Space Mil DA + addendum

DDI 2008 SS
Taylor
Space Neg Tournament Updates
Alright what up – Here’s the deal. If they claim space mil your link section is fucking EASY. However – most won’t and you gona
have to read links. I would start before the round by reading my 2nr link overview that I’m going to BEAT some kids on in about 2.5
hours to give you a sense of what links you think are best and then work backwards to what links you want in the block and 1nc. Tons
of impacts too. STRESS TIMEFRAME.
Also some shit on the end of this file – colonization impossible, a disease turn, and a nasa cred internal link to answer add ons that
some teams claim about environment.
Have fun – I’ve won 2 space rounds on this so far at DDI – soon to be 3.
Peace.

Space Neg Tournament Updates...................................................................................................................................................1

Links..............................................................................................................................................................................................2
Links..............................................................................................................................................................................................3
Links..............................................................................................................................................................................................4
Links..............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Solar Power -> Missile Defense....................................................................................................................................................6
Space Mil Decreases Heg Extn.....................................................................................................................................................7
Impact – Preemption.....................................................................................................................................................................8
Impact – Co-op..............................................................................................................................................................................9
Impact – Indo-China....................................................................................................................................................................10
Impact – Escalation.....................................................................................................................................................................11
Impact – laundry List..................................................................................................................................................................12
Turns Case...................................................................................................................................................................................13
Counterplan Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................14
Counterplan Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................15
Counterplan Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................16
2NR Link Blocks.........................................................................................................................................................................17
2NR Impact Blocks.....................................................................................................................................................................18
AT: Colonization.........................................................................................................................................................................19
Space Col -> Disease...................................................................................................................................................................20
Nasa Cred I/L..............................................................................................................................................................................21

Like a dog without a bone, an actor out on loan 1

Riders on the storm.
 Links
The Pentagon and Airforce have been attempting to build up space weapons in
secret – only barrier is tech means plan spurs open development.

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

The current thinking of military and industry officials was revealed last month at the annual Strategic Space and Defense
Conference in Omaha, Nebraska. At that meeting, held in the backyard of the US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).
And that strategy includes not just war mongering against countries like China and Pakistan by "space warriors," but it
poses a threat to the safety and liberties of all Americans.
The Militarization of Space
Military space officials will have to develop new doctrine and concepts for offensive and defensive space operations,
power projection in, from, and through space, and other military uses of space. -- Rumsfield's Commission Report
The opening talk at the Strategic Space conference was given by USSTRATCOM acting commander Lt. Gen. Robert Kehler,
who repeated that old cliche about the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." Implicitly responding to China's
January self-attack, he added, "Well you know what? We get paid to deal with interesting times."
But how USSTRATCOM plans to deal with them isn't clear. In 2002, the Air Force undersecretary for military space
acquisitions told The New York Times that "We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space," but that "we
are exploring those possibilities."
This fall marks the 40th anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty, an agreement among 98 nations (including the U.S.) that,
banned nuclear arms from space but left out mention of other weapons. Nevertheless, no nation has ever launched an attack
into or from space, and the costly US missile-defense program that began life two decades ago as President Reagan's "Star
Wars" dream continues to founder.
Spending on missile defense has doubled since 2000, and the program is expanding into Poland and the Czech Republic. But
Bruce Gagnon of Brunswick, Maine, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, believes
the US Missile Defense Agency, with its current official budget of more than $9 billion, is just "a Trojan Horse."
He says, "Missile defense brings in the money but the real story is offensive, preemptive attack technologies for global
strike. That's where the real action is." Gagnon agrees that current U.S. space policy remains entirely consistent with the
aggressive stance taken in the Rumsfeld report, "although they have slacked off just a bit on their rhetoric."
In September, The New York Times relayed a similar message from a former Pentagon official, who said that space weapons
are "still definitely part of the program, but they don't emphasize it because the arms-control people come out of the
woodwork."
 Links
Satellites will be used for military purposes

Helen Caldicott, co fonder of physicians for social responsibility, president of nuclear power research institute, nobel peace prize
nominee. And Craig Eisendrath, senior fellow at the center for international policy and author of Bush League Diplomacy, 2007,
excerpt from War in Heaven: Stopping the arms race in outer space before its too late. Available online.

The fact that the ICBMs were designed to exit the earth's atmosphere before raining death and destruction down on Moscow,
St. Petersburg, New York and Washington, marked the first instance of the use of outer space for military purposes. And once
this threshold had been crossed, military planners realized that space itself could be militarized -- satellites could be used to
identify military targets on the other side of the world and accurately guide missiles to their targets. Before satellites
were used in this way, it had not been feasible for the United States or the Soviet Union to fly over each other's territory under
international law. The United States could not observe the Soviets, who might be developing a missile launching platform in
some obscure area of Siberia, unless the United States flew over Soviet territory, a violation of national air space under
international law and an act of war. Satellites allowed such observations to be made unobtrusively and legally for the
purpose of either identifying targets or monitoring arms control agreements. This technology became even more
important after the U-2 incident in 1960, when the American airplane pilot, Francis Gary Powers, was shot down while spying
on the Soviet Union in a high-altitude plane.
The military planners had still other ideas for the military uses of outer space. Not only could missiles move through
outer space and satellites spot targets and guide missiles, but weapons could be permanently placed in orbit outside the
earth's atmosphere and then, on a signal from the earth, bombard bases and cities. Bombardment satellites, and satellites to
knock out the satellites of other countries, looked like the weapons of future wars.

United States Biggest spender on space mil – outweighs nasa programs

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

When we think of "the space program," we generally think of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's (NASA's)
space shuttle flights, the international space station, and future trips to the moon and Mars. But budgets for war-fighting and
spying in space quietly add up to almost three times NASA's budget. The United States accounts for 95 percent the
world's spending on militarization of space and owns more than half of all military satellites.
And starting this year, USSTRATCOM's satellites will be allowed to keep an eye not only on foreign foes but on you and
me as well. This spring, the government for the first time granted the Department of Homeland Security and other domestic
law-enforcement agencies access to ìreal-time, high-resolution images and dataî from military intelligence satellites as they
pass over America's cities and countryside.
Indeed, after her conference talk, Brig. Gen. Jennifer Napper, deputy commander for USSTRATCOM's Global Network
Operations told reporters, "The FBI and CIA are in our operations center 24/7." What are they doing there? No one on the
outside can be sure.
In its article on the newly permitted domestic spying from space, the Wall Street Journal says of intelligence satellites, "The
full capabilities of these systems are unknown outside the intelligence community, because they are among the most
closely held secrets in government."
 Links

1. [probably don’t read] Space exploration will cause environmental exploitation, nuclear
annihilation, arms races, and epidemics
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)
We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous
disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens.
Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth.
Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could
create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious
ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new
global conflicts and confrontations.

A. Exploration will lead to militarization to protect our colonies.

Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)
The Pentagon, through the U.S. Space Command, is working hard to ensure that the space corridor will remain open and free for
private corporate interests. Weapon systems such as nuclear powered lasers and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are now being
funded, researched, and tested in the U.S. It will only be a matter of time until deployment of space based weapons will follow. In
the Space Command’s document, Vision for 2020, they state that "Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national
interests and investments – both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and
enhance their commercial interests. …The control of space will encompass protecting U.S. military, civil and commercial
investments in space…. Control of space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium,
and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required." A parallel, military highway will be created between the Earth and the
planets beyond. Documents commissioned by the U.S. Congress suggest that U.S. military bases on the Moon will enable the U.S.
to control access to and from the planet Earth. The logo of the U.S. Space Command is "Master of Space."
 Links
Space exploration and colonization sparks militarization and a global arms race – perception of US
control.
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Present international space law speaks against the notion of U.S. space control. The Outer Space Treaty
But there are obstacles to U.S. space "dominance".

of 1967, signed by the U.S. and 90 other countries, affirms "the peaceful purposes" of outer space and forbids "weapons of mass destruction" from
being deployed in space. This same space law also declares that all interplanetary bodies belong to the common good. As NASA lands
on the moon and Mars and explores other planets they are finding gold, cobalt, magnesium, helium 3 and other rich resources. Plans are now underway
to place mining colonies on these bodies. The U.S. is now exploring ways to circumvent international space law in order to "exploit"
these planetary bodies so that corporate interests may secure the enormous financial benefits expected from this Mining the Sky as is described by NASA scientist
John Lewis in his book by the same title.
The Columbus mythology is often invoked to describe our "manifest destiny" as it relates to space exploration and colonization. The
noble explorer theme is used to cover the more practical notion of profits to be made in regards to space. There is big money to be made building and launching
rockets. There is money to be made building and launching satellites. There is money and power to be derived by "controlling" space. And there is money to be made mining the sky. Another obstacle exists

though. If the U.S. can "control" space, so might another nation. Thus we have the early stages of an arms race in space. How will

France, Russia, China or any other nation respond as the U.S. consolidates its "control" of space?
In order to ensure that the Pentagon maintains its current space military superiority the U.S. Space Command is now developing new
war fighting technologies like the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Anti-satellite weapons (ASATS) as well as space based laser
weapons. Star Wars is alive and well. Recent efforts to move toward early deployment of the BMD system, which could easily be
used for offensive purposes, is expected to break the 1972 ABM Treaty as well as the Outer Space Treaty.

Plan leads to colonization and more space trips – allows nuclear materials to be produced in space which
create space weapons
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Nuclear power in space becomes a key ingredient in the plans for space colonization and domination. Nuclear power is seen by NASA as
an appropriate power source for interplanetary missions. Nuclear rockets are envisioned for trips to Mars and nuclear powered mining
colonies are planned for the moon and Mars.
At the same time the U.S. Space Command sees nuclear power as the primary source for the enormous amounts of power generation that will

be required for space weapons. The Department of Energy (DoE) laboratories throughout the U.S., casting about for a new role as the need for more
nuclear weapons diminishes, views space as a great new opportunity for their on-going nuclear production work. Labs like Hanford (Washington state);
Savannah River Plant (South Carolina); Los Alamos (New Mexico); Lawrence Livermore (California); and INEL (Idaho) are already heavily involved in space nuclear power production efforts.
it is crucial for peace and environmental activists to view space as an area of concern. The enormous
As we prepare to move into the 21st century

expenditures of our tax revenues for space must be questioned. The morality and ethics of moving an arms race into space must be
vigorously debated. The environmental consequences of U.S. space policy must be explored and resisted.
But most importantly, the question of the kind of seed we carry from earth into the heavens must be considered by the people of our planet. Are we to allow the U.S., and other nations, to carry the bad seed of warfare, greed,
exploitation and environmental contamination into space? The Columbus mythology does indeed fit. Only it reminds us that the single mindedness that pursues profits and power in the "New World" will also carry grave
Now is the time that we must organize a global call to resist the
implications for centuries to come. Now is our brief chance in history to prevent a great wrong from occurring.

nuclearization and weaponization of space. We must make space for peace

Solar Power -> Missile Defense
 Space Mil Decreases Heg Extn
Dominance isn’t at risk – space can only hurt heg. It makes us more vulnerable

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

Today, U.S. military dominance is so complete that taking the fight to space would add very little and probably make all U.S.
forces more vulnerable.
As for potential adversaries, Krepon and Clary ask, "Why would an attacking country or terrorist group choose a distant target that
provides services to many nations, rather than focusing on a distinctly American target?"
But that hasn't held back the space warriors. United Nations efforts supported by Canada, Russia, European Union members, and a
long list of other nations to ban space weaponry have been vigorously opposed by the Bush Administration. A State Department
official has succinctly explained the U.S. position: "Arms control is not a viable solution for space."
And in Omaha, Gen. Kehler stressed USSTRATCOM's distrust of treaties symbolically: "Boundaries drawn by us will be viewed by
the enemy as seams to exploit."
Other American space hawks have derided international efforts to promote peace and harmony in the heavens as a type of
"lawfare," defining it straight-facedly as "a strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to
achieve military objectives."
USSTRATCOM and its supporters regard other nations' plans to substitute legal accords for bombing and shooting as a diabolical
scheme that can and must be foiled. So, thanks to the space warriors who get together in Omaha each fall, you might lose your TV
reception, your Google Earth views, and maybe your hometown and your family, but at least you'll be safe from "lawfare."
 Impact – Preemption
Nature of space weapons makes preemptive strike inevitable

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

The central problem is the vulnerability of orbiting spacecraft. They have the great advantage of "seeing"vast regions of the
Earth's surface, but that leaves them hanging out there fully exposed. Space objects not only have nowhere to hide; they
also move in fully predictable ways, making them vulnerable to attack at an adversary's convenience.
USSTRATCOM's Gen. Kehler -- who, ironically, bears a slight resemblance to the late actor Peter Sellers (but only as he
played the amiable President Muffley, not the crazed Dr. Strangelove) -- emphasized that dilemma with an old war axiom: "If
the enemy's within range, so are you."
That places space weapons in a classic "use 'em or lose 'em" position, pushing their owner to launch a preemptive strike
at the first sign of danger. In the words of one analyst, "The hair trigger that characterized nuclear deterrence during the
Cold War would be elevated to the heavens."
As for what might bump that hair trigger, most of the rhetoric at the conference focused on the so-called "war on terror." But
when Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz predicted that "our next conflict may involve more traditional warfare against an
adversary with more significant forces," he was pointing at the country that seemed to be on everyone's minds: China.
Back in 2000, China's official Xinhua News Agency gave U.S. strategic planners reason to worry, with an coyly
"hypothetical" article predicting that "For countries that could never win a war with the United States by using the method of
tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice."
China only knocked out its own satellite on Jan. 11; nevertheless, one conference speaker equated that incident's impact to the
alarm caused by the Challenger and Columbia space-shuttle disasters of 1986 and 2003. Others in the hall implicitly compared
the event to an even bigger turning point, referring to it as "1/11."
Speaker after speaker voiced the feeling of vulnerability that comes with having one's most critical military hardware protected
by nothing but the void of space:
"Space is no longer a sanctuary."
"In the past, we were the unique masters of the air and space domains. Today, that cannot be taken for granted."
"Space is not a benign environment anymore."
"Malicious actors can disrupt communications links, and thereby our very way of life."
"We aren't ready for the big show."
Impact – Co-op
Impact – Indo-China
Impact – Escalation
Impact – laundry List
 Turns Case
Turns case – stops cooperative space and offsets civilian purposes for
development

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath answered such arguments in their book War in Heaven: The Arms Race in Outer Space,
published earlier this year. In the wake of the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, they wrote, humans across the globe began
asking, "Would [outer space] be the venue for wars and synchronized killings, or the common space for a complex of
cooperative peaceful efforts benefiting our species? The two uses of space could not exist side by side."
They stress that the first deployment of weapons will set off a multi-trillion-dollar arms race, risk littering orbital space
with enough debris to make it unusable for any civilian purpose, and possibly trigger a nuclear war.

Turns Case – war would lead to detonation of weapons near satellites disabling
them. Also kills heg.

Stan Cox, plant breeder and writer, author of Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, 11/15/07
http://www.alternet.org/audits/67699/?page=2

When they aren't talking about China, military leaders discuss the possibility of, say, Pakistan falling to Taliban types who
might turn to "space jihad," shooting a nuclear weapon into orbit and detonating it. The resulting electromagnetic
pulse could disable spacecraft across a quarter of the Earth's orbital space.
But to create havoc in space, nukes are really overkill. A missile that simply dumped a load of sand in low-earth orbit
could render military commanders blind and deaf.
The pristine emptiness into which Sputnik ventured fifty years ago this fall no longer exists. Today, the busier orbits around
Earth (ranging from 300 to 22,000 miles out) better resemble the industrial parks and military bases that litter the outskirts of
cities.
The Air Force Space Command actually keeps a catalog of every human-made object that orbits the Earth. The number of such
objects currently stands at 18,400. That includes only those measuring inches or more across; however, at a speed of 16,000
miles per hour, even a nut or bolt can mortally wound a satellite.4
 Counterplan Solvency
US Space policy would spur arms race – global dialogue needed

Helen Caldicott, co fonder of physicians for social responsibility, president of nuclear power research institute, nobel peace prize
nominee. And Craig Eisendrath, senior fellow at the center for international policy and author of Bush League Diplomacy, 2007,
excerpt from War in Heaven: Stopping the arms race in outer space before its too late. Available online.

On Sept. 14, 2005, at a conference on space security, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., put the issue succinctly:
The U.S. space policy has global repercussions and a global dialogue is needed. Also, it is important for the American people to
debate this issue. I believe this administration is pushing for the weaponization of space, and I find the trend disturbing for several
reasons: (1) The Congress has not had a real dialogue, and the American people do not understand what is happening; (2) the
weaponization of space actually makes us less safe. I would prefer we put our resources elsewhere and that other nations would
also like to put their resources elsewhere -- such as to eliminate poverty. If the U.S. begins to put weapons in space, I believe other
nations will feel the need to close the gap and level the playing field. By attempting to create and maintain dominance in space,
we are creating a new battlefield, and money that the U.S. is not in a position to spend (we have a $7.5 trillion national debt) will
be spent. ... I think we can protect the interests of America and its allies without opening up the "Pandora's Box" of space
weapons, nor do I believe that weaponizing space is inevitable.

US and other countries are on the brink of a decision – cooperation now is key
to prevent imminent buildup.

Helen Caldicott, co fonder of physicians for social responsibility, president of nuclear power research institute, nobel peace prize
nominee. And Craig Eisendrath, senior fellow at the center for international policy and author of Bush League Diplomacy, 2007,
excerpt from War in Heaven: Stopping the arms race in outer space before its too late. Available online.

The new national space policy lays the basis for a radical change of U.S. policy toward outer space -- the deployment of
weapons. After decades of research and development in outer space, we will show that the U.S. government is contemplating
such deployment. Human beings find themselves at a major crossroads. The Unites States and other countries have a wide
range of exceedingly dangerous weapons on the drawing board. If deployed, these weapons -- designed specifically to
bombard the earth and destroy satellites -- could transform outer space into a major battleground, creating an arms race
costing trillions of dollars and, in a worst-case scenario, triggering a catastrophic nuclear war. This book looks at how the
United States has progressed to the brink of this decision. It offers the first comprehensive overview, for the general reader,
of the specific weapons being contemplated and developed. It argues that the first deployment would be disastrous for the
human race and explores the impact of deployment and the likely political, military and environmental outcomes. Finally, it
explores available means for avoiding such a catastrophe.
 Counterplan Solvency
Cooperation Key to solve – plan results in militarized space which turns back
their advantages. Only scenario for avoiding is the counterplan that leads to
international agreements.

Helen Caldicott, co fonder of physicians for social responsibility, president of nuclear power research institute, nobel peace prize
nominee. And Craig Eisendrath, senior fellow at the center for international policy and author of Bush League Diplomacy, 2007,
excerpt from War in Heaven: Stopping the arms race in outer space before its too late. Available online.

At the very beginning of the space age, humans asked: Would outer space be dominated by one powerful nation and
weaponized, or would it become the common property of mankind? Outer space would either be a model for
international cooperation or a venue for intense and destructive nationalism. Would it be the venue for wars and
synchronized killings, or the common space for a complex of cooperative peaceful efforts benefiting our species? The two
uses of outer space could not exist side by side. Space wars would destroy peaceful satellites and the international
cooperation upon which the peaceful uses of outer space depend. Cooperation of this magnitude requires not only the
absence of conflict but the creation of international agreements on rules, for example, allocating the orbits in outer space to
be used by satellites and allocating specific parts of the radio frequency band for satellite communication.

When we cooperate in space it allows resolution of other issues

Counterplan Solvency
 2NR Link Blocks
Link Debate. (this is every link. Pick a few that the 1ar misses)
1. plan resolves barrier to building space weaponisation – powering them – that causes a massive scale up in investment. That’s
Cox evidence.
2. Space colonization – empirically wherever nations have gained control they have built military protection – ie navies to
protect the seas. Plan creates colonies and a whole new industry in space that the united states would always protect
3. Satellites would be used for military purposes – they are used to spy on enemies and post plan with additional power they
would be used to guide space based missiles – that’s normal means and in the caldicott evidence.
4. Control of space – other countries want to have multilateral operations – perceive plan as a unilateral attempt to control space
– that leads to resistance by them. That’s Gagnon evidence.
5. Colonization has been framed as a way to harness nuclear energy from the moon – pentagon says primary purpose is to build
nuclear weapons in space – plan inevitably causes nuclear weapons everywhere.
6. perception short circuits all of their links – other countries perceive the US as unilateral and militaristic –that triggers the
impacts – more below.

AT Not perceived now/no link uniqueness

1. Plan is a massive step up – current incentives are very small. That’s the 1ac inherency.
2. Pentagon has been downplaying all attempts to militarize due to fear of arms-control lobbies and pacifists – that’s Cox
evidence - plan changes this because it leads to a massive scale up that sends signals to other countries – the premise of their
NSSO evidence and their competitiveness evidence.
3. Solar is key barrier – countries know that we can’t have powerful space weapons now because we have no way to power
them. They perceive a build up of solar power in space as the first step towards building space weapons.

AT: Positive leadership

1. time frame short circuits this – they don’t perceive positive leadership till we beam energy. Not only does aff not beam
energy but it also takes years, perception is first.
2. It’s not positive – plan doesn’t mandate cooperation or anything – prefer evidence citing pentagon officials that says they will
just start building weapons.
 2NR Impact Blocks
Extension of Heg turn –
1. We are ahead of the next 20 nations combined – that’s on the heg flow – means the only scenario for loss of heg is
multilateral actions against the United States. Plan catalyzes this because other nations perceive the United States as
destroying the balance of power – causes everyone to balance against the US. Turns case.
2. Biggest internal link to heg.
a. Time frame – satellites at BEST aren’t developed for 10 years, in the meantime the united states is being sanctioned
and balanced against.
b. Magnitude – one nation cannot pass our competitiveness – but all 150 combined could.
3. Our soft power turn – plan decreases soft power because other countries lose faith in the US as an ally since they are
perceived as militarizing. Soft power is key to heg because it is the only thing that allows us to quarter troops over seas-
that’s nye – turns case.
4. Counterplan is the only way to resolve this – invitation to participate in SBSP causes cooperation and countries to favor the
united states and develop.

Extension of China Turn –

1. China already has flagged space as a key place for military and economic development – that’s in the 1ac. They perceive
plan as an attempt to unilaterally control space – angers them and causes arms race. The impact to this is space wars and
nuclear war – we engage in a hot war – that’s strait times.
2. Outweighs every single other impact in the round.
a. Turns case- China shot down one of their satellites in 07 – evidence indicates that they would do it again in
order to secure space for them selves. They also target NASA labs in order to prevent US space weaps
b. Magnitude – war with china diverts our attention – EVERY Other superpower with nukes takes the opportunity
to attack and gain power – means every nuclear weapon is detonated – that’s strait times
c. Probability – pentagon official said not only would we preemptively strike China but they are the most probable
scenario for our next war.

Extension of Russia –
1. Russia wants to go to space – 1ac evidence proves – our unilateral actions destroys cooperation on other issues including
proliferation and dealing with left over nuclear weapons from cold war – impact is proliferation and extinction.
AT: Colonization
 Space Col -> Disease
A. Space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous land samples
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return,
has written that "…any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated as biohazardous material until proven otherwise." At the
present time NASA has taken no action to create a special facility to handle space sample returns. On March 6, 1997 a report issued
by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that such a facility should be operational at least two
years prior to launch of a Mars Sample Return mission. Reminding us of the Spanish exploration of the Americas, and the smallpox
virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people, DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "contain pathogenic
viruses or bacteria." There are vast deposits of mineral resources like magnesium and cobalt believed to be on Mars. In June of 1997,
NASA announced plans for manned mining colonies on Mars, expected around 2007-2009. The mining colonies, NASA says, would
be powered by nuclear reactors launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

B. Extinction
Daswani, 96 (Kavita, South China Morning Post, 1/4, lexis)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about . There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to:
the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100
people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the
field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively,
complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a
tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on
the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread.
Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS
epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent
"Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a
conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said:

preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the
immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in
the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility
that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
Nasa Cred I/L