarks, Secretary Wynne reiterated the Air Force's goal of certifying the entire Air Force fleet for synthetic fuel blends
by early 2011. He related this goal to the Air Force's mission of enhancing sovereign options for the United States.
63
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Oil kills Econ/Runs out
Current U.S. energy policy is directed at prolonging U.S. oil reserves. This
strategy will fail as global oil supplies start to run out and prices continue to
rise.
Events in recent decades have produced a broader definition of security.1 The entry of phrases like “environmental security,”
“resource conflict,” and “energy security” into the lexicon of security experts provides examples of this changing dialogue, but
these concepts remain on the margins of the discussion for the most part. Where US energy policy is concerned, the debate
generally has been limited to arguments that the United States must preserve its access to the oil reserves of the Middle East and
Central Asia, and a vague sense that domestic energy supplies would be highly desirable. Cornucopian optimists continue to insist
that oil will remain abundant and cheap for the foreseeable future, and indeed more concern is expressed over the unsavory
character of governments in major oil-producing states than over the finite nature of the resources themselves. The vagaries of oil
politics (and the ecological problems raised by carbon emissions) are indeed serious problems, and they are not entirely separable
from the questions this article means to raise, but the focus here will be on the problem of fossil fuel scarcity at the global level.
This article seeks to provide an overview of the situation, including the prospects for an economy based on renewable energy, the
security problems likely to result from tightening oil supplies, and a possible basis for making the transition to alternatives widely
acknowledged as inevitable in the long run. The Outlook for Energy At the time of this writing, the price of oil has hit $70 per
barrel and is projected to rise even higher in the near term. While not a record when the figure is adjusted for inflation, this was
still commonly taken as a sign that the era of “cheap energy” may be coming to an end. Other numbers bear this out. Annual
worldwide oil consumption is roughly 29 billion barrels a year, and estimated to be rising at two percent annually.2 While there is
widespread disagreement over their actual size, the world’s total “proven” reserves of oil come to roughly one trillion barrels. A
linear projection has oil supplies running out around 2030 after a long period of rising prices and tightening supplies, likely to
begin after production peaks, generally expected to be sometime between 2010 and 2020—maybe just five years away. The
consequences of a shortfall in oil supplies on the scale of such predictions are as obvious as they are terrifying. A prolonged
economic contraction and possibly a desperate scramble for resources that might bring major powers to blows are not out of the
question, especially when the cost of other problems likely to place more pressure on the energy base (climate change, water
shortages, population growth, etc.) are taken into account.3 In the absolute worst case, modernity might simply grind to a halt, a
catastrophe that James Howard Kunstler describes in his recent book on the subject, The Long Emergency.
Of course, linear projections have their limitations, and any number of developments could throw them off—unanticipated
changes in the character of economic productivity, or an economic slowdown, for instance. Actual oil reserves are likely larger
than the proven figure, which would delay the crunch for some years. Rising energy needs will mean higher prices and shorter
supplies, which will stretch out the supply by encouraging conservation.4 They also will produce increased efforts to supplement
oil with more plentiful coal, “heavy oil,” and natural gas. The degree to which these alternatives can pick up the slack, however, is
a subject of intense disagreement, as all these resources will mean higher energy prices.5 Moreover, they do not eliminate the
problem of the finite amount of these resources, with natural gas reserves particularly unlikely to last all that much longer than oil.
64
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Econ Impact—war
An oil based economy will force nations into war as oil supplies dwindle.
New Resource Wars
The most obvious concern is a reinvigoration of resource conflict. As the oil deposits believed to lie under a disputed piece of
ground or sea floor become more valuable economically, governments might be more prepared to fight for them. Since the War on
Terrorism began in 2001, China, seeing itself in a more vulnerable strategic position, has been more willing to negotiate its claims
over the South China Sea.14 However, the issue has yet to be resolved, and an oil-hungry China can yet take a harder line,
especially if this becomes more profitable. China also has behaved provocatively elsewhere, sending naval vessels into Japanese
claims around the Senkaku Islands.15 Similar conflicts remain unresolved in other regions, including sub-Saharan Africa and Latin
America.16 Moreover, even states unlikely to go to war over territory would face greater prospects of involvement in an armed
conflict, and find a powerful incentive to develop and deploy long-range power-projection capabilities. Resource wars also can be
a cause of internal conflicts or unrest. The war in the Indonesian region of Aceh is partly driven by the government’s determination
to hold onto an oil-rich region, and the resentment of the inhabitants has been partly a response to the damage oil production has
done to local communities. Oil also was at stake in the fight over East Timor, which on the first day of its independence concluded
a deal with Australia regarding its oil-rich offshore claims. The problem may in fact be exacerbated by certain solutions to the
world’s energy problems. To give one example, the development of new technologies which permit cost-effective drilling for oil in
deeper waters could create new flash-points. Cheaper deep-water drilling, for instance, would make the oil under the South China
Sea a more valuable prize.17 As certain kinds of alternative energy technologies are developed, the value of certain resources is
also likely to become more strategically important (like platinum for hydrogen fuel cells), with similar results. As the situation
stands, two-thirds of what were the high seas in 1958 have been “territorialized” to some degree. The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea extended territorial waters from three to 12 miles, recognized 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones and 350-
mile continental shelf claims, and permitted the enclosure of the internal waters of archipelagic states like Japan.18 At the same
time, the mineral wealth of these regions has remained largely unexploited. While the ambitious ocean mining schemes of 30 or 40
years ago amounted to little, rising energy costs and improved technology could give them a future—and make the right to profit
from them a new cause of conflict.
65
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Econ Impact- Oil Competition
The US will need to develop a new energy strategy to maintain its military strength and
avoid oil competition with other nations.
(THOMAS D. CROWLEY et al, PRESIDENT of L. E. Peabody & Associates, Inc.,
he%20Way%20DoD%20Looks%20at%20Energy_Final%20Report.pdf, 1-1)
Today, the United States is the superpower. Yet, the scramble to secure access to oil continues
while the availability of easily recoverable oil diminishes, putting the United States into
increasing competition with other oil importers, most notably, the rapidly emerging economies of
India and China.1 As the U.S. government’s energy security strategy evolves, the U.S. military,
which is highly dependent on oil to fuel the engines of its overwhelming operational superiority,
must develop a long-term strategy to deal with the changing energy environment.
66
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Oil Impact—nukes
Inevitable oil shortages will lead other nations to seek nuclear weapons for
security.
Nuclear Proliferation
Alternatively, oil shortages, or the prospect of them, may put pressure on states to follow France’s path in the 1970s and invest
heavily in nuclear technology. The problems posed by greater nuclear proliferation (or poorly built and operated reactors) need
little elaboration. Perceiving a heightened threat environment amid more widespread resource conflict and state failure, states may
be more likely to seek out such systems regardless of the inherent dangers. With greater insecurity and the need for alternatives to
fossil fuels feeding each other, the nonproliferation regime will be under greater pressure than it is today.
67
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Oil Impact—econ collapse/war
Hitting peak oil will cause an economic collapse that will end the world
economy and generate energy wars.
(Paul Roberts, journalist and author on oil, 3/7/04, LA Times, “Running Out of Oil – and Time”,
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/07/opinion/op-roberts7)
During the 1979 Iranian revolution, the last time oil production fell off significantly, world oil prices hit the modern
equivalent of $80 a barrel. And that, keep in mind, was a temporary decline. If world oil production were to truly
peak and begin a permanent decline, the effect would be staggering: Prices would not come back down. Any part of
the global economy dependent on cheap energy – which is to say, pretty much everything these days – would be
changed forever.
And that’s the good news. The term “peak” tends to suggest a nice, neat curve, with production rising slowly to a
halfway point, then tapering off gradually to zero – as if, since it took a century to reach a peak, it ought to take
another 100 years to reach the end. But in the real world, the landing will not be soft. As we hit the peak, soaring
prices – $70, $80, even $100 a barrel – will encourage oil companies and oil states to scour the planet for oil. For a
time, they will succeed, finding enough crude to keep production flat, thus stretching out the peak into a kind
of plateau and perhaps temporarily easing fears. But in reality, this manic, post-peak production will deplete
remaining reserves all the more quickly, thus ensuring that the eventual decline is far steeper and far more sudden.
As one U.S. government geologist put it to me recently, “the edge of a plateau looks a lot like a cliff.”
As production falls off this cliff, prices won’t simply increase; they will fly. If our oil dependence hasn’t lessened
drastically by then, the global economy is likely to slip into a recession so severe that the Great Depression will look
like a dress rehearsal. Oil will cease to be viable as a fuel – hardly an encouraging scenario in a world where oil
currently provides 40% of all energy and nearly 90% of all transportation fuel. Political reaction would be desperate.
Industrial economies, hungry for energy, would begin making it from any source available – most likely coal –
regardless of the ecological consequences. Worse, competition for remaining oil supplies would intensify, potentially
leading to a new kind of political conflict: the energy war.
68
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Adv. Peak oil = econ collapse
Hitting peak oil will cause an economic collapse that will end the world economy and generate energy
wars.
(Paul Roberts, journalist and author on oil, 3/7/04, LA Times, “Running Out of Oil – and Time”,
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/07/opinion/op-roberts7)
During the 1979 Iranian revolution, the last time oil production fell off significantly, world oil prices hit the modern
equivalent of $80 a barrel. And that, keep in mind, was a temporary decline. If world oil production were to truly
peak and begin a permanent decline, the effect would be staggering: Prices would not come back down. Any part of
the global economy dependent on cheap energy – which is to say, pretty much everything these days – would be
changed forever.
And that’s the good news. The term “peak” tends to suggest a nice, neat curve, with production rising slowly to a
halfway point, then tapering off gradually to zero – as if, since it took a century to reach a peak, it ought to take
another 100 years to reach the end. But in the real world, the landing will not be soft. As we hit the peak, soaring
prices – $70, $80, even $100 a barrel – will encourage oil companies and oil states to scour the planet for oil. For a
time, they will succeed, finding enough crude to keep production flat, thus stretching out the peak into a kind
of plateau and perhaps temporarily easing fears. But in reality, this manic, post-peak production will deplete
remaining reserves all the more quickly, thus ensuring that the eventual decline is far steeper and far more sudden.
As one U.S. government geologist put it to me recently, “the edge of a plateau looks a lot like a cliff.”
As production falls off this cliff, prices won’t simply increase; they will fly. If our oil dependence hasn’t lessened
drastically by then, the global economy is likely to slip into a recession so severe that the Great Depression will look
like a dress rehearsal. Oil will cease to be viable as a fuel – hardly an encouraging scenario in a world where oil
currently provides 40% of all energy and nearly 90% of all transportation fuel. Political reaction would be desperate.
Industrial economies, hungry for energy, would begin making it from any source available – most likely coal –
regardless of the ecological consequences. Worse, competition for remaining oil supplies would intensify, potentially
leading to a new kind of political conflict: the energy war.
69
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Smooth Econ transition
Alternative energies would be phased into the economy, allowing for a smooth
transition away from an oil based economy.
A third problem is the tendency to view the matter as a choice between the outright replacement of fossil fuels or nothing at all.
The reality, however, is that partial solutions can provide a cushion until a more complete transition can be brought about. This
being the case, it matters little if renewable energy production will at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells
and wind turbines will be made in factories powered by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are
unrealistic is nonsense. The energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just as the oil-
based economy was built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a hydrogen economy involve
the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by traditional electricity sources like oil,
coal, and nuclear generators. Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted directly from water through photoelectrochemical
processes or electrolysis, which could be powered by cheap wind and solar energy.12
70
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Air Force key to alt. E
Partnering with aviation key to develop alternative fuel market

Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez, Air Force Print News, 11/17/2006, Air Force, industry must partner to create
synth-fuel demand, http://www.safie.hq.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123054319
11/17/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force must partner with the civilian aviation industry to create a stronger
demand for alternative fuel sources. During a conference of defense industry representatives here Nov. 14, Michael Aimone, Air
Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support, explained how the Air Force is looking for
ways to get more of the fuel it uses from domestic sources. Within the federal government, the Air Force is the single largest user
of energy, and some 80 percent of that energy is aviation fuel for aircraft -- about 3 billion gallons a year. "If we want to get to an
assured domestic source of supply, using coal, oil, shale, and bio-mass, then we need to find a way to take that ... and liquefy it for
aviation use," he said. "We have conducted three demonstration flights in the B-52 (Stratofortress) earlier this year and proved to
ourselves that the logistics systems as well as the flight systems can handle the synth-fuel blend." Alternative fuels like those used
in the B-52 experiment can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas, coal and shale.
Gasification can convert any hydrocarbon feedstock (raw material required for an industrial process) into a synthesis gas that can
then be converted into any number of liquid fuel products. In addition to the roughly 3 billion gallons of jet fuel a year used by the
Air Force, the civilian aviation industry consumes 12 to 13 billion gallons a year. Mr. Aimone said if the use of alternative fuels is
to move forward, users of the fuels must partner together to create a demand for it.
"The best way to bring an industry together is to partner with the other industries that use aviation fuel and bring a total
requirement of about 16 billion gallons a year to the marketplace, as opposed to the two or three that the Air Force might bring,"
he said. Besides looking for alternative fuel sources, Air Force officials are also looking into ways to reduce the service's overall
use of jet fuel through waste reduction.
"We waste a lot of energy flying around certain countries because they will not give us over-flight permission," he explained.
"Over the last five months we have worked aggressively with the various aviation sectors to be able to get some streamlined
diplomatic clearance processes." The Air Force has also made changes to how much fuel can remain in a KC-135 Stratotanker
when it lands. In the past, those aircraft may have had to dump fuel before landing. "Can we raise the landing limits on the KC-
135, so the airplanes can come back heavier? Sure we can," he said. "We did it this year. (It's part of) a series of conservation
initiatives, some of them pretty obvious when you think about it."
71
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Military dev. key
U.S. military’s technology development is unparalleled.

Robert L. Paarlberg; Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College; Associate at the Weatherhead
Center for International Affairs, Harvard University; summer 2004; “Knowledge as Power; Science,
Military Dominance, and U.S. Security,” Lexis Nexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.95
78853688852785&bhcp=1
Military primacy today comes from weapons quality, not quantity. Each U.S. military service has dominating weapons not
found in the arsenals of other states. The U.S. Air Force will soon have five different kinds of stealth aircraft in its
arsenal, while no other state has even one. U.S. airborne targeting capabilities, built around global positioning system
(GPS) satellites, joint surveillance and target radars, and unmanned aerial vehicles are dominating and unique. n1 On
land, the U.S. Army has 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks, each with a fire-control system so accurate it can find and destroy a distant
enemy tank usually with a single shot. At sea, the U.S. Navy now deploys Seawolf nuclear submarines, the fastest, quietest,
and most heavily armed undersea vessels ever built, plus nine supercarrier battle groups, each carrying scores of aircraft
capable of delivering repeated precision strikes hundreds of miles inland. No other navy has even one supercarrier group.n2
72
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency – AFRL world leader
AFRL SOLVES – WORLD LEADER ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECH

Laura Lundin [Air Force public affairs], 11/9/06, “Research Lab leads way to test, certify new fuels,”
http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123031621
11/9/2006 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio -- As an integral partner in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense Assured Fuels Initiative, the Air Force Research Laboratory is leading the investigation for suitable, domestically
produced alternative fuels for military use.
AFRL is now certifying suitable fuels for the Air Force fleet, as part of the Air Force's comprehensive energy strategy.
Efforts stem in part from successful flight tests in September wherein two of a B-52's engines ran on a synthetic fuel, made
from a 50-50 blend of traditional crude-oil based fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch fuel derived from natural gas, while the remaining
six engines ran on traditional JP-8 fuel. The tests occurred at Edwards AFB, Calif.
According to William Harrison, senior advisor for the OSD Assured Fuels Initiative and an engineer with AFRL's Propulsion
Directorate, "AFRL's involvement has been to look at the science and technology behind the FT fuels, focusing on the
fundamental lab work and basic fuel properties while exploring the suitability and feasibility of using them to meet Air Force
needs. Now that the two-engine flight tests are complete, we will focus on the certification of the fuel for all Air Force aircraft
and ground-support and look at how the fuel will work with the Air Force's existing logistic infrastructure."
Mr. Harrison added that developing an organized, streamlined certification process for the FT fuel is a collaborative effort
involving a team from AFRL, the Air Force Materiel Command Engineering Office, and the Aeronautical Systems Center.
The Air Force is also looking for full interchangeability in the marketplace, and, Mr. Harrison said the certification will be on
the 50/50 blend.
"However, we will keep researching the possibility of increasing the blend ratio as well, and with the successful flight tests and
the preliminary data, we know that we have a proven range that works," said Mr. Harrison.
"With the 50/50 blend, we took a very conservative and methodical approach to the research, allowing ourselves the best
options," Mr. Harrison continued. "The 50/50 blend is the closest to the JP-8 fuel that is currently used,"
In addition to the fuel certification, AFRL is continuing to research the suitability of using FT fuels in other military aircraft
applications such as hypersonics and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Through these efforts, the Air Force has taken an innovative approach to find domestically-produced alternative fuels that will
lead to greater fuel efficiency and help alleviate dependence on foreign energy sources.
73
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
U.S. military key
The U.S. military is currently the pioneer in U.S. based alternative energy.
Despite their efficiency however, these projects are still only small scale and
have yet to be mass produced or widely utilized.
(John Edwards, business technology journalist and contributing editor for Electronic Design, 6/29/07,
Electronic Design, “In Today’s Military, More Than Just Fatigues Are Green,
http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/15825/15825.html, [Dan Powers])
Garbage is power. At least that's true for Jerry B. Warner, president of Defense Life Sciences, which is developing a trash-to-
electricity generator. The fact that the company is working on a "green" energy technology isn't unusual. What's out of the ordinary
is that Warner happens to be a retired U.S. Army colonel, and his prime customer is his former employer. The U.S. military is
investigating green technologies-particularly environmentally friendly power-generation systems. This interest in clean power isn't
entirely altruistic, of course. Cutting-edge alternate energy technologies will help the military move troops and equipment faster
and safer without relying solely on conventional power sources. "In this instance, it's a case of where the military's needs dovetail
very nicely with the development of alternate energy sources," says Warner. Waste Not Warner describes his company's trash-to-
electricity generator as a "tactical biorefinery." The system is designed to allow soldiers in the field to convert leftover food, paper,
and plastic into usable power. Approximately the size of a moving van, the generator rumbles along with a unit as it moves from
place to place. At startup, the system runs on conventional diesel fuel. As it's fed leftover boxes and plastics, a gasifier heats the
materials in a low-oxygen environment. Within an hour, the system begins generating energy in the form of low-grade propane gas
and methane. Later, as food waste is poured in, a bioreactor uses industrial yeast to ferment the waste into ethanol, a "green" fuel.
Both the gas and ethanol are combusted in a modified diesel engine that powers a generator to produce electricity. "In about 24
hours, we drive the diesel fuel consumption down to the single digits," Warner says. In fact, Defense Life Sciences developed the
system in association with Purdue University at the military's behest. "It was an Army-funded program where we were asked to
solve two problems simultaneously," he says. The first goal was to create energy from available resources during expeditionary
operations, which are typically during a conflict's first six months. A secondary aim was finding an efficient way to destroy
garbage, known in the military as a unit's "signature." This would effectively remove any potential clues leftover refuse might
provide an enemy. "We were shooting for a two-fer," Warner says. A working prototype was delivered to the Army last December.
Warner says the system can also be used for civilian applications. For example, it could be deployed in the aftermath of a hurricane
or tornado or at any location where people are stranded without power. Emergency crews could then use the machine to turn debris
like woodchips into much-needed electricity, Warner says. It could also provide supplementary power for factories, restaurants, or
stores. Triple Threat Another type of generator, being developed at the University of Florida in Gainesville, aims to provide an all-
in-one power, water, and refrigeration source for moving troops (Fig. 1). The Army-funded supergenerator links a gas turbine
power plant to a heat-operated refrigeration system. The refrigeration capability makes the gas turbine more efficient while also
producing cool air and potable water. The turbine can run on conventional fossil fuels as well as biomass-produced fuels or
hydrogen. "It's actually a fairly common kind of refrigeration system, but when you put it together with a gas turbine engine you
wind up with a system that you could think of simply as a more efficient gas turbine plant," says William E. Lear, director of the
University of Florida's Energy and Gasdynamic Systems Laboratory. Unlike Defense Life Sciences' trash-to-electricity generator,
which is the size of a moving van, the school's threeway system can be small enough to fit into a pickup truck's bed. The system is
designed to serve the needs of soldiers serving in desert environments, like Iraq, where power, cold air, and drinkable water are
almost always in short supply. "[The military] would certainly like to be able to reduce how much water they have to transport to
the front lines," Lear says. "It costs them just as much to transport water asit does fuel." Lear points out that gas turbines are a
common power generator used in everything from jet engines to power plants. The problem with traditional systems is that they
lose efficiency both when not operated at full power and in warm temperatures. Seeking to ease this loss, Lear rerouted the path of
gases passing through the turbine, cooling them via heat exchangers. S.A. Sherif, a University of Florida mechanical engineering
professor and an expert in refrigeration, then tied the system to absorption units, which further cooled the gases. Users can either
tap all the cooling power to obtain peak efficiency for the turbine or divert some energy for refrigeration or air conditioning. Lear
says his experiments and computer models suggest that with all the cooling directed to the turbine, it will be 5% to 8% more
efficient than traditional turbines. With some cooling siphoned for other purposes, the system can still be 3% to 5% more efficient
than conventional turbines. Additionally, compared with traditional gas turbines, the system maintains its efficiency whether
operated at peak or partial power. A few percentage points might not seem like very much. But it makes a spectacular difference
when fuel is scarce or expensive, particularly if refrigeration and water are added bonuses. "Power companies would kill for a 1%
gain," Lear says. The system, which makes water by condensing the turbine's combustion gases, can produce about one gallon of
water for every gallon of fuel burned. The water would need to be treated to be potable. Untreated, however, it could still be used
74
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
for cleaning or other purposes. Because the system reuses gases so efficiently, it also has a very low pollution output. Lear says
further research is needed to make the plant more compact and to enhance its performance. He notes that larger, more powerful
versions could be used in fixed locations as part of the standard power grid. Power utilities, for instance, could build the plant
close to a grocery store ware house that requires both electricity and cooling. Electric Navy Like most of the world, the U.S.
Navy is very interested in developing electric vehicles. Currently dependent on diesel fuel and nuclear energy to power its fleet,
the Navy is looking forward to the day when it will be able to run at least some of its vessels off of batteries. To test the concept,
the Navy has awarded Altairnano, a ceramic nanomaterial developer and manufacturer, a contract to develop a ship-mountable 1-
MW power station. "The ship would still be powered by diesel fuel and generators, but the Altairnano battery would act as the
backup," says Alan Gotcher, Altairnano's president and CEO. Altairnano's battery approach represents a new and safer take on
lithium-ion technology. Since their development, lithium batteries explode: the bigger the battery, the bigger the potential
explosion. Gotcher says his company's NanoSafe battery eliminates lithium ion's explosive nature by forming the anode, the part
that discharges electrons, out of lithium-titanate spinels (Fig. 2). These particles comprise two lithium atoms, three oxygen atoms,
and a titanium atom. Conventional anodes are based on graphite. Graphite flakes can come loose and react with the electrolyte, the
liquid carrying the lithium particles, and start a thermal runaway reaction. Altairnano's anode, however, is inert. "It won't interact
with the electrolyte," Gotcher says. "We haven't had a single failure of a cell in any safety tests, and that includes putting a nail
through the cell and overcharging it." Beyond Navy ships, Altairnano's technology promises to help pave the way for clean-
running, better-performing electric cars, trucks, and buses. Gotcher says it's possible to power a full-sized five-passenger SUV
with a NanoSafe battery (Fig. 3). "It's very fast, meaning [the vehicle] can go from a standing start to 60 miles per hour in eight
seconds," Gotcher says. "It has a range of 135 miles, and you can connect it to a rapid-charge station and completely recharge the
battery pack in less than 10 minutes." The battery can also operate over a wide temperature range, Gotcher notes. "To our
knowledge, we're the only company anywhere in the world who has titanate spinels being used in batteries," Gotcher says (Fig. 4).
"People are stunned at how quickly these batteries can be charged." Gotcher believes it's inevitable that the military will increase
its sponsorship of green research simply because so many eco-friendly technologies have definable tactical and operational
benefits.
"The military has its energy needs, and businesses and consumers have theirs," Gotcher says. "It's great when these interests can
meet in the area of green technology."
75
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency—Military
The army pioneering alt energies now

US Army News Release, 8/15/2007, Army Unveils First Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System for New
Combat Vehicles, http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/08/15/4424-army-unveils-first-hybrid-electric-
propulsion-system-for-new-combat-vehicles/
The Army today unveiled its first hybrid-electric propulsion system for a new fleet of Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs), which
will be tested and evaluated at the Power and Energy Systems Integration Laboratory (P&E SIL) in Santa Clara.
The Army is developing and building eight new MGV variants for 15 Future Combat Systems Brigade Combat Teams (FCS
BCTs). All eight commonly-designed MGV variants will provide Soldiers with enhanced survivability, increased speed and
mobility, new network-based capabilities, and more modern, modular technology. The Army is saving money by employing a
common chassis across all eight MGV variants. Indeed, with 75-80 percent commonality, the MGV chassis significantly reduces
design, production and sustainment costs verses the expense of eight completely different MGV variants.
Solvency - Alt energy has multiplier effect

Multiplier effect from alternative energy boosts solvency

As new technologies are considered, they need to be evaluated, not only for their
operational effectiveness and energy efficiency, but for their multiplier effect,
which occurs when the direct or indirect consequences of an action magnify its
effect. In this context, a technology has a multiplier effect if it reduces fuel consumption
and, in doing so, causes additional reduction in the total burden of providing
fuel. For instance, delivering fuel in the deployed setting requires a long
and energy-intensive logistics tail. When a technology reduces fuel consumption
at the front end, the demands placed on the entire logistics tail decrease, resulting
in savings beyond just the fuel acquisition costs.3 Technologies that may have
high payoff due to the multiplier effect should be given strong consideration for
implementation. New operational concepts can also serve to focus technology
development on capabilities that may have high payoff via a multiplier effect, particularly
if they can reduce the deployed forces required to accomplish an operation.
76
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency – Air starting point

Air force key jumping point for alt energies to rest of U.S.
(Environment News Service, 12/26/07, “Air Force Switches on Largest Solar Power Plant”,
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-26-093.asp)
"As the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, the Air Force is well-positioned to promote both solar
technology and new approaches to its implementation," said Anderson.
"The best way to secure a healthy and prosperous economy is to develop our affordable, reliable local resources,"
said Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, who flipped a switch marking full operation of the system.
"With these 14 megawatts, Nellis Air Force Base is leading the country in solar energy deployment, a move that is
good for the environment and our nation's energy security alike," he said.
77
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Military tech. spills over
THE DOD IS KEY – MILITARY EMPERICALLY INVITES CIVILIAN ACTION ON ENERGY

AND TECHNOLOGY
AEPI [Army Environmental Policy Institute], April 2005, “How The Army Can Be an Environmental Paragon
Through Energy,” Felicia French [LTC, US Army], http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/how-army-can-be-
energy-paragon.pdf
The Army can use our credibility and resources to lead the change to renewable
energy in American society. The Army has been at the forefront of many social (racial
integration, equal pay and promotion), medical (prosthetics, medical evacuation, and anti-
shock trousers) and technological changes (the internet and robotics).
The Army has an opportunity to change its current energy strategy to a strategy that
applies alternate sources of energy because its voracious consumption of fossil fuels
significantly contributes to a long logistics tail. This leadership could also influence the
use of alternative renewable public and private energy.
78
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency – DoD leadership key for gov and commercial sectors
DoD leadership key to solve both for government and commercial sectors

The technology portfolio is diverse, but most of the known dollar investment in R&D is focused on demand-
side opportunities. This is a natural bias, because DoD is a platform-centric organization; that is, its acquisition
and planning is based on weapon system development and support. In fact, a number of supplyside technologies
are being sponsored by industry and other government agencies. Many energy policy practitioners assert that
the private sector and DOE are best positioned to sponsor supply-side energy development and question DoD’s
role on supply-side development. Although this division between government and commercial sources may
represent the best model for advancing the consideration of alternative energy solutions, DoD could take a more
global perspective in integrating energy and operations, trying to fill the gaps by leveraging supply-side
technologies. One area in which additional DoD involvement is clearly appropriate is the development of what
we call “cross-cutting” technologies, technologies that can supply power at the local level and reduce the
demand for bulk energy supplies and the associated logistics burden. Given that DoD’s projected fuel needs can
be met with conventional domestic petroleum production,2 DoD leadership in the development of alternate
liquid fuel production involves a national-level policy decision regarding the appropriateness of DoD’s role as a
change leader. At a minimum, DoD should participate in supply-side technology development to the extent
necessary to ensure that developed products can be applied to DoD uses with little, if any, additional
modification. And, in view of the range of alternatives to provide liquid fuels being pursued by DOE and the
commercial sector, DoD should be mindful of the risk of foreclosing future options by supporting capital-
intensive programs that might then preclude the later development of solutions with higher source to use energy
efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
The change associated with moving away from conventional oil-derived fuels is evolutionary, rather than
revolutionary. The energy density of current fuels makes them difficult to replace within the life span of current
platforms. Most technologies associated with the Energy Security IPT effort offer demand-side savings, which
are valuable but will only provide savings incrementally as they are introduced to the force over time. The life
expectancies—often decades—of DoD systems increase the importance of addressing the energy demands of
legacy platforms and ensuring that energy considerations are properly factored into the design of new
capabilities and replacement capabilities for those platforms reaching the end of their service life.
79
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Military Spillover
Military innovations key to commercial innovation, internet proves/ military

tech spills over, internet proves
Responding to questions after the panel, Secretary Wynne emphasized how the private sector is an important partner for Air Force
alternative energy initiatives. He also noted that civil and commercial innovation often follows military sponsorship of technology
"mega-projects." "Developing a process that will produce new clean synthetic fuels is an ambitious goal," Secretary Wynne said,
"but we have a good track record of succeeding at this sort of project. The military has a unique ability to overcome start up costs
that commerce cannot. "From the Manhattan Project that gave us nuclear energy, to the Atlas Rocket Project that led to
commercial space, to ARPAnet that paved the way for the Internet, the military has often played an important role in moving the
technological ball forward," the secretary said. "What the Air Force is doing today is paving the way for the aviation industry to
become less dependent on an expensive and unstable energy sources and implement more environmentally sound practices," he
said.
80
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency—plan fast
The shift to alternative energy would be rapid with proper funding and
inexpensive because of rising oil prices. Cost benefit analysis favoring oil over
alternatives ignores oil costs and solar benefits while emphasizing the risks of
alternatives.
More important, such analyses tend to suffer from three major deficiencies that exaggerate the difficulties involved with
alternatives. The first is that calculating the costs and benefits of oil against other energy sources is far more complicated than
studies pointing to the cost-ineffectiveness of renewables admit. Many costs of fossil fuel use are easily externalized, distorting the
picture. The cost of pollution, military expenditures aimed at securing oil sources, and other kinds of subsidies mask the actual
price of “cheap” oil—as do the very low gasoline taxes Americans enjoy.6 Certain savings from the distributed energy production
that renewables might allow, while potentially substantial, are not easily or automatically factored into such calculations.7
Moreover, solar, wind, and other sources will become relatively less expensive as oil prices rise. And it also should be noted that
many experts regard wind power as already competitive with fossil fuels in some geographically favorable areas.
The tendency to underestimate the gains that alternatives may bring is reinforced by a broader tendency to stress costs more than
benefits, not only on the part of oil industry boosters, but generally due to the changing nature of political debate.8 The potential
for a rapid changeover also tends to be underestimated, observers forgetting that comparably large transformations have happened
before in a relatively short period of time. Oil became cheaper than coal only in the mid-1950s, a mere 50 years ago. As a result,
coal went from generating 100 percent of Europe’s thermal electricity to less than half by 1973, oil picking up much of the slack
even as overall energy production grew substantially.9
81
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Plan solves fast
Developing new solar and wind technologies would be both cheap and quick
with proper funding.
The second problem with such predictions is their built-in assumption that the relevant technologies will be static. Future
improvements cannot be taken for granted, but are a near-certainty nonetheless, given the prolonged drop in the price of solar- and
wind-generated energy since the 1970s, and the prospects for both continued research and development and mass production. The
already low price of wind power can drop further still, given the potential of innovations like flying wind generators. Capable of
exploiting the jet stream and returning the electricity to the ground through a tether, a few clusters of six hundred each could meet
the entire energy needs of an industrial nation like Canada.10
There are even strong indications that electricity produced by photovoltaic solar cells will, assuming sufficient effort, become
competitive in price with even subsidized, deceptively cheap oil and gas in a matter of years rather than decades. This may be due
to new, low-cost materials; designs which use a greater part of the electromagnetic spectrum; more efficient use of their surface
area; easily installed, self-assembling liquid solar cell coatings; and architectural structures maximizing output.11 Several of these
developments could be flashes in the pan, something to which energy production has sadly been prone; for half a century fusion
power has been “30 years away.” Nevertheless, given the long-term trend of improvement and the number of directions from
which the problem is being attacked, some approaches will likely pay off.
The problem, then, is less the “technical ingenuity” needed to produce these technologies than the “social ingenuity” which will
implement the technologies on a national and global basis.13 Renewable energy technology can potentially do the job; what is
really at issue is whether or not good use will be made of that potential. Nonetheless, the political problem posed by the demise of
the fossil fuel era is not limited to the challenge of constructing a new energy base.
82
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Plan cheap
Developing new solar and wind technologies would be both cheap and quick
with proper funding.
The second problem with such predictions is their built-in assumption that the relevant technologies will be static. Future
improvements cannot be taken for granted, but are a near-certainty nonetheless, given the prolonged drop in the price of solar- and
wind-generated energy since the 1970s, and the prospects for both continued research and development and mass production. The
already low price of wind power can drop further still, given the potential of innovations like flying wind generators. Capable of
exploiting the jet stream and returning the electricity to the ground through a tether, a few clusters of six hundred each could meet
the entire energy needs of an industrial nation like Canada.10
There are even strong indications that electricity produced by photovoltaic solar cells will, assuming sufficient effort, become
competitive in price with even subsidized, deceptively cheap oil and gas in a matter of years rather than decades. This may be due
to new, low-cost materials; designs which use a greater part of the electromagnetic spectrum; more efficient use of their surface
area; easily installed, self-assembling liquid solar cell coatings; and architectural structures maximizing output.11 Several of these
developments could be flashes in the pan, something to which energy production has sadly been prone; for half a century fusion
power has been “30 years away.” Nevertheless, given the long-term trend of improvement and the number of directions from
which the problem is being attacked, some approaches will likely pay off.
The problem, then, is less the “technical ingenuity” needed to produce these technologies than the “social ingenuity” which will
implement the technologies on a national and global basis.13 Renewable energy technology can potentially do the job; what is
really at issue is whether or not good use will be made of that potential. Nonetheless, the political problem posed by the demise of
the fossil fuel era is not limited to the challenge of constructing a new energy base.
83
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Solvency Add On—Airships
Airships possible, more research needed

Surveillance http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf, p1
In sum, the inquiry concluded that long-duration, coast-observing, stratospheric airships using renewable energy systems
were feasible provided appropriate technology investments were made. Although feasible, such airships were not without
many development challenges, and airship size was strongly influenced by the seasons and coastal latitudes.
84
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
A2- Economic Recession
Current alternatives to oil fail due to lack of funds. Critics kill support by
claiming economic recession or lifestyle changes from alt energies while
ignoring the impact of a loss of oil resources.
In short, the oil age may end within a generation given the present economic picture, with potentially dire consequences. The
prospects of alternatives to fossil fuels are therefore the key issue, such as the expanded use of nuclear energy or, ideally,
renewable energy sources. Many observers predict that it will be decades at the very least before these inherently more difficult
energy sources can be exploited on a sufficiently large scale to meet the needs of advanced societies. The use of renewables has
expanded rapidly in recent years, but these energy sources still supply only a small part of overall consumption, even in leaders
like Denmark, where wind energy provides 10 to 15 percent of that country’s electricity. If anything, given the scope of the
problem and the length of time for which it has been around, the pace of actual progress has been frustratingly glacial. While the
pace may be accelerating, a gap between desired levels of energy output and those actually attainable through these means is
conceivable. Nonetheless, the doomsday scenario posited by Kunstler and others is not a necessary outcome. The problem is not
that substitutes do not exist, but that they are, in the view of many analysts, too expensive or too unwieldy to support desired levels
of economic productivity and living standards. There is little doubt that there would be some significant transition costs, as there
are in every major economic change. Observers hostile to these technologies, however, routinely play on popular fears that any
change in the status quo will force Americans to give up their cars, or kill economic growth. Their exaggerations aside, such
arguments conveniently neglect the fact that the exhaustion of oil resources in an unprepared world will be incalculably more
devastating than any plausible adaptation, and that the earlier the transition begins, the easier it will be to spread the costs over
time.
85
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
A2 Ground Forces
Ground forces are inadequate to deal with modern conflicts- lack of precision
and information, inefficient counterinsurgency strategies, inevitable atrocities,
emotional cost, and media spins make it impossible for the U.S. to wage an
effective ground war
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., (Deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force; more than
30 years' service; distinguished graduate of the National War College), 2006, Armed Forces
Journal, http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/09/2009013
Is air power the new face of successful war-fighting? Much to the dismay of the boots-on-the-ground zealots, or
BOTGZ (pronounced bow-togs), the answer for today’s democracies may well be “yes.” During the summer, while
U.S. ground forces in Iraq were distracted investigating potential war criminals in their midst, air power delivered a
major success. The killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was, if not a decisive victory, still the best news of the season.
The summer was also marked by Israel’s extensive reliance on air power against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Although
debates rightly swirl about the propriety of the use of any force, if force is to be used, it is always useful to note the
form it takes when employed by what many believe is the leading counterterrorism and counterinsurgency military
in the world.
As Tom Ricks’ new book about Iraq, “Fiasco,” argues convincingly, absent overwhelming numbers, it is virtually
impossible for even well-equipped and conventionally trained ground forces to defeat terrorist insurgencies in the
midst of sullen populations often sympathetic to the enemy. The struggles of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, the
finest ground forces in the history of warfare, are ample evidence of the strength of Ricks’ thesis.
How to deal with such perplexing situations all too often falls into two related proposals: One, provide
overwhelming numbers of conventional troops; or two, embrace the traditional unconventional wisdom about
counterinsurgencies and ape the methods of such “successes” as the British in the 1950s in Malay, or even the U.S.
experience in the Philippines at the turn of the past century. Actually, such solutions are unworkable for
contemporary American forces.
Why? With respect to the overwhelming numbers scheme, there are daunting practical problems. Specifically, the
end of conscription obliges the U.S. to provide costly incentives to populate our all-volunteer force. With personnel
costs soaring, not even the wealth of the U.S. can support the hundreds of thousands of troops that, for example,
flooded Germany and Japan at end of World War II to prevent resistance to occupation from taking root. Today, such
numbers do not exist and it is unrealistic to believe they are politically feasible to recreate.
Even if the numbers could be assembled, boots on the ground carry significant emotional costs. As television screens
fill with heartbreaking stories of dead and wounded soldiers and their families, such images over time often create
political limitations as to how long a democratic society will sustain an operation like that in Iraq. This is true even
though the casualty rates are, in purely historic military terms, relatively low. This media effect is a fundamental
change from earlier eras.
There is also a dark side. Stephen Ambrose observed in his book “Americans at War” that when you put weapons in
the hands of young men at war, “sometimes terrible things happen that you wish had never happened.” Ambrose
notes that atrocities such as My Lai were not an aberration but, sadly, “a universal aspect of war, from the time of
the ancient Greeks up to the present.” The problem is exacerbated when the insurgency embraces ruthless methods
that make even the most innocent-looking grandfather (and even more tragically, a child) a potential suicide bomber.
Fear, frustration and youth mixed with firepower are a deadly combination and can produce dreadful results. What is
more is that relentless reporting by globalized news outlets turns such incidents into strategic catastrophes.
When thousands of troops are on the ground fighting an insurgency such as that in Iraq, it is, regrettably, all but
inevitable that you will have situations such as Abu Ghraib and Hadithah arise from time to time — horrific and
tragic, but predictable and even unavoidable. Yet, to a degree unprecedented in past conflicts, real and perceived
illegalities are subject to exploitation not just by adversaries but also by legitimate political opponents. Regardless,
the result is an erosion of the public support that democracies need to conduct any kind of protracted military
operation. The point is that, again, information-age realities limit boots-on-the-ground options.
86
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
What about the unconventional wisdom approach? Quoting counterinsurgency manuals from the horse cavalry era is
trendy these days, but the techniques are impractical to implement on a large scale today. Most involve boots on the
ground as a kind of carrot-and-stick force that ingratiates itself with the locals, gains intelligence that makes the
enemy vulnerable to debilitating military action and wins hearts and minds by offering the populace such benefits as
democracy and economic advancement.
There are a number of problems with such methods. In the first place, they assume the military dimension of the
insurgency mirrors the protracted war principles of the post-colonial guerrilla warfare era, which reached their
apogee in Vietnam. Despite the many differences from conventional fighting, such efforts nevertheless sought
decisive victories recognizable in traditional military terms. Think Dien Bien Phu. Today, however, insurgencies
entertain no real expectation of achieving significant military victories against U.S. troops. Instead, they wage a sort
of vicious ritual war, almost wholly aimed at undermining national will.
Most important, their hearts and minds are simply not amenable to the reasoned techniques that underlay classic
counterinsurgency texts. They are not rational actors in the sense that they are propelled by some political or social
ideology; instead, they are driven by unyielding religious fanaticism. In the past, such insurgencies did exist and
were crushed the old-fashioned way: by annihilation. That is not exactly a viable option in a world where human
rights groups, the media and others too often choose to find something good about the most sadistic terrorist
organizations.
87
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
A2 Ground Forces
Counterinsurgency strategies for ground forces are outdated and useless- the
relevance of mass ground forces in modern warfare is gone and their
inadequacy ends up hurting U.S. power and readiness by not meeting national
or global expectations
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., (Deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force; more than
30 years' service; distinguished graduate of the National War College), 2006, Armed Forces
Journal, http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/09/2009013
INADEQUATE WESTERN SOLUTIONS
In contemporary debates, it is fashionable to say that better living conditions, job opportunities, education and health
care will win over hostile populations. If only it were that simple. These are inadequate Western solutions to the far
more complex challenge of religious fervor. Few of our most recalcitrant foes express much interest, for example, in
mere economic development; indeed, it can be a big part of what some explicitly reject as morally corrupt.
Moreover, Americans — at least for the next several generations — will not be able to execute the kinder, gentler
kind of civic action approaches intrinsic to the formula the popular counterinsurgency disciples preach. In the Iraq
and post-Iraq era, it will be easy to upend well-intended boots-on-the-ground efforts by U.S. forces. Rightly or
wrongly, America’s power and status make any U.S. person on the ground a walking target capable of providing the
most modestly talented insurgent a strategic victory.
In fact, a few assassinations or a couple of kidnappings place a civic-action/community-outreach strategy in trouble.
Before it gets a chance to jell, a hearts-and-minds effort gets closed down. Why? Today’s technology makes it too
easy for heartless insurgents to turn a group of Americans innocently handing candy to schoolchildren into a gory,
front-page horror story about improvised explosive devices, mangled bodies and traumatized parents. Who gets
blamed? Rarely the insurgents. Instead, the incident becomes another example of unmet expectations about
American power.
There is another aspect to this issue that the BOTGZ find infuriating: Recalibrating the U.S. military to fight
counterinsurgency wars is bad for national security writ large. In too many ways, it amounts to preparing to fight the
last war — that is, strategically speaking, Iraq. The current American generation is likely the last for decades that
will try to impose a Western-style democracy on societies that are clearly not ready to embrace it. It is too costly in
every respect, and the people the effort is intended to emancipate are too ungrateful.
Thus, about the time the Army and Marine Corps perfect their counterinsurgency/counterterrorism methodologies,
the last planeload of American troops will be seeing Baghdad disappearing beneath the clouds. The U.S. will be left
with a lot of light infantry, plenty of Arab linguists and loads of democracy-in-a-box kits. What the boots-on-the-
ground force, so configured, will not have is any relevance to the truly scary threats of the 21st century: a rising
China or other peer competitor emerging from the rapidly changing economic dynamics of the new century.
Plan Bipart
88
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
THE PLAN IS BIPART – ENERGY AND TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2008 PROVES
Money Rx, 5/22/08, "Washington Fuels Alternative Energy Drive," http://www.money-

rx.com/blog/2008/05/washington-fuels-alternative-energy.html
And, now that everybody and his uncle wants an instant solution to the oil crisis, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed H.R. 6049 (pdf file), the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, by a 263-160 vote. The
$54 billion tax package is a wide-ranging bill that includes $17 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy
sources such as wind and solar power, carbon capture and sequestration projects, plug-in cars and technology
for green buildings. In addition it provides $8.8 billion over 10 years to renew the research and development tax
credit and creates a new category of tax credit bonds to finance state and local government initiatives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
It's on its way to the Senate, where Senate Republicans indicate they might filibuster the bill, and the Bush
Administration has already indicated that it plans to veto the bill, because it contains measures to increase tax
revenue meant to balance the Democrats' pay-go system. Inspite of all these partisan hurdles, the very fact that
Congress is concerned enough about the oil situation that it has started looking seriously at alternative energy,
and is providing $8.8 billion to promote research and green initiatives at the state and local level, is good news
for the alternative energy sector.
Put together, the U.S. Military's embrace and funding of green products and solutions, coupled with 'bipartisan'
support from Congress, is enough to make independence from fossil fuels a credible reality in the next few
years. Let's hope they have the sense to push it through.
89
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
Plan Bipart
PLAN IS BIPART – GOP AND DEMS CAN BOND OVER THE SECURITY THREAT CLIMATE CHANGE
POSES
Bryan Walsh [staff writer, Time Magazine], 4/16/08, "Does Global Warming Compromise National Security?,"
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Climate change is usually characterized as an environmental threat, but it wasn't melting icebergs or endangered
polar bears that made Warner change his mind. "I have focused above all on issues of national security," Warner
said after the bill passed committee. "I see the problem of global climate change fitting squarely within that
focus." For Warner, unchecked global warming could create a world that is inherently more dangerous for the
U.S. Acting to mitigate climate change was another way of keeping America safe. It's a message that resonates
with Americans who would sooner log a tree than hug it, and raises the possibility that conservatives and
liberals might find common ground on climate change. "I find [conservatives] skeptical on this issue," says
James Woolsey, a right-leaning Democrat who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency between 1993
and 1995, under former President Bill Clinton. "But when I mention the connection to security, suddenly things
like solar power start looking a lot better."
90
Military Aff
DDI 2008 <CM>
AT: MILITARISM
CASE SOLVES – OIL DEPENDENCE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF MILITARISM
John Bellamy Foster [prof sociology, University of Oregon], July/August 2008, "Peak Oil and Energy
Imperialism," Global Policy Forum Monthly Review,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2008/07peakoil.htm
The rise in overt militarism and imperialism at the outset of the twenty-first century can plausibly be attributed
largely to attempts by the dominant interests of the world economy to gain control over diminishing world oil
supplies.[1] Beginning in 1998 a series of strategic energy initiatives were launched in national security circles
in the United States in response to: (1) the crossing of the 50 percent threshold in U.S. importation of foreign
oil; (2) the disappearance of spare world oil production capacity; (3) concentration of an increasing percentage
of all remaining conventional oil resources in the Persian Gulf; and (4) looming fears of peak oil.
The response of the vested interests to this world oil supply crisis was to construct what Michael Klare in Blood
and Oil has called a global "strategy of maximum extraction."[2] This required that the United States as the
hegemonic power, with the backing of the other leading capitalist states, seek to extend its control over world
oil reserves with the object of boosting production. Seen in this light, the invasion and occupation of
Afghanistan (the geopolitical doorway to Western access to Caspian Sea Basin oil and natural gas) following the
9/11 attacks, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the rapid expansion of U.S. military activities in the Gulf of Guinea in
Africa (where Washington sees itself as in competition with Beijing), and the increased threats now directed at
Iran and Venezuela—all signal the rise of a dangerous new era of energy imperialism.
91

Military Affirmative

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

Military Affirmative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Military Aff

DDI 2008 <CM>

Military tech. spills over......................................................................................................................................78

American air power is the lynchpin of American military readiness- high

New solar technology is critical to preserving air power

Military and Aerospace Electronics, 8/12/05,

State of the art airpower is key to deterring U.S. challengers

Retaining U.S. tech dominance is key to U.S. leadership

The Air Force Research Laboratory is empirically effective at developing new

Government can save the alternative energy industry, empirically proven

The AFRL is the world leader on alternative energy technologies, making it an

Air force working with Alt energies now

The Army is currently pioneering alt energy development with hybrids

AFRL currently researching alternative energy

Current oil military oil use is inefficient and expensive.

The U.S. alternative energy industry is in stagnation. Lack of government

Airforce currently trying to reduce energy

THE DOD IS READY AND WILLING TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY OPTIONS

LARGEST CONSUMER OF FOSSIL FUELS IN THE US – THEY'RE DEVELOPING

Airships are almost here but need research

Current wide area surveillance projects inefficient

High oil consumption by the Air Force currently

Competitiveness- Oil Bad

Current oil military oil use is inefficient and expensive.

Alt Energy Key Competitiveness/Military key to alt. E

Alt Energies Key Competitiveness/Gov. Key

Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness

Replacing oil usewith Alternatives in the military is a nessecity for readiness

Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness

Alt fuel key to readiness

Alternative fuel is key to military readiness and national security

Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness

Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness

Alternative energy use will become crucial to military readiness

Alt. E key to readiness/competitiveness

Oil kills readiness

Oil kills readiness

Solar planes key readiness

Long endurance high altitude solar planes possible

Alt. E key to Air Force

New fuel sources key to air force fuel supplies

Solvency – alternative energy / solar power key to air power

Solar power key to new air force technology and effectiveness

Air Force key Readiness/Heg

Air Force key Readiness/Heg

Air power key to heg/readiness

Adv. Air key to heg/readiness

Air power is the best means of U.S. power projection

Air tech. key to Navy

Air tech key to naval power

Airships reduce military stress on coasts

Biofuels not a panacea, other factors must be accounted for

Oil kills Econ/Runs out

Econ Impact- Oil Competition

Oil Impact—econ collapse/war

Adv. Peak oil = econ collapse

Smooth Econ transition

Air Force key to alt. E

Partnering with aviation key to develop alternative fuel market

Military dev. key

U.S. military’s technology development is unparalleled.

Solvency – AFRL world leader

AFRL SOLVES – WORLD LEADER ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECH

U.S. military key