325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

8/7/2019 325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

1/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3

Junaid, Anuj, Matt, Jackie 1/59

SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III

SPACE SATELLITE AFF WAVE III............................................................................. 1

U.S. Weaponizing Now...................................................................................................... 3

Pentagon increasing Space Offense.................................................................................. 5

U.S. blocking space weapons treaty..................................................................................7

All armed forces sectors weaponizing.............................................................................. 8

China Weaponizing Now................................................................................................. 10

Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing......................................................... 12

Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power........................................................... 13

U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization.................................................. 15A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S.............................................................. 17

Information Good............................................................................................................ 18

Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good..................................................................................... 19

A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE.............................................20

2AC DoD Counterplan.................................................................................................... 22

No Solvency....................................................................................................................... 23

Militarization Turn.......................................................................................................... 24

Taiwan War Turn............................................................................................................ 25

DoD F22 Tradeoff DA..................................................................................................... 26

Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease ..............................................................................28

NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable........................................................................................ 30

Non Unique- NASA Spending Now................................................................................ 31

NASA Satellites Solve Oceans......................................................................................... 32

Lol Politics........................................................................................................................ 34

Poverty Impacts............................................................................................................... 35

Now is Key........................................................................................................................ 37

Extinction Inevitable........................................................................................................ 38

Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation................................................................ 40

Extinction Inevitable- Vaccines...................................................................................... 41

Extinction Inevitable- Tech............................................................................................. 42

1


2/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Extinction Inevitable- Resource Scarcity.......................................................................43

Colonization key to solve Extinction.............................................................................. 44

Satellites Solve Colonization........................................................................................... 45

A2: States Fund Private Companies CP........................................................................ 46A2: States Fund NASA CP.............................................................................................. 50

Politics Agenda Link Turns- Bush Bad......................................................................... 52

Bush Bad- Bipart opposition........................................................................................... 53

Bush Bad- Weapons unpopular...................................................................................... 54

Bush Good- Public support............................................................................................. 55

Bush Good- Military Lobby............................................................................................ 56

Bush Good- funding bipartisan...................................................................................... 57

Bush Good- Popularity.................................................................................................... 58

Note:

The Affs getting pretty solid. Good Job lab. Props to Junaid for some pretty good

cards against the DOD CP and much more. Stay strong for the tournament.

-Anuj

p.s.- The indexing came out a little weird spacing-wise

2


3/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


U.S. Weaponizing Now

Congress gave Pentagon funding for new space weapon program

WalterPincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November12, 2007, Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding, Washington Post Page A19,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra]

While wrestling with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon is preparing weapons tofight the next battle from space, according to information in the 621-page, House-Senateconference report on the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill.The $459 billion bill, which awaits President Bush's signature, provides $100 million fora new "prompt global strike" program that could deliver a conventional, precision-guided

warhead anywhere in the world within two hours. It takes funds away from developmentof a conventional warhead for the Navy's submarine-launched Trident IntercontinentalBallistic Missile and from an Air Force plan for the Common Aero Vehicle.The new program, dubbed Falcon, for "Force Application and Launch from CONUS,"centers on a small-launch-vehicle concept of the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency. The agency describes Falcon as a "a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV)capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from[the continental United States] in less than two hours."Hypersonic speed is far greater than the speed of sound. The reusable vehicle beingcontemplated would "provide the country with significant capability to conductresponsive missions with quick turn-around sortie rates while providing aircraft-like

operability and mission-recall capability," according to DARPA.The vehicle would be launched into space on a rocket, fly on its own to a target, deliverits payload and return to Earth. In the short term, a small launch rocket is beingdeveloped as part of Falcon. It eventually would be able to boost the hypersonic vehicleinto space. But in the interim, it will be used to launch small satellites within 48 hours'notice at a cost of less than $5 million a shot.

3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html


4/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Conferees are funding Bushs counterspace weapon systems

WalterPincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November12, 2007, Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding, Washington Post Page A19,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra]

Conferees added $100 million above the Bush administration's request for nearly $200million to accelerate "space situational awareness." That is code for protecting U.S.satellites in space and being able to attack the enemy's satellites."Enhancing these capabilities is critical, particularly following the Chinese anti-satellite-weapons demonstration last January," the conferees wrote in their report. They werereferring to a Jan. 11 incident in which a Chinese guided missile destroyed an agingweather satellite in orbit."Counterspace systems" that would warn of impending threats to U.S. satellites, destroy

or defend against attackers, and interrupt enemy satellites are in the Bush budget for $53million. Conferees gave them another $10 million.

4


5/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Pentagon increasing Space Offense

Pentagon is increasing offensive counterspace systems

WalterPincus, National security and intelligence reporter at Washington Post, November12, 2007, Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding, Washington Post Page A19,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101173.html [Bapodra]

One research project of $7 million in that category is directed at "offensivecounterspace," described in the Pentagon's presentation to Congress as designing "themeans to disrupt, deny, degrade or destroy an adversary's space systems, or theinformation they provide."Another $18 million would go for research into a second-generation counter-satellite-

communications system; it would explore and develop capabilities "to provide disruptionof satellite communications signals in response to U.S. Strategic Commandrequirements," according to the Pentagon congressional presentation. The first-generationsystem is already operational, and an upgrade of those capabilities is in production.The conferees want to increase funds for the Rapid Identification Detection andReporting System, which already had $28 million in the Bush budget. This system isdesigned to provide "attack detection, threat identification and characterization, andsupport rapid mission impact assessments on U.S. space systems."Its first-generation system is scheduled for initial operation at the end of next year, whilethe new funds will allow continuation of research on a second generation, which beganthis year.

5


6/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Bush and the pentagon are developing anti-satellite laser and missiles

The Associated Press, January 25, 2007, Russia Slams U.S. Space Weapon Plans, TheWashington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012500440.html [Bapodra]

China confirmed the test on Tuesday, but didn't provide details. Aviation Week, whichfirst reported the test, said the satellite was hit by a kinetic kill vehicle launched from aballistic missile.Analysts said the test represented an indirect threat to U.S. defense systems by raising thepossibility that its spy satellites could be shot down. The threat wouldn't affect the anti-missile system, which relies only on ground-based radar.The U.S. military has had the capability to shoot down satellites since the 1980s. InOctober, President Bush signed an order asserting the United States' right to denyadversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

"The first such test was conducted back in the late 1980s and we also hear it today aboutthe U.S. military circles considering plans of militarization of space. We must not let thegenie out of the bottle," Putin said.Bush also has pushed an ambitious program of space-based missile defense and thePentagon is working on missiles, ground lasers and other technology to shoot downsatellites.

6


7/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


U.S. blocking space weapons treaty

U.S. blocks Russian-Chinese space weapons treaty, wants to use space

NickCummin-Bruce, New York Times journalist, February 13, 2008, U.N. Weighs aBan on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects, New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html[Bapodra]

GENEVA The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented aRussian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conferenceon Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, athreat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites.Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and

therefore no need for a treaty, Mr. Lavrov instead submitted a draft on prevention of theplacement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer spaceobjects.Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction,Mr. Lavrov warned. And this in turn is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race, bothin space and on the earth.The draft treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further explorationand use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control, Mr. Lavrov said. It istime to start serious practical work in this field, he said.The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed anytreaty that sought to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.

Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said such a treaty would also beimpossible to enforce. Any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weaponif that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object,she said in an e-mail message. This makes treaty verification impossible.Instead, she said, the White House favored discussions aimed at promoting transparencyand confidence-building measures.

7
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html


8/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


All armed forces sectors weaponizing

The United States is on the verge of deploying energy space weapons

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, E-Weapons: Directed EnergyWarfare In The 21st Century, Space.com,http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra]

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching--andat the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may wellsignal a revolution in military hardware--perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particlebeams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on usingthe electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary

wavelengths too.That's the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book: The E-Bomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars WillBe Fought in the Future (Da Capo Press, October 2005).Beason previously served on theWhite House staff working for the President's Science Advisor (Office of Science andTechnology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations.After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying anew generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser,the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL).

8
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html


9/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


All sectors of the Armed Forces are weaponizing

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, January 11, 2006, E-Weapons: Directed EnergyWarfare In The 21st Century, Space.com,

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html [Bapodra]

Though considerable work has been done in lasers, high-power microwaves, and otherdirected-energy technologies, weaponization is still an ongoing process.For example, work is on-going in the military's Airborne Laser program. It utilizes amegawatt-class, high-energy chemical oxygen iodine laser toted skyward aboard amodified Boeing 747-400 aircraft. Purpose of the program is to enable the detection,tracking and destruction of ballistic missiles in the boost phase, or powered part of theirflight.Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) in WhiteSands, New Mexico has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket warheads,blasting them with enough energy that causes them to self-detonate. THEL uses a high-

energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile THEL also demonstrated the abilityto kill multiple mortar rounds. Then there's Active Denial Technology--a non-lethal wayto use millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter, and turn back an advancingadversary. This technology, supported by the U.S. Marines, uses a beam of millimeterwaves to heat a foe's skin, causing severe pain without damage, and making the adversaryflee the scene. Beason also pointed to new exciting research areas underway at the LosAlamos National Laboratory: Free-electron laser work with the Navy and a new type ofdirected-energy that operates in the terahertz region.

9
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html


10/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


China Weaponizing Now

China is developing methods to counter U.S. space dependence

Dr. Phillip C. Saunders, Senior Research Professor at the National Defense UniversitysInstitute for National Strategic Studies, 2007 Chinas Future In Space: Implications forU.S. Security, http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html?submit.x=94&submit.y=10&submit=submit

Chinese strategists view U.S. dependence on space as an asymmetric vulnerability thatcould be exploited. As one defense analyst wrote: "for countries that can never win a warwith the United States by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. spacesystem may be an irresistible and most tempting choice." Chinese strategists haveexplored ways of limiting U.S. use of space, including anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons,

jamming, employing lasers to blind reconnaissance satellites, and even using electro-magnetic pulses produced by a nuclear weapon to destroy satellites. A recent articlehighlighted Iraq's efforts to use GPS jammers to defeat U.S. precision-guided munitions.Chinese scientists have conducted theoretical research relevant to ASAT weapons,including the use of lasers to blind satellite sensors, kinetic kill vehicles, computations forintercepting satellites in orbit, and maneuvering small satellites into close formation.Efforts to develop high-powered lasers and mobile small-satellite launch capabilitiesinvolve technologies with both commercial and ASAT applications. China probablyalready has sufficient tracking and space surveillance systems to identify and track mostU.S. military satellites. The extent to which interest in exploiting U.S. space dependencehas translated into actual ASAT development programs remains unclear. Some reports

claim that Beijing is developing microsatellites or direct-ascent weapons for ASATpurposes, but the open source literature does not provide definitive proof. However,based on Chinese strategic writings, scientific research and dual-use space activities, it islogical to assume China is pursuing an ASAT capability.

10


11/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


China is developing ground-based energy weapons to destroy satellites

E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20,

http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141

It is highly likely China is developing ground-based directed energy weapons with thecapability to temporarily disable, damage, or even destroy a satellite. With roughly 300organizations, 3,000 engineers, and 10,000 total personnel participating in laser-relatedefforts, Beijing's aggressive pursuit of advanced directed energy technology has given itsprogram world-class status. As early as 1994, the Chinese successfully tested a freeelectron laser with a 140 megawatt output. They have since pursued miniaturization oflaser systems, perhaps to enable a mobile system. According to other reports, China isseeking to build an ASAT system using a high-energy deuterium fluoride laser,mimicking the US Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) design.

China has the intent and growing capacity to threaten US space systems for Taiwan

E. B. France and Richard J. Adams, 2005, The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3, Winter 2005, page 20,http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141

China possesses both the intent and a growing capability to threaten US space systems inthe event of a future clash between the two countries. The PLA's development of ASAT

weapons is primarily not a reaction to US space control initiatives. It is driven instead byvery practical considerations of regional security and influence, and the desire to conductasymmetric warfare against a superior foe if conflict arises. First, Beijing seeks to offsetthe dominance of US conventional forces by exploiting their dependence on spaceborneinformation assets. Second, China hopes to guarantee the viability of it's nuclear deterrentby holding the critical space-segment of American missile defense systems at risk. Bothof these goals are deeply rooted in the issue of Taiwanese reunification and the potentialfor armed conflict over the status of the island. China's growing capability to attackAmerican satellites could play an important role in a future military confrontation overTaiwan.

11


12/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Chinese space ban push is mask for weaponizing

Chinas call for a space ban is only to allow time for space weapon construction

NaderElhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy andinternational security, February 5, 2007, Making sense of Chinas weapons test, TheSpace Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra]

Nonetheless, there has been little effort to actually put the anti-satellite weapons test intocontext, though this test seems to beg for exactly that. After all, China has for the last fiveyears been calling for a new treaty to ban the placement of weapons in space, andspecifically the kind of explicit anti-satellite capability it has just tested. Additionally,there are its continued assertions that it does not want an arms race in space, even afterthe test. There is ample reason to distrust pacifistic claims by any government, but this

may be true for the time being: China is not in a position to run, let alone win, such arace. There seem to be two possible explanations for this contradiction. One, favored byarms control skeptics, is that Chinas talk of a treaty was just an attempt to hobble theUnited States either until it catches up economically and technologically, or to ameliorateits disadvantage while it secretly works on the very systems restricted by the treaty. Afterall, China recognizes that the US will likely retain a military edge for decades, and that inthe event of conflict it may be able to narrow the gap by attacking the satellitessupporting US forces. The other explanation is that China is hedging its bets, developinga counterspace capability in the likely event that it fails to get a treaty that it has goodreason to want. Even if China may see attacking American satellites as a way ofundermining US military power, China, too, is a space power, the worlds third largest,

and like all the rest dependent on constellations of weather, navigation, communications,and intelligence satellites. This dependence, military as well as civilian, will only growwith time, and should it attack another countrys systems, it will only raise the risk that itssystems will be attacked in kind.

12
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1


13/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Chinese space weapon tests counter U.S. power

Chinese space weapon tests are a direct counter to U.S. military power

Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007,China's Space Weapons, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment ForInternational Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsa [Bapodra]

On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile slammed into an agingweather satellite in space. The resulting collision not only marked Beijing's firstsuccessful anti-satellite (ASAT) test but, in the eyes of many, also a head-on collisionwith the Bush administration's space policies.

As one analyst phrased it, U.S. policy has compelled China's leaders to conclude "thatonly a display of Beijing's power to launch . . . an arms race would bring Washington tothe table to hear their concerns." This view, which is widespread in the U.S. andelsewhere, misses the point: China's ASAT demonstration was not a protest against theBush administration, but rather part of a maturing strategy designed to counter the overallmilitary superiority of the U.S.Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese strategists have been cognizant of the fact thatthe U.S. is the only country in the world with the capacity -- and possibly the intention --to thwart China's rise to great power status. They also recognize that Beijing will be weakmilitarily for some time to come, yet must be prepared for a possible war with Americaover Taiwan or, in the longer term, over what Aaron Friedberg once called "the struggle

for mastery in Asia." How the weaker can defeat the stronger, therefore, becomes thecentral problem facing China's military strategy.

13
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsahttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsahttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsahttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsa


14/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Chinese space weapon development is to combat U.S. space dependency and

preparation for future conflict

Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007,China's Space Weapons, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment ForInternational Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsa [Bapodra]

Chinese strategists have struggled to find ways of solving this conundrum ever since thedramatic demonstration of American prowess in Operation Desert Storm. And aftercarefully analyzing U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan, theybelieve they have uncovered a significant weakness.The advanced military might of the U.S. is inordinately dependent on a complex networkof space-based command, control, communications, and computer-driven intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that enables American forces to detectdifferent kinds of targets and exchange militarily relevant information. This network iskey to the success of American combat operations. These assets, however, are soft anddefenseless; while they bestow on the American military definite asymmetric advantages,they are also the source of deep vulnerability. Consequently, Chinese strategistsconcluded that any effort to defeat the U.S. should aim not at its fundamental strength --its capacity to deliver overwhelming conventional firepower precisely from longdistances -- but rather at its Achilles' heel, namely, its satellites and their related groundinstallations.Consistent with this calculus, China has pursued, for over a decade now, a variety ofspace warfare programs, which include direct attack and directed-energy weapons,

electronic attack, and computer-network and ground-attack systems. These efforts areaimed at giving China the capacity to attack U.S. space systems comprehensivelybecause, in Chinese calculations, this represents the best way of "leveling the playingfield" in the event of a future conflict.

14


15/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


U.S. Space Dominance solves Chinese weaponization

Space dominance is the most effective option against Chinas space weaponization

NaderElhefnawy, Professor at the University of Miami and writer on space policy andinternational security, February 5, 2007, Making sense of Chinas weapons test, TheSpace Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1 [Bapodra]

That said, the question of how the United States could respond remains, and there arethree obvious options. One is to do nothing. The demonstration can be taken as just that,a show that gets Chinas message across, but does not change the basic facts of thesituation. The United States simply continues on its current path, moving fromtechnological research and debates over military theory to the development of battle-ready combat unitsas has already happened at the level of electronic warfare, as withthe 76th Space Control Squadron.

The second is to step up Americas current pursuit of space dominance. With variousdegrees of publicity, American policymakers can start new programs or restart old ones,enlarge budgets and perhaps stage tests of its own. (While the US has not used a missilein such a test in over twenty years, it apparently tested a chemical laser against a satellitein 1997. Many more such systems exist today.) In the meantime, rudimentarycounterspace units may be cobbled together as quickly as possible, perhaps using olderequipment designs. (For example, an F-15 squadron could be assigned to thecounterspace mission and armed with the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle, the anti-satellite missile demonstrated back in 1985.) Of course in the near term this would bemore a matter of sending a political signal than anything else. However, these moves maybe read as a sign that the US was intimidated by the Chinese test rather than an

expression of tough-mindedness, even if it motivates greater restraint on Chinas part inthe future.History also suggests that this growing military power will be a factor in Chinasrelations with the rest of the world. But exactly how it will figure into those relationsremains an open question.The third is to engage China on the issue. Of course, the timing of such a shift in policy isfar from ideal now. It would look as if Chinas test had successfully intimidated theUnited States and its allies, as the hawks will no doubt point out, on top of all of the otherarguments they have raised against the arms control process. Nonetheless, suchconsiderations do not change the fundamental case for or against engagement, even ifthey affect the timing of such engagement. (John Pike of the Federation of American

Scientists recently observed that the test will make it very difficult for the US to talkabout space cooperation with China anytime soon.)

15
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/801/1


16/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


The U.S. must secure its space assets in order to challenge Chinas counterspace

tech

Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, July 23, 2007,China's Space Weapons, The Wall Street Journal, Carnegie Endowment ForInternational Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19452&prog=zgp&proj=zsa [Bapodra]

Beijing's attitude toward space arms control will change only given a few particulardevelopments. China might acquire the capacity to defeat the U.S. despite America'sprivileged access to space. Or China's investments in counterspace technology mightbegin to yield diminishing returns because the U.S. consistently nullifies thesecapabilities through superior technology and operational practices. Or China's owndependence on space for strategic and economic reasons might intensify to the point

where the threat posed by any American offensive counterspace programs exceed thebenefits accruing to Beijing's own comparable efforts. Or the risk of conflict between aweaker China and any other superior military power, such as the U.S., disappearsentirely.Since these conditions will not be realized anytime soon, Washington should certainlydiscuss space security with Beijing, but, for now, it should not expect that negotiationwill yield any successful agreements. Instead, the U.S. should accelerate investments insolutions that enhance the security of its space assets, in addition to developing its ownoffensive counterspace capabilities. These avenues -- as the Bush administration hascorrectly recognized -- offer the promise of protecting American interests in space andaverting more serious threats to its global primacy.

16


17/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


A2: Russia and China Arms Race against U.S.

Russia and China are already space militarizing

James Oberg, March 4, 2008 Sense, Nonsense, and Pretense about the Destruction ofUSA 193, The Space Review, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1139

Myth #8: Russia and China will be forced to respond by developing correspondingweapons. This blank check for the bad guys claim seems to be a view espoused byspokesmen for DC lobby groups, for foreign governments, and for other associations whoseem to favor one spin in common: any foreign action allegedly sparked by anybodysworries about US actions is excusable, while any US action sparked by activities ofanother nation is dangerously paranoid. But China has already pre-responded with itsown test a year agoa weapon with far greater capability (and leaving far worse spacepollution) than the US missile. As for Russia, its had its space-capable anti-missile

defense shield deployed around Moscow for decades, and recently reopened a mothballedmissile test range at Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan to test-fire upgraded missiles. They areprobably launched so far only against imaginary missile or space targets, or potentiallyagainst real ones with no final impacts. Even if one of them is soon used in ademonstration against a satellite, it will represent nothing new in their arsenal, only theexercise of a latent capability that had always been there.

17


18/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Information Good

Space information systems prevents flawed attack detections

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

Ultimately, the protection of the capabilities facilitated by space assets is needed. Forinstance, having a fiber-optic backup system for certain high-value communicationsatellites is much smarter than maintaining many expensive, ineffective bodyguardsatellites. Alternate redundant non-space systems, whenever possible, are the smartest

defense. The United States could also have redundant satellites ready to replace anylosses in those satellites for which no land-based backups exist. Temporary and reversibleelectronic countermeasures that could throw off the guidance systems of incomingASATs are another sensible defense. Better "Space Situational Awareness" is also badlyneeded, if for nothing else, than to properly tell apart a satellite attack from a satellitemalfunction or natural interference such as a strong solar flare or debris impact.

18


19/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Space Weapons Bad/ Ban Good

Space defense weapons are useless

YousafButt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centerfor Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?, Bulletin of the AtomicScientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites[Bapodra]

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

Space weapons are detrimental to U.S. interests

YousafButt, staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centerfor Astrophysics, 7/22/2008, Can space weapons protect U.S. satellites?, Bulletin of the AtomicScientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites[Bapodra]

Most importantly, the United States should be leading the charge to have an overarchinginternational policy that restricts the weaponization of space. The United States possesses thegreatest military and civil space investment; thus, it has the most to lose in an offensive space

war. And since Washington is the most reliant on its space assets, an arms race in space would bedisproportionately detrimental to U.S. interests.Instead of relying upon expensive, provocative, and defensively useless space weapons, theincoming administration would do well to invest in any of the other approaches listed above toimprove our space security.

19
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satelliteshttp://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satelliteshttp://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satelliteshttp://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satelliteshttp://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satelliteshttp://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/can-space-weapons-protect-us-satellites


20/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


A2: No sex in Space- NO FERTILIZATION IN SPACE

1. SPERM SWIM BY FLAGELLAGRAVITY ISN'T KEY

Michael Livington, PhD, owner of Medical-Health Info site, 08 http://www.medical-health.info/the-beginning-of-life-conception/

The sperm have tails, called flagella, that push them forward. Actually, sperm look verymuch like miniature tadpoles, and they move forward like tadpoles by wiggling their tailsfrom side to side. When they reach the cervix, the sperm must swim through a mucousbarrier that covers the entrance to the inside of the uterus. Tens of millions of sperm areunable to do this, and are lost. Those sperm that pierce the cervix then swim up the threeto four inches of the inside of the uterus to find the two exits at the upper ends where theFallopian tubes begin. Tens of millions more sperm are lost before they get to theFallopian tubes. Those that do survive swim into the narrow passageway of the Fallopian

tube where they may finally meet an egg. But this meeting can take place only during twoto three days of each month.

2. TURN: SEX IN SPACE IS BETTER; Microgravity causes faster impregnation

Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASAresearcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function duringfertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization."http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu]

Sperm are activated to swim after they emerge from the testes. The proteins that initiatemovement in the "tail" of the sperm undergo a chemical process called phosphorylation,making them active and activating the sperm's tail. The tail begins to move and the spermswims toward the egg. In the Shuttle experiments, phosphorylation of proteins wasmeasured in the sperm that flew in space and controls maintained on the ground. Tashfound that the phosphorylation process occurred three to four times faster in microgravitythan in the Earth's gravitational environment. This means that the sperm are activated formovement much more quickly in microgravity than on Earth.

20


21/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


3. MICROGRAVITY ENHANCES FLAGELLAR PROTEINMEANS

FERTILIZATION IS MORE LIKELY IN SPACE

Joseph Tash, a professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a NASAresearcher, has investigated the effects of gravity on sperm and how they function duringfertilization. 01 "Gravity shown to affect sperm function and fertilization."http://spaceline.usuhs.mil/pdf/Gravity_Shown_to.pdf [JWu]

Additional studies of sperm function in altered gravity environments are needed toanswer what Tash calls the "$64,000 question": Why is sperm activation enhanced inmicrogravity and impeded in hypergravity? Tash has isolated flagellar proteinsproteinsthat reside in the tail of the sperm cell and contribute to its motility- that may help answerthis question. Since it is these proteins that are altered in microgravity and hypergravity,they may therefore be the key to understanding sperm tail activation on the molecularlevel and exactly what role gravity plays in this system.

21


22/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


2AC DoD Counterplan

1.Links to net benefit- Privatizing or deferring department responsibilities destroys its

capabilitiesJohn S. Barry, 95Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

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

2. Perm- do both- solves NASA DA because it loosens burden- normal means would

allow DoD to naturally take the bulk of solvency because NASA lacks capability asper their evidence

3. No solvency- NASA has the initial stages of tech and research- only funding is key

in the aff's instance- the DoD needs more than just funding their evidence only

states they shouldact

4. DoD does not have the resource capacity to do the plan

Space Review, 6-9-08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

But theres also another factor at work: navet. Space activists tend to have littleunderstanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of itsmanagement compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise.For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in nobetter shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of largemilitary space acquisition programs have experienced major problems , in many cases costgrowth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns,the DoDs less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in

Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started.Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar powerstudy. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensicalfor members of the space activist community to claim that the military supports space solar power basedsolely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

5.

22
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfmhttp://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/milspace031008.xml&headline=GAO%20IDs%20Space%20Acquisitions%20Woeshttp://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/milspace031008.xml&headline=GAO%20IDs%20Space%20Acquisitions%20Woeshttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfmhttp://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/milspace031008.xml&headline=GAO%20IDs%20Space%20Acquisitions%20Woes


23/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


No Solvency

Space will be on the backdrop of DoD agenda on all levels-making solvency impossible


Add to this the way in which the NSSOs solar power satellite studywas pursuedthe study itself had no budget. In Washington, studiescost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say,options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct thestudy such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of theirexisting advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory

Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform thework. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers,there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and otherexpenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in themany tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few milliondollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had noactual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. Thisreflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by thePentagon leadership.

23


24/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Militarization Turn

DoD Militarizes space- Civilian sectors of government like NASA solve

National Security Space Office, 10-10-07

The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically andinternationally, that a SBSP system could be used as a weapon in space, which will beamplified because of the interest shown by the DoD in SBSP. Mitigating these concerns,developing trust, and building in verification methods will be key to political consensusfor sustainable development of SBSP. The SBSP Study Group recommends that thefederal government should take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that SBSPsystems cannot be utilized as space based weapons systems, and to dissuade and deter other nations from attacking these strategic power sources, including but not limited to:Tasking a civilian federal agency to be the lead agency responsible for federal

investments in SBSP and in the demonstration of key technologies needed by industry.

24


25/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Taiwan War Turn

A. CP leads to war with Taiwan

William C. Marteland Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, NavalWar College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003

Second, the military use of space has profound implications for the un-easy stalemate in the Taiwan Strait,which has always presented the possibility of a major confrontation between Washington and Beijing. Oneargument is that U.S. capabilities allow the United States to project power near Taiwan, while the space-based sensors and weapons for missile defense could blunt Chinas arsenal of ballistic missiles aimed atTaiwan. Moreover, the prospect of transfers of missile defense systems to Taiwan, which couldusher in a period of unprecedented military cooperation between Taipei and Washington, no doubt deeplytroubles Beijing.China, for its part, will increasingly need military space capabilities if it is to improve its ability to coerceTaiwan in a conflict andcounter U.S. intervention to defend the island in a crisis or conflict.

B. Global Economic Collapse and War

William C. Marteland Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of National Security Affairs, NavalWar College, Research Fellow, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Fall 2003

What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like?Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of Chinas economy and military could becomeincreasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may notimprove appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing couldincreasingly hold each others space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times ofcrisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in bothcapitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might

be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the others space systems before the onset ofhostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (alreadyevident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space.Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption isthe rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were toposition themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, onethat might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready tolaunch a first strike on a moments notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers orjammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning ofmissile launches. Imagine, for example, Washingtons reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warningsatellites or vice versa. In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to themisinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against spaceassets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts inthe space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs ofconflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international community, would be extraordinary giventhat many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

25


26/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


DoD F22 Tradeoff DA

Turn DoD Budget Tradeoff

A. DoD needs to balance budget new spending would lead to tradeoff withF-22s

Dr. Cindy Williams, Visiting Fellow, MIT Security Studies Program Can We Afford aRevolution?, March 31, 1999, http://

web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_99spring/williams.html//JS

Alternatively, the Defense Department can attempt to find the resources it will

need within the defense budget. There are four potential sources of additionalfunding: 1) existing C3I and information systems; 2) modernization; 3) forcestructure; and 4) infrastructure. Deep cuts would be needed in each of these areas to

generate the level of savings that would be needed to close the budget gap andfund the RMA. For example, the Defense Department has encountered strongresistance to its plans to introduce newer, joint systems that would reduce the cost ofC3I. With regard to modernization, cutting tactical aircraft programs (the F-22, F/A-18 E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter) can be expected to save only $4-6 billion per yearbecause these programs will have to be replaced by either a service life extensionprogram or additional production of existing aircraft. Force structure reductions alsoyield savings that are lower than one might expect. For example, cutting active Armycombat units by 30 percent will produce savings of only $4 billion per year. Finally,severe reductions in infrastructure would be needed to generate a large amount ofresources. Closing 50 additional military bases will save only $3 billion per year.

Other infrastructure reductions, such as closing military hospitals (saving $2billion per year) or eliminating the $1 billion subsidy for military commissaries,would release more funds. However, such measures are likely to encounter fierce

opposition.All of this suggests the difficulty of finding the resources needed to cover the coming$40 billion shortfall between current plans and projected budget levels, let alone theadditional $25 billion needed for RMA programs. Coming up with the fundingnecessary to exploit the RMA is therefore likely to require either a sea change inpublic attitudes toward defense spending or a substantial downsizing of the militaryforce structure and its modernization programs

26


27/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


B. Key to heg

Daniel Goure, 1/28/05, Ph.D., vice president of the Lexington Institute. Capitol Hill Conference onFighters and the Future of Joint Warfighting. Lexington Institute.

U.S. air power will be the key to success in the initial period of any future war. But in order toemploy air power effectively, the U.S. military must grain and maintain not just air superiority butreal air dominance. Air dominance means the ability to go anywhere and do anything while denyingthe adversary the benefit of operating in or through the third dimension.

Our future adversaries probably have learned the lessons of recent wars too.They seek to deny the United States access to their airspace because theyknow that if the United States can achieve air dominance and employ ourairpower freely, they will lose the war. They know with air dominance, theUnited States will be able to win the initial period of the war, therebydetermining its course and outcome. In effect, they know the correlation offorces is not in their favor. Therefore, they are likely to be deterred. This bringsme to the role of the F/A-22. Simply put, the F/A-22 is essential to the abilityof the United States to deter conflict, or should one occur, to win rapidly and

decisively. It may be the single most important capability that the U.S. AirForce could deploy in the next twenty or thirty years. My logic is simple: Theability of the U.S. to win future conflicts rapidly and decisively is the bestdeterrent. This is a reflection, if you will, of a positive correlation of forces forthe United States.Winning rapidly and decisively means dominating in the initial period of conflict,thereby helping to determine the course and outcome of hostilities. Winningrapidly and decisively requires, inter alia, exploiting the U.S. superiority in airpower. Exploiting that air power advantage requires achieving rapid airdominance. Achieving rapid air dominance will be more difficult in the futurethan heretofore as a result of adversaries' efforts to deny the United Statesaccess to their air space. The F/A-22 can ensure the ability to achieve rapid airdominance. The F/A-22 is essential to everything the U.S. military seeks toachieve: dissuasion, deterrence or defeat of adversaries.

27


28/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Optional Perm Net Benefit: Disease

NASA- DoD Satellite cooperation key to solve Disease

Pharma Business Week, 11-19-07, http://www.newsrx.com/library/topics/West-Nile-Virus/1324.html

With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administrations (NASA) Applied Sciences Program, scientists have been ableto observe the Earths environment to help predict and prevent infectious diseaseoutbreaks around the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists inpredicting the outbreak of some of the most common and deadly infectious diseasestoday such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious

diseases to thrive depends on changes in the Earths environment such as theclimate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. Through orbiting satellites, data is collecteddaily to monitor environmental changes. That information is then passed on to agencies such as the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict andtrack disease outbreaks and assist in making public health policy decisions. The use of this technology isnot only essential for the future of curbing the spread of infectious diseases, explains John Haynes, publichealth program manager for the NASA Earth Science Applied Sciences Program. NASA satellites are alsoa cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are already in orbit and in use by scientists tocollect data about the Earths atmosphere.

28


29/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Diseases have the potential to cause global economic chaos from overreaction

Kaletsky 2003 (principal economic commentator and an Associate Editor of The Times;New Zealand Business Roundtable, July

2003)

It is perhaps because the stakes are so high today that investors and businessmen havebecome so sensitive to every possible threat to world economic growth terrorism, war,stock market instability and, most recently, even the spread of an obscure disease. Butthis hypersensitivity to bad news also suggests that the world economic cycle is probablyabout to turn. It is a typical feature of cyclical troughs that relatively minor risks areexaggerated out of all proportion. The Sars outbreak was a perfect example. The Iraq warhad just ended without unleashing the widely expected disasters, but here was anotherpotential trigger for economic and financial Armageddon. It was as if investors andbusinessmen were in the mood to panic and any excuse would do. But the Sars outbreak

was not just any old pretext for financial panic. Sars shared another characteristic withthe previous panics about terrorism, the "war between civilisations" and the dot-comcrash. All these phenomena were linked clearly to globalisation. They seemed to becaused by the way that capitalism was drawing the world together, often against thewishes of the peoples and countries involved. And globalisation was the means ofdisseminating these evils, as well as their cause. Like terrorists, the Sars germs had turnedsymbols of globalisation mass travel and jet aircraft into sinister weapons. As in thedot-com crash and the clash between the West and Islam, the effects of the Sars virusseemed to be vastly magnified by instant electronic communications that penetratedevery corner of the world.

Nuclear War

MEAD 92 Senior Fellow in American Foreign policy @ the Council on ForeignRelations [Walter Russell, World Policy Institute, 1992]

Hundreds of millions billions of people have pinned their hopes on the internationalmarket economy. They and their leaders have embraced the international marketeconomy and drawn closer to the west because they believe the system can work forthem. But what if it cant? What if the global economy stagnates or even shrinks? Inthat case, we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, richagainst poor. Russia, China, India these countries with their billions of people and theirnuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japandid in the 30s.

29


30/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


NASA Budget Cuts Inevitable

Budget cuts inevitable by next fiscal year


These fiscal pressures will force the next presidentregardless of whoever is elected inNovemberto make some hard decisions inthe years to come about discretionary spending. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA willsomehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. A budget cut in the nextAdministration that is equivalent to last decades cut would result in reduction ofNASAs budget of over $3 billion per year. If that happens, it will be difficult, if notimpossible, for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling itscurrent form and schedule. It will be significantly delayed, radically altered, or evencancelled.

30


31/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Non Unique- NASA Spending Now

Massive NASA funding bill now

AIP ,American Institute of Physics, 1-8-08, Space Ref,http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewsr.html?pid=26640

The final FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration at $17.3 billion, less than earlieramounts recommended by the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees, but meeting the budget proposal of President Bush. Whilethe funding is a 5.2% increase over FY 2007 and respectable given theoverall restrictions on the federal budget, the spending focus is heavyon manned space programs and light on science.

Congress planning on funding new programs now

Mark K. Mathews, Washington Beareau, 6-25-08, OrlandoSentinel,http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.story

WASHINGTON - Congress gave NASA another boost Tuesday when a U.S. Senatecommittee recommended a $2.6 billion increase in the space agency's budget next year toaccelerate its plans to return astronauts to the moon.The $20.2 billion mirrors the amountincluded in a similar bill that passed the U.S. House 409 to 15 last week. Both measuresalso require that NASA add another shuttle flight to deliver a physics experiment to the

international space station

31
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.storyhttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.story


32/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


NASA Satellites Solve Oceans

NASA Satellites solve oceans- monitoring

ScienceDaily, 6-23-08,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm, Junaid

NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched June 20 from VandenbergAir Force Base, Calif., on a globe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, a vitalindicator of global climate change. The mission will return a vast amount of new data thatwill improve weather, climate and ocean forecasts. With a thunderous roar and fieryglow, the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite arced through theblackness of an early central coastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing intospace atop a Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later, OSTM/Jason 2 separated from therocket's second stage, and then unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Ground controllerssuccessfully acquired the spacecraft's signals. Initial telemetry reports show it to be inexcellent health. "Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," said MichaelFreilich, director of the Earth Science Division in NASA's Science Mission Directorate,Washington. "Precision measurements from this mission will improve our knowledge ofglobal and regional sea-level changes and enable more accurate weather, ocean andclimate forecasts." Measurements of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography,reveal the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell scientists how much of the sun'senergy is stored by the ocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key tounderstanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at leastthree years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, orCNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the twoagencies on Jason 1 in 2001.

32
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm


33/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


NASA satellites solve the root problem of oceans

NASA, National Aeronautics Space Administration,http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05042_bio_problem.html , 2-10-05

NASA and university scientists have made a breakthrough in using satellites to study thetiny, free-floating ocean plants, called phytoplankton. The plants form the base of theocean food chain and produce half of the oxygen in the air we breathe. The developmentopens the door to solving a problem that has stymied ocean biologists for more than acentury, and is revolutionary to our understanding of how ocean biology and ecosystems,as well as carbon cycling, respond to climate variability and change. Data about thegrowth rate of the ocean plants can be derived from space and incorporated into globalestimates of their life processes. New, accurate information on phytoplankton will greatlyadvance understanding of marine ecosystems and how they function, including issuesrelated to fisheries, water quality, and harmful algal blooms. This research contributes toimproved computer models that enable predictions of how climate change will alterocean ecosystems and the Earth system. Despite their minute size, the growth andphotosynthesis of phytoplankton collectively accounts for half of the carbon dioxide, amajor greenhouse gas, absorbed annually from Earths atmosphere by plants.

33
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05042_bio_problem.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05042_bio_problem.html


34/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Lol Politics

Obama and NASA=lol

News Press, 7-29-08, http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged hiscommitment to NASA in a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating theagency on its 50th anniversary. The declaration may surprise many NASA supporters.Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would rather see money budgeted forConstellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward educationreform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. I believe weneed to revitalize NASAs mission to maintain Americas leadership, and recommit our

nation to the space program, and as President I intend to do just that, he said. Obamatook aim at the current Washington establishment and the Bush administration forfailing to give NASA the sufficient support it has needed.

34


35/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Poverty Impacts

POVERTY KILLS MORE THAN A NUCLEAR WAR

Mumia Abu-Jamal, former Reporter and Death Row inmate, 1998, [A QUIET ANDDEADLY VIOLENCE, 9/19/98,http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm]

The deadliest form of violence is poverty. -- GhandiIt has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by thethousands of cases of social and communal violence that occurs daily in the nation. Everyyear, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks killthemselves. Add to this the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other,and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence. But, asremarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the mostviolent feature of living in the midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a

deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kindthat destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison officialand writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates ofdeath and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted bythose who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion ofthem) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society'scollective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. Theseare not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean thenon-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individualsagainst individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare,capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a NationalEpidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the

majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of itsinvisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:

"[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty aswould be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year,two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killedby the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalentof an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on theweak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196] Worsestill, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back onthe Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taughtto loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social

order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familialviolence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight eachother. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media,uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who sufferin its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes

damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violencemay be called The War on the Poor.

35
http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm%5Dhttp://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm%5Dhttp://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm%5D


36/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE OUTWEIGHSIT'S THE ROOT CAUSE OF WAR, GENOCIDE,

AND OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR

James Gilligan Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and amember of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence 96 "Violence: Our Deadly Epidemicand its Causes", p. 191-196

The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fillour prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly remindedof the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and abouttheir families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliestform of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and theirviolent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence,especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisonsand hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are onlymicrocosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fillthem are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violenceneeds to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relativelyfew men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from thosestructural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human,standpoint. By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those

who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced bythose who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are afunction of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of society's collective human choices,concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I amcontrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence," by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuriesthat are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths weattribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differsfrom behavior violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operatecontinuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms ofbehavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently ofindividual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whosedecisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible,because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. [CONTINUED] The finding that

structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country.Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequitieson a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structuralviolence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in deathrates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the lifeexpectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 milliondeaths a year could be attributed to the "structural violence" to which the citizens of all the other nationswere being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations haveincreased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violencecompare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths fromstructural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as WorldWar II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide or about eightmillion per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam

war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. andthe U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence,which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people diebecause of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period.This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, and accelerating, thermonuclear war, orgenocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologicallysignificant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the twoforms of violence structural or behavioral is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they areinextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

36


37/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Now is Key

We need to act NOW- over time, technology projects will be abandoned and we will

be trapped on Earth

Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01,http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html

"Spreading out into space gives us more chances," he says. And the time is now: Historyinstructs that technological hay should be made while the economic sun shines. "There isa danger we will end the human space program at some point, leaving us stranded on theEarth," Gott warns. "History shows that expensive technological projects are oftenabandoned after awhile. For example, the Ancient Egyptians quit building pyramids. Sowe should be colonizing space now while we have the chance."

37
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.htmlhttp://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html


38/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Extinction Inevitable

Multiple tragedies in the future make extinction inevitable

OscarFalconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/

Man is particularly susceptible to such a tragedy compared to the crustaceans, amphibians, insects, and thecountless other hardy families. Only his superior brain has enabled him to successfully compete despite arelatively fragile constitution. Should we succeed in our self-destruction, it's doubtful that nature couldonce again turn the trick of creating another highly advanced being out of any primitive life remaining onearth. By whatever philosophical standards one bases his thinking, one must conclude that life is better thanno life at all. Man's first thought must be to preserve the human race at all costs. It must not be allowed tocome to an end, and specifically, it mustn't be allowed to destroy itself. In the far distant future, it appearsthat man will be doomed by the lack of available energy (the 2nd law). This may not come about for 100'sof billions of years. Before that, a collapsing universe may put an end to all life. And before that, our sunwill become a red giant, probably ending all life in our solar system. But even that won't come about for

several billions of years. Whether these problems can be solved isn't known, but man has plenty of time tothink about them. More imminent, not in billions of years, but maybe in just a fraction of a decade, is theend of all life on earth that man himself has the capability to bring about!

Extinction inevitable unless we colonize space

StephenHawking, British Theoretical Physicist, Professor of Math, University ofCambridge, Quotes Oscar Falconi, 10-16-01, http://www.nutri.com/space/

"The human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus . . . unless we set up colonies in space.Although Sept. 11th was horrible, it didn't threaten the survival of the human race like nuclear weaponsdo," said the Cambridge University Scientist. "In the long term, I'm more worried about biology. Nuclearweapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. The danger is that, eitherby accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us. I don't think the human race will survive . . unlesswe spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet." All of the aboveconcerns were expressed a quarter century ago in this following article by Mr. Falconi. BUT, the "original"concept of escaping from earth in order to back up and preserve our civilization, as expressed by Mr.Falconi, was preconceived by over a quarter-century in the following prophetic paragraph: "We must keepthe problems of today in true proportions: they are vital - indeed of extreme importance - since they candestroy our civilisation and slay the future before its birth. The crossing of space may do much to turnmen's minds outwards and away from their present tribal squabbles. In this sense, the rocket, far from beingone of the destroyers of civilisation, may provide the safety valve that is needed to preserve it."

38
http://www.nutri.com/space/http://www.nutri.com/space/http://www.nutri.com/space/http://www.nutri.com/space/


39/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


We are due for an asteroid on top up multiple inevitable disasters on Earth- makes

extinction inevitable

Robert Ray Britt, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, 10-8-01,http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html

It's no secret. Sooner or later, Earth's bell will be rung. A giant asteroid or comet willslam into the planet, as has happened many times before, and a deadly dark cloud willenvelop the globe, killing much of whatever might have survived the initial impact. "Welive on a small planet covered with the bones of extinct species, proving that suchcatastrophes do occur routinely," says J. Richard Gott, III, a professor of astrophysics atPrinceton and author of "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." Gott cites the presumablyhardy Tyrannosaurus rex, which lasted a mere 2.5 million years and was the victim of anasteroid attack, as an example of what can happen if you don't plan ahead. But spacerocks may not be the only threat. Epidemics, climatological or ecological catastrophes oreven man-made disasters could do our species in, Gott says. And so, he argues, we need alife insurance policy to guarantee the survival of the human race.

39
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.htmlhttp://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-3.html


40/59

DDI 08 AFF Wave 3


Extinction Inevitable- Genetic Manipulation

Genetic research will cause extinction- colonization solves

OscarFalconi, bs in physics, MIT, 1981, http://www.nutri.com/space/

But is a moratorium on experimentation in genetic manipulation the answer? Can onereally believe that Russian, Israeli, or Chinese researchers will abide by such anagreement? Can you picture a Ge

325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3

Documents

Transcript of 325 KO Space Satellite Aff Wave 3