P. 1
Solar Satellites Affirmative (2)

Solar Satellites Affirmative (2)

|Views: 265|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2012

Sections

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

The Solar Military Affirmative
The Solar Military Affirmative.............................................................................................................................1
1AC Military................................................................................................................................................................................................2

**Readiness**
Readiness Low...........................................................................................................................................................................................15 Depending on oil bad.................................................................................................................................................................................17 Alternatives key to readiness.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Solar solves readiness................................................................................................................................................................................25 Readiness key to heg..................................................................................................................................................................................26 Energy key to military...............................................................................................................................................................................28 Heg Low.....................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Heg Good...................................................................................................................................................................................................32 AT: Oil dependence kills heg....................................................................................................................................................................34

**Public**
Casualties hurt Public Support...................................................................................................................................................................35 Casualties hurt Public Support- Iraq..........................................................................................................................................................37 Public Support Low- Iraq...........................................................................................................................................................................38 Public Support key to Heg.........................................................................................................................................................................39

**Iraq**
Oil dependence makes war Inevitable.......................................................................................................................................................41 Alternatives key to Iraq..............................................................................................................................................................................44 Readiness key to Iraq.................................................................................................................................................................................50 Readiness Low- Iraq..................................................................................................................................................................................53 Iraq War Inevitable....................................................................................................................................................................................55 Stabilize Iraq Possible................................................................................................................................................................................56 Instability Bad............................................................................................................................................................................................57 Oil Shocks bad- China Scenario................................................................................................................................................................59 AT: Withdrawal Inevitable........................................................................................................................................................................60 AT: Obama will Pullout.............................................................................................................................................................................61 AT: Withdrawal CP...................................................................................................................................................................................63

**Competitiveness**
No Investment Now...................................................................................................................................................................................65 Plan Key to Spinoff....................................................................................................................................................................................66 Plan key to competitiveness.......................................................................................................................................................................68 Plan key to growth.....................................................................................................................................................................................69 Plan key to tech..........................................................................................................................................................................................70

1

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani
Plan key to Alt Energy Industry.................................................................................................................................................................71 Tech solves Growth...................................................................................................................................................................................72 Competitiveness Key to Heg.....................................................................................................................................................................73 Competitiveness Key to Economy.............................................................................................................................................................74

**Add-On Advantage**
Spec Ops Add-On......................................................................................................................................................................................75

**Solvency**
Battery shortage now.................................................................................................................................................................................77 Solar solves batteries .................................................................................................................................................................................78 Solar Cells solve supply lines....................................................................................................................................................................79 Solar key to stealth.....................................................................................................................................................................................80 Solar key to bases.......................................................................................................................................................................................81 Base key to mobility..................................................................................................................................................................................82 AT: No Solar Tech.....................................................................................................................................................................................83 AT: don’t work in dark..............................................................................................................................................................................84 AT: Oil shocks kill DoD............................................................................................................................................................................85

**Answers to Offcase Position**
2AC Hydrogen FC CP...............................................................................................................................................................................86 Hydrogen/FC Bad......................................................................................................................................................................................87 AT: Fuel Cells soon...................................................................................................................................................................................90 2AC Biofuels CP........................................................................................................................................................................................91 2AC Efficiency CP....................................................................................................................................................................................92 2AC Wind Power.......................................................................................................................................................................................93 Wind Power Bad........................................................................................................................................................................................94 AT: Synthetic Fuels CP.............................................................................................................................................................................95 AT Ethanol CP- Aviation Turn..................................................................................................................................................................97 AT: States CP: DoD Tradeoff Turn.........................................................................................................................................................100 AT: States CP- DoD Refusal Turn...........................................................................................................................................................102 AT: States CP- USFG Key......................................................................................................................................................................103 AT: Politics- Plan Popular.......................................................................................................................................................................104 AT: Politics- Plan Unpopular...................................................................................................................................................................106 AT: Spending- Plan Inexpensive/Cost Efficient .....................................................................................................................................107

2

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

1AC Military
Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase funding for the Department of Defense for the development of photovoltaic technologies for military application. Contention 1: Hegemony A. Readiness

Military readiness is at an all time low
Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 4-2-2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102444.html?hpid=topnews Senior Army and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years. In a stark assessment a week before Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to testify on the war's progress, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military. "When the five-brigade surge went in . . . that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army," Cody testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's readiness panel. He said that even if five brigades are pulled out of Iraq by July, as planned, it would take some time before the Army could return to 12-month tours for soldiers. Petraeus is expected to call for a pause in further troop reductions to assess their impact on security in Iraq. "I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.

A military fueled by oil is unsustainable – use of alternatives is key
Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe,
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_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." The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

3

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Solar energy is ready, but not for military purposes
Bennett Daviss, award winning freelance technology writer, December 8, 2007, Here comes the sun; New Scientist FEATURES; Cover Story; Pg. 32-37, l/n The prospect of relying on the sun for all our power demands - conservatively estimated at 15 terawatts in 2005 - is finally becoming realistic thanks to the rising price of fossil fuels, an almost universal acceptance of the damage they cause, plus mushrooming investment in the development of solar cells and steady advances in their efficiency. The tried-and-tested method of using the heat of the sun to generate electricity is already hitting the big time , but the really big breakthroughs are happening in photovoltaic (PV) cells. Ever since the first PV cell was created by Bell Labs in 1954, the efficiency with which a cell can convert light into electricity has been the technology's Achilles' heel. The problem is rooted in the way PV cells work. At the heart of every PV cell is a semiconducting material, which when struck by a photon liberates an electron. This can be guided by a conductor into a circuit, leaving behind a "hole" which is filled by another electron from the other end of the circuit, creating an electric current . Photons from the sun arrive at the semiconductor sporting many different energies, not all of which will liberate an electron. Each semiconducting material has a characteristic "band gap" - an energy value which photons must exceed if they are to dislodge the semiconductor's electrons. If the photons are too weak they pass through the material, and if they are too energetic then only part of their energy is converted into electricity, the rest into heat. Some are just right, and the closer the photons are to matching the band gap, the greater the efficiency of the PV cell. Bell Labs discovered that silicon, which is cheap and easy to produce, has one of the best band gaps for the spectrum of photon energies in sunlight. Even so, their first cell had an efficiency of only 6 per cent. For a long time improvements were piecemeal, inching up to the mid-teens at best, and at a cost only military and space exploration programmes could afford. The past decade has seen a sea change as inexpensive cells with an efficiency of 20 per cent have become a commercial reality, while in the lab efficiencies are leaping forward still further. Last year, Allen Barnett and colleagues at the University of Delaware, Newark, set a new record with a design that achieved 42.8 per cent energy conversion efficiency. Barnett says 50 per cent efficiency on a commercial scale is now within reach. Such designs, married to modern manufacturing techniques, mean costs are falling fast too . As a result, in parts of Japan, California and Italy, where the retail price of electricity is among the world's highest, the cost of solar-generated electricity is now close to, and in some cases matches, that of electricity generated from natural gas and nuclear power, says Michael Rogol, a solar industry analyst with Photon Consulting, based in Aachen, Germany. For example, in the US the average price of conventionally generated electricity is around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. The cost of solar-generated electricity has fallen to roughly double that. This has created a booming market for PV cells - now growing by around 35 per cent annually - and private investors are starting to take a serious interest. The value of stocks in companies whose business focuses primarily on solar power has grown from $40 billion in January 2006 to more than $140 billion today, making solar power the fastestgrowing sector in the global marketplace. George W. Bush has acknowledged this new dawn, setting aside $168 million of federal funds for the Solar America Initiative, a research programme that aims to make the cost of PV technology competitive with other energy technologies in the US by 2015. Rogol thinks Bush's target is achievable. He says the cost of manufacturing PV equipment has fallen to the point where, in some places, PV-generated electricity could already be produced for less than conventional electricity. Manufacture PV cells at $1 per watt of generating capacity and the cost should be competitive everywhere.

4

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Solar energy increases readiness through troop stealth, flexibility, and efficiency Josh Gartner, 6-29-04, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/64021
During a battle, the ability to move troops swiftly and without detection can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The U.S. Army is developing tents and uniforms made from flexible solar panels to make it more difficult to track soldiers. Jean Hampel, project engineer in the Fabric Structures Group at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said the need to reduce the Army's logistics footprint spurred interest in developing lightweight solar panels. "We want to cut back on the things that soldiers have to bring with them," including generators and personal battery packs, Hampel said. In modern warfare, portable power for communications technology is every bit as important as firepower and manpower. The Army is testing flexible solar panels developed by Iowa Thin Film Technologies that can be layered on top of a tent, or rolled up into a backpack to provide a portable power source. Tents using solar panels made from amorphous silicon thin film on plastic can provide up to 1 kilowatt of energy, which is sufficient to power fans, lights, radios or laptops, according to Hampel. Hampel said using solar tents would reduce the need for diesel powered generators and diminish the "thermal signature" that enemy sensors use to track troop location. She said soldiers could carry smaller flexible solar panels and unfold them during the day to collect energy to recharge their personal communications equipment.This would enable soldiers to lighten their loads of extra battery packs, which are sometimes left behind and reveal the soldiers' presence, according to Hampel. While Iowa Thin Film's PowerFilm products are ready for field use, the Army's "type classification" process, which enables them to be purchased in bulk, will require one to two years of additional testing.

US military readiness is key to sustainable hegemony Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICA’S DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, p. 90
Fourth, it should go without saying that America's performance in the role of sheriff of world order can endure no longer than its military preeminence. This is not to deny that military power rests upon economic strength, social attitudes, and political culture. How - ever, wealth and sensible attitudes are of little use if they are not mobilized and organized into usable military capabilities. In the political context outlined above under points one and two, a judicial combination of sustained, unmatched financial allocations to defense functions, along with an sustained, commitment to modernization, should preserve the U.S. military lead for as long as is feasible. It s important to recognize that the character of a meaningful military lead must be distinctly enemy and scenario specific. The United States requires military power both so formidable that would-be enemies are greatly discouraged from attempting to compete, as well as flexible, adaptable, and decisively useable as to carry the highly plausible promise of being able to impose prompt defeat upon any enemy. So much for aspirations. In practice, the enemies of America ' world order will assuredly seek to compete militarily in practicable ways. It is to be hoped that American military prowess will be so broad and flexible that neither rogues nor traditional foes will find military paths for effective competition, svmmetrical or asymmetrical. The military power of the American sheriff must imply reassurance to many and contingent menace to a few. For some years to come, at least pending the emergence of a serious geopolitical rival, the threats inherent in the U.S. military establishment carry no specific address label. They are simply addressed to those whom this military power must concern. Although mass is always important in military affairs, how best to maintain, and preferably, to extend, a long military lead is not so easily calculated as once seemed possible. Net assessment was rarely as straightforward an exercise as was implied by journalists' lists, comprising, say, soldiers under arms, divisions, and equipment holdings. With the age of mass warfare probably defunct, for the United States at least, the military lead in need of protection and enhancement is the lead that translates into desired strategic outcomes. For many people, this requires a traumatic shift of analytical focus from military inputs to military outputs and their probable political consequences. At the time of this writing, the military profession in the United States and Britain has discovered what it terms "effects-based warfare."

5

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani US leadership is key to solving all the worlds problems – European, Asian, Middle-eastern wars, economic collapse, nuclear proliferation and use.
Khalilzad 95, Defense Analyst at RAND (Zalmay, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The
Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84) Realistically and over the longer term, however, a neo-isolationist approach might well increase the danger of major conflict, require a greater U.S. defense effort, threaten world peace, and eventually undermine U.S. prosperity. By withdrawing from Europe and Asia, the United States would deliberately risk weakening the institutions and solidarity of the world's community of democratic powers and so establishing favorable conditions for the spread of disorder and a possible return to conditions similar to those of the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. isolationism had disastrous consequences for world peace. At that time, the United States was but one of several major powers. Now that the United States is the world's preponderant power, the shock of a U.S. withdrawal could be even greater. What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed. At present, mainstream sentiment in the two major U.S. political parties rejects isolationism as a national strategy, even though both have elements favoring it. It is possible, however, that without a vision and grand strategy, the United States might follow policies that result in at least some of the consequences of a neo-isolationist strategy.

6

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani B. The Public

Solar panels key to secure outposts and limit casualties
Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 9/7/2006 In the Iraqi war zone, U.S. Army calls for 'green' power, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-09-07-army-green-power_x.htm Apparently, the brass is heeding that call. The U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF), which speeds frontline requests, is "expected soon" to begin welcoming proposals from companies to build and ship to Iraq 183 frontline renewable-energy power stations, an REF spokesman confirms. The stations would use a mix of solar and wind power to augment diesel generators at U.S. outposts, the spokesman says. Despite desert temperatures, the hot "thermal signature" of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to U.S. outposts, experts say. With convoys still vulnerable to ambush, the fewer missions needed to resupply outposts with JP-8 fuel to run power generators — among the Army's biggest fuel guzzlers — the better, the memo says. "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," reads the unclassified memo posted on the website InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month.

Casualties destroy the public support which is critical to military operations 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, Junaid 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.

Lack of public support hurts US primacy Richard K. Betts (Arnold Saltzman Prof War and Peace Studies Columbia, SIPA), 2005, International Affairs, The Political Support System for American Primacy. 81(1), 1-14.
There is dissent in the United States from the enthusiasm for exploiting primacy, but the dissenters have been unable to capture a base big enough to exert political leverage. Primacy has so far been popular among Americans— and tolerated by foreigners—because of the balance between moral and material interests. Americans have long been able to indulge moral interests (for example, promotion of values such as democracy and human rights) because Americans’ margins of material power and security are so large that it is often easy to do so at low cost, and if mistakes are made they rarely hurt them much. In terms of material costs and benefits, Americans are happy to intervene abroad if the benefits for foreigners and American amour propre are high while the costs in American blood and treasure are low. In this, and in the conditional approval conferred by other major states (when US control proceeds under the norms and forms of international consultation and cooperation with inter- national institutions), we see the global hegemony of classic liberal ideology, and political globalization as western hegemony within which the United States is dominant. The liberal values that Americans used to think of as part of their national exceptionalism have now permeated the identity, policies and diplomacy of the rest of the developed world. In the twenty-first century the old realist norms of balance-of-power politics traditionally associated with European diplomacy, and rejected by Wilsonian idealism, now have scarcely more overt respect in other rich countries than they do in the United States. Periodically, however, material interests diverge from moral motives. This happens with greatest impact when costs are miscalculated because US leaders confuse power in terms of material resources (economic and military) with power to bring about political reform in non-western societies (such as South Vietnam, Somalia or Iraq). Failure has been all that modifies ambitious objectives, and it may be all that restrains the exercise of US primacy. (The exception is the ‘war on terror’, where a future failure against Al-Qaeda and its ilk could lead not to retrenchment but to increased American ferocity. 7

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

8

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Contention 2: Iraq Bush will not listen to political resistance, he is intent on keeping troops in Iraq Bloomberg 7/4/2007 (Roger Runningen, Bush Lauds Troops, Vows to Resist Pullout `Politics', 2007,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aygrGQml1wL8&refer=home) President George W. Bush said U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are battling tyranny to defend the freedom that Americans celebrate today on Independence Day, calling it a ``vital and just'' mission. The president, speaking to a crowd of West Virginia Air National Guard soldiers and their families in Martinsburg, said he will resist political

pressure to remove U.S. military personnel from Iraq. ``We long for the day when there are far fewer'' troops in Iraq, Bush told about 1,000 people gathered in an aircraft hangar. ``Yet withdrawing our troops prematurely, based on politics,'' instead of advice from commanders on the ground, ``would not be in our national interest.'' Lack of energy efficient tech makes US army vulnerable in Iraq and prolongs conflict Defense Industry Daily, 3-17-06, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/energy-conservation-moving-uppentagons-agenda-02036, Junaid
DID has covered contracts that begin to illustrate the US military’s massive requirement for fuel, and also noted measures like wind power installations, the US Navy’s alternative energy projects, R&D efforts like camouflage solar structure surfaces from Konarka, Solar Integrated, et. al., the installation of fuel cells, and more. And how about this solar parking lot? Meanwhile, advanced green technologies like hybrid drive vehicles offer both fuel economy and stealth benefits in combat, a significant plus in the urban warfare scenarios that appear to be such a big part of future wars. The truth is that the military can’t live without fuel, but every gallon of it is both a logistics burden and a financial burden.While some military items cannot realistically be converted, every conservation success or renewable energy conversion within the military’s jurisdiction makes it more deployable to the field, and more selfsufficient once there. Now add the fact that diversified “green infrastructure” lowers vulnerability to the kind of “system disruption” attacks one sees in Iraq, and the military/ security benefits become compelling. That means the military will be willing to invest in these technologies even when the dollars and cents case alone may be in question. It’s a trend that has already started… and it’s about to pick up speed.

Lack of alternative fuels will jeopardize Iraq Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, CS Monitor, 9-7-06, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.htm, Junaid
But another cost is time. Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to replace fuel, victory could be forfeited. "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."

9

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Solar panels Key to winning in Iraq Defense News, 8-15-2006, Renewable Energy Demand Reaches U.S. Front Lines, http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?
newsid=12776 To fight in smaller, more agile and distributed forces on such battlefields will require shedding impediments that slow a unit's ability to react to rapidly changing battlefield developments. "Clearly, dragging around a lot of tanker trucks is an impediment," Pudas said. He cited a recent Pentagon study that said 70 percent of what the Army hauls around the battlefield is fuel. The U.S. military is in many ways far ahead of the civilian sector in using renewable energy, said Amory Lovins, chief executive of the Rocky Mountain Institute and co-author of "Winning the Oil Endgame." While solar and wind generation are in use at military installations around the world, this is the first known request for such systems from a front-line commander, he said. Lovins has urged the military to develop a decentralized power system in Iraq, not so vulnerable to insurgent attacks, and said there exists real potential with solar and wind power. Because of the number of sunlight days in Iraq, it is an ideal locale for solar power, he said. The Pentagon's fuel cost calculations have traditionally been based on wholesale prices, and have not taken into account the actual cost of delivering it to frontline units, said Lovins, who advises a Defense Science Board panel on fuel efficiency. Before the Iraq war, "fuel logistics were assumed to be free and uninterruptible."

Instability causes war, Oil shocks, terrorism, and a loss of heg CFR, Council on Foreign Affairs, March 2004, www.cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_yearafter.pdf, Junaid
Iraq will unavoidably be a subject of debate during the U.S. presidential campaign. This debate will almost certainly encompass the original decision to go to war as well as postwar political transition and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Nonetheless, Task Force members, who represent broadly diverse political perspectives, are united in their position that the United States has a critical interest in a stable Iraq whose leadership represents the will of its people. Civil conflict in Iraq, the alternative to peaceful political competition, would risk intervention by and competition for influence among Iraq’s neighbors, long-term instability in the production and supply of oil, and the emergence of a failed state that could offer a haven to terrorists. It would also represent a monumental policy failure for the United States, with an attendant loss of power and influence in the region. Although U.S. engagement cannot guarantee success, a diminished U.S. commitment to Iraq during a transfer of sovereignty would increase the likelihood of policy failure. In fact, in the months ahead, the U.S. government will have to sharpen its approach and increase its commitment of resources in several critical areas. As one analyst has written, the United States government must “recognize that the future of Iraq (and through it, the future of the entire Middle East) is very much in our hands. …[I]f the United States is unwilling to shoulder the burden of leading the reconstruction—economically, politically, and militarily—for years to come, it will fail.”

Oil price shocks cause extinction
Malcolm Riddoch, Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries at Edith Cowan University, 9/12/04, Australia: Peak Oil - A Perfect Storm, http://www.energybulletin.net/2076.html In the coming energy/wealth decline there will be increasing pressure to concentrate the remaining wealth in the industrial and military sectors that need it most, at the expense of everyone else and their democratic and human rights. The US already seems to be going this way as the presidency isolates itself even further from congressional oversight and Bush starts to rule by decree. At the same time there is a gigantic flight of US federal funds into the corporate and military sectors and an even larger tax break for the wealthy. Following a global economic collapse this plutocratic rule will probably turn into a free for all, the worst case scenario being a form of globalised capitalist totalitarian feudalism some time after 2010. With the rise of totalitarianism there follows the total mobilisation of a nation's human and material resources in a total war of annihilation against all competitors. That is the logic of modernity and its great power games, our historical precedent is the rise of Nazism and the slaughter of WW2. The coming world war, however, will be fought with tactical nuclear weapons against non-nuclear or weak nuclear opponents, and one might hope that this limited nuclear warfare would not trigger a much more dangerous nuclear showdown between any number of major nuclear powers. Once unleashed, nuclear escalation may take on a life of its own as that is the very nature of total war, its proponents are ultimately driven to take total chances resulting in either total success or annihilation.

10

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Failure in Iraq will cause regional terrorism and nuclear war- zero question of withdrawal Reuel Marc Gerecht, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1-8-07, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25407/pub_detail.asp, Junaid
If we leave Iraq any time soon, the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that consumes all of Arab Iraq, and quite possibly Kurdistan, too. Once the Shia become both badly bloodied and victorious, raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. A horrific fight with the Sunni Arabs will inevitably draw in support from the ferociously anti-Shiite Sunni religious establishments in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and on the Shiite side from Iran. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords, who will by then dominate their community, for a conflict with the Kurds. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq, which means occupying the Sunni triangle, this won't happen. A strong, aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the Shiite community. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. The worst elements in the Iranian regime are heavily concentrated in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence, the two organizations most active inside Iraq. The Lebanese Hezbollah is also present giving tutorials. These forces need increasing strife to prosper. Imagine Iraqi Shiites, battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis, spiritually and operationally linking up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic militants, driven from Iraq, joining up with groups like al Qaeda, living to die killing Americans. Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arab refugees. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. They've escaped extinction several times. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of militant, angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the epicenter of the Middle East, the mass migration of Iraq's Sunni Arabs into Jordan will bury what small chances remain that the Israelis and Palestinians will find an accommodation. With Jordan in trouble, overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis, peaceful Palestinian evolution on the West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail. The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. Sunni Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in Mesopotamia, which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis, who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency, will feel even more threatened, especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With America in full retreat from Iraq, the clerical regime, which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft, could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. If the Americans are retreating, hit them. That would not be just a radical Shiite view; it was the learned estimation of Osama bin Laden and his kind before 9/11. It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has advanced the radical Sunni holy war against the United States. There should be no question, however, that an American defeat in Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists. Al Qaeda and its militant Iraqi allies could dominate western Iraq for years--it could take awhile for the Shiites to drive them out. How in the world could the United States destroy these devils when it no longer had forces on the ground in Anbar? Air power? Would we helicopter Special Forces from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf into a distant war zone when our intelligence information on this desert region was--as it would surely be-somewhere between poor and nonexistent? Images of Desert One in 1980 come to mind. Neither Jordan nor Kuwait may be eager to lend its airfields for American operations that intend to kill Sunnis who are killing Shiites.

11

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Contention 3: Competition The US is losing out on billions – development of domestic industries is critical to technological competitiveness. Sawin, Greenpeace, 2002 (March, “Climate Wise” http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?

NewsID=20066)
We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers. U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace. If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that come with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future. With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001. Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in Germany. The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for renewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that for renewable energy technologies.

Military action can ensure civilian spillover motivating companies to develop the best technology. Staten island Advance 5/29/08
If an entity as large and economically powerful as the U.S. military makes a commitment to synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources, that work create a huge built-in market for any company able to produce and sell synfuels and other non-oil based energy. And such companies will inevitably want to expand their market and sell these alternative energy products to other customers beside the Pentagons sound iniative could very well the impetus for a revolutionary shift in how we think about and use energy. That can only be a good thing.

Innovation in the military leads to industrial and economic growth
Marcela Miozo. Vivien Walsh.2006 International Competitiveness and Technology change P. 351-352 The “dual use” phenomenon is endemic to the technological realm: thus industrial advances may often benefit both commerce and military capability. A good example of this can be seen in early 19th century advances in ship design and propulsion. The age of steam and steel And that was exactly what the Royal Navy strove to do –to stretch out the useful liver lives of its sailing vessels, and to manage the pace of change in naval propulsion and architecture. ships portended both revolution in seabourne commerce as well as navel warfare. For Brittan , by far the leading naval power of the day, this posed the prospect of losing the overwhelming advantage it possessed in sailing ship of the line. The security oriented issue provided incentives, therefore to slow the diffusion of technologies that were reshaping the merchant and naval fleets of the world.

12

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and causes a collapse Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html|
But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating, showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices, worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates. Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic and financial collapse but social and political chaos.

Economic decline causes a nuclear war Mead, 1992( Walter Russell, NPQ’S Board of advisors, New perspectives quarterly, summer 1992, page 30 )
Hundreds of millions – billions – 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 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Contention 4- Solvency Funding and defense contracts best – Australia proves Government News, 6-23-2008, Soldiers to be solar powered,
http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2008/06/23/article/HHUVBSVXUK.html Australian soldiers will be able to wear and carry new solar technology embedded uniforms and gears, now that researchers at Australian National University (ANU) have won a major defence contract. The Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems (CSES) at ANU has received $2.1 million in defence funding to develop micro-thin and flexible solar energy panels for security applications. Professor Andrew Blakers, who leads the project team, said: “We’re very excited about this possibility to extend solar power technology into portable and wearable applications.

Research infrastructure already exists in the US UDaily, 7-23-07, UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on $100 million project,
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html Using a novel technology that adds multiple innovations to a very high-performance crystalline silicon solar cell platform, a consortium led by the University of Delaware has achieved a record-breaking combined solar cell efficiency of 42.8 percent from sunlight at standard terrestrial conditions. That number is a significant advance from the current record of 40.7 percent announced in December and demonstrates an important milestone on the path to the 50 percent efficiency goal set by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In November 2005, the UD-led consortium received approximately $13 million in funding for the initial phases of the DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) program to develop affordable portable solar cell battery chargers. Combined with the demonstrated efficiency performance of the very high efficiency solar cells' spectral splitting optics, which is more than 93 percent, these recent results put the pieces in place for a solar cell module with a net efficiency 30 percent greater than any previous module efficiency and twice the efficiency of state-of-the-art silicon solar cell modules.

Maintaining funding will allow us to have solar tech before 2010 UDaily, 7-23-07, UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on $100 million project,
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html The consortium's goal is to create solar cells that operate at 50 percent in production, Barnett said. With the fresh funding and cooperative efforts of the DuPont-UD consortium, he said it is expected new high efficiency solar cells could be in production by 2010. The highly efficient VHESC solar cell uses a novel lateral optical concentrating system that splits solar light into three different energy bins of high, medium and low, and directs them onto cells of various light sensitive materials to cover the solar spectrum. The system delivers variable concentrations to the different solar cell elements. The concentrator is stationary with a wide acceptance angle optical system that captures large amounts of light and eliminates the need for complicated tracking devices. The VHESC would have immediate application in the high-technology military, which increasingly relies upon a variety of electronics for individual soldiers and the equipment that supports them. As well, it is hoped the solar cells will have a large number of commercial applications.

14

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Readiness Low
US military readiness is at an all-time low (AFP Staff Writers). 9-13-2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200609/ai_n16927603
The US Army's combat readiness has fallen to levels not seen since the Vietnam War, undercutting its ability to sustain deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan or to respond to conflicts elsewhere, opposition Democrats warned in a report Wednesday. The report attributed the slide to critical shortfalls in equipment, which have made it more difficult for units back home to train with the tanks, armored vehicles and other weapons it will fight with. "Army military readiness rates have declined to levels not seen since the end of the Vietnam War," said the report. Representative John Murtha, who released the report at a press conference here, said he will present a resolution calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "not only for his past mistakes but for the future of the military." About half of all army units received the lowest readiness rating that any fully formed unit can receive, according to the report.

US military readiness low Maryann Lawlor, Signal Online, January 2007, http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1244&zoneid=198
Inadequate funding and prolonged operations in Iraq are taking a toll on U.S. Marine Corps equipment and threatening U.S. military readiness to fight and render humanitarian aid. These circumstances already are influencing training and consequently effectiveness and could affect re-enlistment numbers if not corrected. Adjusting resources is one issue; however, the situation also calls for overhauling acquisition practices so near- and mid-term needs can be met. Researchers at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C., and the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Virginia, examined the status and readiness of the Marine Corps in light of military operations in Iraq. After analyzing written reports and interviewing members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees as well as Marine Corps leaders, they determined that substantial issues loom outside the human tragedies of the war. The operations that evolved from ousting Saddam Hussein to establishing stability are stretching the service beyond its capacity to supply its troops with the best warfighting tools. And perhaps more troubling is the outlook for the future. In their final report, titled Marine Corps Equipment After Iraq, the researchers predict that U.S. security might be compromised if changes are not made as early as fiscal year 2007.

The US faces a serious lack of resources The National Security Advisory Group, Jan 2006, “The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk,” Junaid'
The strains on the nation’s ground forces are serious and growing, and the viability of the All Volunteer Force is at risk. The United States cannot afford to let this to happen. Not only would it be costly, difficult and time-consuming to rebuild a broken force, but allowing the force to break would also endanger U.S. National security. As a global power with global interests, as a nation locked in a long struggle with violent extremists, and as a world leader, the United States cannot allow its military to be weakened any further. We must keep faith with the men and women in our military and with the American people. We need to act now to protect and restore our armed forces. 17

15

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Military readiness is low and this is bad. Ortiz 2006. http://ortiz.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=457&Itemid=118
WASHINGTON, D.C.-Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (TX-27) today expressed concern over the declining levels of military readiness and the time it will take to restore those levels, while questioning current Department of Defense initiatives to improve the military's ability to respond to emerging conflicts. During the House Armed Services Committee's hearing on the subject, Rep. Ortiz asked whether current initiatives and programs under the Defense Department would adequately address the current low levels of military readiness. Rep. Ortiz serves as Chairman on Readiness of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Ortiz and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1) are co-sponsors of H.Res. 834-which acknowledges serious readiness shortfalls of the ground forces and asks for Congress to restore and maintain the ground forces at the highest levels of readiness in the interest of national security. Rep. Ortiz released the following statement: "Readiness is an important issue because it deals with the military's ability to respond to current and future conflicts, many of which are unforeseen, all around the world. Ongoing operations in Iraq mean our troops are facing multiple deployments, inadequate training, and lack of equipment-thus lowering the level of readiness.

16

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Depending on oil bad
Depending on oil kills military readiness both monetarily and logistically
Solomon Ortiz, Rep. Texas, September 27, 2006 [Political Transcript Wire, Hold A Joint A Hearting On Dod Alternative Energy Programs,” http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18480380_ITM] ORTIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to extend our welcome to our distinguished witnesses. The energy needs of this country are one of the most important challenges facing our nation today. Energy needs influence our international policies and are key to our national defense strategy. For this reason, I am pleased that we're hearing testimony about what the Department of Defense is doing to reduce its needs for external sources of energy. The rising cost of gasoline has affected all Americans and our military is not immune. Rising energy costs are consuming a larger portion of the O&M budget. So every dollar spent on fuel means fewer dollars for operation, training, and maintenance. In a time of increasing needs and decreasing budgets, the DOD must find every way possible to stretch its energy dollars. And fuel is not only expensive, it is also very heavy. Moving fuels takes an enormous logistical effort and consumes strategic lift that could be better used moving soldiers, equipment and ammunition. The most effective way to improve the deployability of our Iran forces is to reduce their fuel requirements. So finding energy efficiencies isn't just about money. It's also vital to increasing the strategic capabilities of our forces. I have been following the work of the services in developing new technologies. Of particular interest is the historic B-52 alternative fuels test flight conducted by the Air Force on December 19. DOD testing and implementation of technologies such as this will ultimately influence the private sector and benefit the economy at large. For that reason, it is vital that Congress continue to fund new initiatives and for DOD to aggressive pursue them. Energy security is vital to our national defense. So we must find ways to reduce our energy needs and find new technologies to meet our energy requirements.

Depending on oil kills military readiness because of resupply
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2001 [http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S01-12_BattlingFuelWaste.pdf Battling Fuel Waste in the Military The Army’s formidable half-mile-a-gallon M1A2 tanks are powered by inefficient 1960s-design gas turbines that yield 1500 horsepower to make 68 tons dash around a battlefield at 30 mph (42 on the road). They do that pretty well. But 60- to 80-odd percent of the time, that huge turbine is idling at one percent efficiency to run a 5-kilowatt “hotel load,” mostly air conditioning and electronics. Most civilian vehicles would use a small auxiliary power unit to serve such tiny, steady loads efficiently. Tanks don’t, because their fuel was assumed to cost about a buck a gallon. But to keep up with a rapidly advancing armored unit on the battlefield, cargo helicopters may have to leapfrog big bladders of fuel hundreds of kilometers into theater, using much of the fuel to do so. The delivery cost can then rise to $400–600 a gallon—yet it was assumed to be zero. If the designers had known the real delivery cost, they’d have designed the tanks very differently. Fuel-wasting design doesn’t just cost money; it inhibits warfighting. Each tank is trailed by lumbering fuel tankers. An armored division may use as much as 20, perhaps even 40, times as many daily tons of fuel as it does of munitions—around 600,000 gallons a day. Of the unit’s top ten battlefield fuel guzzlers, only Abrams tanks (#5) and Apache helicopters (#10) are combat vehicles. Several of the rest carry fuel. This takes a lot of equipment and people. The Army directly uses about $0.2 billion dollars’ worth of fuel a year, but pays about 16 times as much, $3.2 billion a year, just to maintain 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve personnel to move that fuel. And unarmored fuel carriers are vulnerable. Attacks on rear logistics assets can make a fuelhungry combat system grind to a halt. Yet the warfighting benefits of fuel economy— in deployability, agility, range, speed, reliability, and maneuverability—are as invisible as the fuel delivery cost

17

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani The military’s huge use of oil hurts its ability drastically Amory B. Lovins,et al. Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts from Harvard, Master of Arts in Physics at Oxford , 2004, www.aeromt.org/PDFs/Winning%20the%20oil%20endgame.pdf
Still, it’s an immense logistical strain to deliver that much oil that quickly into theater, often to austere sites, and especially into thirsty platforms that mustn’t run dry. Fuel logistics, as much as anything, prevents America’s most lethally effective forces from being rapidly deployable and its most rapidly deployable forces from assuredly winning.416 Weapons themselves are seldom417 very energy-consumptive—they merely focus energy into a specifi zone of destruction for an extremely short time—but the platforms used to carry weapons systems tend to be extremely energy-intensive and must be fueled by a large, complex, globegirdling, and (in its own right) energy-intensive logistics chain. Of the gross tonnage moved when the Army deploys, ~70% is fuel, and transporting that fuel to the bases or depots from which it’s redistributed costs about 8% as much as the fuel itself.418 Over 60% of Air Force fuel is used not by fighters or bombers but for airlifting people and materiel, including fuel.419

The DoD uses a ridiculous amount of oil Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security studies at Hampshire College, 6-15, 2007 “Pentagon vs. Peak oil” http://www.alternet.org/story/54195/?page=entire
And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems -- virtually all powered by oil -- the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

A military fueled by oil is unsustainable – alternatives are key (1ac)
Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe,
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_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." The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

18

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Alternatives key to readiness
Increasing use of alt energies removes operational limits and improves military capabilities Scott Buchanan, DoD Office of Force Transformation, 2006. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i42/17JFQ42%20Buchanan%20Pg%2051-54.pdf Historically, the Department of Defense has invested in transformational technologies— such as nuclear power, missile defense initiatives, and intercontinental ballistic missiles— with the potential to alter the strategic balance. DOD should do the same now to balance its scarce energy resources. New technologies to improve fuel efficiency (weight, drag, engine efficiency, system efficiency, and auxiliary power needs) and to develop alternative energy sources have the potential to transform the force, remove operational limits that are built into our plans, and provide the capabilities that forces need. The business case for investing in new technologies, however, is difficult to build because current costing methods do not make the actual end-to-end costs of fueling the force visible to decisionmakers.

Money saved from reducing fossil fuel consumption will be used to improve readiness U.S. Government Agency News, 5-3-2001, “Defense Unveils Plan to Reduce Electricity Demand in California,” http://usgovinfo.about.com/blagencyrelease03.htm
This initiative augments ongoing energy conservation efforts within the Department that have resulted in a 23 percent decrease in energy consumed per square foot in DoD buildings nationwide since 1985. "The Services have been resolute in reducing their energy consumption over the years. These savings have been spent on readiness and quality of life, and improving the environment," said Rumsfeld. "This success story, however, makes the new power reduction initiative all the more difficult, since the less difficult solutions have been implemented already. The Services will need to be innovative, aggressive and tenacious to meet our goals for California." To achieve these goals, the Department will redirect $32 million in fiscal 2001 to implement the Services' demand reduction and power generation plans, and for investments such as lighting upgrades, updated controls, improvements to heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and installation of demand meters, to meet later goals. An additional $19 million will be added to the fiscal 2002 budget to achieve fully the initiative's long-term goals. "The Services have pulled out all stops in developing innovative strategies to meet these goals," said Ray DuBois, deputy under secretary of Defense for installations and environment. "Some measures include hiring specialists to develop regional peak load reduction strategies, such as integrated schedules for high power-consuming equipment, and installing thermal energy storage units to shift the cooling load to off-peak times." Non-fossil fuel generation plays an important role in the Services' plans including wind power, fuel cells and photovoltaic arrays. "One of the more innovative concepts involves buying power from the owner of an existing wind generation plant located adjacent to a military base who has been unable to sell power to the commercial grid economically because of high transmission and distribution charges," said DuBois. While implementing this initiative will cost DoD additional money up front, these investments in energy efficiency and demand reduction are sound business decisions. The more than $50 million DoD investment will leverage almost $290 million in private sector investment for infrastructure improvements and generation capability, and will ultimately yield annual energy cost savings in excess of $25 million. Future savings will pay back initial investments, be used for additional energy savings measures and housing and quality of life upgrades.

19

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Fuel efficiency drastically improves military efficiency Amory B. Lovins, et al. Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts from Harvard, Master of Arts in Physics at Oxford , 2004, www.aeromt.org/PDFs/Winning%20the%20oil%20endgame.pdf
The energy intensity of land, sea, and air platforms reflects four needs: superior tactical performance (speed, maneuverability, endurance); carrying and delivering munitions; carrying armor and other forms of protection; and resisting or offsetting battle damage. All can be systematically improved through better technologies, tactics, and operational concepts. Within these four unique operational constraints, it is feasible, just as in civilian vehicles, to reduce military platforms’ fuel use by methodically applying technologies that cut weight, drag, idling, and auxiliary power consumption and that raise the efficiency of converting fuel into motion through engines, powertrains, an propulsors. In military as civilian vehicles, “The most important factor in reducing…demand for fuel… is reducing the weight of…vehicles.”420 But there are two key differences: in military platforms, fuel efficiency is immensely more valuable—not only in dollars but in lives, and potentially even in the margin between victory and defeat—and most military structures and engines use decades-old technologies, offering even more scope for improvement. Box 11 (pp. 86–90) illustrates these valuable opportunities to save oil in DoD’s existing inventory. Beyond the retrofits summarized in Box 11, there’s even greater potential scope for more fight with less fuel at lower cost. Technical Annex, Ch. 13, presents an initial sketch of how the findings of a seminal 2001 Defense Science Boar report could apply to the estimated 2025 fleet of land, sea, and air platforms. The result: 61% Conventional Wisdom and 66% State of the Art reductions in petroleum-based fuel use by all DoD land, sea, and air platforms, not counting most of the fuel saved by transporting less metal and fuel.

Alt energies save money that will be used toward readiness Amory B. Lovins, et al Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts from Harvard, Master of Arts in Physics at Oxford , 2004, www.aeromt.org/PDFs/Winning%20the%20oil%20endgame.pdf
A final conceptual example illustrates the scope for major force multipliers that could be more than paid for by their fuel savings and that may even reduce capital costs up front. The Navy designs ships to carry weapons systems. RMI’s Princeton survey found that onboard electricity, made inefficiently in part-loaded gas turbines, costs ~27¢/kWh, so the present value of saving one watt is nearly $20—not counting the weight or cost of the fuel and electrical equipment, just their direct capital and operating cost. But saving a pound of weight on a surface ship typically saves ~5–10 pounds of total weight because the engines, drives, and fuel storage systems shrink commensurately. In a ship, such “mass decompounding” is less than in an airplane but far more than in a land vehicle. So saving a watt must be worth much more than $20 present value. What is it worth, therefore, to design a watt of power requirement, or a pound, or a cubic foot, out of a Naval weapons system? Nobody knows, because the question hasn’t been asked, so weapons systems have clearly not been so optimized. But organizing naval architects’ “design spiral” around such whole-system value should yield far lighter, smaller, cheaper, faster, and better “Hyperships.” This requires change in the stovepiped design culture—so that whole systems are optimized for multiple benefits (not isolated components for single benefits) purging tradeoffs and diminishing returns, eschewing incrementalism, and rewarding the whole-system results we want. As with automaking, this isn’t easy. But it’s important to do before others do it to us.

20

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Moving beyond oil dependence has multiple benefits Amory B. Lovins, et al. Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts from Harvard, Master of Arts in Physics at Oxford , 2004, www.aeromt.org/PDFs/Winning%20the%20oil%20endgame.pdf
These overarching goals and doctrinal elements can, indeed must, start with practical particulars. Earlier in this report (pp. 85–93, 204–206, 221), we emphasized how the Pentagon can achieve multiple huge wins in national security from single expenditures. The same technology development and insertion needed for mission effectiveness, doctrinal execution, and strategic cost reduction (pp. 85–93) also supports the civilian spinoffs that the civilian economy needs (pp. 204–206). Military trainees who later reenter the civilian workforce, military leaders who later retire to run civilian enterprises, and the power of the military example to inform and inspire civilian energy advances are also not to be underestimated. In every way, helping to move the country and the world away from future wars over oil could be the American military’s greatest contribution yet to lasting security. Military innovation in decentralized facility power is already starting to provide such leadership in resilient electricity systems for civil preparedness (p. 222); the scope for similar leadership in moving beyond oil is enormously greater. Collaboration will also help bridge the growing and worrisome gulf between the civilian and military cultures within our society.

21

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Switching to alternatives is becoming both more viable and necessary
Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe,
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/ )

Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task -- especially because the bulk of the US arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades. Moving to alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges. But Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. Compared with World War II, according to the report, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier. "We have to wake up," said Milton R. Copulos , National Defense Council Foundation president and an authority on the military's energy needs. “We are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward and move forward aggressively with initiatives to develop alternative fuels. Just cutting back won't work."

Alternative energies provide the best solution for military inefficiency and national security issues
David Roberts, July 26, 2007, “All You Need is Lovins: A Conversation with Energy Guru Amory Lovins”, Grist,
(http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/)

If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or malice -- become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, about a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.

Solar power would reduce US casualties – makes them harder to detect and frees troops from the task of waiting on fuel supplies (1ac)
John Gartner, June 29, 2004, “Solar to Keep the Army on the Go”, Wired, (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/64021) Hampel said using solar tents would reduce the need for diesel powered generators and diminish the "thermal signature" that enemy sensors use to track troop location. She said soldiers could carry smaller flexible solar panels and unfold them during the day to collect energy to recharge their personal communications equipment. This would enable soldiers to lighten their loads of extra battery packs, which are sometimes left behind and reveal the soldiers' presence, according to Hampel. While Iowa Thin Film's PowerFilm products are ready for field use, the Army's "type classification" process, which enables them to be purchased in bulk, will require one to two years of additional testing.

22

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Military is calling for alternative energy sources – its better for mobility and efficiency
Mark Clayton, September 7, 2006, “In the Iraqi Warzone, US Army calls for Green Power” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.htm) Memo to Pentagon brass from the top United States commander in western Iraq: Renewable energy - solar and wind-power generators - urgently needed to help win the fight. Send soon. Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a self-sustainable energy solution" including "solar panels and wind turbines." The memo may be the first time a frontline commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle. Indeed, it underscores the urgency: Without renewable power, US forces "will remain unnecessarily exposed" and will "continue to accrue preventable ... serious and grave casualties," the memo says. Apparently, the brass is heeding that call. The US Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF), which speeds frontline requests, is "expected soon" to begin welcoming proposals from companies to build and ship to Iraq 183 frontline renewable-energy power stations, an REF spokesman confirms. The stations would use a mix of solar and wind power to augment diesel generators at US outposts, the spokesman says. Despite desert temperatures, the hot "thermal signature" of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to US outposts, experts say. With convoys still vulnerable to ambush, the fewer missions needed to resupply outposts with JP-8 fuel to run power generators among the Army's biggest fuel guzzlers - the better, the memo says. "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," reads the unclassified memo posted on the website InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month.

Alternative energies would aid the military – multiple reasons
Mark Clayton, September 7, 2006, “In the Iraqi Warzone, US Army calls for Green Power” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.htm) A bigger picture of the need for renewables was sketched out in a key 2004 Pentagon study titled "Winning the Oil Endgame," by the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. It found a number of areas where efficiency would boost combat effectiveness, including: • More than 50 percent of fuel used by the Army on the battlefield is consumed by combat support units, not frontline troops. • Until recently, the Army spent about $200 million a year annually on fuel, but paid $3.2 billion each year on 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve personnel to transport it. That was before $70-per-barrel oil. This spring, the Defense Energy Support Center reported the US military used about 128 million barrels of fuel last year, costing about $8 billion, compared with about 145 million barrels in 2004 that cost $7 billion. "At the tip of the spear is where the need to avoid the cost of fuel logistics is most acute," says Amory Lovins, cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who led the 2004 study. "If you don't need divisions of people hauling fuel, you can realign your force structure to be more effective as well as less vulnerable." Zilmer's call for renewable power is also buttressed by Pentagon studies from June 2005 dating back to the 1990s that show the costs and advantages of solar-panel systems in place of or as supplements to diesel generators burning JP-8, the standard battlefield fuel. Still, such lessons are learned slowly, says Hugh Jones, a former analyst with the Center for Army Analysis, now a consultant on energy issues to the US Army. Analyzing feedback from the frontlines after Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait 1990, he produced a raft of studies on uses for solar power in combat. But during the 1990s when fuel was cheap, he found little interest in the idea.

23

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Current oil costs are significantly more than solar panels, and failure to switch risks losing the war
Mark Clayton, September 7, 2006, “In the Iraqi Warzone, US Army calls for Green Power” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.htm) But costs of such hybrid packages begin to look more reasonable when the cost is considered of delivering a gallon of fuel to a generator gulping it 24/7. The true cost of fuel delivered to the battlefield - well prior to the recent oil price hike - was $13 to $300 a gallon, depending on its delivery location, a Defense Science Board report in May 2001 estimated. An analysis in Zilmer's memo puts the "true cost" for fuel for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator at $36,000 a year - about four times the amount needed to purchase the fuel itself initially. The rest of the cost is due mainly to transportation. On that basis, a SkyBuilt system could cut costs by 75 percent and pay for itself for three to five years, the memo estimates. But another cost is time. Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to replace fuel, victory could be forfeited. "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."

24

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Solar solves readiness
Solar Panels enhance troop mobility, stamina, and communications, and reduce resupplying NREL, 5-23-2008, NREL Solar Cells to Lighten a Soldier's Load, http://www.nrel.gov/features/0508_solar_soldier.html
The scene is a familiar one from the nightly news: A U.S. soldier on patrol in a remote locale, outfitted in the latest high-tech gadgetry — radios, night vision goggles, navigation gear — devices that enhance mission capabilities and help keep the infantry safe. While such electronic wizardry has become indispensible to the modern military, it also requires an ever growing amount of power to keep it all running. What that usually has meant is more and more batteries. At some point, however, lugging around heavy batteries becomes a logistical nightmare, and ultimately, it's self defeating, for it contradicts the "light and portable" premise on which the technology is based. How Will the Army of the Future Keep the Charge Light on Green? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are teaming with a consortium of universities and private companies to perfect an advanced solar cell designed to be smaller and far more efficient than existing cells. Such a solar photovoltaic (or PV) panel would be tiny enough to be built into differing types of portable electronic equipment, yet powerful enough to deliver a sufficient current for charging. To achieve this ambitious goal, scientists are bringing together several of the most revolutionary concepts yet developed for PV cells. The cell they envision would have different layers of PV materials, each producing the optimum amount of electricity from varied portions of the light spectrum. It additionally would be topped by a lens that would concentrate the amount of sunlight directed on the PV materials. "By drawing upon several of the most important innovations in PV design and combining them into an entirely new concept for cell design, we believe we can leapfrog over the limitations that had long been assumed for efficiency, size, cost and other critical factors," said Dr. Mark Wanlass, principal scientist at NREL. "The new device we are looking to develop could not only solve many of the limitations our soldiers today encounter with electronics in the battlefield," Wanlass added, "it may spur other new solutions for solar power in space, and eventually, for our homes and businesses here at home." Supplying Electricity, While Taking the Load Off There are many reasons the military finds it advantageous to use solar cells to charge batteries. By being able to reliably charge batteries, it reduces the number of spare batteries needed. From a logistical standpoint, that means fewer trucks, helicopters and planes are required to ferry stocks of batteries into the field. For individual soldiers, it can mean as much as a 20-pound decrease in the field supplies they must carry — a lighter load that can enhance their agility and stamina.

Solar panels are key to readiness – stealth, communications, and safety
Paul Bibby, Sydney Morning Herald Staff Writer, September 25, 2007, “Soldiers switch to solar power” Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/soldiers-switch-to-solar-power/2007/09/24/1190486226396.html SOLDIERS could soon be recharging their radios, sensors and night vision goggles with high-tech solar panels as the army seeks an edge on the battlefield by reducing its reliance on disposable batteries. Earlier this year the military engaged a solar technology company, Sustainable Technologies International, to develop a panel that was portable, durable and discreet enough to be used on the front line. The result of the $2 million project was a panel weighing just 400 grams and flexible enough to be moulded to a soldier's backpack. The cells on the panel, which produce about 10 watts per square metre, use a form of artificial photosynthesis which does not require direct sunlight. This means they can be used under camouflage nets during covert operations. Defence chiefs believe the panels could one day replace the tens of thousands of disposable lithium batteries used each year as the main source of power for troops in the field. The batteries contain toxic chemicals that are pollutants and can endanger soldiers in battle if they are exposed to flame or extreme temperatures and explode. Lieutenant-Colonel John Baird said that the battlefield was becoming more power hungry and finding an alternative power source was vital. "This is fighting in the information age, where every soldier is connected via sophisticated communications equipment and uses sensors to provide information on an enemy's position," he said. "But it uses a hell of a lot of power and the disposable batteries we're using now are far from ideal because when they run out the soldiers have to return to a base and take the used batteries with them. "If we can use the sun's radiation to recharge radios, night-vision equipment, and also things like remote sensors or small robotic cameras attached to transmitters, then that is a clear advantage." Defence purchases 70,000 disposable lithium batteries each year for its radios alone, at a cost of $8 million. The director of the solar panel project, Dr Gavin Tulloch, said that introducing the panels could substantially reduce the harmful environmental effects of the batteries as well as the threat they posed to troops. "The used lithium in them can be dangerous, particularly in conflict situations where you're possibly looking at serious injuries," he said. "And the residual electrolytes are quite polluting. "The military disposes of them very carefully but obviously it takes a long time for them to break down. "This is a win-win for defence because it addresses some of those problems as well as their operational needs."

25

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Readiness key to heg
U.S. MILITARY DOMINANCE CRITICAL TO GLOBAL LEADERSHIP Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICA’S DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, p. 90
Fourth, it should go without saying that America's performance in the role of sheriff of world order can endure no longer than i ts military preeminence . This is not to deny that military power rests upon economic strength, social attitudes, and political culture. How - ever, wealth and sensible attitudes are of little use if they are not mobilized and organized into usable military capabilities. In the political context outlined above under points one and two, a judicial combination of sustained, unmatched financial allocations to defense functions, along with an sustained, commitment to modernization, should preserve the U.S. military lead for as long as is feasible. It s important to recognize that the character of a meaningful military lead must be distinctly enemy and scenario specific. The United States requires military power both so formidable that would-be enemies are greatly discouraged from attempting to compete, as well as flexible, adaptable, and decisively useable as to carry the highly plausible promise of being able to impose prompt defeat upon any enemy. So much for aspirations. In practice, the enemies of America ' world order will assuredly seek to compete militarily in practicable ways. It is to be hoped that American military prowess will be so broad and flexible that neither rogues nor traditional foes will find military paths for effective competition, svmmetrical or asymmetrical. The military power of the American sheriff must imply reassurance to many and contingent menace to a few. For some years to come, at least pending the emergence of a serious geopolitical rival, the threats inherent in the U.S. military establishment carry no specific address label . They are simply addressed to those whom this military power must concern. Although mass is always important in military affairs, how best to maintain, and preferably, to extend, a long military lead is not so easily calculated as once seemed possible. Net assessment was rarely as straightforward an exercise as was implied by journalists' lists, comprising, say, soldiers under arms, divisions, and equipment holdings. With the age of mass warfare probably defunct, for the United States at least, the military lead in need of protection and enhancement is the lead that translates into desired strategic outcomes. For many people, this requires a traumatic shift of analytical focus from military inputs to military outputs and their probable political consequences. At the time of this writing, the military profession in the United States and Britain has discovered what it terms "effects-based warfare."

26

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Readiness k to heg Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICA’S DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004pp. 98-9
Sheriffs are sheriffs because they can shoot, not because they are rich, erudite, or popular. Naturally, life is easier for a state-sheriff if it is extraordinarily wealthy, if it is governed by wise people with a sound grasp of what is required for policing world order, and if it can carry much of global opinion with it due to the skill of its diplomacy. Ultimately•, however, the sheriff of world order can only function as such if it is a military superstate. History records the deeds of very few such powers. The leading state of an era has typically been primarily continental or maritime in orientation, each with different implications for order, and almost invariably has found its preeminence checked by the collective efforts of fearful rivals.' Largely- by geopolitical accident, the United States now finds itself the "last polity standing" from the great powers of modern times. Moral force is not to be despised and diplomatic cunning is always useful, but in the final analysis world order needs protecting by a state. or coalition that is willing and able to exercise superior coercion: Of course, there is much more to the guarding of world order than the readiness to inflict pain upon those who would disturb the norms of civilized behavior. But if the military dimension of the ordering role is ineffective, it is not usually possible to find adequate compensation elsewhere-at least not for long. Revolutionary powers, would-be hegemons, regional bullies, transnational terrorists, and other troublemakers cannot long be held in check by bribes or imaginative diplomacy, let alone by appeals from decent international opinion or nose counts in the United Nations. The extant world order needs someone willing and able to stand up for it in the face of the ultimate threat --the threat of war. If the United States gets the military dimensions seriously wrong in its commitment to international security , nothing else will matter very much. Military humiliation and defeat could. cancel the benefits from "soft power" and from a globalized, open world trading system. Crude and old fashioned though it may be, military power in its manv forms is an enduring threat to order. It can only be dissuaded from appearing when it is challenged on its own terms.

Hard power is not out-dated. Its still key to leadership
Nye, Dean of the JFK school of gov’t at Harvard, Political Science Quarterly, Winter 2002/2003 As mentioned above, none of this is to suggest that military force plays no role in international politics today. For one thing, the information revolution has yet to transform most of the world. Many states are unconstrained by democratic societal forces, as Kuwait learned from its neighbor Iraq, and terrorist groups pay little heed to the normal constraints of liberal societies. Civil wars are rife in many parts of the world where collapsed empires left power vacuums. Moreover, throughout history, the rise of new great powers has been accompanied by anxieties that have sometimes precipitated military crises. In Thucydides' immortal description, the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece was caused by the rise to power of Athens and the fear it created in Sparta.24 World War I owed much to the rise of the Kaiser's Germany and the fear that it created in Britain. Some foretell a similar dynamic in this century arising from the rise of China and the fear it creates in the United States. Geoeconomics has not replaced geopolitics, although in the early twenty-first century there has clearly been a blurring of the traditional boundaries between the two. To ignore the role of force and the centrality of security would be like ignoring oxygen. Under normal circumstances, oxygen is plentiful and we pay it little attention. But once those conditions change and we begin to miss it, we can focus on nothing else. Even in those areas where the direct employment of force falls out of use among countries-for instance, within Western Europe or between the United States and Japan-nonstate actors such as terrorists may use force. Moreover, military force can still play an important political role among advanced nations. For example, most countries in East Asia welcome the presence of American troops as an insurance policy against uncertain neighbors. Moreover, deterring threats or ensuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the Persian Gulf increases America's influence with its allies. Sometimes the linkages may be direct; more often they are present in the back of statesmen's minds. As the Defense Department describes it, one of the missions of American troops based overseas is to "shape the environment."

27

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Energy key to military
Sufficient energy is key to efficiency of the military Scott Buchanan, DoD Office of Force Transformation, 2006. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i42/17JFQ42%20Buchanan%20Pg%2051-54.pdf The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) can learn from the Royal Navy’s pre–World War I energy transformation. Like the Royal Navy a century ago, DOD is faced with the problem of limited resources due in large part to our energy infrastructure. Fuel represents more than half of the DOD logistics tonnage and over 70 percent of the tonnage required to put the U.S. Army into position for battle.3 The Navy uses millions of gallons of fuel every day to operate newest platforms demand. Because of our tremendous logistics capability, the Armed Forces can be successfully deployed and employed anywhere in the world for both deterrence and combat operations. However, that capability comes at a high price: a tremendous energy demand. The energy consumption rates of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, is four times what it was in World War II and twice that of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.8 The logistics tail now consists largely of the fuel required to execute and sustain operations.

28

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Heg Low
US hegemony decreasing now-openness of economic and technological markets destroys US economic
base

Tayne, Associate Professor of International Affairs at the Bush school of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, 2006 [Christopher, The Peace of illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present, p.]

Heg Low
Paul Dibb 1-11-06, "The Decline of the American Sway" Lexis, The Australian The US military victory in Baghdad in 2003 was spectacular as a demonstration of American ''shock and awe''. No other country is capable of moving such large numbers of troops to the other side of the world so quickly. And no other country, now or foreseeably, has the lethalness of the US military. But then came the problem of occupying Iraq and fighting a savage insurgency. Here the US has performed less than well. While it is true that Iraq is not the quagmire of Vietnam, it is not looking good. And the damage to the US's reputation has been immense. After three years as the occupying power, the US still faces an uncontrollable insurgency. And what sort of government will the new Iraq have? As John Gray argues in The New York Review of Books, the most likely legacy of the war appears to be a Balkanised Iraq and the enhanced power of radical Islam throughout the region, with Iran being the main beneficiary. The limits of US military power have been clear to observe: rotating 150,000 troops to Iraq has placed great stress on the US military. Some US National Guard units are on their third rotation. American public support is wavering and there are growing demands for troop withdrawals. Meanwhile, short of re-introducing the draft, the US is not in a position to mount a major ground force offensive against North Korea or Syria, let alone Iran. Iraq imposes serious limits on US freedom of action elsewhere. While the US has been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, tectonic shifts are occurring elsewhere in the world geopolitical scene. Gray argues that the fall of the Soviet Union served to reduce American power, rather than enhance it. The Soviet collapse quickened the pace of globalisation, ''enabling China and India to become great powers whose interests may conflict with those of the US''. Thus the true beneficiary of the Soviet collapse is not America but Asia. In Gray's view, the era of Western primacy is coming to a close. He thinks that as a result of its intervention in Iraq, the dissolution of US global hegemony ''has been accelerated, perhaps by a generation''. Be that as it may, if the US continues to pursue unattractive policies its role as the final guarantor of global security will be challenged.

29

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Heg Low
Paul Dibb 1-11-06, "The Decline of the American Sway" Lexis, The Australian As time goes on, the US will find its paramountcy gradually eroded and its interests and values will not remain unchallenged. The Australian National University's Coral Bell has argued, in a publication last year by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, that we are moving into a world order in which a concert of several great powers will be necessary to keep the peace. She calls this a company of giants, which will include the US, China, India, Japan, Russia and perhaps a confederated Europe. This redistribution of power will inevitably herald the twilight of the present unipolar world of US dominance. Some argue that a concert of powers such as this will be less dangerous for world order. That, of course, will depend upon whether there is indeed an internationally co-operative concert or whether, instead, there will be competing centres of power and a struggle for a new global balance of power. The most dangerous outcome for Australia would be if China in its bid for the mastery of Asia sought to design some sort of anti-US alliance. Throughout history, great powers have waxed and waned, some quicker than others. The great question of our contemporary era is not whether America's physical attributes of power are under challenge. Rather it is whether, after a short 15 years at the top, US global political leadership and influence have passed their zenith.

Heg Low
New York Times, Khanna, January 2008 Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth. At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this postAmerican world.

30

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Heg declining
Martin Walker, Washington TImes, 1-19-2005 "walker's world: the end of american hegemony" The American global dominance that followed the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War is starting to decline, suggests the National Intelligence Council, sometimes called the think-tank of America's Central Intelligence Agency, after a long exercise peering into a crystal ball for clues, for what promises to be a turbulent future. "The likely emergence of China and India as new major global players - similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century - will transform the geopolitical landscape," they conclude in their 120-page report, "Mapping the Global Future," published this week. Their strikingly pessimistic report suggests that it will become a steadily more difficult world for the United States, with "dramatically altered alliances and relationships with Europe and Asia under threat, and with the military and strategic dominance the U.S. has enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union starting to face more and more serious challenges. "While no single country looks within striking distance of rivaling U.S. military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the U.S. pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose," the report says.

Heg declining
Martin Walker, Washington TImes, 1-19-2005 "walker's world: the end of american hegemony" And if the United States seeks to maintain its current global dominance (as the Bush administration's national security doctrine published in September 2002 says it should), it may not be able to afford it. "The U.S. economy will become more vulnerable to fluctuations in the fortunes of others as global commercial networking deepens," says the NIC report. "U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies also makes it more vulnerable as the competition for secure access grows and the risks of supply side disruptions increase." Moreover, the United States may be facing a world that increasingly questions and opposes American ideas and values. "Over the next 15 years the increasing centrality of ethical issues, old and new, have the potential to divide worldwide publics and challenge U.S. leadership," the report says. "These issues include the environment and climate change, privacy, cloning and biotechnology, human rights, international law regulating conflict, and the role of multilateral institutions. The U.S. will increasingly have to battle world public opinion."

31

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Heg Good
US hegemony key to preventing great power wars Bradley A. Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006, The National Interest, November/December, p. Lexis
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States CONTINUES Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need.

32

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Leadership prevents global nuclear exchange
Khalilzad 95, Defense Analyst at RAND (Zalmay, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The Washington
Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84)

<Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.>

Loss of US leadership causes multiple nuclear wars, systemic global instability, and magnifies all impacts Niall Ferguson, Professor, History, School of Business, New York University and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September-October 2004 (“A World Without Power” – Foreign Policy) http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3009996.html
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--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so 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 EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic 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 are 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.

33

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Oil dependence kills heg
Oil Shocks won’t affect the military – SPR solves Gregory Lengyel, 21st Century Defense Initiative of the Brookings Institution 2007 [Department of Defense Energy Strategy
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks August http://www.brookings.edu/~/media /Files/rc/papers/ 2007/08 defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Additionally, in the event of a catastrophic shut down of world oil flow, our government will ensure that the DOD has priority access to domestic oil production and the 700-1000 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, scenarios of supply disruptions to DOD installations via the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed operational forces via fuel logistics distribution networks are not completely far fetched.

Oil prices are irrelevant Paul Dimotakis, John K. Northrop Professor of Aeronautics and professor of applied physics at the California Institute of Technology, The MITRE Corporation, December 09, 2006, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf The 2006 DoD fossil-fuel budget is, approximately, 2.5-3% of the national-defense budget, the range dependent on what is chosen as the total national-defense budget. Larger (percentage) fuel costs are borne by families and many businesses, for example, and fuel costs have only relatively recently become noticeable to the DoD. At present, there is a large spread between oilproduction cost and crude-oil prices. Many projections, however, including that of the U.S. Energy Information Agency, indicate that crude oil prices may well decrease to $40-$50/barrel within the next few years, as production and refining capacity increases to match demand.

No risk of oil shortages in the short term Paul Dimotakis, John K. Northrop Professor of Aeronautics and professor of applied physics at the California Institute of Technology, The MITRE Corporation, December 09, 2006, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf Based on proven reserves, estimated resources, and the rate of discovery of new resources, no extended world-wide shortage of fossil-fuel production is reasonably expected over, approximately, the next 25 years. While the possibility of short- term shortages of refined gasoline or diesel product exists, depending on domestic refining capacity relative to domestic petroleum demand, there is not a strong basis to anticipate sustained global shortages of crude oil in the next 25 year (or more) time frame. In addition, there is no basis to anticipate shortages in petroleum available to the DoD, especially considering that present DoD fuel consumption is less than 2% of the total U.S. domestic fuel consumption – a demand that can be met by only a few domestic supply sources, at present – even though likely decreases in domestic-oil production will make the future domestic-coverage margin smaller. This finding is premised on the assumption of no major upheavals in the world, in general, and in the major oil-producing nations and regions, and oil-transportation corridors, in particular, over the next 25year period.

34

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Casualties hurt Public Support
There is a clear link between war politics and the public opinion Scott Gartner and Gary Segura, PhD Political Science, Professor of Politics, University of Washington, 3-172005, All Academic Research- Abstract, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/2/5/p87257_index.html, Junaid
We develop a new model of wartime politics that is economic in its structure and yields explicit hypotheses that can explain a wide variety of empirical findings and theoretical conclusions about war, casualties, and approval. The argument relies on two critical premises. First, war aims – what leaders attempt to achieve using force – vary in value to both the decision makers and the public within and between wars. Some goals of national policy are deemed worth the use of force (e.g. repelling the Japanese after Pearl Harbor), and its attendant risks and costs, while others are worth less (Vietnam). Second, the key price that any nation pays in using force is best measured in its casualties. The costs of achieving specific war aims vary across aims and wars and are unknown until the conflict’s conclusion. Given that a conflict’s eventual casualties are uncertain, people must estimate the conflict’s likely total costs. Those “estimated total costs” vary across individuals and over time as a result of wartime information. We think that the theoretical elements here provide the basis for a powerful and generalizable theory linking war and domestic politics. In particular, they provide a clear and logical way capture the nexus of a conflict’s casualties and public opinion

Casualties destroy the public support which is critical to military operations 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, Junaid 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.

Casualties are a crucial decider of public approval Rand Corp Santa Monica CA, Jun 1994, “The effects of war casualties on U.S. Public opinion,” Abstract, Junaid
The experience of the wars in Korea and Vietnam has led many U.S. policymakers and military leaders to believe that the American public cannot tolerate high casualty rates in regional conflicts. Conventional wisdom holds that as casualties mount, public opinion demands a withdrawal of America's commitment. Potential adversaries, such as Saddam Hussein, share this view of the American public's sensitivity to casualties. As the Gulf crisis escalated, the Iraqi leader repeatedly threatened to turn the Kuwaiti desert into a killing field for U.S. soldiers, hoping that fear of casualties would derail American plans for intervention. For him and for U.S. policymakers, the American public's supposed inability to tolerate casualties appears to be an Achilles' heel that can undermine U.S. deterrence strategies and efforts at military intervention.

35

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Casualties and failure influence public opinion John Mueller, Professor of Political Science, Ohio State University, No Date Cited, http://www.apsanet.org/content_5264.cfm, Junaid
In contemplating the application of military force, a president should consider the degree to which the public values the venture, the degree to which it is willing to tolerate U.S. deaths to accomplish the goal (concerns about foreign casualties are far less significant), and the potential for the political opposition to exploit the situation should American deaths surpass those considered acceptable by the public. When American troops are sent abroad into dangerous situations, there is usually a "rally round the flag" effect: the commander-in-chief's approval ratings rise abruptly. But this phenomenon tends to be fleeting. Moreover, the public does not seem to be very interested in rewarding-or even remembering-foreign policy success, as George H. W. Bush discovered after the clear and dramatic victory of the 1991 Gulf War. At the same time, military failure is not necessarily devastating politically: there is often considerable acceptance of abandoning military expeditions that become overextended without particularly blaming the administration that sent them in. The President thus does not necessarily need public support in advance to pull off a military venture. For successful ones-where benefits seem to outweigh the costs-any prewar opposition dissolves and goes on to other issues. For failures, if the instigator can judiciously cut losses and abandon the mission significantly before the next election (Reagan in Lebanon, Clinton in Somalia, even Ford in Vietnam), there will likely be few negative ramifications.

Public support dies with casualties- history proves Rand Research Brief, March 1996, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB2502/index1.html, Junaid
This study examined six cases representative of U.S. military operations over the last 55 years: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Panama, and Somalia. For each case, a historical narrative was constructed describing political and military events and conditions, including U.S. casualty levels, that might have been important in shaping public attitudes toward the operation. Data were then collected and analyzed in the context of this larger narrative, including data on political and media activity and all of the contemporaneous public opinion polling that was available over the course of the operation. Other qualitative and quantitative research was also consulted wherever possible. Analysis showed that the public's aversion to losses of U.S. life in some recent military interventions has had less to do with a recent decline in tolerance for casualties than with the debatable merits of the operations themselves. The public has historically exhibited a highly differentiated, yet remarkably consistent response to prospective and actual casualties in U.S. military operations:

36

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Casualties hurt Public Support- Iraq

Failure in Iraq will dwindle public support Richard K. Betts (Arnold Saltzman Prof War and Peace Studies Columbia, SIPA), 2005, International Affairs, The Political Support System for American Primacy. 81(1), 1-14.
There are many political currents in the United States pushing sentiments about foreign policy in various directions. On prospects for the use of force to manage a de facto American empire, a couple stand out. Most obviously, the war in Iraq will have a strong impact on future decisions. Unless there is a surprisingly successful recovery of the US occupation effort and a smooth transition to stable self-government in the country, the experience since 2003 will almost certainly promote more caution about using military power for ambitious missions of reform abroad. If the next year witnesses drastic failure, and a chaotic and bloody mess left unfixed after more than 1,000 US fatalities and $200 billion invested in the effort, the effect could prove profound, souring the public and elite on intervention in general, much as failure in Vietnam did.

The loss of support for the war is based on casualties Steward M. Powell, Staff Writer, Deseret News, 8-7-05, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050807/ai_n14860778, Junaid
John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and author of "War, Presidents and Public Opinion," said he foresees "continued erosion in support" in the wake of latest losses. "People constantly gauge the number of lives lost and the stakes involved," Mueller said. "Any bump-ups in support for Iraq are taking place against the background of a gradual decline." Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, says the "erosion" of support has been "pretty much driven by casualties."

37

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Public Support Low- Iraq
Low public support for Iraq war Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 7-12-03, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0712-01.htm, Junaid
Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Bush's overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent. And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

38

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Public Support key to Heg
Lack of public support hurts US primacy (1ac card) Richard K. Betts (Arnold Saltzman Prof War and Peace Studies Columbia, SIPA), 2005, International Affairs, The Political Support System for American Primacy. 81(1), 1-14.
There is dissent in the United States from the enthusiasm for exploiting primacy, but the dissenters have been unable to capture a base big enough to exert political leverage. Primacy has so far been popular among Americans— and tolerated by foreigners—because of the balance between moral and material interests. Americans have long been able to indulge moral interests (for example, promotion of values such as democracy and human rights) because Americans’ margins of material power and security are so large that it is often easy to do so at low cost, and if mistakes are made they rarely hurt them much. In terms of material costs and benefits, Americans are happy to intervene abroad if the benefits for foreigners and American amour propre are high while the costs in American blood and treasure are low. In this, and in the conditional approval conferred by other major states (when US control proceeds under the norms and forms of international consultation and cooperation with inter- national institutions), we see the global hegemony of classic liberal ideology, and political globalization as western hegemony within which the United States is dominant. The liberal values that Americans used to think of as part of their national exceptionalism have now permeated the identity, policies and diplomacy of the rest of the developed world. In the twenty-first century the old realist norms of balance-of-power politics traditionally associated with European diplomacy, and rejected by Wilsonian idealism, now have scarcely more overt respect in other rich countries than they do in the United States. Periodically, however, material interests diverge from moral motives. This happens with greatest impact when costs are miscalculated because US leaders confuse power in terms of material resources (economic and military) with power to bring about political reform in non-western societies (such as South Vietnam, Somalia or Iraq). Failure has been all that modifies ambitious objectives, and it may be all that restrains the exercise of US primacy. (The exception is the ‘war on terror’, where a future failure against Al-Qaeda and its ilk could lead not to retrenchment but to increased American ferocity.

Public support is critical to sustain US leadership Stephen M. Walt, Kennedy School of Gov't at Harvard, 2002, "American Primacy: Its Prospects and PITFALLS," Naval War College Review, Spring, http://www.nwc.navy/mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1sp2.htm, Junaid
The first problem created by America’s favorable global position is a loss of public support for an active and engaged foreign policy. When asked, Americans still favor “engagement” over “isolationism,” but public interest in foreign issues is declining, and support for a costly foreign policy is especially weak. In a 1998 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, for example, when Americans were asked to name two or three important problems facing the nation, foreign policy issues did not make the top seven; they constituted only 7.3 percent of all issues mentioned. When asked to name “two or three foreign policy problems facing the nation,” the most common response (at 20 percent) was “Don’t know.” Support for traditional U.S. allies has also declined significantly. Thus, the United States withdrew from Somalia after eighteen soldiers were lost, stayed out of Rwanda completely, was visibly reluctant to send ground troops to Bosnia or Kosovo, and fought the air war in Kosovo from fifteen thousand feet. Public support for key international institutions has also declined, and foreign policy issues played at most a minor role in the 2000 presidential campaign. It is also worth noting that a key element of President George W. Bush’s campaign platform was the need for the United States to be more “selective” in its overseas commitments. This is a far cry from the call to “pay any price and bear any burden” that animated U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. To be sure, there has been a surge of public interest and support in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks and the subsequent war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet even here, the United States has relied heavily on proxy forces and remains ambivalent about taking on a long-term security role in Central Asia. Unless Al-Qaeda proves more resilient than it now appears, public attention is certain to wane over time. As it does, U.S. leaders will once again find themselves having to weigh their international ambitions against a rather modest level of popular interest and backing.

39

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Massive public support key to intervention and hegemony PoliGazette, 7/16/08, http://poligazette.com/2008/07/16/the-devolution-of-john-mccain/, Junaid
McCain began his career in Washington as a realist who, because of Vietnam, was reluctant to sanction the use of military force. He felt the United States should intervene abroad only if its national interest was directly challenged–and then only if it had massive public support and sufficient force to carry the day. That was McCain’s version of the Powell Doctrine, and it led him to call for withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983; to caution against a tanker war with Iran in the Gulf in 1987; to warn against “trading American blood for Iraqi blood” in August 1990; and to oppose the Clinton administration’s intervention in Haiti and (initially) Bosnia.

40

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Oil dependence makes war Inevitable
Dependence on Oil has made the war Inevitable Michael T. Klare, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy in Focus, 12-7-07, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4800, Junaid
But, of course, this is just the beginning of the problem. What, after all, is the Iraq War all about? Pundits and historians will no doubt argue about this for decades to come, but few in the end will dispute the conclusion of former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan that, at root, it was about the control of Middle Eastern petroleum. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he wrote in his 2007 memoir, The Age of Turbulence. This fact is not unrelated to global warming: In essence, the war is intended to ensure America’s continued access to Middle Eastern oil, and access to Middle EasternDid oil is essential to sustain America’s reliance on oil to fuel its economy, and this reliance, in turn, accounts for America’s largest share of greenhouse-gas emissions.

Dependence on Oil has caused US military costs to skyrocket Anne Flaherty, Staff Writer, Associated Press, 4-2-08, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/militaryfeels-fuelcost-g_n_94765.html, JunaidDid
WASHINGTON — Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves. Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. Costs. Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars _ $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.

US Fossil Fuel Dependence has continuously lengthened military presence in Iraq Jay R. Mandle, Prof. Of Economics, Colgate University, 12-8-02, http://www.democracymatters.org/site/c.lgLUIXOwGnF/b.3995841/, Junaid
The National Energy Report did agree that because its possessed huge petroleum reserves, "this region [the Middle East] will remain vital to U.S. interests." No doubt; that precisely is the point. Despite the Administration's refusal to publicly acknowledge that its drive to war is concerned with petroleum, the United States' dependency on oil imports means that it is all but certain that energy is a principle source of its preoccupation with Iraq. Boiled down to its essence, we are asked to go to war with Iraq because in the years since the Arab oil boycott we have failed to devise an energy policy that reduces our reliance on Middle East, particularly Saudi oil. With the latter now considered problematic, we need Iraq as an assured source of supply. The failed energy policy that now drives us to war represents a long-term failure, one rooted in the structure of American politics. Over a thirty-year period the security of the nation has been neglected. We could have and should have adopted a set of policies to reduce our dependency on petroleum, but we did not. We continued to rely on petroleum when we should have adjusted to changed circumstances by both greatly increasing our energy efficiency and developing alternative domestic renewable energy supplies. Vested interests prevailed when instead innovation should have been the focus of attention.

41

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Oil dependence risks for violence in Iraq- Alternative energies are critical Yocki J. Dreazen, Staff Writer, Wall Street Journal, 5-21-08, Google Scholar, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone, Junaid
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. Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

Iraq is a continuous fight for oil- shift to Alternative Energies key Jerry Landay, Staff Writer, Providence Journal, 5-11-07, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/11/1131, Junaid
Energy security is the invisible elephant in Washington, guiding Bush policy on Iraq, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. It explains the “surge,” the absence of an exit strategy from Iraq, the stubborn resistance of the Bush-Cheney team to efforts by the Congressional Democrats to impose a withdrawal deadline for 170,000 American soldiers, as well as the ongoing construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and the costly stationing of thousands of American troops on foreign soil from Kuwait to Djibouti. Energy security is the invisible presence shaping what the 2008 presidential candidates say or don’t say about oil and energy. Energy security is the reason Hillary Clinton refuses to embrace a withdrawal deadline and why Republican presidential hopeful John McCain declares that there is “no alternative Plan B” to the ongoing build-up of American forces.

The main cause of the continued war in Iraq is oil Steve Kretzman, Staff Writer, Multinational Monitor Magazine, Jan/Fed 03, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_Security_War.html, Junaid
In a post-Saddam Iraq, the country would quickly be in a position to dramatically increase production. If sanctions were removed and new drilling technology was brought in by U.S. companies, Iraq's production could rise from less than 3 million barrels a day currently to 6 million or perhaps even 8 million barrels a day by 2010.If a post-Saddam Iraq's production increases as expected over the next decade, Iraq will be an insurance policy against Saudi Arabia. Increased Iraqi production will certainly lessen the power of Saudi Arabia to manipulate the global oil market, and could even serve as a buffer in event of an unexpected loss of Saudi supplies. U.S. oil companies will almost certainly benefit from a "regime change" in Iraq. Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (the most prominent opposition group), has said that "American oil companies will have a big shot" and that he favors the creation of a consortium of U.S. oil companies to develop Iraq's oil. U.S. officials have consistently and vehemently denied that oil is a motivation in the buildup to war. On "60 Minutes," Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld was asked if the war was about oil and responded, "Nonsense. It just isn't. There are certain things like that, myths that are floating around. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." But almost no one takes that claim seriously. Whether oil is the most important factor in going to war, or merely one of many considerations, it is plain that the U.S. obsession with Iraq is due in significant part to the country and region's oil reserves.

42

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani They did it for oil John F. Duffield, Staff Writer, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, June 05, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue2/jv9no2a7.html, Junaid
Precisely for this reason, a primary justification offered by the U.S. government for going to war in 1990-91 was the economic benefits of ending Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.2 And not surprisingly, critics of the 2003 war, both in the United States and abroad, frequently argued that a principal U.S. motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was to gain access to Iraq's substantial oil resources and thereby obtain leverage over world oil supplies and prices.3 Indeed, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted shortly before the war began, a majority of respondents in France (75 percent), Germany (54 percent), and Russia (76 percent) agreed with the statement that "the United States wanted to control Iraqi oil."4

Iraq war and dependency for oil inevitable without Alternative Energy Gordon D. Kuntz, Colonel of the US Army, September 2007, Points of View, http://www.scribd.com/doc/1835751/US-Army-RenewableEnergySystems, Junaid
The strategic importance of the United States having an unimpeded source of energy is becoming ever more crucial. The significance of energy and the need for greater energy responsibility by the US have been identified in several Stateof-the-Union Addresses. President Bush’s 2006 State-of-the-Union Address stated that “America is addicted to oil” and encouraged federal agencies to lead the way in developing more reliable alternative energy programs. In July 2006, Major General Richard Zilmer, Chief of Multi-National Forces West, identified a crucial need for “a selfsustainable energy solution” available for use by US forces in Iraq. Use of renewable energy systems is one way to help decrease dependency on fossil fuels and offer Warfighters alternative sources of energy to accomplish their mission. This article explores the institutional impediments that prevent the Army from increasing its use of renewable energy systems in Contingency Operations and makes recommendations to overcome those barriers in order to enhance use of renewable energy,

43

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Alternatives key to Iraq
Alternative Energies in the Army can solve Oil dependency in the Middle East Rati Bishnoi, Staff Writer, Inside Defense, 8-17-06, Vol. 22, No. 33, www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2006_hr/060926-sklar.pdf, Junaid
MNF-W officials relied on research and data compiled by REF when formulating their request, according to Smith. REF's Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Stations project seeks to combine existing commercial and military technology in "new and unique ways," Smith said. Officials are interested in systems that are reliable, mobile and easy to set up and maintain, he added. Combining existing technologies like a military generator with a battery bank can reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent to 30 percent, according to an REF fact sheet. Harnessing natural resources such as ample wind and sunlight in Iraq and Afghanistan may reduce fuel consumption by 30 to 60 percent, the document adds. REF will invest $3 million in the prototypes to build, test,evaluate, ship and assess systems, Smith said. The funds also may go toward procuring more test systems and training personnel, he added.

Alternative Energies solves Oil Dependency and enhances readiness in Iraq Gordon D. Kuntz, Colonel of the US Army, March 07, Senior Service College Fellowship Program, http://www.peakoil.com/article29401.html, Junaid
In July 2006, MG Richard Zilmer, Chief of Multi-National Forces West, identified a crucial need for “a self-sustainable energy solution” available for use by U.S. forces in Iraq. Use of renewable energy system is one way to help decrease dependency on fossil fuels and offer Warfighters alternative sources of energy to accomplish their mission. This paper will explore the institutional impediments that prevent the Army from increasing its use of renewable energy systems in Contingency Operations and make recommendations to overcome those barriers in order to enhance use of renewable energy thereby becoming less dependent of foreign oil.

Lack of energy efficient tech makes US army vulnerable in Iraq and prolongs conflict (1ac) Defense Industry Daily, 3-17-06, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/energy-conservation-moving-uppentagons-agenda-02036, Junaid
DID has covered contracts that begin to illustrate the US military’s massive requirement for fuel, and also noted measures like wind power installations, the US Navy’s alternative energy projects, R&D efforts like camouflage solar structure surfaces from Konarka, Solar Integrated, et. al., the installation of fuel cells, and more. And how about this solar parking lot? Meanwhile, advanced green technologies like hybrid drive vehicles offer both fuel economy and stealth benefits in combat, a significant plus in the urban warfare scenarios that appear to be such a big part of future wars. The truth is that the military can’t live without fuel, but every gallon of it is both a logistics burden and a financial burden.While some military items cannot realistically be converted, every conservation success or renewable energy conversion within the military’s jurisdiction makes it more deployable to the field, and more self-sufficient once there. Now add the fact that diversified “green infrastructure” lowers vulnerability to the kind of “system disruption” attacks one sees in Iraq, and the military/ security benefits become compelling. That means the military will be willing to invest in these technologies even when the dollars and cents case alone may be in question. It’s a trend that has already started… and it’s about to pick up speed.

44

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Alternative Energies in Iraq would protect soldiers from attacks Gordon D. Kuntz, Colonel of the US Army, March 07, Senior Service College Fellowship Program, http://www.peakoil.com/article29401.html, Junaid
In July 2006, MG Zilmer, Chief of Multi National Forces West, sent a memo to the Pentagon identifying a crucial need for “a selfsustainable energy solution” to be available for use by U.S. forces in Iraq. 21 MG Zilmer went on to say: “A proposed alternate solution – one that reduces the number of convoys while providing an additional capability to outlying bases – is to augment our use of fossil fuels with renewable energy, such as photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, at our outlying bases... By reducing the need for [petroleum-based fuels] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our Marines, soldiers, and sailors...If this need is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to IED, RPG, and [small arms fire] theatres and will continue to accrue preventable Level III and IV serious and grave casualties resulting from motor vehicle accidents and ...attacks,” “continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success. 22 ” In October 2006, 53 US personnel died from improvised explosive devices (IED) and 49 U.S. personnel died from IEDs in November. By mid December 2006, 53 soldiers or 60% of all casualties resulted from roadside bombs 23 supporting the concern raised by MG Zilmer in July.

Alternative energy key to Military strength and end of Fossil Fuel dependence in Iraq Rati Bishnoi, Staff Writer, Inside Defense, 8-11-06, http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?passfile=&page_url= %2Ffeatures%2F0%2C15240%2C109512%2C00.html&passdirectory_file=%2Fnewsfiles %2F109512.htm, Junaid
The top U.S. military commander in western Iraq is requesting shipments of renewable energy systems in an attempt to reduce the time fuel convoys spend on roads where they are susceptible to attack from insurgents using roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. “To improve the security posture of the al-Anbar province of Iraq, [Multi-National Force-West] requires a renewable and self-sustainable energy solution to support forward operating bases, combat outposts and observation posts throughout MNF-W's battlespace,” a Joint Staff Rapid Validation and Resourcing Request certified by MNF-W leaders states. Inside the Pentagon obtained a copy of the document. Command officials certified the request on July 25 on behalf of Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the MNF-W chief. The request is categorized as a “priority 1” need. In the document, the region's U.S. military leaders call on the Pentagon to send more renewable energy systems to the country because they could leverage resources like sunlight or wind to produce power for bases and outposts. Commanders assert that tapping renewable energy sources would lessen dependence on fossil fuels -- a move that could save lives.

A shift to alternative energy is critical to end the War in Iraq Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, CS Monitor, 9-7-06, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html, Junaid
Memo to Pentagon brass from the top United States commander in western Iraq: Renewable energy - solar and wind-power generators - urgently needed to help win the fight. Send soon. Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a selfsustainable energy solution" including "solar panels and wind turbines."The memo may be the first time a frontline commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle. Indeed, it underscores the urgency: Without renewable power, US forces "will remain unnecessarily exposed" and will "continue to accrue preventable ... serious and grave casualties," the memo says.

45

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Alternative Energy in Iraq key to increase troop safety and prevent attacks Rati Bishnoi, Staff Writer, Inside Defense, 8-11-06, http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?passfile=&page_url= %2Ffeatures%2F0%2C15240%2C109512%2C00.html&passdirectory_file=%2Fnewsfiles %2F109512.htm, Junaid
The need to deliver fuel to help generate electrical power at U.S. bases and installations in Iraq is unnecessarily putting troops in “harm's way each time we send out a convoy,” the document states. “If this need is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to IED, RPG, and [small arms fire] threats and will continue to accrue preventable Level III and IV serious and grave casualties resulting from motor vehicle accidents and . . . attacks,” the request states. “Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success.” IED is shorthand for improvised explosive device. Further, the time and effort spent on moving fuel diverts "our focus of effort from developing the Iraqi Security Force," the request states. “As we transfer control to the Iraqis, the addition of renewable and self-sustainable energy at the outlying bases will enable the Iraqis to operate independently, lessening the need for coalition forces to provide future logistics support,” it states. If fielded, renewable energy systems in the Anbar province could provide commanders with a more reliable command and control capability, sustain the force by offering “key life support functions” in high temperatures, and help save money, the document states.

Alternative energy powered technology solves Iraqi oil dependence Sebastian Sprenger, Staff Writer, Federal Computer Week, 8-7-07, www.fcw.com/online/news/1034471.html, Junaid
According to the slides, the U.S. military’s demand for power has climbed steadily during the past decades. Deployed service members now consume an average of 27.3 gallons of fuel per day during operations in Iraq, compared with an average consumption rate of 1.7 gallons during World War II, the briefing slides state. The military’s growing hunger for energy in theater is largely driven by new technological developments, particularly in the field of C4ISR systems – military jargon for communications, surveillance and reconnaissance gear -- and unmanned vehicles, the DSB slides state. As a result, fuel makes up 70 percent of the weight of goods delivered to troops on the battlefield, according to DSB. But lugging fuel to the front lines restricts unit mobility and exposes convoy guards to enemy attacks, the briefing slides read. DSB panel members suggest several technological solutions to increase DOD systems’ and vehicles’ energy efficiency. For ground vehicles, these include the use of lighter, more resilient materials, and hybrid and electric engines. Fixed-wing aircraft would be more energy efficient when built with a blended wing body design -- an aircraft shape combining the traditional tube form with that of a flying wing, according to the briefing slides.

Lack of alternative fuels will jeopardize Iraq (1ac) Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, CS Monitor, 9-7-06, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.htm, Junaid
But another cost is time. Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to replace fuel, victory could be forfeited. "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."

46

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Alternative energy key to military leadership in Iraq Amori Lovins, Rocky Mounain Institute, 7-28-07, Interviewed by Grist Magazine, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19995726/, Junaid
Amory Lovins: If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or malice -- become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, about a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient. I've been suggesting that approach for many years. Besides its direct benefits for the military mission, it will drive technological refinements that then help transform the civilian car, truck, and plane industries. That has huge leverage, because the civilian economy uses 60-odd times more oil than the Pentagon does, even though the Pentagon is the world's biggest single buyer of oil (and of renewable energy). Military energy efficiency is technologically a key to leading the country off oil, so nobody needs to fight over oil and we can have "negamissions" in the Gulf. Mission unnecessary. The military leadership really likes that idea.

Alternative energy key to Military strength and end of Fossil Fuel dependence in Iraq Rati Bishnoi, Staff Writer, Inside Defense, 8-11-06, http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?passfile=&page_url= %2Ffeatures%2F0%2C15240%2C109512%2C00.html&passdirectory_file=%2Fnewsfiles %2F109512.htm, Junaid
The top U.S. military commander in western Iraq is requesting shipments of renewable energy systems in an attempt to reduce the time fuel convoys spend on roads where they are susceptible to attack from insurgents using roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. “To improve the security posture of the al-Anbar province of Iraq, [Multi-National Force-West] requires a renewable and self-sustainable energy solution to support forward operating bases, combat outposts and observation posts throughout MNF-W's battlespace,” a Joint Staff Rapid Validation and Resourcing Request certified by MNF-W leaders states. Inside the Pentagon obtained a copy of the document. Command officials certified the request on July 25 on behalf of Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the MNF-W chief. The request is categorized as a “priority 1” need. In the document, the region's U.S. military leaders call on the Pentagon to send more renewable energy systems to the country because they could leverage resources like sunlight or wind to produce power for bases and outposts. Commanders assert that tapping renewable energy sources would lessen dependence on fossil fuels -- a move that could save lives.

47

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani The only way to save the on going energy dependent war is a shift to alt fuels Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, 9-21-05, Google Scholar, http://www.cjpe.org/stp/iraq_strategy.html, Junaid
But the journey to peace will not be completed even with the five steps above. Strength Through Peace calls on this nation to strike out boldly upon a course of reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. We need not be concerned for our access to Iraq’s oil supply. The laws of supply and demand in the world market will assure our share. But in the best of scenarios the world is facing a decline in the supply of fossil fuels. We must start now in rapidly developing alternative energy sources, including efficiency and a mix of wind, solar, hydrogen, small scale hydropower, biofuels, and clean coal technologies, technologies that will allow for our society’s survival in the very different world that is fast approaching. We’ve poured $200 billion into the unfortunate military adventure in Iraq. Investing a comparable sum in a future of energy independence is the course of wisdom.

Alternative Energy in Iraq key to increase troop safety and prevent attacks Rati Bishnoi, Staff Writer, Inside Defense, 8-11-06, http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?passfile=&page_url= %2Ffeatures%2F0%2C15240%2C109512%2C00.html&passdirectory_file=%2Fnewsfiles %2F109512.htm, Junaid
The need to deliver fuel to help generate electrical power at U.S. bases and installations in Iraq is unnecessarily putting troops in “harm's way each time we send out a convoy,” the document states. “If this need is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to IED, RPG, and [small arms fire] threats and will continue to accrue preventable Level III and IV serious and grave casualties resulting from motor vehicle accidents and . . . attacks,” the request states. “Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success.” IED is shorthand for improvised explosive device. Further, the time and effort spent on moving fuel diverts "our focus of effort from developing the Iraqi Security Force," the request states. “As we transfer control to the Iraqis, the addition of renewable and self-sustainable energy at the outlying bases will enable the Iraqis to operate independently, lessening the need for coalition forces to provide future logistics support,” it states. If fielded, renewable energy systems in the Anbar province could provide commanders with a more reliable command and control capability, sustain the force by offering “key life support functions” in high temperatures, and help save money, the document states.

Energy efficiency in Iraq solves- safer logistics and troop safety Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, CS Monitor, 9-7-06, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html
"By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," reads the unclassified memo posted on the website InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month. Use of renewable energy, such as solar power, is not new to the US military, one of the largest consumers of renewable energy, especially at off-grid outposts in North America. Four 275-foot-tall wind turbines were unveiled last year at the Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, meeting about a quarter of the base's electrical needs and saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel. Still, Major General Zilmer's request highlights what appears to be a small but growing focus on adding renewable sources of energy to the fuel mix for combat operations as part of Department of Defense planning. Special operations forces concluded that using foldout solar panels to recharge batteries was better than carrying more disposable batteries into combat, a 2004 study for the Army found. Last year, Konarka Technologies Inc. in Lowell, Mass., received a $1.6 million Army contract to supply flexible printed solar panels to reduce the number of batteries soldiers carry.

48

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani End of fossil fuel dependence is crucial to end the war Frank Zaski, Staff Writer, Solar Today, Nov/Dec 2007, www.solartoday.org/2007/nov_dec07/readers_forum.htm, Junaid
Commentators like Thomas L. Friedman and R. James Woolsey Jr. have persuasively described the strong relationship between international military conflict and the quest for oil. The Gulf War, the current Iraq war and the civil war in Sudan are but three conflicts in which securing oil rights was a key objective. Some predict we will see even more and larger conflicts as the world’s peaking oil supply is depleted. Declining sources of natural gas and uranium and the potential for misuse of nuclear energy are more sources of international tension. And the nuclear race doesn’t end with North Korea and Iran. Twelve Middle Eastern countries have asked the International Atomic Energy Administration for help in starting their own nuclear programs.Energy, economics, and national security are increasingly intertwined. One solution is for every country to enhance its own national security by transitioning to domestic sources of energy. Another is to slow the international proliferation of energy technology that can be made into weapons. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can be a major part of both strategies.

49

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Readiness key to Iraq
US lacks readiness in the Iraq and can not address future conflicts Lolita C. Baldor, Staff Writer, The Huffington Post, 2-8-08, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/wardemands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html, Junaid
WASHINGTON — A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report. Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level _ pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.

No readiness in Iraq- US vulnerable to attacks Reuters, 4-29-08, http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2942030920080429, Junaid
WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - A senior Democratic lawmaker on Tuesday called for urgent action to improve military readiness, saying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cost overruns in weapons programs had sapped the ability of U.S. troops to respond quickly to a crisis elsewhere. Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat who heads the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said military official had finally begun to acknowledge these problems after years of questioning by Congress. "Should a major unexpected contingency occur today, it could not be answered in a timely fashion and this worries me to death," Skelton told a group of defense writers."We are in dire need of upgrading our readiness," he said, citing concerns about military training, the strain of repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and difficulties ensuring troops had the equipment they needed.

US is suffering in Iraq- Readiness Key AP, Associated Press, 2-27-07, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/27/national/main2519581.shtml, Junaid
(AP) Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress. The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate. The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." Pace's report comes as the U.S. is increasing its forces in Iraq to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. And top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and reserve forces and taking a heavy toll on critical warfighting equipment. `

50

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani The US is not ready to face any new crisis is Iraq- plan key William H. McMichael, Staff Writer, The Marine Times, 6-13-08, http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_stretched_080114w/, Junaid
If the U.S. were to face a new conventional threat, its military could not respond effectively without turning to air power, officials and analysts say. That is the ultimate upshot of the war in Iraq: a response elsewhere would consist largely of U.S. fighters and bombers — even, perhaps, some degree of nuclear strike — because so many ground troops are tied up in Operation Iraqi Freedom. And that leaves at least some senior U.S. leaders and analysts crossing their fingers. “I believe that we, as a nation, are at risk of mission failure should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat,” Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, said last year, basing his assessment on classified Army readiness reports.“Iraq is sort of sucking all the oxygen out of the room,” said Tammy Schultz, who studies ground forces for the Center for a New American Security, a relatively new Washington think tank dedicated to “strong, pragmatic and principled” security and defense policies. “My huge fear is that ... we’re really putting the nation at risk,” Schultz said. “It could reach absolutely tragic levels if the United States has to respond to a major contingency any time in the near future.”

Iraq is facing a massive overstretch Ben Cohen and Christopher Preble, Staff Writers, Chicago Sun Times, 3-3-07, Posted on CATO institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8018, Junaid
Perhaps this latest budget will finally break the Iron Triangle. Lawmakers are reportedly suffering from "sticker shock" after learning that the defense budget request totals more than $700 billion, and who can blame them? That figure includes $235 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the more than $350 billion already spent on those conflicts. The outrageous cost of the Iraq war -- in both blood and treasure -- helps to explain why many senators, including many Republicans, are opposing the President's escalation plan. But those aspects of the defense budget not related to the ruinous Iraq war also require scrutiny. Regular Pentagon spending in the 2008 budget totals $481 billion, an 11 percent increase over present. Why so much?

Enhancing our weapon systems is critical to solve Ben Cohen and Christopher Preble, Staff Writers, Chicago Sun Times, 3-3-07, Posted on CATO institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8018, Junaid
Every weapon system, every proposal to increase the size of the force, every plan for deploying our military abroad or expanding current operations must be scrutinized. Even the most powerful country in the world must make choices. Our citizens' hard-earned tax dollars are at stake, and our soldiers' lives are on the line. In credit for their contribution, politicians on both sides of the aisle should welcome a real debate on defense spending. They should ensure that our troops are being provided with essential equipment, and that precious defense dollars are not diverted to extravagant projects.

51

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Filling equipment shortfalls key to Iraq The National Security Advisory Group, Jan 2006, “The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk,” Junaid
The Army and the Army National Guard have experienced critical equipment shortfalls that increased the level of risk to forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and reduced the readiness of units in the United States. From the beginning of the Iraq war until as late as last year, the active Army experienced shortages of key equipment for deployed troops. While many of these shortfalls have been addressed, the readiness ratings of many non-deployed units, including some slated to deploy later this year, have dropped to very low levels. This situation is even worse for Army National Guard units. These readiness shortfalls are only likely to grow as the war in Iraq continues to accelerate the wearout rate of all categories of equipment for the ground forces.

Tech readiness key to restore Iraq The National Security Advisory Group, Jan 2006, “The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk,” Junaid'
In order to restore the health of U.S. ground forces in the wake of Iraq, the nation must step up and invest substantial resources to reset, recapitalize, and modernize the force. Resetting the force is already well underway in both the Army and the Marine Corps and has been funded through emergency supplemental appropriations. The problem is that anticipated equipment rehabilitation costs may well extend beyond the supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, which could leave both the Army and the Marine Corps with substantial unpaid bills. Congress must ensure that even when supplemental funding ends, adequate funding for resetting the force continues. Without this, neither service will be able to “get well” in the wake of Iraq. At the same time, both the Army and the Marine Corps have a number of systems that are nearing the end of their projected service lives. Both, for example, are faced with the prospect of block obsolescence for whole classes of vehicles. Within the next couple of years, the Army and the Marine Corps will need to embark on major recapitalization programs to keep their forces supplied with reliable, functioning equipment. This will be particularly challenging for the Army as it transitions to a force of more numerous ] modular brigade combat teams.

52

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Readiness Low- Iraq
Readiness is drained in Iraq The National Security Advisory Group, Jan 2006, “The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk,” Junaid'
Today’s tempo of operations is well above what the Army believes it can manage over the long term. Army personnel management policies generally aim for at least two years at home between deployments for active duty personnel and mobilization no more than once every five to six years for Guard and reserve personnel. This is the tempo that the Army believes it can sustain for long periods of time without losing personnel. But the Army cannot sustain its current deployment levels beyond 2006 without either sending active duty forces back to Iraq with less than two years’ rest, re-mobilizing reservists, or building additional new brigades. At the moment, none of these options appears viable. Similarly, the Marine Corps can temporarily surge to two deployments per three-year rotation cycle, but it cannot sustain this tempo indefinitely. When personnel are deployed for long tours with great frequency, it becomes exceedingly difficult to recruit high quality volunteers into the force and to keep the best quality personnel from leaving the force.

Iraq has shafted US readiness Michael R. Melillo, Executive Officer of the 11th Marine Regiment, Fall 2006, “Outfitting a Big-War Military with Small-War Capabilities,” Junaid
Interstate wars, while not obsolete, are now less prevalent than direct threats from irregular forces. The US military’s conventional dominance has forced its enemies to seek other methods to challenge American hegemony. While conventional might is still necessary in an uncertain world, the American invasion and subsequent operations in Iraq have exposed the US military’s limitations and instigated changes that will make it more prepared to meet the growing irregular threat. Only by creating a force that is just as adept at conducting small wars against irregular enemies as it is at conducting big wars against conventional foes will the United States be able to ensure security in the 21st century

The ongoing mission has drained US readiness in Iraq Michael R. Gordon, Chief Military Correspondent to the NY Times, Dec. 2006, Survival Vol. 48 Issue 4 Pgs 67-81, Junaid
In terms of its doctrine and training, the United States military has been transformed by the war in Iraq. The army, which is carrying the principal load among the military services, has embraced counter-insurgency as one of its primary missions. These changes reflect the military's ability to adapt to the changing battlefield. They are intended not only to guide the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also future operations in the 'long war' against violent Islamic extremists. The new emphasis on counter-insurgency, however, is largely disconnected from the Defense Department's previously established spending priorities and personnel policy. The result is that American defence is in a state of strategic confusion. There are not enough forces to effectively carry out counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining a strategic reserve for other threats. To fully exploit the long overdue emphasis on counterinsurgency, maintain sufficient forces for dealing with unanticipated contingencies and bring coherence to American defence strategy, the Pentagon needs to increase the United States' ground forces

53

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Readiness lacking now in Iraq William H. McMichael, Staff Writer, The Marine Times, 6-13-08, http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_stretched_080114w/, Junaid
That policy has “increased the un-readiness in our next-to-deploy forces and limits our ability to respond to emerging strategic contingencies,” Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, Army deputy chief of staff for operations, recently told Congress. “All reserve component units have been either partially or completely mobilized in support of the global war on terrorism,” Lovelace said. “Undermanned to begin with, they had to rely on volunteers and extensive cross-leveling from other units to fill their ranks.” Even backup ground forces have been consumed. “We’ve always kept one brigade of the 82nd Airborne [Division] at home — even in Korea and Vietnam,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who served as Pentagon personnel chief during President Reagan’s first term. “That was our strategic ground reserve.” Now, he said, all four brigades in that division are deployed.

54

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Iraq War Inevitable
US will not leave Iraq in the Status quo and faces failure Paul Woodward, Staff Writer, TheNational, 7-14-08, http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080714/GLOBALBRIEFING/108393164/1009/SPORT&template=glo balbriefing, Junaid
"US and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of US troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior US officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended US military presence there to the next administration," The Washington Post reported. "In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a 'bridge' document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic US military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a UN mandate at the end of the year. "The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord - blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept US terms and the complexity of the task - deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

US plans to stay in Iraq- only question is avoiding failure (1ac) Dan Robinson, Staff Writer, GlobalSecurity.org, 7-9-08,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/07/iraq-080709-voa02.htm,

Junaid

General Dubik acknowledges that progress could still be reversed by insurgents he describes as active and capable, while Iraqi forces still face obstacles in training, leadership and sectarianism. He says holding on to success achieved so far will require ongoing U.S. support. "To hold on to those successes and achieve the quality, improvements, and professionalization that we all want, continued coalition advisory and training teams along with partnership units is necessary as is Iraqi security force funding," he said.Dubik says Iraqi officials, including Iraq's defense minister, have pointed to a general time period between 2009 and 2012 during which Iraqi forces could make progress that is still needed. Straub had this response to a lawmaker's question about recent Iraqi statements about a U.S. withdrawal timetable: "I think the Iraqis with these comments in the last couple of days about timetable are looking at a time when their forces will be ready. So, I don't think there is such a spread [difference] between us, we are very much focused on conditions." White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday that the United States remains opposed to any arbitrary withdrawal timetable, and said Iraqi leaders agree that conditions on the ground in Iraq must be the primary determining factor.

Iraq is inevitable- the only question is success Dan Robinson, Staff Writer, GlobalSecurity.org, 7-9-08,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/07/iraq-080709-voa02.htm,

Junaid

General Dubik acknowledges that progress could still be reversed by insurgents he describes as active and capable, while Iraqi forces still face obstacles in training, leadership and sectarianism. He says holding on to success achieved so far will require ongoing U.S. support. "To hold on to those successes and achieve the quality, improvements, and professionalization that we all want, continued coalition advisory and training teams along with partnership units is necessary as is Iraqi security force funding," he said.Dubik says Iraqi officials, including Iraq's defense minister, have pointed to a general time period between 2009 and 2012 during which Iraqi forces could make progress that is still needed. Straub had this response to a lawmaker's question about recent Iraqi statements about a U.S. withdrawal timetable: "I think the Iraqis with these comments in the last couple of days about timetable are looking at a time when their forces will be ready. So, I don't think there is such a spread [difference] between us, we are very much focused on conditions." White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday that the United States remains opposed to any arbitrary withdrawal timetable, and said Iraqi leaders agree that conditions on the ground in Iraq must be the primary determining factor. **Also see Oil Dependence Cards

55

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Stabilize Iraq Possible
We can stabilize Iraq- withdrawal would be catastrophic CNN, 11-15-06, http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/senate.abizaid/index.html, Junaid
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Wednesday he is optimistic that "we can stabilize Iraq." Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, rejected a call from some Democrats for a phased redeployment of forces beginning in four to six months. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Abizaid said such a move would result in an increase in sectarian violence. Among the Democrats proposing a phased redeployment is Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who is in line to replace Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia as chairman of the committee in January. "It seems to me that the prudent course ahead is keep the troop levels about where they are," Abizaid told the committee.

We have a chance in Iraq now Brookings Institute, 7-30-07, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0730iraq_ohanlon.aspx, Junaid
Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

56

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Instability Bad
Any Middle East conflict risks another Global Nuclear war John Steinbach, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 3-3-2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html, Junaid
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

Instability will kill oil supplies causing an economic collapse Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, 1-12-04, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040109faupdate83175/kenneth-m-pollack/aftersaddam-assessing-the-reconstruction-of-iraq.html, Junaid
After the experience of the last thirty years we now know quite a bit about failed states -- enough to know that allowing Iraq to become one would be disastrous. The chaos bred by a failed state can never be successfully contained. Iraqi refugees would flow out of the country and into neighboring states. Chaos in Iraq would breed extremists and terrorists who would not limit their targets only to those within Iraq's nominal borders. Groups within Iraq would call on co-religionists, co-ethnicists, tribesmen, and fellow political travelers across the borders for aid. Petty warlords would seek help from neighboring powers, and the neighbors themselves would inevitably begin to intervene in Iraq's civil strife if only in the vain hope of preventing it from spilling over into their territory.The same would likely hold true for Iraq and its impact on the countries of the Persian Gulf. They would be inundated by refugees and armed groups seeking sanctuary and assistance. They would be sucked in by tribal rivalries, ethnic and religious ties, and fear that a failure to act will cause the chaos to spread across their borders. They would likely become battlegrounds for rival Iraqi militias and breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists.And these are countries that the United States cares about deeply. Saudi Arabia is frail enough as it is. Many analysts fear that even on its own, the Saudi state might not last another ten years. Add to that the tremendously destabilizing influence of civil war in Iraq next door, and no one should be sanguine about Saudi prospects. Kuwait is another major oil producer, and if chaos consumed Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it would be hard for tiny Kuwait to remain inviolate. The loss of oil production as a result of chaos or revolution in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait would cripple the international oil market with unimaginable consequences for the global economy. Beyond them, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are all also economically and political fragile and all would suffer from the political, military and economic spillover of a failed state in Iraq.Given the history of failed states, we simply cannot allow Iraq to slip into chaos and civil war. The results would likely be catastrophic for the entire region -- a region that is vital to the interests of the United States and the economic health of the entire world.

57

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Instability leads to terrorism- breeding grounds sprout Graham Barrett, Former External Affairs Advisor from the World bank, 9-5-03, The Age, Lexis, Junaid
It is an intoxicating cocktail, rendered all the more potent by American incompetence in the wake of its invasion of Iraq, which has done more to establish this line of thinking among prospective Islamists around the world than any other influence. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a good cause which, if it had been accomplished a decade earlier under United Nations auspices, would have saved us the anguish that everyone involved must now endure. The problem is that the United States has demonstrated it is brilliant at winning wars with its high-tech advantage, but incompetent at winning the peace with its myopic political leadership and its naive and inadequately trained troops. Iraq is the new Afghanistan, with young Americans and Britons replacing young Russians in the firing line. The Soviet Union, having suffered terrible casualties, eventually fled Kabul. The Americans are nowhere near the point of leaving Baghdad, although they, too, will quit as soon as they can. The trouble is that Islamist fanatics are being drawn to the blood in their hundreds or thousands, dramatically raising the risks for the Americans, the UN and humanitarian organisations, and ensuring that hopes of reconstructing Iraq are diminished and delayed. Those who are suffering the most from this jihad are the Iraqis, once again deprived of a chance to build a life. Their country is the perfect location for a showdown between Islamist gangsters and the West. It is also opening the way for a much broader and closer network of co-operation among extremist groups, now adapting and evolving in ways that are making them harder to identify and track. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda group have never been more influential, as their franchise spreads to many parts of the world. At the same time, it matters less whether bin Laden is caught or killed. The example he has set is enough to ensure that his brand of terrorism is now self-generating among extremist units that are increasingly independent in their selection and prosecution of targets, while possessing the ability to draw on specialist expertise from other groups when necessary. The worst aspect of this growing professionalism is that Western societies need to anticipate the day when acts of terror move into the biological, chemical and nuclear age, with a potential for human tragedy that would make the Twin Towers horror seem tame. All the ingredients for such an escalation exist and are being sought.

58

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Oil Shocks bad- China Scenario
China’s economy is on the brink due to recent oil price spikes, but further push will collapse its economy Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, international business editor of the Daily Telegraph, 7-8-08, Oil price shock means China is at risk of
blowing up, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/07/ccview107.xml The great oil shock of 2008 is bad enough for us. It poses a mortal threat to the whole economic strategy of emerging Asia. The manufacturing revolution of China and her satellites has been built on cheap transport over the past decade. At a stroke, the trade model looks obsolete. No surprise that Shanghai's bourse is down 56pc since October, one of the world's most spectacular bear markets in half a century. Asia's intra-trade model is a Ricardian network where goods are shipped in a criss-cross pattern to exploit comparative advantage. Profit margins are wafer-thin. Products are sent to China for final assembly, then shipped again to Western markets. The snag is obvious. The cost of a 40ft container from Shanghai to Rotterdam has risen threefold since the price of oil exploded. "The monumental energy price increases will be a 'game-changer' for Asia," said Stephen Jen, currency chief at Morgan Stanley. The region's trade model is about to be "stress-tested". Energy subsidies have disguised the damage. China has held down electricity prices, though global coal costs have tripled since early 2007. Loss-making industries are being propped up. This merely delays trouble. "The true impact of the shock will only be revealed over time, as subsidies are gradually rolled back," he said. Last week, China raised internal rail freight rates by 17pc. BP 's Statistical Review says China's use of energy per unit of gross domestic product is three times that of the US, five times Japan's, and eight times Britain's. China's factories "were not built with current energy levels in mind", said Mr Jen. The outcome will be "non-linear". My translation: China is at risk of blowing up. Any low-tech product shipped in bulk - furniture, say, or shoes - is facing the ever-rising tariff of high freight costs. The Asian outsourcing game is over, says CIBC World Markets. "It's not just about labour costs any more: distance costs money," says chief economist Jeff Rubin. Xinhua says that 2,331 shoe factories in Guangdong have shut down this year, half the total. North Carolina's furniture industry is coming back from the dead as companies shut plant in China. "We're getting hit with increases up and down the system. It's changing the whole equation of where we produce," said Craftsmaster Furniture. China is being crunched by the triple effects of commodity costs, 20pc wage inflation, and sagging import demand in the US, Canada, Britain, Spain, Italy, and France. Critics warn that Beijing has repeated the errors of Tokyo in the 1980s by over-investing in marginal plant. A Communist Party banking system has let rip with cheap credit - steeply negative real interest rates - to buy political time for the regime. Whether or not this is fair, it is clear that Beijing's mercantilist policy of holding down the yuan to boost exports share has now hit the buffers. Foreign reserves have reached $1.8 trillion, playing havoc with the money supply. Declared inflation is just 7.7pc, but that does not begin to capture the scale of repressed prices, from fuel to fertilisers. "There is a lot more bottled-up inflation in this economy than meets they eye," says Stephen Green, from Standard Chartered. Inflation merely steals growth from the future. It defers monetary tightening until matters get out of hand, which is where we are now. Vietnam has already blown up at 30pc. India is on the cusp at 11pc, so is Indonesia (11pc), the Philippines (11pc), Thailand (9pc) - leaving aside the double-digit Gulf. Of course, oil prices may fall again. They plunged to $50 a barrel in early 2007 after the Saudis raised production. The scissor effect of slowing global growth and extra crude later this year from Brazil, Azerbaijan, Africa, and the Gulf of Mexico may chill the super-boom.

Chinese economic collapse causes World War III
Tom Plate, professor of Policy and Communication Studies at UCLA, June 30, 2003, “WHY NOT INVADE CHINA? With allies like the neo-cons, Bush scarcely needs enemies”, http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/TomPlate2003/06302003.htm But imagine a China disintegrating -- on its own, without neo-con or CIA prompting, much less outright military invasion -- because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. Refugees by the gazillions would head for Indonesia and other poorly border-patrolled places, which don't want them and can't handle them; some in Japan might lick their chops for World War II Redux and look to annex a slice of China. That would send small but successful Singapore and Malaysia -once Japanese colonies -- into absolute nervous breakdowns. India might make a grab for Tibet, and while it does, Pakistan for Kashmir. Say hello to World War III Asia-style! That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth -- the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

59

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Withdrawal Inevitable
Increased violence has diminished chances for withdrawal The Guardian, 3-1-06, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/01/usa.iraq, Junaid
Profound pessimism about the Iraq war has pushed George Bush's popularity to an all-time low of 34%, as polls yesterday showed American civilians and soldiers at odds with the White House over US objectives and strategy. While some of the drop in support is attributable to discontent with domestic policies, it is clear the sectarian bloodletting in Iraq over the past week has extinguished hopes that December's elections could help stabilise the country and pave the way for US troop withdrawal.

Too many threats to consider withdrawal The Guardian, 3-1-06, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/01/usa.iraq, Junaid
Mr Bush will not be standing for election again but the lack of public support for the war is a serious concern at a time when decisions have to be taken over US troop levels. The threat of civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis has cast doubt in the Pentagon over significant troop withdrawals which had been pencilled in for this year, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

Violence has too much intensity to allow pullout USA Today, 2-27-08, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-27-iraqoptions_x.htm, Junaid
Iraq's intensified religious battles could undermine the Bush administration plan for cutting the number of U.S. troops there, experts say, especially if negotiations in Baghdad fail to produce a national unity government."This throws a monkey wrench in the administration's strategy of standing down (U.S. troops) as the Iraqis stand up, because it suggests that many Iraqis are standing up to fight other Iraqis," says James Phillips, a defense scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation

Bush will never pull out, he will simply dump the Iraq problem on the next president
Bloomberg 7/8 (Nadine Elsibai and Dan Hart, Gates Cancels Trip as Criticism of Iraq War Mounts,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNUBCb1AdOow&refer=home) The New York Times, in its editorial, said the U.S. military should begin leaving Iraq as soon as possible to avoid more American lives being lost and even greater political and financial costs.``The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces,'' the paper said. ``It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.''”`It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor,'' the paper said. ``Whatever his cause was, it is lost.''

60

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Obama will Pullout
Obama won’t pullout all troops. Market Watch, July 13, 2008 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama-man-withoutplan/story.aspx?guid=%7B7C1E2B2A-961A-4D05-B636-9CC7EF1B051E%7D&dist=hppr
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Today, Obama Said That He Would Not Abandon The Field In Iraq And Would Leave A Residual Force There To Fight Al Qaeda And Train Iraqi Forces: Obama Said He Would Keep Troops In Iraq To Conduct Counter-Terrorism Operations And Other Limited Missions. Obama: "[I] have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq. I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not reform in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces -- so long as we're not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other -- to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region. So, nobody's talking about abandoning the field." (CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," 7/13/08)

Obama will leave a force in Iraq. Donald Lambro, July 16, 2008 “Obama's Iraq policy still a work in progress “http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/07/16/obamas_iraq_policy_still_a_work_in_progr ess
WASHINGTON -- About a week ago, I reported in this column that a top defense adviser to Barack Obama was proposing that a large "residual" U.S. military force remain in Iraq under his mercurial troop-withdrawal plan. The freshman Chicago Democrat poohpoohed such reports at the time, saying those who accused him of changing his position on pulling out all U.S. combat forces from Iraq "haven't apparently been listening to me."But in an op-ed column in Monday's New York Times, Obama said he will leave behind "a residual force in Iraq" that would carry out a number of missions, including going after al-Qaeda insurgents, defending remaining U.S. servicemen left behind and training Iraqi security forces. It is hard to follow the swiftly changing positions in his troopwithdrawal plan, but at last count, it has gone from removing all U.S. military forces to all "combat forces" to his most recent position: Pulling out most combat forces with an apparently undetermined number of brigades left behind for the foreseeable future.

Obama will leave a force in Iraq. Donald Lambro, July 16, 2008 “Obama's Iraq policy still a work in progress “http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/07/16/obamas_iraq_policy_still_a_work_in_progr ess
The biggest hint came from Colin Kahl, assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, who is the chief coordinator of Obama's working group on Iraq policy. The group's job has been to write policy papers that would form the basis of his withdrawal plan. But in several policy papers and memos, Kahl disagreed with Obama's exuberant rhetoric for a total withdrawal. "Rather than unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq and hoping the international community will fill the void and push the Iraqis toward accommodation -- a very unlikely scenario -- the United States must embrace a policy of 'conditional engagement,'" Kahl wrote with former National Security Agency director William E. Odom in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. "This approach would couple a phased redeployment of combat forces with a commitment to providing residual support for the Iraqi government if and only if it moves toward genuine reconciliation," he said. Kahl told me in a phone interview that his views did not represent the campaign's position. But he expressed similar views in other confidential papers for the campaign, and advisers said they have come to reflect the senator's "emerging thinking" on how to make a troop-withdrawal plan work without leaving the Iraqis at the mercy of a renewed insurgency. Contrary to Obama's pledge to his antiwar base, Kahl's position papers talked of leaving behind "a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000 to 80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

61

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Obama will leave a residual force in Iraq-troops will stay

Marc Ambinder, 14 Jul 2008 “Obama's Principles On Iraq” http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/obamas_principles_on_iraq.php
Obama suggests that his "residual" force would not serve as police officers in unstable neighborhoods; they would not patrol or otherwise find themselves consrcipted as first responders. He draws another contrast with McCain: And then links the challenge of Iraq with the much broader challenge of terrorism, once again promising to redeploy troops to Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban. There's still some wiggle room here. Obama writes that he'd ask commanders for advice about where to withdraw troops first and "would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later." In practice, this would mean that combat troops would remain in volatile areas much longer than those who now patrol stable areas. Left unanswered is what would happen if the ground commanders urged Obama to keep troops in volatile areas for longer than a year -- or what would happen if Obama began to withdraw troops at one to two brigades per month, and his commanders asked him to keep a brigade in place for an extra two or three months -- or what would happen if violence erupted in places the U.S. recently evacuated -- or whether Obama's residual force would be supplemented with brigades transferred from other parts of the country.

Obama wouldn’t fully withdrawal. New Zealand Herald. July 21, 2008. Obama vows to continue 'war on terror' http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10522661
KABUL, Afghanistan - US presidential contender Barack Obama today pledged to pursue the "war on terror" if he his elected. Meeting Afghan president Hamid Karzai at his palace in Kabul, Obama pledged to continue the battle begun by president George W Bush "with vigour", an Afghan official said. Obama and other American senators held two hours of talks with President Karzai On the third day of an international tour designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Obama has called for withdrawing US troops from Iraq at the rate of one or two brigades a month and sending reinforcements to Afghanistan. He favours leaving behind a residual force in Iraq to protect US personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by alQaeda.

62

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Withdrawal CP
Withdrawal is immoral Telegraph, 4-9-07, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/04/dl0402.xml, Junaid
As General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army at the time of the invasion, writes in his autobiography, which this newspaper is serialising, the American-led coalition made a series of catastrophic errors, such as not providing sufficient numbers of troops and needlessly disbanding Iraq's security infrastructure.Whatever mistakes have been made in the past, Britain and America have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their war-ravaged country before any serious consideration can be given to a fullscale withdrawal of coalition troops.

Withdrawal leads to instability USA Today, 2-27-08, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-27-iraqoptions_x.htm, Junaid
At the other end of the spectrum would be to quickly withdraw U.S. troops. That option could make Iraq dangerously unstable, Phillips says. The past week is evidence that "the U.S. presence is one of the chief barriers to starting a civil war," he says. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., says there's no denying that Iraq is already in a state of civil war, only masked by the U.S. military operations. He renewed his call for the administration to set a timetable for withdrawing the troops. That, he says, would force the Iraqis to come to terms with one another.

Pullout will lead violence and regimes in and around Iraq Dan Goure; Deputy Director of the International Security Program at the Lexington Institute; 11/30/2005; Minnesota Public Radio
Mr. DAN GOURE (Military Analyst): One might argue that, in fact, a premature pullout will cost us more; that is, we will have to worry about shoring up regimes and security services from Jordan and the Gulf states to Israel, Turkey, Pakistan and the like, particularly if the terrorists are emboldened, and therefore we might save relatively little money. In addition, the US military has the requirement to reset its forces; that is, to bring them back to operating condition after the wear and tear in Iraq, which will continue to go on, after we've pulled the last soldier, airman, sailor out, for up to two years. VIGELAND: What about the reconstruction effort itself? If the US military pulls out, if and when it eventually does, are companies gonna want to continue to work there with even the few projects that they already have on the ground? Mr. GOURE: Well, you've hit on one of the really interesting issues that isn't addressed by those who advocate withdrawal, and that is: What are the second- and third-order consequences? A precipitous withdrawal will, in fact, pull the rug out from the plans and programs for reconstruction, and particularly the ideas of US companies. Even if you have your own security services and you're buying that kind of support, any company has to raise the question as to whether their people are going to be safe given what's likely to happen afterwards, which is, you know, a massive upsurge in violence, perhaps even descent into civil war. So in that case, if we pull out, will companies pull out? The Iraqi economy goes into another tailspin, and the political situation gets worse. The region gets worse. Bad ideas all around.

63

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani
US presence in the Middle East inevitable- pullout will lead to more troop near Iraq Dan Goure; Deputy Director of the International Security Program at the Lexington Institute; 11/30/2005; Minnesota Public Radio
Mr. GOURE: There's no question. We're not withdrawing from the entire region and, in fact, were we to leave Iraq, we'd probably want more troops in the region. That means a bigger supply base, more construction, a bigger role for US companies and more dollars being spent. You know, we're talking in terms of support for the Iraqis, the Iraqi military and US forces, a very complex supply chain, one that stretches all the way back to the factories, depots, arsenals in the United States, as well as intermediate bases, in Kuwait and elsewhere. We're not going to pull completely out of the region. In fact, one might argue that US forces will have to be deployed in greater numbers in the Persian Gulf if we walk out of Iraq. Withdraw from Iraq rapidly and you are going to be spending a lot more money to shore up the rest of your position in the Middle East and other friendly regimes.

Kills heg New York Times; 2/28/2006, http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin, Junaid
I still believe that while the war was a dreadful mistake, an immediate pullout would also be a misstep: anyone who says that Iraq can't get worse hasn't seen a country totally torn apart by chaos and civil war. Mr. Bush is right about the consequences of an immediate pullout -- to Iraq, and also to American influence around the world.

Pullout guarantees the same horrors of Vietnam Charles Hurt, Bureau Chief, New York Post, 8-23-07, http://www.nypost.com/seven/08232007/news/nationalnews/bushs_viet_twist_on_iraq.htmm Junaid
WASHINGTON - President Bush yesterday invoked the Vietnam War and warned that Iraq would be turned into mass "killing fields" if the United States withdraws now, as many Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans have urged. "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " Bush told a gathering of veterans yesterday. And while the resolve of U.S. politicians - many of whom voted for the war - may waver, the resolve of the enemy remains as strong as ever, he said. "The violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese or the Soviet communists were of theirs," said Bush. "They are destined for the same fate."

64

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

No Investment Now
The US isn’t investing much in R&D
Daniel Kammen, 07 Distinguished Chair in Energy and professor in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of PublicPolicy, and the Department of Nuclear Engineering, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Co-Director of the Institute of the Environment, all at the University of California, Berkeley, served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, currently serves on the Canadian National Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Energy Science and Technology Strategy, 9/25/07, “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives”, testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and public Works, http://64.233.167.104/search? q=cache:DFTI3CV77SMJ:www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmen-senate.pdf+Professor+Daniel+Kammen+from+U.C. +Berkeley+new+wave+of+job+growth+both+%E2%80%98high+technology%E2%80%99+and+ones+that+transform+ %E2%80%98blue+collar+labor%E2%80%99+into+%E2%80%98green+collar%E2%80%99+opportunities. +The+combination+of+economic+competitiveness+and+environmental+protection+is+a+clear+result+fr&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl =us&client=firefox-a In a series of papers (Margolis and Kammen, 1999; Kammen and Nemet, 2005; Nemet and Kammen, 2007) my students and I have documented a disturbing trend away from investment in energy technology—both by the federal government and the private sector, which largely follows the federal lead. The U.S. invests about $1 billion less in energy R&D today than it did a decade ago. This trend is remarkable, first because the levels in the mid-1990s had already been identified as dangerously low, and second because, as our analysis indicates, the decline is pervasive—across almost every energy technology category, in both the public and private sectors, and at multiple stages in the innovation process. In each of these areas investment has been either been stagnant or declining. Moreover, the decline in investment in energy has overall U.S. R&D has grown by 6% per year, and federal R&D investments in health and defense have grown by 10 to 15% per year, respectively.

65

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Plan Key to Spinoff
Solar panel research will spur further innovation in solar energy NREL, 5-23-2008, NREL Solar Cells to Lighten a Soldier's Load, http://www.nrel.gov/features/0508_solar_soldier.html
How Will the Army of the Future Keep the Charge Light on Green? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are teaming with a consortium of universities and private companies to perfect an advanced solar cell designed to be smaller and far more efficient than existing cells. Such a solar photovoltaic (or PV) panel would be tiny enough to be built into differing types of portable electronic equipment, yet powerful enough to deliver a sufficient current for charging. To achieve this ambitious goal, scientists are bringing together several of the most revolutionary concepts yet developed for PV cells. The cell they envision would have different layers of PV materials, each producing the optimum amount of electricity from varied portions of the light spectrum. It additionally would be topped by a lens that would concentrate the amount of sunlight directed on the PV materials. "By drawing upon several of the most important innovations in PV design and combining them into an entirely new concept for cell design, we believe we can leapfrog over the limitations that had long been assumed for efficiency, size, cost and other critical factors," said Dr. Mark Wanlass, principal scientist at NREL. "The new device we are looking to develop could not only solve many of the limitations our soldiers today encounter with electronics in the battlefield," Wanlass added, "it may spur other new solutions for solar power in space, and eventually, for our homes and businesses here at home." Supplying Electricity, While Taking the Load Off There are many reasons the military finds it advantageous to use solar cells to charge batteries. By being able to reliably charge batteries, it reduces the number of spare batteries needed. From a logistical standpoint, that means fewer trucks, helicopters and planes are required to ferry stocks of batteries into the field. For individual soldiers, it can mean as much as a 20-pound decrease in the field supplies they must carry — a lighter load that can enhance their agility and stamina. The end result is an armed force that is more efficient, as well as more environmentally sustainable. Other Applications for the New Class of Solar Cells In a related project, Wanlass says the research team is also putting a lot of focus on what is being called the "inverted metamorphic multi-junction," or IMM, solar cell, which he says "has clear advantages in performance, engineering design, operation, and cost." It employs an entirely new way of constructing cells, with layers being grown, or deposited, from top to bottom, a notion that turns the well established method of putting layers one atop another, literally on its head. The IMM cell is particularly well suited to power space vehicles, thereby supporting the soldier who relies on satellites for communications and reconnaissance. Wanlass believes research should continue as well on other approaches to higher efficiency solar cells, such as different cell structures and even more novel materials. In the short run, however, he believes the IMM cells hold the most promise for breaking the boundaries of efficiency with a new class of solar photovoltaic device.

The military is a good starting point for research—allows for the most in-depth and developed technology.
Parameters Spring 06 Vol 36 Issue 1 “Towards a Long-Range Energy Security Policy” Proquest [ev] 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

66

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Military research key to technological innovation
Vernon W. Ruttan, Regents Professor in the Department of Economics and Applied Economics University of Minnesota,2006, Is war necessary for economic growth?: Military Procurement and Technology D3evelopment P.1 It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the historical role that military procurement has played in the process of technology development. Knowledge acquired in making weapons was an important source of the industrial revolution. To bore the condenser cylinders for his steam engines, “ Watt had to turn to John Wilkinson a cannon-borer, who had invented the one machine in all England that could drill through a block of cast iron with accuracy.” In France the navy provided the market that gave French entrepreneurs an opportunity to catch with British advances in Ferrous metallurgy.( In the united states , what came to be termed the American sytem of manufacturing emerged from the new England armormy systems of gun manufacture. During almost every since World War, defense and defense related research and technology development expenditures have accounted for at least two thirds of all U.S. Federal government research and development.

Millitary innovations will spillover to the civilian sector
David Roberts,interview with Amory Lovins, 7/26/07,” All you need is Lovins A conversation with Energy Guru Amory Lewis.” http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007.07/26/lovins/ I've been suggesting that approach for many years. Besides its direct benefits for the military mission, it will drive technological refinements that then help transform the civilian car, truck, and plane industries. That has huge leverage, because the civilian economy uses 60-odd times more oil than the Pentagon does, even though the Pentagon is the world's biggest single buyer of oil (and of renewable energy). Military energy efficiency is technologically a key to leading the country off oil, so nobody needs to fight over oil and we can have "negamissions" in the Gulf. Mission unnecessary. The military leadership really likes that idea.

Military Usage of alternitive energies will get the entire country on board “ Pentagon says oil reliance strains military.” By Bryon Bender, Boston Globe 5/1/07
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon study says oil reliance strains military/ The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence broader national effects 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 fossiel fuels poses a serious risk to national security.” The pentagon’s efforts have a huge impact on the rest of the country.” Copulos said.

THE PLAN IS KEY – ALL DOD ACTIONS ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 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_reliance_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. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind. Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.

67

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Plan key to competitiveness
the failure to compete in this emerging renewables market will cripple U.S. economic and technological leadership
Hendricks 04– Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance – 2-12-2004 (Bracken, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on House Resources, “Rising Price of Natural Gas,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And America's future prospects will depend upon the secure supply of affordable and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. But growing dependence on foreign oil, unprecedented energy failures, and mounting evidence of environmental crises are clear warning signs that America's current policies cannot be sustained. It is time for a bold initiative - with the vision and the scope of the original Apollo program - to end America's dependence on foreign oil and create millions of good jobs building the sustainable energy system of the next century. While the Apollo project is about changing our future, it is built on an honest assessment of our past and the recognition that public leadership and meaningful public investment have historically been essential for economic development and promoting new technology. In the past, government investment in the railroads, in the national highway system, in the space program, in the research and development of the micro chip and other technologies elevated our economy and quality of life to new levels. We cannot sit on the sidelines now if America is to move forward. The American economy will not grow its way out of problems thirty years in the making without real political leadership. Too often we are told to think small, that we have to choose between good jobs and environmental quality. This is a false choice and we can do better. Working families should not have to decide whether to put food on the table for our children today or protect the health and economic security of our children tomorrow. We must do both. Ensuring a diverse, efficient, and clean energy supply is essential for preserving good jobs, protecting our environment, and sustaining American global economic and technological leadership.

68

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Plan key to growth Military investment in technology is key to economic growth.
Business Wire 1/22/08 “ Increase Government Spending Aids Military Power Supplies Market”Lexis A rise in military spending, along with greater budget allocation for modernization of joint forces since 9/11, encourages the military power supplies market. Government knowledge of electronics in the battlefield increases and gives a significant boost to market growth. New analysis from Frost & Sullivan, North American military power Supplies Market, finds that the market earned revenues in 2006 and estimates to reach 832.2 million in 20013.

Military incentives motivate college researchers to achieve a solar power first
( UD daily, 07/23/07, University of Delaware) http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html Using a novel technology that adds multiple innovations to a very high-performance crystalline silicon solar cell platform, a consortium led by the University of Delaware has achieved a record-breaking combined solar cell efficiency of 42.8 percent from sunlight at standard terrestrial conditions. That number is a significant advance from the current record of 40.7 percent announced in December and demonstrates an important milestone on the path to the 50 percent efficiency goal set by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In November 2005, the UD-led consortium received approximately $13 million in funding for the initial phases of the DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) program to develop affordable portable solar cell battery chargers. The VHESC would have immediate application in the high-technology military, which increasingly relies upon a variety of electronics for individual soldiers and the equipment that supports them. As well, it is hoped the solar cells will have a large number of commercial applications. This achievement is the direct result of the new architecture we developed under the DARPA program,” Barnett and Honsberg said. “By integrating the optical design with the solar cell design, we have entered previously unoccupied design space leading to a new paradigm about how to make solar cells, how to use them, and what they can do.” “This is a solar cell that works,” Barnett said, adding, “This technology has the potential to change the way electricity is generated throughout the world.”

69

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Plan key to tech
Military and private sector coop is key to developing the most effective technology.
Army news Service 4/20/06 “ Army Advances Alternative Energy Technologies” Lexis Detroit,MI The army is at the forefront of the alternative energy advancements that will improve the capability of Americas military forces. Working alongside industry and academia research leaders, these technology developments will not only support our armed forces, but have unlimited commercial applications . The Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center(TARDEC), with its National Automotive Center (NAC), is working with industry and academia partner nationwide to research cutting’edgee technologies in hybrid, hydrogen, and fuel cell vehicle developments. “ The research base in Michigan allows us (TARDEC) to collaborate with our automotive and academia partners to develop alternative energy solutions that are transferable to both military and industry.” Said DR. Richard E. McClelland, TARDEC

Government support is key to fuel effective military technology .Paul Carlstrom, San Fransisco Chronicle, July 11, 2005, “As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter”, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/a rchive/2005/07/11/BUG7 IDL1AF1.DTL&type=tech [Jason] These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices. "Price is no object for the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features." All three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million. Nanosys' $9.4 million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all of this research is solar-related. Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable. "The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.

Military is the key starting point for alternative energy technology and innovation
(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.

70

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Plan key to Alt Energy Industry
U.S. government support of alt energies is key to the success of alt energies and U.S. leadership in alt energies. Empirically proven.
(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 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.

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."

71

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Tech solves Growth
Solar tech solves private sector growth.
Gary Arlen Staff Writer 2/8/05 Post-Newsweek Business Information: Newsbytes “For Tech’s Sake: lightweight Solar Power for Mobile Users” Lexis [ev] Nonetheless, the opportunity is immense, especially as government users not just military field personnel increasingly rely on transportable power supplies. Developers envision that their thin-film polymers will be wrapped onto building materials, such as cubicle walls allowing windows and ceiling lights to feed power to new devices, especially in temporary locations and venues where traditional electrical wall sockets are scarce. Nanotech energy developers are fond of statistics about the vast opportunities they face. Of the worldwide energy production (about four terawatts), barely 1 percent comes from renewable sources, and solar power represents less than 1 percent of that segment, McGahn says. As portable devices demand more power and as the devices themselves become more multi-functional (further increasing power needs), the value of photovoltaic supplies becomes more apparent. That is one reason for the young companies to dream that their flexible products will move beyond the coatings of devices. Invisible rooftop and tent-top solar collectors and even clothing coated with photovoltaic material are the next steps in this power play. For IT developers especially the growing cadre tasked with implementing efficient, long-lasting mobile applications the availability of so many photovoltaic options is becoming a shining ray of light.

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.
(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]) 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.

72

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Competitiveness Key to Heg
Competitiveness is key to maintain leadership.
Zalmay Khalilzad, professor of international relations at Columbia, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995 (Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis | SWON) To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.

73

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Competitiveness Key to Economy

Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and causes a collapse
Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html|
But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating, showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices, worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates. Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic and financial collapse but social and political chaos.

Clean energy markets are crucial to regain US markets and creating jobs.

Daniel Kammen

07, Distinguished Chair in Energy and professor in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of PublicPolicy, and the Department of Nuclear Engineering, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Co-Director of the Institute of the Environment, all at the University of California, Berkeley, served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, currently serves on the Canadian National Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Energy Science and Technology Strategy, 9/25/07, “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives”, testimony before the United States
Senate Committee on Environment and public Works,www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmen-

senate.pdf
Green jobs can accrue across the entire economy, from laboratory research and development positions, to traditionally unionized work in plumbing, electrical wiring, and civil engineering. Following the critically important Green Jobs initiative Senator Sanders spearheaded in the Senate, the House Green Jobs Act (initially sponsored by Solis and Tierny, HR 2847, now part of the HR 3221, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007) invests in worker training and career opportunities for low-income Americans. These efforts are to be applauded, and could be the model for expanded job access and development efforts in a wide range of energy related industries. In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for both domestic installation and overseas ex

74

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Spec Ops Add-On
Solar cells key to camouflage and effectiveness of special ops MachineDesign.com 6/2/2005 Solar cells will double as camouflage
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/60332/Solarcellswilldoubleascamouflage.aspx Special operations soldiers, for example, can carry 70 to 100 lb of replacement batteries for night-vision goggles, GPS units, and two-way communicators, explains McGahn. "They carry a daily supply of primary batteries, but limited power capacity and the continual need for resupply can limit the mobility, range, and mission length required for effective field operations." Konarka photovoltaic cells use nanomaterials to convert absorbed sunlight and indoor light into electrical energy. This direct-current electrical energy can be used immediately, stored for later use, or converted to other forms of energy. Traditional photovoltaic cells are made from rigid pieces of silicon. Konarka's chemistry-based cells are coatable, plastic, flexible photovoltaics that serve in many applications where traditional photovoltaics can't compete. The photovoltaic products are literally printed onto rolls of plastic. Konarka scientists inject a dye into titanium dioxide, a white pigment commonly used in toothpaste and paint. Dye applied to a flexible material absorbs energy from both the sun and indoor light. This light energy travels through the titanium dioxide and a series of electrodes and is converted into electrical energy. The process can imprint different colors on the photovoltaic material. A prototype tent under development for the military, for example, can be produced in camouflage colors. The cells can also be made with varying degrees of translucency. The production process is said to be environment friendly, uses existing coating and printing machines and technologies, and does not expose polymer substrates to harmful high temperatures. As part of its work for the Army, Konarka also will perfect the printing of camouflage-patterned power plastic to maintain a low visible profile. "Coloring and patterning is unique to Konarka's technology," said Russell Gaudiana, Konarka vice president of research and development. "Other photovoltaics require camouflage covers for disguise, but that reduces light harvesting and power output. Our materials can be printed with the appropriate images while still maintaining their power generating capabilities, helping to protect soldiers in the field."

Special ops solve terrorism
Matthew Johnson, Missouri State University, 2006, The Growing Relevance of Special Operations Forces in U.S. Military Strategy, Comparative Strategy, Informaworld The stunning contribution of SOF in Afghanistan resulted in the collapse of the Taliban regime in only forty-nine days and greatly aided coalition forces in ousting Saddam Hussein from power. In response to these achievements, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced on 7 January, 2003 that Special Operations Command (SOCOM) would now be able to operate as a supported command, allowing it to plan and execute independent missions, as well as tasking it as the lead military organization to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). SOCOM's new focus is planning, directing, and fighting the GWOT, hunting down individual terrorists, disrupting cells, and working with Host Nation (HN) forces to provide local and regional security. SOCOM's current mission statement summarizes its important role: “USSOCOM plans, directs, and executes special operations in the conduct of the War on Terrorism in order to disrupt, defeat, and destroy terrorist networks that threaten the United States, its citizens and interests worldwide.”1

75

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Terrorism causes extinction Sid-Ahmed, 04 (Mohammad, political science prof @ GW, Al-Ahram Weekly, Extinction!,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even

if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without

winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

76

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Battery shortage now
Battery Shortages are hurting readiness – solar panels can solve Defense Update, 2004, Portable Electrical Power, http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/batteries-lessons-iraq.htm
The shortage, caused by supplies depleted by many years of insufficient funding, first surfaced when Central Command’s maintenance branch began packing supplies for an anticipated war with Iraq. Batteries as other supplies, were sent by ship on a two week voyage. More vital cargo, such as fuel, was sent by Air Force cargo planes. When combat operations started earlier than planned, batteries were rushed to the theater, loaded onto Air Force cargo planes. Eventually, 95 percent of the BA 5590s were flown into Kuwait. Delivering batteries to forward units, over the long supply lines, was another challenge. In fact, until U.S. forces secured forward airfields near Baghdad, Kirkuk and Umm Qasr, there were no safe means of deliveries to forward troops. Forces landed in Northern Iraq and East of Baghdad received their supplies directly from Germany. Due to the shortage in primary batteries, troops were instructed to use rechargeable batteries, previously used only for training. To support the operations, units would have to forward deploy a battery charging van but none was actually used operationally during the war. The Army is looking at alternative power sources, for example, small and flexible solar panels that could be folded and stored in a soldier’s rucksack. In desert conditions, solar panels can be used to recharge batteries or even run radios. Combat lessons in Iraq have demonstrated the importance of users understanding that batteries are not made equal. Different types and capacities can provide extended usage. Furthermore, reliable power reading of fresh and used batteries. Lithium batteries power many systems, including the radio communications equipment (PRC-119), the Javelin missile command and guidance system, rugged portable computers, navigation systems, Chemical, Biological and Radiological (CBR) sensors, Satellite Communications equipment, night vision equipment, weapons sights and target acquisition systems, and the command and guidance unit of the. The most common battery is the BA 5590, which was also in the shortest supply. This battery is based on the Li/SO2 chemistry, in use the US Military in communications applications over the past 10 - 15 years, as it was the only lithium technology currently available that has a proven successful record in combat situations.

77

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Solar solves batteries
Solar panels can solve battery recharging problems Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 9/7/2006 In the Iraqi war zone, U.S. Army calls for 'green' power,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-09-07-army-green-power_x.htm Special operations forces concluded that using foldout solar panels to recharge batteries was better than carrying more disposable batteries into combat, a 2004 study for the Army found. Last year, Konarka Technologies Inc. in Lowell, Mass., received a $1.6 million Army contract to supply flexible printed solar panels to reduce the number of batteries soldiers carry.

Plan will magnify capabilities- battery efficiency
COURTNEY E. HOWARD, Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine senior editor, 7-2006, Fueling the Future, http://www.tdipower.com/pdfs/articles/Fueling%20the%20Future.pdf The first phase of the FFW program is to reduce the soldier’s load weight and power requirements, while improving his or her lethality, situational awareness, communicability, and protection. To this end, the Army is not only conducting its own research and development efforts, but also eliciting the help and technologies of various industry vendors. The Natick Soldier Center initiated a load-carriage study in Afghanistan in 2002, which proved to be the first such study to be performed in the Army since the mid-1940s. It revealed that the average dismounted soldier carries approximately 120 pounds of external load. Soldiers throughout history have carried as much as four times what they need; they prefer to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Nonetheless, the results indicate a serious need for smaller, lighter devices; and, given that the battery pack traditionally constitutes the largest portion of the weight load, the FFW’s portable power supply is the focal point of much of this research. “We are trying to redesign the sol- dier to make the soldier lighter,” DeGay says. “We have stripped the soldier down to skin, we have a list of capabilities and technologies that we want to have the sol- dier possess, and we are building that system around the soldier. When the U.S. Air Force, for example, builds a new aircraft, they understand that the most impor- tant thing is the individual sitting in the cockpit. Subsequently, the cockpit is built around the individual. That’s what we’re trying to do with the soldier.”

Batteries are key to troop readiness, but supply lines are vulnerable – solar cells can solve Drake Bennett, staff writer for Ideas, 5-27-2007, Environmental defense, Boston Globe,
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/27/environmental_defense/ Another major challenge is the sometimes nightmarish logistics of supplying energy to soldiers in the field. Fuel convoys in Iraq, for example, are favorite targets of insurgent attacks. And with troops increasingly equipped with high-tech devices like satellite phones, GPS locators, and night-vision goggles, energy isn't merely a matter of gasoline -- batteries are also a vital military commodity. A typical soldier carries 10 to 27 pounds of batteries, according to DARPA. To help reduce the load on the military's energy supply lines, DARPA is exploring longer-lasting fuel cells to replace current batteries, as well as technologies, like highefficiency solar cells and even mobile generators that run on discarded plastic packaging, to allow more power to be generated in the field.

78

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Solar Cells solve supply lines
Solar Cells solve supply lines Fernandez, Randyll R. M., Jr, master’s thesis candidate at NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA, SEP 2005,
A Novel Photovoltaic Power Converter for Military and Space Applications, Master’s Thesis, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA439411 This research will offer an apparent understanding of the capabilities of Photovoltaic Power Converting Technology (PVPC) and its stage of technological advancement. One of the many applications to which this may offer technology a solution is the area of field batteries. A reliable rechargeable battery system would lessen both the strategic burden and tactical load of fielded military personnel. This can be accomplished by reducing the reliance on disposable batteries in a forward deployed environment. Logistically and financially this change would make sense. In addition, its ability to improve the efficiency of the solar power output, cost-effectiveness, reliability, light weight, and unlimited power provide an invaluable benefit to the current level of technology for space application.

79

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Solar key to stealth
Solar panels enhance stealth Abby Schultz, Fast Company Staff, 2004, Nanotech Solar Cells, in Camouflage Colors,
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/79/gear.html A year from now, U.S. soldiers may go into the field with a thin sheet of flexible plastic, packed into the size of a road map and attached to their combat vests. They would unfold the plastic to let the sun recharge the batteries powering their walkie-talkies, night optical gear, and other electronics. The plastic, which the Army expects to test this year, would be coated with solar cells created by Konarka Technologies Inc., in Lowell, Massachusetts. While traditional solar cells are built on crystalline silicon or glass, Konarka uses nanotechnology--in this case, minute crystals of titanium dioxide coated witha light-absorbing dye. The dye-sensitized cells (available in snappy camouflage patterns) are as thick as just a few sheets of paper. The result: A power source that could free troops from carrying battery packs and rechargers that weigh as much as 100 pounds and leave traces enemies can track when tossed away. "As technology evolves, more and more sophisticated electronic devices are put on the soldier, and you need power to drive them," says Lynne Samuelson, research chemist at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center.

Solar panel tents and uniforms are key to stealth, which is key to winning – heat signatures
John Gartner, Wired Staff Writer, 06.29.04, Solar to Keep Army on the Go, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/64021 During a battle, the ability to move troops swiftly and without detection can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The U.S. Army is developing tents and uniforms made from flexible solar panels to make it more difficult to track soldiers. Jean Hampel, project engineer in the Fabric Structures Group at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said the need to reduce the Army's logistics footprint spurred interest in developing lightweight solar panels. "We want to cut back on the things that soldiers have to bring with them," including generators and personal battery packs, Hampel said. In modern warfare, portable power for communications technology is every bit as important as firepower and manpower. The Army is testing flexible solar panels developed by Iowa Thin Film Technologies that can be layered on top of a tent, or rolled up into a backpack to provide a portable power source. Tents using solar panels made from amorphous silicon thin film on plastic can provide up to 1 kilowatt of energy, which is sufficient to power fans, lights, radios or laptops, according to Hampel. Hampel said using solar tents would reduce the need for diesel powered generators and diminish the "thermal signature" that enemy sensors use to track troop location. She said soldiers could carry smaller flexible solar panels and unfold them during the day to collect energy to recharge their personal communications equipment.

80

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Solar key to bases
Solar Energy key to Bases Defense News, 8-15-2006, Renewable Energy Demand Reaches U.S. Front Lines, http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?
newsid=12776 At remote U.S. military bases in Iraq, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, American commanders are pleading for solar panels and wind generators to save the lives of troops forced to protect lengthy and vulnerable supply lines that wind through the country and feed the military's voracious fuel appetite. The urgent request for renewable energy systems was submitted July 25 by U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, who commands U.S. forces in western Iraq's restive Anbar province. The document pointed to the vulnerability of American supply lines to insurgent attack by ambush or roadside bombs, and said reducing the military's dependence on fuel for power generation could reduce the number of road-bound convoys. Electricity to power everything from computers to air conditioners on U.S. bases is by means of monstrous diesel-fueled generators kept running 24 hours a day. Feeding those generators -- and fueling the many vehicles used to patrol Iraq's roadways -- requires fuel convoys that originate as far away as Kuwait. The document said the majority of the supply convoys on Iraq's roads are carrying fuel. "Without this solution [renewable energy systems], personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate. Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success," the request said. Coming as it does from a battlefield commander who has directly tied the potential for renewable energy to reducing American casualties in Iraq, versus an initiative pushed from cost cutters from inside the department, the request for renewable energy systems could very well represent a tipping point in the Pentagon's commitment to renewable energy, said experts who have advised the military on reducing fuel consumption. "This is the beginning of the people trying to understand that the whole notion of energy means being more effective in operations," said Terry Pudas, deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation. He said the military has long thought more in terms of effectiveness than efficiency, a notion that is changing as "the burden of logistics and energy on the battlefield now really does become an effectiveness issue." The American military has embraced a doctrine of war fighting designed for nonlinear battlefields, such as Iraq, where the traditional notion of front lines and secure rear areas in reality no longer exists.

81

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Base key to mobility
Army mobility hinges on energy for installations Eileen T. Westervelt and Donald F. Fournier, 2005 Energy Trends and Implications for U.S. Army Installations
http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcco/news/specialreports/projectenergy/06_0420_projectenergy_energytrendsreportfromarmycorps. pdf Worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase by 2.1 percent/yr and domestic energy consumption by 1.4 percent per year. This will exacerbate global energy competition for existing supplies. Army energy consumption is dominated by facilities consumption. Facilities consumption may decrease in both total quantity and in intensity basis—but not without an aggressive energy program with careful planning, diligent monitoring, and prudent investment. The closure of European installations and relocation of troops onto domestic installations will make this outcome especially challenging. The energy consumption associated with Army mobility (tactical and nontactical vehicle consumption) is expected to remain constant, but may potentially increase depending of future phases of the Global War on Terror and on geopolitical tensions resulting from the world energy situation.

82

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: No Solar Tech
Tech exists but research is key – efficiency and size aren’t problems NREL, 5-23-2008, NREL Solar Cells to Lighten a Soldier's Load, http://www.nrel.gov/features/0508_solar_soldier.html
How Will the Army of the Future Keep the Charge Light on Green? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are teaming with a consortium of universities and private companies to perfect an advanced solar cell designed to be smaller and far more efficient than existing cells. Such a solar photovoltaic (or PV) panel would be tiny enough to be built into differing types of portable electronic equipment, yet powerful enough to deliver a sufficient current for charging. To achieve this ambitious goal, scientists are bringing together several of the most revolutionary concepts yet developed for PV cells. The cell they envision would have different layers of PV materials, each producing the optimum amount of electricity from varied portions of the light spectrum. It additionally would be topped by a lens that would concentrate the amount of sunlight directed on the PV materials. "By drawing upon several of the most important innovations in PV design and combining them into an entirely new concept for cell design, we believe we can leapfrog over the limitations that had long been assumed for efficiency, size, cost and other critical factors," said Dr. Mark Wanlass, principal scientist at NREL. "The new device we are looking to develop could not only solve many of the limitations our soldiers today encounter with electronics in the battlefield," Wanlass added, "it may spur other new solutions for solar power in space, and eventually, for our homes and businesses here at home."

83

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: don’t work in dark
Solar cells sustain power in low light for satellites Fernandez, Randyll R. M., Jr, master’s thesis candidate at NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA, SEP 2005,
A Novel Photovoltaic Power Converter for Military and Space Applications, Master’s Thesis, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA439411 The purpose of this thesis is to consider PhotoVoltaic Power Converter (PVPC) technology, developed by Atira Technologies, and its prospects for military and space applications. This research will validate the hypothesis that PVPC technology enables a solar power system to produce usable power during low- and no-light conditions which standard solar power systems fail to provide. Solar cell panels are exposed to sunlight at different angles and with variable intensity, therefore the resulting output power varies depending on the illumination angle as well as the light intensity of each panel. Atira Technologies devised a novel buckboost converter that is specifically designed to track the maximum power point of each solar panel. This would provide a significant increase in the overall available power by utilizing a switching topology in a subdued lighting condition. Although a small amount of power is generated, given enough time, a battery will reach its full charge, compared to no additional charging if the battery is using a panel without the circuit. In addition, this research will also show the vital sustaining information to substantiate PVPC's claim of usefulness and effectiveness to allow for longer time on station both in the field and in space so it can extend its missions.

84

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Oil shocks kill DoD
Oil shocks won’t affect the DoD Paul Dimotakis, John K. Northrop Professor of Aeronautics and professor of applied physics at the California Institute of Technology, The MITRE Corporation, December 09, 2006, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf DoD fuel consumption constraints and patterns of use do not align well with those of the commercial sector. Most commercialsector fuel use, for example, is in ground transportation, with only 4% of domestic petroleum consumption used for aviation. In contrast, almost 60% of DoD fuel use is by the Air Force, with additional fuel used in DoD aviation if Naval aviation consumption is included. Options for refueling ships at sea are more limited (or nonexistent) compared to those for commercial vehicles in urban areas. Options for DoD use of electrical energy on ground vehicles are limited, since one can not expect to plug into the grid in hostile territory, for example, to refuel/recharge an electric vehicle. Furthermore, drive cycles for DoD ground vehicles differ significantly from EPA drive cycles that, as a consequence, provide poor standards for fuel consumption.

Oil Shocks won’t affect the military Gregory Lengyel, 21st Century Defense Initiative of the Brookings Institution 2007 [Department of Defense Energy Strategy
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks August http://www.brookings.edu/~/media /Files/rc/papers/ 2007/08 defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Additionally, in the event of a catastrophic shut down of world oil flow, our government will ensure that the DOD has priority access to domestic oil production and the 700-1000 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, scenarios of supply disruptions to DOD installations via the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed operational forces via fuel logistics distribution networks are not completely far fetched.

85

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

2AC Hydrogen FC CP
Hydrogen fuel cells don’t alleviate the weight for soldiers because they require hydrogen tanks Don’t work for soldiers – they’ve got tens of low energy devices – hydrogen fuel cells are too big, and don’t last long enough to power them all for long missions Hydrogen is hard to store and transport, and costs are high David W. Keith, member of Dept of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon and Alexander E. Farrell, member of Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley 2003 “ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE:
Rethinking Hydrogen Cars” Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5631/315 The introduction of any new transportation fuel is a rare, difficult, and uncertain venture--it demands a linked introduction of a new fuel distribution system and new vehicles, because neither is useful without the other (3). Although technically feasible, a hydrogen refueling infrastructure would be expensive: initial cost would likely exceed $5000 per vehicle even if one assumes large economies of scale (4). The cars themselves will also likely be expensive. If hydrogen cars are ever to match the performance of current vehicles at a reasonable cost--particularly fueling convenience, range, and size--technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and energy conversion will be required. Like electricity, hydrogen is an energy carrier that must be produced from a primary energy source [HN3]. Today, hydrogen is produced from natural gas on a large scale and at low cost: hydrogen production consumes ~2% of U.S. primary energy, and at the point of production, it costs less than gasoline per-unit of energy. Although hydrogen production is simple, as a low-heating-value, low-boiling-point gas, it is inherently expensive to transport, store [HN4], and distribute--all strong disadvantages for a transportation fuel.

Still requires supply chains to get hydrogen fuel to bases, which are a main source of casualties Fuel cells are underdeveloped and costly – multiple reasons Kristine E. Blackwell, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF 4-2007 “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE:
OPTIMISM MEETS REALITY” google scholar (cache), https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf Cons: A number of obstacles currently prohibit the wide-spread use of hydrogen fuel cells by DOD. Cost, durability, and the transport storage, and delivery of hydrogen fuel are the three largest. At this stage in their development, fuel cells and hydrogen fuel are costly. According to DOE, a fuel cell with a capacity to generate 80 kilowatts lasts about 1000 hours at a cost of approximately $110 per kilowatt hour. 30 DOE’s goal is to reduce the cost to $30 per kilowatt hour and extend the fuel cell’s life to 5000 hours by 2015. 31 Finally, neither DOD nor the nation has a comprehensive system at this time to transport, store, or deliver hydrogen fuel. In 2004, DESC issued a report that assessed hydrogen as a potential future fuel for DOD. The report concluded that hydrogen may be a viable source of fuel for small-scale power generation and portable devices within the next 10-30 years however, based on the current state of its development, employing hydrogen fuel cells in weapons systems will not be feasible for 30-40 years. 32 The volume of liquid hydrogen required to power a Navy ship, for example, is four times the volume of conventional fuel. Either carrying capacity on the ship would need to 22 33 be expanded four times–especially difficult on ships that are already space-restricted–or the ship would have to refuel four times as often. Also, since hydrogen is highly flammable, there is no practical way to carry it aboard a ship. Similar obstacles preclude its use as an aviation fuel.

Can’t be carried for mobile bases, which are key to effective counter-insurgency missions

86

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Hydrogen/FC Bad
Hydrogen fuel cells take too long to develop – their advocates are hype
Michael Morisy, News Writer, 4-30-2008, Fuel cells still years away for mobile devices, http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid40_gci1311830,00.html Brent McKendry, CEO of Taipei, Taiwan-based fuel cell manufacturer Antig, has every incentive for fuel cells to succeed: Antig is one of the leading manufacturers of the technology and has even developed some of the leading small-form-factor fuel cell equipment. Despite this, years of experience have tempered his optimism that fuel cells will replace mobile device batteries anytime soon. "Will it ever be a viable consumer product?" McKendry asked. "I don't know. Technically, it's possible, but batteries are very good." That's a grim prognosis given the amount of hype once poured on the technology. Such headlines as "Mobile Phone Fuel Cells Coming in 2007" and " Membrane could rev up fuel cell industry" were common over the past few years. "In 2005, we were one of the companies saying it's just around the corner," he said. "We had to bite the bullet … and face the reality." That reality wasn't pretty. Although fuel cells could, on paper, last ten times as long as batteries, in practice they only doubled talk time while offering an inconsistent charge, all at a much steeper price. Meanwhile, the main competition for fuel cells, lithium-ion, kept improving. No longer did the batteries burst into flames on unsuspecting laps, even as the technology evolved to last longer. Part of the solution was, however, external to the power source entirely. Tina Teng, an analyst with iSuppli, said mobile manufacturers were more conscious of battery life and focused on improving device efficiency instead of battery life. "I see a lot of investment in chipset development," she said. "If users know how to manage their phones, like turning off the Bluetooth radio, then battery life can be improved a lot." At one point, iSuppli had projected 12 million devices fueled by power cells in 2009, but that forecast has been pushed back at least a year, even as iSuppli has stopped seriously tracking the technology in the mobile sphere.

Hydrogen is hard to store and transport, and costs are high David W. Keith, member of Dept of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon and Alexander E. Farrell, member of Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley 2003 “ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE:
Rethinking Hydrogen Cars” Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5631/315 The introduction of any new transportation fuel is a rare, difficult, and uncertain venture--it demands a linked introduction of a new fuel distribution system and new vehicles, because neither is useful without the other (3). Although technically feasible, a hydrogen refueling infrastructure would be expensive: initial cost would likely exceed $5000 per vehicle even if one assumes large economies of scale (4). The cars themselves will also likely be expensive. If hydrogen cars are ever to match the performance of current vehicles at a reasonable cost--particularly fueling convenience, range, and size--technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and energy conversion will be required. Like electricity, hydrogen is an energy carrier that must be produced from a primary energy source [HN3]. Today, hydrogen is produced from natural gas on a large scale and at low cost: hydrogen production consumes ~2% of U.S. primary energy, and at the point of production, it costs less than gasoline per-unit of energy. Although hydrogen production is simple, as a low-heating-value, low-boiling-point gas, it is inherently expensive to transport, store [HN4], and distribute--all strong disadvantages for a transportation fuel.

87

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Hydrogen fuel cells are impractical in a number of ways – requires fossil fuels to obtain, and logistical problems make it unrealistic
Stew Magnuson, September 2006, “Army Explores Alternative Ways to Add Power on Battlefields”, National Defense,
(http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/Armyexplores.htm)

A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to make electricity. Proponents praise the technology as clean, quiet and highly efficient. Feeding the fuel cell with oxygen is relatively simple. That comes from air. Hydrogen is another matter. It is difficult to distribute and store. Hydrogen can be converted from common fossil fuels like natural gas or propane or alcohol-based fuels like methanol. To convert these common fuels into hydrogen, there must be a “reformer.” If the reformer lets too many impurities through, it poisons the fuel cell, making it less efficient, or disabling it entirely. The Army, however, runs on jet fuel. And converting jet fuel to hydrogen will be the most complicated hurdle for TARDEC to overcome, Dobbs said. “Hydrogen has to be made. Basically, you don’t get it out of the ground,” Dobbs said. Eric Kallio, TARDEC principal investigator for fuel cell technology, said both diesel and jet fuel are complex compounds with hundreds of chemical ingredients. For example, both have high sulfur content, an impurity that would quickly choke a fuel cell. For logistical purposes, the military will not be transporting propane, methanol or other fuels into the field. The services made a decision in the early 1990s to have one primary fuel to simplify the supply chain, Dobbs said. The quality of jet fuel is highly variable. The sulfur content depends on where it is bought. The U.S. market may have lower sulfur content, but the military buys its fuel regionally. It will not be, for example, hauling lower sulfur fuel from U.S. refineries halfway around the world to Afghanistan or Iraq, Dobbs said.

Fuel cells are underdeveloped and costly – multiple reasons Kristine E. Blackwell, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF 4-2007 “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE:
OPTIMISM MEETS REALITY” google scholar (cache), https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf Cons: A number of obstacles currently prohibit the wide-spread use of hydrogen fuel cells by DOD. Cost, durability, and the transport storage, and delivery of hydrogen fuel are the three largest. At this stage in their development, fuel cells and hydrogen fuel are costly. According to DOE, a fuel cell with a capacity to generate 80 kilowatts lasts about 1000 hours at a cost of approximately $110 per kilowatt hour. 30 DOE’s goal is to reduce the cost to $30 per kilowatt hour and extend the fuel cell’s life to 5000 hours by 2015. 31 Finally, neither DOD nor the nation has a comprehensive system at this time to transport, store, or deliver hydrogen fuel. In 2004, DESC issued a report that assessed hydrogen as a potential future fuel for DOD. The report concluded that hydrogen may be a viable source of fuel for small-scale power generation and portable devices within the next 10-30 years however, based on the current state of its development, employing hydrogen fuel cells in weapons systems will not be feasible for 30-40 years. 32 The volume of liquid hydrogen required to power a Navy ship, for example, is four times the volume of conventional fuel. Either carrying capacity on the ship would need to 22 33 be expanded four times–especially difficult on ships that are already space-restricted–or the ship would have to refuel four times as often. Also, since hydrogen is highly flammable, there is no practical way to carry it aboard a ship. Similar obstacles preclude its use as an aviation fuel.

88

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Fuel cells fail
Paolo Agnolucci, PhD student in the economics department at Birkbeck College and External Associate of the PSI, 5-21-2007, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 32, Issue 17, December 2007, Pages 4319-432, Economics and market prospects of portable fuel cells Big manufacturers, funding their R&D activities from their balance sheets rather than the venture capital normally employed by small start-ups, tend to focus more on fuel cells incorporated into consumer products. This implies that their products will be likely to hit the market later than the external devices discussed above, as the technical issues to be tackled are greater. However, as in the case of small start-ups, the postponement of market introductions from big manufacturers has been common. Toshiba planned to commercialise microfuel cells for PCs in 2004 and for smaller devices in 2005 [53]. Ongoing issues such as the low energy density, lack of distribution channels and high cost have prevented commercialisation [61]. Casio aimed to commercialise a fuel cell in 2004, although it has not occurred yet [62]. Hitachi is aiming at introducing fuel cells for laptops in 2006 and those for mobiles a year later [54]. When in 2003 NEC presented its first device (left picture in Fig. 2) it promised to bring a fuel cell-equipped notebook to the market by the end of 2004. However, at the presentation of the second prototype in October 2004 (centre and right picture), NEC did not provide any timeframe for its introduction [63]. The recent announcement from Nokia, which dropped plans to develop fuel cells for phones for at least the next few years [54] A. Baker, D. Jollie and K. Adamson, Fuel cell today market survey: portable applications, Fuel cell today, London (2005).[54] and [64], clearly shows the extent of the problems still faced by the technology. Postponements of market introductions, although maybe disappointing, should be seen from the perspective of large companies which, like those mentioned above, have very wide product ranges and do not need any revenues from sales for further fuel cell R&D [11]. Considering the impact that marketing a faulty product can have on the brand, it seems reasonable for these companies to introduce the new technologies only after acquiring full confidence on its reliability. Jollie [46] prudently concludes that it is dangerous to expect a quick introduction of microfuel cells. In the short term, selling to specific industries or the army is a more convenient strategy as it relieves manufacturers from developing a product with a wider appeal and extensive distribution network. Specific industries and the army are also more likely to be willing to pay a premium, allowing firms to build revenues to sequentially penetrate more costcompetitive markets. The discussion on the benefits of fuel cells in Section 2 made it clear that the army and some specific industries gain more benefits than the average user from using fuel cells.

Hydrogen is impractical for the military – won’t ever replace diesel engines Stew Magnuson, September 2006, “Army Explores Alternative Ways to Add Power on Battlefields”, National Defense,
(http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/Armyexplores.htm)

Also, research dollars are being spent to look for ways to propel vehicles with hydrogen. TARDEC does not see that as a possibility, Dobbs said. “The efficiency argument is overshadowed by the need to make additional power and do it quietly,” said Dobbs. The military would effectively have to bring more energy along than it currently does to power vehicles such as humvees entirely on hydrogen, he said. And there are other ways to obtain fuel efficiency, he added. “Diesel engines are awfully efficient and there’s still room to make them more efficient,” he added. Diesel and jet fuel are chemically close. Glen Bowling, general manager of Saft America Inc., a leading manufacturer of lithium ion batteries, is among those who are skeptical that fuel cells will ever replace diesel engines. “A fuel cell is good at running at a single power level for a long time, but it does not do any kind of variation at all,” Bowling said in an interview at Saft’s Cockeysville, Md. plant. Meanwhile, battery technology has made leaps and bounds over the past decade, he noted. Lithium ion batteries cycle more efficiently and more slowly than nickel cadmium, lead acid or silver zinc varieties, he said. Lithium ion batteries are being used to power popular commercial products such as cell phones, laptop computers and MP-3 players. The military is slowly switching from silver zinc to lithium ion in many of its systems. Saft has already supplied lithium ion batteries to military demonstration hybrid vehicle programs such as General Dynamics Land System’s reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting vehicle, as well as the Air Force’s joint strike fighter and the Navy’s SEAL delivery vehicle. Saft still sees too many technology challenges to enter the fuel cell market. “The only one that can work consistently is a hydrogen fuel cell, and that is expensive.” “We don’t see the fuel cell business as real,” he added. A fuel cell-powered vehicle can’t provide the power to go up and down hills, he said. 89

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Fuel Cells soon
Fuel cells not soon
Michael Morisy, News Writer, 4-30-2008, Fuel cells still years away for mobile devices, http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid40_gci1311830,00.html Brent McKendry, CEO of Taipei, Taiwan-based fuel cell manufacturer Antig, has every incentive for fuel cells to succeed: Antig is one of the leading manufacturers of the technology and has even developed some of the leading small-form-factor fuel cell equipment. Despite this, years of experience have tempered his optimism that fuel cells will replace mobile device batteries anytime soon. "Will it ever be a viable consumer product?" McKendry asked. "I don't know. Technically, it's possible, but batteries are very good." That's a grim prognosis given the amount of hype once poured on the technology. Such headlines as "Mobile Phone Fuel Cells Coming in 2007" and " Membrane could rev up fuel cell industry" were common over the past few years. "In 2005, we were one of the companies saying it's just around the corner," he said. "We had to bite the bullet … and face the reality." That reality wasn't pretty. Although fuel cells could, on paper, last ten times as long as batteries, in practice they only doubled talk time while offering an inconsistent charge, all at a much steeper price. Meanwhile, the main competition for fuel cells, lithium-ion, kept improving. No longer did the batteries burst into flames on unsuspecting laps, even as the technology evolved to last longer. Part of the solution was, however, external to the power source entirely. Tina Teng, an analyst with iSuppli, said mobile manufacturers were more conscious of battery life and focused on improving device efficiency instead of battery life. "I see a lot of investment in chipset development," she said. "If users know how to manage their phones, like turning off the Bluetooth radio, then battery life can be improved a lot." At one point, iSuppli had projected 12 million devices fueled by power cells in 2009, but that forecast has been pushed back at least a year, even as iSuppli has stopped seriously tracking the technology in the mobile sphere.

90

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

2AC Biofuels CP
Solar power is key: 1. Mobility – batteries weigh down soldiers, hurting their endurance, speed, and dexterity, which is key to combat capabilities – biofuels can’t replace batteries 2. Stealth – solar panels come in fun camouflage colors, and don’t make as much noise as a bag of batteries. Also, thrown away batteries leave trails, and weight hurts dexterity and creates bigger tracks. That’s key to effective counter-insurgency missions. 3. Heat signatures – use of combustion generators allows insurgents to track US bases, tanks, and tents. Creates vulnerabilities and increases casualties. 4. New tech – biofuels don’t provide energy for high tech equipment for soldiers– solar tech is key to powering the information war Solar power has been shown to have a unique spillover effect into the private sector, and has applications in electricity generation. Countries like Brazil are producing biofuels, but that’s not spurring innovation – proves their CP solvency is empirically denied. Biofuels fail – low energy Mark S. Danigole, Lt Col, USAF, December 2007, “BIOFUELS: AN ALTERNATIVE TO U.S. AIR FORCE
PETROLEUM FUEL DEPENDENCY,” http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA474843 By comparing the properties of ethanol, biobutanol, terrestrial produced biodiesel and algae produced oil, it is evident that ethanol and biobutanol will not meet USAF fuel requirements primarily due to low energy density characteristics. Terrestrial produced biodiesel meets jet fuel energy density requirements, but exhibits poor cold weather characteristics that are incompatible with high altitude flight. Additionally, terrestrial produced biodiesel production capacity is limited due to feedstock availability. Of the four fuels examined, only algae produced oil, refined into jet fuel, offers a long-term environmentally friendly and permanent solution to USAF foreign fuel dependency.

91

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

2AC Efficiency CP
Solar power is key: 1. Mobility – batteries weigh down soldiers, hurting their endurance, speed, and dexterity, which is key to combat capabilities – efficiency standards won’t lighten the load 2. Stealth – solar panels come in fun camouflage colors, and don’t make as much noise as a bag of batteries. Also, thrown away batteries leave trails, and weight hurts dexterity and creates bigger tracks. That’s key to effective counter-insurgency missions. 3. Heat signatures – use of combustion generators allows insurgents to track US bases, tanks, and tents. Creates vulnerabilities and increases casualties. 4. New tech – efficiency doesn’t provide more energy for higher tech equipment that’s being produced – solar tech is key to powering the information war Solar power has been shown to have a unique spillover effect into the private sector, and has applications in electricity generation. Efficiency mechanisms don’t allow for more tech development.

92

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

2AC Wind Power
Solar power is key: 1. Mobility – batteries weigh down soldiers, hurting their endurance, speed, and dexterity, which is key to combat capabilities – efficiency standards won’t lighten the load 2. Stealth – solar panels come in fun camouflage colors, and don’t make as much noise as a bag of batteries. Also, thrown away batteries leave trails, and weight hurts dexterity and creates bigger tracks. That’s key to effective counter-insurgency missions. 3. Heat signatures – use of combustion generators allows insurgents to track US bases, tanks, and tents. Creates vulnerabilities and increases casualties. 4. New tech – efficiency doesn’t provide more energy for higher tech equipment that’s being produced – solar tech is key to powering the information war Solar power has been shown to have a unique spillover effect into the private sector, and has applications in electricity generation in houses and in recharging batteries. Wind power developments have a minimal effect on the economy – few wind power applications and consumers.

93

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

Wind Power Bad
Windmill farms kill radar effectiveness and ultimately readiness DoD Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Report to the congressional defense committees. 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/federalwindsiting/pdfs/dod_windfarms.pdf
There is growing public and private sector interest in generating electrical power using wind energy. According to the Department of Energy, over 60,000 megawatts of wind power capacity is in operation worldwide with over 10,000 megawatts installed in the United States. These systems are largely comprised of installations of up to several hundred wind turbines with rotating blades reaching to heights of up to 500 feet. The numbers, height and rotation of these wind turbines present technical challenges to the effectiveness of radar systems that must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure acceptable military readiness is maintained. For many cases, processes are in place to allow responsible federal authorities to complete determination of acceptability of wind turbine impacts on military readiness. However, since wind energy use in the United States is dramatically increasing, research and interagency coordination is warranted to enhance capability for completing timely determinations and developing measures for mitigating readiness impacts. This report focuses on the effects of wind farms on air defense and missile warning radars and the resulting potential impact on military readiness. Its scope is limited to these specific subjects and is based on the current level of understanding regarding interactions between such defense systems and state-of-the-art wind turbines.

94

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Synthetic Fuels CP
Synthetic Fuels fail to solve energy needs – 5 reasons Kristine E. Blackwell, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF 4-2007 “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE:
OPTIMISM MEETS REALITY” google scholar (cache), https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf The lack of sulfur in F-T fuel, although positive for the environment, presents two problems for aircraft engines. One is that it reduces the fuel’s lubricity, which causes stress on an engine’s moving parts. The other is that less sulfur results in fewer aromatic hydrocarbons, 17 Page 28 which, in traditional fossil fuels, have the desirous effect of causing engine seals to swell preventing leakage. Challenges involved with the large-scale production of F-T fuel may make its long-term use by DOD problematic. Notwithstanding the low carbon emissions produced by burning F-T fuel in engines, total carbon emissions generated through the fuel’s production and use are estimated to be twice that produced by the use of conventional petroleum fuel. Although advocates of F-T counter that the carbon emissions generated during fuel manufacture can be sequestered, 8 DOE officials and other experts have stated that large-scale carbon sequestration may be over a decade 9 away. The Air Force acknowledges that capturing carbon emissions is the “big issue” as they move ahead with the exploration of F-T fuels. 10 According to an Air Force spokesperson, DOD is working with the Department of Energy, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels to explore ways to mitigate the problems that may be associated with F-T fuel production. 11 Critics of F-T fuel also point to the potential environmental hazards posed by increased coal mining as an additional drawback. Some fear a “mining boom” that could lead to the strip mining of public lands, degraded water quality in some locations, and additional miners put at risk. They question whether a relatively small dent in oil imports is worth what they predict as a 40% increase of coal production. Instead a need for increased fuel efficiency and cleaner energy alternatives is often cited. 12 Recent efforts at constructing F-T plants in the United States have proven challenging. In September 2006, after supplying DOD 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel to test in the B-52, Syntroleum closed its demonstration plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, its revenue having fallen 18 Page 29 significantly after completion of its contracts with DOD and the Department of Transportation. 13 In a February 2007 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, in response to questions about why the Department of Energy proposed halting funding for a CTL diesel fuel plant in Pennsylvania, stated that the “financial viability” of the project was questionable. 14 Cost estimates had grown from an original $612 million in 2003 to approximately $800 million. On the other hand, potential developers may be encouraged by DOD’s interest in synthetic fuels. In May 2006, when DESC asked companies to submit proposals for the production of 200,000 gallons of F-T fuels for testing by the Air Force and Navy in 2008 and 2009, it received over 20 responses. 15 Another challenge DOD may face with using F-T fuel is its limited availability. The Air Force has set a goal to use a domestically produced synthetic fuel blend for 50 percent of its aviation fuel by 2016. At current usage rates, that would require approximately 325 million gallons of mixed fuel a year. Based on current trends DOD may have difficulty procuring enough domestically produced synthetic fuel to reach its intended goal. 16 The most robust CTL plant in the world today is SASOL, a company in South Africa that produces about 30% of that country’s fuel—about 150,000 barrels a day. 17 Establishing a plant in the United States large enough to supply the Air Force with 325 million gallons of a synthetic fuel mix annually may take several years and a significant amount of capital. Estimates for the cost of construction vary between $1 billion for a plant with a daily output of 10,000 barrels a day 18 to $5-10 billion for a plant with a daily output of 80,000 barrel a day. 19 According to a 2007 GAO report, DOE estimates that it would cost approximately $3.5 billion to construct a CTL plant and require 5-6 years. 20 19 Page 30 Compounding the difficulties posed by the high cost of constructing F-T plants are restrictions on DOD’s ability to enter into long-term contracts for fuel. Currently the department may only enter into contracts for fuel up to five years–not long enough to provide potential suppliers with the economic assurance necessary to justify construction of a capital intensive plant. The five-year limitation is based on language in 10 U.S. Code 2306b, which outlines the circumstances under which the department may sign a “multiyear contract.” The statute defines a multiyear contract as “a contract for the purchase of property for more than one, but not more than five, program years.” 21 Proposed legislation (S.154, S.155, and H.R. 370) is intended in part to alleviate the contracting restriction and thus eliminate one of the major barriers to increased F-T synthetic fuel production. The bills–Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (S. 154), Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act of 2007 (S.155), and Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (H.R. 370)– propose permitting the Department of Defense to enter into contracts for synthetic fuel for up to 25 years. Critics of the legislation express concern that encouraging CTL production before large-scale carbon sequestration is available will increase overall carbon emissions.

95

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Synthetic fuels fail
Paul Dimotakis, John K. Northrop Professor of Aeronautics and professor of applied physics at the California Institute of Technology, The MITRE Corporation, December 09, 2006, Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf Alternative fossil-fuel derived fuels, e.g., Fisher-Tropsch liquid fuels from coal, etc., are more costly and less energy efficient than fuels produced by refining crude oil. If crude oil sources are, for some reason, not indicated, the next most-cost-effective method to achieve assured domestic fuels is Fisher-Tropsch on stranded natural gas, such as in Alaska, albeit with attendant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission burdens, unless carbon- sequestration measures are employed and prove efficacious and cost-effective. No scaleable biomass processes today can yield DoD-suitable fuels.

96

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT Ethanol CP- Aviation Turn
Ethanol fails at aviation
Kristine E. Blackwell, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF 4-2007 “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: OPTIMISM MEETS REALITY” google scholar (cache), https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2007/affellows/Blackwell.pdf In its present state of technological development, the energy density of biofuel is too low to make it a suitable substitute for jet fuel. Ethanol’s energy density is approximately 25% lower than that of conventional aviation fuel and is therefore not suitable for jets’ turbine engines. Furthermore, ethanol cannot operate at the extreme temperatures military aviation fuel must perform. However, in 2006, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded a contract for the development of a synthetic fuel from “oil-rich crops produced by either agriculture or aquaculture (including by not limited to plants, algae, fungi, and bacteria) and which ultimately can be an affordable alternative to petroleum-derived JP-8” 24 Delivery of the product for government testing is expected in 2008.

Air power is key to the war in Iraq
Dudney ’07 (Robert is editor in Chief of Airforce Magazine, “On fighting Irregular war,” October http://www.afa. org/m agazine/oct2007/1007edit.asp Without question, certain valuable capabilities are unique to airpower. The doctrine paper cites three advantages that, while not always obvious, may prove vital to US success. (Minimal intrusiveness. Introduction of a large US ground force is a highly visible act, often breeding political resentment, especially in Muslim lands. US troops quickly become targets for attack by insurgent bullets, bombs, and broadcasts. This amounts to a grave weakness for a force engaged in irregular warfare, in which support of “the people” is of paramount importance. Air Force units, notes the doctrine paper, have a far smaller “footprint.” A joint commander can “mobilize, deploy, employ, and redeploy” airpower without “highlighting” the role of the United States. In addition, these kinds of operations can be sustained for a long period with scant risk of US casualties. Both factors weigh heavily in a long, irregular campaign.) (Swift response. The speed and range of aircraft and cyber weapons dramatically compress the “kill chain” and give the joint commander his best—in some cases only—way to attack fleeting, high-value targets. This was made evident in the 2006 air strike on Abu Musab alZarqawi in Iraq. In another vein, rapid air transport of small teams over great distances can produce a vital result—tactical surprise. Air- and space-borne sensors likewise can be rapidly refocused on a specific target. The combination of range and responsiveness, unique to airpower, shapes up as “an enormous force multiplier,” says the paper.) (Sharp awareness. When fighting cagey insurgents, the gold standard is “actionable intelligence,” information precise enough to permit effective strikes and avoid civilian casualties. Getting such information takes time, requiring patient and persistent overwatch. Among the services, the Air Force is uniquely able to monitor, map, and survey vast areas quickly and for long periods. Equipped with its “staring” Global Hawk and Predator UAVs, not to mention spacecraft and other systems, it can spot “safe havens, assembly points, and potential avenues of attack,” said the document. It can detect trouble lurking in the path of land forces. These three characteristics, properly exploited, offer the joint commander enormous benefits available from no other source. Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at Maxwell AFB, Ala., and overseer of the doctrine paper, summed up matters in these words: “Airpower, in all its forms, brings a vast array of direct-effect weapons and joint-force enablers to the fray, a fact not always clearly recognized.”)

97

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Air Dominance is key to US hegemony
Michael Wynne Secretary of the Air Force, 2007 [State of the Force – 2007 http://www.af.mil/library /speeches/speech.asp?id=351 Sept. 24
It is not the current war but deterring larger strategic challenges that really dominates our thinking. For 17 years we have dominated the skies above our enemies and the air operation region.

You can't see air dominance. It doesn't make for good newsprint. A headline like, "The U.S. Air Force provided air dominance today again for the 54th year in a row," just wouldn't be a seller. In fact, sometimes I think all of us around the world but especially here in America have become so accustomed to the Air Force dominating the skies that they don't understand why it matters. Like sea dominance, it often is on the assumptions page of the war plan, i.e., we dominate the sea, we dominate the air, let's get on to what the fight's going to be all about. It is simply assumed. But I say that assumption matters. It matters because the last time a serviceman was attacked from the air was in April of 1953. That was, yes, a long time ago. If you wonder why not being attacked from the air is important, you can ask Saddam or you can ask the Taliban. They know what happens when you lose control of the air. Today the entire joint force clamors for full-motion video like that from a Predator, but these slowmotion and vulnerable unmanned air vehicles must be able to fly with impunity if they are to work as they are intended. We must have air dominance to do that. As we are currently engaged in interservice discussion about the Air Force should have the executive agencies about unmanned air vehicles, it's really all about standards of communication, and if you will, getting the take. And we're actually fairly proud of what ended up to be the movement so far because it moved towards a more standard collection and distribution of the information in the take and we feel like some standards will be achieved, but frankly the whole debate shows the interservice faith that the Air Force will provide air dominance for another 50 years. You know, in the Israeli-Lebanon war, the Israeli Army did not realize that Hezbollah
This achievement, however, does not make for good television. was going to fly UAVs over their positions. As soon as they did realize, they began to hunt them. And as soon as they started to hunt them of course, since they had air dominance, Hezbollah had to withdraw their unmanned air vehicles. Like air dominance, some of our other contributions seldom make headlines. However, if it was up to us, right, we would take a page out of our

supplying most of the striking power today in the war today is airpower. I wonder how many people realize how many hundreds of coalition lives our forces save by flying in supplies and keeping convoys off the road, and by the precision nature of our air strikes. But there is something we are doing that is potentially even more important than delivering bombs, although we do love to blow stuff up. That is, we're deterring the enemy from massing. If we were not deterring the enemy rather than fighting us in groups of 10 and 20 and striking very fast and fading they would be coming at us in groups of 200 to 500 or 1,000. I guarantee you that if airpower were not there it would be an entirely different war. In fact, no less a military authority than the Washington Post recognized that al Qaeda refuses to mass under the American airpower. In short, we are setting the conditions for war, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is all of us, coalition Air Forces, that are setting these conditions, for if the coalition air forces were not present and accounted for, it would be a very different fight.
Army colleagues' books and shoot them all down and let God sort them out if they did not squawk friendly. I often wonder how many Americans know that

98

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

U.S. Airpower is key to prevent Korean war
Bechtol ’05 (Bruce is an assistant professor of national security studies at Air Command and staff college, “The Future of U.S. airpower on the Korean Peninsula,” September 1st) http://www.airp ower.maxwell.a f.mil/air chronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability. The author details constraints faced by the army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the ROK. Although much of the surface-based defense capability in the South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong US airpower presence demonstrates US commitment to Korean security, counterbalances the DPRK’s offensive systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has remained one of the dominant military forces on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain post– Cold War era that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong Il, the ability of US airpower to serve as a key pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming geopolitical landscape and a rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.

Korean conflict escalates to nuclear war Chol, Director Center for Korean American Peace 2002
10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html

Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people." Continues… The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.

99

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: States CP: DoD Tradeoff Turn
Additional Military spending would tradeoff with other R&D efforts Thomas Donnelly, February 2, 2007, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, (http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25555/pub_detail.asp)
Further complicating the picture is the fact that both parties will be struggling to position themselves as the party of fiscal and budgetary discipline. Six years of Bush's "big government conservatism" has upset the traditional split between free-spending, taxhiking Democrats and parsimonious, tax-cutting Republicans. All the while, growing entitlement spending, accelerated by the Bush drug-benefit program, reduces budgetary freedom of action. The net result is that Washington sits like a deer transfixed by the onrushing fiscal headlights, unable to raise revenues or limit expenditures in any meaningful way. The one big pot of money over which the government has any discretion is defense spending. Here, too, the picture has been clouded by years of emergency supplemental appropriations to pay the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are now supposed to be included in the regular defense requests, a move where logic has triumphed over politics. But whether forcing the system to openly account for war costs will be a good thing remains to be seen. This is a matter on which Democrats are promising to concentrate their oversight activities, which probably means the process will become more, rather than less, complicated. Imposing "normal" budgetary procedures in a wartime environment may not be so wise. At the very least, the cost of expanding the land forces will add a new ingredient to an already spicy political and fiscal stew. Although Bush finally has changed his mind about the need for more ground power, it's not clear that the Pentagon collectively agrees. Congress, too, will have a hard time getting to yes. Expect Democrats to try to take the money out of missile defense or other programs; they may feel that the Army and Marine Corps are too small, but they equally feel the U.S. military is too big. They will be tempted to follow The New York Times' line of reasoning: "Every year since 2001 has brought increased demands on America's slimmed-down and dollar-starved ground forces, while billions continued to flow into sustaining the oversized and underused Air Force and Navy, and modernizing their state-of-the-art equipment." The paper thinks the money for a larger force could "easily be found by slashing military pork and spending on unneeded stealth fighters, stealth destroyers and attack submarines" and cutting the size of the other services. On the Republican side, some will be stalwart--McCain and longtime Pentagon supporters such as Rep. Duncan Hunter--but most will be uncertain and more than a few will be opposed.

DoD spending is zero sum – would tradeoff with F-22s
Dr. Cindy Williams, Visiting Fellow, MIT Security Studies Program Can We Afford a Revolution?, March 31, 1999, http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_99spring/williams.html//JS Alternatively, the Defense Department can attempt to find the resources it will need within the defense budget. There are four potential sources of additional funding: 1) existing C3I and information systems; 2) modernization; 3) force structure; and 4) infrastructure. Deep cuts would be needed in each of these areas to generate the level of savings that would be needed to close the budget gap and fund the RMA. For example, the Defense Department has encountered strong resistance to its plans to introduce newer, joint systems that would reduce the cost of C3I. With regard to modernization, cutting tactical aircraft programs (the F-22, F/A-18 E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter) can be expected to save only $4-6 billion per year because these programs will have to be replaced by either a service life extension program or additional production of existing aircraft. Force structure reductions also yield savings that are lower than one might expect. For example, cutting active Army combat units by 30 percent will produce savings of only $4 billion per year. Finally, severe reductions in infrastructure would be needed to generate a large amount of resources. Closing 50 additional military bases will save only $3 billion per year. Other infrastructure reductions, such as closing military hospitals (saving $2 billion per year) or eliminating the $1 billion subsidy for military commissaries, would release more funds. However, such measures are likely to encounter fierce opposition. All of this suggests the difficulty of finding the resources needed to cover the coming $40 billion shortfall between current plans and projected budget levels, let alone the additional $25 billion needed for RMA programs. Coming up with the funding necessary to exploit the RMA is therefore likely to require either a sea change in public attitudes toward defense spending or a substantial downsizing of the military force structure and its modernization programs

100

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani F-22s are essential to achieving U.S. air dominance and maintaining hegemony
Daniel Goure, 1/28/05, Ph.D., vice president of the Lexington Institute. “Capitol Hill Conference on Fighters and the Future of Joint Warfighting”. Lexington Institute. U.S. air power will be the key to success in the initial period of any future war. But in order to employ air power effectively, the U.S. military must grain and maintain not just air superiority but real air dominance. Air dominance means the ability to go anywhere and do anything while denying the adversary the benefit of operating in or through the third dimension. Our future adversaries probably have learned the lessons of recent wars too. They seek to deny the United States access to their airspace because they know that if the United States can achieve air dominance and employ our airpower freely, they will lose the war. They know with air dominance, the United States will be able to win the initial period of the war, thereby determining its course and outcome. In effect, they know the correlation of forces is not in their favor. Therefore, they are likely to be deterred. This brings me to the role of the F/A-22. Simply put, the F/A-22 is essential to the ability of the United States to deter conflict, or should one occur, to win rapidly and decisively. It may be the single most important capability that the U.S. Air Force could deploy in the next twenty or thirty years. My logic is simple: The ability of the U.S. to win future conflicts rapidly and decisively is the best deterrent. This is a reflection, if you will, of a positive correlation of forces for the United States. Winning rapidly and decisively means dominating in the initial period of conflict, thereby helping to determine the course and outcome of hostilities. Winning rapidly and decisively requires, inter alia, exploiting the U.S. superiority in air power. Exploiting that air power advantage requires achieving rapid air dominance. Achieving rapid air dominance will be more difficult in the future than heretofore as a result of adversaries' efforts to deny the United States access to their air space. The F/A-22 can ensure the ability to achieve rapid air dominance. The F/A-22 is essential to everything the U.S. military seeks to achieve: dissuasion, deterrence or defeat of adversaries.

101

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: States CP- DoD Refusal Turn
DoD doesn’t want to help the environment, they wont accept.
Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 11-24-2003.”Military gets break from environmental rules”. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1124/p02s02-usmi.html For others, however, this politically popular goal conflicts with long-standing values. Specifically, the Department of Defense authorization bill that President Bush is scheduled to sign Monday eases the military's responsibility under two important environmental laws. The bill allows the Navy to redefine "harassment" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, making it easier to use lowfrequency sonar suspected of harming whales and dolphins. The Pentagon's $401 billion authorization bill for the 2004 fiscal year also exempts military bases from stringent habitat-protection requirements under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Pentagon, as it has in the past, is seeking exemptions to the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (which governs hazardous waste), and the Superfund Act responsible for cleaning up toxic-waste sites around the country. Last year, an exemption to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was granted the military as well.

The DoD hates the environment, they won’t buy the solar technology.
David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy. 5-15-2007 DOD argues that obtaining exemptions on a case-by-case basis is onerous and time-consuming because of the number of training exercises that it conducts on hundreds of military installations. DOD also argues that the time limits placed on most exemptions are not compatible with ongoing or recurring training activities. Instead, DOD has sought broader exemptions from certain environmental requirements that it argues could restrict or delay necessary training. As part of its FY2003 defense authorization proposal, DOD issued a Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, requesting certain exemptions from six environmental laws: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). DOD’s request for broader exemptions has been contentious in Congress. Some Members assert that such exemptions are necessary to provide greater flexibility for conducting combat training and other readiness activities without restriction or delay. However, other Members, states, environmental organizations, and communities oppose broader exemptions, pointing to the lack of data to demonstrate the extent to which environmental requirements have restricted training exercises and compromised readiness overall. They argue that expanding exemption authority without justification for its need would unnecessarily weaken environmental protection.

102

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: States CP- USFG Key
Switch to alternatives will require USFG support Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe,
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/ )

"The US 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," according to the report. "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." The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems. Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests. Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement , and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.

103

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Politics- Plan Popular
Solar technology research and funding is bipartisan
Cheryl Katz, June 2004, public opinion researcher and author, “Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power”, (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/Jo/iZ/JoiZa4yQT-yf6xXHPht7w/Public_Attitudes_and_Support_for_Solar_Power.pdf) The June 2004 Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power Survey was conducted for Environment California Research and Policy Center by Baldassare Associates. The survey included telephone interviews with 600 likely voters living in California. Interviewing was conducted June 24-27, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent for the total sample. Here are the highlights of the survey: • Californians show strong support for increasing the use of solar power in the state. By a 2:1 margin, likely voters favor developing more renewable energy sources (61%) over building more power plants (31%) to meet the state’s growing energy needs. Support for increasing the use of solar power is greatest among Democrats (67%), and in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area (64% each). • Nearly nine in 10 (87%) have a favorable opinion of solar power, with 52 percent very favorable. Solid majorities in all demographic and political groups are favorable toward solar power. • More than seven in 10 (72%) favor a plan to build half of new homes with solar power systems, which was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his energy action plan during his campaign for governor. A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike favor this plan. Two in three voters who favor the plan for 50% of new homes to be built with solar power want this goal accomplished by 2010. • Overall, six in 10 likely voters want the state to institute standards directing the inclusion of solar power systems in new housing. At least half in all demographic and political groups support state solar standards. • A similar number (58%) favor including provisions for solar power as part of the state’s building code. While a majority of Democrats supports this (66%), fewer than half of Republicans agree (47%). • Voters strongly support encouraging the use of solar power systems with subsidies. Six in 10 favor providing subsidies to builders to install solar power on new homes, and seven in 10 want subsidies for homeowners to purchase solar systems.

Solar power technology is overwhelmingly popular – Florida polls prove FLAEISA, March 13, 2008, Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, “New Poll Shows Huge Public Support for State
Programs to Build Solar Energy”, Tallahassee, Fla. – High consumer demand has exhausted the state’s solar rebate program fund six months early, and lawmakers and solar advocates today released a new survey showing Florida residents overwhelmingly support spending more money on solar energy – even if costs them a little bit more on their utility bills. The survey of 625 registered voters (margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent), conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., shows: A whopping 85 percent of those polled believe the Florida  Legislature should act to encourage investment in solar energy; and Eighty-one percent of those polled said they support that  investment even if it costs $1 extra on their monthly utility bills. “It’s clear that the Sunshine State likes the idea of Florida becoming a solar energy leader,” said Bruce Kershner of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. “These landslide numbers show Sunshine State residents want to see solar taking a more important role as an energy source in their homes and businesses.” Voters in South Florida showed the most enthusiasm, with 87 percent in favor of solar energy investment. Central Florida and the Gulf Coast were close behind, and 80 percent of those living in North Florida also favored more state investment for solar energy. “Floridians understand the importance of having a long term strategy for harnessing energy from the sun to power our homes and businesses,” said Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner. “Our leadership in renewable energy technologies will create jobs in Florida, and it’s clear that ‘going green’ is good for protecting our environment and strengthening our economy.” While voters of all ages said they supported spending more on solar energy, a stunning 93 percent of those aged between 18 and 34 agreed. Statewide, the consensus surrounding the need to promote solar energy crossed party lines, with 82 percent of Republicans favoring more public money for solar energy, compared to 87 percent of Democrats. The poll also showed strong support for solar energy even if it led to an increase in utility bills. Overall, 81 percent of those polled said they were willing to pay $1 more each month on their utility bill to support solar energy.

104

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani Solar power tech popular – nationwide support Business Wire, Oct 28, 1998, “Green Mountain Energy Resources Announces Plans to Construct Pennsylvania’s Largest Solar
Power Plant”, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_Oct_28/ai_53136280?tag=untagged) SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 28, 1998--Spurred by a growing consumer interest in solar energy and a commitment to new renewable energy sources, Green Mountain Energy Resources, the leading retail marketer of cleaner electricity to residential customers, today announced an exclusive agreement with Sun Power Electric for a new 50 kW solar power plant. Under this agreement, Sun Power Electric, the world's first all-solar electric utility, will build and own the 50kW solar plant and sell the output to Green Mountain. The solar array, expected to begin producing electricity from the sun by Spring 1999, will be located in the Philadelphia area at a site to be selected. "We're delighted to work with Sun Power Electric so that Pennsylvania can reduce its reliance on polluting sources of electricity," said Kevin Hartley, Green Mountain's vice president of Marketing. "Green Mountain's mission is to change the way power is made. We're especially interested in solar because it is one of the cleanest electricity sources available. Our first 50 kW plant will be the largest solar power plant in Pennsylvania." Each day more solar energy falls to the Earth than the total amount of energy the planet's 5.7 billion inhabitants would consume in 27 years. Using solar facilities like Green Mountain's new Pennsylvania plant to convert sunshine into electricity has the potential to help the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions as required under the Kyoto climate change accord. Solar technology currently enjoys widespread support within the environmental community and among the general public, and is used in various forms by more than 200,000 homeowners in the United States. It is also the word's fastest growing energy source.

105

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Politics- Plan Unpopular
Solar power is unpopular with republicans – growing partisanship Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (“Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated”, June 14,
http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen.

John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar power lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of "personally alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to
reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It

is rare to have such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources that expire this year.
Nevada solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry and other business interests. He argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 888, but is stuck in the House. On Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week. In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a veto threat that protects the offshore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.

Oil lobby hates solar and is key to the republicans Grist News 07 (“Federal renewable portfolio standard update”, August 3, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/3/102021/3745)
The extension of the federal solar tax credit should be heard on the House Floor Saturday, and Big Oil is rallying the opposition to kill solar as we speak. It will be an extremely tight vote - tight like a noose - and we need you to call your Representative right now. The situation is this. Earlier this year, House leadership committed to 'pay as you go'--that is, any new tax incentives must be balanced by getting rid of existing incentives. In this case, that means paying for renewable energy programs by reducing tax cuts for oil production. That's all good right? In a time of record profits for Big Oil, an approaching climate crisis and energy security scaring us all, why not reduce oil profits to help bring solar into the mainstream? Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is holding the line on keeping subsidies for Big Oil, while some Democrats in oil districts haven't gotten the message that the public is tired of business as usual and wants a real commitment to
renewables.

106

Military Aff DDI 2008 KO Lab Junaid Tayyab, JB Hardin, Abhinav Shrestha, Francis Jin, Marc Milani

AT: Spending- Plan Inexpensive/Cost Efficient
Recent breakthroughs in the production of solar technology make research cost effective and inexpensive Hindustan Times, June 30, 2008, “Scientists Achieve Record Light Conversion Efficiency in Dye-sensitive Solar Cells”,
(http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1502862581.html) Washington, June 30 -- Researchers at the Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in China have achieved a record light conversion efficiency of 8.2% in solvent-free dye-sensitized solar cells. This breakthrough in efficiency without the use of volatile organic solvents will make it possible to pursue large scale, outdoor practical application of lightweight, inexpensive, flexible dye-sensitized solar films that are stable over long periods of light and heat exposure. Dye-sensitized solar cell technology, invented by Michael Gratzel at EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne) in the 1990s, shows great promise as a cheap alternative to expensive silicon solar cells. Dye-sensitized cells imitate the way that plants and certain algae convert sunlight into energy. The cells are made up of a porous film of tiny (nanometer sized) white pigment particles made out of titanium dioxide. The latter are covered with a layer of dye, which is in contact with an electrolyte solution. When solar radiation hits the dye, it injects a negative charge in the pigment nanoparticle and a positive charge into the electrolyte resulting in the conversion of sunlight into electrical energy. The cells are inexpensive, easy to produce and can withstand long exposure to light and heat compared with traditional silicon-based solar cells.

Scientists have developed new inexpensive and incredibly efficient solar technology Targeted News Service, July 10, 2008, “Science: Simple, Inexpensive Solar Energy from Light-Absorbing Dyes”, LexisNexis
The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued the following news release: MIT engineers say they have developed a more efficient way to capture energy from the sun, increasing solar power up to 10 times more than conventional solar panels. The simple, inexpensive technology described in the 10 July issue of Science could make solar power more viable around the world. Typically, solar energy is obtained by large mirrors that reposition themselves as the sun moves and focus the solar energy onto solar cells, which transform sunlight into electricity. But the set-up of these so-called solar concentrators takes up a lot of space as the mirrors must have ample room between so that some cells don't cast shadows on others. And the mirrors generate a lot of heat and need to be cooled. Researchers have tried using colored dyes--as opposed to mirrors--to absorb light and then transfer the energy to solar cells. The dyes were attached to plastic sheets attached to solar cells, a device called luminescent solar concentrator. But a lot of energy was lost in the transfer. Graduate student Michael Currie and his collaborators found a way to increase the amount of energy transferred from the panel to the solar cell, a system they call "organic solar concentrators." They coated glass panels with a thin layer of light-absorbing organic dyes. Each panel had a different type of dye on it which absorbed a different wavelength of sunlight. The panels were positioned on top of each other. As sunlight travels through the glass layers, short wavelength light is captured first while longer wavelengths travel through the first panel and then are collected by later panels coated with dyes that absorb longer wavelengths of light. Solar cells attached to the edges of the panels capture the solar energy. The researchers tinkered with the dyes to boost how much light was absorbed, what types of wavelengths could be absorbed and how thin the dye coating could be. They also studied how stable over time the dyes were when exposed to light. Their preliminary measurements show that the efficiency of the dye decreased by 8% "after the equivalent of three months outside," the authors wrote in their Science report. When packaged and protected by ultraviolet filters, the authors expect that dyes will last even longer. In essence, the system is cost-effective because it increases the efficiency of less efficient--yet less expensive--solar cells by increasing how much light the cells take in. Luminescent solar concentrators are simple to produce, and the researchers predict that they could be put into practice within three years, according to an MIT news release (http://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2008-07/miot-mon070708.php). Simply adding the inexpensive system to existing solar panels could increase efficiency by 50%.

107

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->