Space Neg V.

1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Strat.........................................................................................................................................................................2 China Hates US......................................................................................................................................................3 China Hates US......................................................................................................................................................4 China Hates US......................................................................................................................................................5 China Hates US......................................................................................................................................................6 China Hates US......................................................................................................................................................7 The Japan Beatdown page 1.................................................................................................................................8 The Japan Beatdown page 2.................................................................................................................................9 The Japan Beatdown page 3...............................................................................................................................10 The Japan Beatdown page 4...............................................................................................................................11 Japan Relations....................................................................................................................................................12 Vagueness 1NC.....................................................................................................................................................13 ...............................................................................................................................................................................13 US heg bad............................................................................................................................................................14 Space Mil = Arms race........................................................................................................................................15 Colonization F/L...................................................................................................................................................16 MIL laundry list...................................................................................................................................................18 Innovation Frontline ...........................................................................................................................................19 Innovation Frontline............................................................................................................................................20 Innovation Frontline............................................................................................................................................21 SPACE ARMS......................................................................................................................................................22 Space MIL is BANNED.......................................................................................................................................23 Cooperation CP ...................................................................................................................................................24 Space Mil BAD ....................................................................................................................................................28 No One Wants MIL.............................................................................................................................................29 Space Colonization is a big NO...........................................................................................................................30 Japan is forced to compete for space power due to US china and Russia. ....................................................30 US is still the leader..............................................................................................................................................32 Blame US...............................................................................................................................................................33 Canada and Russia Anti MIL.............................................................................................................................34 Space Colonization  Militarization.................................................................................................................35
1

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed Econ DA................................................................................................................................................................36 Ptx Lx P. 1/2..........................................................................................................................................................37 Ptx Lx P. 2/2..........................................................................................................................................................38 Kritiking P. 1/2.....................................................................................................................................................39 Kritiking P. 2/2.....................................................................................................................................................40 DOD get tech from private comps......................................................................................................................41 DOD get tech from private comps......................................................................................................................42 DOD get tech from private comps......................................................................................................................43 DOD get tech from private comps......................................................................................................................44 Space Force CP P. 1/4..........................................................................................................................................45 Space Force CP P. 2/4..........................................................................................................................................46 Space Force CP P. 3/4..........................................................................................................................................46 Space Force CP P. 4/4..........................................................................................................................................48 Space Mil. DA P. 1/2............................................................................................................................................49 Space Mil. DA P. 2/2............................................................................................................................................49 DOD Trade-Off P. 1/4..........................................................................................................................................51 DOD Trade-Off P. 2/4..........................................................................................................................................52 DOD Trade-Off P. 3/4..........................................................................................................................................53 DOD Trade-Off DA P. 4/4...................................................................................................................................54

Strat
U have multiple options here a u can run any of the cp and the disad or the disad case scenario or the k scenario. One thing to note is beating them on timeframe in the round is extremely easy especially seeing that space colonization and mil tech is far away. Have fun Asad and Cory

2

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

China Hates US
We only wish it was less than before china still hates us as much as they did 9 years ago
Ma Ying, Ying Ma is a National Research Initiative Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Between 2000 and 20001, she managed corporate communications for Sina.com, the first Mainland Chinese company to be listed on the Nasdaq stock market., 06, http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2006/135/155 The people of China used to hate the United States loudly and obnoxiously. In May 1999, they staged massive antiAmerican protests throughout China in response to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by U.S.-led NATO forces. In April 2001, they again rioted against the United States when an American EP-3 surveillance plane and a Chinese fi ghter plane collided near the south China coast. U.S. apologies for the mistake in 1999 and explanations of routine intelligence gathering in 2001 did not stave off Chinese anger. That anger manifested itself most grotesquely after terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Numerous young Chinese urbanites gloated online at America’s national tragedy. Today, the Chinese people hate the United States more quietly but just as persistently. According to an opinion survey released in March 2006 by the Chinese newspaper The Global Times (Huan Qiu Shi Bao), numerous Chinese living in urban areas admit to having negative views of the United States. Some 59 percent of them believe that the United States seeks to contain China, while 56 percent consider the United States to be China’s competitor. A sixteen-nation opinion survey conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2005 produced similar results: only 42 percent of the people in China hold a favorable opinion of the United States.

China is not quite anymore their hate is on the web and in the world around us
Ma Ying, Ying Ma is a National Research Initiative Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Between 2000 and 20001, she managed corporate communications for Sina.com, the first Mainland Chinese company to be listed on the Nasdaq stock market., 06, http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2006/135/155 In addition, Chinese online chat rooms and bulletin board services (BBS), which have become popular forums for the burgeoning Chinese web population to air their opinions, have witnessed a steady stream of negativity about the United States. Web users regularly see sinister motives behind U.S. actions and gloat over U.S. failures. When the U.S. Space Shuttle Columbia exploded in February 2003, Chinese netizens called for a celebration while lamenting that not enough Americans had died. When the United States pushed for United Nations reform at the General Assembly’s World Summit in September 2005, some Chinese netizens labeled the United States as the UN’s biggest gangster, bent on interfering with the internal affairs of smaller member states. Today, netizens regularly gloat at American casualties and setbacks in Iraq.

3

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

China Hates US
China teaches its people to hate the US its inherent in its method they hate us the most
Ma Ying, Ying Ma is a National Research Initiative Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Between 2000 and 20001, she managed corporate communications for Sina.com, the first Mainland Chinese company to be listed on the Nasdaq stock market., 06, http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2006/135/155 To understand anti-Americanism in China, one must look to the Chinese government. In recent years, numerous policymakers, commentators, and scholars have blamed the rise of anti-Americanism across the globe on the Bush administration’s unilateralism, the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and scandals such as Abu Ghraib. When it comes to anti-Americanism in China, the Chinese government, above all, molds its citizens’ thinking through state indoctrination. In an era when Chinese Communist ideology has become defunct through the pursuit of market capitalism, Beijing has woven a powerful, alternative paradigm to bolster its rule. This paradigm consists of two prongs: the pursuit of Chinese greatness and the demonizing of American power. The first prong emphasizes a strong China, a powerful China, deserving of the influence and glory that is properly due this ancient civilization. To pursue such greatness, Beijing has chosen economic modernization and social stability as its mandatory accessory. Beijing preaches that democratization, political liberalization, the free press, and antigovernment protests are dangerous and destabilizing and so must be suppressed, even if violently. Backed by brutality and distortion, this paradigm leaves room for only one vision of China—rich and strong but not free and democratic. Where the United States is concerned, the second prong of the paradigm teaches that the United States is an overbearing and domineering hegemon that displays no regard for the well-being and dignity of the less powerful. The hegemon continually seeks to undermine China through criticisms of its human rights practices, advocacy of democratization, and support for democratic Taiwan, which Beijing and an overwhelming majority of the Chinese people regard as a renegade province.4 The strong China paradigm has been force-fed to the Chinese people since the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989, when the government opened fire on peaceful demonstrators calling for democracy. As the Chinese dissident and essayist Yi Daqi has observed, the government, bereft of all claims to humanity and morality after the massacre, turned to the strong China paradigm in order to bolster its ailing legitimacy.5 Since then, Beijing has indoctrinated a whole generation of citizens, especially young people, to believe religiously in the pursuit of a strong China. Foreigners, such as Americans, who push for freedom and democracy in China always bear ill intentions in this paradigm and seek only to solidify their own hegemony.

4

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

China Hates US
China is like a brainwash machine they create US into the tyrant hegemon and osama into the martyr
Ma Ying, Ying Ma is a National Research Initiative Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Between 2000 and 20001, she managed corporate communications for Sina.com, the first Mainland Chinese company to be listed on the Nasdaq stock market., 06, http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2006/135/155
While the state media offers wide-ranging coverage of the United States on a regular basis, it usually ratchets up the negative portrayal of the United States at moments of Sino-American bickering or confrontation.6 With Sino-American relations much improved since 9/11, the Chinese government has had fewer reasons to infl ame anti-American hatred. Nevertheless, the media continues to characterize the United States as an irresponsible hyper-power that regularly interferes in other countries’ internal affairs. The word “hegemon” has become synonymous with the United States in the press, as the maintenance of social stability (i.e., no democratization) has become synonymous with economic progress. Whereas in the late 1990s, the offi cial Chinese press reported the confl ict in the Balkans as an exercise of U.S. hegemony that brought about continual human suffering, today it characterizes the war in Iraq as a war of U.S. aggression, a war for U.S. hegemony. Chinese media coverage of the war in Iraq, therefore, has magnifi ed U.S. blunders, trumpeted the inevitability of U.S. failure, and lamented any signs of success. When U.S.-led troops marched into Baghdad in March 2003 and Iraqis later celebrated the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, Chinese Central Television (CCTV), China’s offi cial television news broadcast, was far from ecstatic. According to viewers, CCTV aired a program in which a Chinese military expert all but grieved over the rapid disintegration of Saddam’s Republican Guard, and eagerly consoled himself with the possibility that the Iraqi military might retaliate in full force at a later time.7 Such press coverage seems to have led to concrete results. Many Chinese, especially the young, fail to understand the nature of the U.S.-led war on Iraq or the global war on terror. Their heated diatribes on China’s vibrant online chat rooms and BBS reveal that some even view Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as heroes for their defi ance of the United States.

China doesn’t dislike US it hates them and popogate the hate of their heg in the school text books.
Ma Ying, Ying Ma is a National Research Initiative Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Between 2000 and 20001, she managed corporate communications for Sina.com, the first Mainland Chinese company to be listed on the Nasdaq stock market., 06, http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2006/135/155 The power of Chinese indoctrination cannot be understood without also taking into account the Chinese educational system. In a soon-to-be-published study commissioned by the Albert Shanker Institute, He Qinglian (a writer, former journalist in China, and renowned critic of the Chinese regime) fi nds overwhelming anti-Americanism in state-sanctioned Chinese textbooks and teaching guides for courses on Chinese modern history, world history, and current politics. Reviewing such materials, assigned by the government to the junior high and high school curricula throughout the country, He fi nds that they propagate precisely the same image of the United States as does the Chinese media: America seeks to weaken China and relentlessly seeks to dominate the world by practicing American-style hegemonism.9 Specifi cally, Chinese textbooks point out that two of the biggest threats to international peace and security today are terrorism and hegemonism, the latter of which unmistakably refers to the United States. One Chinese teaching guide even required the instructor to ask students the following “refl ection question”: “How can one decipher U.S. hegemonism from NATO’s campaign against the Serbs in the 1990s?” The right answer, as suggested by the guide, must include at least three of the following: the United States circumvented the United Nations, violated international law, used human rights as an excuse to violate another country’s sovereignty, and bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.10 The occurrence of grave humanitarian atrocities in Kosovo, which ultimately prompted NATO to act, did not make the cut.

5

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

China Hates US
China has a military alliance with Russia to attack us heg. Paul Craig Roberts (Former assistant secretary of the treasury) August 9, 2007, US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese
Military Alliance http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts218.html

This week the

Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance. This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world
and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China. Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony. Russia

and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration’s unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite 5 years
of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict. In an attempt to gain the advantage in a nuclear conflict, the neocons are positioning US anti-ballistic missiles on Soviet borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is an idiotic provocation as the Russians can eliminate anti-ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. Neocons are people who desire war, but know nothing about it. Thus, the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan’s have broken the agreements and understandings. The US gratuitously brought NATO and antiballistic missiles to Russia’s borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of V. Putin. These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote

resources to their economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America’s aggressive posture to revamp their militaries. Americans need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between the US, Russia, and China would establish the hegemony of the cockroach.

6

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

China Hates US
China hates US the most they have already begun challenging our super power status and are investing in space only to deter US heg if we don’t invest in Space neither will china
Hidemichi Katsumata, Staff Writer the daily Yomimuri, 2/07, china challenges US heg, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4216981958&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4216981963& cisb=22_T4216981962&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145202&docNo=1 However, that should not be the sole reason for the United States' concern regarding China's experiment. In October, the U.S. Navy's mobile strike force, led by the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier on a training voyage in the western Pacific near Okinawa Prefecture, was stalked by a diesel-powered Song-class submarine of the Chinese Navy. The aircraft carrier failed to detect the submarine even when it was only eight kilometers away--within the range of torpedoes. The Defense Ministry official said: "China did the same thing as the former Soviet Union did during the Cold War. It was a demonstration of its will to keep the U.S. Navy from moving freely in the western Pacific." The United States, which has been the only superpower in post-Cold War years, relies on two sources of power. One is its maritime strategy backed by a strong naval force centered on its 12 aircraft carriers. Another is its space strategy centering on reconnaissance and communication satellites that enable the military to collect and handle military information globally and instantly. China challenged the United States' maritime strategy with the submarine's provocative actions. In destroying a satellite, China seems to have indicated its will to challenge the other U.S. military hegemony--space strategy. Of course, it is unlikely that the experiment immediately raised tension between Washington and Beijing. But in its 2006 defense white paper issued late last year, China vowed to strengthen the comprehensive capability of its maritime military operation in coastal waters. Regarding its nuclear strategy, which is a pillar of China's deterrent power against the United States, the white paper includes a vow to improve strategic capability and modernize weaponry. It is certain that the Chinese Navy will be more active in the East China Sea near Okinawa Prefecture and will exercise military influence on disputes with Japan over its development of underwater natural gas fields and its territorial claim of the Senkaku Islands. In addition, China will continue to try to deter moves by the U.S. Navy's western Pacific forces based in Guam.

7

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

The Japan Beatdown page 1
China is a direct threat to the US and the biggest threat to the US in regard of Heg and China knows it.
BBC Monitoring International Reports, new network, 5/05, HONG KONG-BASED AGENCY VIEWS US ATTITUDE TOWARDS CHINA'S RISE, lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=4&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4216981958 BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring Zhongguo Tongxun She news agency, Hong Kong, in Chinese 12 May 05 Current events experts believed that some people inside and outside the US government still insisted on looking at China's development with their own inherent attitude as they were still unable to get away from their hegemonistic and Cold War way of thinking. US Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick stated in Singapore on Tuesday that the United States never had any intention of containing China and that it was just paying greater attention to China as it is becoming an increasingly powerful economic entity. However, judging by the US military deployments and strategic considerations in recent years, it still sees China as a potentially hostile force. Media reports indicated that the new round of global military deployments by the US military had visibly intensified its containment of China. Aside from the recent US military changes in the Asia-Pacific region that have attracted much attention, the US military has also stepped up its deployments in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that are aimed at China and Russia. It has been disclosed that the US Department of Defence is drafting this year's "China's Military Strength Report" and will submit it for examination by Congress. Aside from continuing to stress the fact that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait is the main cause of a war erupting between China and the United States, the report will also claim China's military threat to the United States in the energy area. According to reports, China's economic growth last year accounted for as much as 18.2% of the global economic growth, while its trade growth accounted for more than 16% of the global trade. A US National Intelligence Bureau study predicted that China would become a global economic power by the year 2020, and its total GDP would surpass that of the United States in 2042. US National Intelligence Bureau Director John Negroponte recently admitted before a Senate hearing that the most important long-term task of US intelligence personnel was to assess the growing influence of China in the world and its ensuing impact on the United States. He said: "This is a long-term issue, and our children and grandchildren will live in a world where China will play a very powerful role." He added that China was the most important long-term target of concern of the United States. With respect to the continuing heightened US vigilance against China, Lee Kuan Yew, adviser to the Singaporean cabinet, said last month at the Boao Forum for Asia: China is entering a period of high speed economic and political growth, and the United States is very concerned that the rise of China will challenge their hegemony. In addition, Japan is also afraid of a strong China. In particular, with its history of aggression against China, Japan is afraid of the anti-Japan sentiments of the Chinese people. As for Europe and Russia, they on the other hand actually hope for a strong China as they believe that this would help restrain US hegemony.

8

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

The Japan Beatdown page 2
China lacks soft power a AK-47 war with Japan wont help that front especially seeing that US is ready to pounce on china the second they get a chance and with a pretty sweet Japan US alliance that chance will be immediate.
P. Parameswaran, writer for the Agence France Presse, 6/17/08. lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=6&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4216981958 The United States in particular remains highly regarded in all five key areas of soft power addressed in the survey: economics, culture, human capital, diplomacy, and politics, said the report by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the East Asia Institute of South Korea. "China's growing economic and military might have not yet been fully translated into the elements of soft power that help a nation wield indirect influence in its region and the world," said the report based on public opinion surveys in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, China and the United States. It revealed that perceptions of China's soft power -- the ability to wield influence by indirect, non-military means -- "generally trail those of the United States and Japan." These perceptions persist despite China's strong economic relationships in Asia and around the world, and concerted efforts by Beijing to leverage the upcoming summer Olympic Games to bolster its public image, the report said. "The findings of this report clearly illustrate that China is recognized by its neighbors as the undisputed future leader of Asia, but it still has real work to do to win hearts and minds in the region," said Marshall Bouton, president of The Chicago Council. "To enhance its credibility in Asia, China will need to invest more resources in building up its soft power, especially in the diplomatic, social and cultural spheres," he said. According to the poll, Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and Indonesians all believe that China has the greatest economic influence of any nation in Asia. South Koreans and Vietnamese see it trailing only the United States. More than 6,000 interviews were conducted in January and February 2008 during the survey in the six nations.

9

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

The Japan Beatdown page 3
China wants to have good relations with Japan and has made break through but has more work to do.
Zhongguo Xinwen She news agency, Beijing, 5/08, Zhongguo Xinwen She news agency, Beijing, in Chinese 5 May 08 Beijing, 5 May (Zhongguo Xinwen She) - Chinese military expert Yuan Yang pointed out today that since last year, relations between China and Japan, and political relations in particular, have established a new developmental benchmark. And defence relations between the two countries, which are a barometer of their political relations, have simultaneously made progress. But in the current phase, defence relations between China and Japan still face certain difficulties and obstacles if there is to be any breakthrough progress. Chinese President Hu Jintao begins a visit to Japan on 6 May. Yuan Yang, who is a researcher in the World Military Studies Department at the Academy of Military Sciences, said in an interview with Zhongguo Xinwen She that the development of military relations depends on improvement in political relations. Starting out with the goal of further construction of a mutually beneficial strategic relationship between China and Japan, this visit to Japan by President Hu Jintao will play a positive role in promoting the long-term, steady development of China-Japan relations. With that as a foundation, defence relations between the two countries will definitely make big progress as a result. Yuan Yang said, "At present, China has a positive attitude about advancing China-Japan military relations, and that is very constructive. China's starting point for enhancing interaction with Japan on defence matters is to maintain contact, seek common ground while reserving differences, advance mutual trust, and continually broaden and deepen bilateral interaction on military affairs." Yuan Yang believes that if we hope for breakthrough-type progress in China-Japan military relations, certain difficulties and obstacles remain. Looking at it in terms of symbolism, the most important source of these difficulties is the suspicion and lack of trust which people in the world of defence affairs in Japan feel about the construction and development of China's military power. Japan's Defence White Paper and the annual report of Japan's Institute for Defence Studies, East Asian Strategic Review, have paid increasing attention to Chinese military issues in recent years, and they even reflect misgivings about interaction on military affairs between China and Japan. A deep-rooted reason is even greater private worry about the steady development of a security relationship between China and Japan; that is, what orientation should Japan take towards China in its pursuit of goals and choices of measures to protect Japan's own security interests. One could assume that Japan's subjective supposition, or to put it another way, its strategic misjudgment, that conflict is greater than cooperation where China-Japan security interests are concerned, is going to constitute a fundamental obstacle to China and Japan in seeking cooperation and mutual trust regarding security. Yuan Yang stressed, "In the eighth round of China-Japan security consultations held in March of this year, China and Japan reached consensus on continuing high-level interaction between the two countries' defence departments, continually expanding the areas of defence interaction, and strengthening pragmatic interaction. For Japan's part, it needs to work hard in two respects. One is to correct Japan's strategic misjudgment of China's defence policy, and make a great effort to eliminate unnecessary mistrust and misunderstanding. Second is to maintain a clear-cut stand on major issues involving China's national unity and sovereignty, and abide by pledges made. That is a fundamental prerequisite for promoting interaction between China and Japan on defence matters. Third is to work hard to eliminate or minimize the interference and influence of extraneous factors on interaction between China and Japan on defence matters. Fourth, on the issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, act according to the principle of shelving disputes aside and consulting as equals, neither evading issues nor turning those issues into obstacles to the two countries advancing interaction on defence matters."

10

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

The Japan Beatdown page 4
China and Japan relations high now ASEAN and China-Japan initiative for oil proves. China post, newspaper under Financial times limted, 7/14/08, Copyright 2008 Financial Times Information All Rights Reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Copyright 2008 China Post, Source: The Financial Times Limited, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=2&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4216981958 Now, with China rising as a real power in Asia, a new pan-Asianism is emerging in the world's most populous region. Neo-Asianists in Japan, who have been increasing their ranks fast since before the end of the last century, have to concede that their country is no longer the undisputed leader as it was before the war. The People's Republic of China is Asia's top military power, which Japan is constitutionally forbidden to challenge. Japan has to resort to soft power -- economic and cultural influence -- to share leadership with China, advocates of neo-Asianism are convinced. They have found likeminded thinkers and theorists in China, whose top national priority is rapid modernization to put a century of humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers to an end and recover its past glory. The Chinese began to assert leadership first by allying itself with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), whose member states were all once made dependents in the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan countered with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's free trade zone scheme, but after he bowed out, Tokyo has tried what it can to achieve a rapprochement with China to help the ASEAN-plus-Two (China and Japan) or plus-Three (China, Japan and Korea) come into being. Their concerted effort is necessary to allay the fears of ASEAN countries that were dominated by China for centuries before the invasion from the West and by Japan during World War II. These countries do not want either China or Japan, in particular, as the single leader in the world's largest trade bloc when Australia and India join. They subscribe to the neo-Asianism with a co-leadership. That has persuaded China and Japan to agree for the first time to a modus vivendi to jointly develop a disputed undersea gas field in the East China Sea. China's foreign minister came out to declare that the joint gas exploration isn't "a problem of someone losing rights and shaming his country," but a foreign direct investment for the mutual benefit of the two countries. China accepted a five-day visit to a naval harbor near Guanzhou by the Japanese destroyer Sazanami t hat carried relief goods for the victims of the devastating May 12 earthquake in Sichuan. Beijing also closed the Web site of the People's League for the Safeguarding of the Diaoyutai Islands, which posted an open letter to the Central Military Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, of which President Hu Jintao doubles as chairman, urging a joint military action with Taiwan against Japan to defend sovereignty over the eight islets under whose waters lie vast gas and oil reserves waiting to be tapped. Hu is planning a second state visit to Japan in less than a year to meet Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on the sideline of a Group of Eight summit. These new developments have tipped Taiwan toward pan-Asianism. The Diaoyutai crisis, triggered by the sinking of a Taiwan leisure fishing boat in a collision with a Japanese maritime safety frigate over the disputed waters off the small archipelago Japan calls the Senkakus, was solved thanks chiefly to Tokyo's reluctance to antagonize Taipei by adhering to its wonted harsh no-compromise stand on controversy. The Japanese apologized and promised reparations for fear their non-compromise would only work to push Taiwan to side with China in the dispute involving sovereignty over the islets which all three countries claim. Moreover, Taiwan, which is already heavily dependent on China for economic growth, has to join the ASEAN-plus-Three in order to survive as a viable economy. The tilt toward neoAsianism means the suppression of Taiwan's new nationalism launched by President Lee Teng-hui and nursed by his successor Chen Shui-bian. They both called it Taiwan consciousness, insisting that the people of Taiwan are a race different from the Chinese, and therefore deserve a new national identity under the universal principle of self-determination of peoples. President Chen carried on a de-Sinicization campaign, with the proclamation of a new constitution for the country as its ultimate goal. The drive came to an abrupt end with the election of Ma Ying-jeou as president on March 22, but the opposition Democratic Progressive Party continues to rally support for Taiwan's new nationalism. In the end -- and in the not-too-distant future -Taiwan will espouse neo-Asianism, though fully aware that its strongest supporter, the United States, does not approve of it. Washington does not want Tokyo and Taipei to get too close to Beijing in order to retain exclusive leadership by the U.S. in Asia and the Pacific.

11

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Japan Relations
U.S., Japan move to bolster alliance this would increase soft power perception of US in the global arena and Japan getting the satelites is good for US.
Jin Dae-woong, Korea Herald writer, 9/06, Lexis The United States and Japan are strengthening their almost half-century alliance in conjunction with an agreed U.S. troop realignment in Japan. Meanwhile, the Korea-U.S. alliance is experiencing a range of challenges at it tries to transform itself to better reflect today's realities and challenges. "Japan is becoming more combined with the United States. The United States has been the spear for the defense of Japan, while Japan has played a role of shield. The alliance structure should be transformed into more a balanced arrangement," a senior U.S. diplomat in Tokyo told Korean reporters last week on condition of anonymity. In accordance with Washington's Global (Defense) Posture Review, the United States and Japan adopted "the United States-Japan Road Map for Realignment Implementation" on May 1, finalizing their three-year alliance readjustment negotiations. The U.S. Forces Japan plans to reshuffle its troop presence there to cope with new security challenges in the East Asian region. About 51,000 American troops are attached to the USFJ. Experts say the U.S. plan aims to respond to possible contingencies in Taiwan and North Korea. Through the troop realignment that focuses on dealing with "uncertain and transnational" security threats in the region, they argue the United States is seeking to improve its military preparedness against Chinese attempts to annex Taiwan. The plan is also related to the ability of U.S. forces to react immediately to emergencies in North Korea, including regime collapse, according to the experts. The large-scale troop rearrangement in Korea is another part of the U.S. military transformation, targeting the same regional goals. The U.S. Forces Korea plans to relocate its Yongsan Garrison in downtown Seoul, and the 2nd Infantry Division near the border with North Korea to Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers south of Seoul. Pyeongtaek will be home to the U.S. military's main base in Korea by 2008. With the help of enhanced "strategic flexibility" of the military forces, the United States will dispatch troops, as expeditionary forces, to intervene in local disputes to protect its own national interests in East Asia, experts say. The USFJ transformation is also intertwined with its move toward establishing a more united command structure with Japan's SelfDefense Forces, which will become the "axis of the U.S. power projection in East Asia to maintain regional stability and security." "The alliance is now transforming in terms of roles, missions and capabilities along with the U.S. realignment of its force structure in Japan," an official at Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs told The Korea Herald. Under the realignment plan, the headquarters of the U.S. Army I Corps at Fort Lewis, Washington, is to be relocated to Camp Zama in Kanagawa prefecture, about 40 kilometers southwest of Tokyo, by 2008. The measure - aimed at improving the U.S. Army command and control structure in Japan - will enable Camp Zama to serve as the U.S. ground force's operational command in case of contingencies on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere in East Asia.

12

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Vagueness 1NC
A. Their aff is vaguer than John Kerry they don’t specify their method with a system that allows a plethora of different combinations. National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf 8 (for a complete discussion see Appendix A): placement of collectors in Earth orbit [geostationary orbit (GEO), medium‐ Earth orbit (MEO), or low‐earth orbit (LEO)], or placement of collectors on the surface of the Moon. Two basic methods exist for capturing the energy: photovoltaic or solar dynamic. Finally two basic methods of beaming the power down exist: via coherent radio waves, or via coherent visible or infrared light. B. Not specifying their plan leads to the loss of neg debatebility C. Standard 1. Limits – we lose all limits because we don’t know how much thte plan does and what the plan actually uses to garner its advantages thus allowing the aff to do anything they want. 2. Ground – they prevent us from getting unique links to da’s K’s and prevent us from running pics and cps what makes it worse is that it doesn’t happen in one way it happen in multiple ways 3. Education – we lose key education on the topic because our debate are not specific thus the aff is not creative and 4. doesn’t have an in depth detailed debate and the neg doesn’t have to research or run any specific arguments and can rely on generics destroying debate 5. Fairness – major strat skew and time skew because we don’t have a direction to debate in creating massive problems overall aswell as preventing us from running good stat to have good debates.

13

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

US heg bad
US heg bad it risks conflict with china.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=6&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4226171331 Of major importance, international realities facilitate the rise of the China factor. The world today is a uni-polar system. The United States as the sole superpower is playing an interventionist liberal internationalism. Its military alliances with other countries as well as massive military presence worldwide give it overall leadership in world affairs. With the added advantage of English as an international language and the superior position the US and other Western nations enjoy in international media, information and values, it is difficult for the US to conscientiously resist the lure of super strength. In a way, the US uni-polar hegemony constitutes both a constraining factor to China's rise and a valuable opportunity to expand its international influence. The international sentiment that welcomes China's rise as a counterbalance to US hegemony helps China to increase its influence. Analysis of China's international influence shows that the country's growing strength is not the only contributing factor to its rising influence. As international influence comes from a country's position in the world power structure as well as its own strength, China's rise has enabled the country to lead discussions in international affairs, but not the ability to influence regional let alone global order.

14

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Mil = Arms race
Space Satellites are what entrench war by giving us war capabilities, the next step is crucial if we do it means an arms race in space.
Robert Ayson, writer the australian, 1/07, Hopes for sanity not yet lost in space, lexis Despite China's anti-satellite test, a new arms race isn't inevitable, argues Robert Ayson CHINA'S surprising antisatellite test has raised fears of an arms race in space. The unofficial moratorium on such tests is over. This alone means that China has acted provocatively and the military implications are only part of the story. If the satellites supporting the global transmission of data, images and funds became too vulnerable to be viable, much of life as we know it would grind to a halt. That is in nobody's interests. The 22-year taboo against anti-satellite tests supported the myth that space is not militarized. But space has long been used for military applications. The American way of war -- from the Gulf War in 1990 to Shock and Awe in Iraq in 2003 -- would be impossible without the military use of satellites. Washington's plans for missile defence have included space-based systems as essential components. Ballistic missiles leave the earth's atmosphere en route to their target. And space is central in Australia's own record of defence co-operation with Washington. The US is the world's dominant space power. Having beaten the Soviet space challenge by prevailing in the Cold War, the Pentagon guards this dominance jealously. Above all, it allows the US freedom of manoeuvre in conducting military operations. Washington's concerns about China's test may be less to do with the breaking of a gentlemen's agreement and more to do with the protection of the US's space hegemony. China could throw some stones back at the main critic. Beijing could argue that the US has been even quicker to break old understandings. The Bush administration tore up its Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia to develop missile defence. This program may one day target China's anti-satellite capabilities. Missile defence certainly reduces China's confidence in the balance of strategic power, and in its ability to hold sway in any conflict over Taiwan. Its antisatellite test sends a clear signal that any space-based systems involved in the defence of Taiwan would not go unchallenged. Yet China would be unwise to get into a war of words with the US and its allies. The test challenges China's insistence at the stalled Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that it will only discuss a fissile material cut-off treaty if the US agrees to negotiate a treaty on avoiding an arms race in space. More importantly, the test, and Beijing's fumbling and belated acknowledgement of its existence, flies in the face of the reputation China has been carefully building as a responsible and peaceful rising power. Thanks in no small part to its increasingly nuanced diplomacy, Beijing's reputation in the Asia-Pacific region is better than it has been in living memory. But this could be at risk if there are more signs of sabre-rattling. So far the test will only really concern those who were already slightly suspicious about China's intentions. But if Beijing pushes further, the balance of opinion may really start to change. And that may well provide an opening for the US. This would not be in keeping with Beijing's plans. In 1957 the launch of the Sputnik satellite showed the West that the Soviet Union was a serious competitor in the space race. This accelerated the Cold War nuclear arms race. The US spent billions of dollars responding to a non-existent ''missile gap'', and both sides ended up with far more nuclear weapons than they would ever need. It is by no means inevitable that China's test will have a similar effect. An arms race is like the tango: it takes two. This means that the next step is crucial.

15

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Colonization F/L
1. Space colonization causes environmental exploitation and space war. Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space 99’ http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations. Now is the time for all who care about peaceful and scientific space exploration to learn more about these issues and to begin organizing to prevent this insanity before it happens. An international debate must be created about the kind of seed we from Earth will carry with us as we explore space. Let this historic debate begin now.

2. Space colonization leads to space militarization its empirical 3. Space militarization is destabilizing and causes war. “Extend from the space mil flow”. 4. Space Colonization is time consuming and dangerous.
Donald F Robertson, space industry journalist, 3/06, http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html Two largely unquestioned assumptions long ago took root within the space community. As we prepare to voyage back to Earth's Moon and on to Mars, it is time to question them both. The first assumption is that exploring the Moon, Mars, or any part of the solar system, can be accomplished in a generation or two and with limited loss of life. The second is that we can use robots to successfully understand another world. Both assumptions are almost certainly wrong, yet many important elements of our civil space program are based on one or both of them being correct. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, even within the space community most people don't have a clue how "mind-boggingly big space really is." Most of the major worlds in the solar system have surface areas at least as large as terrestrial continents -- a few are much larger -- and every one of them is unremittingly hostile to human life.Learning to travel confidently through former President John F. Kennedy's "this new ocean" will be difficult, expensive, time-consumingand dangerous.

16

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed 5. Space Colonization is too expensive to do in a recession era especially when phase one of the plan will cost trillions of dollars. 6. The task is too hard for now because of economic and technical difficulties
Donald F Robertson, space industry journalist, 3/06, http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html Mr. Kennedy's rhetoric was more accurate than he probably knew. The only remotely comparable task humanity has faced was learning to travel across our world's oceans. We take trans-oceanic travel for granted, but getting from Neolithic boats to modern freighters cost humanity well over 10,000 years of hard work and uncounted lives. Even today, hundreds of people die in shipping accidents every year. We and our woefully inadequate chemical rockets are like Stone Age tribes folk preparing to cast off in canoes, reaching for barely visible islands over a freezing, storm-tossed, North Atlantic. The salient fact is, while it was much more difficult than most people care to remember, we did learn to ply the oceans, even arctic ones. Space is harder still, but many of the problems are similar: the environment is alien and deadly and most supplies must be carried along. Like our Neolithic friends, we can see our destinations in the distance. With Apollo, we visited the closest island and a series of progressively more sophisticated space stations has demonstrated long-term survival in the shoals close to home. The task may be far harder than we imagine, but it is not impossible.

17

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

MIL laundry list
Problems with Militarization
Dr. Giuseppe Anzera, Lecturer of Sociology of International Relations, 8/05 http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=347&language_id=1 The White House will face several problems if it wants to pursue the ambitious project of space militarization consisting of both offensive and defensive weapons. The first point is the political issue. International reactions to U.S. plans have already appeared: Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently evoked an immediate reaction from Moscow, and serious consequences were threatened should an orbital weapon deployment be performed by Washington. Such a reaction could consist of a modified version of the SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of putting into orbit a remarkable quantity of space vehicles -- which could even carry military nukes, thus making the U.S. planned intercepting effort much more difficult. It is easy to imagine that space weaponization -- once in place -- could be employed as well by U.S. rivals at any occasion, as these latter will develop mutual strategic ties just like China and Russia are doing in Central Asia. The second problem is economic. Orbital weapons -- as the Strategic Defense Initiative showed in the 1980s -- are extremely expensive. It has been estimated that a space defense system against weak ballistic missile strikes could cost between $220 billion and $1 trillion. A laser-based system to be used against ballistic missiles would cost about $100 million for each target. For instance, the Future Imagery Architecture -- a project aimed at the implementation of new spy satellites which are vital to identify targets for space weapons -- has already reached a cost of US$25 billion. It is a legitimate question, therefore, whether Washington really needs to finance such projects in today's geostrategic context. Moreover, would these tools be cost-effective in relation to their real operational capability? The first question raises doubts and the second one remains, at the moment, without answer. Henceforth, such initiatives resemble more and more Reagan's S.D.I. The third fundamental problem is of a strategic nature. The implications of space militarization are enormous, and its consequences can't be predicted. It is certain that -- in the short term -- U.S. financial and technological superiority would increase the already prominent gap in military power between Washington and the rest of the world. In addition, some of the new weapons could give the White House new effective tools to fight against symmetrical (states) and asymmetrical (terror networks) threats. However, in the long run, a military colonization of outer space could very well be started by other powers -- which would hardly tolerate Washington's quasi-private use of space. The Clinton administration decided to take the opposite route and avoided international space militarization, as it considered a new front useless because of the U.S. military's overwhelming dominance on land, sea and air. Moreover, the orbital deployment of offensive weapons -- even though unequivocally non-nuclear -- can be perilous for various reasons. First of all, the U.S. is currently obligated not to deploy atomic or W.M.D. space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not certain that the international community will consider it a conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could, therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race to space weaponization could begin -- involving the orbital deployment of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons. This latter scenario could result in a problem for the United States, a problem that its decision-makers in the 1960s strived to avoid at any cost. Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many states could change their perception of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools.

18

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Innovation Frontline
1. US leads in space tech.
Sicence Daily, scientific newspaper, 6/13/08, “US Still Leads The World In Science and Technology”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612070406.htm Despite perceptions that the nation is losing its competitive edge, the United States remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide, according to a new RAND Corporation study. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world's spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world's top 40 universities. An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study. "Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world's leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded," said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing." U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan, according to RAND researchers. However, other nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States. Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even preeminent. "There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce. We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues," Hosek said.

19

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Innovation Frontline
2. Lack of students or smart base leads to lack of Innovation
Despite perceptions that the nation is losing its competitive edge, the United States remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide, according to a new RAND Corporation study. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world's spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world's top 40 universities. An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study. "Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world's leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded," said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing." U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan, according to RAND researchers. However, other nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States. Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even preeminent. "There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce. We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues," Hosek said. Among the study's recommendations: Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and technology performance and the condition of the nation's science and engineering workforce. Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States. Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in research and innovation. Increase the United States' capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other countries. Continue to improve K-12 education in general, and science and technology education in particular. The inflow of foreign students, scientists and engineers has been a key factor that has enabled the U.S. science and engineering workforce to grow faster than the U.S. is graduating native-born scientists and engineers, according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on par. But a recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B) has the potential to reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home. Among potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older, native-born K12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S. reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive PhDs from U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and salaries improve abroad.

3. The horrid patent system is killing us like bush’s political capital was killed.

20

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Innovation Frontline
4. Without accurate patents for the tech innovation is impossible 5. KSR is decreasing number of tech available, Supreme Court Raised the Bar for Obtaining a Patent. Eric Raciti, former attorney for the commissioner of patents in the USPTO’s Office for Legislative and International Affairs Et. Al. 3-13-08, Mondaq.com: < http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58318> United States: Patent Standards And Investment
In Alternative Energy Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the most important patent ruling in years, raised the bar for obtaining patents on new products that rely on new combinations of existing, publicly-known elements. If the combination results from nothing more than "ordinary innovation" and "does no more than yield predictable results," the Court reasoned, it is not entitled to the exclusive rights that a patent conveys. "Were it otherwise," Justice Kennedy wrote for the unanimous Court, "patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts." Because most inventions combine previously known elements, the Court’s more liberal approach to determining "obviousness" will almost certainly make U.S. patents harder to obtain and defend in litigation. "Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress," Kennedy wrote. He added that such patents (based on only incremental improvements) were also undesirable because they might deprive earlier innovations of "their value or utility."

6. Patents are incentives for innovation in two distinct ways: The availability of patents in itself is an incentive as is the post filing monopoly.
LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, JD Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, BRIEF OF ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, EXPANSE NETWORKS, INC., INFLEXION POINT STRATEGY, LLC, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP., IPOTENTIAL, LLC, OCEAN TOMO, LLC, AND ONSPEC ELECTRONIC INC. AS AMICI CURIAE INSUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS, 2006 Patent systems – U.S. and foreign – promote innovation by creating a set of inter-related incentives. This Court’s cases emphasize how the patent system creates incentives to invent and to disclose inventions to the world. E.g., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 216 (2003); Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150-151 (1989). These pre-patent incentives are very real and are illustrated by entities like pharmaceutical companies, professional inventors (such as the founder of amicus Expanse Networks), and research-and-development companies (such as amicus OnSpec Electronic). This Court has occasionally mentioned a related but distinct – and, in this case, equally important – set of incentives. See Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730-731 (2002) (patent “clarity is essential to promote progress, because it enables efficient investment in innovation”). After the patent has issued – or in expectation of its issuance – the rights it confers make it possible to attract investment for the purpose of commercializing the invention claimed by the patent. It is always risky to bring something new to market, and it is the promise of the limited monopoly conferred by the patent grant – the assurance that the fruits of the investment will not be appropriated by anyone who figures out how to copy the product – that makes the investment attractive. See, e.g., Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004) (“The opportunity to charge monopoly prices – at least for a short period – is what attracts ‘business acumen’ in the first place; it induces risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth.”). As Judge Jerome Frank once summed up, referring to a type of competition that is vital to the health of the economy: “The David Co. v. Goliath, Inc. kind of competition is dependent on investment in David Co. – the small new competitor. And few men will invest in such a competitor unless they think it has a potential patent monopoly as a slingshot.” Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 128 F.2d 632, 643 (2d Cir. 1942) (concurring opinion).2

21

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

SPACE ARMS
Arms Race is clearly becoming a reality for the world.
Sunday Tasmanian (Australia) 5/08 Sunday 1 - Edition Fears grow of space arms race BYLINE: MARTIN GEORGE, lexis As long ago as the 1940s, it was becoming quite apparent that orbiting satellites could be used for very many purposes, including such things as military surveillance THE recent destruction by the US of one of its failed satellites made news around the world and has fuelled further discussions about the uses of outer space. Last year, China did a similar thing. The destruction of the ageing Chinese Fengyun-1C weather satellite on January 11, 2007, was seen around the world as evidence of the Chinese militarisation of space, even though China maintained that the exercise was only for peaceful purposes. The circumstances surrounding the destruction of Fengyun-1C and the more recent US Satellite USA193, however, are rather different. In the case of USA193, the satellite was in an orbit that, by the end of this month, would have caused it to re-enter and break up, with its hydrazine fuel tank likely to survive re-entry. The destruction was necessary, according to the US, because of the toxic nature of the hydrazine, quite apart from the small potential danger of a piece of the satellite causing damage or injury if it were to reach the ground. Nevertheless, the perceived similarity has poured water on 2007 protests about China's activities, and understandably so. In fact, China has been quick to comment on the US action in an unfavourable light, although I have little doubt that this is simply a retaliation against the US objections of early 2007. Even if one accepts that the destruction of the US satellite, which was certainly due to re-enter, was justified, the US has arguably gained experience from this exercise. The SM-3 missile that was launched from the USS Lake Erie would have been guided by radar tracking of the satellite, and then closed in on its target using an onboard heat-seeking system. The US has effectively admitted this was a novel operation by commenting that they needed to write or change some software in order for the attempt to succeed. However, was this contravening the overwhelming desire of the civilised world (and the United Nations) to reserve space for peaceful purposes? Strictly speaking, it is arguably within the accepted standards, but what exactly do we mean by ``peaceful purposes''? Long ago, ``peaceful'' was taken to mean ``non-military'', but there is really no clear-cut distinction between the two. As long ago as the 1940s, it was becoming quite apparent that orbiting satellites could be used for many purposes, including such things as military surveillance. Indeed, early in the space age, both the US and Russia started using satellites for purposes related to their military programs. The term ``nonmilitary'' came to mean ``non-aggressive, greatly widening the scope. Today, for example, GPS satellites provide accurate geographic positions, and clearly have their uses in warfare as well as for completely peaceful, everyday activities. Whatever one's judgment about the Chinese and US activities, the United Nations is becoming increasingly concerned. There have been several resolutions on the matter, most recently in December 2007 when the UN emphasised ``the necessity of further measures with appropriate and effective provisions for verification to prevent an arms race in outer space''. * Martin George is curator of the Launceston Planetarium

22

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space MIL is BANNED
Space Militarization is forbidden right now under the Outer Space Treaty
U.S. Department of State, Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967 http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause. In early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals. Between 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, 1960, President Eisenhower proposed that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies. Soviet plans for general and complete disarmament between 1960 and 1962 included provisions for ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The Soviet Union, however, would not separate outer space from other disarmament issues, nor would it agree to restrict outer space to peaceful uses unless U.S. foreign bases at which short-range and medium-range missiles were stationed were eliminated also. The Western powers declined to accept the Soviet approach; the linkage, they held, would upset the military balance and weaken the security of the West. After the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Unions position changed. It ceased to link an agreement on outer space with the question of foreign bases. On September 19, 1963, Foreign Minister Gromyko told the General Assembly that the Soviet Union wished to conclude an agreement banning the orbiting of objects carrying nuclear weapons. Ambassador Stevenson stated that the United States had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space. The General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on October 17, 1963, welcoming the Soviet and U.S. statements and calling upon all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction into outer space. The United States supported the resolution, despite the absence of any provisions for verification; the capabilities of its spacetracking systems, it was estimated, were adequate for detecting launchings and devices in orbit. Seeking to sustain the momentum for arms control agreements, the United States in 1965 and 1966 pressed for a Treaty that would give further substance to the U.N. resolution. On June 16, 1966, both the United States and the Soviet Union submitted draft treaties. The U.S. draft dealt only with celestial bodies; the Soviet draft covered the whole outer space environment. The United States accepted the Soviet position on the scope of the Treaty, and by September agreement had been reached in discussions at Geneva on most Treaty provisions. Differences on the few remaining issues -- chiefly involving access to facilities on celestial bodies, reporting on space activities, and the use of military equipment and personnel in space exploration -- were satisfactorily resolved in private consultations during the General Assembly session by December. On the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways: First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction. Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers. After the Treaty entered into force, the United States and the Soviet Union collaborated in jointly planned and manned space enterprises.

23

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Cooperation CP
PLAN : The USFG should follow the Space with Japan, China creating an International summit for space exploration that will fund JAXA for solar power satellites. The C/P compete through its net benefits Spending and US heg Solvency:
A. Plan solves the aff because

China seeks cooperation with the US in Energy
Du Guodong, Editor for Xinhua, June 17, 2008, Vice premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results, http://english.gov.cn/2008-06/17/content_1018512.htm Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan has called for stronger cooperation between China and the United States in energy, the environment and other related areas, saying that bilateral cooperation in these areas would lead to win-win results. "The Chinese government gives high priority to energy and resources conservation and the protection of the environment. It is committed to building a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society," Vice Premier Wang wrote in an article published by The Financial Times on Monday in its North American edition. "However, China is a big and populous developing country at a stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization. This has led to heavy consumption of energy and resources and made the task of protecting the environment a daunting one," he said. "So it is highly significant that the fourth China-U.S. Economic Dialogue, which will be held in the U.S. this week, will promote long-term cooperation in energy, the environment and other related areas," said Wang, who heads a Chinese delegation to take part in the fourth China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED), scheduled to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, on Tuesday and Wednesday. To meet the challenges brought about by the pressures of growing demand, Wang said China has endeavored to achieve the following goals: intensifying energy and resource conservation, developing renewable energy, and actively adapting to global climate change. "There is a broad scope for cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environment," he wrote. "Stronger cooperation between the two countries in energy and the environment will enable China to respond better to energy and environmental issues and also bring about tremendous business opportunities and handsome returns for American business." According to the intent of the 10-year cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environmental protection, Wang said the two countries should, on the basis of the principles of mutual complementarity and win-win progress, focus their cooperation in energy, pollution reduction and protection of natural resources. The Chinese vice-premier proposed three approaches to strengthen bilateral cooperation in these areas. First, China and the United States should build joint laboratories or research and development centers for energy and environmental protection technologies, and provide platforms to promote industrial applications of such technologies. Second, the two countries should jointly formulate and implement fiscal, taxation, financial and trade policies to encourage innovation and cooperation in and transfer of energy-conserving and environment-friendly technologies. Third, the two sides should use existing multilateral and bilateral dialogue mechanism and exchange platforms to enhance consultation and coordination, strengthen cooperation in training, exchanges of technical personnel, and data-sharing. Vice-Premier Wang hoped that through dialogue and cooperation in these areas, China and the United States will promote all-round development of the constructive and cooperative relationship between the two countries, to better serve the interests of their peoples. The SED was launched jointly by Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush in September of 2006. The dialogue is held twice a year, alternating between the two countries. The previous meeting was held in December in Beijing.

24

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed Many Countries want Space tech thus not only is a US-china Cooperation but also a world cooperation treaty
Jeffrey Logan Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division , 5/21/08, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106143.pdf China collaborates with other countries on civilian space activities, but it is not considered a key member of the international space community.6 Currently, China collaborates with Russia, the European Union (EU), Brazil, Canada, Nigeria, and others. The Russian partnership is probably the most active and has benefitted China’s manned space effort significantly. A China-EU collaborative framework on space has been in place since 1998. This includes cooperation on the EU-led Galileo satellite positioning system, but progress on this has been slow and sometimes controversial. Competition in space also exists among China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Although there may be military implications to this competition, each country seems more focused on building national pride by displaying technology prowess.

A treaty with china would allow for better relations and trade
Benefits of Cooperating with China. The potential benefits of expanded cooperation and dialogue with China include: ! Improved transparency. Regular meetings could help the two nations understand each others’ intentions more clearly. Currently, there is mutual uncertainty and mistrust over space goals, resulting in the need for worst-case planning. ! Offsetting the need for China’s unilateral development. Collaborating with China — instead of isolating it — may keep the country dependent on U.S. technology rather than forcing it to develop technologies alone. This can give the United States leverage in other areas of the relationship. ! Cost savings. China now has the economic standing to support joint space cooperation. Cost-sharing of joint projects could help NASA achieve its challenging work load in the near future. Some have argued that U.S. space commerce has suffered from the attempt to isolate China while doing little to keep sensitive technology out of China.

25

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed China has already attacked a satellite to challenge our space heg any more increase will only risk a ak 47 war with china.
Jim Mannion, 8/07, US military sees looming China threat to satellites, Agence France Presse – English, lexis China may be just three years away from being able to disrupt US military satellites in a regional conflict, a senior US military leader said Tuesday, citing a recent anti-satellite test and other advances. The warning came amid calls at a conference in Huntsville, Alabama for intensified efforts to ensure US "space superiority" in the wake of China's shoot-down January 11 of one of its own satellites with a ballistic missile. "It is not inconceivable that within about three years we can be challenged at a near peer level in a region," said Lieutenant General Kevin Campbell, head of the US Army's Space and Missile Defense Command. "That means taking out a number of communications capabilities over a theater of war," he added in a speech to defense contractors. Campbell later told reporters that while a number of countries have some capabilities to interfere with satellite communications, China is the one he is most worried about. He said its anti-satellite test in January was a clear demonstration of its ability to destroy an orbiting satellite. But China also is developing satellite jamming capabilities and has made advances in computer network attack skills that point to a comprehensive approach to denying the US military access to space in a conflict, he said. "It starts to add up that they'll have multi-dimensional capabilities to attack various systems that are in orbit today," he said. "A lot of countries have pieces of what I've described, but I would say I'm more concerned about China than any of them," he said. Taiwan is widely considered the likeliest US-China flashpoint, and some analysts believe Beijing is developing anti-satellite capabilities to "blind" the US military in the first days of a conflict. Satellites are vital to US military operations, enabling the flow of torrents of communications, imagery, and navigational data for the kind of high-tech precision warfare that has been a US trademark since the 1991 Gulf War. But US reliance on satellites for myriad civilian as well as military uses also has created vulnerabilities that though long understood had not taken concrete form until the Chinese test. Campbell said it has spurred the military to think about how to counter the threat, including ways to track and surveil objects in space to know what they are up to. He said his command has devised a "space alert" system patterned on "air alerts" that would key the military's responses to a threat to a friendly satellite. The military also is thinking about offensive counter-measures, he said. "I'm not free to talk about specifics, but the bottom line is we're thinking about and taking steps to ensure we have a capability... that shows we have freedom of action in space," he said. US-Chinese military competition raises the prospect of an arms race in space, something the Soviet Union and the United States generally refrained from in the Cold War. But US military leaders suggest that, like it or not, they are engaged in a struggle for space superiority. "If they take over our asymmetric advantage in space, we go from an information age war machine to an industrial war machine," said Lieutenant General Michael Hamel, head of the air force's space command. "We know that shifting that balance, the edge will go to the adversary," he said at the conference here. Hamel called the January test "another wake-up call" and drew a comparison to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in the 1950s, which set off a US-Soviet space race. "Space superiority is not just an interesting phrase, not just an interesting collection of programs, but it becomes an overarching concept for success on the battlefield," he said. He said the notion of establishing "guaranteed space superiority in all future conflicts as well as in peacetime" needed to permeate everything the US military does. "One does not have to get caught up in arguments over whether or not to weaponize space, or whether this becomes an arms race," he said. "It is simply irresponsible for us not to plan for, and to think about and to assure that we can have freedom of action."

26

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed China will respond by rattling swords with dollar purchases, crushing the economy. Telegraph 10/8/07
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml) Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds. Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US. "Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added. He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.

D. Economic collapse causes extinction Liutenant Colonel Bearden, 2K
(The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It) Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

27

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Mil BAD
Arms race is fueled and stability is lost by US persuasion for Space Mil
KCNA, newspaper, BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 2/08, lexis Text of commentary entitled: "Dangerous act that precipitates arms race in space" carried by state-run North Korean news agency KCNA The United States fired a missile to intercept a reconnaissance satellite in the Northern Pacific on 20 February, despite protests and denunciations from the international community. According to foreign news agencies, the interception of the reconnaissance satellite was carried out in the form of a comprehensive exercise staged by the warships loaded with specially modified interceptor missiles and the command system - which is controlled by radars and computers - under the command of the United States Strategic Command. Assessing it as a test for actual battle aimed at establishing a missile defence system as it marked an important occasion in rounding off a phase in the development of a missile defence system, observers are resolutely refuting the United States' claim on the reasons for the interception of the satellite. The reasons the United States advanced were that it was necessary to get rid of the satellite because the remote control of the reconnaissance satellite - which was launched in December 2006 - from ground became impossible, the satellite may fall on earth as early as the first week of March, and it was necessary to prepare for the situation that the satellite loaded with hazardous fuel could fall into a densely populated area. The United States said that the interception of the satellite carried out this time was neither the test of weapons to intercept other countries' satellite nor a sort of show towards potential adversaries. The experts' unanimous opinion is that, even if the satellite - which is loaded with toxic fuel - is intercepted as claimed by the United States, the toxic substance will remain and cause serious atmospheric pollution. In reality, the objective that the United States is pursuing through the interception of the reconnaissance satellite is nothing more than the one to contain China, Russia, and other countries and to gain military hegemony in space through the revival of the 1980s plan for "Star Wars." It is by no means a mere accident that the Russian Ministry of Defence revealed on 16 February that the United States' interception of the satellite is clearly intended to test a new type of strategic weapon. As was made known, the United States already conducted a test of intercepting satellite by firing missile from a fighter in 1985 and has lavished a tremendous amount of funds into the development of space weapons over the past decades. After China conducted a satellite interception test in January 2007, the United States has been speeding up the space militarization manoeuvres, while even more vehemently justifying its development of space weapons on the pretext of the China's test. A case in point is the fact that the United States openly opposed a draft of the treaty for the prohibition of the deployments of weapons in space [international space demilitarization treaty] that China and Russia presented to the UN Conference on Disarmament not long ago. In what was called the "National Space Policy" published in October 2006, the United States already stated, "The United States rejects discussions of agreements that may limit US access to or use of space and opposes any forms of agreements on disarmament." It is as clear as noonday that the United States' such adventurous manoeuvre, as the one based on the traditional way of thinking it adopted during the Cold War era, will scrap the international treaty for the peaceful use of space and will precipitate an arms race in space. All the facts once again clearly show that the United States is indeed the destroyer of global peace and stability. Source: KCNA, Pyongyang, in Korean 0214 gmt 25 Feb 08

28

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

No One Wants MIL
Two of the biggest members of the Space Race don’t want space mil US actions Will face some serious beating.
Norman Polmar, analyst, historian, and author specializ-ing in naval and strategic issues, 2/08 http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004003.html Russia and China -- enemies for most of the Cold War -- have joined together to propose a new treaty to ban space weapons. The proposal comes a little more than one year after China demonstrated that it possessed an Anti-Satellite (ASAT) capability. Russia (at the time the Soviet Union) and the United States had earlier demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites in orbit. In January 2007, the Chinese employed an SC-19 ballistic missile to fire directly at and destroy an outdated Feng-Yun-1C weather satellite at an altitude of 527 miles above the earth. Two previous ASAT attempts by China may have been intentional "misses" for test purposes. Reportedly, at the time of those earlier missile launches the U.S. intelligence community believed that China was close to proving the ability to hit an orbiting satellite, but some officials were taken by surprise when the ASAT capability was demonstrated, creating a massive field of space debris. Now China has joined Russia in proposing a ban on all weapons in space. The proposal was voiced by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on 12 February at an international disarmament conference in Geneva. "Without preventing an arms race in space, international security will be wanting," he told the conference. "The task of preventing an arms race in space is on the conference's agenda. It's time ... to start serious practical work in this field," he said. The existing Outer Space Treaty of 1967 -- formally known as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies -- bans the build-up or stockpile of weapons, including nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and their installation on the moon. But the treaty does not address the shooting down of satellites. (To date 98 countries are states-parties to the treaty, while another 28 have signed the treaty but have not yet completed ratification.) In calling for a ban of all types of weapons in space including ASAT systems, Lavrov explained, "Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction. And this, in turn, is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race both in space and on the earth." He also criticized the U.S. government's plan to expand the ballistic missile defense system into Europe: "We cannot but feel concerned over the situation where ... there are increasing efforts by the United States to deploy its global ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] system," Lavrov said. "The desire to acquire an anti-missile 'shield' while dismantling the 'sheath', where the nuclear 'sword' is kept is extremely dangerous," he added. The U.S. government has ongoing talks at this time with the leaders in Warsaw and Prague that are address a proposal to install ten ABM interceptor missiles in Poland and associated ABM radars in the Czech Republic. The Eastern European-based ABM components are being put forward by the United States to deter rogue states -- presumably Iran -- from attacking Europe with ballistic missiles. While many individuals and groups in the United States as well as Europe question the need for and effectiveness of an ABM system, the anti-satellite issue is of general interest to all virtually all parties. The massive and all-encompassing use of satellites for intelligence collection, missile launch warning, navigation (especially GPS), communications, and weather forecasting make them invaluable to civil and military activities on a continuous basis.

29

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Colonization is a big NO
Jeffrey F. Bell is a former space scientist and recovering pro-space activist, 11/05, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped05zzb.html Unfortunately, the new generation of organizations like the Space Frontier Foundation and the Mars Society and even the staid National Space Society mostly lack something that the old L-5 Society and Space Studies Institute had: technical sophistication. Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's books is there the kind of detailed engineering design for Mars colonies that the O'Neillians produced for their L-5 colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on Mars are dismissed after superficial discussions devoid of any hard numbers. And there are obvious problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incredibly cold there - probably down to -130C on winter nights. Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 to keep its batteries from freezing at night. And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, but enough to conduct heat. The Martian regolith will not be the perfect insulator that the Moon's is. Thermal control on Mars will not be simply a matter of adding layers of aluminum foil to reflect the sun. Bases and rovers will need to be insulated and heated. And how do you keep a human in a spacesuit warm in this climate? And Mars has permafrost - at least in some places and those places are the ones to colonize. How do we keep the heat leaking out from our habitat or farm greenhouse into the ground from heating up the ice and melting or subliming it away? This is a severe problem in permafrost areas of the Earth - how bad will it be on Mars? Zubrin even proposes underground habitats. These will be in direct contact with the cold subsoil or bedrock which will suck heat out at a rapid rate. If Gerard O'Neill was still alive and advocating Mars colonies, he would be doing some basic thermal transfer calculations to see how bad the Martian cold problem really is. He would be figuring out how big a fission reactor to send along to keep the colony warm and how often its core will need to be replenished by fresh U-235 from Earth. He would even have a rough number for the amount of Pu-238 everyone will have to carry in their spacesuit backpacks. Bob Zubrin is perfectly competent to do these calculations since he has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But you never see this kind of hard engineering analysis from the Mars Society. Instead, we get propaganda stunts like the Devon Island "Mars Base" which is only manned during the peak of the Arctic summer when the climate is tropical compared with that of Mars. Another thing you never see from the Mars Society is a realistic discussion of what would happen to the human body in the low Martian gravity. Zubrin has discussed at length the need for artificial spin gravity on the 6 month trip to Mars. But he assumes that the problem ends once the astronauts land on Mars. The problem of bone loss in a 0.38g field on Mars for ~18 months is completely ignored. When I read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars, I was so intrigued by this surprising omission that I consulted a friend who is a space medic at JSC. He tells me that this issue was once discussed at a conference of medical doctors who had actually worked with the long-term residents of Mir and ISS. NONE of these experts thought that humans could adapt permanently to Mars gravity! Why don't the Zubrinistas discuss these issues? They will have to be solved before anyone lives permanently on Mars (or even for the ~18 months which is the minimum useful stay time as fixed by orbital mechanics). It's not too early to think about them. But at the Mars Society web site, you don't find any study groups of scientists and engineers and grad students actually working out the technology we will need to colonize Mars. Instead you find - a MARS COLONIZATION SONG CONTEST!! No, I don't laugh like a hyena while reading the opinions of today's Space Cadets. I weep in frustration at how the pro-space movement has been taken over by technically illiterate cultists.

Japan is forced to compete for space power due to US china and Russia.
Japan has decided to compete in the space war thanks to US.
30

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed
UPI asia, newspaper agency, 5/08, http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/05/23/japan_approves_military_use_of_space/1509/ Tokyo, Japan — Japan's Parliament Wednesday approved legislation that will allow the military use of outer space for the fist time. Japan does not intend to fall behind military superpowers such as the United States, Russia and China as they deploy space-based weapons systems, and is making plans to keep pace with the next-generation missile-defense system of the United States. The law enables Japan to launch its own high-performance intelligence satellites or codevelop military satellites for defense purposes with the United States, lifting a 40-year ban on the military use of space. Japan's development of space technology has been hampered by a parliamentary resolution adopted in 1969 that interpreted the doctrine of the peaceful use of outer space as banning all military uses. "The spirit of pacifism can be seen in the new law," Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura told reporters Wednesday, brushing aside criticism that Japan could be starting a new arms race. Some analysts, however, see the passage of the law as a declaration of Japan’s intention to catch up with the United States in military space technology. “The Japanese government has been stressing the fear of North Korea's missiles to enact the law, but its real purpose is to keep up with the military strategy in space and missile defense system of the United States,” said military analyst Motoaki Kamiura. "Japan’s defense-related industries want to be able to accept orders and fit into the development of space weapons or missile defense system for the United States because they don't have the technology to develop their own military weapons anymore," Kamiura pointed out. According to the military analyst, Japan’s military technology is far behind that of the United States. The country has struggled to launch its own rockets and satellites in a cost-effective manner in recent years. An interim report on Japan's midsize GX rocket, jointly developed by the public and private sectors, exposed its falling international competitiveness last week. The report said the cost for total development could balloon to a maximum of US$ 2 billion, five times the initial estimate, as developers are facing difficulties in building a new engine powered by liquefied natural gas for the midsize rocket.

31

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

US is still the leader
Japan plan on working WITH us on space. UPI asia, newspaper agency, 5/08, http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/05/23/japan_approves_military_use_of_space/1509/ To strengthen military cooperation between Japan and the United States and instantaneously share information from the U.S. early-warning satellite, both agreed that by 2010 Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force Headquarters would transfer to the U.S. Yokota Air Base on the outskirts of Tokyo, where the headquarters of the U.S. Forces Japan and the Fifth Air Force are located. This agreement shows that Japan has no intention of developing its own military technology, but will work closely in cooperation with the United States, its closest ally. "As long as the United States continues to develop next-generation missile defense systems with multiple warheads or laser weapons, its overwhelming military superiority will be maintained. So, Japan's strategy is not wrong," Kamiura said. "In the future, the missile defense system of the United States will serve as a major deterrent force for Japan, even if North Korea is no longer a threat, in case military tensions with Russia or China escalate and they threaten Japan with nuclear weapons," he said.Top of Form Bottom of Form

US is still leader in many forms of tech in the world.
UPI asia, newspaper agency, 5/08, http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/05/23/japan_approves_military_use_of_space/1509/ Tokyo, Japan — Japan's Parliament Wednesday approved legislation that will allow the military use of outer space for the fist time. Japan does not intend to fall behind military superpowers such as the United States, Russia and China as they deploy space-based weapons systems, and is making plans to keep pace with the next-generation missile-defense system of the United States. The law enables Japan to launch its own high-performance intelligence satellites or co-develop military satellites for defense purposes with the United States, lifting a 40-year ban on the military use of space. Japan's development of space technology has been hampered by a parliamentary resolution adopted in 1969 that interpreted the doctrine of the peaceful use of outer space as banning all military uses. "The spirit of pacifism can be seen in the new law," Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura told reporters Wednesday, brushing aside criticism that Japan could be starting a new arms race. Some analysts, however, see the passage of the law as a declaration of Japan’s intention to catch up with the United States in military space technology. “The Japanese government has been stressing the fear of North Korea's missiles to enact the law, but its real purpose is to keep up with the military strategy in space and missile defense system of the United States,” said military analyst Motoaki Kamiura. "Japan’s defense-related industries want to be able to accept orders and fit into the development of space weapons or missile defense system for the United States because they don't have the technology to develop their own military weapons anymore," Kamiura pointed out. According to the military analyst, Japan’s military technology is far behind that of the United States. The country has struggled to launch its own rockets and satellites in a cost-effective manner in recent years. An interim report on Japan's midsize GX rocket, jointly developed by the public and private sectors, exposed its falling international competitiveness last week. The report said the cost for total development could balloon to a maximum of US$ 2 billion, five times the initial estimate, as developers are facing difficulties in building a new engine powered by liquefied natural gas for the midsize rocket.

32

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Blame US
Main reason for world space arms war is US space policy and perception that heg is everything and controlling Space is the only way.
BBC Monitoring International Reports, news report agency, 11/06, NORTH KOREAN PAPER SAYS US SPACE POLICY "ROOT CAUSE" OF WORLD ARMS RACE, lexis The new "National Space Policy" of the current Bush administration aimed at the monopolization and militarization of the outer space is nothing more than an extremely dangerous attempt to revive the criminal "Star Wars" plan. Space plays an important role in the progress of humankind and in the development of civilization. Attempting to use the outer space, which should be used for peaceful purposes common to mankind, as a theatre of war is an act of crime threatening the very existence of mankind and impeding the development of civilization. Accordingly, all countries should be prohibited from deploying any type of weapons, be they for offensive or defensive purposes, in the outer space. International law connected with this is already enacted. The US imperialists, who make a business of aggression and war, however, are violently trampling upon international law and scheming to deploy lethal weapons even in space at this moment. This is clearly evident in a recent statement blathered by an official of the US Department of State: "We intend to test weapons in space by the end of this year and then deploy them in space." The US imperialists' space weapons test has its objective in rounding off the missile complex capable of destroying the space satellites and space stations of other countries and the missile defence system. In other words, it is aimed at setting up around the earth a system for using space weapons to destroy the missiles to be fired by other countries. The United States is trying to secure the mastery of space through this. The positive efforts the United States is making to manufacture a composite space shuttle following the test launch of a small satellite capable of approaching and searching the space mechanisms of other countries in April 2005 are connected with this. Its reckless manoeuvres are the manifestation of an ambition to monopolize and militarize the outer space. What is more serious is the fact that this is accelerating a new arms race across the world. The United States spends a huge amount of money each year to militarily monopolize the space. The sum reaches an average of 30bn dollars a year. Last year, the United States even ventured to conduct a mock space war exercise. This indicates that a space war is being translated into reality. This being the situation, other countries are compelled to also take corresponding measures by developing the means of mounting strikes from the space. The United States' reckless manoeuvres for space militarization are the root cause driving a global arms race. The deployment of state-of-the-art weapons in outer space may bring about unpredictable consequences. The moves of the United States to deploy lethal weapons in the outer space are absolutely intolerable, as they are grave criminal acts that turn the peaceful outer space into a theatre of dangerous arms race and war, bring the danger of a new Cold War, a thermal nuclear war, and thus put the very existence and security of humankind in peril. Space is not the monopoly of any specific country. Space should never be used as a military base of aggression or as a theatre of war for attacking other countries. The United States should immediately give up its criminal design to turn the outer space into a military base and use it for the purposes of aggression and war in violation of international law on the peaceful use of outer space.

33

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Canada and Russia Anti MIL
CANADA AND RUSSIA IS AGAINST SPACE WEAPONS
RIA Novosti, news wire 4/05, CANADA AGAINST SPACE WEAPONS, lexis

MOSCOW, April 14 (RIA Novosti, Irina Chumakova) - Dr. Marc Garneau, president of the Canadian Space Agency, warns against deployments of weaponry in the outer space. Canada as well as Russia is against the militarization of the outer space; deployments of weaponry there is impossible, he told RIA Novosti. According to the CSA president, Canada has signed relevant nonproliferation international treaties that it intends to stick to. Dr. Garneau expressed his readiness to cooperate with Russia in countering space military deployments. At the same time, he said defense satellites were a legitimate thing to be used in the outer space. Describing the use of satellites for dual purposes as acceptable, he noted that such satellites could be used in military as well as civilian - telecommunication or surveying - missions. Dr. Garneau also underscored the importance of international cooperation in space research, describing the outer space as something that belongs to the entire mankind. In space, there are no Russian, American, or Canadian sectors, he said. Various countries should cooperate in space for the sake of common interests, he argued. According to the Canadian space chief, special legislation should be developed to regulate human activities in the outer space. Dr. Garneau, the first Canadian astronaut to make it to the orbit, is currently in Moscow on a two-day's visit. Yesterday, he and Anatoly Perminov, chief of the Russian Space Agency, signed a memorandum on cooperation in peaceful research and use of the outer space. On Thursday, the CSA president is to set off for Baikonur, Russian space center in Kazakhstan to oversee, together with Perminov, the launch of a Russian space vehicle Soyuz to the International Space Station. The Soyuz will carry a replacement crew. Robert Thirsk, a Canadian astronaut trained at the Russian Zvyozdny Gorodok space training center, is the backup cosmonaut for one of the crew members.

34

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Colonization  Militarization
Space Colonization leads to nuclearization.
Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space 99’ http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm Nuclear power has become the power source of choice for NASA. Not only has NASA, and the Department of Energy (DoE), been promoting the use of nuclear power for on-board generators for deep space missions, but there is growing evidence that the space exploration and exploitation "adventure" will soon be awash in nuclear materials. According to Marshall Savage, the founder of the First Millennial Foundation (a pro-space colonization organization), "We really can’t mess up the Moon, either by mining it or building nuclear power plants. We can ruthlessly strip mine the surface of the Moon for centuries and it will be hard to tell we’ve even been there. There is no reason why we cannot build nuclear power plants on the Moon’s surface with impunity. Equipped with limitless nuclear, the lunar civilization will be capable of prodigious rates of economic growth." One cannot help but wonder what would happen to the poor Moon miner who becomes contaminated by radioactive dust after removing his irradiated space suit inside the lunar habitat. There is a growing call as well for the nuclear rocket to Mars. Already work is underway on the project at Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico and at the University of Florida Nuclear Engineering Department. In his Space News op-ed called Nuclear Propulsion to Mars, aerospace industry engineer Robert Kleinberger states that the nuclear rocket "could be used for defending U.S. space systems, reboosting the International Space Station, returning to the Moon for exploration or mining, and for exploring and opening the inner solar system to scientific research. The nuclear vehicle could even assist in the eventual colonization of Mars." In fact, there is such a growing demand for plutonium for "space projects" that the DoE is now undertaking an internal review of its production process. The DoE is considering re-opening plutonium processing lines at such facilities as Hanford in Washington state, a site that has created enormous contamination during its years of bomb making.

35

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Econ DA
Bush has promised to veto any new spending. Andrew Taylor, journalist, 6-24-08, Democrats press funding increases for veterans education,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5injFfO8MlwJfFFF_n29IR630N94AD91GL9FO0 A Senate panel awarded sizable spending increases for health research, education and community health centers on Tuesday, though they appear dead on arrival so long as President Bush remains in office. So too, it seems, are big increases for homeland security programs approved across Capitol Hill by a House panel. The House Appropriations Committee also approved a bill providing an almost 14 percent increase above last year for veterans programs and military construction accounts. The welter of activity comes as Congress' annual appropriations process is getting under way in earnest. The Democraticdrafted bills are remarkably generous compared with Bush's much-maligned February budget submission, which was stacked high with budget cuts previously rejected by both Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses. For instance, the Senate panel, responsible for labor, health and education programs, approved an almost 5 percent increase in so-called Title I grants to schools serving a large number of disadvantaged students, a $1 billion increase for health research at the National Institutes of Health, and a 7 percent increase in funding for community health centers. That bill, along with a raft of others making their way through various legislative steps, face Bush veto threats. Bush is expected to promise to veto bills exceeding his requests. He's also promised to veto any bill in which lawmakers haven't cut by half the number and cost of pet projects known as earmarks. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the House Appropriations Committee's top Republican, said Democrats were simply "throwing money at problems," and warned taxpayers to "hold onto your wallets."

Solar satellites will cost $1 trillion. Lare Farrar, journalist, June 1, 2008, CNN, How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!,
cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar American scientist Peter Glaser introduced the idea of space solar power in 1968. NASA and the United States Department of Energy studied the concept throughout the 1970s, concluding that although the technology was feasible, the price of putting it all together and sending it to outer space was not. "The estimated cost of all of the infrastructure to build them in space was about $1 trillion," said John Mankins, a former NASA technologist and president of the Space Power Association. "It was an unimaginable amount of money."

Any space technology is perceived to cost trillions by those in power. Erik Sofge, journalist, January 2008, Space-Based Solar Power Beams Become Next Energy Frontier, Popular Mechanics,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4230315.html A Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or SBSP. According to the report, SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off crises such as climate change and wars over diminishing energy supplies. “The challenge is one of perception,” says John Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of NASA’s mid-1990s SBSP study. “There are people in senior leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost trillions.”

36

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Ptx Lx P. 1/2
Despite Bush’s support of Solar Satelites, he has not funded research since 2001. John Gartner, QUALS, 6-22-04, WIRED, NASA Spaces on Energy Solution,
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913 Brandhorst said that beaming solar power from space is essential for space exploration, which according to President Bush is now NASA's priority. Brandhorst said that it is not feasible to carry enough fuel into space to develop settlements on the moon, so solar energy is the best alternative. Bush has repeatedly said that the United States must become less reliant on foreign sources of energy as a matter of national security, but his administration has given solar power from space the cold shoulder. While his administration has allocated millions of dollars for research into alternative fuel sources such as nuclear fusion and hydrogen, according to John Mankins, assistant associate administrator of advanced systems at NASA, there has been no funding for space solar power since 2001.

Research into Solar Satelites is tied to the cost of oil. John Gartner, QUALS, 6-22-04, WIRED, NASA Spaces on Energy Solution,
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913 "It has fallen neatly through the cracks, as it has for decades," Mankins said. He said that NASA's development of space solar power would likely determine whether or not satellites ever send energy to Earth. "Given how critical NASA is to all the space and related technologies required, it's hard for me to see how it could happen" without NASA. Arthur P. Smith, a physicist who has written about solar power from space for the American Physical Society (PDF), said that interest in beaming solar power from satellites has waxed and waned since it was first proposed more than 30 years ago. Smith said that research funding was highest during the oil crisis in the Carter administration, but after gas prices retreated the program was shelved for almost 20 years.

Oil lobbyists don’t like funding allocation for Solar Satelites. John Gartner, QUALS, 6-22-04, WIRED, NASA Spaces on Energy Solution,
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913 Neville Marzwell, advanced concepts innovation technology manager at NASA, spent five years researching methods of improving a satellite's ability to collect solar energy before his program was cut. Marzwell claims that politics played a part in the decision to kill the space solar power program. The United States "doesn't have the political will to fund the research" because of pressure from fossil-fuel lobbyists, Marzwell said. "We could have become the Saudi Arabia of the world electricity market," Marzwell said. But because the coal and oil industries don't want threats to their profits, they applied political pressure, causing the program to be scrapped, according to Marzwell.

37

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Ptx Lx P. 2/2
NASA funding has support from both parties Aero News, news regarding aviation and space, 6-19-08, House Approves $20.2 Billion NASA Budget, http://www.usaviator.com/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=fd897c96-047a-432d-98dd-41d242bfa3a6& It's a major win for NASA... but still far short of a decisive victory. On Wednesday the US House of Representatives approved a $20.2 billion NASA spending bill for fiscal year 2009 that includes funds for one more shuttle flight before the fleet's retirement, as well as more money for development of the Constellation program.The Associated Press reports the 2.8 percent increase in funds over FY2008 includes money for one last mission to the International Space Station, so that NASA can fulfill its commitment to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. NASA pledged to deliver the 15,000-pound instrument -- to be used to search for unusual matter in space -- early in the ISS program, but shelved those plans following the 2003 loss of Columbia. "We ought to make good on our original commitment to fly this expensive instrument to the ISS," said Texas congressman Ralph Hall, the top Republican on the Science Committee, during debate on the measure last week. Sixteen countries contributed some $1.5 billion to develop the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer for the US Department of Energy. House lawmakers approved reinstatement of that mission by an overwhelming -- and likely veto-proof -- 409-15 vote. The latter is important, as the Bush Administration opposes spending a dime more than originally budgeted for the shuttle program, now slated for retirement in 2010. The White House penned a $17.6 billion budget for NASA for FY2009.

Solar Power is popular. Webwire, 6-24-08, Summer is the Time to go Solar, http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=68621
With solar power systems gaining popularity these days, homeowners now have quite a few choices of both system sizes and styles. AATH informs that homeowners need to discuss their desires and needs with a professional before starting their project. Varying solar systems can just provide a share of the power for your home or completely get rid of your current electric bill by taking you “off the grid” entirely. "Homeowners also have a choice of the location of their solar cells, which can have a big effect on the aesthetics of their home" says All Around the Home Partner Ryan Corey. All Around the Home’s blog, which can be accessed at http://blog.allaroundthehome.com/, allows homeowners to discuss their personal experiences and gain more knowledge of everything solar power based. Once homeowners know exactly what they want with their new solar energy system, the question is which installation expert to use? Because more and more residents are looking to help cut back on our non-renewable energy resources, solar power is now becoming a fairly popular alternative. This also means that there are more and more professional solar contractors to choose from. Contractor referral sites like All Around the Home - http://www.allaroundthehome.com/ - help homeowners make that hard decision. AATH matches its visitors with up to four solar installation experts so that homeowners can compare their area’s highest quality professionals to find the right one for their next home improvement project. Because solar power is gaining popularity, sites like All Around the Home, who help match interested homeowners with prescreened, licensed and fully insured contractors are key to helping the industry grow. It’s simple these days with these great, easy-to-use online contractor referral sites. So we see no end in sight to All Around the Home and the solar power industry.

38

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Kritiking P. 1/2
The exploration of space is an example of instrumentality. Erin Moore Daly and Robert Frodeman, the graduate student in the School of Life Sciences and the Center for Science, Policy,
and Outcomes at Arizona State University and the chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Texas respectively, Spring 2008, Volume 13, Number 1, Project Muse Lessons learned about our impact on the Earth's surface and atmosphere have relevance as we travel beyond our home planet. The unintended and often destructive effects of humankind on the Earth environment highlight the need for caution and restraint as we travel beyond our home planet. Several authors, acknowledging the probability that humans will one day be active and constant presences in space, have suggested the need to identify and preserve wilderness areas on celestial and planetary bodies.4 Using the United States National Parks System as an analogue, scientists Charles Cockell and Gerda Horneck (2004) suggest that an extraterrestrial park system with strict regulations and enforcement measures would go a long way to ensure that portions of Mars remain pristine for science, native biota (if any exist), and human appreciation. Such a policy would acknowledge the competing interests and priorities of many parties: national space agencies, the international community, the community of space scientists, private enterprises who have fixed their sights on space tourism, commercial, and/or industrial enterprises in space, environmental ethicists, and the general public. The issues involved are complex. National Parks in the United States were established after centuries of thinking through the relationships between human and nonhuman, nature and culture, beauty, truth, and the sublime, and humans' obligations toward the Earth. Scientists and political decision-makers will have to confront these issues, whether explicitly or implicitly, as they consider the future of the space program. But this thinking will now take place in a context where humans are aliens. Earth-bound environmental philosophy occurs in a context where we are a [End Page 139] natural part of the environment. On other planets we face a new first question: what are the ethical and philosophical dimensions of visiting or settling other planets? In short, should we go there at all? To date, the discussion of natural places has turned on questions concerning intrinsic and instrumental values. Intrinsic values theorists claim that things have value for their own sake, in contrast to theories of instrumental value where things are good because they can be used to obtain something else of value (economic or otherwise). This debates tends tend to get caught up in attempts at extending the sphere of intrinsically valuable entities. Ethical extensionism depends on human definitions of moral considerability, which typically stem from some degree of identification with things outside us.

Insert Ecology Impact Card

A cosmocentric ethic is necessary to combat the anthropocentric and geocentric views in space exploration by utilizing a conservative approach and first consider the implications of our actions. Erin Moore Daly and Robert Frodeman, the graduate student in the School of Life Sciences and the Center for Science, Policy,
and Outcomes at Arizona State University and the chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Texas respectively, Spring 2008, Volume 13, Number 1, Project Muse This anthropocentric and geocentric environmental perspective shows cracks when we try to extend it to the cosmic environment. The few national or international policies currently in place that mention the environment of outer space (e.g. NASA's planetary protection policy, United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) consider the preservation of planetary bodies for science, human exploration, and possible future habitation, but there is not yet any policy that considers whether these anthropocentric priorities should supersede the preservation of possible indigenous extraterrestrial life, or the environmental or geological integrity of the extraterrestrial environment. Anticipating the need for policy decisions regarding space exploration, Mark Lupisella and John Logsdon suggest the possibility of a cosmocentric ethic, "one which (1) places the universe at the center, or establishes the universe as the priority in a value system, (2) appeals to something characteristic of the universe (physical and/or 39

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Kritiking P. 2/2
metaphysical) which might then (3) provide a justification of value, presumably intrinsic value, and (4) allow for reasonably objective measurement of value" (Lupisella & Logsdon 1997, 1). The authors discuss the need to establish policies for pre-detection and post-detection of life on Mars, and suggest that a cosmocentric ethic would provide a justification for a conservative approach to space exploration and science -- conservative in the sense of considering possible impacts before we act.5 A Copernican shift in consciousness, from regarding the Earth as the center of the universe to one of it being the home of participants in a cosmic story, is necessary in order to achieve the proper environmental perspective as we venture beyond our home planet. [End Page 140]

Capitalism is at the heart of satellited space exploration and this leads to nuclear war. Independent Media Center 2k3, Revolutionist, Marko, , Anarchism and Human Survival: Russell's Problem,
,http://sydney.indymedia.org/print.php3?article_id=30393, March It is also understood that the development of these nuclear weapons may require the resumption of nuclear testing, a key reason for the Administration's lack of readiness to abide by the CTBT treaty, which is meant to ban nuclear testing. The CTBT is a key feature of contemporary global nuclear non proliferation regimes for the US signed the CTBT in order to extend the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT) indefinitely. Abandoning the CTBT treaty, in order to develop a new generation of more "useable" nuclear weapons that will lower the threshold of nuclear war, will place the NPT regime under further strain and greatly increase the chances of further nuclear proliferation.There exists a "deadly connection" between global weapons of mass destruction proliferation and US foreign policy. One may well ask what has all this to do with state capitalism? Consider the thinking behind the militarization of space, outlined for us by Space Command; historically military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments “ both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. During the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements and roads. The document goes on, the emergence of space power follows both of these models. Moreover, the globalization of the world economy will continue, with a widening between a haves and have not. The demands of unilateral strategic superiority, long standing US policy known as "escalation" or "full spectrum" dominance, compel Washington to pursue “space control". This means that, according to a report written under the chairmanship of Donald Rumsfeld, "in the coming period the US will conduct operations to, from, in and through space" which includes "power projection in, from and through space". Toward this end, Washington has resisted efforts in the UN to create an arms control regime for space. As a result there will inevitably arise an arms race in space. The importance of this simply cannot be over-emphasised. Throughout the nuclear age there have been a number of close calls, due to both human and technical error, that almost lead to a full scale nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow. These glitches in command and control systems were ultimately benign because both sides had early warning satellites placed in specialised orbits which could be relied upon to provide real time imagery of nuclear missile launch sites. However the militarization of space now means that these satellites will become open game; the benign environment in space will disappear if the militarization of space continues. Thus if the US were to "conduct operations to, from in and through space" it will do so remotely. Technical failure may result in the system attacking Russian early warning satellites. Without question this would be perceived by the Russian's as the first shot in a US nuclear first strike. If these satellites were to be taken out then this ultimate guarantee disappears; the Russian ground based radar system has a number of key holes that prevent it from warning of an attack through two key corridors, one from the Atlantic the other from the Pacific. In the future if an event such as 1995 were to occur in space the Russians no longer would have the level of comfort provided by its space based assets. The militarization of space greatly increases the chances of a full scale accidental nuclear war. In other words, we are witnessing the integration of strategic conventional, nuclear and space planning into the command responsible for overseeing US nuclear forces. In turn these forces become an ordinary facet of US strategic planning, severing the break between conventional and nuclear war.

40

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD get tech from private comps
Text – the DOD will get satellites tech from private country in return for tax incentive and the USFG will fund the DOD F22 airforce program.
We Compete with the net benefit.

Sunrgi is fixed to release their solar technology within the year.
Danny Bradbury, [quals], April 30, 2008, Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise Solar concentrator company Sunrgi is planning to undercut conventional grid electricity prices within twelve months, using the same solar technology designed for satellites. Sunrgi is planning a technology combining solar concentrators with space-class solar technology based on germanium, which it claims will produce energy costing five cents per kilowatt hour when amortised over 20 years. The company would not reveal the initial investment required in the equipment, which will be initially sold to utilities and large-scale industrial organisations. The technology, which uses lenses to focus sunlight onto solar material, has an efficiency of 37.5 per cent, the company said, compared to around 15 per cent for conventional crystalline solar panels. With sunlight generating 1MW per square metre, that means it can harvest 375 watts, said Sunrgi CEO Paul Sidlo.

Sunrgi has unique patent rights to key technology.
Danny Bradbury, [quals], April 30, 2008, Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise He added that the technology rests on two key pieces of intellectual propery. Firstly, Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling technology to stop the intense heat from the lenses vapourising the solar material. "We have a nanomount on the back of the chip that has a tremendous ability to move thousands of thermal watts of energy away from the chip," explained Sidlo. "It uses nanotechnology that we developed." Once removed from the chip by the nanotechnology, the heat eventually reaches an aluminium heat sink that can help to move it out of the solar array. In future versions, the company is considering harvesting the waste heat and converting it back into power. The other proprietary technology is a tracking system that will minutely adjust the array's position to track the sun, increasing the energy that a unit will be able to harvest from the sun on a daily basis. The company said it hopes to begin commercial production in within 12 to 15 months.

41

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD get tech from private comps
Privatization is the best way to develop space technology.
Robert Garmong, PhD in philosophy and writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, 2005, Capitalism Magazine, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4327 As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government. Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America's expensive space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.

NASA is a bureaucratic tool. Robert Garmong, PhD in philosophy and writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, 2005, Capitalism Magazine,
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4327 The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an oversized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam.

42

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD get tech from private comps
Free Market Solves Best. Robert Garmong, PhD in philosophy and writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, 2005, Capitalism Magazine,
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4327 Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space--it's been happening, quietly, for years. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft. Commercial satellite launches are now routine, and could easily be fully privatized. The X Prize, which SpaceShipOne won, offered incentives for private groups to break out of the Earth's atmosphere. But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if, for instance, it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited. We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. The creative minds that allowed SpaceShipOne to soar to triumph have made the first private steps toward the stars. Before them are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best minds, as only the free market can do.

Solar Powered satellites within the DoD saves money and military lives. Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, August 13, 2007, The Space Review, A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?
At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.

The DoD’s vision is still a long ways off. Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, August 13, 2007, The Space Review, A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?
There was one problem with those plans, Smith said: because this project was started outside of the budget cycle, there was no money available for him to carry out a conventional study. “I’ve got no money,” he said, “but I’ve got the ability to go out there and make friends, and friends are cheap.” So Smith and his cadre of friends have carried out the research for the study in the open, leveraging tools like Google Groups and a blog that hosts discussions on the subject. Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it’s going to take a long time,” he said. “The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.”

43

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD get tech from private comps
The first step is cash. Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review, August 13, 2007, The Space Review, A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?
The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and self-described “cynic” who also participated on the NewSpace panel. “The first step in this case needs to be a cheap, simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down,” he said. A satellite that generated just 10 kilowatts of power—less than some commercial GEO communications satellites—could be developed for on the order of $100 million, he said.

44

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Force CP P. 1/4
CP Text: Current DOD policies does not ensure a sufficient space cadre, undermining the sought space culture that is a prerequisite to any space technology. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 2005, Defense Space Activities:
Management Guidance and Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel, GAO-05-833 The United States increasingly relies on space for many critical military and civilian purposes, such as communications and imagery. The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space assets to support a wide range of military missions, such as intelligence collection, battlefield surveillance and management, global command and control, and navigation assistance. Recent military operations have demonstrated that space capabilities are critical to the success of defense missions, such as precision engagement, search and rescue, and close air support. Space-qualified personnel, both military and civilian, are needed to develop technology, doctrine, and operational concepts for employing space assets in the future and to operate complex space systems. In 2001, a space commission concluded that DOD did not have a strong military space culture, which included focused career development and education and training. DOD is responsible for leading efforts to synchronize the military services’ space personnel activities and integrating the services’ space personnel into a cohesive total force to the maximum extent practicable. The services are responsible for developing and maintaining space-qualified personnel in sufficient numbers to support their interests in space requirements, acquisition, and operations and participate in joint activities. During the 1990s, Congress was concerned about DOD’s management and organization of space activities and chartered a commission to review national security space activities. In January 2001, the commission report identified some longstanding management challenges including developing and maintaining a group of professional personnel, known as the space cadre, for leadership roles in all aspects of space-related activities. In its report, the commission made recommendations to improve DOD’s management and organization of space operations. In April 2003, we reported on the implementation of the commission’s recommendations, as required by Congress.1 We recommended that DOD, in conjunction with the services, establish a department wide space human capital strategy with goals, measurable objectives, and timelines to develop and maintain a cadre of military and civilian space professionals. DOD concurred with our recommendation.

45

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Force CP P. 2/4
Space culture is key to a powerful military presence. Kurt S. Story, Army Aviator and Space Operations Colonel in the U.S. Army and Senior Service Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Institute of Advanced Technology Center for Studies in Acquisition, 2002, “A Separate Space Force: An Old Debate with
Renewed Relevance,” A Senior Service College Fellowship Research Paper, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA404193 A strong space culture is essential to the growth of space power because it provides the intellectual nutrients to ensure the growth of space leader development and training, space doctrine, and space assets -- all three of which are critical to the ascendancy of space power. The development and nurturing of a strong space culture are vital to the United States' continued growth and dominance in space. In his report to the Space Commission, Lt Col Kevin McLaughlin, a Space Commission staff member, writes that "The Department of Defense is not yet on course to develop or maintain the space cadre the nation needs. DoD must create a stronger military space culture through focused recruitment, career development, education, and training within which the space leaders for the future can be developed."9 The Air Force has played a dominant role in space matters for years. In the area of space, the Air Force accounts for 90% of the personnel and infrastructure, 86% of the assets, and 85% of the budget.10 By virtue of scale, the Air Force is largely responsible for developing the U.S. space culture. While the Army and Navy have space programs and space cultures of their own, they are small in comparison to that of the Air Force. The Space Commission recognized this when they reported: In highly valued operational military career fields, such as Air Force pilots and Navy nuclear submariners, military leaders have spent about ninety percent of their careers within their respective fields. In contrast, among those holding military leadership positions in DoD's largest space organizations, there is little space experience. The lack of experience is most acute at senior levels of DoD's operational space organizations. A review by the commission of over 150 personnel in key space jobs found out that over 80% of the flag officers come from non-space backgrounds and that as a group they average only about 8 percent of their career in space related duties."

Space culture is directly proportional to Space Leaders Kurt S. Story, Army Aviator and Space Operations Colonel in the U.S. Army and Senior Service Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Institute of Advanced Technology Center for Studies in Acquisition, 2002, “A Separate Space Force: An Old Debate with
Renewed Relevance,” A Senior Service College Fellowship Research Paper, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA404193 Highly trained space leaders are necessary for the important transformation of space missions from a support and force enhancement role to a support and power projection role. When properly resourced and empowered, space leaders will strengthen the space culture, which will, in turn, produce even stronger space leaders. The strength of space culture is directly proportional to the strength of space leaders and vice versa. Space culture influences space power by directly influencing leader development and training, doctrine, and the acquisition and employment of space systems. Figure 2, below, depicts the concept of the relative space power dividend as a product of space leader development and training, space doctrine, and space systems in a space culture environment which is not competing with an air power culture or coexisting within an aerospace culture.

Space culture is key to space technology. Kurt S. Story, Army Aviator and Space Operations Colonel in the U.S. Army and Senior Service Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Institute of Advanced Technology Center for Studies in Acquisition, 2002, “A Separate Space Force: An Old Debate with
Renewed Relevance,” A Senior Service College Fellowship Research Paper, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA404193 In summary, the benefits of a strong space culture are numerous. It provides the base for leader development and training. Additionally, a strong space culture provides the foundation for research, development, and the acquisition of space systems, all critical to space power. The environment provided by a healthy space culture allows for the more rapid, unconstrained intellectual development of space theory and doctrine in support of current and future space warfare. A military space culture focused on supporting space leader development and training, space doctrine development, and the acquisition of space systems is absolutely critical to setting the conditions for ensuring national security in and continued control of space.

Space Force CP P. 3/4
Space control is key to US hege.
46

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed Center for Security Policy, press release, 1-23-98, “Summary of 'The Need For American Space Dominance',”
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-P_16at The nation with military control of space will have the capability to control international communications and access to land, sea and air. If the U.S. should lose its present control of space, it will mark the end of its status as a global superpower. Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., was grimly serious. "Whoever controls space will control the destiny of the Earth," he declared. "And when you look at the options out there, I would ask you, who do you want it to be? Iran? Russia? Iraq? China?" Smith was raising those tough questions at a recent seminar on space power at the prestigious Center for Security Policy in Washington. Not given to flamboyant rhetoric, the plainspoken New Hampshireman continued, "To those who say we can't militarize space, I must say, `Do you want somebody else to do it?'" hina and Russia want to. So do likely or incipient nuclear powers Pakistan, India, Iraq and North Korea. And it isn't just those with military ambitions, say leading defense authorities. Now, thanks to commercialization of many space technologies, any individual or group with the cash can buy the hardware and software to cause havoc for U.S. security interests in space. Space holds the key to U.S. communications -- not only for the military, but for every single citizen whose news and entertainment, telephone calls, Internet surfing, banking and financial services depend on satellites. Vulnerable to attack is the entire communications system on which the U.S. economy now depends. Equally vulnerable is the U.S. mainland itself. Any defense against incoming ballistic missiles -- be they short-range or strategic rockets with nuclear warheads -- must rely heavily on space-based sensors and, in some cases, space-based weapons to shoot down the missiles or warheads before they land. In military terms, control of space means much more than missile defense. "The United States' unimpeded access to space is vital to national interests -- the word `vital' meaning that we are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain that access" according to Air Force Maj. Gen. Brian Arnold. Virtually every facet of modern war-fighting makes use of space, he says, "from intelligence to reconnaissance, surveillance to warning to timing [and] getting over the target, to our precision-guidance weapons that you saw used so well in Operation Allied Force to limit the collateral damage, to put a single weapon on a single target, to the weather, to accessing the battle damage after the fight, to the communications ... and going even further to computer-network defense and computer-network attack, which uses a lot of space assets."

The Air Force needs more people. Space News Business Report, 1-4-2K4, “The U.S. Air Force’s Manpower Problem,”
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/editarch_122303.html The Air Force also needs help on the personnel front. According to charts used in briefings recently by Gen. Arnold, the management and engineering staff available to the Space and Missile Systems Center has declined by almost a third since 1992, while the number of programs the center is responsible for has almost doubled. The manpower shortages are within the Air Force itself, The Aerospace Corp. — the Air Force’s in-house engineering think tank — and other support contractors. The Defense Department has asked Congress for relief from the manpower caps on its federally funded research and development centers like The Aerospace Corp., but the lawmakers so far have denied the request. Congress should reconsider its position and ease those caps as soon as possible. The Pentagon also must find a way to address the shortage of mid-level officers at the Space and Missile Systems Center who will be called upon to run the Air Force’s very complex and expensive space programs in the coming years. Gen. Arnold and Air Force Undersecretary Peter B. Teets appear to be doing their part to break the cycle of dysfunctional acquisition practices that have thrust space programs into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. But if they do not get some help on the personnel front, that unflattering light may yet grow brighter.

47

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Force CP P. 4/4
Unless we directly engage space exploration, we’ll be doomed. RICHARD B. MYERS, ice chairman putative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command, and Defense Dept. manager for space transportation system contingency support, Peterson AFB, Colorado, January 2000, Space
Superiority is Fleeting, Lexis THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. BUT, ''space superiority is fleeting'' in that we can't be deceived by the fact that we enjoyed space dominance in Kosovo and in the gulf war. We controlled the ''high ground,'' not because of superior technologies or strategies, but because our adversaries simply didn't use space. We gained space superiority by default; the world took notice. Just as Milosevic modified his air defenses to try to deny our air superiority, others will modify their forces to try to deny our space superiority. Fortune may not be so kind in the 21st century. The worldwide proliferation of space-based capabilities will accelerate. Practically anyone with a credit card and an Internet account can buy global satcom and 1-meter-resolution imagery. Precision navigation is free to everyone with a GPS receiver. Inevitably, these capabilities will be used for purposes hostile to the U.S. and its allies.

We cannot afford to not enter space. RICHARD B. MYERS, ice chairman putative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command, and Defense Dept. manager for space transportation system contingency support, Peterson AFB, Colorado, January 2000, Space
Superiority is Fleeting, Lexis In my opinion, this view is overly optimistic and shortsighted. What we are witnessing today in space is a modern-day version of the 1849 gold rush. Everyone is in a mad scramble, events occur at breakneck speed and key players are focusing on near-term economic gain. Of course, in the old west, the situation deteriorated to the point where it took extreme, even Draconian, measures to restore order. We can't afford to wait that long, nor can we afford such colorful, shoot-from-the-hip responses when trouble arises. Although right now space is a peaceful medium, our dependence on it and its vulnerability to evil intent make space systems all too tempting a target for terrorism or hostile military operations. We've already seen the development of satellite-blinding lasers, missiles capable of dispersing shrapnel into low-Earth orbit and GPS jammers. These are in addition to environmental hazards such as meteor showers, charged particles and orbital debris.

48

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

Space Mil. DA P. 1/2
US militarization of space will lead to a space arms race. Anup Shah, Master of Science in Environmental Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, January 21, 2007,
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp While various militaries around the world have used Space for years, it has largely been for surveillance satellites etc. However, the Bush Administration in the United States has long made it clear that the US wishes to expand its military capabilities and have weapons in space and therfore also be dominant in this fourth military arena (the other three being sea, land and air). This new “ultimate high ground” would provide further superior military capabilities. While it would provide additional important defense mechanisms, many worry about the other benefit it would bring— capabilities for offensive purposes to push America’s “national interests” even if they are not in the interests of the international community. Furthermore, together with its pursuit of missile defense, (which goes against the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, an important part of global arms control mechanisms), the USA risks starting a wasteful expenditure of an arms race in space.

The extension of US imperialism in space is an attempt at complete dominance of the planet and will lead to a global arms race. Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 1, 2006, NORTH KOREAN PAPER SAYS US SPACE POLICY "ROOT
CAUSE" OF WORLD ARMS RACE, Lexis The wicked design of the US imperialists to mount military attacks at any time against any region, with deadly nuclear means and other war equipment deployed permanently in the peaceful outer space, had been disclosed a long time ago. The US imperialists have framed and actively pursued a "space nuclear war plan" from the 1960s in the previous century. This was stepped up and pursued in more earnest after the emergence of the bellicose Reagan administration in the United States in the 1980s. The Reagan administration announced the "Star Wars" plan and manoeuvred recklessly for its realization. The new "National Space Policy" of the current Bush administration aimed at the monopolization and militarization of the outer space is nothing more than an extremely dangerous attempt to revive the criminal "Star Wars" plan. Space plays an important role in the progress of humankind and in the development of civilization. Attempting to use the outer space, which should be used for peaceful purposes common to mankind, as a theatre of war is an act of crime threatening the very existence of mankind and impeding the development of civilization. Accordingly, all countries should be prohibited from deploying any type of weapons, be they for offensive or defensive purposes, in the outer space. International law connected with this is already enacted. The US imperialists, who make a business of aggression and war, however, are violently trampling upon international law and scheming to deploy lethal weapons even in space at this moment. This is clearly evident in a recent statement blathered by an official of the US Department of State: "We intend to test weapons in space by the end of this year and then deploy them in space." The US imperialists' space weapons test has its objective in rounding off the missile complex capable of destroying the space satellites and space stations of other countries and the missile defence system. In other words, it is aimed at setting up around the earth a system for using space weapons to destroy the missiles to be fired by other countries. The United States is trying to secure the mastery of space through this. The positive efforts the United States is making to manufacture a composite space shuttle following the test launch of a small satellite capable of approaching and searching the space mechanisms of other countries in April 2005 are connected with this. Its reckless manoeuvres are the manifestation of an ambition to monopolize and militarize the outer space. What is more serious is the fact that this is accelerating a new arms race across the world. The United States spends a huge amount of money each year to militarily monopolize the space. The sum reaches an average of 30bn dollars a year. Last year, the United States even ventured to conduct a mock space war exercise. This indicates that a space war is being translated into reality. This being the situation, other countries are compelled to also take corresponding measures by developing the means of mounting strikes from the space. The United States' reckless manoeuvres for space militarization are the root cause driving a global arms race.

Space Mil. DA P. 2/2
Satellites are crucial to the future of warfare.
49

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed
Andrei Kislyakov, political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, February 13, 2008, Space Millitarization, The Monitor Recent conflicts have shown that the ideas that dominated military thinking in the 20th century have become desperately obsolete. In the wars of today, and the future, the objective is to deal surgical strikes against an enemy's sensitive facilities, rather than seize its territory. Massive use of ground troops and armor is already a thing of the past. The role of strategic aviation is similarly decreasing. In strategic arms, the emphasis is shifting from the classic nuclear triad to high precision weapons of different basing modes. This kind of precision warfare has only been made possible by orbital support vehicles _ satellite-based reconnaissance, warning, forecasting and targeting systems. Much has been done in recent years for the development of "smart" weapons _ guided bombs and missiles that are highly accurate over hundreds of miles. Military analysts say that by 2010 the leading military powers will have 30,000-50,000 such weapons between them, and by 2020 some 70,000-90,000. It is hard to imagine how many satellites will be required to support such a vast arsenal, but without them, the cruise missiles capable of hitting a mosquito at a hundred miles will be absolutely useless. Thus, hundreds of seemingly harmless "passive" space systems, which themselves are not designed to attack anything, are a crucial component of high precision weapons, the main armaments of the 21st century. But this very strength makes space systems the Achilles heel of the modern army. Disabling its satellites would effectively cripple the U.S. military _ and they are almost completely undefended.

50

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD Trade-Off P. 1/4
Uniqueness: Lockheed’s F-22 Jets have been cut back because of spending restraints Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all This picture of outsized industrial self-confidence survived years of questioning from Congress about cost overruns and delays in the $70 billion project intended to build the Air Force's state-of-the-art fighter jet. Throughout those years, the program enjoyed the powerful protection of Georgia politicians like Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House whose district included this Lockheed plant, and Sam Nunn, the former head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Without them, Lockheed finds itself on the defensive with Congress, with the House yesterday approving the deletion of $1.8 billion earmarked to manufacture the first six jets to be used in combat as it went ahead and overwhelmingly approved the military spending bill for the next fiscal year. It was a defeat for the Pentagon and the manufacturer, which rarely had encountered a Congress opposed to a military program on the verge of production. Critics in the House have said the F-22 suffers from a number of technical difficulties, including problems with the plane's wings, brakes, fuselage, fuel lines and engines, and that its computer systems remain untested. According to Government auditors, the F-22 has passed only 5 percent of its flight tests and its manufacturers are having trouble connecting the plane's wings to its body and perfecting the cockpit computers that drive its navigation and war-fighting systems. ''Maybe we should have seen it coming but nobody did,'' said Tom Burbage, the president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems. ''We thought this would be the first year we wouldn't have a battle and instead we have the biggest we've ever had.'' Lockheed Martin has been lobbying heavily to save this program and remains confident that it can win the battle when the House and the Senate meet in conference on the measure . It does have the support of several prominent Senators who are ardent loyalists of the next-generation jet.

DOD Funding has been cut for research into “generation-after-next” technology. Aaron L. Friedberg, journalist for Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701fareviewessay86411/aaron-l-friedberg/the-long-haul-fighting-and-funding-america-s-nextwars.html Are present and planned budgets and U.S. force levels sufficient to meet these three distinct challenges? Schmitt and Donnelly, both fellows at the American Enterprise Institute, believe the answer is a resounding no. Schmitt, Donnelly, and the contributors to their edited volume, Of Men and Materiel, are especially worried when it comes to smaller and medium-sized future threats: wars against irregular opponents or an enemy such as Iran. Since 9/11, defense spending has grown considerably, but much of the money has gone to cover the extraordinary costs of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has continued to pursue the broad priorities imposed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Driven by his vision of future warfare, Rumsfeld downplayed ground forces in favor of those designed to maintain command of the air, the sea, and space. Intent on building truly "revolutionary" weapons, Rumsfeld and his inner circle of "transformationists" cut back procurement for some of the armed services' pet projects, such as the air force's F-22 fighter and the army's massive Crusader artillery system, preferring to spend more on research and development for "generation-after-next" systems. Although some of these cuts may have had merit, the end result of Rumsfeld's transformation program, claim the authors, is a U.S. military establishment that is simply too small and too focused on the distant future to meet the challenges it confronts today and will likely face tomorrow.

51

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD Trade-Off P. 2/4
F-22 funding is used as political capitol and the byproduct was a funding cut. Jerry Kammer and Dean Calbreath, staff writer, May 12, 2006, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060512-99991n12lewis.html On April 15, 1999, three months after Lewis was named chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, he received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes and his associates. At the time, Wilkes was vying for a project to digitize military documents in the Panama Canal Zone, which the United States was about to return to Panama. “If you can't go to people on Capitol Hill, it's very difficult to remain viable as a government contractor,” said one of Wilkes' associates who contributed money to Lewis at the time. “You have to talk to people. And to talk to people, you have to give money.” But the Panama project hit a snag. The Pentagon did not want to give Wilkes as much money as he requested. On July 6, 1999, Wilkes wrote to Cunningham saying “We need $10 m(illion) more immediately . . . This is very important and if you cannot resolve this others will be calling also.” Wilkes' memo – contained in federal documents accompanying Cunningham's guilty plea – then named two people whose names were blacked out by the prosecutors. According to military and defense industry sources, Lewis and Cunningham got the money for Wilkes, founder of ADCS Inc., by using their clout to threaten the funding of the Pentagon's F-22 fighter jet. The jet had been criticized as an expensive boondoggle by budget hawks on Capitol Hill. But it had the support of many lawmakers – including Cunningham – until it reached Lewis' committee. During a closed-door meeting in July 1999, the committee voted unanimously to clip $1.8 billion from proposed funding for the F-22. The move was led by Lewis and Cunningham, who said at a public meeting that month, “I would not want to fly the F-22.”

The future of the F-22 looks like extinction. David A. Markiewicz, staff writer for Atlanta Constitution, March 10, 2008,
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163634,00.html, No one's saying the plant is going away, but threats to one of its key products spark concern. Worries over the future of the Raptor are as long-standing as the debate over its need. While no one seems to question the aircraft's military capabilities, there are those who doubt its role in a changed military theater. Questionable need The debate has pitted the Pentagon on one side against the Air Force and members of Congress on the other. Originally, plans called for several hundred Raptors to be built, but over the years the number was whittled amid cost concerns and changing priorities. In December, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for Raptor production funding to stop at 187 planes. Recently, the Air Force suggested 380 would be more like it. Those who would end Raptor production say America no longer needs the F-22, or at least more of the planes, to defend itself, particularly at a per-plane price that's estimated at $130 million to more than $300 million, depending on whether research and development costs are included. Lockheed says the cost today for an F-22 is $137.6 million.

52

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD Trade-Off P. 3/4
Link – Plan would cause a trade off with F-22s Bob Cox, staff writer, 6/17/08, Star-Telegram, “What’s up next for F-35, F-22?”, http://www.startelegram.com/business/story/704902.html Clear air, politically speaking, appears to lie ahead for the F-35 joint strike fighter program in the wake of Lockheed Martin’s successful flight test last week of the first redesigned version of the aircraft. The same probably can’t be said for Lockheed’s F-22 jet after its most vocal proponents in the U.S. Air Force leadership were sacked recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The successful test flight of the F-35B Lightning II short takeoff-vertical landing model on Wednesday prompted a vote of confidence from one senior civilian Pentagon official. John Young, undersecretary of defense for weapons development and acquisition, said in a statement that the flight “makes a strong statement” about the progress on the F-35 program despite well publicized delays and technical issues. Young said “the JSF program is ahead of similar programs in terms of quality, software, testing, and manufacturing readiness. The JSF program has many more steps ahead, but today’s flight demonstrates the maturity and progress being made on JSF.”The F-35B is the short takeoff-vertical landing, or “STOVL,” model of the three versions and is the most challenging technically. In April, Young had approved funds to produce six F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing models, but withheld funds for six STOVL models until after the first flight. Young will receive a further briefing by program and Lockheed officials, probably within the next month, including a review of plans for resolving problems discovered in tests of F-35B engines. But barring any new technical issues with the engine, Young is expected to release funds for the other six aircraft approved in the 2008 budget. Politically, “the joint strike fighter is in very good shape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute and a consultant to several aerospace and defense companies, including Lockheed. The same can’t be said for the F-22. The June 5 firings of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, Thompson said, were in large part due to the increasingly angry debate between the Air Force and senior Pentagon leaders over whether to buy more F-22s. The tone of the discussions between Moseley and, particularly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England over the F-22 had grown increasingly tense. “The absence of any strong advocates for the F-22, with Moseley and Wynne gone, will be detrimental for the program,” Thompson said. Both programs are important to Lockheed’s Fort Worth operation. About 1,800 workers assemble the mid-fuselage of the F-22, while about 4,000 are working on the F-35 with production work just beginning to have an impact on staffing. The F-22 still has strong supporters in Congress who will probably maintain some funding for additional planes beyond the 183 now on order in the 2009 budget, but the likelihood of long-term production is dim. Both Gates and England are firmly opposed to future orders. And Thompson said it is unlikely, given their past positions, that either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama will be champion of the program if elected president. In a note sent to investors Monday, analysts for Sanford Bernstein said the F-22 “appears to have sound Democratic support for extending the line beyond the planned 183 airplanes” and that a final decision on its fate will “be determined by the next administration and Congress.”

53

Space Neg V.1 DDI 2008 <BQ> Cory Hansen and Asad Ahmed

DOD Trade-Off DA P. 4/4
Impact Airpower - The F-22 Jets necessary for US security in the skies Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all On the outside, the flat, almost blunt silhouette of the F-22 has little of the futuristic look of the B-2 stealth bomber. Inside, in the cockpit, however, it has the feel of a video game in which approaching enemy aircraft are tracked on a computer screen as red triangles, easily distinguishable from the green squares representing the ''friendlies'' and the pale yellow oblongs indicating planes with unknown loyalties. ''Use the cursor like a mouse and see who he is,'' said C. L. Buzze, a former Air Force pilot and now the F-22 advanced product representative, as he manipulated the levers of a facsimile of an F-22 cockpit. The cursor slid over the triangle and immediately identified the enemy plane as a fighter jet from the Russian fleet. When the plane came in range, the command ''Shoot'' appeared on the screen, and with a flick of a switch, a white tail slithered across the screen hitting a dot that exploded into a small fiery ball. But if the plane passes all of its tests during the next three to four years, officials say that the expensive stealth features built into nearly every part of the plane will insure that the F-22 image on an enemy radar is so reduced that it is unlikely to be detected before the it attacks. And according to Lockheed officials, the F-22's supersonic cruising speed, and technical advances will enable the F-22 pilot to take the first shot in an aerial duel. The aviation electronic system in the cockpit, where data are collected, integrated and instantly compiled on the screen, is one of fighter jet's biggest selling points. Many modern fighter jets have the F22's capabilities but none compile it and integrate it on one single screen. The House Appropriations Committee cited these ''ambitious technical goals of the F-22,'' especially the electronic system in the cockpit, as the reason for the delays in the fighter jet's development. And this advanced technology has come at a cost far in excess of the original $70 million budgeted for each plane. Lockheed Martin officials admit that the average price per plane, when all costs are included, is $172 million -- not far from the $180 million and $200 million figure cited by Congress. They recognize that Congress is convinced that the Pentagon should drop at least one of the three fighter jet programs under development. Naturally, Lockheed Martin has a different candidate than its own F-22 jet. ''If Congress feels it needs to remove one of the air weapons programs, I'd pick the F-18,'' said Mr. Rearden, recommending the Navy's refitted fighter jet <INSERT KHALIZHAD>

54

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful