229 co space case neg

8/7/2019 229 CO Space Case Neg

1/61

SPACE NEGDDI 2k8 Culpepper/OlsenG. Zhang

SPACE NEG:

Table of Contents

Space Colonization F/L:.............................................................................................................................4Space Militarization F/L (1/4):...................................................................................................................5Space Militarization F/L (2/4):...................................................................................................................6Space Militarization F/L (3/4):...................................................................................................................7Ext Space Mil F/L - US ahead now ...........................................................................................................81NC 1 Ext:.................................................................................................................................................9Space Militarization Nuke War:..........................................................................................................10Space Militarization Nuke War:..........................................................................................................11Space Mil Arms Races:.......................................................................................................................12

Space Mil Arms Races (China/Russia):..............................................................................................13Space Mil War w/ China:....................................................................................................................14AT Space Mil Inev:..................................................................................................................................15Turn: Space Mil Kills US leadership:......................................................................................................16Heg F/L (1/3):...........................................................................................................................................17Heg F/L (2/3):...........................................................................................................................................18Heg F/L (3/3):...........................................................................................................................................19Ext Space Colonization Militarization.............................................................................................20Space Exploration Militarization:.......................................................................................................21

Space ExplorationMilitarization:.......................................................................................................22Diseases Turn:..........................................................................................................................................23Ext. Space Colonization diseases:....................................................................................................24Ext. Space Colonization diseases:....................................................................................................25Space Colonization Costly:...................................................................................................................26Space Colonization Uninhabitable:.......................................................................................................27Space Colonization Lack of Funding....................................................................................................28Space Colonization Microgravity Damage:..........................................................................................29Space Colonization Not Inevitable:......................................................................................................30Space Colonization - Debris:...................................................................................................................31Space Colonization Lack of Personnel:................................................................................................32Rescind Commercial Ban CP:..................................................................................................................33Rescind Commercial Ban CP Solvency:..................................................................................................34

Rescind Commercial Ban CP Solvency:..................................................................................................35Rescind Commercial Ban CP Solvency:..................................................................................................36International Cooperation Key:................................................................................................................37Solvency Economy...............................................................................................................................38China Cooperation Good:........................................................................................................................39US Heg Loss Inev:...................................................................................................................................40AT Space Mil Inev:..................................................................................................................................41

1


2/61

SPACE NEGDDI 2k8 Culpepper/OlsenG. Zhang

Space Mil Wars:..................................................................................................................................42Space Mil Preemptive Strikes:............................................................................................................43Space Debris Defense:.............................................................................................................................44

Space Debris Defense Humanity at risk:..............................................................................................45AT Space Solves Environmental Harms:.................................................................................................46Securitization K Links Climate Change:...............................................................................................47

.............................................................................................................................................................47Securitization K Links Climate Change:...............................................................................................48

Securitizing climate change spills over to military spheres................................................................48Securitization Mpx - Prolif:.....................................................................................................................49Securitization Mpx - Bare Life:...............................................................................................................50Solar Power Popular:............................................................................................................................51Space Exploration Unpopular:..............................................................................................................52

Solar Power Congress supports:...........................................................................................................53Solar Power Reps support:....................................................................................................................54Solar Power Congress Inaction Now:...................................................................................................55States CP Shell (1/2):...............................................................................................................................56States CP Shell (2/2):...............................................................................................................................57States CP Solvency - Generic:.................................................................................................................58States CP Solvency Funding:................................................................................................................59NASA Spin-off Turn:...............................................................................................................................60

2


3/61

Clark-Martin Plan text. Doesn't spec incentives

Thus, the plan:

The United States federal government should provide incentives to the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration for research, development, and implementation of space-based solar power satellites.Well clarify.

NASA Trade-off DA. Maybe have the DOD do it. Consult Congress.Kernoff-Olney Plan text. Says monetary incentives. For development and deployment of SPSPlan:

The United States Federal Government should substantially increase monetary incentives for

development and deployment of Solar Power Satellites in the United States. Well clarify.Doesn't have a good fed key warrant Their national security space office card doesn't say that theFEDERAL GOVERNMENT specifically should provide incentives, it just says incentives.

Their Hamilton card doesn't have warrants why a NATIONALLY coordinated program would solve orwhy it would have to be led by the USFG. It just sounds like the states which make up the US could doit too.

Their NewScientist card also doesn't even mention the USFG

States CP probably solves. Need to cut ptix links pop, unpop, incr pcap, decr pcap,

Their Morring card doesn't say we can achieve the types of transformational changes indicated by the1ac advantages. It just says some change can happen within 10 years.

They claim as their first advantage Information War and say that information solves prolif, but their evis talking in the context of surveillance systems in the military. They say that space solves surveillancewhich allows for a more effective military. This seems extra-T b/c it's not from alt energy incentives.

Links pretty hard to securitization K surveillance links, militarism links, balancing, eco-

managerialism

google scholar search on security and space and representations/discourse args. Copenhagen

school.

USFG has to do it Fisc Disc Net Benefit US probably has to send the satellites up there.

3


4/61

Space Colonization F/L:

1. Building space systems is the first step of all-out militarization of space

Strategy and International Affairs Commission, May 2008. (The militarization and weaponization of space: Towards aEuropean space deterrent, Space Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 2, Pg 61-66. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science?_ob=CitedListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=769357432&_st=12&view=c&_rr=Y&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_userid=4257664&md5=d9217319d34f4f23b498462f3f18fbf2.)

The military use of space is not, however, limited to these defensive applications. The concept of militarizedouter space has been replaced by that of weaponized outer space. The expression weaponization of spacedefines the process which results in the deployment of weapons in space which may then become a theatre ofconflict, a battlefield, through the use of weapons aimed at destroying targets either in orbit or on the Earth'ssurface. The arming of space constitutes a destabilizing factor for international relations . The media coverageof the interception test successfully carried out by China on 11 January 2007 on one of its satellites (Feng Yun 1C, wind and clouds) bya rocket derived from a solid propulsion ballistic missile, finally drew the world's attention to the technological capacities of some stateswhich have this as their aim. This interception is the conclusion of a phase of technological demonstration which has included three otherattempts since 2004; it is difficult to say whether these were failures or merely preliminary verifications. Indeed, the Americans hadthemselves developed such systems but decided against their deployment. Nevertheless, they took the opportunity in February 2008 todemonstrate their ability to intercept and destroy an NRO satellite orbiting at a much lower altitude (about 247 km). The Soviet Union hadits own project in the past. Do the Russians still possess such systems? No visible activity has been observed since the end of thecommunist regime. So the Chinese test surprised and shocked us as something of an anachronism, especially as it was a relevanttechnological success from a developing country. This sudden reappearance of anti-satellite weapons makes them now no longer amonopoly of the US strategists but a common property of the whole international community. Therefore, a year later, the US endeavouragainst what was claimed to be a threat to human life was not considered so unpredictable, but to some extent understandable. It is to befeared that these events only give a partial view of the programmes of the most advanced space powers intending to equip themselves

with attack capacities which can be described as weapons in space. It is quite possible in fact that the weapons race may infuture take place in other directions than nuclear, space systems being part of one of the elements (C4ISR,3 reactiveinfrastructure) of the new triad defined in the Nuclear Posture Review 2002, constituting an important layer in anti-missile defence.4

Since the withdrawal of the USA from the ABM treaty, the legal vacuum concerning the aggressive use of space seems clearer and

clearer. Moreover, the non-existence of a multilateral forum for discussion and the consideration of questions of peaceful uses for spaceconstitutes a serious handicap, while resumption of the Conference on Disarmament talks does not appear to be very realistic.

space exploration will cause environmental exploitation, nuclear annihilation, arms races, and

epidemics

Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space,1999. (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 forcontainment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expandingnuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramificationsas well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new globalconflicts and confrontations.

4
http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htmhttp://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm


5/61

Space Militarization F/L (1/4):

1. space exploration will inevitably lead to space militarizationBruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999. (Space Exploration andExploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

The Pentagon, through the U.S. Space Command, is working hard to ensure that the space corridorwill remain open and free for private corporate interests. Weapon systems such as nuclear poweredlasers and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are now being funded, researched, and tested in the U.S. Itwill only be a matter of time until deployment of space based weapons will follow. In the SpaceCommands document, Vision for 2020, they state that "Historically, military forces have evolved toprotect national interests and investments both military and economic. During the rise of seacommerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. The control ofspace will encompass protecting U.S. military, civil and commercial investments in space. Controlof space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, andan ability to deny others the use of space, if required." A parallel, military highway will be createdbetween the Earth and the planets beyond. Documents commissioned by the U.S. Congress suggestthat U.S. military bases on the Moon will enable the U.S. to control access to and from the planetEarth. The logo of the U.S. Space Command is "Master of Space."

5


6/61


2. space militarization makes nuclear war inevitable

Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburg, July 2001.ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense no. 6,http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html.

A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but thisrationale glosses over the tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increasedlikelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by FrankBarnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'antiballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies gohand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from theinherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the

UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use thesame capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in spacecan knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars',capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfarewould introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-secondattacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, thisautomation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking thedecision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, militaryplanners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have manysophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, thisinterlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As

Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics,multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, giventhe susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of aspace war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from spacestrikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage even more than would be done bya nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool ofpeace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived:'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is nothard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force,including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitchin space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

6
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.htmlhttp://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html


7/61


3. Link Turn: Threats of a space pearl harbor are exaggerated, but if the U.S. deploys space

weapons we will lose our monopoly on space mil.

Kathleen M. Sweet , J. D., Lt. Col. (Ret.) USAF Associate Professor, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical

University August 2003(Space Based Offensive Weapons,http://satjournal.tcom.ohiou.edu/Issue6/current_weaponry2.html)

Considering the current global situation, it is fair game to debate whether US space based assets are really at risk. Some have foretold of a

Space Pearl Harbor but thisseems a bitdisingenuous. The Soviet Union had a working anti-satellite weapons system in theearly 1970s and given adequate funding, modern Russia would be capable of building another more up-to date system. Our Europeanallies could likely build and deploy an ASAT system but have also resisted spending the money to build one. Other countries with space

potential include Brazil, China, India, and Iran. [13]To date, the perceived threat has not matched the enthusiasm to

commit to the effort. The US has no active ASAT program but since 9/11 is more actively pursing the matter. The system wouldlikely be ground-based initially and deployed sometime in the early decades of the 21st century. This system could be a precursor to anoffensive weapon that would possess the capability to attack and destroy ground targets. This continuing activity begs the additionalquestion of whether space should be weaponized and whether Congress is poised to fund the programs. Wary of the changes in the formerSoviet states and the threat of global terrorism, it seems that they are willing. Congress realizes that the US military cannot be caughtunprepared again in defense of the Homeland. Consequently, funding for research and development of technologies easily adapted to

space warfare continues, despite reservations about weapons in space.The US does not have a monopoly on the use of spacebut does dominate it. The number of nations able to realistically challenge the US in space is limited.The Russianspace program is still operates at an advanced level even though somewhat stagnant due to economic difficulties. China certainly has thepotential to be a major space power in the 21 st century. Other countries have launch facilities and technological prowess to pursue interestsin space. How these space capable countries would react or be capable of significantly reacting to further US space superiority remains to

be seen. Regardless, US strategists need to consider the possibilities. Should such a threat materialize, the US monopoly inspace warfare would be eliminated, much as the atomic bomb monopoly was lost when the Soviet Uniondeveloped an atomic bomb . At least some analysts believe that strategy would cover aspects of space control, missile defense andforce application from space.

4. The U.S. is the only country with the capability to weaponize spaceThomas D. Bell, Lt Col, USAF. 1999, Weaponization Of Space:Understanding Strategic and TechnologicalInevitabilities. Center for Strategy and Technology.

The weaponization of space provides the asymmetric technology the US needs to win the next war. The UnitedStates is the only nation with the economic and scientific potential to make this technology a reality in the nextthirty years. The technological development of weapons that apply force in, from, and through space must have the goal of fieldingweapons as the technology matures. Just as the doctrine of daylight precision bombing guided the development of the long-range bombers

of World War II, today's Air Force must develop doctrine for the employment of space weapons. This space version of strategicbombardment doctrine will serve both as a guide to technological development and as a plan for the long-term structure of the Air Force.If no war comes, US space-based capabilities will have proven an effective deterrent force; if war does come, as the inevitable result ofcompetition on earth or in space, technological asymmetry will once again be a large factor in giving the United States the capability forwinning a decisive victory. To be effective, however, institutional and doctrinal change must accompany this technological asymmetry.

7


8/61

Ext Space Mil F/L - US ahead now

The United States is already secure in its space military operationsGeneral Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF Commander In Chief North American Aerospace Defense Command and United StatesSpace Command, July 11, 2001 (Statement of General Ralph E. Eberhart, Page 14)

I assure you, NORAD and USSPACECOM are prepared to provide aerospace defense to the people of NorthAmerica and space support to U.S. and allied armed forces. We continue to find new ways to improve ourwarfighting capabilities by integrating space capabilities into all aspects of our military missions; we are working todo the same for computer network operations. As we develop our next generation systems, we must invest the necessary resources andintellectual capital to protect our vital interests and sustain our lead in space. We appreciate Congress continued support to maintain ourhigh state of readiness. With your help, we will ensure space forces play a key role in our Nations future defense.

8


9/61

1NC 1 Ext:

space exploration will inevitably lead to space militarization


The Pentagon, through the U.S. Space Command, is working hard to ensure that the space corridorwill remain open and free for private corporate interests. Weapon systems such as nuclear poweredlasers and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are now being funded, researched, and tested in the U.S. Itwill only be a matter of time until deployment of space based weapons will follow. In the SpaceCommands document, Vision for 2020, they state that "Historically, military forces have evolved toprotect national interests and investments both military and economic. During the rise of seacommerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. The control ofspace will encompass protecting U.S. military, civil and commercial investments in space. Controlof space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, andan ability to deny others the use of space, if required." A parallel, military highway will be createdbetween the Earth and the planets beyond. Documents commissioned by the U.S. Congress suggestthat U.S. military bases on the Moon will enable the U.S. to control access to and from the planetEarth. The logo of the U.S. Space Command is "Master of Space."

9


10/61

Space Militarization Nuke War:

Weaponization of space causes nuclear war in spaceLarryChin, reporter for Global Research, July 16, 2005(globalresearch.ca, Deep Impact andthe Militarization of Space, page #1)

To again quote Gagnon, "the United Nations, to their credit, created the Moon Treaty and theOuter Space Treaty as ways to circumvent the war-like tendencies of humankind as we step out into thecosmosbut the US appears to be heading in the opposite direction by creatingenormous danger and conflict with the current Nuclear Systems Initiative that will expandnuclear power and weapons into space---all disguised as the noble effort to hunt for the origins of life in space.[ Similarly, the Deep Impact project is also being lauded for "origins of life" research breakthroughs.LC] Onlya lively and growing global debate about the ethics and morality of current space policy will save us fromigniting the harsh fires of Prometheus in the heavens above us."

10


11/61

Space Militarization Nuke War:

US space militarization causes prolif and arms races

Mike Monre, Senior editors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, January/February 2001. (Watch out for spacecommand, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, v. 557, pg 24-25, ProQuest.)

The United States may have the best of intentions in seeking full spectrum dominance of the battlespace. Butthe Melos Syndrome is powerful. Over the course of the next decade or two, you can bet that at least a few stateswill attempt to develop the means to counter the planned U.S. domination of space. They will not assume thatU.S. intentions are always benign. The current U.S. attempt to achieve space dominance may in the endcompromise U.S. security, either by promoting an actual arms race in space or by encouraging asymmetricresponses - biological weapons perhaps, or cyber weapons, or even nuclear weapons deliverable by means otherthan ballistic missiles.

US space militarization encourages nuclear war

Nina Tattenwald , Prof. of Int. Studies at Brown University, Summer2004(The Yale Journal of International Law,Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, lexis)

The choice between a competition for national superiority and a strengthened legal regime that preserves andbalances the interests of all in space will have profound consequences. If the United States aggressively movedweaponry into space, it would likely provoke other nations to pursue countermeasures, with destabilizingconsequences for global and national security. In addition, by encouraging nations who do not currently have aninterest in placing weapons in space to compete directly and immediately with U.S. space-based assets, the

United States would almost certainly guarantee the loss of the advantages it seeks to protect. Although an armsrace in ASAT weapons is one of the dangers, the threat currently of greatest concern to states such as China andRussia is the U.S. use of space systems to augment its nuclear and conventional strategic strike capabilities.From the perspective of these nations, the U.S. decision to expand strategic capabilities into space representsthe collapse of the Cold War bargain of strategic stability based on mutual vulnerability. A military competitionin space could thus invigorate a high-tech arms race and renew emphasis on doctrines of nuclear warfare. 25

11


12/61

Space Mil Arms Races:

Space mil will spur arms races where they didnt previously exist and anger our allies.Jonathan Power, reporter for arab news, Mon. May 30, 2005( arabnews.com, Militrazing Space is QuiteUnnecessary, page#1)

Space war has been a recurrent political theme since the fright America got when the Soviet Union launched itsSputnik in 1957. President Lyndon Johnson, not long after, said, Out in space, there is the ultimateposition from which total control of the earth may be exercised. President Ronald Reagan launched hisStrategic Defense Initiative, the so-called star wars, meant to deploy space-based weapons to shoot downincoming missiles. He found his way blocked by a Democratic Congress. But Reagans notion pales besides thatof Rumsfelds. Rumsfeld has always talked of the need for Americas total domination of space. It must be largeenough and so all encompassing, argued his report, that any counter measures by other countries would be

quickly nullified. This is the ultimate in American unilateralism. It will not only make enemies where they dontexist, it will make friends in NATO wonder if they will be pressed to make up the alliances inevitable shortfallin more run-of-the mill programs whilst American indulges itself in its space fantasies.

Weaponizing space leads destabilizes US hegemony and ensures an arms race and conflictNina Tattenwald , Prof. of Int. Studies at Brown University, Summer2004 (The Yale Journal of International Law,Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, lexis)

The future of peace and security in outer space is at a critical juncture. The legal regime that guides commercial,military, and scientific activities in space is fragmented and increasingly inadequate to meet the challenges posed

by the growing number of actors seeking to exploit space. The most serious challenge to the space regime isposed by the stated intent of the George W. Bush administration to pursue national dominance in space, whichmay eventually include stationing weapons there. Although space is already militarized to some degree - that is,used for military support purposes - no nation has yet placed weapons in space. Such a move would cross animportant and longstanding threshold, likely provoking a battle for national superiority in space dominated bythe United States. It would seriously undermine the current legal order in space that is widely supported by therest of the world. The deployment of ground-based antisatellite (ASAT) weapons would also constitute a seriousdeparture from the current regime. Without a concerted effort to develop a more comprehensive legal regime forspace that will limit unconstrained weaponization, the international community will likely face a new militarycompetition in space, with destabilizing consequences for national and global security. Such a competition willplace at risk existing military, commercial, and scientific activities.

12


13/61

Space Mil Arms Races (China/Russia):

Space weaponization will spur Russia and China to actually start weaponization programs.Noah Shachtman, Wired.com Reporter. Febuary 20, 2004 Online.http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62358,00.html. Accessed: 7/4/06.

Space has become an increasingly important part of U.S. military efforts. Satellites are used more and more totalk to troops, keep tabs on foes and guide smart bombs. There's also long been recognition that satellites mayneed some sort of protection against attack. But the Air Force report goes far beyond these defensive capabilities,calling for weapons that can cripple other countries' orbiters. That prospect worries some analysts that the U.S.may spark a worldwide arms race in orbit. "I don't think other countries will be taking this lying down," saidTheresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information. The space weapons programs listed inthe Air Force report went largely unnoticed until Hitchens circulated them in an e-mail Thursday. "This will

certainly prompt China into actually moving forward" on space weapon plans of its own, she added. "TheRussians are likely to respond with something as well."

US militarization of space leads to counterbalancing, an arms race and pushes Russia and China

togetherNina Tattenwald , Prof. of Int. Studies at Brown University, Summer2004 (The Yale Journal of International Law,Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, lexis)

For several reasons, the first two scenarios are unlikely to lead to stable outcomes. As discussed earlier, U.S.

efforts at space dominance will likely inspire other countries to pursue countermeasures to offset U.S.capabilities, thus risking a never-ending search for security in space that will leave all actors worse off. Someadvocates of space weaponization argue that others will be deterred from responding to U.S. deployment ofspace weapons for fear of a U.S. counterattack, or out of a conviction that there is no point competing becausethe United States will always be ahead. 81 But proponents of this view have so far offered little explanation ofhow or why this would be the case. Instead, given the vast U.S. dependence on satellites, other countries merelyhave to pursue an "asymmetric warfare" strategy of building antisatellite weapons, and there are multiple andrelatively easy ways to do this. 82 Because of this, dominance will be very hard to achieve, and will also haveadverse consequences for the United States - including alienating allies, [*380] pushing Russia and China closertogether, and placing at risk other U.S. interests in space. 83

13


14/61

Space Mil War w/ China:

Space mil will force pre-emptive strike on ChinaJeffery Lewis, Center for Defense Information, March 11, 2004 online. http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf.

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon is extremely worried about possible Chinese ASATs, and the threat that suchweapons would pose to U.S military superiority. The most recent Pentagon report on Chinese military powerwarns that China is said to be acquiring a variety of foreign technologies which could be used to develop anactive Chinese ASAT capability.22 The report also warns that, at the outset of a conflict, the PLA wouldattempt to weaken U.S. or other third partys resolve by demonstrating the capability to hold at risk or actuallystriking high-value assets. The PLA would seek to leverage emerging asymmetric capabilities to counter ornegate an adversarys superiorities.23These weapons could be used to blind the missile warning and radar

satellites that allow the United States to target Chinese ballistic missiles on the ground or in flight, as well as thecommunications satellites that would direct systems such as the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) to their targets. Ifthe United States were to deploy space-based missile defenses, or place a large number of CAVs in orbit (aboarda space maneuver vehicle like NASAs X-37), China might target those weapons with anti-satellite weapons aswell. This situation would essentially put the United States on hair trigger alert in space. A Chinese militaryexercise, for example, involving the movement of large numbers of troops and mobilization of ballistic missileunits might be mistaken in the United States as a prelude to a surprise attack. With a military strategy thatabsolutely depends on vulnerable space assets to protect the homeland, an American president would face theunenviable task of choosing between launching a surprise attack on China or risking the loss of space-basedintelligence, strike and missile defense assets that protect against nuclear attack.

14


15/61

AT Space Mil Inev:

15


16/61

Turn: Space Mil Kills US leadership:

Focus on space militarization will spur arms races that the U.S. will lose, ending U.S. space

leadership

Charles V. Pea and Edward L. Hudgins, sen. defense policy analyst/form. director at Cato Institute,March 18, 2002 (Should the United States "Weaponize" Space? Military and Commercial Implicatons,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1286&print=Y)

Advocates of a more aggressive U.S. military policy for space argue that the United States is more reliant on theuse of space than is any other nation, that space systems are vulnerable to attack, and that U.S. space systems arethus an attractive candidate for a "space Pearl Harbor." But as important and potentially vulnerable as currentU.S. space-based assets may be, deploying actual weapons (whether defensive or offensive) will likely beperceived by the rest of the world as more threatening than the status quo. Any move by the United States to

introduce weapons into space will surely lead to the development and deployment of anti-satellite weapons bypotentially hostile nations. As the dominant user of space for military and civilian functions, the United Stateswould have the most to lose from such an arms race. National security must be one component of total U.S.space policy, but it must certainly not be the primary component. In the post-Cold War environment--with noimmediate threat from a rival great power and none on the horizon--the United States must not establish over-stated and costly military requirements for space-based resources. The military must make greater use ofcommercial space assets. Also, the United States should strive to foster an environment that allows commercialspace activity to grow and flourish rather than use it to create a new area for costly military competition.

16


17/61

Heg F/L (1/3):

1. Hegemony fuels anti-american sentiments, terrorism and nuclear war

Layne(Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M) 2006[Christopher, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to Present, Cornell UniversityPress (Ithica), p. 190-192 //wfi-tjc]

Advocates of hegemony claim that it is illusory to think that the United States can retract its military power safely from Eurasia. The answer to this

assertion is that the risks and costs of American grand strategy are growing, and the strategy is not likely to workmuch longer in any event. As other statesnotably China rapidly close the gap, U.S. hegemony is fated to end

in the next decade or two regardless of U.S. efforts to prolong it. At the same time, understandable doubts about the credibility ofU.S. security guarantees are driving creeping re-nationalization by Americas Eurasian allies, which, in turn, is leading to a reversion to multipolaritv. Inthis changing geopolitical context, the costs of trying to hold on to hegemony are high and going to become higher. Ratherthan fostering peace and stability in Eurasia, Americas military commitments abroad have become a source of insecurityfor the United States, because they carry the risk of entrapping the United States in great power Eurasian wars. The eventsof 9/11 are another example of how hegemony makes the United States less secure than it would he if it followed an offshorebalancing strategy. Terrorism, the RAND Corporation terrorism expert Bruce Hoff- man says, is about power: the pursuit of power, the acquisition ofpower, and use of power to achieve political change~. If we step hack for a moment from our horror and revulsion at the events of September 11, we cansee that the attack was in keeping with the Clausewitzian paradigm of war: force was used against the United States by its adversaries to advance theirpolitical objectives.87 As Clausewitz observed, War is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object.88 September 111represented a violent counter reaction to Americas geopoliticaland culturalhegemony. As the strategy expert Richard K. Betts presciently observed ina 1998 Foreign Affairs article: It is hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center ifthe United States had not been identified so long as the mainstay of Israel, the shah of Iran, and conservative Arab regimes and the source of an eternal

assault on Islam. U.S. hegemony fuels terrorist groups like al Qaeda and fans Islamic fundamentalism, which is aform of blowback against Americas preponderance and its world role.9As long as the United Statesmaintains its global hegemonyand its concomitant preeminence in regions like the Persian Gulfit will he the

target of politically motivated terrorist groups like al Qaeda . After 9/li, many foreign policy analysts and pundits asked the question,Why do they hate us? This question missed the key point. No doubt, there are Islamic fundamentalists who do hate the United States for cultural,

religious, and ideological reasons. And even leaving aside American neoconservatives obvious relish for making it so, to some extent the war on terrorinescapably has overtones of a clash of civilizations. Still, this isntand should not be allowed to become a replay of the Crusades. Fundamentally

9/11 was about geopolitics, specifically about U.S. hegemony. The United States may be greatly reviled in some quarters of theIslamic world, but were the United States not so intimately involved in the affairs of the Middle East, its hardly likely that this detestation would havemanifested itself in something like 9/11. As Michael Scheurer, who headed the CIA analytical team monitoring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, puts it,One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believeat the urging of senior U.S.

leadersthat Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do.91 It is American policiesto be precise, Americanhegemonythat make the United States a lightning rodfor Muslim anger. Hegemony has proven to be an elusive goal for the greatpowers that have sought it. The European great powers that bid for hegemony did so because they were on a geopolitical treadmill. For them, it seemed asif security was attainable only by ~eliminating their great power rivals and achieving continental hegemony. And it is this fact that invested great powerpolitics with its tragic quality, because the international systems power-balancing dynamics doomed all such bids to failure. The United States, on theother hand, has never faced similar pressures to seek security through a hegemonic grand strategy, and, too often, instead of enhancing U.S. security as

advertised, Americas hegemonic grand strategy has made the United States less secure. In the early twentyfirst century, bythreatening to embroil the United States in military showdowns with nuclear great powers and exposing the United States toterrorism, the pursuit of hegemony means that over there well may become over here. Objectively, the United Stateshistorically has enjoyed an extraordinarily high degree of immunity from external threat, a condition that has had nothing todo with whether it is hegemonic and everything to do with geography and its military capabilities. Consequently, the UnitedStates has, should it wish to use it, an exit rampoffshore balancingthat would allow it to escape from the tragedy ofgreat power politics that befalls those that seek hegemony. The failure of the United States to take this exit ramp constitutesthe real tragedy of American diplomacy.

17


18/61

Heg F/L (2/3):

2. Collapse of heg is inevitable their plan leads to great power conflictCharles Kupchan, Associate Prof at Georgetown University, 2003 [Charles, the Rise of Europe, AmericasChanging Internationalism and the End of US Primacy, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 119, no. 2//mac-dch]

Combine the rise of Europe and Asia with the decline of liberal internationalism in the United States and itbecomes clear that America's unipolar moment is not long for this world. At the same time that alternativecenters of power are taking shape, the United States is drawing away from multilateral institutions in favorof a unilateralism that risks estranging those power centers, raising the chances that their ascent will lead toa new era of geopolitical rivalry. As unipolarity gives way to multipolarity, the strategic competitio n nowheld in abeyance by U.S. primacy will return--and with a vengeance if America's unilateralist impulseprevails. No longer steadied by U.S. hegemony, processes of globalization and democratization are likelyto falter, as are the international institutions currently dependent upon Washington's leadership to function

effectively. Geopolitical fault lines will reemerge among centers of power in North America, Europe, andEast Asia. The central challenge for U.S. grand strategy will be managing and taming the dangers arisingfrom these new fault lines. The United States cannot and should not resist the end of unipolarity and thereturn of a world of multiple centers of power. To do so would only risk alienating and risking conflict witha rising Europe and an ascendant Asia. And it would likely stoke an isolationist backlash in the UnitedStates by pursuing a level of foreign ambition for which there would be insufficient political support.Asking that the United States prepare for and manage its exit from global primacy, however, is a tall order.Great powers have considerable difficulty accepting their mortality; few in history have willfully maderoom for rising challengers and adjusted their grand strategies accordingly. In managing the return ofmultipolarity, America should be guided by the principles of strategic restraint and institutional binding.Strategic restraint means making room for rising centers of power so that they array their rising strengthwith rather than against the United States. Institutional binding entails the use of international institutions to

bind major powers to each other and to bound their behavior through adherence to common norms.Institutions also promise to fulfill another important function--that of guiding America down a multilateralpath that offers a middle ground between unilateralism and isolationism

3. Decline in US heg won't cause bad shit other mechanisms for global stability existMichael Mandelbaum, Professor Foreign Policy Johns Hopkins, 2005, The Case for Goliath: How America acts as theworlds government in the 21st Century, p. 201-2

The establishment of a world government is therefore no more likely to occur in the twenty-first century, even if the United States lowers

its international profile considerably, than in the centuries preceding. Still, a substantial retraction of American power withoutthe advent of a global authority to replace it would not necessarily plunge the world into deadly and costly

disorder because government, whether formally constituted or supplied de facto by the United States, is not theonly source of order in the international system.

18


19/61

Heg F/L (3/3):

US PURSUIT OF MILITARISM AND EMPIRE THREATENS PLANETARY SURVIVALCarlBoggs, Social Science Professor National University (L.A.) , 2005,Planetary Politics: human rights, terror, and global society, ed.Stephen Eric Bronner, p. 80-1

A potentially explosive contradiction of empire is the built-in conflict between global dimensions of powerassociated with the world hegemon and a range of distinctly nationalinterests and agendas that elites want topursuea predicament embedded in the Middle East cauldron today. A strong patriotic mobilization that feedsinto domestic legitmation needs quickly evaporates beyond American borders, where it breeds contempt,hostility, and resistance; nationalism by its very logic cannot serve general interests on the global terrain, even as itseeks universal justification. The single hegemon predictably works against diversity, independent centers of power, and peaceful balance, favoring

coercive methods in support of a single neoliberal order, enforced along lines of an American-style fundamentalism . Empire rests on a logic ofperpetual expansion: the global managers can never accrue sufficient power of enough mastery of the universe,

just as billionaires can never accumulate enough wealth. Despite the onset of a supposedly postnationalglobalization, distinct nationalagendas lie behind US pursuit of international global double standards: breakingtreaties, violations of the UN Charter and international law, refusal to accept inclusive disarmament processes,rejection of the World Criminal Court, seizing hold of space militarization for itself, launching of preemptivewars, hectoring of other nations for human rights abuses the United States itself commits on an even larger scale(and more regularly) around the globe. Further, to even speak of globalization as some kind of objective, abstract, benign historical processis mystified nonsense, largely a cover for American corporate, geopolitical, and military interests that have little in common with a balanced, multipolarglobalism in which single-power domination becomes obsolete. As the cycle of militarism and terrorism intensifies as the world moves ever closer tobarbarismthe very premise of warfare as a method of advancing national goals has become bankrupt and irrational, for reasons having less to do withdemocracy or worldwide diffusion of liberal values than with the brutal nature of contemporary warfare itself. The proliferation of WMDsand thegrowing prospect that such horrific weapons will be used only underscores the insanity of militarism in a world where deep social polarization is the

norm and universal disarmament seems a distant fantasy. Put differently , American designs for implementing full-spectrumdominance across a global system where anti-US sentiment flourishes are bound to jeopardize planetarysurvival. We stand at a juncture where large-scale military action tends to aggravate national, religious, andother conflicts, a point doubly applicable to the lone superpower as it takes measures to secure globaldomination. The classic strategic view that war unfolds as an extension of politics thus makes no sense for twenty-first century realities. As the Iraqdisaster shows, war (and its aftermath) is the vehicle of senseless death and destruction, destroying civilian infrastructures, violating established rules ofengagement, and destabilizing entire countries and regions. Civilian populations are deeply and irrevocably drawn into the horrors of modern warfare. As

Istvan Meszaros argues , if the efforts of the only superpower to maintain total armed supremacy persist long into thefuture, the result is sure to be a recipe for military suicide. As the militarization of society proceeds, theconfluence of the domestic war economy and global empire generates popular attitudes inconsistent with avibrant, democratic public sphere: fear, hatred, jingoism, racism, and aggression. We have arrived at a bizarremixture of imperial arrogance and collective paranoia, violent impulses and retreat from norms of civic engagement and obligationthat patriotic energies furnish only falsely and ephemerally. Further, the celebration of guns and violence in American society, cavalier attitudes towardwar and military escapades abroad, and widespread indifference to established moral and legal codes gives elites wider autonomy to pursue their global

schemes. As war becomes more acceptable, often the preferred instrument to fight ubiquitous enemies, we canexpect further erosion of the domestic infrastructure and culture. For elites this could well be tolerable, but the

long-term consequences for US imperial hegemonyboth domestically and globally are certain to bedisastrous .

19


20/61

Ext Space Colonization Militarization

space travel and colonization allows for the unchecked nuclearization of space


Nuclear power has become the power source of choice for NASA. Not only has NASA, and theDepartment of Energy (DoE), been promoting the use of nuclear power for on-board generators fordeep space missions, but there is growing evidence that the space exploration and exploitation"adventure" will soon be awash in nuclear materials. According to Marshall Savage, the founder ofthe First Millennial Foundation (a pro-space colonization organization), "We really cant mess up theMoon, either by mining it or building nuclear power plants. We can ruthlessly strip mine the surfaceof the Moon for centuries and it will be hard to tell weve even been there. There is no reason whywe cannot build nuclear power plants on the Moons surface with impunity. Equipped with limitlessnuclear, the lunar civilization will be capable of prodigious rates of economic growth." One cannothelp but wonder what would happen to the poor Moon miner who becomes contaminated byradioactive dust after removing his irradiated space suit inside the lunar habitat. There is a growingcall as well for the nuclear rocket to Mars. Already work is underway on the project at Los AlamosLabs in New Mexico and at the University of Florida Nuclear Engineering Department. In his SpaceNews op-ed called Nuclear Propulsion to Mars, aerospace industry engineer Robert Kleinbergerstates that the nuclear rocket "could be used for defending U.S. space systems, reboosting theInternational Space Station, returning to the Moon for exploration or mining, and for exploring andopening the inner solar system to scientific research. The nuclear vehicle could even assist in theeventual colonization of Mars." In fact, there is such a growing demand for plutonium for "spaceprojects" that the DoE is now undertaking an internal review of its production process. The DoE isconsidering re-opening plutonium processing lines at such facilities as Hanford in Washington state,

a site that has created enormous contamination during its years of bomb making.

20


21/61

Space Exploration Militarization:

Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space,1999. (Space Exploration and Exploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)But there are obstacles to U.S. Space dominance...well as the Outer Space Treaty.

21


22/61

Space Exploration Militarization:Space exploration leads to militarization

Raymond D. Duvall, & Jonathan Havercroft, University of Minnesota & University of Victoria, March 22-25,2006. (Taking Sovereignty Out of This World: Space Weaponization and the Production of Late-Modern Political Subjects,International Studies Association. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/8/6/8/pages98680/p98680-1.php).

The weaponization of spacethe act of placing weapons in outer spacehas an intimate relationship to space

exploration, in that the history of the former is embedded in the latter, while the impetus for space exploration, in turn, is

embedded in histories of military development. Since the launch of Sputnik, states that have ability to access and hence to

exploreouter space have sought ways in which that access could improve their military capabilities. Consequently,

militaries in general and the U.S. military in particular have had a strong interest in the military uses of space for

the last half century. Early on, the military interest in space had two direct expressions: enhancing surveillance; anddeveloping rocketry technologies that could be put to use for earth- based weapons, such as missiles. Militaries also have a vestedinterest in the dual-use technologies that are often developed in space exploration missions. While NASA goes to great lengths in its

public relations to stress the benefits to science and the (American) public of its space explorations, it is noteworthy that many of the

technologies developed for those missions also have potential military use. The multiple interests that tie together space exploration and

space weaponization have been vigorously pursued and now are beginning to be substantially realized by a very small number of

militaries, most notably that of the United States. For example, since the 1990 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military has increasingly relied

on assets in space to increase its C3I (Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence) functions. Most of these functions are now

routed through satellites in orbit. In addition, new precision weapons, such as JDAM bombs, and unmanned drones, such as the Predator,

rely on Global Positioning System satellites to help direct them to their targets, and often these weapons communicate with headquarters

through satellite uplinks. For another instance, NASAs recently completed Deep Impact mission, which entailed smashing part of a

probe into a comet to gather information about the content of comet nuclei, directly served the U.S. military in developing the technology

and the logistical capabilities to intercept small objects moving at very fast speeds (approximately 23,000 miles per hour) (NASA, 2005).

As such, the technologies can be adapted for programs such as missile defense, where a similar problem of intercepting an object moving

at a very high speed is confronted.

22


23/61

Diseases Turn:a. space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous landsamples


Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the InternationalCommittee Against Mars Sample Return, has written that "any Martian samples returned to Earthmust be treated as biohazardous material until proven otherwise." At the present time NASA hastaken no action to create a special facility to handle space sample returns. On March 6, 1997 a reportissued by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that such afacility 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 thatkilled thousands of indigenous people, DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "containpathogenic viruses or bacteria." There are vast deposits of mineral resources like magnesium andcobalt believed to be on Mars. In June of 1997, NASA announced plans for manned mining colonieson Mars, expected around 2007-2009. The mining colonies, NASA says, would be powered bynuclear reactors launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

b. Causes extinction

Daswani, 96 (Kavita, South China Morning Post, , lexis.)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the...imperial the survival of the human race, he said.

23


24/61

Ext. Space Colonization diseases:

space travel and exploration lead to decreased system immunity thru stresses of spaceflight

NASA, September 29, 2004. (Dolores Beasley, Washington Headquarters, and William Jeffs, JohnsonSpace Center Houston, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04320_immunity.html.)

A NASA-funded study has found the human body's ability to fight off disease may be decreased by spaceflight.The effect may even linger after an astronaut's return to Earth following long flights. In addition to theconditions experienced by astronauts in flight, the stresses experienced before launch and after landing also maycontribute to a decrease in immunity. Results of the study were recently published in "Brain, Behavior, andImmunity." The results may help researchers better understand the affects of spaceflight on the human immuneresponse. They may also provide new insights to ensure the health, safety and performance of InternationalSpace Station crewmembers and future spacefarers on extended missions. "Astronauts live and work in a

relatively crowded and stressful environment," said Duane Pierson, the study's principal investigator and NASASenior Microbiologist at Johnson Space Center, Houston. "Stresses integral to spaceflight can adversely affectastronaut health by impairing the human immune response. Our study suggests these effects may increase asmission duration and mission activity demands increase," he added. The white blood cell count provides a clueto the presence of illness. The five main types of white cells work together to protect the body by fightinginfection and attacking foreign material. The most prevalent white blood cells are called neutrophils. From 1999to 2002, scientists from NASA, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., of Houston, and the Boston UniversitySchool of Medicine compared neutrophil functions in 25 astronauts. They made comparisons after five-daySpace Shuttle missions and after nine to 11 day missions. Researchers found the number of neutrophils increasedby 85 percent at landing compared to preflight levels. Healthy ground control subjects, who did not fly, exhibitedno more than a two percent increase. Researchers also discovered functions performed by these cells,specifically ingestion and destruction of microorganisms, are affected by factors associated with spaceflight. The

effect becomes more pronounced during longer missions. The increase in astronaut neutrophil numbers resultedin a corresponding increase (more than 50 percent) in total white blood cell counts at landing. The increase is aconsistent consequence of stress. Pierson emphasized that "no astronauts in the study became ill; however,longer exploration missions may result in clinical manifestations of decreased immune response." Researchersconcluded the general effect of spaceflight, pre- and post flight-related stress decreases the ability ofcrewmembers' neutrophils to destroy microbial invaders. This finding suggests crewmembers returning fromlonger missions may be briefly more susceptible to infections than before launch, because these cells are not asefficient in ingesting and destroying infectious agents.

space travel increases risk for AIDS and cancer through immunodeficiency risks

Sastry, assistant prof of experimental veterinary pathology, 2001. (Dr Jaqannadha K., Texas Medical Center News,Studies on Cell-Mediated Immunity Against Immune Disorders,

http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_01/page_02.html.)

Space travel can cause reduced immunity which leads to increased risk for infections. Immunodeficiency is also thebasis for several cancers and AIDS. This project applied the ground-based microgravity technology developed by NASA to helpunderstand immune disorders such as cancer and AIDS. This line of study may eventually help in the design of treatments and vaccinesfor these conditions.

24
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04320_immunity.html.0http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_01/page_02.htmlhttp://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_01/page_02.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04320_immunity.html.0http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_01/page_02.html


25/61

Ext. Space Colonization diseases:

Space colonization brings diseases back home

Britt, Senior Space Writer, 2k. (Robert Roy, Germs from Outer Space! Researchers say flu bugs raindown from Beyond, january 21,http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.html.)

Maybe not. It could be that increasingly frequent sunspots are driving the virus out of the stratosphere and intoyour body. So say Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe of the University of Wales at Cardiff. And whilethere is much doubt by many other scientists that the flu comes from space, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe aregenerating a lot of interest with their idea. In a new paper, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Indianjournal Current Science, the researchers present data that show how previous periods of high sunspot activity

coincided with flu pandemics (large-scale epidemics). A roughly 11-year cycle of solar activity is increasing nowand is expected to peak soon, other scientists agree. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say we can expect another flupandemic to accompany the solar peak " within weeks." By that claim, perhaps debate over their research willsoon be settled. Injecting the flu into our atmosphere. The researchers say that the virus, or a trigger that causesit, is deposited throughout space by dust in the debris stream of comets, which are thought by many researchersto harbor organic material. As Earth passes through the stream, dust (and perhaps the virus) enters ouratmosphere, where it can lodge for two decades or more, until gravity pulls it down.

25
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.htmlhttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.html


26/61

Space Colonization Costly:

1. space exploration is expensive, time-consuming, and dangerously

Robertson, Freelance space industry journalist, 2006. (Donald F., Space Exploration: AReality Check, March 6,http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html.)Two largely unquestioned assumptions long ago...time-consuming and dangerous.

26
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.htmlhttp://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html


27/61

Space Colonization Uninhabitable:

The land is uninhabitable and scientists haven't worked out the kinks

Bell, former space scientist and adjunct prof for planetary science at the hawaii institute of geophysics & Planetology at the universityof hawaii, 2005. (Jeffrey F., The dream palace of the space cadets, Nov. 25, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html.)

Unfortunately, the new generation of organizations like the Space Frontier Foundation and the Mars Society andeven the staid National Space Society mostly lack something that the old L-5 Society and Space Studies Institutehad: technical sophistication. Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's booksis there the kind of detailed engineering design for Mars colonies that the O'Neillians produced for their L-5colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on Mars are dismissed after superficial discussions devoid ofany hard numbers. And there are obvious problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incrediblycold there - probably down to -130C on winter nights. Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 tokeep its batteries from freezing at night. And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, but enough to conductheat. The Martian regolith will not be the perfect insulator that the Moon's is. Thermal control on Mars will notbe simply a matter of adding layers of aluminum foil to reflect the sun. Bases and rovers will need to beinsulated and heated. And how do you keep a human in a spacesuit warm in this climate? And Mars haspermafrost - at least in some places and those places are the ones to colonize. How do we keep the heat leakingout from our habitat or farm greenhouse into the ground from heating up the ice and melting or subliming itaway? This is a severe problem in permafrost areas of the Earth - how bad will it be on Mars? Zubrin evenproposes underground habitats. These will be in direct contact with the cold subsoil or bedrock which will suckheat out at a rapid rate. If Gerard O'Neill was still alive and advocating Mars colonies, he would be doing somebasic thermal transfer calculations to see how bad the Martian cold problem really is. He would be figuring outhow big a fission reactor to send along to keep the colony warm and how often its core will need to be

replenished by fresh U-235 from Earth. He would even have a rough number for the amount of Pu-238 everyonewill have to carry in their spacesuit backpacks. Bob Zubrin is perfectly competent to do these calculations sincehe has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But you never see this kind of hard engineering analysis from the MarsSociety. Instead, we get propaganda stunts like the Devon Island "Mars Base" which is only manned during thepeak of the Arctic summer when the climate is tropical compared with that of Mars. Another thing you neversee from the Mars Society is a realistic discussion of what would happen to the human body in the low Martiangravity. Zubrin has discussed at length the need for artificial spin gravity on the 6 month trip to Mars. But heassumes that the problem ends once the astronauts land on Mars. The problem of bone loss in a 0.38g field onMars for ~18 months is completely ignored. When I read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars, I was so intriguedby this surprising omission that I consulted a friend who is a space medic at JSC. He tells me that this issue wasonce discussed at a conference of medical doctors who had actually worked with the long-term residents of Mirand ISS. NONE of these experts thought that humans could adapt permanently to Mars gravity!

27
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html


28/61

Space Colonization Lack of Funding

Lack of funding prevents colonization

Hobby Space, 2005. (Solar Sci-Fi, January 25, http://www.hobbyspace.com/SolarSciFi/essay/html.)

A paradox of the post-Moon Race era is that while interest and support of the U.S. public for space explorationcollapsed, the popularity of space-based science fiction literally skyrocketed. Star Trek, Star Wars, CloseEncounters of Third Kind, ET, and other such movie and television space adventures have enjoyed huge successsince the early 1970's, when, ironically, the Apollo project ended without a follow-on program of lunardevelopment and Mars exploration. Polls continue to show little support for an ambitious space program andNASA's budget has fallen to a quarter of it's high in the 1960s. Even among many hard-core sci-fi addicts andTrekkers, the interest in current space exploration is remarkably low.A number of reasons for this come to mind:

Space travel in Sci-fi is easy and cheap. The Enterprise can take hundreds of people to another star aseasily as a 747 goes from New York to London.

An Apollo Moonshot, on the other hand, cost hundreds of millions of dollars to send three people to themoon in a small, cramped pod, which was the only thing leftover from a skyscraper tall rocket.

It is difficult to picture oneself ever riding in a small capsule on top of a throwaway missile while it'seasy to imagine walking on the roomy bridge of the Enterprise.

The huge costs seemed extravagant during a period of so much economic and social turmoil in the US.Sci-Fi adventures cost only the price of a theater ticket or were free on the tube.

The Space Shuttle was disappointingly expensive and complicated, involving thousands of support staffto fly only a few times a year. Hardly the DC-3 of space as promised.

Space Sci-Fi usually involves faster-than-light travel that makes accessible a whole galaxy of amazingplanets and alien civilizations.

Meanwhile, our unmanned planetary explorers showed a solar system of cratered, desolate, andseemingly lifeless worlds with little appeal.

28
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SolarSciFi/essay/htmlhttp://www.hobbyspace.com/SolarSciFi/essay/html


29/61

Space Colonization Microgravity Damage:

degradation of humans' physiological systems through expose to microgravity deters people from

colonizing space

CNN, 2k. (The science of the international space station, December 26,

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/12/26/part.two/index.html.)

One of the priorities for NASA is to use the ISS to study what microgravity does to people. Four decades ofhuman space travel show that it weakens the bones, the muscles and even the cardiovascular system. Someastronauts experience nausea or have trouble sleeping. Uri says the goal of this new research is to find ways tomake space a friendlier place to live. "Some of the earlier things we're going to be studying is understanding themechanisms of how those changes actually occur," he says. "So far we've observed what the changes are and nowwe need to know what the mechanisms are so we can develop counter measures to prevent those changes."

29
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/12/26/part.two/index.htmlhttp://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/12/26/part.two/index.html


30/61

Space Colonization Not Inevitable:

space colonization isn't inevitable

The Space Review, 2005. (Stephen Ashworth, The mission, the business, and the tandem (part 1),January 31, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1.)

How realistic is this model? If governments are to deliver sustainable progress in space, then at thevery least the goal of interplanetary civilization will have to be deeply embedded in theirinstitutional psychesas deeply as, say, such goals as creating the welfare state, or defeating Hitler,or demonstrating falling unemployment and rising prosperity. At present, there is no sign of thishappening. The intellectual ideal of civilization in space remains the special preserve of a minorityof visionaries, rather than the popular passion of society as a whole. To politicians, mannedspaceflight remains a hobby for rich countries, not part of their core business: pure exploration, noteconomic growth. Meanwhile, the space agencies are offering to spend large amounts of otherpeoples money without submitting their work to the disciplines of either international competitionor the commercial market. Under these circumstances, the hope that the continuous application ofsizeable government space budgets will lead incrementally and inevitably to permanentextraterrestrial settlements is very much a hostage to fortune. This hope is vulnerable to the kind ofchanging circumstances that closed off the potential of the Apollo-Saturn system for evolutionarygrowth and doomed it to cancellation (a winged flyback version of the Saturn first stage wasdesigned, and lunar bases sketched out). It is vulnerable to the kind of bureaucratic inefficiencywhich wasted many tens of billions of dollars, rubles, and euros on the International Space Station,while gaining us no progress whatsoever towards making spaceflight more affordable or sustainable,whether through opening up the key extraterrestrial resources of asteroidal ice and solar power, orthrough making spaceflight accessible to the public at an economical price, or even through

demonstrating artificial gravity or medical methods of adaptation to weightlessness.

30
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1


31/61

Space Colonization - Debris:

The debris from a space war would destroy our ability to explore space

Joel Primack, September 2004. Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, Pelted by Paint, Drowned by Debris Online.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/so02/so02primack.html

Weaponization of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encasethe entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardousfor peaceful as well as military purposes. The nickname "Star Wars" for missile defense all too accuratelyreflects the popular fantasy about how things work in space. In the Star Wars movies and in hundreds of otherpopular science fiction films, we see things blow up in space and the fragments quickly dissipate, leaving emptyspace behind. But in reality, space does not clear after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue

circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets--all have already become tiny satellites, traveling at about 27,000 kilometers per hour, 10 times faster than ahigh-powered rifle bullet. A marble traveling at such speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton safe droppedfrom a threestory building. Anything it strikes will be destroyed and only increase the debris. With enoughorbiting debris, pieces will begin to hit other pieces, fragmenting them into more pieces, which will in turn hitmore pieces, setting off a chain reaction of destruction that will leave a lethal halo around the Earth. To operate asatellite within this cloud of millions of tiny missiles would be impossible: no more Hubble Space Telescopes orInternational Space Stations. Even communications and GPS satellites in higher orbits would be endangered.Every person who cares about the human future in space should also realize that weaponizing space willjeopardize the possibility of space exploration.

31
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/so02/so02primack.htmlhttp://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/so02/so02primack.html


32/61

Space Colonization Lack of Personnel:

Alt Causality Lack of personnel prevents space systems from functioningStephen P. Randolph, 2002, National Defense university,http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_2002/Transforming%20Americas%20Mil%20-%20CTNSP%20-%20Aug%202002/14_ch12.htm.

Sometimes termed the quiet crisis of the U.S. space program, workforce issues face the space community inevery sector and every skill set. The community has evolved into a bimodal age distribution, with the wave of people whoentered the space world during the glory days of the Apollo Program now on the verge of retirement. There is aserious demographic gap where their successors should be found. The problems range across the military, civil, andcommercial space sectors, as more attractive opportunities open up in other industries. The acute pressures of a fewyears ago have been relieved, as people who had left the industry to seek their fortunes in the Internet startup world have drifted back. But

over the long run, broader issues of job satisfaction and compensation will have to be faced to ensure that the right people remain in thiscommunity.

32


33/61

Rescind Commercial Ban CP:

TEXT: The United States federal government should remove commercial space technology from themunitions list in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

33


34/61

Rescind Commercial Ban CP Solvency:

US-Chinese cooperation over space tech is K to international space cooperation and the

American economy

Dr. James ClayMoltz, CNS Deputy Director, 1/26/06, Space Conflict or Space Cooperation?http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060126.htm.) A current assumption of U.S. Defense...and political goals in space.

34
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060126.htmhttp://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060126.htm


35/61


China is currently the only country subjected to US regulatory policies on space tech this

destroys our ability to cooperate with almost any nation in terms of space

Guo Xiaobing, Researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary international Relations and visiting scholar at the university ofgeorgia's center for international trade and security, 2007.http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf.

There are two puzzles surrounding U.S. Regulatory policies...cooperation will be beneficial for bothChina and the United States.

35
http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdfhttp://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdfhttp://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf


36/61


Current restrictions on commercial space tech hurts America's ability to cooperate with other

nations over space

Vincent G. Sabathier, Space Attache at the Embassy of France and a visiting senior fellow at the center forstrategic and international studies in washington dc, 2007. Europe and Chinahttp://www.space.com/adastra/china_europe_0505.html.

at present, the relationship between the West and China remains...face should it explore space alone.

36
http://www.space.com/adastra/china_europe_0505.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/china_europe_0505.html


37/61

International Cooperation Key:

Without international cooperation, space exploration wont happenTariq Malik , journalist, May 4, 2004 (Space Experts Say International Cooperation is Key for NASA's Space

Vision,http://www.space.com/news/commission_ny_040504.html)

NEW YORK CITY -- NASA should not limit itself to merely seeking support from the American public to pushforward its vision of the human exploration of space, according to the foreign space agency directors, scientistsand space enthusiasts addressing a presidential commission Monday. While support from the American people,and the politicians who represent them, is a critical component of the space vision, so to[o] is internationalcooperation, panelists said during the final meeting of the Commission on the Implementation of United StatesSpace Exploration Policy. The commission, held at the Asia Society here, was appointed by President George W.Bush to recommend the steps needed to full his vision of sending humans to the moon and Mars. "Space is a

global industry," said Daniel Sacotte, a director with the European Space Agency's (ESA) human spaceflight,microgravity and exploration programs. "[The vision] is most difficult, but it is most important that wecooperate."

37
http://www.space.com/news/commission_ny_040504.htmlhttp://www.space.com/news/commission_ny_040504.htmlhttp://www.space.com/news/commission_ny_040504.html


38/61

Solvency Economy

US space tech restrictions make int'l space cooperation and competition impossible ITAR needs

to be changed in order to save the economy

Andhra Pradeshu, Indian PressWire, 9/27/ 07, US regulations restrict space industry growthhttp://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htm.

International traffic in Arms Regulations...spectrum resources were in the hands of government, headded.

38
http://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htmhttp://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htmhttp://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htmhttp://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htmhttp://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htm


39/61

China Cooperation Good:

despite some weaknesses in China's technology, the US can gain a lot from cooperating with them

over space tech and help us develop our own marketGuo Xiaobing, Researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary international Relations and visiting scholar at the university of

georgia's center for international trade and security, 2007.http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf.

After Shenzhou V successfully carried...to the U.S. space industry.

cut the rest of that article has AT china gets US tech secrets, AT kills US business.

39
http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdfhttp://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdfhttp://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf


40/61

US Heg Loss Inev:

US will inevitably lose military supremacy in spaceMajorWillson, Bachelor's Degree from C.W. Post College; J.D., Touro School of Law; LL.M., The Judge Advocate General School)

is the International & Operational Law Attorney, Army Space Command, Colorado Springs, Co. 2001 (An ArmyView of Neutrality in Space: Legal Options for Space Negation, lexis)

Operation Desert Storm was the first war in which satellites played a major role for the U.S. ground commander.27 Prior to the war, President Saddam Hussein's ground forces were matched in size with the Coalition forces,and Iraq possessed relatively modern weapons purchased with oil money. A critical difference between the twowas that the Coalition forces had space systems allowing them to see, hear, and speak to each other--a capabilitywhich Iraqi forces lost within the first hours of the war. 28 Martin Faga, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force forSpace at the time of the wa