DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 1/59

SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III
SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III...............................................................................1 U.S. Weaponizing Now......................................................................................................3 Pentagon increasing Space Offense..................................................................................5 U.S. blocking space weapons treaty..................................................................................7 All armed forces sectors weaponizing..............................................................................8 China Weaponizing Now.................................................................................................10 Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing.........................................................12 Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power...........................................................13 U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization..................................................15 A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S..............................................................17 Information Good............................................................................................................18 Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good......................................................................................19 A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE.............................................20 2AC DoD Counterplan....................................................................................................22 No Solvency.......................................................................................................................23 Militarization Turn..........................................................................................................24 Taiwan War Turn.............................................................................................................25 DoD F22 Tradeoff DA......................................................................................................26 Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease ..............................................................................28 NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable........................................................................................30 Non Unique- NASA Spending Now................................................................................31 NASA Satellites Solve Oceans.........................................................................................32 Lol Politics........................................................................................................................34 Poverty Impacts...............................................................................................................35 Now is Key........................................................................................................................37 Extinction Inevitable........................................................................................................38 Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation................................................................40 Extinction Inevitable- Vaccines.......................................................................................41 Extinction Inevitable- Tech.............................................................................................42

1

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 2/59

Extinction Inevitable- Resource Scarcity.......................................................................43 Colonization key to solve Extinction..............................................................................44 Satellites Solve Colonization...........................................................................................45 A2: States Fund Private Companies CP........................................................................46 A2: States Fund NASA CP..............................................................................................50 Politics Agenda Link Turns- Bush Bad..........................................................................52 Bush Bad- Bipart opposition...........................................................................................53 Bush Bad- Weapons unpopular......................................................................................54 Bush Good- Public support.............................................................................................55 Bush Good- Military Lobby............................................................................................56 Bush Good- funding bipartisan......................................................................................57 Bush Good- Popularity....................................................................................................58 Note: The Aff’s getting pretty solid. Good Job lab. Props to Junaid for some pretty good cards against the DOD CP and much more. Stay strong for the tournament. -Anuj p.s.- The indexing came out a little weird spacing-wise

2

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 3/59

U.S. Weaponizing Now
Congress gave Pentagon funding for new space weapon program Walter Pincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November 12, 2007, “Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding”, Washington Post Page A19, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra] While wrestling with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon is preparing weapons to fight the next battle from space, according to information in the 621-page, House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill. The $459 billion bill, which awaits President Bush's signature, provides $100 million for a new "prompt global strike" program that could deliver a conventional, precision-guided warhead anywhere in the world within two hours. It takes funds away from development of a conventional warhead for the Navy's submarine-launched Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and from an Air Force plan for the Common Aero Vehicle. The new program, dubbed Falcon, for "Force Application and Launch from CONUS," centers on a small-launch-vehicle concept of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The agency describes Falcon as a "a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from [the continental United States] in less than two hours." Hypersonic speed is far greater than the speed of sound. The reusable vehicle being contemplated would "provide the country with significant capability to conduct responsive missions with quick turn-around sortie rates while providing aircraft-like operability and mission-recall capability," according to DARPA. The vehicle would be launched into space on a rocket, fly on its own to a target, deliver its payload and return to Earth. In the short term, a small launch rocket is being developed as part of Falcon. It eventually would be able to boost the hypersonic vehicle into space. But in the interim, it will be used to launch small satellites within 48 hours' notice at a cost of less than $5 million a shot.

3

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
Conferees are funding Bush’s counterspace weapon systems

AFF Wave 3 4/59

Walter Pincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November 12, 2007, “Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding”, Washington Post Page A19, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra] Conferees added $100 million above the Bush administration's request for nearly $200 million to accelerate "space situational awareness." That is code for protecting U.S. satellites in space and being able to attack the enemy's satellites. "Enhancing these capabilities is critical, particularly following the Chinese anti-satelliteweapons demonstration last January," the conferees wrote in their report. They were referring to a Jan. 11 incident in which a Chinese guided missile destroyed an aging weather satellite in orbit. "Counterspace systems" that would warn of impending threats to U.S. satellites, destroy or defend against attackers, and interrupt enemy satellites are in the Bush budget for $53 million. Conferees gave them another $10 million.

4

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 5/59

Pentagon increasing Space Offense
Pentagon is increasing offensive counterspace systems Walter Pincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November 12, 2007, “Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding”, Washington Post Page A19, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra] One research project of $7 million in that category is directed at "offensive counterspace," described in the Pentagon's presentation to Congress as designing "the means to disrupt, deny, degrade or destroy an adversary's space systems, or the information they provide." Another $18 million would go for research into a second-generation counter-satellitecommunications system; it would explore and develop capabilities "to provide disruption of satellite communications signals in response to U.S. Strategic Command requirements," according to the Pentagon congressional presentation. The first-generation system is already operational, and an upgrade of those capabilities is in production. The conferees want to increase funds for the Rapid Identification Detection and Reporting System, which already had $28 million in the Bush budget. This system is designed to provide "attack detection, threat identification and characterization, and support rapid mission impact assessments on U.S. space systems." Its first-generation system is scheduled for initial operation at the end of next year, while the new funds will allow continuation of research on a second generation, which began this year.

5

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
Bush and the pentagon are developing anti-satellite laser and missiles

AFF Wave 3 6/59

The Associated Press, January 25, 2007, “Russia Slams U.S. Space Weapon Plans”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012500440.html [Bapodra] China confirmed the test on Tuesday, but didn't provide details. Aviation Week, which first reported the test, said the satellite was hit by a kinetic kill vehicle launched from a ballistic missile. Analysts said the test represented an indirect threat to U.S. defense systems by raising the possibility that its spy satellites could be shot down. The threat wouldn't affect the antimissile system, which relies only on ground-based radar. The U.S. military has had the capability to shoot down satellites since the 1980s. In October, President Bush signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes. "The first such test was conducted back in the late 1980s and we also hear it today about the U.S. military circles considering plans of militarization of space. We must not let the genie out of the bottle," Putin said. Bush also has pushed an ambitious program of space-based missile defense and the Pentagon is working on missiles, ground lasers and other technology to shoot down satellites.

6

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 7/59

U.S. blocking space weapons treaty
U.S. blocks Russian-Chinese space weapons treaty, wants to use space Nick Cummin-Bruce, New York Times journalist, February 13, 2008, “U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html [Bapodra] GENEVA — The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States. Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, a threat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites. Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and therefore no need for a treaty, Mr. Lavrov instead submitted a draft on “prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects.” “Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction,” Mr. Lavrov warned. “And this in turn is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race, both in space and on the earth.” The draft treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further exploration and use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control, Mr. Lavrov said. It is time “to start serious practical work in this field,” he said. The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed any treaty that sought “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.” Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said such a treaty would also be impossible to enforce. “Any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object,” she said in an e-mail message. “This makes treaty verification impossible.” Instead, she said, the White House favored “discussions aimed at promoting transparency and confidence-building measures.”

7

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 8/59

All armed forces sectors weaponizing
The United States is on the verge of deploying energy space weapons Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, “E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century”, Space.com, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra] LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching--and at the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may well signal a revolution in military hardware--perhaps more so than the atomic bomb. Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too. That's the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book: The EBomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future (Da Capo Press, October 2005).Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the President's Science Advisor (Office of Science and Technology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations. After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser, the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL).

8

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
All sectors of the Armed Forces are weaponizing

AFF Wave 3 9/59

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, “E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century”, Space.com, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra] Though considerable work has been done in lasers, high-power microwaves, and other directed-energy technologies, weaponization is still an ongoing process. For example, work is on-going in the military's Airborne Laser program. It utilizes a megawatt-class, high-energy chemical oxygen iodine laser toted skyward aboard a modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft. Purpose of the program is to enable the detection, tracking and destruction of ballistic missiles in the boost phase, or powered part of their flight.Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) in White Sands, New Mexico has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket warheads, blasting them with enough energy that causes them to self-detonate. THEL uses a highenergy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile THEL also demonstrated the ability to kill multiple mortar rounds. Then there's Active Denial Technology--a non-lethal way to use millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter, and turn back an advancing adversary. This technology, supported by the U.S. Marines, uses a beam of millimeter waves to heat a foe's skin, causing severe pain without damage, and making the adversary flee the scene. Beason also pointed to new exciting research areas underway at the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Free-electron laser work with the Navy and a new type of directed-energy that operates in the terahertz region.

9

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 10/59

China Weaponizing Now
China is developing methods to counter U.S. space dependence Dr. Phillip C. Saunders, Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2007 “China’s Future In Space: Implications for U.S. Security,” http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html?submit.x=94&submit.y=10 &submit=submit Chinese strategists view U.S. dependence on space as an asymmetric vulnerability that could be exploited. As one defense analyst wrote: "for countries that can never win a war with the United States by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice." Chinese strategists have explored ways of limiting U.S. use of space, including anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, jamming, employing lasers to blind reconnaissance satellites, and even using electromagnetic pulses produced by a nuclear weapon to destroy satellites. A recent article highlighted Iraq's efforts to use GPS jammers to defeat U.S. precision-guided munitions. Chinese scientists have conducted theoretical research relevant to ASAT weapons, including the use of lasers to blind satellite sensors, kinetic kill vehicles, computations for intercepting satellites in orbit, and maneuvering small satellites into close formation. Efforts to develop high-powered lasers and mobile small-satellite launch capabilities involve technologies with both commercial and ASAT applications. China probably already has sufficient tracking and space surveillance systems to identify and track most U.S. military satellites. The extent to which interest in exploiting U.S. space dependence has translated into actual ASAT development programs remains unclear. Some reports claim that Beijing is developing microsatellites or direct-ascent weapons for ASAT purposes, but the open source literature does not provide definitive proof. However, based on Chinese strategic writings, scientific research and dual-use space activities, it is logical to assume China is pursuing an ASAT capability.

10

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 11/59

China is developing ground-based energy weapons to destroy satellites E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, “The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,” High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141 It is highly likely China is developing ground-based directed energy weapons with the capability to temporarily disable, damage, or even destroy a satellite. With roughly 300 organizations, 3,000 engineers, and 10,000 total personnel participating in laser-related efforts, Beijing's aggressive pursuit of advanced directed energy technology has given its program world-class status. As early as 1994, the Chinese successfully tested a free electron laser with a 140 megawatt output. They have since pursued miniaturization of laser systems, perhaps to enable a mobile system. According to other reports, China is seeking to build an ASAT system using a high-energy deuterium fluoride laser, mimicking the US Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) design.

China has the intent and growing capacity to threaten US space systems for Taiwan E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, “The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,” High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141 China possesses both the intent and a growing capability to threaten US space systems in the event of a future clash between the two countries. The PLA's development of ASAT weapons is primarily not a reaction to US space control initiatives. It is driven instead by very practical considerations of regional security and influence, and the desire to conduct asymmetric warfare against a superior foe if conflict arises. First, Beijing seeks to offset the dominance of US conventional forces by exploiting their dependence on spaceborne information assets. Second, China hopes to guarantee the viability of it's nuclear deterrent by holding the critical space-segment of American missile defense systems at risk. Both of these goals are deeply rooted in the issue of Taiwanese reunification and the potential for armed conflict over the status of the island. China's growing capability to attack American satellites could play an important role in a future military confrontation over Taiwan.

11

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 12/59

Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing
China’s call for a space ban is only to allow time for space weapon construction Nader Elhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy and international security, February 5, 2007, “Making sense of China’s weapons test”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra] Nonetheless, there has been little effort to actually put the anti-satellite weapons test into context, though this test seems to beg for exactly that. After all, China has for the last five years been calling for a new treaty to ban the placement of weapons in space, and specifically the kind of explicit anti-satellite capability it has just tested. Additionally, there are its continued assertions that it does not want an arms race in space, even after the test. There is ample reason to distrust pacifistic claims by any government, but this may be true for the time being: China is not in a position to run, let alone win, such a race. There seem to be two possible explanations for this contradiction. One, favored by arms control skeptics, is that China’s talk of a treaty was just an attempt to hobble the United States either until it catches up economically and technologically, or to ameliorate its disadvantage while it secretly works on the very systems restricted by the treaty. After all, China recognizes that the US will likely retain a military edge for decades, and that in the event of conflict it may be able to narrow the gap by attacking the satellites supporting US forces. The other explanation is that China is hedging its bets, developing a counterspace capability in the likely event that it fails to get a treaty that it has good reason to want. Even if China may see attacking American satellites as a way of undermining US military power, China, too, is a space power, the world’s third largest, and like all the rest dependent on constellations of weather, navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites. This dependence, military as well as civilian, will only grow with time, and should it attack another country’s systems, it will only raise the risk that its systems will be attacked in kind.

12

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 13/59

Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power
Chinese space weapon tests are a direct counter to U.S. military power Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007, “China's Space Weapons”, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=z gp&proj=zsa [Bapodra] On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile slammed into an aging weather satellite in space. The resulting collision not only marked Beijing's first successful anti-satellite (ASAT) test but, in the eyes of many, also a head-on collision with the Bush administration's space policies. As one analyst phrased it, U.S. policy has compelled China's leaders to conclude "that only a display of Beijing's power to launch . . . an arms race would bring Washington to the table to hear their concerns." This view, which is widespread in the U.S. and elsewhere, misses the point: China's ASAT demonstration was not a protest against the Bush administration, but rather part of a maturing strategy designed to counter the overall military superiority of the U.S. Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese strategists have been cognizant of the fact that the U.S. is the only country in the world with the capacity -- and possibly the intention -- to thwart China's rise to great power status. They also recognize that Beijing will be weak militarily for some time to come, yet must be prepared for a possible war with America over Taiwan or, in the longer term, over what Aaron Friedberg once called "the struggle for mastery in Asia." How the weaker can defeat the stronger, therefore, becomes the central problem facing China's military strategy.

13

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 14/59

Chinese space weapon development is to combat U.S. space dependency and preparation for future conflict Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007, “China's Space Weapons”, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=z gp&proj=zsa [Bapodra] Chinese strategists have struggled to find ways of solving this conundrum ever since the dramatic demonstration of American prowess in Operation Desert Storm. And after carefully analyzing U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan, they believe they have uncovered a significant weakness. The advanced military might of the U.S. is inordinately dependent on a complex network of space-based command, control, communications, and computer-driven intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that enables American forces to detect different kinds of targets and exchange militarily relevant information. This network is key to the success of American combat operations. These assets, however, are soft and defenseless; while they bestow on the American military definite asymmetric advantages, they are also the source of deep vulnerability. Consequently, Chinese strategists concluded that any effort to defeat the U.S. should aim not at its fundamental strength -its capacity to deliver overwhelming conventional firepower precisely from long distances -- but rather at its Achilles' heel, namely, its satellites and their related ground installations. Consistent with this calculus, China has pursued, for over a decade now, a variety of space warfare programs, which include direct attack and directed-energy weapons, electronic attack, and computer-network and ground-attack systems. These efforts are aimed at giving China the capacity to attack U.S. space systems comprehensively because, in Chinese calculations, this represents the best way of "leveling the playing field" in the event of a future conflict.

14

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 15/59

U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization
Space dominance is the most effective option against China’s space weaponization Nader Elhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy and international security, February 5, 2007, “Making sense of China’s weapons test”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra] That said, the question of how the United States could respond remains, and there are three obvious options. One is to do nothing. The demonstration can be taken as just that, a show that gets China’s message across, but does not change the basic facts of the situation. The United States simply continues on its current path, moving from technological research and debates over military theory to the development of battleready combat units—as has already happened at the level of electronic warfare, as with the 76th Space Control Squadron. The second is to step up America’s current pursuit of space dominance. With various degrees of publicity, American policymakers can start new programs or restart old ones, enlarge budgets and perhaps stage tests of its own. (While the US has not used a missile in such a test in over twenty years, it apparently tested a chemical laser against a satellite in 1997. Many more such systems exist today.) In the meantime, rudimentary counterspace units may be cobbled together as quickly as possible, perhaps using older equipment designs. (For example, an F-15 squadron could be assigned to the counterspace mission and armed with the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle, the antisatellite missile demonstrated back in 1985.) Of course in the near term this would be more a matter of sending a political signal than anything else. However, these moves may be read as a sign that the US was intimidated by the Chinese test rather than an expression of tough-mindedness, even if it motivates greater restraint on China’s part in the future. History also suggests that this growing military power will be a factor in China’s relations with the rest of the world. But exactly how it will figure into those relations remains an open question. The third is to engage China on the issue. Of course, the timing of such a shift in policy is far from ideal now. It would look as if China’s test had successfully intimidated the United States and its allies, as the hawks will no doubt point out, on top of all of the other arguments they have raised against the arms control process. Nonetheless, such considerations do not change the fundamental case for or against engagement, even if they affect the timing of such engagement. (John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists recently observed that the test “will make it very difficult for the US to talk about space cooperation with China anytime soon.”)

15

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 16/59

The U.S. must secure its space assets in order to challenge China’s counterspace tech Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007, “China's Space Weapons”, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=z gp&proj=zsa [Bapodra] Beijing's attitude toward space arms control will change only given a few particular developments. China might acquire the capacity to defeat the U.S. despite America's privileged access to space. Or China's investments in counterspace technology might begin to yield diminishing returns because the U.S. consistently nullifies these capabilities through superior technology and operational practices. Or China's own dependence on space for strategic and economic reasons might intensify to the point where the threat posed by any American offensive counterspace programs exceed the benefits accruing to Beijing's own comparable efforts. Or the risk of conflict between a weaker China and any other superior military power, such as the U.S., disappears entirely. Since these conditions will not be realized anytime soon, Washington should certainly discuss space security with Beijing, but, for now, it should not expect that negotiation will yield any successful agreements. Instead, the U.S. should accelerate investments in solutions that enhance the security of its space assets, in addition to developing its own offensive counterspace capabilities. These avenues -- as the Bush administration has correctly recognized -- offer the promise of protecting American interests in space and averting more serious threats to its global primacy.

16

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 17/59

A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S.
Russia and China are already space militarizing James Oberg, March 4, 2008 “Sense, Nonsense, and Pretense about the Destruction of USA 193,” The Space Review, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1139 Myth #8: Russia and China will be “forced” to respond by developing corresponding weapons. This “blank check for the bad guys” claim seems to be a view espoused by spokesmen for DC lobby groups, for foreign governments, and for other associations who seem to favor one spin in common: any foreign action allegedly sparked by anybody’s worries about US actions is excusable, while any US action sparked by activities of another nation is dangerously paranoid. But China has already “pre-responded” with its own test a year ago—a weapon with far greater capability (and leaving far worse space pollution) than the US missile. As for Russia, it’s had its space-capable anti-missile defense shield deployed around Moscow for decades, and recently reopened a mothballed missile test range at Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan to test-fire upgraded missiles. They are probably launched so far only against imaginary missile or space targets, or potentially against real ones with no final impacts. Even if one of them is soon used in a demonstration against a satellite, it will represent nothing new in their arsenal, only the exercise of a latent capability that had always been there.

17

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 18/59

Information Good
Space information systems prevents flawed attack detections Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/webedition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites [Bapodra] Ultimately, the protection of the capabilities facilitated by space assets is needed. For instance, having a fiber-optic backup system for certain high-value communication satellites is much smarter than maintaining many expensive, ineffective bodyguard satellites. Alternate redundant non-space systems, whenever possible, are the smartest defense. The United States could also have redundant satellites ready to replace any losses in those satellites for which no land-based backups exist. Temporary and reversible electronic countermeasures that could throw off the guidance systems of incoming ASATs are another sensible defense. Better "Space Situational Awareness" is also badly needed, if for nothing else, than to properly tell apart a satellite attack from a satellite malfunction or natural interference such as a strong solar flare or debris impact.

18

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 19/59

Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good
Space defense weapons are useless
Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites [Bapodra]

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

Space weapons are detrimental to U.S. interests
Yousaf Butt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, “Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites [Bapodra]

Most importantly, the United States should be leading the charge to have an overarching international policy that restricts the weaponization of space. The United States possesses the greatest military and civil space investment; thus, it has the most to lose in an offensive space war. And since Washington is the most reliant on its space assets, an arms race in space would be disproportionately detrimental to U.S. interests. Instead of relying upon expensive, provocative, and defensively useless space weapons, the incoming administration would do well to invest in any of the other approaches listed above to improve our space security.

19

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 20/59

A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE
1. SPERM SWIM BY FLAGELLA—GRAVITY ISN'T KEY Michael Livington, PhD, owner of Medical-Health Info site, 08 http://www.medicalhealth.info/the-beginning-of-life-conception/ The sperm have tails, called flagella, that push them forward. Actually, sperm look very much like miniature tadpoles, and they move forward like tadpoles by wiggling their tails from side to side. When they reach the cervix, the sperm must swim through a mucous barrier that covers the entrance to the inside of the uterus. Tens of millions of sperm are unable to do this, and are lost. Those sperm that pierce the cervix then swim up the three to four inches of the inside of the uterus to find the two exits at the upper ends where the Fallopian tubes begin. Tens of millions more sperm are lost before they get to the Fallopian tubes. Those that do survive swim into the narrow passageway of the Fallopian tube where they may finally meet an egg. But this meeting can take place only during two to three days of each month. 2. TURN: SEX IN SPACE IS BETTER; Microgravity causes faster impregnation Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASA researcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function during fertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization." http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu] Sperm are activated to swim after they emerge from the testes. The proteins that initiate movement in the "tail" of the sperm undergo a chemical process called phosphorylation, making them active and activating the sperm's tail. The tail begins to move and the sperm swims toward the egg. In the Shuttle experiments, phosphorylation of proteins was measured in the sperm that flew in space and controls maintained on the ground. Tash found that the phosphorylation process occurred three to four times faster in microgravity than in the Earth's gravitational environment. This means that the sperm are activated for movement much more quickly in microgravity than on Earth.

20

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 21/59

3. MICROGRAVITY ENHANCES FLAGELLAR PROTEIN—MEANS FERTILIZATION IS MORE LIKELY IN SPACE Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASA researcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function during fertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization." http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu] Additional studies of sperm function in altered gravity environments are needed to answer what Tash calls the "$64,000 question": Why is sperm activation enhanced in microgravity and impeded in hypergravity? Tash has isolated flagellar proteins—proteins that reside in the tail of the sperm cell and contribute to its motility- that may help answer this question. Since it is these proteins that are altered in microgravity and hypergravity, they may therefore be the key to understanding sperm tail activation on the molecular level and exactly what role gravity plays in this system.

21

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 22/59

2AC DoD Counterplan
1. Links to net benefit- Privatizing or deferring department responsibilities destroys its
capabilities John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

There are two ways to close down a federal department. The first is simply to shift the department's responsibilities to other agencies and throw the old letterhead into the trash. The alternative is to eliminate, devolve, or privatize responsibilities whenever possible, and transfer only essential responsibilities to other departments. This latter approach is the one that should be used with the Department of Energy. DOE's history of failure and ineffectiveness demands nothing less.

2. Perm- do both- solves NASA DA because it loosens burden- normal means would allow DoD to naturally take the bulk of solvency because NASA lacks capability as per their evidence <You Can Insert Perm Solves Disease if they read that impact in the DA> 3. No solvency- NASA has the initial stages of tech and research- only funding is key in the aff's instance- the DoD needs more than just funding – their evidence only states they should act 4. DoD does not have the resource capacity to do the plan Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1
But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

5. <Insert Disad>

22

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 23/59

No Solvency
Space will be on the backdrop of DoD agenda on all levelsmaking solvency impossible
Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

Add to this the way in which the NSSO’s solar power satellite study was pursued—the study itself had no budget. In Washington, studies cost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say, options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existing advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers, there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and other expenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million dollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had no actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. This reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the Pentagon leadership.

23

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 24/59

Militarization Turn
DoD Militarizes space- Civilian sectors of government like NASA solve National Security Space Office, 10-10-07 The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically and internationally, that a SBSP system could be used as a “weapon in space,” which will be amplified because of the interest shown by the DoD in SBSP. Mitigating these concerns, developing trust, and building in verification methods will be key to political consensus for sustainable development of SBSP. The SBSP Study Group recommends that the federal government should take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that SBSP systems cannot be utilized as space‐based weapons systems, and to dissuade and deter other nations from attacking these strategic power sources, including but not limited to: Tasking a civilian federal agency to be the lead agency responsible for federal investments in SBSP and in the demonstration of key technologies needed by industry.

24

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 25/59

Taiwan War Turn
A. CP leads to war with Taiwan William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, Naval War College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003
Second, the military use of space has profound implications for the un-easy stalemate in the Taiwan Strait, which has always presented the possibility of a major confrontation between Washington and Beijing. One argument is that U.S. capabilities allow the United States to project power near Taiwan, while the spacebased sensors and weapons for missile defense could blunt China’s arsenal of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. Moreover, the prospect of transfers of missile defense systems to Taiwan, which could usher in a period of unprecedented military cooperation between Taipei and Washington, no doubt deeply troubles Beijing. China, for its part, will increasingly need military space capabilities if it is to improve its ability to coerce Taiwan in a conflict and counter U.S. intervention to defend the is- land in a crisis or conflict.

B. Global Economic Collapse and War William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, Naval War College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003
What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of China’s economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing could increasingly hold each other’s space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other’s space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment’s notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example, Washington’s reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa. In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international com- munity, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

25

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 26/59

DoD F22 Tradeoff DA
Turn – DoD Budget Tradeoff A. DoD needs to balance budget –new spending would lead to tradeoff with F-22s Dr. Cindy Williams, Visiting Fellow, MIT Security Studies Program Can We Afford a Revolution?, March 31, 1999, http:// web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_99spring/williams.html//JS Alternatively, the Defense Department can attempt to find the resources it will need within the defense budget. There are four potential sources of additional funding: 1) existing C3I and information systems; 2) modernization; 3) force structure; and 4) infrastructure. Deep cuts would be needed in each of these areas to generate the level of savings that would be needed to close the budget gap and fund the RMA. For example, the Defense Department has encountered strong resistance to its plans to introduce newer, joint systems that would reduce the cost of C3I. With regard to modernization, cutting tactical aircraft programs (the F-22, F/A18 E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter) can be expected to save only $4-6 billion per year because these programs will have to be replaced by either a service life extension program or additional production of existing aircraft. Force structure reductions also yield savings that are lower than one might expect. For example, cutting active Army combat units by 30 percent will produce savings of only $4 billion per year. Finally, severe reductions in infrastructure would be needed to generate a large amount of resources. Closing 50 additional military bases will save only $3 billion per year. Other infrastructure reductions, such as closing military hospitals (saving $2 billion per year) or eliminating the $1 billion subsidy for military commissaries, would release more funds. However, such measures are likely to encounter fierce opposition. All of this suggests the difficulty of finding the resources needed to cover the coming $40 billion shortfall between current plans and projected budget levels, let alone the additional $25 billion needed for RMA programs. Coming up with the funding necessary to exploit the RMA is therefore likely to require either a sea change in public attitudes toward defense spending or a substantial downsizing of the military force structure and its modernization programs

26

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
B. Key to heg

AFF Wave 3 27/59

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

27

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 28/59

Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease
NASA- DoD Satellite cooperation key to solve Disease Pharma Business Week, 11-19-07, http://www.newsrx.com/library/topics/West-NileVirus/1324.html
With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Applied Sciences Program, scientists have been able to observe the Earth’s environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease outbreaks around the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists in predicting the outbreak of some of the most common and deadly infectious diseases today such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious diseases to thrive depends on changes in the Earth’s environment such as the climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. Through orbiting satellites, data is collected daily to monitor environmental changes. That information is then passed on to agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict and track disease outbreaks and assist in making public health policy decisions. “The use of this technology is not only essential for the future of curbing the spread of infectious diseases,” explains John Haynes, public health program manager for the NASA Earth Science Applied Sciences Program. “NASA satellites are also a cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are already in orbit and in use by scientists to collect data about the Earth’s atmosphere.”

28

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 29/59

Diseases have the potential to cause global economic chaos from overreaction Kaletsky 2003 (principal economic commentator and an Associate Editor of The Times; New Zealand Business Roundtable, July 2003) It is perhaps because the stakes are so high today that investors and businessmen have become so sensitive to every possible threat to world economic growth – terrorism, war, stock market instability and, most recently, even the spread of an obscure disease. But this hypersensitivity to bad news also suggests that the world economic cycle is probably about to turn. It is a typical feature of cyclical troughs that relatively minor risks are exaggerated out of all proportion. The Sars outbreak was a perfect example. The Iraq war had just ended without unleashing the widely expected disasters, but here was another potential trigger for economic and financial Armageddon. It was as if investors and businessmen were in the mood to panic and any excuse would do. But the Sars outbreak was not just any old pretext for financial panic. Sars shared another characteristic with the previous panics about terrorism, the "war between civilisations" and the dot-com crash. All these phenomena were linked clearly to globalisation. They seemed to be caused by the way that capitalism was drawing the world together, often against the wishes of the peoples and countries involved. And globalisation was the means of disseminating these evils, as well as their cause. Like terrorists, the Sars germs had turned symbols of globalisation – mass travel and jet aircraft – into sinister weapons. As in the dot-com crash and the clash between the West and Islam, the effects of the Sars virus seemed to be vastly magnified by instant electronic communications that penetrated every corner of the world.

Nuclear War MEAD ’92 Senior Fellow in American Foreign policy @ the Council on Foreign Relations [Walter Russell, World Policy Institute, 1992] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced the international market economy – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe the system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.

29

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 30/59

NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable
Budget cuts inevitable by next fiscal year Space Review, 4-14-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1106/1 These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in November—to make some hard decisions in the years to come about discretionary spending. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. A budget cut in the next Administration that is equivalent to last decade’s cut would result in reduction of NASA’s budget of over $3 billion per year. If that happens, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling its current form and schedule. It will be significantly delayed, radically altered, or even cancelled.

30

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 31/59

Non Unique- NASA Spending Now
Massive NASA funding bill now AIP ,American Institute of Physics, 1-8-08, Space Ref, http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewsr.html?pid=26640 The final FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at $17.3 billion, less than earlier amounts recommended by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, but meeting the budget proposal of President Bush. While the funding is a 5.2% increase over FY 2007 and respectable given the overall restrictions on the federal budget, the spending focus is heavy on manned space programs and light on science. Congress planning on funding new programs now Mark K. Mathews, Washington Beareau, 6-25-08, OrlandoSentinel, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.story WASHINGTON - Congress gave NASA another boost Tuesday when a U.S. Senate committee recommended a $2.6 billion increase in the space agency's budget next year to accelerate its plans to return astronauts to the moon.The $20.2 billion mirrors the amount included in a similar bill that passed the U.S. House 409 to 15 last week. Both measures also require that NASA add another shuttle flight to deliver a physics experiment to the international space station

31

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 32/59

NASA Satellites Solve Oceans
NASA Satellites solve oceans- monitoring Science Daily, 6-23-08, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm, Junaid NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched June 20 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on a globe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, a vital indicator of global climate change. The mission will return a vast amount of new data that will improve weather, climate and ocean forecasts. With a thunderous roar and fiery glow, the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite arced through the blackness of an early central coastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing into space atop a Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later, OSTM/Jason 2 separated from the rocket's second stage, and then unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Ground controllers successfully acquired the spacecraft's signals. Initial telemetry reports show it to be in excellent health. "Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," said Michael Freilich, director of the Earth Science Division in NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. "Precision measurements from this mission will improve our knowledge of global and regional sea-level changes and enable more accurate weather, ocean and climate forecasts." Measurements of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography, reveal the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell scientists how much of the sun's energy is stored by the ocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key to understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at least three years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the two agencies on Jason 1 in 2001.

32

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
NASA satellites solve the root problem of oceans

AFF Wave 3 33/59

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

33

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
4

AFF Wave 3 34/59

Lol Politics
Obama and NASA=lol News Press, 7-29-08, http://www.newspress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075 WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his commitment to NASA in a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the agency on its 50th anniversary. The declaration may surprise many NASA supporters. Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would rather see money budgeted for Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward education reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. “I believe we need to revitalize NASA’s mission to maintain America’s leadership, and recommit our nation to the space program, and as President I intend to do just that,” he said. Obama took aim at the current Washington establishment — and the Bush administration — for failing to give NASA the sufficient support it has needed.

34

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 35/59

Poverty Impacts
POVERTY KILLS MORE THAN A NUCLEAR WAR Mumia Abu-Jamal, former Reporter and Death Row inmate, 1998, [“A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,” 9/19/98, http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm] The deadliest form of violence is poverty. -- Ghandi It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the thousands of cases of social and communal violence that occurs daily in the nation. Every year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill themselves. Add to this the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other, and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence. But, as
remarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most violent feature of living in the midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:

"[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse
still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence

may be called The War on the Poor.

35

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 36/59

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE OUTWEIGHS—IT'S THE ROOT CAUSE OF WAR, GENOCIDE, AND OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR James Gilligan Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence 96 "Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic
and its Causes", p. 191-196

The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence," by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavior violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. [CONTINUED] The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the "structural violence" to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide – or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, and accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence – structural or behavioral – is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

36

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 37/59

Now is Key
We need to act NOW- over time, technology projects will be abandoned and we will be trapped on Earth Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html "Spreading out into space gives us more chances," he says. And the time is now: History instructs that technological hay should be made while the economic sun shines. "There is a danger we will end the human space program at some point, leaving us stranded on the Earth," Gott warns. "History shows that expensive technological projects are often abandoned after awhile. For example, the Ancient Egyptians quit building pyramids. So we should be colonizing space now while we have the chance."

37

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 38/59

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

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

38

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 39/59

We are due for an asteroid on top up multiple inevitable disasters on Earth- makes extinction inevitable Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html It's no secret. Sooner or later, Earth's bell will be rung. A giant asteroid or comet will slam into the planet, as has happened many times before, and a deadly dark cloud will envelop the globe, killing much of whatever might have survived the initial impact. "We live on a small planet covered with the bones of extinct species, proving that such catastrophes do occur routinely," says J. Richard Gott, III, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton and author of "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." Gott cites the presumably hardy Tyrannosaurus rex, which lasted a mere 2.5 million years and was the victim of an asteroid attack, as an example of what can happen if you don't plan ahead. But space rocks may not be the only threat. Epidemics, climatological or ecological catastrophes or even man-made disasters could do our species in, Gott says. And so, he argues, we need a life insurance policy to guarantee the survival of the human race.

39

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 40/59

Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation
Genetic research will cause extinction- colonization solves Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/ But is a moratorium on experimentation in genetic manipulation the answer? Can one really believe that Russian, Israeli, or Chinese researchers will abide by such an agreement? Can you picture a German or Indian scientist, on the verge of a spectacular breakthrough, stopping his research? Of course not! He'll merely postpone publication. The final result of any such agreement is that the United States will have unilaterally disarmed itself in the field of genetic manipulation. What's more, American scientists will no longer be in the position to lead an orderly, safe, development of the field. Advances will now be taking place clandestinely in backroom labs worldwide. Most scientists have the best intentions, but when God, country, or career enter the scene, nearsightedness can prevail. In just the 4 years since the previous edition of this book, the progress made in genetic engineering and gene-splicing technology has been absolutely startling. The "miracle" of the creation, by man, of primitive life from mere inorganic chemicals is just around the corner. Also possible is the total destruction of intelligent life by some means that could never be predicted - and only understood in hindsight. So we have ourselves a dilemma: On the one hand we must carry on genetic research, and on the other hand we must stop. How do we resolve this situation? The only answer seems to be that we allow genetic research to continue, as it would anyway, but that we take immediate steps to construct a backup colony away from earth in the event the genetic experiments get out of control.

40

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 41/59

Extinction Inevitable- Vaccines
The use of vaccines will inevitably destroy the planet Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/
It's quite clear that any promising new vaccines should be tried on only a very limited number of humans, and for at least several generations, before subjecting our entire population to a genetically unproven vaccine. Measles, for instance, is peculiar to humans and therefore a measles vaccine cannot be exonerated by animal tests. Incidentally, thalidomide was animal tested - and passed! Today, vaccines can be used in the prevention of 18 diseases. The vaccines used to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) have been developed only in the past several years, and the polio vaccine just a few years earlier. And yet the U.S. Public Health Department recommends that ALL children have their polio and rubella shots when they're just one year old. The mumps shot is recommended for children approaching puberty! Already over 80% of all Americans between 1 and 20 have had 3 or more polio shots. God help us if we've overlooked some effect. We should be finding out in a few years - BUT only if the effect is dominant. It should be noted that thalidomide was caught quickly only because of its effect on the 1st generation. The mutation was dominant and HAD to appear in the 1st generation. If the mutation was recessive, the effects could not have been detected until the 2nd generation, by which time a tragic, and possibly fatal, blow may have been inflicted to our gene-pool. If we continue to indiscriminately subject the whole population to every promising advance, be it vaccine, food additive, drug, etc., then the chances are not negligible that in some decade in the near future the U.S. or world population will be decimated or destroyed.

Pollution will become lethal and wipe the planet clean- drastic action key Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/
Simple pollution will never kill off mankind. As the pollution level becomes lethal, the population decreases, and so does the pollution. A population-pollution equilibrium is thus established. However, we know very little about the complicated, non-linear interplay between the various pollutants and the environment. Increasing the concentration of some pollutant over and above an unknown threshold level might start a runaway reaction that quickly increases some lethal factor's level until all human life on earth is dead. We just don't know! For instance, though he often tends toward abrasive exaggeration and incitement, Dr Paul Ehrlich may be right when he says that the SST (Supersonic Transport) may have ended all life on earth had the U.S. gone ahead with it. Exaggeration and incitement have been avoided in this discourse, but, in fairness to Dr Ehrlich, they might be justified in order to shock America and the world to the dangers around us.

41

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 42/59

Extinction Inevitable- Tech
The chase for advanced tech will cause the inevitable demise of society Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/
It goes without saying that man's present state of knowledge and understanding is primitive. We have little idea of the fundamental relationships of time, space, action at a distance, life, and so on. There may be a "universal law" stating that research by an advanced civilization progresses in such a logical way that some test or experiment is normally performed that exceeds some limit and unexpectedly causes the civilization to be wiped out before it's had a chance to colonize outside its own planet or solar system. Science in the last few decades has progressed at a phenomenal pace. If there is a limit that we mustn't exceed, we're fast approaching it. We are now performing experiments wherein the value of certain parameters are seldom surpassed in the entire universe. For example, by means of the laser, recent techniques have produced magnetic and electric fields, energy densities, and temperatures that are found only at the center of our sun. Within decades we'll greatly surpass nature itself in many domains. Are we absolutely sure that some obscure physical effect won't chain react the earth right out of existence? A further example - the race for the biggest high-energy particle accelerator could easily be the mechanism by which all life on earth is ended. After all, even back during World War II, farsighted people in the Manhattan Project made a cursory examination into the possibility that the 1st atomic bomb at Alamagordo might set off a chain reaction in the atmosphere. Such studies probably aren't being made today. The rush to publish and the need to cut corners, time-wise and money-wise, are the reasons.

42

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 43/59

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

43

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 44/59

Colonization key to solve Extinction
Colonization of space is the ONLY way to prevent extinction- time frame is irrelevant Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/ Life on earth will certainly cease to exist some day, but can we predict how soon? Unfortunately, every science (except mathematics) is based upon laboratory and field observations of the world as it's handed to us. The experimentalists are usually far ahead of the theorists who spend the great majority of their time trying to explain what has been observed. It's clear, since we're almost always one step behind in our understanding of the facts, that no advance warning of our imminent demise can be expected from the theorists. Since our scientists can't enlighten us, what about our politicians? Can they somehow control the geometrically increasing indicators (population, energy, etc.) and peacefully level them out to a stable plateau? Or will there be some sort of earthly "big bang"? One might only predict from the manner in which world leaders have solved their problems in the past, and by judging the caliber of our leadership in the world today. It may be that the only way we can have of predicting the time by which we should set up our colony is to look at the curves that depict these geometrically increasing indicators of impending disaster. These rates of increase surely cannot be maintained for many years and so we must get on with the construction of space colonies - Now! For many presentday decision makers, the argument that immediate space colonization may save 10-tothe-60th man-years in the future may not be as persuasive as an argument that space colonization can solve problems of the moment and that taxpayers and constituents will be benefitted now or in the near future. Well, space colonization CAN solve other problems here on Earth, and can actually save a far greater amount of money than the amount required for this project.

44

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 45/59

Satellites Solve Colonization
Solar Satellites will create sustainable colonies and prevent the rise of conflict Oscar Falconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/
A method has emerged for the efficient colonization of space which can be implemented quickly, economically, and in addition be very tangibly beneficial to man. Gerard K O'Neill, a professor of physics at Princeton, has devoted years to perfecting a design for satellite colonies that would orbit the earth about every 2 or 4 weeks. Each of these early colonies, constructed from easily obtained lunar material, would orbit between 100,000 and a quarter million miles from earth, would initially support in fine style about 10,000 men, women and children, and would soon be self-sufficient. These 1000's of pioneers would be put to work constructing solar-collecting satellites, hundreds of them, that would be placed in earth orbit 22,290 miles above sea level at the equator. At that height, these satellites would orbit the earth exactly once a day and remain above the same point of the equator. These solar collecting satellites would gather vast amounts of the sun's energy, convert it into microwaves, and beam it down to stationary receivers on earth where it would be again converted into the form of electrical energy we can use in the home. All this is done with surprising efficiency, day and night, rain or shine. No breakthroughs are required - the technology is here and both NASA and Congress are having a hard look at the benefits vs. costs of Prof. O'Neill's Satellite Solar Power System.** O'Neill has shown that the power obtained would, in just a couple decades, completely pay for all the development and construction of all the space colonies, solar-collecting satellites, and ground stations, including the interest on the capital investment. A number of different configurations have been proposed for the colony. Preliminary estimates indicate costs would only be several hundred billion dollars spread over two decades or so. Remember that this money would be spent here in the United States where we would benefit in the many ways previously listed. After such a venture, the U.S. would undoubtedly find itself in a powerful economic, technical, and political position, well worth the expenditure of just a small fraction of one year's GNP. And to achieve all this, there'll be no need to fight a war. In fact, a disastrous war may well be prevented and our civilization rescued.

Zero Sum resource scarcity makes extinction inevitable Sylvia Engdahl, 2003, “Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of Colonizing Space,” http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm One big reason why they should not is the “narrow window” concept. The other is that they could not. I have explained why I believe the problem of war can’t be solved without expansion. The problem of hunger is, or ultimately will be, the direct result of our planet’s limited resources; though it could be solved for the near-term by political reforms, we are not likely to see such reforms while nations are playing a “ zero-sum game” with what resources Earth still has. Widespread poverty, when not politically based, is caused by insufficient access to high technology and by the fact that there aren’t enough resources to go around (if you doubt this, compare the amount of poverty here with the amount in the Third World, and the amount on the Western frontier with the amount in our modern cities). Non-contagious disease, such as cancer, is at least partially the result of stress; and while expansion won’t eliminate stress, overcrowding certainly increases it. The problem of atmospheric pollution is the result of trying to contain the industry necessary to maintain our technology within the biosphere instead of moving it into
orbit where it belongs.

45

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 46/59

A2: States Fund Private Companies CP
1. Perm: Do Both a. Not severance – states funding private companies and federal government funding NASA. b. Double solvency – solves better than the CP due to double funding 2. Federal government coordination and incentives only way to catalyzes SBSP. That’s 1AC solvency sub-point A Hamilton. a. tech is more feasible today than ever before b. government-led proof-of-concept-design essential to catalyze private investment c. coordinated program with “high-level leadership” is necessary 3. SBSP needs be taken on by NASA
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an agency should be all about" - the development of opportunities in space which are uncovered during NASA's missions. He stated that NASA's lack of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed, "cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the glory days of Apollo." He feels that SSP is just as exciting -- or even more so -- as sending an astronaut to Mars, and is closer to NASA's mission. He cited the Next Generation Internet project as an example where NASA funding is enabling competition for the private sector, similar to what the SSP project could be. He wants NASA to take the next measured step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would reap huge public support for NASA. The space station, he said, is a tremendous engineering project with direct benefit to people on Earth; SSP can provide great benefits as well. Ranking Minority Member Cramer discussed the fact that SSP is not a new issue, but requires a long term focus. SSP requires a radical reduction in cost of access to space, which NASA is already investing in.

4. Federal government must accomplish 3 key incentives. That’s 1AC solvency sub-point B NSSO. a. Complete a space-borne proof-of-concept demonstration in order to lower the risk for private development b. Facilitate instruments to create partnerships between commercial and government agencies c. Sign the DoD on as an anchor tenant customer of SBSP

46

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 47/59

5. Only through NASA and federal incentives will private industry begin to invest in solar tech research.
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
Chairman Rohrabacher started the questioning by asking how much SSP would cost and who should pay. Mr. Mankins responded that preliminary studies showed that the first platform of the Sun Tower model would cost between $5-7B after the technology has been developed and would produce 400 megawatts of energy, enough to supply a small city. The Chairman then asked if SSP would have a detrimental impact on the environment, specifically the ozone layer. Gregg Maryniak answered that the Earth receives radio beams and microwaves every day. The energy density is what matters, and the center of SSP is less dense than sunlight. Space solar power is therefore possible, he stated, without detrimental effect. It could be used to help underdeveloped countries to industrialize while creating a new industry. Congressman Lampson asked about the 1980's Office of Technology Assessment report that cited economic obstacles to SSP. Mr. Mankins replied that it was the goal of the Fresh Look study to resolve those obstacles. The finding of the study was that costs have been drastically reduced since then; basic technologies have been developed. For example, at the time of the OTA report, the shuttle wasn't operating. The problem with space transportation, added Mr. Maryniak, is that there is not enough of it. Congressman Lampson then asked what NASA is doing in SSP now and what it needs to do. Mr. Mankins cited the Fresh Look study completed last year, and listed ongoing R&D programs under the Office of Space Flight and the Office of Space Science. Congressman Weldon's questions focused on industry's interest and support of SSP and the possibility of working with the satellite industry. Other questions focused on the amount of research and cost necessary to get SSP underway, and how much market interest and industry support there would be for SSP, considering that fossil fuels are a finite, pollutioncausing resource. Congressman Bartlett asked about how much new technology would be needed; Mr. Mankins replied that 8-10 major areas of technology needed to be advanced technologically, although all were between an order of two and five improvement over current technology and would cost substantially below $10B for technology maturation. Mr. Bartlett explained that while he doesn't believe in "greenhouse gases" he'd be "willing to ride that horse" if that's what it would take to get funding for SSP. Chairman Rohrabacher stated that he had spoken recently with the Speaker and Joint Taxation Chairman Archer about a proposal to make manufacturing in space a tax free endeavor in order to raise private sector resources, and that they expressed interest. He wants to get NASA to focus on SSP as a long term project, rather than human travel to Mars. He asked if the witnesses had talked with anyone at NASA about this. Mr. Mankins testified

that there have been a number of discussions, but at this time in the context of the real struggle to make the books work on the Balanced Budget Agreement, NASA is not making SSP a priority at this time. Mr. Maryniak stated that he had had conversations with the Administrator and believed that he personally was interested in SSP. Dr. Grey suggested that the Subcommittee discuss the possibility of using some of the overlap technology between what NASA is already engaged in, such as reduced cost of space transportation, and SSP technology requirements to begin an SSP program at NASA. Mr. Rohrabacher replied that Mission to Planet Earth might be a good place to put such a project. He said NASA may eventually get an astronaut on Mars, and he isn't against it, but that SSP should come first because of the benefit to mankind that could be derived from SSP. Mr. Lampson asked if anything could be accomplished now without additional funding. Mr. Mankins replied that there is technology work being conducted at NASA now that is applicable to SSP, including low cost of space transportation, which is the third goal of NASA's strategic plan. Mr. Lampson then asked if the electric companies could be expected to contribute funding to the project; Dr. Grey said that there is some support and that the interest level of the utilities would depend on the risk of the technology advancement, and that the reduction of this risk was a perfect role for the Federal government to fill. The Chairman closed the hearing by expressing his agreement with the other members that "this has been a fascinating hearing and I look forward to further discussion on the subject."

47

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
6. NASA tech key for lowering cost of SBSP

AFF Wave 3 48/59

John Gartner, 6/22/04, “NASA Spaces on Energy Solution”, www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913 "It has fallen neatly through the cracks, as it has for decades," Mankins said. He said that NASA's development of space solar power would likely determine whether or not satellites ever send energy to Earth. "Given how critical NASA is to all the space and related technologies required, it's hard for me to see how it could happen" without NASA. Arthur P. Smith, a physicist who has written about solar power from space for the American Physical Society (PDF), said that interest in beaming solar power from satellites has waxed and waned since it was first proposed more than 30 years ago. Smith said that research funding was highest during the oil crisis in the Carter administration, but after gas prices retreated the program was shelved for almost 20 years. Pursuing solar power from space "should be part of our plan for energy independence," Smith said. He said that if NASA invested $10 billion in research over the next 10 years, the technology would likely become cost-effective enough to begin launching satellites.
7.

Perm: Do the Plan and have all United States state governments and relevant US territories, except California, give money to private companies.

8. [Insert California DA]

48

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 49/59

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

49

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 50/59

A2: States Fund NASA CP
1. Perm: Do Both a. Not severance – states and federal government both fund NASA b. Double solvency – solves better than the CP due to double funding 2. Congressional legislation essential for developing SBSP and private sector spillover
Space Frontier Foundation, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanity’s Energy, National Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs,” http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.spacefrontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews SBSPReport10Oct07.pdf+ anchor+tenant+customer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us In order to close the business case, and begin the development of SBSP, the Foundation urges the Administration and the U.S. Congress to enact the following specific recommendations by the NSSO-led study report. 1. DoD as Anchor Tenant Customer: The key to every business is having dependable and reliable customer(s). The availability of a dependable anchor tenant customer, who is willing to pay $1 or more per kilowatt hour for large amounts of power, is a major step forward. • The SBSP Study Group recommends that the DoD should immediately conduct a requirements analysis of underlying long-term DoD demand for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the warfighter, what the DoD might be willing to pay for a SBSP service delivered to the warfighter and under what terms and conditions, and evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of various approaches to signing up as an anchor tenant customer of a commercially- delivered service, such as the NextView acquisition approach pioneered by the National GeoSpatial-imaging Agency. 2. Extend Federal Incentives for Other Carbon-Neutral Energy Technologies to SBSP: The U.S. Government is providing major incentives to many other energy technologies, in support of energy independence and clean renewable energy objectives. The Space Frontier Foundation believes it is completely reasonable to ask for consistency in policy, and quite reasonable since the potential pay-off of SBSP is so large. • The SBSP Study Group recommends that consistent with the U.S. Government incentives provided to other carbon-neutral energy technologies, it is critical for the U.S. Government to provide similar incentives to encourage private U.S. industry to co-invest in the development of SBSP systems. Specifically, the following incentives should be provided to U.S. industry as soon as possible to
encourage private investment in the development and construction of SBSP systems: • Carbon/Pollution Credits and Offsets: The Space Frontier Foundation believes that it should be rather straight-forward for the U.S. Congress to clarify, to the extent necessary, that existing law and policy on carbon/pollution credits and offsets also apply to SBSP. o Legislation at both the federal and state level that specifies — and clarifies existing law as specifying — that SBSP is eligible for all pollution credits, carbon credits, and carbon off-sets that are available to other clean and renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, ground solar, and nuclear • Extend Loan Guarantees to SBSP Developers & Operators: The nuclear power industry has been given loan guarantees by the U.S. federal government. The Space Frontier Foundation urges the Administration and the U.S. Congress to extend the same incentives to the SBSP industry. o A federal loan guarantee program of up to 80% should be created for U.S. companies engaged in the business of developing, owning and operating SBSP systems. This program should either be an extension of, or modeled after, the existing loan guarantee program provided to the nuclear power industry. 3. Low-Cost and Reliable Access to Space (LCRATS): The Space Frontier Foundation agrees with the NSSO-led study that the “U.S. needs Low-Cost and Reliable Access to Space (LCRATS)”, and that “LCRATS will also deliver significant benefits to U.S. national security and American economic competitiveness, independent of SBSP.” We urge the U.S. Congress to adopt the study reports recommendation “The nation ... must significantly increase its investments in … LCRATS and ubiquitous on-orbit space operations for national security and economic purposes.” o Recommendation:

The SBSP Study Group recommends the enactment of legislation to create transferable investment tax credits for private industry investments in reusable Earth-to-orbit space transportation systems and in commercially-owned and operated space infrastructure for

50

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 51/59

orbit-to-orbit transfer, on-orbit assembly systems, orbital fuel depots, and orbital repair, maintenance and upgrade systems

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

4.

Perm: Do the plan and have all United States state governments and relevant US territories, except California, give money to NASA.

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

51

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 52/59

Politics Agenda Link Turns- Bush Bad
A. Plan drains political capital Leonard David, special correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html) Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said. B. Political capital is critical to agenda support Lee 2005 The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna College – Presented at the Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference [Andrew, “Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://as.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf] [Bapodra] No single alternative theory can entirely explain the use of veto threats under President Bush’s first term. For example, the president would not be able to invest political capital without having the opportunity of increased legislation created by the legislative cycle. It is more likely that a combination of these factors produced the data in the first Bush administration. During periods of high legislative activity, the Congress, divided during the 107th Congress, anticipated more credible veto threats due to high political capital. Congress constructed legislation that was favorable to the president, and the president invested his political capital by decreasing his veto threats and opposition to legislation. Congress creates legislation that is more favorable to the president, and the president supports Congress in order to invest his political capital. Ultimately, this means that Congress and the president are inadvertently working to create agreeable legislation during times of high political capital. Conversely, when political capital decreases, the president gradually increases his opposition language.

52

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 53/59

Bush Bad- Bipart opposition
A. Bipartisan opposition to NASA funding
Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The Space Review), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military space efforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]

Going through my notes from last week’s address at the National Space Symposium by Rep. Ken Calvert, I picked up a theme that relates to some recent discussions in the comments of previous posts, where some were trying to hang blame on one party or another for NASA’s FY07 funding woes. Calvert noted that one of the House members who voted against the 2005 NASA authorization bill is the current appropriations chairman, David Obey (although Calvert didn’t mention him by name, only by title). “This is a problem as NASA finds itself in a precarious time, trying to ramp up spending to move America beyond low Earth orbit while also meeting the demands of the agency’s diverse portfolio of missions.” Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No. “There is a dangerous trend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress,” he said. He mentioned two amendments to the original FY07 appropriations bill on the House floor last summer that would have either prevented NASA from spending any money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred NASA funds to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out, since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing resolution), “The reality is that members of both parties supported these amendments, and by a large margin.” That doesn’t bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. “You can bet that NASA will be the target again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding against grabs from other areas.” B. Bipart is key to the agenda Steven Shull, Professor of Political Science, 2k “PRESIDENTIAL-CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS,” p. 15. [Bapodra] Presidential leadership and/or congressional followership clearly provide an inadequate picture of modern presidential-congressional relations; rarely is either dominant or submissive. Increasingly, divided government does make institutional conflict more likely, but policy deadlock is not inevitable. Neither actor completely sets the agenda on its own, and cooperation is nearly always necessary for agenda ideas to be adopted subsequently.

53

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 54/59

Bush Bad- Weapons unpopular
A. Plan will be perceived as a space weapons program in congress. That’s unpopular
Theresa Hitchens, Vice President, Center for Defense Information, 9-14-05, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/hitchens-05_12_01_/hitchens05_12_01_en.pdf [Bapodra] What I can also say is that even if the new presidential policy blesses the Pentagon’s space warfare strategy, it remains unclear whether Congress will be willing to fund it much beyond basic technology research. Space is an exceedingly expensive place. To fully implement the capabilities necessary to fight “in, from and through” space, hundreds of billions would have to be dedicated to developing new weapons, launching thousands of new on-orbit assts, and maintaining those systems once they are deployed. With launch costs remaining at $22,000 per kilogram, and current satellites in LEO weighing up to 4,000 kilograms, the price tag rapidly becomes exorbitant – hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, Congress is already expressing concerns about the costs of today’s Air Force space programs that have nothing to do with controversial ASAT or space-strike systems. Programs such as the Transformational Satellite System designed to replace current military communications satellites, and the Space Radar to replace aging U.S. early warning satellites, are years behind schedule and tens of millions dollars over budget. Congressional reaction to Air Force budget requests for new space weapons programs based on unproven and yet undeveloped technologies may well not be all that favorable. In addition, space weapons remain controversial politically and the concept unpopular with broad U.S. public opinion – and a unilateral move by the United States to weaponize space is likely to also face harsh international political resistance and possible backlash as other nations seek to compete with their own space weapons programs. Indeed, recognizing these facts, the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, which is responsible for the military space budget, plans to hold hearings sometime in June on the question of “space control” and space weaponization.

B. Agenda success increases as public support increases
Bond & Fleisher, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996 (Jon R. and
Richard. "The President in Legislation" p.24)

Edwards (1980) was the first to test this theory systematically with quantitative data. In a study of presidentialcongressional relations for the period 1953 through 1976 (Eisenhower through Ford), Edwards found high correlations between presidential popularity and congressional support. His most important finding was that members of Congress are less responsive to the president's overall popularity and more responsive to his popularity among subgroups in the public that are part of their own electoral coalitions-i.e., Democrats in Congress respond to the president's popularity among Democratic voters, and Republicans respond to his popularity among Republican voters (Edwards 1980, 92-93). Based on this analysis. Edwards concludes "that a president "should be concerned with his prestige among members of both parties, because all members of Congress respond to his prestige, particularly his popularity among their electoral supporters" \ 109)
Rivers and Rose (1985) argue that Edwards's analysis understates the extent to which presidential success in Congress depends on the president's popularity with the public. Their analysis suggests that there is a simultaneous relationship between presidential program formulation and success in Congress-- i.e ., success at one point in time tends to be associated with increased requests in subsequent years, which then leads to lower approval rates. Because of this simultaneity, bivariate correlations between presidential popularity and success in Congress, as in Edwards's (1980) analysis, will understate the true relationship. Controlling for simultaneity, Rivers and Rose (1985, 193-95) find that a 1 percent increase in public

approval of the president leads to about a 1 percent increase in congressional approval of presidential requests. They conclude that public opinion is a more important source of presidential success than indicated by previous studies.

54

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 55/59

Bush Good- Public support
A. Public supports the plan O. Glenn Smith, former manager of science and applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, 7/23/08, “Harvest the Sun from Space”, New York Times Opinion Section, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html [Bapodra] Over the past 15 years, Americans have invested more than $100 billion, directly and indirectly, on the space station and supporting shuttle flights. With an energy crisis deepening, it’s time to begin to develop a huge return on that investment. (And for those who worry that science would lose out to economics, there’s no reason that work on space solar power couldn’t go hand in hand with work toward a manned mission to Mars, advanced propulsion systems and other priorities of the space station.) In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our space program, NASA should realize that the American public would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to meet critical energy needs here on Earth. B. Public support translates directly to congressional success, especially in an election year
Spitzer 93 Prof of Poli Sci, State University of New York [Robert J., President and Congress: Executive Hegemony at the Crossroads of American Government]

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

55

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 56/59

Bush Good- Military Lobby
A. Military Lobbies Love The Plan Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,” August 13, 2007) The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power. B. Military can use political influence channels to achieve its needs Harper's Magazine 2006 (Harper's Magazine “American Coup D'Etat”, A. J. Bacevichhttp://www.harpers.org/AmericanCoupDEtat.html April 2006. ) BACEVICH: But this does bring up another crucial reason there could never be a military coup in the United States: the military has learned to play politics. It doesn’t need to have a coup in order to get what it wants most of the time. Especially since World War II, the services have become very skillful at exploiting the media and at manipulating the Congress—particularly on the defense budget, which is estimated now to be equal to that of the entire rest of the world combined. DUNLAP: I agree, though I wouldn’t characterize it negatively. The military works within the system to achieve its needs. LUTTWAK: A few years back, the president of Argentina told the country’s air force that its budget for the next year would be $80 million. Now, Argentina has a fairly large air force; $80 million was enough for one base, basically. But the air force had no recourse, no back channels to Congress, no talk shows to go on. That could never happen in the United States. BACEVICH: Right. Our military doesn’t need to overthrow the government, because it has learned how to play politics in order to achieve its interests.

56

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 57/59

Bush Good- funding bipartisan
A. Strong Congressional bipartisanship for NASA funding
STEWART M. POWELL, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent, 6/11/2008, “White House rejects call to boost NASA shuttle funding: Houston-area lawmakers lash out at administration”, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html [Bapodra]

The White House also took umbrage at the legislation requiring NASA to deepen international cooperation in the next generation of manned U.S. space operations, saying that the provision ordering international outreach "directly infringes upon the president's authority to conduct foreign affairs." President Bush's strong criticism of a program dear to Texas lawmakers left Lone Star State Republicans in a tough political position. Some, like Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said
they would push for additional NASA funding, with or without White House approval. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district includes parts of Harris County, disagreed with the White House contention that the additional missions would jeopardize the 2010 retirement date. "The contingency flights are necessary to make sure the space station is fully equipped entering that period when the U.S. will have no spaceflights," he said. There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate, which will act after the House gives its funding plan final approval. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not directly address the White House threats. But she said she considers completion of the space station an issue of "utmost importance" and will continue working "to increase NASA funding so we may close the gap in continuous spaceflight," said spokesman Matt Mackowiak.

B. Bush can’t get anything done without bipartisanship
Joseph A. Pika and John Anthony Maltese, Prof and Acting Chair Dept of Pol Sci and Int’l Rels @ University of Delaware and Assoc. Prof @ University of Georgia, 2004, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th Edition. Because presidents cannot rely on full support from their own party members, they must build coalitions by obtaining support from some opposition members. Coalition building is especially important when the opposition controls one or both houses—the situation for most presidents since 1969. Several factors other than party membership influence congressional voting decisions, including constituency pressures, state and regional loyalty, ideological orientations, and interest group influence. On many occasions, presidents have received crucial support from the opposition. Eisenhower successfully sought Democratic votes on foreign policy matters; Republicans contributed sizable pluralities to the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s; conservative Democrats, mainly from the South, often supported the domestic policy proposals of Nixon and Ford; conservative Democrats in the House were essential to Reagan’s 1981 legislative victories; Clinton depended on Republican support for the passage of NAFTA and GAT’T; and George W. Bush received critical, though limited, support from Democrats on his tax-reduction and education-reform proposals.

57

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie

AFF Wave 3 58/59

Bush Good- Popularity
A. Space based solar power receiving strong support from congress
National Space Society, 2-28-08, “Space Exploration Alliance Members Press Congress For Full Authorized Levels of NASA Funding”, http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:mNyybCscXG8J:www.nss.org/news/releases/pr20080228.html+spac e+exploration+congress+support&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Other issues discussed during the meetings included continued support for NASA's robotic science missions and the integral role that space exploration plays in solving Earth's pressing energy and environmental needs. Several Congressional offices explicitly requested more details about the National Security Space Office's recent study of space-based solar power solutions, which noted that “[a] single kilometerwide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.” B. Popularity boosts political capital ROBERTS 11 – 9 – 04 Political Science BA, University of New Mexico [Dane, “Democrats need sharp vision,” Daily Lobo, via University Wire] "Political capital" might be described as good will and a willingness to accommodate, if not support, a leader. His previous political capital came from Sept. 11, after which his approval ratings soared, and Congress gave him broad power, not the 2000 election in which he lost the popular vote. What does it mean to "spend" this capital? It means to use your popularity to push otherwise unlikely or unpopular initiatives. Bush certainly spent his little capital in his first term. Among other robust but not-quite-popular actions, his war on Iraq and extensions of budget-busting tax cuts resulted in a steady erosion of his approval ratings. This time around, according to the White House, there is broad support for Bush's agenda. The voters gave him a mandate. Why, then, will Bush have to spend his capital? If his policies are the will of the people, getting them done will increase, not decrease, his political capital.

58

DDI ’08 Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie
C. Political capital is critical to agenda support

AFF Wave 3 59/59

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

59

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful