Military Elective Vehicles Affirmative

Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Military Aff
Military Aff....................................................................................................................................................................................1
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................3
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................4
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................5
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................10
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................11
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................................16
Inherency.....................................................................................................................................................................................17
Inherency.....................................................................................................................................................................................18
Inherency.....................................................................................................................................................................................19
Inherency.....................................................................................................................................................................................20
Inherency – Costs........................................................................................................................................................................21
Army Dependent On Oil.............................................................................................................................................................22
Now Key To End Dependence....................................................................................................................................................23
Mil Uses A Lot Of Oil.................................................................................................................................................................24
Oil Key To Mil............................................................................................................................................................................25
Increased Oil Key To Mil............................................................................................................................................................26
Military Key To Heg...................................................................................................................................................................27
Military Key to Ending Oil Dependency....................................................................................................................................28
Plan Solves Casualties.................................................................................................................................................................29
Heg Good - Kagan.......................................................................................................................................................................30
Heg Good - Kagan.......................................................................................................................................................................31
Heg Good - Kagan.......................................................................................................................................................................32
Heg Good - Terrorism.................................................................................................................................................................33
Heg Good - Economy..................................................................................................................................................................34
Heg Good – East Asia War..........................................................................................................................................................35
HE -> FCS...................................................................................................................................................................................36
HE -> FCS...................................................................................................................................................................................37
HE -> FCS...................................................................................................................................................................................38
FCS Key To Heg.........................................................................................................................................................................39
FCS Spending Low.....................................................................................................................................................................40
FCS Key To Heg.........................................................................................................................................................................41
FCS Key To Iraq..........................................................................................................................................................................42
FCS Key To Iraq..........................................................................................................................................................................43
FCS Key To Readiness................................................................................................................................................................44
....................................................................................................................................................................................................44
Alt Energy Key To Iraq...............................................................................................................................................................45
Alt Energy Key To Iraq...............................................................................................................................................................46
ME War Bad - Nassar..................................................................................................................................................................47
Iraq Bad – Prolif..........................................................................................................................................................................48
Iraq Bad – Democracy.................................................................................................................................................................49
SkyBuilts Rock............................................................................................................................................................................50
SkyBuilts Rock............................................................................................................................................................................51
SkyBuilts Rock............................................................................................................................................................................52
AT Costs A Lot............................................................................................................................................................................53
DARPA Solves FCS....................................................................................................................................................................54
1
Ima slap you so hard you gonna end up in the Ming Dynasty
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Military Spills Over.....................................................................................................................................................................55

Gov Funding Key........................................................................................................................................................................56
HE Solves....................................................................................................................................................................................57
HE Solves Oil Dependence.........................................................................................................................................................58
Plug Ins Solve Warming..............................................................................................................................................................59
T Cards........................................................................................................................................................................................60
T Cards........................................................................................................................................................................................61
T Cards........................................................................................................................................................................................62
T Cards........................................................................................................................................................................................63
Obama Supports Plan..................................................................................................................................................................64
McCain Supports Plan.................................................................................................................................................................65
Potential Solvency Advocate For Public.....................................................................................................................................66
HE Now.......................................................................................................................................................................................67
HE Now.......................................................................................................................................................................................68
Hybrid Fails.................................................................................................................................................................................69
Plug Ins Can’t Solve Warming....................................................................................................................................................70
bringin the pain
2
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Contention 1: Inherency
Lack of funding prevents hybrid electric vehicle development in the military
now
Sandra Erwin, Editor of the National Defense Industrial Association, 9/1/06, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-
5762818_ITM
In truth, it is hard to see how Rumsfeld’s directive could change the reality of a military that mostly operates guzzlers, and has
no tangible plans to change that. Just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Pentagon a "national
security exemption" so it can continue to drive trucks with old, energy-inefficient engines that don't meet the emissions
standards required for commercial trucks.
The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine, with a more efficient diesel plant.
But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army cancelled a program to
produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has slowed down the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets.
The Air Force has been contemplating the replacement of its surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines, but the project was
deemed too costly, and not worth any potential fuel savings.
Subsequent to Rumsfeld's 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon officials have been eager to publicize
various science projects aimed at energy conservation, such as research into synthetic fuels, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, wind
farms and solar power, to name a few.
SkyBuilt hybrid electric generators have been deployed and been effective,
but increased spending is needed to fully supply the Army
Massod Farivar, staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 1/9/07, Military Looks to SkyBuilt for Oil Savings and Renewable Power,
http://www.skybuilt.com/pr_wsj.htm
January 9, 2007 — Recent energy-market disruptions have added urgency to the U.S. military's efforts to curb its use of oil and
other fuels. But the effort faces considerable obstacles, including the difficulty in figuring out how much it spends on energy to
begin with. In the year ended Sept. 30, the Defense Department spent, by its estimate, $13 billion on fuel amounting to 134
million barrels of oil for the year, up from 107 million barrels of oil in 2000. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq led to a surge in
fuel use in that period, according to the Defense Energy Support Center, a government agency that buys fuel from private-
sector companies and supplies it to the armed forces. The most recent figure is more than the entire nation of Sweden
consumed in 2005. (Still, it adds up to less than 2% of daily U.S. consumption.) As energy prices have surged and volatility
has increased in important oil-producing regions, the military is redoubling efforts to rein in consumption through
conservation, increased fuel-efficiency measures and greater use of alternative energy. The effort picked up in earnest
following the 2005 Atlantic Ocean hurricanes, which devastated the Gulf Coast, lifted prices to records and highlighted the
vulnerability of supplies. "Katrina was a wake-up call," says Michael Aimone, assistant deputy chief of staff of the Air Force
who oversees the force's energy-conservation efforts. The Pentagon is planning to spend more than $2 billion in the next five
years on energy initiatives, which could help spur development of energy sources for use in other sectors. "The contribution
[the military's efforts] will make will be in leadership rather than actual conservation," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland
Republican, who last year formed a bipartisan panel called the Defense Energy Working Group to study the issue. James
Woolsey, a former Central Intelligence Agency director who heads the policy panel of one of two Pentagon energy task forces,
said the drive to curb energy use is being fueled less by high prices than an increasing awareness about the "vulnerability and
insecurity of supplies" world-wide. The effect of the Pentagon's interest in conservation and alternative energy can be seen
from military bases and hangers to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In late July, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard
Zilmer, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq's insurgent al-Anbar province, asked for a shipment of mobile solar panels and wind
turbines to supplement gas-guzzling generators at bases under his command. Cutting "the military's dependence on fuel for
power generation could reduce the number of road-bound convoys" and U.S. casualties resulting from insurgent attacks on
U.S. supply convoys, Gen. Zilmer wrote in a memo. The Army's Rapid Equipping Force, the unit responsible for processing
such requests, has contracted SkyBuilt Power of Arlington, Va., to build four hybrid power stations for delivery this spring.
3
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase
funding for the Department of Defense in order to develop and acquire hybrid
electric vehicles and fully equip the military with SkyBuilt Renewable Energy
Trailers
4
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Contention 2: Harder Better Faster Stronger
Hybrid electric vehicles boost the military’s battlefield strategy and increases
readiness – mobility and electricity generation
D’Oro, 5/27/04, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Rachel, Army Shows Off Alternative Energy Options
Hybrid tankers that can power an entire airfield. Electric chariots that can zip soldiers to their destinations. Fuel cell-powered
all terrain vehicles that can roll along in near silence.
These are among alternative-energy vehicles being developed by the Army, which showed off a dozen prototypes Thursday at
Elmendorf Air Force Base. The Army envisions the vehicles greatly reducing its fuel consumption on the battlefield and at
urban posts in the near future with technology other military branches are watching closely. In fact, the Air Force has assigned a
representative to the Army's Detroit-based National Automotive Center, which is developing the vehicles through partnerships
with manufacturers. "Our intention is to find common-use items that work not only commercially but with the military," said
Army spokesman Eric Emerton. The open house at an Elmendorf hangar was the show-and-tell portion of a four-day
symposium in Anchorage co-hosted by the Army to explore clean energy sources for and from Alaska. Military and industry
engineers and others led visitors around vehicles ready for use and under development. Examples ranged from relatively
humble Segway Human Transporters and three-wheel American Chariots to a heavy-duty hybrid truck and two versions of a
surveillance carrier. All represent the virtues of energy-saving technology that's so crucial at a time when the Army burns
750,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq alone, said NAC Director Dennis Wend. "We can take these technologies and reduce our
fuel on the battlefield," he said. "At the same time, we can put these technologies on our bases and be a good neighbor to our
industrial partners by sharing information." Reality, however, is three to five years away for the more advanced equipment,
according to Wend. The automotive research center, created a decade ago, has intensified its alternative energy development
only in the last few years. Besides corporate money, the center receives $100 million in federal research and development
funds. But a recent $60 million infusion for a two-year pilot program will enable it to develop hybrid battlefield trucks. "If that
works out successfully, we could be looking at another billion dollars to put them into production, to actually produce several
thousand vehicles for the Army's battlefields," Wend said. Among the more impressive items on display was the SmarTruck II,
a technologically enhanced armored vehicle. The modified Chevrolet Silverado is loaded with gear that would make James
Bond proud - luxury seats, a missile launcher, electric generator and far-range surveillance equipment, including night-vision
capabilities. All that would make the hybrid-electric ideal for vulnerable urban settings such as Baghdad, Iraq, according to its
developers, which include Integrated Concepts & Research Corp., a subsidiary of Kodiak-based Native Regional corporation
Koniag Inc. Then there's the tanklike hybrid-electric diesel truck developed with Oshkosh, Wis.-based Oshkosh Truck Corp.,
which builds the Army's large off-road vehicles as well as civilian fire and refuse trucks. Painted in camouflage tones, the
Oshkosh HEMTT consumes less fuel and puts out reduced emissions compared with its traditionally fueled counterparts. The
vehicle also can produce 350 kilowatts of electricity while its 505 horsepower engine idles. The company tested the vehicle's
onboard generator at the Whittman Airfield in Oshkosh, providing lighting for the control tower and a 14,000-foot runway for
two hours. It was a hit - signifying numerous applications for the military and civilians alike, said company engineer Chris
Yakes. "There's the fuel economy and the power production capabilities," Yakes said. "It can be used for anything from natural
disasters to homeland security."
5
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Hybrid electric vehicles are key to recon surveillance and increased mobility
Defense Update, International Online Defense Magazine, 11/20/05, Shadow - Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targeting Vehicle
(RST-V), http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/Shadow-afv.htm
Under the Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targeting Vehicle (RST-V) program, the Marine Corps, DARPA and the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) demonstrated the capabilities of a prototype hybrid electric drive designed for recce missions. The
vehicle, dubbed Shadow, is an advanced technology demonstrator 4x4 vehicles, which can be carried internally in the V 22 tilt-
rotor, CH-53, CH-46 helicopters and C-130 transporters, providing quick deployment and deep insertion capability.
It was constructed with advanced materials to reduce weight and improve protection and survivability. Hybrid-electric
propulsion system and advanced suspension is utilized to improve on-road and cross-country mobility. The vehicle is equipped
with an RST mission package including navigation/geolocation capability, surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition
systems, wireless and on-the-move satellite communications and advances situational awareness systems.
Increased R & D now allows for transition to hybrid electric vehicles now
instead of inefficient and expensive FCS vehicles that will come online in 10
years – key to preventing casualties
Colonel Douglas MacGregor, retired senior military officer, PHD in International Relations, Bronze Star Winner, bestselling author
June 2004, transcript from Lehrer’s News Hour, http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm
Actions that deny our Soldiers the tools they need to win and survive speak louder than words and promises of inadequate
wheeled solutions later (or most probably never). The Soldiers in Iraq don't care about whose "vision of warfare" gets the
limelight, they want WHAT WORKS and will kill the enemy and get them home alive to their families with all their limbs
intact. Up-armoring sides, underbelly and providing gunshields on the Army's M113 Gavins light tracked AFVs would cost a
mere $78K each and for less than $500K would make them hybrid-electric silent and stealthy to sneak up on hiding enemies
TODAY instead of waiting 10 years from now for a mythical $10 million each, Future Combat System (FCS). Hybrid-Electric
M113 Gavins would have all the electrical power Soldiers could ever need to run all the computers and electronic gadgets the
Army is so infatuated with. Going to band tracks while slightly reducing land mine blast resistance is countered by the fact that
with Hybrid Electric drive we can put the driver/TC farther back in the hull away from over the current driver position over the
left track offset from the right front engine arrangement. The reason is that HE drive can be run by wire controls so the driver
can actually be ANYWHERE on or off the vehicle. Another benefit of HE drive is you can then build a "V" channel wall on the
left and right of the centerline driver/TC for a secondary bulkhead against land mines.
Casualties kill domestic support for the military

Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force. He has
more than 30 years’ service and is a distinguished graduate of the National War College, September 2006, Army’s Asymmetric
Advantage, http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/09/2009013
There is also a dark side. Stephen Ambrose observed in his book “Americans at War” that when you put weapons in the hands
of young men at war, “sometimes terrible things happen that you wish had never happened.” Ambrose notes that atrocities such
as My Lai were not an aberration but, sadly, “a universal aspect of war, from the time of the ancient Greeks up to the present.”
The problem is exacerbated when the insurgency embraces ruthless methods that make even the most innocent-looking
grandfather (and even more tragically, a child) a potential suicide bomber. Fear, frustration and youth mixed with firepower are
a deadly combination and can produce dreadful results. What is more is that relentless reporting by globalized news outlets
turns such incidents into strategic catastrophes. When thousands of troops are on the ground fighting an insurgency such as
that in Iraq, it is, regrettably, all but inevitable that you will have situations such as Abu Ghraib and Hadithah arise from time to
time — horrific and tragic, but predictable and even unavoidable. Yet, to a degree unprecedented in past conflicts, real and
perceived illegalities are subject to exploitation not just by adversaries but also by legitimate political opponents. Regardless,
the result is an erosion of the public support that democracies need to conduct any kind of protracted military operation. The
point is that, again, information-age realities limit boots-on-the-ground options.
6
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Lack of support causes isolationism, collapsing hegemony
Richard K. Betts, Professor of War and Peace Studies at Columbia, 2005,
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/publication_files/betts/The%20Political%20Support%20System%20for%20American%20Primacy
%20-%20Betts.pdf
There is dissent in the United States from the enthusiasm for exploiting primacy, but the dissenters have been unable to capture
a base big enough to exert political leverage. Primacy has so far been popular among Americans— and tolerated by foreigners
—because of the balance between moral and material interests. Americans have long been able to indulge moral interests (for
example, promotion of values such as democracy and human rights) because Americans’ margins of material power and
security are so large that it is often easy to do so at low cost, and if mistakes are made they rarely hurt them much. In terms of
material costs and benefits, Americans are happy to intervene abroad if the benefits for foreigners and American amour propre
are high while the costs in American blood and treasure are low. In this, and in the conditional approval conferred by other
major states (when US control proceeds under the norms and forms of international consultation and cooperation with
international institutions), we see the global hegemony of classic liberal ideology, and political globalization as western
hegemony within which the United States is dominant. The liberal values that Americans used to think of as part of their
national exceptionalism have now permeated the identity, policies and diplomacy of the rest of the developed world. In the
twenty-first century the old realist norms of balance-of-power politics traditionally associated with European diplomacy, and
rejected by Wilsonian idealism, now have scarcely more overt respect in other rich countries than they do in the United States.
Stealth and mobility are key to military flexibility and readiness

Paul K. Davis, research leader for defense and force transformation planning at RAND, March 2001, Transforming the Armed
Forces: An Agenda for Change, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_2001/Global%20Century%20-
%20June%202001/C19Davis.pdf
Necessity. In the longer term, many nations’ forces will use aspects of the new technology. Indeed, much of the requisite
technology is or will be commercially available. As a result, traditional forces will no longer be viable. For example, forces will
need to disperse substantially because of the extreme vulnerability of fixed targets. For related reasons, they will need to
maneuver over longer distances, to maneuver much more quickly and with much less physical concentration of forces
themselves, and to operate with greatly reduced logistical footprints. In addition, they will need to defend themselves from a
variety of missiles, including those carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the longer run, it is not clear how the
measure- countermeasure race will play out. Aircraft and ships will become more stealthy, but remotely piloted aircraft and
space-based surveillance will improve, as will missiles to attack those aircraft and ships. Active defenses will improve, but may
be overcome by sheer numbers. New forms of active defenses, such as beam weapons, will perhaps be less prone to saturation.
The war in cyberspace will likely be increasingly important. There is no end in sight to the changes that may occur.
Implications: Change Is Required. With this combination of near-term opportunity and daunting, longer term challenges, there
should be little question about the need for major changes. Many of those changes will be inexorable consequences of the same
information technology that has transformed modern business practices and day-to-day life. Others will be more uniquely
related to the increased precision of weapons, superb navigation, WMD systems, and information warfare
7
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Readiness is the backbone of US leadership
Zalmay Khalilzad, total BAMF, 1995, Spring, Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After
the Cold War”, Vol. 18, # 2, Lexis
A global rival to the United States could emerge for several reasons. Because the main deterrent to the rise of another global
rival is the military power of the United States, an inadequate level of U.S. military capability could facilitate such an event.
This capability should be measured not only in terms of the strength of other countries, but also in terms of the U.S. ability to
carry out the strategy outlined here. U.S. tradition makes the prospect of defense cuts below this level a serious possibility:
historically, the United States has made this error on several occasions by downsizing excessively. It faces the same danger
again for the longer term. The issue is not only what levels of resources are spent on defense but also on what, for what, and
how they are spent. For the United States to maintain its military preeminence, in addition to meeting possible major regional
contingencies (MRCs), it needs specific capability in three areas. First, besides maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent capability
because of concerns with Russian and Chinese existing or potential nuclear postures, the United States needs to acquire
increased capability to deter, prevent, and defend against the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in major
conflicts in critical regions. The regional deterrence requirements might well be different from those with regard to the Soviet
Union during the Cold War because of the character and motivations of different regional powers. U.S. ability to prevent and
defend against use is currently very limited. In the near term, therefore, to deter use of WMD against its forces and allies, the
United States may have to threaten nuclear retaliation.To counter the spread of WMD and their means of delivery (especially
ballistic and cruise missiles), the United States should seek to develop the capability to promptly locate and destroy even well-
protected facilities related to biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Equally important will be
the ability to defend against the use of these weapons, including both active and passive defense. Deploying robust,
multilayered ballistic missile defenses is vital for protecting U.S. forwarddeployed forces and extending protection to U.S.
allies, thus gaining their participation and cooperation in defeating aggression in critical regions. Second, the United States
needs improved capability for decisive impact in lesser regional crises (LRCs) -- internal conflicts, small wars, humanitarian
relief, peacekeeping or peacemaking operations, punitive strikes, restoration of civil order, evacuation of noncombatant
Americans, safeguarding of security zones, and monitoring and enforcement of sanctions. Given the end of the Cold War, the
United States can be more selective in deciding when to become involved militarily. It has not been selective enough during the
past three years. Getting involved in LRCs can erode U.S. capabilities for dealing with bigger and more important conflicts.
Nevertheless, some crises may occur in areas of vital importance to the United States -- e.g., in Mexico, Cuba, South Africa, or
Saudi Arabia -- and others might so challenge American values as to produce U.S. military involvement. The United States
might also consider participating with allies in some LRCs because of a desire either to extend the zone of peace or to prevent
chaos from spreading to a critical region and thereby threatening the security of members of the zone of peace.
8
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Oil is currently the militaries only source of oil – loss of fuel source will
collapse military strength killing heg – transitioning to renewables is key
Michael T. Klare, 5 colleges professor of peace and security studies, 2005, accessed through Google books, Blood and Oil, p. 253
9
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Hybrid electrics solve military dependence on oil
Defense Update, International Online Defense Magazine, 5/20/06, Military Applications of
Hybrid Cars and Trucks, http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED.htm
The US Army expects hybrid-electric powered trucks and the hybrid-electric Future Combat Systems (FCS) to help the service
attain its stated objective of 75 percent lower fuel consumption by 2020. Significant savings have already been demonstrated.
Operating as a hybrid, with a 24-gallon tank, a truck could travel 375 miles without refueling compared to a conventionally-
powered vehicle, traveling less than 60% of that range. Savings will not relate from the cost of fuel itself, but trim a
considerable volume off the army logistical transportation requirements – as fuel takes up about 70 percent of the logistical
tonnage haul in a heavy armored division.
Loss of US leadership results in global nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring 1995, Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a
vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
10
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Contention 3: Iraq Attack
Army vehicles are worn down now, and funding has prevented replacements
from being funded. New fleets are key to winning the war
Mackenzie Eaglen, and Oliver Horn, Senior Policy Analysts for the Heritage Foundation, 2/12/08, Future Combat Systems:
Dispelling Widespread Myths of the US Army's Primary Modernization Program,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/021208e.cfm
Skeptics argue that the US Army is already stretched to its limit fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than invest
in a massive modernization program, they believe the Army should simply buy more of what it knows already works. This
equipment, however, is a legacy of the Cold War. While the platforms have unmatched ability to conduct direct conventional
operations, they are not designed to perform across the full spectrum of operations. In short, the streets of Baghdad, Najaf, and
Fallujah pose entirely different challenges than the plains of the Fulda Gap. Unfortunately, the Army was essentially forced to
"eat its own young" as a result of the defense drawdown of the 1990s. Faced with massive budget cuts and subsequent
contraction from 18 active-duty divisions to ten, the Army chose to maintain its heavy equipment at the expense of
modernization. The Army phased out the SHERIDAN, the service's only light tank, and cancelled its replacement, the Armored
Gun System (AGS). In addition, budget constraints halted research on the development of other advanced armored vehicles,
including the Future Scout and Cavalry System, replacements for the Humvee and BRADLEY Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
Meanwhile, major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing down the Army's fleet of heavy vehicles. The Army
estimates that the operational tempo of ABRAMs and BRADLEYs in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased fivefold and sixfold,
respectively. Coupled with harsh environmental conditions, each year of deployment equals about five years of normal wear
and tear.[1] In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that the advanced age and high use of
equipment in current operations has reduced readiness and ballooned maintenance costs. As such, the Army urgently needs to
modernize more than at any other point in decades.
Current lack of renewable energy causes fuel logistics to prevent success in

Iraq
Amory Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author
and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency, interview with Dave Roberts, 7/27/07,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19995726/
If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or malice --
become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a
pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This
is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, about a third of our
army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known
as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for
efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he coul1d carry out his more important missions. This is a
very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have
focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for
making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.
11
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
SkyBuilt solves – hybrid batteries powered by small solar and wind generators
cuts costs and allows for increased mobility – key to success in Iraq
Mark Clayton, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 9/7/06, In the Iraqi war zone, U.S. Army calls for 'green' power,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-09-07-army-green-power_x.htm
"There aren't a lot of people who have expertise in this area of renewable power in combat operations," Mr. Jones says. "There
are a lot of people in the service who smell like diesel fuel, but not many who have been in the field using solar power and
hybrid-optimized solutions." Even so, he's noticed "there's much more interest today." The high cost of fuel, and troop
casualties in the Iraq war, may be changing that traditional outlook. One guy who thinks he can solve the general's problem is
Dave Muchow, president of SkyBuilt Power in Arlington, Va. Aided by funding from In-Q-Tel, a venture-capital firm for the
Central Intelligence Agency — SkyBuilt makes a hybrid solar-panel and wind-generator power system that fits in a standard
shipping container. It can be dropped onto a mountaintop or into the desert. Its solar panels and wind turbine deploy in minutes.
And where there's water, a "micro-hydro" unit can be dropped into a stream for an added boost. Such 007-style systems are not
cheap. Today, SkyBuilt's "mobile power system" can cost up to $100,000, compared with just $10,000 for a 10-kilowatt diesel
generator. But costs of such hybrid packages begin to look more reasonable when the cost is considered of delivering a gallon
of fuel to a generator gulping it 24/7. The true cost of fuel delivered to the battlefield — well prior to the recent oil price hike
— was $13 to $300 a gallon, depending on its delivery location, a Defense Science Board report in May 2001 estimated. An
analysis in Zilmer's memo puts the "true cost" for fuel for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator at $36,000 a year — about four times
the amount needed to purchase the fuel itself initially. The rest of the cost is due mainly to transportation. On that basis, a
SkyBuilt system could cut costs by 75% and pay for itself for three to five years, the memo estimates. But another cost is time.
Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be made public, the REF
spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to replace fuel, victory could be
forfeited. "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued
casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success." "At the tip of the spear is where the need to avoid the
cost of fuel logistics is most acute," says Amory Lovins, cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who led the 2004 study.
"If you don't need divisions of people hauling fuel, you can realign your force structure to be more effective as well as less
vulnerable."
2 Impacts
A. Middle East Stability
Victory in Iraq is key to Middle East stability
Wall Street Journal, 3/22/06, What if we lose?, http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2006/what-if-we-lose/
Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America’s deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that
would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of
helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Syria would feel
free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to
take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in
the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make
their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.
12
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
The Middle East is the most likely threat to human survival, small crises merge
into global war within days, and the conflict is irreversible
Richard Holbrooke, Former US ambassador to UN, 8/11/06, Guns of August, http://www.nysun.com/article/37776
Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost
anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there.
Syria could easily get pulled into the war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support
Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organization. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to
Al Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's own war in Afghanistan is not going well.
India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive
dictatorship with a growing Islamic resistance. The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the Iraqi Shiite
leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week held the largest anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration in the world in the very heart of
Baghdad, even as 6,000 additional American troops were rushing into the city to "prevent" a civil war that has already begun. This
combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only
nuclear superpower confrontation. The Cuba crisis, although immensely dangerous, was comparatively simple: It came down to two
leaders and no war. In 13 days of brilliant diplomacy, John F. Kennedy induced Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet missiles from
Cuba. Kennedy was deeply influenced by Barbara Tuchman's classic,"The Guns of August," which recounted how a seemingly
isolated event 92 summers ago — an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist — set off a chain reaction that led in just a few
weeks to World War I. There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that
resonates in this summer of crisis: "The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed
to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit." Preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of
American policy. Unfortunately, there is little public sign that the president and his top advisers recognize how close we are to a chain
reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions.
B. Terrorism
Winning in Iraq is key to preventing terrorism on US soil
We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to
Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful
response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While
Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly
and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to
strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast.
Additionally, hybrid electrics allow for cross country patrol teams, which is key
to finding terrorists
All do-able NOW with M113 Gavins. The HE TTD already has centerline driver/TC and cut-down more sloping front. In a
matter of month's the Army's 4 light divisions without ANY armored vehicles that are getting clobbered all over the world in
HMMWV trucks could be have ALL of their men moved around the battlefield under armor but alert and ready to return fire
behind gunshields without getting bogged down in vehicle care; each infantry battalion's Delta Weapons Companies who now
own/operate dangerously vulnerable HMMWV trucks would instead use up-armored M113 Gavins to give their Alpha, Bravo
and Charlie rifle company brethren transportation as needed. Army light units "transformed" with light tracked AFV
capabilities could range out by aircraft and their own superior x-country mobility, armored protection and on-hand firepower
anywhere in the world with weeks of supplies to flush out enemy terrorists hiding in remote areas. We could throw a cordon
around wherever the Bin Ladens are hiding and stay there "tightening the noose" until he appears dead-or-alive.
13
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
US retaliation from an attack would lead to global nuclear war
Jerome Corsi, author of bestseller “Unfit for Comand”, PHD in poly sci from Harvard, 4/20/05, Horrific scenario: NYC hit by
terrorist nuke 'Atomic Iran' presents second-by-second description of feared attack,
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43817
The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios
The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the
incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to
respond or against whom.
The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been
no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the
hijackers were radical Islamic extremists.
There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their
improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of
finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive
rubble.
Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known
enemy ? Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam.
Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The
moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world ? more than 1 billion human beings in countless
different nations ? would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The
apocalypse would be upon us.
Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would
see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came
down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic
defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there
was never a better opportunity to destroy America.
In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people
and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the
United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to
absorb the blow and recover.
The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could
reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be
drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations
focus on attacking one another.
So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many
of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the
Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching
nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the
Chinese.
Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option
in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear
devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially
when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic
extremists with assistance from Iran.
But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York,
Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's
mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty,
yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the
president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the
country was still capable of exacting revenge.
14
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Contention 5: Solvency
SkyBuilt stations provide enough power to fuel vehicles and all field
operations, and operate in all conditions – key to creating a mobile army
John Dillin, Christian Science Monitor, 10/18/05, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p02s01-sten.html
What if you had a power unit that generated substantial electrical energy with no fuel? What if it were so rugged that you could
parachute it out of an airplane? What if it were so easy to set up that two people could have it running in just a few hours?
Now there is such a device - built by a small Virginia start-up - and the federal government has taken notice.
SkyBuilt Power Inc. has begun building electricity-generating units fueled mostly by solar and wind energy. The units, which
use a battery backup system when the sun is down and the wind is calm, are designed to run for years with little maintenance.
Depending upon its configuration, SkyBuilt's Mobile Power Station (MPS) can generate up to 150 kilowatts of electricity, says
David Muchow, the firm's president and CEO. That's enough to power an emergency operations center, an Army field kitchen,
or a small medical facility.
Privately owned SkyBuilt now has a new investor - In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm set up by the US Central Intelligence
Agency. Skybuilt and In-Q-Tel will announce Tuesday that they have signed a strategic development agreement, including an
investment in SkyBuilt.
In-Q-Tel's support is a breakthrough for the small firm. (The "Q" in In-Q-Tel is a whimsical play on the movie character "Q"
who supplies James Bond with nifty gadgets.) SkyBuilt provides innovative energy solutions with the potential to help meet a
wide variety of critical government and commercial power needs, says Gilman Louie, In-Q-Tel president and CEO.
The power stations could have important uses for disaster relief, homeland security, military operations, intelligence work, and
a variety of commercial applications. The units are not yet designed for use by homeowners.
Though it is not mentioned, SkyBuilt units would have obvious applications in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where soldiers
risk their lives over long supply lines to truck in fuel for generators.
Developing Hybrid electric technology is key to spurring both a short and long
term transition to lighter and more efficient vehicles
Asher H. Sharoni, and Lawrence D. Bacon, global security, February 1998, The Future Combat System (FCS): A Satellite-
fueled, Solar-powered Tank?, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1998/01/1fcs98.pdf
DARPA has announced its intention to invest more than $40 M(!) to develop and test the HEPS over the coming few years.
Competing teams will develop and demonstrate an integrated HEPS for a 15-ton vehicle (e.g. FSCS), but they will also be
required to demonstrate, by computer simulation and computer virtual modeling, that a more powerful version of the HEPS
could be integrated into a 40-ton vehicle (e.g., FCS). Granting industry the prerogative to come with its own designs, without
stringent directives from DARPA, is another fine idea that has great merit and will pay handsome dividends in terms of shorter
schedules and overall reduced developmental costs. Nonetheless, though same basic technology could be used to power the
FCS, it is not in accordance with the requirement for simplified and reduced logistics. Integrated HEPS are more efficient, and
have improved performance compared to contemporary diesels or turbine-based power packs. They operate with less noise and
with reduced thermal signature, thus improving survivability. It remains to be seen whether integrated HEPS will come out less
costly in production and deployment than contemporary power packs. Attempting to capture the best of two worlds, HEPS
seem to be more applicable, as a near-term solution, to the lighter FSCS and similar vehicles, and less so for the longer-term,
heavier FCS. HEPS is still going to require diesel or turbine fuel for its operation, and would add a piston engine or a gas
turbine, in addition to a sophisticated electrical power generating system, to worry about.
15
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
1AC
Government incentives are key to alternative energy development in the
military
Paul Carlstrom, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/11/05, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BUG7IDL1AF1.DTL&type=printable
These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and
Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices. "Price is no object for
the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features." All
three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million. Nanosys' $9.4
million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all
of this research is solar-related. Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government
assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable. "The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through
incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.
Investing in hybrid electric technology allows for an immediate transition to a

more efficient and ready army
It’s time the American Congress assert civilian control over the military and get involved with the future direction of its Army.
It must not stand on the sidelines as our Army self-destructs in an ill-conceived all-wheeled vehicle make-over. Congress
should direct the Army to upgrade its M113 Gavins with the computers they crave, but with actual physical superiority features
like RPG-resistant armor, band-tracks, hybrid-electric drive for 600 mile range and stealth operation, so that THE ENTIRE
ARMY IS TRANSFORMED IMMEDIATELY as the WWII generation would, we are talking days and weeks here not months
and years. America's Army is at war now and it needs more upgraded M113 Gavin light tracked AFVs in the non-linear fight
not trucks. Congress should begin by creating units along Colonel MacGregor's designs and get rid of staff bureaucracies so
they are manned by Soldiers not paper-pushers.
16
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Inherency
Hybrid electric vehicles are being developed now, but increased R&D is key
Nicholas R. Jankowski et al, Lauren Everhart, Brian Morgan, Bruce Geil, Patrick McCluskey, 8/6/07, US Army Research
Laboratory, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4539636/4544069/04544111.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=4544111
The United States Army is looking in the near term to leverage hybrid propulsion technologies to provide improved system
power, survivability and lethality for both the Current and Future Force [1]. Additionally, due to the high cost of delivering fuel
to the battlefield, the use of hybrid technology could improve platform efficiency and reduce overall logistic costs [2]. In
developing these systems, military requirements are driving improvements in certain areas. Specifically, stressed operation in
harsh environments necessitates advanced cooling systems for the power electronics components, and weight and volume
constraints of Army platforms demands maximum system power density. Achieving these goals requires innovation in power
device and thermal management technologies.
17
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Inherency
Hybrid electric vehicles are only prototypes now, full scale production has yet
to begin
Army News Service, 10/19/05, Air assault troops experiment with Hybrid Humvee, http://www.forum.militaryltd.com/101st-
airborne-division-air-assault/m15904-air-assault-troops-experiment-hybrid-humvee.htm
The Hybrid Electric Humvee is being developed by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering
Center in Warren, Mich. Two prototypes participated in the exercise at Fort Campbell, and another was on display the
following week at the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington, D.C.
Two of the Soldiers who participated in the Humvee’s assessment at Fort Campbell were on hand at AUSA to help man the
display and explain how the vehicle operates.
The HE Humvee has a small, lightweight 2.2-liter diesel engine and a 75 kW brushless DC generator to provide electric power
for the wheel-drive motors. The vehicle also has an auxiliary power distribution system for export of clean power in the amount
of 10 kW. If additional power is required, provision is made to install a second APDS, TARDEC officials said
“It’s a prototype and has faults,” admitted Staff Sgt. Michelangelo Merksamer, of HHC, 1/506th Infantry, who experimented
with the vehicle at Fort Campbell and manned the exhibit at AUSA. He explained that the field assessments were designed to
work out the bugs.
“It has some applications down the road once you work things out,” he said.
Spc. Jeffrey Hammes of the same unit said the vehicle just doesn’t yet quite handle like a Humvee.
In the silent electric mode, the vehicle crawls, and in the hybrid mode the throttle sometimes sticks at 25 miles per
hour, he said.
Soldiers liked the “Silent Watch” capability that allows the Humvee to set in a battle position at night and operate radios,
battery chargers and other devices without the need to periodically run the engine to charge the battery, they said.
The vehicle's engine generator and battery systems can provide 75 kilowatts of continuous power and up to 250 kW of peak
power, according to TARDEC engineers. This power is available from the vehicle’s generator and battery-storage system,
without towing any additional generator in a trailer behind the vehicle.
The Hybrid Electric Humvees are considered simply demonstrator units right now, said a TARDEC spokesman, adding that
there are no plans yet to field the vehicle.
18
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Inherency
No hybrid vehicle programs exist now
David Axe, staff writer for Defense Tech, an official military blog, 8/29/06, http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002718.html
For a long time, now, the Pentagon has been looking to land diesel-electric hybrid vehicles to improve fuel economy, reduce
logistics and allow power export. But after a decade of research and development, military hybrids are still years away from
production, as I describe in detail in the current National Defense Magazine:
“Right now, we do not have a current hybrid program that targets fielding,” says Gus Khalil, team leader of hybrid-electric
research at the Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC.
TARDEC, a division of the Research, Development and Engineering Command, in Warren, Mich., is the military’s main
research center for vehicle technologies.
Khalil and other TARDEC engineers have been developing hybrid-electric engines and testing vehicle demonstrators since
1992.
19
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Inherency
The DOD is not meeting its renewable energy goals now
Nick Turse, Foreign Policy In Focus, Associate Director and editor of Tomdispatch.com, 3/24/08, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097/
No doubt due to his outfit’s penchant for petroleum guzzling, in 2005, then secretary of defense Rumsfeld issued a memo
calling on DoD staff to develop plans for employing alternative power sources and energy-saving technologies. As defense
technology expert Noah Shachtman noted in early 2007, while the “Department of Defense might not care about the
environment,” it had met its green goals ahead of schedule. As a result, the Pentagon now touts itself as environmentally
conscious, drawing attention to its use of wind power at the naval station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and its dabblings in
“cleaner, ‘greener’ hybrid fuel.” On March 24, 2006, the Pentagon’s American Forces Press Service published an article,
“Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Help U.S. Military Cut Gas Usage,” speculating that someday such technology might significantly
reduce the military’s “dependence on hydrocarbon-based fuels for transportation needs.” That day is not yet in sight. In fact,
on March 23, 2006, the day before that article was published, the Pentagon quietly announced a series of DoD contracts that
demonstrated the degree of its continuing addiction to oil: a $241,265,176 deal with Valero Energy; a $171,409,329 agreement
with Shell Oil; separate contracts of $156,616,405 and $23,923,354 with ConocoPhillips; a $124,152,364 agreement with
Refinery Associates of Texas; a $121,053,450 deal with Calumet Shreveport Fuels; a $118,374,201 jet fuel contract with Gary-
Williams Energy Corporation; a $75,094,613 agreement with AGE Refining; a $43,994,360 deal with Tesoro Refining; and a
$29,524,800 contract with Western Petroleum – all of which had a completion date of April 30, 2007.
20
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Inherency – Costs
Costs are preventing development of hybrid electric vehicles now
Sandra Erwin, Editor of the National Defense Industrial Association, April 2001, Array of Army Hybrid-Drive Vehicles Expanding
Steadily, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Apr/Array_of_Army.htm
If the Army deployed a mobile tactical operations center, for example, soldiers could draw power from the vehicle rather than
bring a generator, Winters said. “It’s a logistics savings. It allows you to plan on the move. It reduces logistics footprint and
saves weight.” The unanswered question, however, is cost. “We really don’t know yet,” said Winters. Companies often are
reluctant to divulge cost information about technologies that are still experimental. Several industry sources said it would be
reasonable to expect that a hybrid-electric vehicle would come with a 20 percent cost premium. Winters said that the savings
from not needing an additional electric-power generator will not be enough. “This vehicle is too expensive to justify it only as a
generator.”
21
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Army Dependent On Oil

The Army is mad dependent on oil
Nick Turse, Foreign Policy In Focus, Associate Director and editor of Tomdispatch.com, 3/24/08,
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=15591&printsafe=1
But Rumsfeld's military was more than just an armed occupier sent to lock down the planet's oil lands. It was also a known
petrol addict. In his book Blood and Oil, Michael Klare laid out the little- acknowledged facts about the Pentagon's oil
obsession: The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and
armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its
ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S.
military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could
neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there. And the deployments DoD has
"rushed its forces" to in recent years - in Afghanistan and Iraq - have sucked up massive quantities of oil. According to Fuel
Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagon's fuel- buying component, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from
October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714 gallons of jet fuel, alone, for military operations in
Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19, 2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC provided U.S.
forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In 2005, Lana Hampton of the DoD's Defense Logistics
Agency revealed that the military's aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each
month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of
oil every day (the equivalent of the entire nation of Sweden's daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil
markets, estimates that the number is really closer to 500,000 barrels.
22
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Now Key To End Dependence

We’ve already reached the peak – action now is key to preventing rising oil
prices from threatening operations
Michael Kane, staff writer for From the Wilderness, 3/30/06,
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_military_prepares.shtml
The Army Corp. of Engineers completed a report in September of 2005 titled Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S.
Army Installations. Though completed six months ago, it was not publicly available until recently. The report focuses entirely
on Peak Oil, and lists the date for Global Peak Oil as falling somewhere between 2005 and 2020.1 But, further in the report,
2005 is explicitly stated as being the year that global oil production likely peaked: Petroleum experts Colin Campbell, Jean
Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, and Albert Bartlett (using various
methodologies) have all estimated that a peak in conventional oil production will occur around 2005. The corporate executive
officers (CEOs) of Agip, ENI SpA (Italian oil companies), and Arco have also published estimates of a peak in 2005. These
reliable estimates all project that conventional oil peak production will occur within the next few years (Campbell and
Laherrere 1998; Youngquist 1997; Campbell 2004). Reduced demands caused by high prices may delay the peak slightly, but
the peak is certainly within sight.2 There are admissions all over this document validating what FTW has been reporting on for
over four years, and they use the same credible sources we’ve cited repeatedly. When viewed in conjunction with other
Department of Defense (DoD) reports, we see clearly that the military is preparing its American installations for blackouts by
surrounding itself with renewable energy infrastructure both on- and off-base. From the DoD Renewable Energy Assessment
Final Report published in March of 2005: (The DoD will) encourage installations to evaluate renewable energy alternatives as
part of contingency planning for grid outages. Planning should be done regionally, include regional utilities and suppliers, and
consider the use of the installation’s renewable energy capacity as part of a local islanding strategy. [emphasis added]3 For
more than a year I have been documenting the military’s ongoing development and embrace of renewable energy technologies.
The Air Force has been doing the same by forming the Renewable Working Group (RWG) to assess all renewable technologies
within 100 miles of domestic military installations including those located on-base. They have also just announced that they are
the largest purchaser of renewable energy in the nation.4 It cannot be mere coincidence that the Army’s Peak Oil report was
published online only days before CNN aired their Peak Oil documentary (without invoking the term) and just weeks before
the DoD hosted their first of many “interagency conversations on energy” where former Director of Central Intelligence James
R. Woolsey was the main speaker. There is a lot moving under the carpet. March 2006 marks the beginning of Peak Oil’s
coming out party. The current energy situation is described in this report as “highly uncertain,” “problematic,” and the outlook
for oil is “not good.” The report also states that, “The United States is headed for a significant crisis in natural gas supply.” The
realistic picture of pessimism painted by this report is sure to help propel the knee jerk reactions FTW and other publications
have long predicted were on the horizon: the further exploitation of nuclear energy and coal. The stage is also being set to use
Peak Oil as false justification for resource wars around the globe even though the report prefers the rhetoric of environmental
“greening” to that of global conquest. This rhetoric is invoked because the finance community has recognized global warming
as a significant risk to international markets. The trade of CO2 emissions is a new and growing derivatives market that emerged
from the Kyoto Protocol being embraced by most developed industrial nations (excluding the U.S.). Environmentalists be
warned: the military is not your friend. They are concerned with protecting global capitalism, not the ecosystem. If the military
is so concerned about the environment, why is there not one mention of limiting growth in the Army report? Don’t be fooled,
be smart. The report does a somewhat decent job of viewing renewable energy in a realistic light, but ignores the most
fundamental problems these technologies confront in the face of Peak.5 There is one honest admission in regards to the reality
of biofuels: Biofuels, despite their dubious energy effectiveness, will grow considerably due to tax credits and government
programs.6 In other words, taxpayer money will subsidize inefficiency. We must recognize not only what this report says but
also what it leaves out. It recognizes that Global Peak Oil almost certainly occurred last year and that we must start a mitigation
plan immediately, but it never once mentions the Hirsch Report from SAIC that states such a plan must begin 30 years prior to
Peak to avoid major social and economic turmoil. What does that tell us? 2 + 2 = ? Peak is upon us; this report is the Army’s
warning shot, and they are prepared to do whatever they must to protect their own interests regardless of what the government
does or does not do: The Army needs to present its perspective to higher authorities and be prepared to proceed regardless of
the national measures that are taken. 7
23
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Mil Uses A Lot Of Oil

The Pentagon consumes more oil than most nations – it’s totally dependent on
petroleum
Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers
and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, 6/14/07, the Pentagon v. Peak Oil,
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2007/06/klare_pentagon_peak_oil.html
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis --
either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this
figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S.
warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S.
combat operations in the Middle East war zone. Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated
annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of
Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption. Such
numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for
every soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the
war zone -- soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to
sustain an "expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of
arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add
this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of
knowing. And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption.
Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems --
virtually all powered by oil -- the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can
be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI
Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day.
This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
24
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Oil Key To Mil

A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and
petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will
force people to make profound changes in their daily lives -- as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as
painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally
severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world's number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be
disproportionately affected by a doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce
its profligate consumption of oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases. The rising price of oil is
producing what Pentagon contractor LMI calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range objectives and the
realities of the energy marketplace. "The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing," it explained in an
April 2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts
resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."
25
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Increased Oil Key To Mil

LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military
strategy imposed by the Bush administration -- the Bush Doctrine -- are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion
of America's stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war
machine; and pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against "rogue states" like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing
weapons of mass destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum
products -- either because such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or because they imply an accelerated
tempo of military operations. As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires that "our forces must
expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for
expedient deployment anywhere in the world"; at the same time, they "must transition from a reactive to a proactive force
posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks." It follows that, "to carry out
these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense.... Considering the trend in operational fuel
consumption and future capability needs, this ‘new' force employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the
deployed setting."
26
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Military Key To Heg

Military strength is key to heg
Stephen Gardner, managing editor of euro-correspondent.com, June 2004, Questioning American Hegemony,
http://www.nthposition.com/questioningamerican.php
The second main underpinning of the orthodoxy of American hegemony is American military power. US military spending is
vast. It will be an estimated USD 400 billion in the budget year 2005, dwarfing the defence spend of any other country. The US
has the world's most technologically advanced and potentially devastating arsenal. Once again, the media reflects the
orthodoxy that American military might is hegemonic. In The Observer in February 2002, for example, Peter Beaumont and Ed
Vulliamy wrote, "The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the
rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back." [1]
27
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Military Key to Ending Oil Dependency

Shifting the military away from oil dependency is key to embrace an
environmental movement away from oil
Steve Martinot, Professor at the Center for Interdisciplinary Programs at San Francisco University, 2007, “Militarism and Global
Warming, http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-06.html
In order to seriously address the problem, the movements (ecology, environmentalist, anti-consumption, alternative energy) will
have to be anti-militarist. The military is key to the cycle of self-generation of global warming at the human (initiatory) end of
the spectrum of factors. The military may not be the worst offender in producing greenhouse gases in the pragmatic sense, but it
is the worst offender as an entity and an ideology in the world. It has to be seen as lying at the heart of the offense itself. It is
not possible for the environmental movement to take a step toward preserving the environment unless two things are brought to
an end — the existence of the US military machine and the existence of the corporate structure.
28
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Plan Solves Casualties

Alt energy from SkyBuilts key to preventing casualties
Off Grid, Alternative Energy Magazine, September 2006, US Army’s Renewable Power, http://www.off-grid.net/2006/09/11/606/
Despite desert temperatures, the hot “thermal signature” of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to US outposts, experts
say. With convoys still vulnerable to ambush, the fewer missions needed to resupply outposts with JP-8 fuel to run power
generators - among the Army’s biggest fuel guzzlers - the better, the memo says.
“By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road,
thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors,” reads the unclassified memo posted on the website
InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month.
29
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good - Kagan

Hegemony prevents global nuclear conflicts in every region of the world
Robert Kagan 7/19/07, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign
international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably
riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other
nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater
significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world
's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law,
the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is
relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a
liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many
others value.
American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of
regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks
like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of
a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington.
The return of great powers and great games
If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive
national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical
tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely
suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been
powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This
does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the
superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with
the United States and with each other.
National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as
unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they
regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that
power is passé; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe
power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more
significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are
important for a nation.
Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution
and low defense spending -- now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising
power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to
be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a
competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and
this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a
nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a
"greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks
more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past.
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically
Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European
order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist
on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical
leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the
Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of
those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their
security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national
identity than with plausible external military threats.
30
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good - Kagan

<card continues, no text removed>
16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that
Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed,
it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult.
One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions
are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in
the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran,
which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as
much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States.
Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it
has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational
direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high
ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be
the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role.
Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al
Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle
East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire
for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also
by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation." Islamists have more than a
century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even
Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who
can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the
Israeli cancer in their midst.
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations,
Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East
Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal
after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing
through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the
Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also
engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and
Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a
traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place
as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they
are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They
profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of
billions of people around the globe.
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the
new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its
regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently
the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes
through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and
destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That
could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.
It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world
even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other
nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be
the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil.
Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of
31
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good - Kagan

<card continues, no text removed>
the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at
least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on
land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is
now impossible.
Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power.
Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European
nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought,
but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States
could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible
without renewing the danger of world war.
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb
to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine
that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place.
But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of
power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially
since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China,
the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the
interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement?
Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United
States and Europe.
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world 's
great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt
between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing
the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory.
Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states.
These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the
United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most
nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of
most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the
region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.
In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation --
could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations
on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the
possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe,
history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States
withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the
likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under
unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more
passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role
it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand
back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel,
which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to
Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil
supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on
the ground.
32
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good - Terrorism

US leadership is necessary to prevent terrorist use of WMDs
Gary Schmitt – Resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute –
2006, “Is there any alternative to U.S. primacy?” The Weekly Standard, Books & Arts, Vol. 11 No. 22, February, Lexis
<The core argument itself is not new: The United States and the West face a new threat--weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of terrorists--and, whether we like it or not, no power other than the United States has the capacity, or can provide the
decisive leadership, required to handle this and other critical global security issues. Certainly not the United Nations or, anytime
soon, the European Union. In the absence of American primacy, the international order would quickly return to disorder.
Indeed, whatever legitimate concerns people may have about the fact of America's primacy, the downsides of not asserting that
primacy are, according to The American Era, potentially far more serious. The critics "tend to dwell disproportionately on
problems in the exercise of [American] power rather than on the dire consequences of retreat from an activist foreign policy,"
Lieber writes. They forget "what can happen in the absence of such power.">
33
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good - Economy

US heg is key to the global economy and free trade
Michael Mandelbaum, 2005, professor and director of the American foreign policy program at Johns Hopkins, The Case for
Goliath) pg 149-150
It is satisfying because if the strings that manipulate events the world over lead back to Washington and New York, then the
world may be seen as intelligible, coherent, and rational, if not benign. It is plausible because, as by far the most powerful
member of the system of sovereign states, the United States surely does exercise considerable influence. Globalization—the
spread around the world of cross-border economic transactions—is not an American invention, nor does the United States
control the trade and investment that enriches some, harms others, and alters the daily routines of tens of millions; but
American-based firms certainly do conduct a large part of the world's trade and investment, American economic policies do
affect conditions in the rest of the world and the system of global market relations within which these often disruptive
transactions take places does rest on the military might and the economic strength of the international system's most powerful
member.
34
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Heg Good – East Asia War

US is key to solve East Asia proliferation
Robert Lieber – Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University – 2005, The American Era: Power and
Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 174]
Taken together, these Asian involvements are not without risk, especially vis-a-vis North Korea, China-Taiwan, and the uncertain
future of a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Nonetheless, the American engagement provides both reassurance and deterrence and thus eases
the security dilemmas of the key states there, including countries that are America's allies but remain suspicious of each other. Given
the history of the region, an American withdrawal would be likely to trigger arms races and the accelerated proliferation of nuclear
weapons. It is thus no exaggeration to describe the American presence as providing the "oxygen" crucial for the region's stability and
economic prosperity.37
And, that leads to nuclear war

Joseph Cerincione 2k, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign
Policy, “The Asian nuclear reaction chain”, Issue 118, Spring, Proquest
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere
else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly
negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian
continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses.
Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South
Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear
arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is
forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia-whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the
largest Asian nuclear power-struggles to maintain territorial coherence.
Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one
nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an
interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development.
If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade
into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and,
perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.
35
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE -> FCS
Hybrid Electric Vehicles allow for the transition to a Future Combat System
now
Actions that deny our Soldiers the tools they need to win and survive speak louder than words and promises of inadequate
wheeled solutions later (or most probably never). The Soldiers in Iraq don't care about whose "vision of warfare" gets the
limelight, they want WHAT WORKS and will kill the enemy and get them home alive to their families with all their limbs
intact. Up-armoring sides, underbelly and providing gunshields on the Army's M113 Gavins light tracked AFVs would cost a
mere $78K each and for less than $500K would make them hybrid-electric silent and stealthy to sneak up on hiding enemies
TODAY instead of waiting 10 years from now for a mythical $10 million each, Future Combat System (FCS). Hybrid-Electric
M113 Gavins would have all the electrical power Soldiers could ever need to run all the computers and electronic gadgets the
Army is so infatuated with. Going to band tracks while slightly reducing land mine blast resistance is countered by the fact that
with Hybrid Electric drive we can put the driver/TC farther back in the hull away from over the current driver position over the
left track offset from the right front engine arrangement. The reason is that HE drive can be run by wire controls so the driver
can actually be ANYWHERE on or off the vehicle. Another benefit of HE drive is you can then build a "V" channel wall on the
left and right of the centerline driver/TC for a secondary bulkhead against land mines.
36
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE -> FCS
Hybrid Electric Vehicles allow for an immediate transition to a Future Combat
System
It’s time the American Congress assert civilian control over the military and get involved with the future direction of its Army.
It must not stand on the sidelines as our Army self-destructs in an ill-conceived all-wheeled vehicle make-over. Congress
should direct the Army to upgrade its M113 Gavins with the computers they crave, but with actual physical superiority features
like RPG-resistant armor, band-tracks, hybrid-electric drive for 600 mile range and stealth operation, so that THE ENTIRE
ARMY IS TRANSFORMED IMMEDIATELY as the WWII generation would, we are talking days and weeks here not months
and years. America's Army is at war now and it needs more upgraded M113 Gavin light tracked AFVs in the non-linear fight
not trucks. Congress should begin by creating units along Colonel MacGregor's designs and get rid of staff bureaucracies so
they are manned by Soldiers not paper-pushers.
37
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE -> FCS
Developing Hybrid electric technology is key to both the short and long term
transition to a Future Combat System
Asher H. Sharoni, and Lawrence D. Bacon, global security, February 1998, The Future Combat System (FCS): A Satellite-
fueled, Solar-powered Tank?, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1998/01/1fcs98.pdf
DARPA has announced its intention to invest more than $40 M(!) to develop and test the HEPS over the coming few years.
Competing teams will develop and demonstrate an integrated HEPS for a 15-ton vehicle (e.g. FSCS), but they will also be
required to demonstrate, by computer simulation and computer virtual modeling, that a more powerful version of the HEPS
could be integrated into a 40-ton vehicle (e.g., FCS). Granting industry the prerogative to come with its own designs, without
stringent directives from DARPA, is another fine idea that has great merit and will pay handsome dividends in terms of shorter
schedules and overall reduced developmental costs. Nonetheless, though same basic technology could be used to power the
FCS, it is not in accordance with the requirement for simplified and reduced logistics. Integrated HEPS are more efficient, and
have improved performance compared to contemporary diesels or turbine-based power packs. They operate with less noise and
with reduced thermal signature, thus improving survivability. It remains to be seen whether integrated HEPS will come out less
costly in production and deployment than contemporary power packs. Attempting to capture the best of two worlds, HEPS
seem to be more applicable, as a near-term solution, to the lighter FSCS and similar vehicles, and less so for the longer-term,
heavier FCS. HEPS is still going to require diesel or turbine fuel for its operation, and would add a piston engine or a gas
turbine, in addition to a sophisticated electrical power generating system, to worry about.
38
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Key To Heg

Developing a future combat system is key to winning future wars and
American military predominance
Max Boot, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Fall 2006, the paradox of military
technology, http://www.cfr.org/publication/11666/paradox_of_military_technology.html
While armored vehicles have improved over the years, so have anti-armor weapons. These range from heavy missiles fired
from vehicles or aircraft (such as the U.S. Hellfire and Russian Ataka-V) to hand-held versions (such as the U.S. Javelin, the
Franco-German Milan, and the Russian Kornet). In addition, even the most advanced tanks can be disabled by other tanks,
massive mines, aerial bombs, or artillery shells. The full impact of advances in anti-armor technology has not yet become
apparent because most of the forces that have fought modern tanks in recent years—Iraqis, Palestinians, Chechens—have not
possessed the latest defensive weapons. But the U.S. success in wiping out Iraqi tanks from stand-off ranges suggests that, in
the constant struggle between offense and defense, the advantage may have shifted against heavy armor. The Israelis got a taste
of what the modern era has in store when, in August 2006, their tanks and troops ran into a blizzard of advanced anti-tank
rockets during their attacks on Hezbollah’s strongholds in southern Lebanon. The U.S. Army is responding to these changes by
budgeting at least $124 billion—and possibly a great deal more—to develop a Future Combat System that will replace much of
its current armored force with a family of lighter vehicles, manned and unmanned, with stealth designs that will make them
harder to detect and hybrid-electric engines that will lessen their fuel requirements. (One of the chief disadvantages of the gas-
guzzling Abrams is its heavy dependence on vulnerable supply lines.) Future vehicles will feature advanced composite armor
designed to deliver more protection than current models for the same amount of weight, but they will rely for protection less on
armor and more on locating and destroying the enemy before they are attacked. Critics believe this places too much faith in
“perfect situational awareness,” and that these vehicles will not be of much use against guerrillas who can strike with no
warning. As usual, the infantryman’s tools have changed least of all. A modern soldier has better protection than his forefathers
if he wears Kevlar body armor, but his firepower—which comes primarily from a handheld assault rifle like the M-16 or AK-
47 and from a variety of crew-served mortars and machine guns—does not vary significantly from that of a G.I. or Tommy in
World War II. Electronic guns that are capable of spitting out a million rounds a minute have been developed, and might permit
a soldier to stop an incoming rocket-propelled grenade with a solid wall of lead. But such weapons are years away from being
fielded. Unfortunately for Western soldiers, the proliferation of small arms can put even the most primitive foes on an almost
equal footing with the representatives of the most advanced militaries. There are 250 million military and police small arms
knocking around the world, and more are being manufactured all the time by at least 1,249 suppliers in 90 countries. The
salvation of information age infantry, at least when they are conducting conventional operations, is their ability to use a
wireless communications device to call in supporting fire on exact coordinates. It is doubtful that any military force will again
enjoy the preponderance of power of General H. H. Kitchener at Omdurman, but Americans dropping Joint Direct Attack
Munitions (JDAMs) on Afghan tribesmen armed with Kalashnikovs—or even on Iraqi soldiers with outdated T-72 tanks—
came close. The American edge decreases considerably, however, when its troops have to deploy for peacekeeping or
counterinsurgency operations which leave them exposed to low-tech ambushes. “With the possible exceptions of night-vision
devices, Global Positioning Systems, and shoulder-fired missiles,” writes retired Major General Robert Scales, a former
commander of the Army War College, “there is no appreciable technological advantage for an American infantryman when
fighting the close battle against even the poorest, most primitive enemy.”
39
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Spending Low

Only 5 billion dollars allocated towards FCS now
Kori Schake, New York Times staff writer, 2/9/06, Jurassic Pork, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/opinion/09schake.html
And the Pentagon has not allocated anywhere near 20 percent of the procurement budget for new programs. The three newest
programs, two of which were under way before 2001, are unmanned aerial vehicles, high-speed sealift and the Future Combat
System, a network of 18 weapons and vehicles for about 45,000 soldiers. The 2007 fiscal year budget provides less than $5
billion for these programs. Mr. Rumsfeld disparages his opponents as industrial age dinosaurs. Yet this is precisely the
approach of this latest defense budget: it continues programs and practices that have been made obsolete by technology,
innovation and field experience.
40
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Key To Heg

Future combat systems are key to sustaining world hegemony
Arthur Cebrowski 2004, Director @ Office of Force Transformation, http://www.ofi.osd.milllibraryllibrary.fllesldocument_383 –
Elements Of Transformation
The overall goal of force transformation in the Department is to ensure that the present superiority of the United States is
sustained in the future despite the attempts of potential adversaries to emulate our new approach to warfare or to develop
asymmetrical strategies that target those areas where we may appear to be vulnerable. Currently, we enjoy a powerful strategic
advantage over our adversaries, particularly in three key areas of competition- aerospace, sea, and cyber-space. However, our
position can be challenged in the future by potential adversaries in all three areas and others, due in part to falling barriers to
competition. The transformation process aims to ensure that we maintain our lead in all of these areas. As shown in Figure 8, in
the fight to gain and maintain information superiority, we must constantly readjust the balance between our forces and those of
our adversaries, making it increasingly complicated for them to satisfy their information needs while simultaneously decreasing
and simplifying our own. In the current and projected future strategic environment, we must retain our competitive advantages
in the crucial areas of information superiority and decision superiority. As described in the Joint Operations Concepts
document, the ability to gain and maintain decision superiority is a key requirement for U.S. forces today and is likely to
remain so for the foreseeable future. The objective of decision superiority is to turn an information advantage into a
competitive advantage. To facilitate decision superiority, our forces must gain and maintain information superiority, an
imbalance in the information domain with respect to the adversary. The power of superiority in the information domain
mandates that the U.S. fight for it as a first priority, even before hostilities begin.
41
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Key To Iraq

New military technology is key to winning in Iraq
A year into the invasion of Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq-bound soldiers in a remote desert
camp somewhere in Kuwait. With the holiday season in full swing, the Secretary may have expected a quick meet-and-greet to
reiterate that the well being of the troops remained a priority. The soldiers, however, had other plans in mind. In the ensuing
weeks and months since coalition troops had, with unprecedented success, smashed the Iraqi Army and toppled Saddam
Hussein, the sense of inexorable supremacy was slowly slipping away. Troops were under daily attack from insurgents
employing a variety of weapons from small arms and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) to improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) and suicide bombs. The lack of armored vehicles had left many American troops exceptionally vulnerable. As the
attacks mounted, the number of casualties quickly surpassed those suffered during the initial invasion. In what was later
described by a reporter as an "extraordinary exchange," the troops told Secretary , they were being sent into combat with
insufficient and aging equipment. One soldier described how his National Guard unit had to scrounge through local landfills for
pieces for rusty scrap metal and bullet-proof glass to bolt on their Humvees for protection--known as "hillbilly armor."
Drawing cheers from many of the 2,300 troops in attendance, he asked, "Why don't we have the resources readily available to
us?"
42
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Key To Iraq

New military technology is key to winning in Iraq and Afghanistan
Skeptics argue that the US Army is already stretched to its limit fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than invest
in a massive modernization program, they believe the Army should simply buy more of what it knows already works. This
equipment, however, is a legacy of the Cold War. While the platforms have unmatched ability to conduct direct conventional
operations, they are not designed to perform across the full spectrum of operations. In short, the streets of Baghdad, Najaf, and
Fallujah pose entirely different challenges than the plains of the Fulda Gap. Unfortunately, the Army was essentially forced to
"eat its own young" as a result of the defense drawdown of the 1990s. Faced with massive budget cuts and subsequent
contraction from 18 active-duty divisions to ten, the Army chose to maintain its heavy equipment at the expense of
modernization. The Army phased out the SHERIDAN, the service's only light tank, and cancelled its replacement, the Armored
Gun System (AGS). In addition, budget constraints halted research on the development of other advanced armored vehicles,
including the Future Scout and Cavalry System, replacements for the Humvee and BRADLEY Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
Meanwhile, major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing down the Army's fleet of heavy vehicles. The Army
estimates that the operational tempo of ABRAMs and BRADLEYs in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased fivefold and sixfold,
respectively. Coupled with harsh environmental conditions, each year of deployment equals about five years of normal wear
and tear.[1] In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that the advanced age and high use of
equipment in current operations has reduced readiness and ballooned maintenance costs. As such, the Army urgently needs to
modernize more than at any other point in decades.
43
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
FCS Key To Readiness

Future combat systems solve readiness
Through Future Combat Systems, the Army aims to dominate the ground by the same means the Navy and Air Force have
achieved maritime and air superiority. FCS seeks to harness information and precision technologies with the service's already
unrivalled firepower to kill the enemy faster than it can react. While this will not always be operationally or tactically feasible,
improved situational awareness and rapid communication will often allow soldiers to operate from a distance and maintain
better vehicle protection. Lt.Gen. Stephen Speakes describes the FCS concept as the "ability to reach out, identify with much
greater clarity where the enemy is, what the enemy is doing and attempt to intercept him or destroy him far before it becomes a
steel-on-steel engagement."[4] Currently, Army combat vehicles have little point-to-point or shared targeting capability.
Today's sensors have relatively slow response times and lack "persistent stare," survivability, and networking capabilities. FCS
is designed to close these operational gaps. FCS sensors and robots will bolster battlefield intelligence-gathering capabilities
through surveillance and reconnaissance, while the integrated network will provide a unified picture not only to every
individual within a unit, but across the entire force whether soldier, ground vehicle, helicopter, or unmanned aerial vehicle.[5]
Moreover, FCS brigades will have "more teeth and less tail." Robots that enhance capabilities, vehicles that require fewer
soldiers to operate, and less downtime for maintenance and re-supply mean that each brigade will need significantly fewer
support personnel. As a result, each FCS brigade will have up to 500 fewer soldiers but the same number of infantry as a
current infantry brigade and twice the number of infantry as a heavy brigade. Integrating these technologies will enable each
FCS brigade to operate on the battlefield with unprecedented communications and coordination, more firepower, and more
speed for up to three times longer than current combat units. Army doctrine has established the objective that an FCS brigade
combat team will be capable of 72 hours of sustained combat. Additionally, the Army will insert FCS capabilities throughout
the force beyond FCS brigades. Soldiers throughout the force will be able to pass digital images back and forth, access
information directly from the UAVs and helicopters overhead, and identify the enemy as "red" targets visible to all soldiers on
the network. In short, FCS is critical to equipping all Army forces to prepare for a complex future of multiple, simultaneous
threats.
44
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Alt Energy Key To Iraq

Current lack of renewable energy prevents success in Iraq
Amory Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author
and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency, interview with Dave Roberts, 7/27/07,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19995726/
If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or malice --
become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a
pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This
is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, about a third of our
army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known
as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for
efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he coul1d carry out his more important missions. This is a
very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have
focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for
making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.
45
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Alt Energy Key To Iraq

Without a new source of energy, victory in Iraq is impossible
Mark Clayton, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 9/7/06, In the Iraqi war zone, U.S. Army calls for 'green' power,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-09-07-army-green-power_x.htm
But another cost is time. Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to be
made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to replace fuel,
victory could be forfeited.
"Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty
accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."
"At the tip of the spear is where the need to avoid the cost of fuel logistics is most acute," says Amory Lovins, cofounder of the
Rocky Mountain Institute, who led the 2004 study. "If you don't need divisions of people hauling fuel, you can realign your
force structure to be more effective as well as less vulnerable."
46
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
ME War Bad - Nassar

Only Middle Eastern war will lead to nuclear war –instability avoids usual fears
of reprisal, and would lead to extinction
Bahig Nassar, Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary
Organization, 11/25/02, keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East,
http://www.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar.htm
Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. Formerly, the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union
had prevented them, under the balance of the nuclear terror, from launching war against each other. In the Middle East, the
possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction leads to military clashes and wars. Instead of eliminating
weapons of mass destruction, the United States and Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them, while
they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose deadly threats to other nations. But the production, proliferation and threat
or use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear chemical and biological) are among the major global problems which could
lead, if left unchecked, to the extinction of life on earth. Different from the limited character of former wars, the current wars in
the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them.
47
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Iraq Bad – Prolif

Winning in Iraq is key to preventing proliferation
The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn’t have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy
to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example,
Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn’t want to be next. Gadhafi’s “voluntary” disarmament in turn helped uncover the
nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran’s two decades of deception. Now Iran is dangerously close to
acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from
Iraq, Iran’s mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An
Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world.
48
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Iraq Bad – Democracy

Winning in Iraq is key to spreading democracy
We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear
majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have
watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis
later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the
battle for Muslim “hearts and minds” than to betray our most natural allies.
49
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
SkyBuilts Rock
Skybuilts are the shiz
Prime Newswire, 10/9/07, SkyBuilt Power Named to 'Ten to Watch List' of Leading Renewable Energy Companies,
http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=128268
ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 9, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- SkyBuilt Power has been named to the "Ten to Watch" list of
leading renewable energy companies in The Clean Tech Revolution (www.thecleantechrevolution.com), the new book released
by Collins, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
In the book, authors Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder identify ten companies in each of eight clean-technology industry sectors
that bear watching for growth and industry influence in the near to mid-term. SkyBuilt has been included in the Ten to Watch
list for the chapter titled "Mobile Technologies: Powering a World on the Go." "Our Ten to Watch lists at the end of each
chapter highlight companies that are playing a significant role in the growth and innovation of the clean-tech industry," said
Pernick. "We chose ten companies, whether public or private, that are poised to make an impact." "SkyBuilt is honored to be
named as a company for investors and others to watch in the fast-growing business of clean tech," said David J. Muchow,
President and CEO. "We strongly believe in the investment, business and growth opportunities of this exciting industry sector,
and we are pleased to be recognized in this significant book that analyzes our unique capabilities." About the book: In book,
the authors identify the major forces that have pushed clean tech from a back-to-the-earth utopian dream to its current
revolution among the inner circles of corporate boardrooms, on Wall Street trading floors, and in government offices around
the globe. List price is $26.95. More information is available at www.thecleantechrevolution.com. About SkyBuilt Power:
SkyBuilt has been called the "Dell of Renewable Energy Systems," and has been highlighted in Business Week, the Wall Street
Journal, New York Times and other publications. It has patented the first plug-and-play, mobile, expandable, rapidly
deployable, solar and wind power stations. "SkyBuilt designs, fabricates, sells and services end-to-end, renewable energy
power systems," said Chairman Bill Buck. SkyBuilt's product line includes small, suitcase size, renewable power systems,
rapidly deployable solar blankets, skid, trailer-based, and freight container based power platforms from 500W to 150kW or
more. These systems can use off the shelf commercial products because of SkyBuilt's patented rapid deployment and power
integration features.
50
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
SkyBuilts Rock
Skybuilts are the shiz
John Dillin, Christian Science Monitor, 10/18/05, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p02s01-sten.html
What if you had a power unit that generated substantial electrical energy with no fuel? What if it were so rugged that you could
parachute it out of an airplane? What if it were so easy to set up that two people could have it running in just a few hours?
Now there is such a device - built by a small Virginia start-up - and the federal government has taken notice.
SkyBuilt Power Inc. has begun building electricity-generating units fueled mostly by solar and wind energy. The units, which
use a battery backup system when the sun is down and the wind is calm, are designed to run for years with little maintenance.
Depending upon its configuration, SkyBuilt's Mobile Power Station (MPS) can generate up to 150 kilowatts of electricity, says
David Muchow, the firm's president and CEO. That's enough to power an emergency operations center, an Army field kitchen,
or a small medical facility.
Privately owned SkyBuilt now has a new investor - In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm set up by the US Central Intelligence
Agency. Skybuilt and In-Q-Tel will announce Tuesday that they have signed a strategic development agreement, including an
investment in SkyBuilt.
In-Q-Tel's support is a breakthrough for the small firm. (The "Q" in In-Q-Tel is a whimsical play on the movie character "Q"
who supplies James Bond with nifty gadgets.) SkyBuilt provides innovative energy solutions with the potential to help meet a
wide variety of critical government and commercial power needs, says Gilman Louie, In-Q-Tel president and CEO.
The power stations could have important uses for disaster relief, homeland security, military operations, intelligence work, and
a variety of commercial applications. The units are not yet designed for use by homeowners.
Though it is not mentioned, SkyBuilt units would have obvious applications in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where soldiers
risk their lives over long supply lines to truck in fuel for generators.
51
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
SkyBuilts Rock
SkyBuilts are tight
The US Army in Iraq may soon be using a $100,000 per unit solar-panel and wind-generator power system that fits in a
standard shipping container, according to The Christian Science Monitor. It can be dropped onto a mountaintop or into the
desert. The solar panels and wind turbine deploy in minutes. And where there’s water, a micro-hydro unit can be dropped into a
stream for an added boost. Its successful deployment would mean civilian versions would follow quickly.
The US military is already one of the largest consumers of renewable energy, especially at off-grid outposts in North America.
Four 275-foot-tall wind turbines were unveiled last year at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, meeting about a
quarter of the base’s electrical needs and saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a “Priority 1″ request for “a self-
sustainable energy solution” including “solar panels and wind turbines” may find the SkyBuilt “mobile power system” better in
battle than a $10,000, ten-kilowatt diesel generator.
The 007-style box is made by SkyBuilt Power Inc. of Arlington, Va. Aided with funding from In-Q-Tel, a venture-capital firm
for the Central Intelligence Agency. The units can be configured to deliver anywhere from 3.5 to 150 kilowatts of electricity,
depending on how many options are included.
Though many solar and wind technologies have been developed, what’s new here is the ability to combine them in a package.
Using heavy, rugged steel container as a base means it is not necessary to pour heavy footings and install towers and guy wires
to support the turbine, or hold solar panels steady against wind pressure.
The modular setup allows off-the-shelf components of many types to be added, including combustion-based generators and
alternators, solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries.
The company’s president and CEO, Dave Muchow, said his inspiration and model in forming the company was the laptop
computer, with its plug-and-play versatility of components, from the chips to the hardware and the peripherals. The open
architecture enables a mixing and matching of components to suit the individual user so that they don’t have more than they
need, and they can just add on what they might be missing.
This may be the first time a frontline commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle, says Christian Science
Monitor. Indeed, it underscores the urgency: Without renewable power, US forces “will remain unnecessarily exposed” and
will “continue to accrue preventable … serious and grave casualties,” says Zilmer.
52
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
AT Costs A Lot
SkyBuilts are cheap compared to current fuel prices
Still, such lessons are learned slowly, says Hugh Jones, a former analyst with the Center for Army Analysis, now a consultant
on energy issues to the US Army. Analyzing feedback from the frontlines after Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait 1990, he
produced a raft of studies on uses for solar power in combat.
But during the 1990s when fuel was cheap, he found little interest in the idea.
“There aren’t a lot of people who have expertise in this area of renewable power in combat operations,” Mr. Jones says. “There
are a lot of people in the service who smell like diesel fuel, but not many who have been in the field using solar power and
hybrid-optimized solutions.”
Even so, he’s noticed “there’s much more interest today.” The high cost of fuel, and troop casualties in the Iraq war, may be
changing that traditional outlook.
And costs of such hybrid packages begin to look more reasonable when the cost is considered of delivering a gallon of fuel to a
generator gulping it 24/7. The true cost of fuel delivered to the battlefield - well prior to the recent oil price hike - was $13 to
$300 a gallon, depending on its delivery location, a Defense Science Board report in May 2001 estimated.
An analysis in Zilmer’s memo puts the “true cost” for fuel for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator at $36,000 a year - about four
times the amount needed to purchase the fuel itself initially. The rest of the cost is due mainly to transportation. On that basis, a
SkyBuilt system could cut costs by 75 percent and pay for itself for three to five years, the memo estimates.
53
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
DARPA Solves FCS

DARPA solves FCS
Courtney E. Howard, staff writer for Military and Aerospace Electronics, July 2006,
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=Feat&ARTICLE_ID=259760&KEYWORDS=saft&p=32
The parties involved in the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program-including the U.S. Army, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), and various technology vendors and systems integrators-are focused on doing precisely that:
inventing the future. The U.S. Army, with the help of DARPA, is undergoing a significant, structured transformation-which
will involve substantial innovations in power-electronics technologies to help fuel the nation’s growing appetite for lightweight
electronics on the emerging digital battlefield. Leveraging the lessons learned in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War
on Terrorism, the Army is developing a network-centric force that lends itself to more effective peacekeeping and swifter
defeat of enemies in battle. FCS involves the development and fielding of a networked system of systems, a Future Force that
encompasses soldiers and vehicles that are versatile, responsive, lethal, survivable, and suitable for the full spectrum of military
operations.
54
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Military Spills Over

Army hybrid electric technology spills over into civilian applications
Army News Service, 4/20/06, Army Advances Alternative Energy Technologies,
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8872
DETROIT (Army News Service, April 20, 2006) – The Army is at the forefront of alternative energy advancements that will
improve the capability of America's military forces. Working alongside industry and academia research leaders, these
technology developments will not only support our Armed Forces, but have unlimited commercial applications. The Army Tank
Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), with its National Automotive Center (NAC), is
working with industry and academia partners nationwide to research cutting edge technologies in hybrid, hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicle developments. "The research base in Michigan allows us (TARDEC) to collaborate with our automotive and academic
partners to develop alternative energy solutions that are transferable to both the military and industry," said Dr. Richard E.
McClelland, TARDEC Director. Ranging from solar panel power for the individual Soldier, to hydrogen, fuel cell and battery
power solutions for military and commercial vehicles, the NAC sits as the gatekeeper for technology transfers between military,
industry and academia. Army partnerships in motion include: * State-of-the-art Hydrogen Hybrid Demonstrator Vehicle –
Quantum Technologies Inc., using a Ford Hybrid Escape platform, is working to pair hybrid electric vehicles with a hydrogen
delivery and storage system that can potentially offer a cost effective alternative to fuel cell power; * Dana Corporation's
parallel and series Intelligent Hydraulic Drive technology for the Army's Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and the
HMMWV; * The Hydraulic Hybrid, Advanced Materials, and Multi-fuel Engine Research program with Eaton Corporation's
Hydraulic Launch Assist system; and * United Solar Ovonic's UNI-PAC solar panel, which can be worn by Soldiers and
adapted to recharge a field generator or vehicle. Headquartered at the Detroit Arsenal, Warren, Mich., TARDEC is the Nation's
laboratory for advanced military automotive technology is. TARDEC's mission is to research, develop, engineer, leverage and
integrate advanced technology into ground systems and support equipment throughout the life cycle. Its technical staff leads
research in ground vehicle survivability, mobility, intelligent systems, and maneuver support and sustainment. TARDEC's
National Automotive Center is the Army's official link to working with commercial and academic partners to create vehicles
that give the Army the mobility, survivability and agility it needs to operate efficiently and effectively in today's new threat
environment. For the military, the NAC's partnership approach makes it possible to improve vehicle performance, safety and
endurance while also reducing design, manufacturing, operations and maintenance costs. For commercial partners, the
application of jointly developed technologies has similar impacts – safer cars and trucks, more advanced technology available
to the consumer, and lower costs because of the broader market base.
55
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Gov Funding Key

Government funding is key to alternative energy development in the military
Paul Carlstrom, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/11/05, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BUG7IDL1AF1.DTL&type=printable
These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and
Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices. "Price is no object for
the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features." All
three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million. Nanosys' $9.4
million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all
of this research is solar-related. Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government
assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable. "The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through
incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.
56
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE Solves
HE is awesome
Business Wire, 8/15/07, BAE Systems Unveils Hybrid Electric Drive System for Future Combat Systems,
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070815005658&newsLang=en
“The integration of this fuel-saving, hybrid electric propulsion system is another illustration of the benefits of the partnership
between the FCS 'best of industry' team and the U.S. Army to accelerate the development and delivery of next generation
technologies to our nation’s soldiers,” said Dennis Muilenburg, vice president-general manager, Boeing Combat Systems, and
FCS program manager. “This system will be common to all FCS Manned Ground Vehicles which will require less fuel than
current force vehicles and lower overall maintenance costs, and is further evidence that FCS technologies are on track and our
team is ready to move into initial production in 2008.”
Other advantages over currently fielded, conventional combat vehicle power train systems include:
Greatly increased power for integration of high efficiency electric drives, sensors, and computing systems
Exportable electric power that reduces logistics burden for towed generators
Enhanced low speed maneuverability
Smaller overall vehicle profile for concealment
Low acoustic signature and quiet ride
Embedded diagnostics/prognostics permitting maintainers to directly determine the source of faults and advanced planning for
unscheduled maintenance.
Produces high amounts of electrical power - equivalent to the demand of 300 typical American homes and over 10 times that
provided by a current force vehicle. There is sufficient electric power to enable the use of future high power technologies.
57
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE Solves Oil Dependence

Hybrid electrics solve military dependence on oil
Defense Update, International Online Defense Magazine, 5/20/06, Military Applications of
Hybrid Cars and Trucks, http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED.htm
The US Army expects hybrid-electric powered trucks and the hybrid-electric Future Combat Systems (FCS) to help the service
attain its stated objective of 75 percent lower fuel consumption by 2020. Significant savings have already been demonstrated.
Operating as a hybrid, with a 24-gallon tank, a truck could travel 375 miles without refueling compared to a conventionally-
powered vehicle, traveling less than 60% of that range. Savings will not relate from the cost of fuel itself, but trim a
considerable volume off the army logistical transportation requirements – as fuel takes up about 70 percent of the logistical
tonnage haul in a heavy armored division.
58
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Plug Ins Solve Warming

Plugins solve warming
Salon, 1/22/08, the car of the future is here, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/22/plug_in_hybrids/index1.html
The big greenhouse gas savings would come about as plug-ins enable a major transition toward clean electricity and away from
petroleum-based fuel, which is getting dirtier every year, as unconventional oil, such as Canadian tar sands, becomes more
popular. Unlike petroleum, electricity is poised to get greener in the future, especially as we fight climate change. Indeed, once
we have a national cap on carbon emissions, plug-ins will drive even faster growth of the diverse and growing numbers of
carbon-free electricity sources, which include solar photovoltaics, solar thermal electric, wind, geothermal, nuclear and,
potentially, coal with carbon capture and storage. By providing distributed energy storage to the grid, plug-ins could make
intermittent renewables like wind power (mostly available at night) more cost-effective -- and ultimately assist renewables in
becoming the nation's primary source of power. Also, if in a few years you were buying a plug-in hybrid, which might last
until 2030, you can safely bet that gasoline prices then are going to be much higher than today's $3 a gallon. So plug-ins will be
the best hedge money can buy against oil shocks. Also, given that most early adopters of plug-ins are likely to be
environmentally conscious, I would expect many of them to run their hybrids on 100 percent renewable power, making plug-
ins a major carbon reducer from the start. Preventing catastrophic climate change will require the average U.S. car and SUV to
have 80 percent to 90 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, compared to current vehicles (the same for trucks,
airplanes and ships). Plug-ins could be an essential enabler of such deep reductions. They can easily be made flexible-fuel
vehicles, so if low-carbon cellulosic biofuels prove practical and affordable, they can be the primary liquid fuel for longer trips.
Absent high-efficiency vehicles like plug-ins, it is unlikely we will have enough spare arable land and water in 2050 for
cellulosic biofuels to provide sufficient fuel to achieve such deep reductions across the entire transportation sector.
59
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
T Cards
Alternative Energy refers to hybrid-electric, battery electric, solar, and fuel cell
Xinhua News, March 07, BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, China to promote production of alternative energy vehicles, lexis
Beijing, March 7 (Xinhua) - The Chinese government will frame regulations on the production of autos fuelled by alternative
energies to encourage research and produce of environmentally-friendly "green" vehicles.
The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) published on its website on Wednesday a draft regulation on
managing the production of alternative energy vehicles and called for suggestions and comments.
The term alternative energy vehicles refers to hybrid-electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles (including vehicles on solar
energy), fuel cell electric vehicles, etc.
The draft regulation defines three levels of alternative energy auto technology.
Prototypes will only be allowed to operate in approved areas, and more sophisticated products will be allowed to be produced in
batches for sale in approved areas.
60
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
T Cards
Alternative energy includes solar, wind and hybrid
The Globe and Mail, 5/22/08, Energy stocks at bargain prices, lexis
If ever there was an investment strategy that was well suited for a fund, renewable energy is it. That's because investors who
love the idea of tapping into one of the no-brainer growth industries of our new century are met with a dizzying number of
choices. From solar to wind, from energy producers to technology developers, from small startups to giant conglomerates, there
are scores of stocks that have been given the "alternative energy" label - but only a handful will reward investors with gains
between now and the day when the internal combustion engine and the coal-fired power plant are laid to rest. The good news?
While investing in alternative energy is not exactly a novel idea, stock prices have recently fallen to more attractive levels
because investors have recoiled from risk, making the sector far more attractive today than it was just three months ago. There
is no strict definition for what an alternative energy company is. Some observers believe that car companies can be green if they
develop a few hybrid models to add to their fleets of gas guzzlers. At the same time, General Electric Co. is often given the
green label because it manufactures wind turbines, even though that side of its business represents a small fraction of its overall
revenues. That's why WilderHill Clean Energy Index comes in handy. This is an index of 42 relatively pure plays on alternative
energy, from a small name like Ascent Solar Technologies Inc. to big names like Cree Inc., a $2.4-billion (U.S.) company that
develops products for efficient lighting. Geography makes no difference, though most are traded on U.S. exchanges. Even
better, the index is tracked by an exchange-traded fund, which resembles a mutual fund but trades like a stock. The
PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy fund was launched two years ago, attracting $1.3-billion of assets. As the price of oil
climbed to record heights and the fast-growing global economy grasped for a cleaner way to heat homes and power cars, the
fund's unit price soared from a low of $12.75 in 2005 to a high of $28.72 at the end of 2007 - a 125-per-cent gain that made
alternative energy look priced for perfection. It was: The U.S. economy sputtered soon after and it brought down growth
expectations for the global economy with it, making alternative energy look more like a game for the rich than a global
necessity.Investors retreated from risky assets at the same time that some observers wondered aloud whether the solar industry
in particular was about to suffer from a glut. Since its peak, the PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy fund has tumbled 34 per
cent. This sudden downturn might have put off many investors who prefer to have momentum on their side.But the downturn
also means that once-expensive stocks - which commanded price-to-earnings ratios that would have made a dot-com investor
blush - are far more reasonable now. If you believe that alternative energy is the future, now is an ideal time to buy in to that
vision.
61
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
T Cards
The IEA defines alternative energy to include natural gas, wind, solar, bio-
energy, geothermal, hydropower, hybrids, and batteries
South China Morning Post, 11/23/07 Friday, Climate Indices; Indicators that cover the renewable energy sector
launched this year, SUPPLEMENTS; Pg. 5, Lexis
Credit Suisse's Private Banking division launched the Credit Suisse Global Alternative Energy Index which covers the official
sectors defined by the International Energy Agency which are natural gas, wind, solar, bio-energy, geothermal and hydropower
and hybrids and batteries. Those sectors are equally weighted in the index.
62
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
T Cards
Hybrid is alt energy
Fox Business, 7/9/08, http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/industrials/uqm-technologies-announces-fiscal-
quarter-electric-hybrid-electric-vehicle/
UQM Technologies, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of power dense, high efficiency electric motors, generators and
power electronic controllers for the automotive, aerospace, medical, military and industrial markets. A major emphasis of the
Company is developing products for the alternative energy technologies sector including propulsion systems for electric,
hybrid electric and fuel cell electric vehicles, under-the-hood power accessories and other vehicle auxiliaries and distributed
power generation applications. The Company's headquarters, engineering and product development center, and motor
manufacturing operation are located in Frederick, Colorado. For more information on the Company, please visit its worldwide
website at www.uqm.com.
63
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Obama Supports Plan

Obama has proposed hybrid electric vehicles
Jim Rutenberg, staff writer for the New York Times, 7/12/08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12tone.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216495585-
OoUsvHgO6hKsQFY1HdJ7Og
There was the party-sponsored television advertisement and a McCain-sponsored Web video that said Mr. Obama was opposed
to “innovation” on energy policy, the development of electric cars and nuclear power. (Mr. Obama has proposed a $150 billion
investment in the accelerated development of alternative energy sources, including hybrid-electric car engines, and does not
oppose nuclear energy.)
64
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
McCain Supports Plan

McCain supports hybrid electric vehicle development
USA Today, 7/18/08, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-18-McCain-automobile-industry_N.htm
WARREN, Mich. (AP) — Washington allies haven't always been easy to come by for U.S. automakers, but Republican
presidential candidate John McCain told General Motors Corp. employees Friday that reviving the struggling industry would
be of utmost importance in his administration. "The key, integral, vital part of our ability to eliminate our dependence on
foreign oil will be directly related to that sign over there," McCain told an invitation-only town hall meeting at the GM
Technical Center in Warren, pointing to a sign for GM's first plug-in electric car, the Chevrolet Volt. "I wish you every success,
and I want to help in every way," he said. Organizers added seats and risers to accommodate at least 500 people in GM's
Design Dome. The Macomb County technical center north of Detroit employs nearly 17,000 people and is where GM is
designing the Volt. Before the town-hall meeting, the Arizona senator toured the facility with GM Chief Executive Rick
Wagoner and other company executives. McCain examined and got into a model of a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid-electric
car GM says it plans to have on the market by 2010. McCain has called for incentives for next-generation vehicles and the need
to move to new technology such as the Volt.
65
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Potential Solvency Advocate For Public

Potential advocate?
No country has ever delivered a mass-market alternative fuel vehicle without government mandates. Plug-ins will no doubt
need initial help, although they probably require less government intervention than other alternative fuels since they don't
require an entirely new fueling infrastructure. To spur their development, Brookings Institution scholar and White House
veteran David Sandalow recommends that the federal government buy 30,000 plug-ins at an $8,000 premium. He suggests that
the government offer an $8,000 consumer tax credit for purchasers of the first million plug-ins, and a $4,000 rebate for
purchasers of the second million.
66
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE Now
The DOD is funding hybrid electric research now
Lisa Blumenstock, press secretary for congressman Michael McNulty, 11/8/07, http://www.house.gov/mcnulty/pr071108b.htm
$3.2 million for the C9 Corporation for Hybrid Electric Combat Vehicle development project
The C9 Corporation, a New York State-based semiconductor and solar company will utilize this funding to continue to develop
the Silicon-Carbide type materials for the Department of Defense Future Combat System Hybrid Electric Vehicle and
Advanced Power System Program. Utilizing these materials has the potential to increase combat effectiveness by providing
advantages in speed, higher equipment operating temperatures, and higher equipment voltage ratings. C9 recently signed a
lease with the Arsenal Partnership to locate an office at the Watervliet Arsenal.
67
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
HE Now
Hybrid electric vehicles will be introduced by 2014
Todd Lopez, Army News Service, 5/30/08, First FCS Manned Vehicle to Make Debut, http://www.military.com/news/article/army-
news/first-fcs-manned-vehicle-to-make-debut.html?col=1186032325324
All eight of the FCS manned combat vehicles are mounted on nearly the same chassis -- they share more than 80 percent
compatibility across the family of vehicles. They are unique in that they are electrically powered. A diesel engine on board
turns a generator, which in turn charges batteries, which in turn powers electric motors that drive the tracks. In fact, the entire
vehicle is electrically powered. While at Yuma, it is primarily the chassis and the relationship between the chassis and mission
module that will be evaluated. The mission module for the NLOS-C, a 38-caliber, 155-mm howitzer, has already been tested
extensively at Yuma, independent of the chassis. "That is the end-state gun, it has finished firing over 2,000 rounds since
October 2006, as part of the gun development program," McVay said. "The mission module is approaching the 90-plus percent
threshold. For the chassis -- this is the first time the Army will take a full hybrid-electric, independent semi-active suspension
system and mate it with a mission module and run it into tests." The testing at Yuma will put two years of testing on the chassis
before a critical design review for the MGV family is performed in 2010. "This will have impact for the other seven vehicles
because it allows us to learn what works and what doesn't work before we build the other prototypes that get delivered in
2011," he said. McVay said by 2010, the Army expects to take delivery of the first six "special interest program platform"
NLOS-C vehicles at Fort Bliss, Texas. There, the Army Evaluation Task Force will begin its testing and development of tactics,
techniques, procedures and doctrine for the vehicle. The task force is scheduled to receive six vehicles a year, between 2010
and 2012 -- for a total of 18. The Army expects to see prototype vehicles for other FCS MGVs beginning in 2011. And by
2014, it's likely the NLOS-C will have reached full operational capability, and will be ready for fielding to combat units.
68
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Hybrid Fails
Hybrids fail in the winter and overheat – ensures they won’t work
Sandra Erwin, Editor of the National Defense Industrial Association, April 2001, Array of Army Hybrid-Drive Vehicles Expanding
Steadily, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Apr/Array_of_Army.htm
But hybrid-electric vehicles have been dismissed for not being rugged enough. Critics, for example, have cautioned against the
hybrid drive’s lack of endurance in harsh weather conditions. Winters conceded that batteries freeze and stop working in
extremely cold weather. “We designed this vehicle with an environmental chamber built around the batteries, so we heat and
cool the batteries as necessary.” The system, he said, will work within the minus-40 to plus-65 degree temperature range.
69
Military Aff
DDI 2008 SS
JBox
Plug Ins Can’t Solve Warming

Plugins can’t solve warming – they require electricity from coal
Plug-ins are not a global warming solution by themselves. The current electric grid is half coal power, so when plug-ins are
running on conventional grid power, they cut net greenhouse gas emissions by perhaps one-third, compared to a regular hybrid
running on gasoline. They would, however, cut emissions by well over half compared to a conventional vehicle.
70

Military Elective Vehicles Affirmative

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Military Elective Vehicles Affirmative

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Military Aff

Military Spills Over.....................................................................................................................................................................55

bringin the pain

Casualties kill domestic support for the military

Stealth and mobility are key to military flexibility and readiness

Loss of US leadership results in global nuclear war

Current lack of renewable energy causes fuel logistics to prevent success in

Investing in hybrid electric technology allows for an immediate transition to a

Army Dependent On Oil

Now Key To End Dependence

Mil Uses A Lot Of Oil

Oil Key To Mil

Increased Oil Key To Mil

Military Key To Heg

Military Key to Ending Oil Dependency

Plan Solves Casualties

Heg Good - Kagan

Heg Good - Kagan

Heg Good - Kagan

Heg Good - Terrorism

Heg Good - Economy

Heg Good – East Asia War

And, that leads to nuclear war

FCS Key To Heg

FCS Spending Low

FCS Key To Heg

FCS Key To Iraq

FCS Key To Iraq

FCS Key To Readiness

Alt Energy Key To Iraq

Alt Energy Key To Iraq

ME War Bad - Nassar

Iraq Bad – Prolif

Iraq Bad – Democracy

DARPA Solves FCS

Military Spills Over

Gov Funding Key

HE Solves Oil Dependence

Plug Ins Solve Warming

Obama Supports Plan

McCain Supports Plan

Potential Solvency Advocate For Public

Plug Ins Can’t Solve Warming

Você também pode gostar