Download 1 Security K 1NC

565353529
DDW 2011
1
Security K 1NC
The celebratory discourse of satellite technology seeks global security and excludes critical thought.
Karen T. Litfin, Ph.D., Department of Political Science University of Washington ,19 97, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies,
Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms, The Gendered Eye in the Sky: A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites
Why Earth Observing Satellites Now? Although satellite technology is not new-the first environmental satellites were
launched in the 1970s-a number of factors taken together have catapulted remote sensing to the forefront of global
environmental research in the 1990s. First, the dramatically heightened awareness of environmental problems in general,
and "global" problems in particular, has contributed to an increased willingness on the part of national governments to fund
satellite observation. Second, recent advances in electronics, telecommunications, and monitoring technologies have greatly
enhanced the quality and quantity of data that can be gathered from space. Third, the end of the Cold War stimulated two
related phenomena in the late 1980s: a proliferation of international cooperative endeavors in the name of "global security"
like the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), both
of which rely upon satellite monitoring, and a general conversion of national space technology from military to civilian
applications. The United States, primarily through NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program, has rapidly become the
undisputed leader in global environmental research.' Yet, while it may be preferable to have Titan rockets launching
cameras to photograph clouds rather than to have them launching nuclear warheads or antiballistic defenses, the "peaceful"
application of satellite technology to environmental research is not necessarily an innocuous undertaking.10 It is worth
considering the key catalyst of the remote sensing project: the climate change debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In
preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit and following on the heels of two world climate conferences in the mid-1980s, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) re- leased its report on the potential effects of greenhouse gases on the
global climate system in 1990. That report, representing the work of hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries,
concluded that the "unprecedented experiment" that humanity has been conducting on the earth's atmosphere for the last
two hundred years will probably produce the most drastic climatic changes since the end of the last ice age. The
environmental effects of these changes are expected to include rises in sea level, severe droughts in some regions and
flooding in others, and worsening waves of species extinction. Predictions of greenhouse warming are not new; they have
been around since the end of the last century, when a Swedish chemist speculated that industrialization and its consequent
fossil fuel emissions would eventually warm the planet." What is new, however, is the ability to model this vague
prediction using computers in order to achieve an international scientific consensus. Thus, in 1990 the IPCC predicted that
the average global temperature will increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade by 2050, a change greater than any
since the end of the last ice age.12 Of course, if these predictions were taken seriously, then the only prudent policy would
be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most importantly those of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Scientists at
the Second World Climate Conference in Rio de Janeiro recommended reductions of 20 percent, but that was only out of
political expediency; they actually agreed that a 50 percent reduction was needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Since the industrialized countries are the main source of the problem and have access to greater technological resources,
fairness would require them to bear the brunt of the reductions. In particular, the United States, with 5 percent of the world's
population emitting about one quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would have to change its patterns of energy
consumption the most. The most recent IPCC report, released in 1996 and concluding that human-induced climate change
is already happening, has significantly increased the pressure for an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.13 While most other industrialized countries were willing to freeze carbon dioxide emissions at Rio, with some
pledging as much as 20 percent reductions, the Bush administration felt that the scientific uncertainties were too great to
warrant significant policy changes. Thus, the largest environmental research project in history, with remote sensing as its
backbone, was undertaken in order to "develop more reliable scientific predictions upon which sound policies and
responses to global change can be based."14 Approximately thirty billion dollars will be spent in the United States over the
next twenty years to hammer out the uncertainties. Thousands of scientists around the world will spend billions more on
global change research, making this loosely coordinated effort likely to become the largest research project in history by
2000. The 1991 budget for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was almost one billion dollars; the 1996
budget was double that amount. With eleven U.S. agencies sharing the pie, two-thirds of the total budget goes to NASA for
its EOS satellites, which will transmit data for fifteen years beginning in 1998. NASA will also build the EOS Data
Information System (EOSDIS), the largest data handling system ever built.15 To put the USGCRP budget in perspective,
consider the total budget for the Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS), operated by the United Nations
Environment Programme, during its first decade of existence: $15 million. What do we expect to gain from space-based
observation that justifies placing the earth's climate systems at risk of unprecedented change as we await greater scientific
certainty? The aim of "Earth system science," built upon satellite data, is "to build a comprehensive predictive model of the
earth's physical, chemical, and biological processes."''16 No doubt, remote sensing and computerized data processing
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
1
565353529
DDW 2011
1
techniques will generate hitherto unknown quantities of information and "hitherto unknown power for the scientist," as
David Rhind has pointed out.17 In the absence of the Cold War threat, satellite monitoring accompanied by computerbased analytic techniques, will, according to Peter Thatcher, "prevent new, ecological and economic 'falling dominoes' and
enhance global security."18 The "global view" afforded from the vantage point of space is certainly conducive to notions of
"global security," but what might that mean in an unequal world? Not only will remote sensing benefit poor countries, we
are told, but it will simultaneously serve both U.S. interests and global welfare. But there is good reason to be wary of a
celebratory discourse that stifles critical thinking about the nature of these technologies. Must we not be skeptical of a
technology that promises so much? If celebratory discourses serve a masking function, then what might be said of the
shadow side of remote sensing?
Their attempts to frame the plan as merely responsive to inevitable threats is the logic that structures
violence in the first place. Distrust all aff claims
Webb 9 (Dave Webb is a Professor of Engineering Modeling, Director of the 'Praxis Centre" (a multidisciplinary research centre for
the 'Study of Information Technology to Peace, Conflict and Human Rights') and a member of the School of Applied Global Ethics at
Leeds Metropolitan University. "Securing Outer Space"; "Space Weapons: Dream, nightmare or reality?" Routledge Critical Security
Studies Series, 2009,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Dmy5t_u1cuMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA221&dq=%22outer+space%22+exploration+David
+Campbell+and+Der+Derian&ots=dQPUQlUUSf&sig=hkL0lVD-nWxDJ8JZwAgcCXuHs78#v=onepage&q&f=false, JT)
War in space is undesirable for a number of reasons - not least of which are the problems associated with space debris and
the possibility of space-based weapons aimed at Earth — and most nations appear to be united in wishing to prevent
weapons being stationed in space. However, the US is determined not to give up*its superiority and dominance in space
technology and has consistently prevented progress in treaty negotiations and has in fact led space weapons development
through missile defense and other programmes claiming them to be defensive rather than offensive. However, offence is
often in the eyes of the beholder and other technologically capable (or near capable) states are concerned about the
dominance and aggressive stance of the US in this area. A major question often asked is what is the force behind the US
drive to space dominance? Mow do major projects get huge amounts of funding when eminent scientists can show that they
are not technically feasible? Are concerns about national security and a national faith in technological solutions to national
and global problem too strong in the US? Does the drive come from a desire for world domination and control? Perhaps it
is a mixture of many things. Certainly the aerospace and defense industry (and, increasingly, academia) is a major
beneficiary in the effort to achieve full spectrum dominance*. It has been at the forefront of the development of a
philosophy of security through strength with a role for the US as a global police force through technological superiority.
This also fits well with some US right-wing political views concerning the destiny of America as world police and the
Americans' trust in technology to eventually find solutions to seemingly insoluble problems. Another possible influence on
all this is a continuing decline in non-military public support for science and engineering programmes and training. The
increasing reliance on industry to support military activities has meant that high technology projects in universities are
often linked to military programmes. Students and groups such as the Scientists for Global Responsibility in the UK and the
Union of Concerned Scientists in the US actively campaign on issues such as the ethical use of science and engineering and
continue to lobby politicians but there has been little positive response from government. Therefore, there is little choke for
those wanting to follow a career in engineering or science but to become an integral part of the 'military industrial
complex' and contribute to the development of lucrative military projects. Now must be the time for scientists, engineers
and politicians to seriously consider what might constitute a workable ethical policy on space. Although fears are that it is
already too late. At a time when satellite and missile-related technologies are growing rapidly, an international space
weapons race cannot be the path to follow. Many nations and NGOs agree on a number of issues, including the desirability
of the ethical and sustainable use of space. A firmly secure future can only be guaranteed if space remains weapon free and
the increasing development of military-related space systems is limited (or ideally reversed) and rigorously monitored and
controlled. If there is the will then it can be done. There is a significant role for the technologically able nations here. The
world is seeing the warnings and suffering the consequences of ill-planned technological growth. Global warming is
beginning to be taken seriously by the major energy and resource consumers. Urgent action is needed to prevent global
disaster. Ignoring the environmental consequences of our actions is not an option and often results in human misery and
suffering. A significant step for humanity would be made if the nations of the world could develop a collective dream, a
meaningful respect and trust that would enable an international agreement on the prevention of the weaponisation of space
to be reached. To care enough to make a space environment free of war a reality.
The dream of security ensures apocalypse from now on – constructions of existential risk ensures the
enactment of annihilation.
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
2
565353529
DDW 2011
1
Pever Coviello, Prof. of English @ Bowdoin, 2k [Queer Frontiers, p. 39-40]
Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to say that the world we inhabit is in
any way postapocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I began by saying, changed-it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my
second assertion: if, in the nuclear age of yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event threatening everyone and everything
with (in Jacques Den-ida's suitably menacing phrase) "remairiderless and a-symbolic destruction,," then in the postnuclear
world apocalypse is an affair whose parameters are definitively local. In shape and in substance, apocalypse is defined now
by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always to an "other" people whose very presence might then be written as a
kind of dangerous contagion, threatening the safety and prosperity of a cherished "general population." This fact seems
to me to stand behind Susan Sontag's incisive observation, from 1989, that, 'Apocalypse is now a long-running serial: not
'Apocalypse Now' but 'Apocalypse from Now On."" The decisive point here in the perpetuation of the threat of
apocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is that apocalypse is ever present because, as an element in a vast
economy of power, it is ever useful. That is, through the perpetual threat of destruction-through the constant
reproduction of the figure of apocalypse-agencies of power ensure their authority to act on and through the bodies of a
particular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel Foucault, who in the final chapter of his first
volume of The History of Sexuality addresses himself to the problem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less
life-threatening than, in his words, "life-administering." Power, he contends, "exerts a positive influence on life land,
endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations?' In his
brief comments on what he calls "the atomic situation;' however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern
power must not be mistaken for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as "managers of life and
survival, of bodies and the race," agencies of modern power presume to act 'on the behalf of the existence of everyone."
Whatsoever might be construed as a threat to life and survival in this way serves to authorize any expression of force, no
matter how invasive or, indeed, potentially annihilating. "If genocide is indeed the dream of modem power," Foucault
writes, "this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the
level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population." For a state that would arm itself not with
the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over the patterns and functioning of its collective
life, the threat of an apocalyptic demise, nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.
Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic – only resistance to the discourse of security can
generate genuine political thought
Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, 2008 [Critique of Security, 185-6]
The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of security altogether - to reject it
as so ideologically loaded in favour of the state that any real political thought other than the authoritarian and reactionary
should be pressed to give it up. That is clearly something that can not be achieved within the limits of bourgeois thought
and thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something that the constant iteration
of the refrain 'this is an insecure world' and reiteration of one fear, anxiety and insecurity after another will also make it
hard to do. But it is something that the critique of security suggests we may have to consider if we want a political way out
of the impasse of security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-encompassing that it marginalises
all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that animate political life. The constant
prioritising of a mythical security as a political end - as the political end constitutes a rejection of politics in any meaningful
sense of the term. That is, as a mode of action in which differences can be articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles
that arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which people might come to believe that another world
is possible - that they might transform the world and in turn be transformed. Security politics simply removes this; worse, it
remoeves it while purportedly addressing it. In so doing it suppresses all issues of power and turns political questions into
debates about the most efficient way to achieve 'security', despite the fact that we are never quite told - never could be told what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sense, an anti-politics,"' dominating political discourse
in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the
monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add
yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and
more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important
text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left
behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole
and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or
gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and
consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. The real task is not to
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
3
565353529
DDW 2011
1
fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which takes us
beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the
state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we want.
Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that the
negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept
of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep
demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind
ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate
ourselves against security politics would allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant
securitising of social and political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the existing
forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also allow us to
forge another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and talking
about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the
word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an
illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires
accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and
instead learning to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and 'insecurities' that come with being human; it requires
accepting that 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the
state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
4
565353529
DDW 2011
1
Arms Race DA 1NC
China is not weaponizing space now
Shixiu 7 [Bao, senior fellow of military theory studies and international relations at the Institute for Military Thought Studies,
Academy of Military Sciences of the PLA of China, visiting scholar at the Virginia Military Institute, “Deterrence Revisited: Outer
Space,” China Security, Winter, 2007, p2-11, http://www.wsichina.org/cs5_1.pdf]
Despite the need for an effective deterrent to meet security challenges that China may confront in space, it will not initiate a
space weapons race with the United States or any other country. First, China does not have the ambition to enter a space
weapons race. During the Cold War period, faced with a threat of nuclear war, China did not join in the nuclear weapons
race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, China’s space program is pointed in the direction of peaceful
development. The new political and diplomatic doctrines – a harmonious society and world – also curb China’s entrance to
a space weapons race.14 Second, China does not have the ability to enter a space weapons race. Although China has
ambitious plans in space, the technical gap, especially in the military area vis-à-vis the United States, is difficult if not
impossible to fill. China will not and cannot expend significant budgetary resources pursuing space weapons, but will
instead focus on civilian and commercial space assets.15 So, if China owns space weapons, their number and quality will
be limited in their capacity to act as an effective defense mechanism and will not be a threat to other countries. China has
every interest to avoid triggering a confrontation in outer space and it will never be a deliberate choice for China. Equally
important, however, is that China will not shrink from defending its core national interests.
SPS has dual capabilities—will be perceived as a weapon
Kim Ramos, US Air Force Major PhD thesis, April 2K. “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,”
for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928
United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of those operational concepts
is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines global engagement as an “integrated focused
surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to apply force from space.”27 This application of force from space
involves holding at risk earth targets with force from space.28 New World Vistas identifies several force application
technologies. One of the technological issues associated with developing these space force application technologies is that
they all require large amounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the required power. Two
technologies in particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed energy weapons, such as
lasers, and jamming devices.The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground moving target indication, and
air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The main difficulty with the laser is designing a
power plant, which can produce the required energy in space without the enormous solar arrays required. By using a solar
power satellite to beam power to the laser, this eliminates the problem. Another project, which would benefit from
integration with a solar power satellite, is a device, which would beam RF power to a particular geographic location to
blind or disable any unprotected ground communications, radar, optical, and infrared sensors.30 As with the laser and other
directed energy applications, the limiting factor right now is generating enough power in space to energize the RF beam.
Space weapons lead to global arms race
Hitchens 02 (Theresa Hitchens, Vice President of the Center for Defense Information, 2002. “Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet
or Russian Roulette?” http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm)
The United States already enjoys an overwhelming advantage in military use of space; space assets such as the Global
Positioning System satellite network have proven invaluable in improving precision-targeting giving the U.S. military a
decisive battlefield edge. There would be even a more formidable military advantage to possession of weapons in space —
global power projection and the enormous difficulty in defending against space weapons aimed at terrestrial targets. "It is ...
possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this capability
would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage," notes the
Space Commission report. Space weapons — even those primarily designed for defense of U.S. satellites — would have
inherent offensive and first-strike capabilities, however, (whether aimed at space-based or earth-based targets) and would
demand a military and political response from U.S. competitors. "To be sure, not deploying weapons in space is no
guarantee that potentially hostile nations (such as China) will not develop and deploy ASATs. However, it is virtually
certain that deploying U.S. weapons in space will lead to the development and deployment of ASATs to counter such
weapons," notes a new policy brief by the Cato Institute.27 China and Russia long have been worried about possible U.S.
breakout on space-based weaponry. Officials from both countries have expressed concern that the U.S. missile defense
program is aimed not at what Moscow and Beijing see as a non-credible threat from rogue-nation ballistic missiles, but
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
5
565353529
DDW 2011
1
rather at launching a long-term U.S. effort to dominate space. Both Russia and China also are key proponents of
negotiations at the UN Conference on Disarmament to expand the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to ban all types of weapons.
The effort to start talks known as PAROS, for "prevention of an arms race in outer space," has been stalled due in large part
to the objection of the United States. For example, in November 2000, the United States was one of three countries (the
others were Israel and Micronesia) to refuse to vote for a UN resolution citing the need for steps to prevent the arming of
space.28 It is inconceivable that either Russia or China would allow the United States to become the sole nation with spacebased weapons. "Once a nation embarks down the road to gain a huge asymmetric advantage, the natural tendency of others
is to close that gap. An arms race tends to develop an inertia of its own," writes Air Force Lt. Col. Bruce M. DeBlois, in a
1998 article in Airpower Journal.29 Chinese moves to put weapons in space would trigger regional rival India to consider
the same, in turn, spurring Pakistan to strive for parity with India. Even U.S. allies in Europe might feel pressure to "keep
up with the Joneses." It is quite easy to imagine the course of a new arms race in space that would be nearly as destabilizing
as the atomic weapons race proved to be.
Space weapons cause first striking and nuclear war
Krepon 04 (Michael Krepon, president emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, 20 04. Arms Control Association, “Weapons in
the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option,” http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon#krepon)
To prevent adversaries from shooting back, the United States would need to know exactly where all threatening space
objects are located, to neutralize them without producing debris that can damage U.S. or allied space objects, and to target
and defeat all ground-based military activities that could join the fight in space. In other words, successful space warfare
mandates pre-emptive strikes and a preventive war in space as well as on the ground. War plans and execution often go
awry here on Earth. It takes enormous hubris to believe that space warfare would be any different. If ASAT and spacebased, ground-attack weapons are flight-tested and deployed, space warriors will have succeeded in the dubious
achievement of replicating the hair-trigger nuclear postures that plagued humankind during the Cold War. Armageddon
nuclear postures continue to this day, with thousands of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons ready to be launched in minutes
to incinerate opposing forces, command and control nodes, and other targets, some of which happen to be located within
large metropolitan areas. If the heavens were weaponized, these nuclear postures would be reinforced and elevated into
space. U.S. space warriors now have a doctrine and plans for counterspace operations, but they do not have a credible plan
to stop inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation once the shooting starts. Like U.S. war-fighting scenarios, there is a huge
chasm between plans and consequences, in which requirements for escalation dominance make uncontrolled escalation far
more likely. A pre-emptive strike in space on a nation that possesses nuclear weapons would invite the gravest possible
consequences. Attacks on satellites that provide early warning and other critical military support functions would most
likely be viewed either as a surrogate or as a prelude to attacks on nuclear forces.
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
6
565353529
DDW 2011
1
Oil DA—1NC
Russia shifting dependence but oil prices are still key to the Russian economy
CIA, 6/15/11. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, Russia
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
Russia has undergone significant changes since the collapse of the Soviet Union, moving from a globally-isolated,
centrally-planned economy to a more market-based and globally-integrated economy. Economic reforms in the 1990s
privatized most industry, with notable exceptions in the energy and defense-related sectors. The protection of property
rights is still weak and the private sector remains subject to heavy state interference. Russian industry is primarily split
between globally-competitive commodity producers - in 2009 Russia was the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the
second largest exporter of oil, and the third largest exporter of steel and primary aluminum - and other less competitive
heavy industries that remain dependent on the Russian domestic market. This reliance on commodity exports makes Russia
vulnerable to boom and bust cycles that follow the highly volatile swings in global commodity prices. The government
since 2007 has embarked on an ambitious program to reduce this dependency and build up the country's high technology
sectors, but with few results so far. The economy had averaged 7% growth since the 1998 Russian financial crisis, resulting
in a doubling of real disposable incomes and the emergence of a middle class. The Russian economy, however, was one of
the hardest hit by the 2008-09 global economic crisis as oil prices plummeted and the foreign credits that Russian banks and
firms relied on dried up. The Central Bank of Russia spent one-third of its $600 billion international reserves, the world's
third largest, in late 2008 to slow the devaluation of the ruble. The government also devoted $200 billion in a rescue plan to
increase liquidity in the banking sector and aid Russian firms unable to roll over large foreign debts coming due. The
economic decline bottomed out in mid-2009 and the economy began to grow in the first quarter of 2010. However, a severe
drought and fires in central Russia reduced agricultural output, prompting a ban on grain exports for part of the year, and
slowed growth in other sectors such as manufacturing and retail trade. High oil prices buoyed Russian growth in the first
quarter of 2011 and could help Russia reduce the budget deficit inherited from the lean years of 2008-09, but inflation and
increased government expenditures may limit the positive impact of these revenues. Russia's long-term challenges include a
shrinking workforce, a high level of corruption, difficulty in accessing capital for smaller, non-energy companies, and poor
infrastructure in need of large investments.
Cross apply their Cox 11 evidence-- SPS means we won't buy more oil
Russian economic collapse causes global nuclear war
Steven David, Professor of International Relations and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University,
January/February 99. Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars, published in Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars.html
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP
has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997
with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official
poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is
due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined
property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style
capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show,
Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will
soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule
kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains
relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders.
Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate
pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the
old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political
fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties
between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments
for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed
forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
7
565353529
DDW 2011
1
would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation
makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow
ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself
unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy
collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Threequarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic
bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's
successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout
the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb
to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even
though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke
opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western
Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks
on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be
even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a
second civil war might produce another horrific regime.
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
8
565353529
DDW 2011
1
SKFTA 1NC
SKFTA will pass—Obama push
Carlsen 7-22 Laura, program director, The Americas Program; former correspondent, Latin Trade Magazine; former editor,
Business Mexico; MA, Latin American Studies, Stanford U; “The Adacity of Free Trade Agreements” Aid Netherlands; July 22,
2011; http://www.nl-aid.org/continent/latin-america/the-adacity-of-free-trade-agreements/ |Cramer
Congress could vote any day now to strike a new blow against already-battered U.S. workers and the unemployed. Committees in the
House and Senate recently marked up the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The Obama
administration is urging passage of all three relics of the Bush administration before the summer recess. The full-court press on the
FTAs represents a reversal for a president elected on a trade reform platform. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama
proclaimed his opposition to the NAFTA-style FTAs and boasted of his stance against the devastating North American and Central
American agreements. As candidate Obama, he carefully distanced himself from the open-market, pro-corporate policies of his
predecessor, calling for significant changes to the NAFTA model, including enforceable labor and environmental standards, and
consumer protections.
SPS would require a massive amount of political capital
Leonard David, Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer, 5/15/08. “Space-Based Solar Power Harvesting Energy from Space”, CleanTech, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx? ArticleId=69
Space Based Solar Power: Science and Technology Challenges Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex
problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis
Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology
challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power.
But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter
Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically
viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology
development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home
run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain
uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate
stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who
knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.
INTERNAL LINK- Political Capital k/t pass skfta
SKFTA key to Asian stability
Hill 7 – Assistant Secretary for Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (Christopher, 6/13. “The United States-South Korea FTA:
The Foreign Policy Implications.” http://seoul.usembassy.gov/413_061407.html)
While the agreement achieves many of our economic goals, it is important to note that the impact of this FTA will go far
beyond bilateral commercial benefits. The KORUS FTA is a powerful symbol of the U.S.-South Korea partnership,
augmenting our longstanding bilateral security alliance and the robust ties between the South Korean and American people.
It will create a new dynamic, reflecting both the growing sophistication of our relationship, and the Republic of Korea’s
(ROK) increasingly positive global role. It will strengthen our relations with one of our most important and reliable allies,
serving as a pillar for the alliance in the 21st century as the mutual defense treaty did during the last half century. And it
will decisively anchor the U.S. presence in the most dynamic and rapidly-growing economic region on the globe. Benefits
of KORUS FTA I’ll let my colleague Karan Bhatia, who oversaw the negotiation of this historic agreement, including
through several sleepless nights in Seoul leading up to our April 1 conclusion of the deal, explain the benefits of the
KORUS FTA for U.S. commercial interests and our global trade liberalization strategy – which are significant. His
familiarity with the details of the agreement far exceeds my own. Instead, I will focus my remarks on the agreement’s
foreign policy implications. First, the KORUS FTA will strengthen the U.S.-South Korea partnership. It will help ensure
that the U.S. partnership with South Korea, long centered on defense ties, remains a vital force for stability at a time of
change and challenge on the Korean peninsula and in the broader Northeast Asian region. It will be concrete proof to South
Korea that we are committed to broadening and modernizing our alliance. Over the years, the U.S. relationship with South
Korea has been tested in many ways. But I've always been optimistic about it, because I always have seen the real benefits
of a strong relationship between the U.S. and the ROK. Our two countries are bound by shared interests and shared values,
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
9
565353529
DDW 2011
1
underpinning the long-term commitment of both Americans and Koreans to making the relationship work. South Korea is a
country that is not just a regional power, but it's growing in global importance. Korean people are active all over the world
as students, diplomats and missionaries, and South Korean companies are major investors in many economies. More and
more, our relationship with South Korea is growing to be a multi-faceted, cooperative partnership for a more closely knit
world. South Korea is the third-largest contributor of troops to the coalition forces in Iraq and has played an important role
in Afghanistan as well. Nowadays when Secretary Rice meets with her ROK counterparts, they talk not just about the
situation on the Peninsula, but also about the Middle East, climate change, the spread of democracy and other global issues
of shared concern. We've been working hard lately on modernizing our security relationship with South Korea. We are
realigning our troops to make sure that they are placed and equipped most intelligently to deter any thought of aggression
by North Korea. I think we're doing that very effectively. We’ve also been working very closely with our friends from the
ROK in the Six-Party Talks to deal with the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. Ultimately, as we move forward in the
six-party process, it's very important that we move beyond denuclearization in North Korea to try to create stronger
multilateral mechanisms for problem-solving in the region and for developing a greater sense of community in the region. I
think in this regard, South Korean and U.S. interests are very much aligned. Second, the KORUS FTA strengthens our ties
to a good friend that has done good things. I had the privilege of serving in South Korea in 1987 and witnessed the
flowering of democracy there. I then went back as Ambassador in 2004 to see what had happened since. It is really quite an
inspiration for all of us who believe that democracy is the wave of the future. South Korea has shown the way and become
an example for political reform in many parts of the world, especially in Asia. The FTA will also provide a boost to the
steady progress that South Korea has made on economic reform in the last decade. South Korea is one of the world’s great
success stories in terms of achieving broad prosperity through commitment to a market economy and openness to global
trade. By liberating the vitality of its citizens and exposing them to international competition, South Korea has gone from
being one of the world’s poorest countries at the end of the Korean War to a vibrant democracy, a member of the OECD
with a per-capita GDP approaching $20,000. South Korea also has strong labor laws and environmental protections. All this
makes South Korea an excellent trading partner for the United States. Along with our expanding trade ties, I should also
point out the very substantial people-to-people ties between our two countries. There are now over two million Americans
of Korean descent living in the United States. They have had a huge positive impact on our country and continue to provide
a vital and unique link between the two nations. U.S.-ROK academic ties have also blossomed; in 2006, more than 58,000
South Korean students studied in the U.S., and South Korean students are now the third largest group of foreign students in
the U.S. The FTA has the potential to join our two countries together even more closely. Third, the KORUS FTA will
anchor our strategic economic position in East Asia. East Asia and the Pacific region are undergoing a wave of economic
integration, with countries binding themselves closer together through steady progress in liberalization of trade and
investment. Several plurilateral free trade agreements are in play, and some 19 free trade agreements have gone into force
between Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies, with at least an equal number of future agreements under
negotiation or exploration. The United States has participated as a leader via our gold-standard FTAs with Australia and
Singapore. Ratification of the KORUS FTA will further cement U.S. leadership in the dynamic Asian region and debunk
critics who falsely complain that we’ve neglected this part of the world.
Nuclear war
Dibb 1 – emeritus professor of strategic and defence studies at The Australian National University (Paul, Winter. “Strategic Trends:
Asia at a Crossroads.” Naval War College Review, Vol. 54, Issue 1. Ebsco.)
The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the
former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe.
Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological
confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons
and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast
Asia, Indonesia--which is the world's fourth-largest country--faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup.
The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the
United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has
more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia's security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the
direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies,
including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But
there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial,
ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation
or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional
Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
10
565353529
DDW 2011
1
CP 1NC
Wind power is burdened by failures; utilizing aerospace technology rectifies their solvency takeouts
Rani Richardson, Former Director of Operations at Magestic Systems Inc., an aerospace company CATIA PLM Composites
Consultant, 2009 “Wind Turbine Blade Composites Design: Leveraging Aerospace Advances for Improved Durability”
http://www.plmv5.com/composites/downloads/Dassault_Systemes_composite_white_paper.pdf
With such high hopes riding on this alternative energy source, the wind turbine blade industry is working hard to improve
manufacturing efficiency and address blade failure issues, but challenges remain great, with failure rates as high as 20%
within three years. Borrowing best practices for the design and production of composite rotorcraft blades from the
aerospace industry can vault wind turbine blade manufacturers to the forefront of the wind energy industry. These
techniques have the potential to reduce development costs and cycle times by integrating the entire design and
manufacturing process within a single environment. Simulation can be used to virtually verify the manufacturability and
durability at almost no cost, avoiding the high cost of trial and error in the real world and achieving significantly lower
failure rates.
Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should contract aerospace companies to
design, build, and implement efficient wind turbines to supply the country’s energy needs.
Wind power would solve the world’s energy needs 5 times over
Michael B. McElroy et al., Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies, Director of the Atmospheric and Environmental
Research Inc., Xi Lu, Postdoctoral Associate, Former Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, 6/7/ 09, Proc
National Academy of Science USA, Vol 106.
Approximately 1% of the total solar energy absorbed by the Earth is converted to kinetic energy in the atmosphere,
dissipated ultimately by friction at the Earth's surface (16, 17). If we assume that this energy is dissipated uniformly over
the entire surface area of the Earth (it is not), this would imply an average power source for the land area of the Earth of
≈3.4 × 1014 W equivalent to an annual supply of energy equal to 10,200 quad [10,800 exajoules (EJ)], ≈22 times total
current global annual consumption of commercial energy. Doing the same calculation for the lower 48 states of the U.S.
would indicate a potential power source of 1.76 × 1013 W corresponding to an annual yield of 527 quad (555 EJ), some 5.3
times greater than the total current annual consumption of commercial energy in all forms. In the U.S. Wind energy
is not, however, uniformly distributed over the Earth and regional patterns of dissipation depend not only on the wind
source available in the free troposphere but also on the frictional properties of the underlying surface. We focus here on the
potential energy that could be intercepted and converted to electricity by a globally distributed array of wind turbines, the
distribution and properties of which were described above. Accounting for land areas we judge to be inappropriate for their
placement (forested and urban regions and areas covered either by water or by permanent ice), the potential power source is
estimated at 2,350 quad (2,470 EJ). The distribution of potential power for this more realistic case is illustrated in Fig. 1.
We restricted attention in this analysis to turbines that could function with capacity factors at or >20%. Results for the
potential electricity that could be generated using wind on a country-by-country basis are summarized in Fig. 2 for onshore
(A) and offshore (B) environments. Placement of the turbines onshore and offshore was restricted as discussed earlier. Table
1 presents a summary of results for the 10 countries identified as the largest national emitters of CO 2. The data included
here refer to national reporting of CO2 emissions and electricity consumption for these countries in 2005. An updated
version of the table would indicate that China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, having surpassed the U.S. in the
early months of 2006. Wind power potential for the world as a whole and the contiguous U.S. is summarized in Table 2.
The results in Table 1 indicate that large-scale development of wind power in China could allow for close to an 18-fold
increase in electricity supply relative to consumption reported for 2005. The bulk of this wind power, 89%, could be
derived from onshore installations. The potential for wind power in the U.S. is even greater, 23 times larger than current
electricity consumption, the bulk of which, 84%, could be supplied onshore. Results for the contiguous U.S. will be
discussed in more detail in the next section. If the top 10 CO 2 emitting countries were ordered in terms of wind power
potential, Russia would rank number 1, followed by Canada with the U.S. in the third position. There is an important
difference to be emphasized, however, between wind power potential in the abstract and the fraction of the resource that is
likely to be developed when subjected to realistic economic constraints. Much of the potential for wind power in Russia and
Canada is located at large distances from population centers. Given the inevitably greater expense of establishing wind
farms in remote locations and potential public opposition to such initiatives, it would appear unlikely that these resources
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
11
565353529
DDW 2011
1
will be developed in the near term. Despite these limitations, it is clear that wind power could make a significant
contribution to the demand for electricity for the majority of the countries listed in Table 1, in particular for the 4 largest
CO2 emitters, China, the U.S., Russia, and Japan. It should be noted, however, the resource for Japan is largely confined to
the offshore area, 82% of the national total. To fully exploit these global resources will require inevitably significant
investment in transmission systems capable of delivering this power to regions of high load demand. The electricity that
could be generated potentially on a global basis by using wind, displayed as a function of an assumed capacity factor cutoff
on installed turbines, is presented in Fig. 3 for onshore (A) and offshore (B) environments. The results in Fig. 3A suggest
that total current global consumption of electricity could be supplied by wind while restricting installation of landbased turbines to regions characterized by most favorable wind conditions, regions where the turbines might be expected to
function with capacity factors >53%. If the cutoff capacity factor were lowered to 36%, the energy content of electricity
generated by using wind with land-based turbines globally would be equivalent to total current global consumption of
energy in all forms. Cutoff capacity factors needed to accommodate similar objectives with offshore resources would need
to be reduced as indicated in Fig. 3B. To place these considerations in context, we would note that capacity factors realized
by turbines installed in the U.S. in 2004 and 2005 have averaged close to 36% (18).
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
12
565353529
DDW 2011
1
1NC Energy Frontline
Not enough energy is received from satellites to solve
Paul Evans, staff writer, February 22, 2009. “Solar power beamed from space within a decade?” http://www.gizmag.com/solarpower-space-satellite/11064
February 23, 2009
The concept of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) has been doing the rounds for decades with fantastic claims of 24 hour a
day solar power beamed from space via microwave to any point on earth. A start up company called Space Energy, Inc says
it plans to develop SBSP satellites to generate and transmit electricity to receivers on the Earth's surface. To do this, the
company plans to create and launch a prototype satellite into low earth orbit (LEO). The hitch: this concept is based on as
yet unproven technology. SBSP was theorized over 40 years ago by renowned scientist Dr. Peter Glaser. Since then, in
response to periodic energy crises, the idea has been re-evaluated from time to time by the U.S. Department of Energy,
NASA, major aerospace companies and countries such as Japan and India. Solar power satellites are large arrays of
photovoltaic panels assembled in orbit, which use microwave radio waves to transmit solar power to large receiving
antennas on Earth. The resulting power can either supplement, or be a substitute for, conventional electricity sources. The
advantage of placing solar collectors in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), about 36,000 kilometres (22,500 miles) above
Earth, is that it uses the constant and unobstructed output of the Sun, unaffected by the Earth's day/night cycle.
By contrast, ground-based solar power provides a vital and valuable addition to the Earth's energy needs, but is limited by
these factors: Weather,Variable seasons, Atmospheric blocking of sunlight, Poor direct sunlight at higher and lower
latitudes, Because none of these factors applies in outer-space, an orbiting SBSP station can supposedly provide an
estimated 6-8 times more power than a comparable solar cell on the Earth's surface. Here’s where the entire concept falls
flat. Space Energy, Inc claims that a successful long-range wireless power transmission test was conducted in mid-2008,
that supposedly transmitted a microwave beam (similar to the kind that would be used to transmit energy from space to
Earth) between two Hawaiian Islands across 148 kilometres - more than the distance from the surface of the Earth to the
boundary of space. They claim this test demonstrated the technical feasibility of transmitting SBSP to Earth.
Less than 1/1000th of 1% received Unfortunately for Space Energy, Inc and the entire concept of space based solar power,
the actual test results conducted for a Discovery channel documentary proved a total failure. The former NASA executive
and physicist who organized the experiment, John Mankins, admitted in a press conference that the $1 Million budget spent
of the experiment resulted in less than 1/1000th of 1% of the power transmitted being received on the other island.
Shift to nuclear power solves
William Tucker, journalist and author of four books about the environment, 3/3/08. The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979706/posts
The U.S. currently gets 50 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear reactors. Reversing these
percentages should become a goal of both global warming advocates and anyone who wants to reduce America’s
dependence on foreign oil (the latter since a clean, expanded electrical grid could anchor a fleet of hydrogen or electric
cars). Contrary to what some critics charge, this would not require massive subsidies or direct intervention by the
government. Indeed, the nuclear industry has gone through an astounding revival over the past decade. The entire fleet of
103 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the time. Reactors are making money hand-over-fist—so much so that the
attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall profits tax on them! The industry is poised for new
construction, with proposals for four new reactors submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and almost 30 waiting
in the wings. The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going
ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once
dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an
illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these. It is
simply a natural outgrowth of our evolving understanding of the universe. The sun has been our prime source of energy
throughout human history, but energy is also generated in the earth itself. It is time to avail ourselves of this clean, safe
terrestrial energy.
Can’t solve—would take a thousand years and too many satellites
Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, October 6. Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755
The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the atmosphere would
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
13
565353529
DDW 2011
1
clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rate of around 30
Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gas over a year and split the carbon
from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing plant would
remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of
the expanded reference system with around 200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs without any
carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another
200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2 removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30
below the current production rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be
operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence on energy from fossil fuels.
Plan can’t solve warming—too much CO2 has been released
Jonathan Gitlin, The Scripps Research Institute Society of Fellows Vice President, 1/27/09. “Study: too late to turn back the clock on
climate change,” http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/01/study-too-late-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-climate-change.ars
This week's PNAS brings with it some bad news on the climate front: even if policy makers and the general public get on
board with drastic CO2 emission cuts, it's already too late to prevent serious changes to the planet's climate, and those
changed will be remarkably persistent. Those are the findings of a group of researchers from the US, Switzerland, and
France. In their paper, they look at the effect of increasing CO2 over millennial time frames, and it's worrisome stuff.
Currently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 385 ppm, a 35 percent increase over pre-industrial levels. The most
optimistic scenarios arrive at a figure of 450 ppm as the best we might be able to achieve in the coming decades, but even at
that level, changes in precipitation patterns, temperature increases, and a rise in sea level appear to be locked in for at least
the next thousand years. The dynamics of the oceans are to blame. According to Susan Soloman, Senior Scientist at NOAA
and lead author, "In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean
mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that
makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases." One of the most profound effects looks to be a severe
decrease in rainfall that will affect the southeastern US, the Mediterranean, southern Asia, and swathes of subtropical
Africa and South America. Sea levels are going to rise too. Without even accounting for melting ice sheets, the sheer
thermal expansion of the Earth's oceans will be between 0.4-1m, and as with the temperature rise and the changes to
rainfall, these effects look set to persist for at least until the year 3000.
Can’t solve—doesn’t spillover internationally
Thomas Gale Moore, CATO Institute senior fellow, 3/25/98. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Warming
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf
Moreover, if steps are taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, whether justified or not, they should be taken
worldwide. A pound of CO2 produced by backyard barbecues in Iowa has the same effect as a pound of CO2 emitted from
cooking stoves in India. The greenhouse gas problem is an example par excellence of a global commons issue. If China
exploits its mammoth coal reserves to provide needed electricity for its billion people over the next century, the actions of
the United States can have only a small effect on any future warming. Even if society believes that warming will, on net, be
harmful, restraining the emission of greenhouse gases by any one country or small group of countries makes sense only if
most other nations follow suit. Should the United States impose taxes to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the benefit of doing
so would be greater, the larger the number of other major nations joining in the restrictions. Free rider problems—that is,
the temptation to leave the burden to others— may make international agreement to abate emissions difficult if not
impossible. Unfortunately, the expectation that climate change would have a differential effect on various nations
exacerbates the free rider problem. The Russians, for example, have indicated that they would probably do well in a warmer
world. On the other hand, island nations and countries with extensive low-lying land, such as Bangladesh, fear that global
warming would be devastating. Certain poor nations, such as China, for example, consider economic development more
important than warding off possible climate change.
Warming tipping points inevitable – too late
NPR 9 (1/26, Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says, All Things Considered,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903)
Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study. As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise,
the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions
are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists. "We're used to thinking
about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or
haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly." That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
14
565353529
DDW 2011
1
and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop
global warming. "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100
years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a
thousand years," Solomon says. This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the
carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for
many hundreds of years. Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at
the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.
No warming and no impact
Taylor 09 (James, Senior Fellow Env. Policy @ Heartland Institute, Naples Daily News, “Guest Commentary: Global warming”, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jan/03/guestcommentary-global-warming/)
In a pair of recent columns claiming humans are causing a global-warming crisis, Ben Bova disparages mere “assertions” while saying people need to rely on “observable, measurable facts.”
While Bova’s concern about Earth’s climate is admirable, he should follow his own advice regarding assertions versus facts. Bova asserts Earth has a “rising fever.” Yet the fact is that
global temperatures are unusually cool. For most of the past 10,000 years temperatures have been 1.0 to 3.0 degrees Celsius warmer
than they are today. The 0.6 degree rise in temperatures during the 20th century occurred from the baseline of the little ice age, which
saw the coldest global temperatures during the past 10,000 years
.
Earth has a “rising fever” only if we pretend the little ice age was “normal” and ignore Earth’s
long-term temperature facts. Bova asserts “the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is threatening the survival of polar bears.” Yet the fact is that polar bear numbers have doubled since the 1980s.
Moreover, Antarctic sea ice is growing and has been setting records for much of the past year . If “global” warming is causing receding polar ice, then why is
Antarctic sea ice setting growth records? Bova asserts “measurements ... show that the rise in global temperatures matches quite closely the increase in carbon dioxide.” Yet the fact is that
temperatures match solar output much
more closely than carbon dioxide, even in the 20th century. Bova asserts that as a result of global warming “much of our crop land turns to desert.” Yet, the fact is that
global precipitation and global soil moisture have increased during the 20th century, and the Sahara Desert and other deserts around the world are in retreat.
solar scientists at Harvard and other leading universities have published research in the world’s leading scientific journals showing that
Bova asserts we run the risk of a breaching a “tipping point” or a “greenhouse cliff where the global climate shifts too rapidly for us to protect ourselves from its drastic effects.” Yet, the fact is
a recent survey of more than 500 climate scientists from around the world, less than half agreed that “assuming climate change
will occur, it will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation could result in devastation of some areas of the world.” Bova asserts that in
that in
California’s Yosemite National Park warmer temperatures are allowing mice and pine trees to live at higher altitudes than a century ago. Yet, the fact is that fossilized trees exist at altitudes
above the current California tree line, showing that temperatures were significantly warmer 1,000 years ago than today. Plant and animal species are migrating to higher elevations only in
comparison to the abnormally cold temperatures of the little ice age that ended just over a century ago. For most of the past 10,000 years, warmer temperatures enabled mice and trees to live at
altitudes significantly higher than is possible today. Global-warming activism is long on unsubstantiated assertions and short on objective facts. Only by comparing today’s temperatures to the
abnormal cold of the little ice are — and by completely ignoring the warmer temperatures that predominated during most of the past 10,000 years — can global-warming activists paint a
sound science has thrown cold water on each and every one of the alleged globalwarming crises, such as endangered polar bears, melting ice caps, etc., alleged to result from global warming.
picture of a planet suffering a global warming crisis. Moreover,
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
15
565353529
DDW 2011
1
1NC- Deterrence Frontline
Other things prevent us being a leader – like launcher shortages
Robert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed
Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership,
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin warned last month that if the next generation of human spacecraft is further delayed,
and the four-year lag between the Space Shuttle and Orion grows, “we will be seen by many as ceding our national
leadership in human spaceflight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities and India is developing them.” As
a businessman, I can’t imagine investing to develop a significant, sustainable, defining core competency and differentiating
strategic advantage only to abandon the position. As a minimum, this could lead to a situation where other countries with
space aspirations start looking for new partners.
AND – lack of talent
Robert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed
Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership,
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)
Third, we need a sustained commitment to inspire and recruit our brightest minds. The space race inspired my generation
to pursue careers in science and engineering. Yet, today, U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 78,000
engineering undergraduates a year – and that figure hasn’t grown in a decade. This has created a serious challenge for
companies like Lockheed Martin, where one in three of our current employees is over the age of 50 – and 47% of our
workforce has earned the professional distinction of scientist or engineer. Even as the U.S. aerospace sector struggles to
replenish our workforce, there is no doubt that China is racing ahead to build the technical wave of the future, with 50
percent of Chinese undergraduates getting degrees in natural science or engineering. Of equal concern, this is taking place at
a time of intense competition for skilled technical employees. Today, the most innovative, ambitious young minds are
being recruited by firms like Google – a firm that didn’t exist a decade ago, which FORTUNE magazine lists as the Best Company to Work For
in America.
U.S. aerospace industry strong now
International Trade Administration, U.S. competitive industry advocate group, 6/21/11, “Aerospace Industry is Critical
Contributor to U.S. Economy According to Obama Trade Official at Paris Air Show” http://trade.gov/press/pressreleases/2011/aerospace-industry-critical-contributor-to-us-economy-062111.asp
“The U.S. aerospace industry is a strategic contributor to the economy, national security, and technological innovation of
the United States,” Sánchez said. “The industry is key to achieving the President’s goals of doubling exports by the end of
2014 and contributed $78 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy in 2010.” During the U.S. Pavilion opening remarks,
Sánchez noted that the aerospace sector in the United States supports more jobs through exports than any other industry.
Sánchez witnessed a signing ceremony between Boeing and Aeroflot, Russia’s state-owned airline. Aeroflot has ordered
eight 777s valued at $2.1 billion, and the sales will support approximately 14,000 jobs. “The 218 American companies
represented in the U.S. International Pavilion demonstrate the innovation and hard work that make us leaders in this
sector,” said Sánchez. “I am particularly pleased to see the incredible accomplishments of U.S. companies participating in
the Alternative Aviation Fuels Showcase, which demonstrates our leadership in this important sector and shows that we are
on the right path to achieving the clean energy future envisioned by President Obama.” The 2011 Paris Air Show is the
world’s largest aerospace trade exhibition, and features 2,000 exhibitors, 340,000 visitors, and 200 international
delegations. The U.S. aerospace industry ranks among the most competitive in the world, boasting a positive trade balance
of $44.1 billion – the largest trade surplus of any U.S. manufacturing industry. It directly sustains about 430,000 jobs, and
indirectly supports more than 700,000 additional jobs. Ninety-one percent of U.S. exporters of aerospace products are small
and medium-sized firms.
US hegemony is strong and isn’t going down
Brian Carney, 3-5, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe and the co-author of "Freedom, Inc.”, March 5, 2011,(Wall
Street Journal, Why America will stay on top,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576175881248268272.html)
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
16
565353529
DDW 2011
1
In his best-selling history of the 20th century, "Modern Times," British historian Paul Johnson describes "a significant turning-point in
American history: the first time the Great Republic, the richest nation on earth, came up against the limits of its financial resources."
Until the 1960s, he writes in a chapter titled "America's Suicide Attempt," "public finance was run in all essentials on conventional
lines"—that is to say, with budgets more or less in balance outside of exceptional circumstances. "The big change in principle came
under Kennedy," Mr. Johnson writes. "In the autumn of 1962 the Administration committed itself to a new and radical principle of
creating budgetary deficits even when there was no economic emergency." Removing this constraint on government spending allowed
Kennedy to introduce "a new concept of 'big government': the 'problem-eliminator.' Every area of human misery could be classified as
a 'problem'; then the Federal government could be armed to 'eliminate' it." Twenty-eight years after "Modern Times" first appeared,
Mr. Johnson is perhaps the most eminent living British historian, and big government as problem-eliminator is back with a
vengeance—along with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. I visited the 82-year-old Mr. Johnson in his West London
home this week to ask him whether America has once again set off down the path to self-destruction. Is he worried about America's
future? "Of course I worry about America," he says. "The whole world depends on America ultimately, particularly Britain. And also,
I love America—a marvelous country. But in a sense I don't worry about America because I think America has such huge strengths—
particularly its freedom of thought and expression—that it's going to survive as a top nation for the foreseeable future. And therefore
take care of the world." Pessimists, he points out, have been predicting America's decline "since the 18th century." But whenever
things are looking bad, America "suddenly produces these wonderful things—like the tea party movement. That's cheered me up no end. Because it's
done more for women in politics than anything else—all the feminists? Nuts! It's brought a lot of very clever and quite young women into mainstream politics and got
them elected. A very good little movement, that. I like it." Then he deepens his voice for effect and adds: "And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of
her jib." The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got
courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way
Margaret Thatcher had courage—and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no
good at all. It's the central virtue."
US leadership doesn’t solve war
Conry ’97 (Barbara, Foreign Policy Analyst – Cato, Policy Analysis No. 267, 2-5, “U.S. ‘Global Leadership’: A Euphemism for
World Policeman,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.html)
Other proponents of U.S. political and military leadership do not point to particular benefits; instead, they warn of near-certain disaster
if the United States relinquishes its leadership role. Christopher paints a bleak picture: Just consider what the world would be like
without American leadership in the last two years alone. We would have four nuclear states in the former Soviet Union, instead of
one, with Russian missiles still targeted at our homes. We would have a full-throttled nuclear program in North Korea; no GATT
agreement and no NAFTA; brutal dictators still terrorizing Haiti; very likely, Iraqi troops back in Kuwait; and an unresolved Mexican
economic crisis, which would threaten stability at our border. [55] Gingrich has pronounced a future without American leadership "a
big mess." [56]And former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has warned, What we are possibly looking at in 2095 [absent
U.S. leadership] is an unstable world in which there are more than half a dozen "great powers," each with its own clients, all
vulnerable if they stand alone, all capable of increasing their power and influence if they form the right kind of alliance, and all
engaged willy-nilly in perpetual diplomatic maneuvers to ensure that their relative positions improve rather than deteriorate. In other
words, 2095 might look like 1914 played on a somewhat larger stage. [57] In other words, if America abdicates its role as world
leader, we are condemned to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th century--or perhaps do something even worse. Such thinking is
seriously flawed, however. First, to assert that U.S. leadership can stave off otherwise inevitable global chaos vastly overestimates the
power of any single country to influence world events. The United States is powerful, but it still can claim only 5 percent of the
world's population and 20 percent of world economic output. Moreover, regardless of the resources Americans might be willing to
devote to leading the world, today's problems often do not lend themselves well to external solutions . As Maynes has pointed out, Today,
the greatest fear of most states is not external aggression but internal disorder. The United States can do little about the latter, whereas it
used to be able to do a great deal about the former. In other words , the coinage of U.S. power in the world has been devalued by the change in the
international agenda. [58] Indeed, many of the foreign policy problems that have confounded Washington since the demise of the Soviet Union are the kinds of
problems that are likely to trouble the world well into the next century. "Failed states," such as Somalia, may not be uncommon. But, as the ill-fated
U.S. and UN operations in that country showed, there is very little that outside powers can do about such problems. External powers
usually lack the means to prevent or end civil wars, such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, unless they are willing to make a
tremendous effort to do so. Yet those types of internecine conflicts are likely to be one of the primary sources of international disorder for the
foreseeable future. Despite the doomsayers who prophesy global chaos in the absence of U.S. leadership, however, Washington's limited ability to dampen such
conflicts is not cause for panic. Instability is a normal feature of an international system of sovereign states, which the United States can tolerate and has
tolerated for more than two centuries. If vital American interests are not at stake, instability itself becomes a serious problem only if the United States blunders into it,
as it did in Somalia and Bosnia. [59]
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
17
565353529
DDW 2011
1
1NC Solvency
It isn’t technologically possible
UV rays will destroy it
Taylor, 7 – Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command; B.A, Berry
College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University (Michael W. “Trashing the Solar System One
Planet at a Time: Earth’s Orbital Debris Problem,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall, 2007, Gale)
<Without Earth's atmosphere to protect them, satellites are exposed to the full force of solar radiation, including ultraviolet rays, Xrays, positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. n16 Ultraviolet rays and X-rays can damage satellites by degrading
solar panels, which many satellites use as a source of energy, thus shortening their useful life. n17 When solar activity increases, the
number of damaging rays also increases. The charged particles can cause even [*5] more damage than the rays because the particles
penetrate the outer layers of the satellite and directly degrade its electronic systems. Unlike the rays, which are generally evenly
distributed around Earth, the particles become trapped in Earth's magnetic field and concentrate in two doughnut-shaped (torus) areas
around the equator. n18 These regions are called the Van Allen radiation belts. n19 The Van Allen radiation belts significantly limit the
operation of satellites.>
It’s all just hype and lies
The Space Review, ’10, Monday, June 7, 2010, (Dwayne A. Day, Blinded by the light,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1641/1)
Fortunately for us, there aren’t too many lasting cultural legacies of the 1970s. The seventies, well, sucked. The music—save for Led
Zeppelin and Floyd—was generally lousy. And other cultural artifacts, such as the clothes, made brief reappearances before vanishing
into the pit of evil from which they first emerged. However, in the past few years another cultural echo of the 1970s has arisen once
again, the concept of space solar power. The idea of building vast solar power satellites and beaming the energy to Earth predates the
1970s, but it developed its following in that decade. There were several factors contributing to this, most of them directly or indirectly
linked to each other. They included the environmental movement, the Oil Crisis, and a government study. But at the time, space solar
power seemed to answer a cultural, ideological, even spiritual need among a small segment of people. The early 1970s was a period of
gloom and doom, with some prominent academics rather stupidly claiming that humanity would soon exhaust most of its energy and
mineral resources and virtually destroy itself. Such defeatism annoyed a small group of people who had also been impressed by the
Apollo program and who believed that space offered infinite resources and infinite energy. But space solar power also had an appeal to people who
saw the exploits of the Apollo astronauts and thought that they would like to do that too. Gerard K. O’Neill provided a justification for ordinary people to live and work in space—they would build and operate solar power
satellites. Thousands of people were taken in by this idea. And then over the next decade or so they saw no progress towards making it happen. The Space Shuttle did not provide the cheap access to space that was required,
and so the concept of solar power satellites lost what little support it had and became just another unfunded fringe idea. It remains an unfunded fringe idea to this day. But like flare pants and wide ties, it has made a bit of a
comeback. The specific reasons are eerily similar to the ones that made it briefly popular in the1970s: a renewed environmental movement thanks in part to Al Gore, high gasoline prices—over $4 a gallon in 2008—and a
government-sponsored study. That study, produced by the National Security Space Office in 2007, seems to have been the spark that reignited the fumes of this long-dormant community. But the community failed to
national security space field in no way represented Pentagon endorsement of the
idea of space solar power. (Proof: DoD isn’t building solar powersats.) The more general reason that space solar power has reemerged
is that just like in the 1970s, space solar power fills a cultural, ideological, and yes, spiritual need among a certain type of person. It
has nothing to do with the concept suddenly becoming technically or economically feasible, or gaining any credibility within the
energy sector. Last month two groups held solar energy conferences separated by one week, 1700 miles, and a million light years. The first wasSOLAR 2010, the annual conference of the American Solar Energy
recognize that an unfunded study produced by an office that has zero clout within the
Society held in Phoenix, Arizona. The second was the “First National Space Society Space Solar Power Symposium” held at the International Space Development Conference in Chicago, Illinois. The Space Solar Power
Symposium featured approximately three dozen presentations on the subject, including individuals from Japan and India. The presentation topics ranged from the mundane (“Prospects for microwave wireless power
transmission”) to the polemic (“Why Space Solar Power is the Answer and the ONLY Answer to Our Long Term Energy Needs”). But if you went to SOLAR 2010 a week earlier, you would have noticed something rather
Despite the attendance of hundreds of people, numerous companies, and the presentation of hundreds of technical papers; despite
the presence of the United States’ best experts on energy policy, energy transmission, energy generation, and solar power
technology—there were no presentations on space solar power. Think about that for a moment. What does it say about space solar
power? What it says is that space solar power is a fringe idea that is not even taken seriously within the niche field of solar power
generation. What it also says is that the space solar power community doesn’t play with the big boys. It’s a community that talks to
itself, that seeks the comfort of like-minded individuals, and doesn’t even try to sell its message to the audience most likely to give it a
fair hearing.
striking.
Last printed 7/1/2017 6:40:00 AM
18