SPS 1AC

							Document1                                                                                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                     1
Adv 1 is heg
Scenario one is Aerospace
Uncertain Space Policy is Crippling the Aerospace Industry- Government action is key
Maser 11
[Jim, Chair of the Corporate Membership Committee – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and President – Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne, ―A Review of NASA‘s Exploration Program in Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry‖, U.S. House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing, 3-30,
http://www.prattwhitney.com/media_center/executive_speeches/jim_maser_03-30-2011.asp]
      Access to space plays a significant part in the Department of Defense‘s ability to secure our nation. The lack of a unified national strategy
      brings uncertainty in volume, meaning that fixed costs will go up in the short term across all customers until actual demand
      levels are understood. Furthermore, the lack of space policy will have ripple effects in the defense budget and elsewhere,
      raising costs when it is in everyone‘s interests to contain costs. Now, it is of course true that there are uncertainties about the best way to
      move forward. This was true in the early days of space exploration and in the Apollo and Shuttle eras.Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of
      waiting until we have all the answers. We must not ―let the best be the enemy of the good.‖ In other words, selecting a configuration that
      we are absolutely certain is the optimum configuration is not as important as expeditiously selecting one of the many
      workable configurations, so that we can move forward. This industry has smart people with excellent judgment, and we will figure the details
      out, but not if we don‘t get moving soon. NASA must initiate SLS and MPCV efforts without gapping the program efforts already in place intended to
      support Constellation.The time for industry and government to work together to define future space policy is now. We must
      establish an overarching policy that recognizes the synergy among all government space launch customers to determine the right sustainable industry size,
      and plan on funding it accordingly.The need to move with clear velocity is imperative if we are to sustain our endangered U.S. space industrial base, to
      protect our national security, and to retain our position as the world leader in human spaceflight and space exploration. I believe that if we work together
      we can achieve these goals.We are ready to help in any way that we can. But the clock is ticking.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                     1
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
Infrastructure and tech advances of SPS provide a framework to ensure the US remains the aerospace
leader.
NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed Defense
Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space‐ Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
     FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace
     Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace
     technical and industrial base, our ―national jewel‖ which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP
     program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United
     States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st
     century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long‐ term
     research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several
     decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold
     War…Government policies and investments in long‐ term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation
     does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure
     investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort.
     Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐ term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national
     aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives
     necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission
     recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our
     industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased
     and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission
     concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐ faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our
     freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer
     new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States
     create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - necessary for developing and
     supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to
     Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to
     commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and
     global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from
     a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and
     supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that
     government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐ term research programs, and industry needs to provide
     to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international
     sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national
     security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions
     affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐ public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without
     constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a
     fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research
     to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through
     continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation
     was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems
     and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace
     research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of
     national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that,
     ―America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific
     discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership
     in space.‖ An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      2
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
Aerospace Power in space is key to Heg
Snead 07 – [Mike Sead Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development , ―How
America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,‖ Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3,
http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-
spacefaring-nation.aspx, Caplan]
      Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on advancing science
      and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in
      this competition adds to its power while a great power that does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes
      comparatively less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power
      for protection. As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of
      change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had
      shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe
      were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in
      1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of
      beginning another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national
      investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and
      his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage compared to those of
      Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for
      conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed air
      superiority to prevail. With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those
      derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths
      through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of
      current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powers—China,
      India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a
      commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring
      nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just
      through prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above.
      This is an advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     3
Document1                                                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                         1
And Aerospace Decline Kills Air Power
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ―The Aerospace Workforce‖, Federal News
Service, 12-10, Lexis)
     Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological vitality,
     and global leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They connect
     the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite communications, and they monitor
     the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe . The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major ways to America's
      economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240
      billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout our
      country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to the sector's
      workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest
      concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in his
      100-year history. Simply put, today, many more older, experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental
      aerospace workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the
      final members of the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact,
      around 50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the supply of younger
      aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we
      see in the near future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country's universities
      continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps increasing. Today, only about
      15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and
      Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our
      industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse
      current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second
      question concerns the implications of a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human spaceflight
      programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's
      aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human
      spaceflight have been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to pursue careers in the aerospace
      sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show
      in brief video interviews at the end of my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study conducted
      earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they
      chose this field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be
      substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress on an already weakened strategic sector of
      our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be considered as decisions are made on the funding and
      direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the
      previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace professionals, administration and congressional leaders should also consider the
      collateral damage to the space industrial base if human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and
      highly-specialized product requirements, the domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile. Many second-
      and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could
      force some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in
      total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending could have
      large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and scientific space programs as well, potentially
      triggering a series of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                         4
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
Airpower controls escalation to all conflicts
Tellis 98 (Ashley, Senior Political Scientist – RAND, ―Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century‖, http://www.rand.
org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
     This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the
     rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the
     analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and
     unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor
     the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser
     degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian
     Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies
     arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases,
     U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the
     Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by
     any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of
     surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can
     exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured.
     The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense
     (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region,
     because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces,
     most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian
     Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air
     Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While
     emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will
     progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China
     already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing
     Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both
     China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        5
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
Scenario two is forward deployment

SPS is key to foreward deployment and eliminates supply lines
Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institute‘s New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming Towards a Theory of
Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 11/24/ 2008, ―Space solar power and the Khyber Pass‖, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1
    Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (SSP). One of the primary
    justifications for the project was the potential of the system to provide power from space for remote military bases.
    Electrical power is only part of the story. If the military really wants to be able to operate for long periods of time without
    using vulnerable supply lines it will have to find a new way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces. This may seem
    impossible at first glance, but by combining space solar power with some of the innovative alternative fuels and fuel
    manufacturing systems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort, the problem could be solved. The
    trick is, of course, to have enough raw energy available so that it is possible to transform whatever is available into liquid
    fuel. This may mean something as easy as making methanol from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or
    something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from waste products. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned
    into liquid fuels with the right technology. What is needed is a portable system that can be transported in standard
    containers and set up anywhere there are the resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space solar
    power is available, but with SSP it becomes much easier. In the longer run Pakistan‘s closure of the Khyber Pass supply
    route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations can use to avoid the pressures and threats that they
    now have to live with. Without access to the sea, nations such as Afghanistan are all too vulnerable to machinations from
    their neighbors. Imagine how different history would be if the Afghans had had a ―Polish Corridor‖ and their own port.
    Their access to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bangladesh and Indonesia are both
    Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      6
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
Shifting to renewables is key to maintain forward deployment capabilities and sustain military power
Wald and Captain 09
[ General Charles F. Wald (USAF Ret) Director and Senior Advisor, Aerospace & Defense Industry, Tom Captain Vice Chairman,
Global and U.S. Aerospace & Defense Industry Leader, ― Energy Security America‘s Best Defense‖ 2009,
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AD/us_ad_EnergySecurity052010.pdf, Caplan]
      Energy security and national security are closely interrelated: threats to the former are likely to translate as threats to the
      latter. The U.S. military, in its planning for the future, recognizes the ability of an adversary (or adversaries) to use the ‗oil
      weapon.‘ The control over enormous oil supplies gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose
      democratic interests and values — and the United States and its allies. Case in point — Russia has withheld natural gas
      supplies to both Ukraine and Georgia in the last few years alone, demonstrating that, as the Economist wrote in 2006,
      ―when it comes to hydrocarbons, geopolitics, and geology are inextricable.‖ The global oil market is highly vulnerable to
      potential supply disruptions. Global energy reserves are heavily concentrated among a handful of major producers and the
      largest consuming centers are often far from producing basins. Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global
      sea routes. These ―lines of communication‖ (LOCs) represent a critical part of the global energy security infrastructure due
      to the high percentage of the world‘s daily energy supply that passes through their narrow straits. The Straits of Hormuz,
      Strait of Malacca, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, and Bosporus/Turkish Straits are all extremely critical and
      vulnerable LOCs. Disruptions at any one of these chokepoints could interrupt a significant percentage of the world‘s daily
      requirement for fuel. The Straits of Hormuz is the world‘s most important oil chokepoint, with over 17 million barrels of oil
      passing through it every day. That equates to roughly 40% of all seaborne traded oil and more than 20% of oil traded
      worldwide. At its narrowest point, the straits are 21 miles wide, and the shipping lanes consist of two-mile wide channels
      for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a two-mile wide buffer zone. In early 2009, the U.S. DoD Under
      Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), Dr. Ashton Carter, testified to Congress that
      ―protecting large fuel convoys imposes a huge burden on the combat forces.‖ He went on to say that ―reducing the fuel
      demand would move the department more towards efficient force structure by enabling more combat forces supported by
      fewer logistics assets, reducing operating costs, and mitigating budget effects caused by fuel price volatility.‖ At the U.S.
      Marines Corps‘ (USMC) 2009 Energy Summit, Commandant General James Conway identified fuel convoy security in
      Afghanistan as one of his most pressing problems related to risk of casualties. General Conway said he was in the process
      of reorganizing the USMC/Headquarters (HQ) staff to better address energy problems and to more clearly focus on energy
      efficiency. During that conference, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, made the same comment
      regarding his U.S. Navy HQ staff. On any given day, the U.S. military hosts a substantial forward contingent abroad,
      serving in strategically critical support missions. Since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began in 2001 and 2003,
      respectively, the amount of oil consumption at forward bases has increased tenfold. Every forward operating base (FOB) in
      Afghanistan requires a minimum of 300 gallons of diesel daily to satisfy its requirements. A typical USMC combat brigade
      alone requires over 500,000 gallons of fuel per day. High fuel requirements in forward deployed locations present the
      military with a significant logistical burden. More importantly, the transport of this fuel via truck convoy represents
      casualty risks, not only from IEDs and enemy attacks, but also rough weather, traffic accidents, and pilferage. DoD officials
      reported that in June 2008 alone, a combination of these factors caused the loss of some 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of
      fuel. The following pictures illustrate the logistical difficulty in fuel transport and distribution in theaters of war. They
      dramatically illustrate the magnitude, vulnerability, and conditions that the operation consists of in the type of
      expeditionary warfare experienced in the last 20 years. According to a 2001 Defense Science Board (DSB) report, over
      70% of the tonnage required to position today‘s U.S. Army into battle is fuel. With the logistics, fuel convoys and
      distribution requirements to transport fuel into battle, it is not surprising that U.S. adversaries are targeting one of its most
      vulnerable assets. In addition, the number of fuel convoys — trucks traveling over unimproved roads in remote areas — has
      skyrocketed in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, in order to supply the engines of the personnel carriers, camp generators,
      jeeps, tanks and other equipment requiring a continuous oil supply to operate. Between July 2003 and May 2009, IEDs
      accounted for some 43% of U.S. fatalities in Iraq. For many months between 2005 and 2008, the IED-related fatality rate
      exceeded 50% (as seen in the chart below). Convoys, whose primary tonnage is fuel, represent a substantial target of IED-
      related assaults. Over the past five fiscal years (FY 2005 through FY 2009), IEDs accounted for about 38% of U.S.
      fatalities in Afghanistan. In contrast to the situation in Iraq where IED related U.S. casualties declined both in absolute
      numbers and as a percentage of total U.S. casualties beginning in the second half of 2007, the situation in Afghanistan has
      only worsened, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of total U.S. fatalities, as seen in the chart below. Indeed, the
      total U.S. IED-related fatalities in Afghanistan for just the two months of July and August 2009 were 50% higher than they
      were for the entirety of FY 2007. For FY 2009, IEDs will likely have accounted for slightly more than half of all U.S.
      fatalities in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the following chart correlates the number of total U.S. casualties in Afghanistan —
      killed in action and wounded — from 2002 through the present, to the increasing consumption of fuel by U.S. forces. This



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     7
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
      demonstrates that the number of convoys required to transport an ever increasing requirement for fossil fuels is itself a root
      cause of casualties, both wounded and killed in action. As mentioned, the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
      roadside bombs by U.S. adversaries has been an especially effective means to disable friendly fighting forces by disrupting
      their supply of energy. The chart shows that the current Afghan conflict may result in a 124% increase in U.S. casualties
      through 2014 (17.5% CAGR), should the war be prosecuted with a similar profile to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Beyond the
      danger to lives — the most important issue raised here — there is the issue of cost. Beyond the basic purchase cost of fuel
      are other ‗hidden‘ costs, including maintaining fuel transport equipment, training personnel, and maintaining and protecting
      the oil supply chain. The military currently pays between $2 and $3 per gallon for fuel depending on market conditions.
      The process of getting the fuel to its intended destination, even assuming that no protection is provided to the convoys
      during transport, increases the cost to nearly $15 a gallon. Protection of fuel convoys in combat zones requires an enormous
      show of force in the form of armored vehicles, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft, forcing costs even higher. Protecting
      fuel convoys from the ground and air costs the DoD upward of 15 times the actual purchase cost of fuel, depending on the
      level of protection required by the convoy and the current market prices of the fuel commodity. Fuel costs grow
      exponentially as the delivery distance increases or when force protection is provided from air. The following chart
      illustrates the fully burdened costs of fuel and shows how high the cost is to protect and transport this fuel to its final
      destination, bringing the cost per gallon to almost $45 per gallon, compared to the average cost at the retail gas pump of
      approximately $3 per gallon in 2009. The business case for alternative energy development has rested first on the concept
      of a sustainable planet, resulting in reductions in hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions in the creation and use of fossil
      fuels. With the dramatic rise in the price of oil seen in 2008, and increased recognition that the oil supply may be limited,
      the business case has shifted emphasis to the economic benefit for developing and using renewable energy sources. This
      study demonstrates that the development and use of alternative energy can be a direct cause for reductions in wartime
      casualties and may rank on par with the business cases for development of ever more effective offensive weapons,
      sophisticated fuel transport tankers, mine resistant armored vehicles, and net-centric sensing technologies. Aerospace and
      Defense firms, their government customers, and research labs around the world are well positioned to accelerate the
      development and deployment of such technologies.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       8
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
Scenario 3 is Space Leadership

Developing SPS is key to maintain the lead in space technology
Cox 11
[ William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist.                                   ,
3/30/11http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/1297, Caplan]
      Presently, only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power to compete in the race
     for space solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster, Japan occupies the inside track, as it is the
     only nation that has a dedicated space solar energy program and which is highly motivated to change directions. China,
     which has launched astronauts into an earth orbit and is rapidly become the world‘s leader in the production of wind and
     solar generation products, will undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the United States, which should have
     every advantage in the race, is most likely to stumble out of the gate and waste the best chance it has to solve its economic,
     energy, political and military problems. A miraculous source of abundant energy Space-solar energy is the greatest source
     of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely solve the world‘s energy and greenhouse gas emission problems.
     The technology currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the
     Sun‘s radiant energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying
     antennas on Earth. Following its proposal by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968, the concept of solar power satellites was extensively
     studied by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By
     1981, the organizations determined that the idea was a high-risk venture; however, they recommended further study. With
     increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took a ―fresh look‖ at the concept between 1995 and 1997. The NASA
     study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites in geostationary orbits by 2050,
     sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. The NASA effort successfully demonstrated the
     ability to transmit electrical energy by microwaves through the atmosphere; however, the study‘s leader, John Mankins,
     now says the program ―has fallen through the cracks because no organization is responsible for both space programs and
     energy security.‖ The project may have remained shelved except for the military‘s need for sources of energy in its
     campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the cost of gasoline and diesel exceeds $400 a gallon. A report by the
     Department of Defense‘s National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. ―begin a coordinated national
     program‖ to develop space-based solar power. There are three basic engineering problems presented in the deployment of a
     space-based solar power system: the size, weight and capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy; the ability of robots to
     assemble solar collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of lifting collectors and robots into space. Two of these
     problems have been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally proposed. New thin-film advances in the
     design of solar collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in the efficiency of energy conversion and
     decreases in size and weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been greatly improved and are now used extensively
     in heavy manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials
     into space. The last few flights of the space shuttle this year will cost $20,000 per kilogram of payload to move satellites
     into orbit and resupply the space station. It has been estimated that economic viability of space solar energy would require a
     reduction in the payload cost to less than $200 per kilogram and the total expense, including delivery and assembly in orbit,
     to less than $3,500 per kilogram. Although there are substantial costs associated with the development of space-solar
     power, it makes far more sense to invest precious public resources in the development of an efficient and reliable power
     supply for the future, rather than to waste U.S. tax dollars on an ineffective missile defense system, an ego trip to Mars, or
     $36 billion in risky loan guarantees by the DOE to the nuclear power industry. With funding for the space shuttle ending
     next year and for the space station in 2017, the United States must decide upon a realistic policy for space exploration, or
     else it will be left on the ground by other nations, which are rapidly developing futuristic space projects. China is currently
     investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient green technology, and has become
     the world‘s leading producer of solar panels. In addition, China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts
     and by demonstrating a capability to destroy the satellites of other nations. Over the past two years, Japan has committed
     $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to ―put into
     geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a
     large nuclear power plant.‖ Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to deliver electricity at a cost of
     $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        9
Document1                                                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                           1
Maintaining the lead in spacefaring capabilities is key to overall space leadership
Stone 11
Chris Stone - space policy analyst and strategist, MBA from Georgetown, 3-2011, ―American leadership in space: leadership
through capability,‖ http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1
    When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman‘s
    assertion that space is ―often‖ overlooked in ―foreign relations and geopolitical strategies‖. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national
    grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that
    the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to
    ―shape‖ the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as ―The World We Seek‖. Using space to shape
    the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of ―shaping‖ is that we appear to have
    changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to
    base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional
    national leadership would start by advancing United States‘ space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward
    shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States‘ goal should be leadership through
    spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased
    space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and
    political example. The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological
    advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did
    not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary
    commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved
    exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of
    leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting
    down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying
    millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion‘s share of the cost of construction. Why
    would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and
    whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner
    rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world ―hegemony‖ or ―superiority‖ as dirty words . Some
    seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of
    access to space for the purpose of advancing their ―security, prestige and wealth‖ through exploration like we do. However, to
    maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership
    model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion,
    space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude
    international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security,
    prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you
    that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not
    all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as ―congested, contested, and competitive‖; the quest for excellence is
    just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in
    space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires
    expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space
    programs as the advancement of its national ―security, prestige and wealth‖ by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities
    and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community . These energies and
    influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will
    require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a
    requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives ―worthy of a great nation‖.



The Guiding Impact is great power war
[Insert Heg=the shit]

No Risk of Heg Bad- control of space means no backlash
Posen 03
[Posen, Barry R. "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony." International Security. Vol. 28, No. 1
(Summer 2003): 5-46., Caplan ]
Command of the commons creates additional collective goods for U.S. allies. These collective goods help connect U.S. military power
to seemingly prosaic welfare concerns. U.S. military power underwrites world trade, travel, global telecommunications, and
commercial remote sensing, which all depend on peace and order in the commons. Those nations most involved in these activities,




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                       10
Document1                                                                                                                DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                   1
those who profit most from globalization, seem to understand that they benefit from the U.S. military position which may help explain
why the world‘s consequential powers have grudgingly supported U.S. hegemony.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                11
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                Oil Dependency Advantage
Advantage 2 is Oil Dependency

Scenario 1 is Warming-
Its real, anthropogenic, and oil dependency is the number 1 cause (Insert card here, possibly 2- one for real,
one for dependency/anthro)

Extinction (Terminal Impact goes here- tickle? Deibel? Klare?)

Warming makes all your war impacts inevitable- climate change is the catalyst for all instability
James R. Lee is a Professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC and Associate Director of
American University's Center for Teaching Excellence. He is author of several books on international relations. 1/4/20 09 ―Global
Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg‖ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202280.html
    The Cold War shaped world politics for half a century. But global warming may shape the patterns of global conflict for
    much longer than that -- and help spark clashes that will be, in every sense of the word, hot wars. We're used to thinking of
    climate change as an environmental problem, not a military one, but it's long past time to alter that mindset. Climate change
    may mean changes in Western lifestyles, but in some parts of the world, it will mean far more. Living in Washington, I may
    respond to global warming by buying a Prius, planting a tree or lowering my thermostat. But elsewhere, people will
    respond to climate change by building bomb shelters and buying guns. "There is every reason to believe that as the 21st
    century unfolds, the security story will be bound together with climate change," warns John Ashton, a veteran diplomat
    who is now the United Kingdom's first special envoy on climate change. "The last time the world faced a challenge this
    complex was during the Cold War. Yet the stakes this time are even higher because the enemy now is ourselves, the choices
    we make." Defense experts have also started to see the link between climate change and conflict. A 2007 CNA Corp.
    report, supervised by a dozen retired admirals and generals, warned that climate change could lead to political unrest in
    numerous badly hit countries, then perhaps to outright bloodshed and battle.

Defer aff on irreversibility- even if the chance of solvency or warming existing is low, not being able to
come back is means you vote aff anyway
Cass R Sunstein, Professor in the Department of Political Science and at the Law School of the University of Chicago, 20 07,
―Worst-Case Scenarios‖
    Most worst-case scenarios appear to have an element of irreversibility. Once a species is lost, it is lost forever. The special
    concern for endangered species stems from the permanence of their loss (outside of Jurassic Park). One of the most serious
    fears associated with genetically modified organisms is that they might lead to irreversible ecological harm. Because some
    greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for centuries, the problem of climate change may be irreversible, at least for all
    practical purposes. Transgenic crops can impose irreversible losses too, because they can make pests more resistant to
    pesticides. If we invest significant wealth in one source of energy and neglect others, we may be effectively stuck forever,
    or at least for a long time. One objection to capital punishment is that errors cannot be reversed. In ordinary life, our
    judgments about worst-case scenarios have everything to do with irreversibility. Of course an action may be hard but not
    impossible to undo, and so there may be a continuum of cases, with different degrees of difficulty in reversing. A marriage
    can be reversed, but divorce is rarely easy; having a child is very close to irreversible; moving from New York to Paris is
    reversible, but moving back may be difficult. People often take steps to avoid courses of action that are burdensome rather
    than literally impossible to reverse. In this light, we might identify an Irreversible Harm Precautionary Principle, applicable
    to a subset of risks.' As a rough first approximation, the principle says this: Special steps should be taken to avoid
    irreversible harms, through precautions that go well beyond those that would be taken if irreversibility were not a problem.
    The general attitude here is "act, then learn," as opposed to the tempting alternative of "wait and learn." In the case of
    climate change, some people believe that research should be our first line of defense. In their view, we should refuse to
    commit substantial resources to the problem until evidence of serious harm is unmistakably clear.' But even assuming that
    the evidence is not so clear, research without action allows greenhouse gas emissions to continue, which might produce
    risks that are irreversible, or at best difficult and expensive to reverse. For this reason, the best course of action might well
    be to take precautions now as a way of preserving flexibility for future generations. In the environmental context in general,
    this principle suggests that regulators should proceed with far more aggressive measures than would otherwise seem
    justified.



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        12
Document1                                                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
Ignore timeframe distinctions- even if warming has a long timeframe solving now is the only way to avoid
irreversible impacts
Rhett Butler 2009 ―Many global warming impacts may be irreversible in next 1000 years,‖ January 27th
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=116603
      "It is sometimes imagined that slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of the assumption that
      a choice can always be made to quickly reduce emissions and thereby reverse any harm within a few years or decades," the
      write. "We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide emissions, because of the longevity of the
      atmospheric CO2 perturbation and ocean warming. Irreversible climate changes due to carbon dioxide emissions have
      already taken place, and future carbon dioxide emissions would imply further irreversible effects on the planet, with
      attendant long legacies for choices made by contemporary society." "In this paper we have quantified how societal
      decisions regarding carbon dioxide concentrations that have already occurred or could occur in the coming century imply
      irreversible dangers relating to climate change for some illustrative populations and regions. These and other dangers pose
      substantial challenges to humanity and nature, with a magnitude that is directly linked to the peak level of carbon dioxide
      reached."




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    13
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
Scenario 2 is Peak Oil

Its’ real, fast, and there’s no escape- alternatives are unfeasible, destroy the environment, and are
politically inflated, but the government won’t do anything about it
 John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, 2005, ―Peak Oil and Energy Imperialism‖
      In the five years that have elapsed since the United States invaded Iraq the world oil supply problem has drastically
      worsened. Estimates of the potential for increased Iraqi oil production made prior to the war had suggested that Iraq free of
      sanctions could potentially increase its crude oil production within a decade from its previous 1979 high of 3.5 million
      barrels a day (mb/d) to 6 or even 10 mb/d. 15 Instead, Iraq‘s average annual oil production in 2007 had fallen to 13 per cent
      below its 2001 level, having declined from 2.4 to 2.1 mb/d. Oil production in the Persian Gulf as a whole increased by 2.4
      mb/d on average between 2001 and 2005 and then dropped by 4 per cent in 2005–07, along with the stagnation of world oil
      production as a whole. 16 At the time U.S. troops reached Baghdad peak oil was already a specter looming over the globe.
      Today it is present in all establishment discussions of the world oil issue. Peak oil is not the same as running out of oil.
      Rather it simply means the peaking and subsequent terminal decline of oil production, as determined primarily by
      geological and technological factors. The extraction of oil from any given oil welltypically takes the form of a symmetrical,
      bell-shaped curve with extraction steadily rising, e.g., by 2 per cent a year, until a peak is reached when about half of the
      accessible oil has been extracted. Since oil production for an entire country is simply a product of the aggregation of
      individual wells, national oil production can be expected to take the form of a bell-shaped curve as well. Geologists have
      become adept at estimating the point at which a peak in national production will occur. These methods were pioneered in
      the 1950s by oil geologist M. King Hubbert, who achieved fame for successfully predicting the U.S. oil peak in 1970. The
      eventual peak in oil production is therefore sometimes known as ―Hubbert‘s peak.‖ Peak oil is generally viewed in terms of
      the peaking of conventional crude oil supplies on which the main estimates of oil reserves are based. There are also
      unconventional sources of oil that can be produced at much greater cost and with a much lower energy returned on energy
      invested (EROEI) ratio. These include heavy oil, petroleum derived from oil sand, and shale oil. As the price of oil rises
      some of these sources become more exploitable, but also at much greater cost—monetarily and to the environment. It is
      estimated that it takes an equivalent of two out of three barrels of oil produced to pay for the energy and other costs
      associated with extracting oil from the tar sands in Alberta. It requires one billion cubic feet of natural gas to generate one
      million barrels of synthetic oil from oil sands. Two tons of sand must be mined to get one barrel of oil. Oil sand mining also
      requires vast quantities of water, producing two and a half gallons of toxic liquid waste for every barrel of oil extracted.
      This liquid waste is stored in enormous and rapidly expanding ―tailing ponds.‖ The economic and environmental costs are
      thus prohibitive. Peak oil therefore inevitably signals the end of cheap oil. 17 A key part of the argument on peak oil is the
      fact that discoveries of oil fields worldwide peaked in the 1960s, while the average size of new discoveries has also
      declined over time. Those who argue that peak oil is imminent insist that estimates of proven reserves are commonly
      exaggerated for political reasons, and that actual retrievable reserves may be considerably less. The conventional notion
      that there are forty years of crude oil production remaining at current rates of output is seen as misleading, since it
      exaggerates the reserves in the ground and downplays the fact that the economy requires that oil demand and production
      levels increase. Peak oil analysts therefore focus on production levels rather than reserves. The peak oil crisis is more
      sharply defined than the more general crisis in energy, since not only is petroleum the most protean fuel, but it is also the
      preeminent liquid fuel in transportation, for which there is no easy substitute in the quantities needed. Therefore more than
      two-thirds of U.S. oil demand is in the form of gasoline andpetrodiesel consumption by cars and trucks. An imminent peak
      in conventional oil thus strikes at the lifeblood of the existing capitalist economy. It presents the possibility of a drastic
      economic dislocation and slowdown. 18 The peak oil debate, which has often been fierce over the past decade, has now
      narrowed down to two basic positions. One of these is that of ―early peakers‖ (usually seen as peak oil proponents proper).
      These analysts argue that peak oil will probably be reached by 2010–12, and may have already been reached in 2005–06.
      The alternative position, represented by ―late peakers,‖ is that the world oil peak will not be reached until 2020 or 2030. 19
      Hence, there is a growing consensus that peak oil is or will soon be a reality. The chief question now is how soon, and
      whether it is already upon us. An added consideration is whether world oil production will face a classic bellshaped curve,
      culminating in a slender, rounded peak, to be followed quickly by a decline (within what can be viewed as a symmetrical
      curve)—or whether production will rise to a plateau and then stay there for a while, before declining. In fact, world oil
      supply appears already to have reached a plateau over the last three years at the level of 85 mb/d. This therefore has lent
      credence to the notion that this is the form the peak will initially take. Chart 1: World oil production and supply Source:
      Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, International Petroleum Monthly, April 2008,
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html, tables 1.4d and 4.4.Chart 1 shows world oil production/supply from 1970 to 2007.
      ―Oil‖ according to the IEA (and the EIA, which has adopted an almost identical approach) is defined to include ―all liquid
      fuels and is accounted at the product level. Sources include natural gas liquids and condensates, refinery processing gains,



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        14
Document1                                                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
      and the production of conventional and unconventional oil.‖ Conventional or crude oil is readily processed oil ―produced
      from underground hydrocarbon reservoirs by means of production wells.‖ Unconventional oil is derived from other
      processes, such as liquefied natural gas, oil sands, oil shales, coal-to-liquid, biofuels, ―and/or [other fuel that] . . . needs
      additional processing to produce synthetic crude.‖ 20 The lower line in chart 1, labeled ―crude oil production,‖ refers
      simply to production of conventional oil. The higher line, labeled ―world oil supply,‖ also includes unconventional sources
      plus net refinery processing gains (losses). The ―crude oil production‖ line shows a very slight dip in 2005–07, reflecting
      the fact that crude oil production fell from an average of 73.8 mb/d in 2005 to 73.3 mb/d in 2007. The ―world oil supply‖
      line, however, remains level at about 85 mb/d due to a compensating rise in unconventional sources over the same period,
      resulting in what appears to be a more definite plateau. Explaining that a plateau is the most likely initial outcome at the
      world level, Richard Heinberg, a leading peak oil proponent, writes: Why the plateau? Oil production is constrained by
      economic conditions (in an economic downturn, demand for oil falls off), as well as by political events such as war and
      revolutions. In addition, the shape of the production curve is modified by the increasing availability of unconventional
      petroleum sources (including heavy oil, natural gas plant liquids, and tar sands), as well as new extraction technologies. The
      combined effect of all of these factors is to cushion the peak and lengthen the decline curve. 21 The notion that a partly
      geological-technical, partly political-economic, plateau is emerging has now become the dominant view in the industry. In
      November 2007 the Wall Street Journal reported a growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long
      deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every
      day . . . The near adherents [to the peak oil view]— who range from senior Western oil-company executives to current and
      former officials of the major world exporting countries—don‘t believe that the global oil tank is at the half-empty point.
      But they share the belief that a global production ceiling is coming for other reasons: restricted access to oil fields, spiraling
      costs and increasingly complex oil-field geology. This will create a production plateau, not a peak, they contend, with oil
      output remaining relatively constant rather than rising or falling. The Wall Street Journal article referred to the estimates of
      Cambridge Energy Research Associates, asserting that the peak will not be reached until 2030 and that it will manifest itself
      at first as an ―undulating plateau.‖ But the Journal article also took seriously the views of Simmons, who pointed out that,
      due to declining production in old fields, an increased average daily oil production equivalent to ten times current Alaskan
      production was needed ―just to stay even.‖ Indeed, ―at the furthest out,‖ he suggested, the crisis associated with the world
      peak in conventional oil production would be reached ―in 2008 to 2012.‖ Echoing many of the same worries, some oil
      executives have raised the specter of an oil supply ceiling of 100 million barrels (conventional and unconventional), with
      petroleum supply likely falling short of expected demand within a decade or less. 22 Given the appearance of a world oil
      production plateau at present, and with oil supply seemingly stuck at the 85 mb/d level, it is not surprising that some
      analysts believe that peak oil has already been reached. Thus Simmons and Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens have
      both raised the question of whether the peak was reached in 2005. While the Energy Watch Group in Germany, which
      includes both scientists and members of the German parliament, contends that ―world oil production . . . peaked in 2006.‖
      23 Publicly of course the peak oil problem has often been characterised by establishment sources and the media as a ―fringe
      issue.‖ Yet over the past decade the question has been pursued systematically with increasing concern within the highest
      echelons of capitalist society: within both states and corporations. 24 In February 2005 the U.S. Department of Energy
      released a major report that it had commissioned entitled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk
      Management. The project leader was Robert L. Hirsch of Science Applications International Corporation. Hirsch had
      formerly occupied executive positions in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Exxon, and ARCO. The Hirsch report
      concluded that peak oil was a little over two decades away or nearer. ―Even the most optimistic forecasts,‖ it stated,
      ―suggest that world oil peaking will occur in less than 25 years.‖ The main emphasis of the Hirsch report commissioned by
      the Department of Energy, however, was on the issue of the massive transformations that would be needed in the economy,
      and particularly transportation, in order to mitigate the harmful effects of the end of cheap oil. The enormous problem of
      converting virtually the entire stock of U.S. cars, trucks, and aircraft in just a quarter-century (at most) was viewed as
      presenting intractable difficulties. 25 In October 2005, Hirsch wrote an analysis for Bulletin of the Atlantic Council of the
      United States on ―The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production.‖ He declared therethat, ―previous energy transitions
      (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. The world has
      never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation at least a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive
      and long lasting.‖ 26 Similarly, the U.S. Army released a major report of its own in September 2005 stating: The doubling
      of oil prices from 2003–2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low
      growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and
      market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the
      outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines. 27 Indeed, by 2005 there was little doubt in ruling
      circles about the likelihood of serious oil shortages and that peak oil was on its way soon or sooner. In its 2005 World
      Energy Outlook the IEA raised the issue of Simmons‘s claims in Twilight in the Desert that Saudi Arabia‘s super-giant
      Ghawar oil field, the largest in the world, ―could,‖ in the IEA‘s words, ―be close to reaching its peak if it has not already



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                           15
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
      done so.‖ Likewise the U.S. Department of Energy, which had initially rejected Simmons‘s assessment, backtracked
      between 2004 and 2006, degrading its projection of Saudi oil production in 2025 by 33 per cent. 28 In February 2007 the
      U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a seventy-five-page report on Crude Oil pointedly subtitled:
      Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil
      Production. It argued that almost all studies had shown that a world oil peak would occur sometime before 2040 and that
      U.S. federal agencies had not yet begun to address the issue of the national preparedness necessary to face this impending
      emergency. For the GAO the threat of a major oil shortfall was worsened by the political risks primarily associated with
      four countries, accounting for almost one-third of world (conventional) reserves: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The
      fact that Venezuela contained ―almost 90 per cent of the world‘s proven extra-heavy oil reserves‖ made it all the more
      noteworthy that it constituted a significant ―political risk‖ from Washington‘s standpoint. 29 In April 2008, Jeroen van der
      Ver, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, pronounced that ―we wouldn‘t be surprised if this [easy] oil would peak somewhere in the
      next ten years.‖ Due to a combination of factors including production shortfalls and a declining dollar, oil in May 2008
      reached over $135 a barrel (it averaged $66 in 2006 and $72 in 2007). The same month Goldman Sachs shocked world
      capital markets by coming out with an assessment that oil prices could rise to as much as $200 a barrel in thenext two years.
      Western oil interests were particularly distressed that the first production from Kazakhstan‘s Kashagan oil field (considered
      the largest oil deposit in the world outside the Middle East) was eight years behind schedule due in part to waters frozen
      half the year. By May 2008 the IEA, according to analysts for the New York Times, was preparing to reduce its forecast of
      world oil production for 2030 from its earlier forecasts of 116 mb/d to no more than 100 mb/d.3

Terminal Impact here

Don’t worry, we solve-




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      16
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
The plan provides infinite cheap energy that can completely replace oil and solve global warming- acting
now lets us dominate the energy market and spreads it globally
William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist, May 20 10,
http://pubrecord.org/commentary/7653/space-solar-energy-innovation-public/
      The industrial revolution has been driven for the past two centuries by the burning of hydrocarbons, first by coal in the Age
      of Steam, and then by oil and natural gas in the Age of Petroleum; however, as the flow of these fossil fuels slows down as
      demand goes up, ever-more-intrusive and massive extraction efforts increasingly threaten the progress of industrialization
      and the civilization it has produced. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the latest and
      largest of hundreds of such ocean spills, and the recent methane gas explosion in Massey‘s Montcoal mine was just another
      example of the continuing disasters, worldwide, which snuff out the lives of workers who labor in dangerous conditions to
      feed our fossil-fuel addiction. All around the planet we live upon, the quest for hydrocarbons is threatening the ability of
      humans to survive in the degrading environment and to govern their own corporate-dominated societies. It is not just the
      environmental destruction caused by the extraction of coal-bed methane in Wyoming and Montana, the ―fracking‖ of deep
      shale-gas formations and the consequential contamination of fresh water aquifers and rivers in the northeastern United
      States, or the blasting away of mountain tops in Appalachia; it is the fact that these extreme efforts are facilitated by a
      concert of corporate and governmental corruption that erodes freedom and democracy in the United States and threatens
      human civilization around the world. There is no hope for the recovery of earth‘s environment and the survival of human
      civilization as long as extraction decisions are governed by corporate greed. Public energy policy must be based on what is
      good for the people who vote for their representatives, not on what produces profits for the corporations who buy the votes
      of the people‘s representatives. It may already be too late. The environmental destruction caused by the production and
      burning of fossil fuels may have already set in motion irreversible events which will ultimately spell the extinction of
      humanity. But, not to worry. Our loving and forgiving Mother Earth will survive. It may take eons for her oceans, winds,
      and rains to wipe clean the crap we have produced, but someday, never fear, another of Gaia‘s children will learn to fly and
      will study the artifacts of our existence and will wonder of we and why? There may be, however, a more sensible and
      realistic alternative which will preserve the environment and human civilization, and which offers a more exciting and
      rewarding future for our children, as they learn to fly throughout the universe and to explore its adjacent dimensions. So,
      let‘s expand our vision and imagine for a moment how life could be after just a decade or two of innovation in the public
      interest. A Vision for the Future Imagine that the Interstate Highway System and most major streets and freeways in
      America were improved to provide a constant source of electromagnetic energy sufficient to power a standard automobile,
      with comfortable seating for five adults, anywhere in the United States at no cost to the owner-operator. Imagine the
      introduction of triple-hybrid cars designed to operate primarily on electromagnetic energy supplied by induction through
      the surface of most highways and freeways, and which are equipped with small fuel-efficient internal combustion engines
      to supplement rechargeable batteries for trips on local streets and byways. Imagine people could travel for free throughout
      the United States as a matter of national privilege. Workers could get to their jobs without having to labor for the first hour
      each day just to pay for getting there. People would have more money to spend on vacations, and they would be able to tour
      the nation, see the grand sights, and visit with friends and relatives along the way. Imagine the positive economic
      consequences flowing from the rehabilitation of America‘s transportation infrastructure and the creation of a domestic
      manufacturing capacity to build the space-solar and other energy-efficient systems. Is this a realistic dream? If the United
      States decided to provide free power on its national highways as a matter of innovative public policy, where would it obtain
      the energy? A Miraculous Source of Abundant Energy First proposed by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968, space-based solar
      technology can provide an inexhaustible, safe, pollution-free supply of energy and may offer a far more logical solution to
      current energy problems than petroleum or ethanol-based or even nuclear-fueled hydrogen systems. The technology
      currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the Sun‘s radiant
      energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying antennas
      (rectennas) on Earth. Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely
      solve the world‘s energy and greenhouse gas emission problems. Following its proposal, the concept of solar power
      satellites was extensively studied by both the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space
      Administration. By 1981, it was determined that the concept was a high-risk venture; however, further study was
      recommended. With increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took a ―fresh look‖ at the concept between 1995 and
      1997. The NASA study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites in geostationary
      orbits by 2050, sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. However, the study‘s leader, John
      Mankins, now says the program ―has fallen through the cracks because no organization is responsible for both space
      programs and energy security.‖ The project may have remained shelved except for the military‘s need for sources of energy
      in its campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where petroleum costs $400 a gallon. A report by the Department of Defense‘s
      National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. ―begin a coordinated national program to develop



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        17
Document1                                                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
      [space-based solar power].‖ There are three basic engineering problems presented in the deployment of a space-based solar
      power system: The size, weight and capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy; the ability of robots to assemble solar
      collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of lifting collectors and robots into space. Two of these problems have
      been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally proposed. New thin-film advances in the design of solar
      collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in the efficiency of energy conversion and decreases in size and
      weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been greatly improved and are now used extensively in heavy
      manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials into
      space. At a cost of $20,000 per kilogram of payload, the U.S. is currently relying the last few remaining flights of the space
      shuttle to move satellites into orbit and to resupply the space station. It has been estimated that economic viability of space
      solar energy would require a reduction in the payload cost to less than $200 per kilogram and the total expense, including
      delivery and assembly in orbit, to less than $3,500 per kilogram. An American president once said, ―We choose to go to the
      moon in this decade, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.‖ The United States readily achieved that objective and,
      effectively, won the Cold War. A similar challenge is now presented in the ―Energy War.‖ What, if anything, will the
      current president say or do? Although there are substantial costs associated with the development of space-solar power, it
      makes far more sense to invest the precious space exploration budget in the development of an efficient and reliable power
      supply for the future, rather than to waste tax dollars on a stupid and ineffective missile defense system or on an ego trip to
      Mars. With funding for the space shuttle ending in 2012 and for the space station in 2017, America must decide upon a
      realistic policy for space exploration, or else it will be left in the dust by other nations, which are rapidly developing
      futuristic space projects. China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts and by demonstrating a capability
      to destroy satellites. The nation is investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient
      green technology and has become the world‘s leading producer of solar panels and a major exporter of windmills. Over the
      past two years, Japan has committed $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration
      Agency plans to ―put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth,
      equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant.‖ Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to
      deliver electricity at a cost of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources. The first nation that
      captures and effectively makes use of space-solar energy will dominate the world energy market for generations to come
      and will provide its citizens with a much healthier and a far more secure society.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          18
Document1                                                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
The plan kick starts the market- demonstrating that SPS is feasible and practical is only possible in the
US but spreads globally
Geoffrey A. Landis Glenn Research Center for NASA, Cleveland, Ohio, February 20 04,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2004-NASA-ReinventingTheSolarPowerSatellite.pdf
      Space solar power is potentially an enormous business. Current world electrical consumption represents a value at the
      consumer level of nearly a trillion dollars per year; clearly even if only a small fraction of this market can be tapped by
      space solar power systems, the amount of revenue that could be produced is staggering. To tap this potential market, it is
      necessary that a solar power satellite concept has the potential to be technically and economically practical. Technical
      feasibility requires that the concept not violate fundamental laws of physics, that it not require technology not likely to be
      developed in the time frame of interest, and that it has no technological show-stoppers. Economic feasibility requires that
      the system can be produced at a cost which is lower than the market value for the product, with an initial investment low
      enough to attract investors, and that it serve a market niche that is able to pay. The baseline "power tower" developed by the
      "Fresh Look" study in 1996 and 1997 [1,2.7] only partially satisfies these criteria. One difficulty is the power distribution
      system. The distribution system required to transfer power from the solar arrays to the microwave transmitters, consisting
      of a long highvoltage tether system, can not operate in the environment of near-Earth space at the voltages required without
      short-circuiting to the space plasma. Lowering the voltage to avoid plasma discharge would result in unacceptable resistive
      losses. Power distribution is a general problem with all conventional solar power system designs: as a design scales up to
      high power levels, the mass of wire required to link the power generation system to the microwave transmitter becomes a
      showstopper. A design is required in which the solar power can be used directly at the solar array, rather than being sent
      over wires to a separate transmitter. (The "solar sandwich" design of the late 70's solved this problem, but only with the
      addition of an unwieldy steering mirror, which complicates the design to an impractical extent). In addition to technical
      difficulties, the baseline concept does not meet economic goals. As shown in table 6-4 of the "Fresh Look" final report [1],
      even with extremely optimistic assumptions of system cost, solar cell efficiency, and launch cost, each design analyzed
      results in a cost which is either immediately too expensive, or else yields a cost marginally competitive (but not
      significantly better) than terrestrial power technologies, with an internal rate of return (IRR) too low for investment to make
      money. Only if an "externality surcharge" is added to non-space power sources to account for the economic impact of
      fossil-fuels did space solar power options make economic sense. While "externality" factors are quite real, and represent a
      true cost impact of fossil-fuel generation, it is unlikely that the world community will artificially impose such charges
      merely to make space solar power economically feasible. The value of the solar power concept, however—both the dollar
      value and the potential value of the ecological benefits—is so great that the concept should not be abandoned simply
      because one candidate system is flawed. It is important to analyze alternative concepts in order to find one that presents a
      workable system. At the technical interchange meeting which kicked off the "Fresh Look" study of solar power satellites in
      1995, innovative concepts for solar power satellites were solicited in the "brainstorming" sessions [1,2,8]. However, none
      of the new concepts were developed in detail. NASA/TM—2004-212743 16 1 Space Power Markets There are a large
      number of potential markets for space solar power. The greatest need for new power is in the industrializing third world;
      unfortunately, this market segment is by most analyses the least able to pay. Possibly the most interesting market is third-
      world "Mega-cities," where a "Mega-city" is defined as a city with population of over ten million, such as São Paolo,
      Mexico City, Shanghai, or Jakarta. By 2020 there are predicted to be 26 mega-cities in the world, primarily in the third
      world; the population shift in the third world from rural to urban has been adding one to two more cities to this category
      every year, with the trend accelerating. Even though, in general, the third world is not able to pay high prices for energy, the
      current power cost in mega-cities is very high, since the power sources are inadequate, and the number of consumers is
      large. Since the required power for such cities is very high-- ten billion watts or higher-- they represent an attractive market
      for satellite power systems, which scale best at high power levels since the transmitter and receiver array sizes are fixed by
      geometry. In the future, there will be markets for power systems at enormous scales to feed these mega-city markets.
      Therefore, it is very attractive to look at the mega-city market as a candidate market for satellite power systems. For more
      near-term economic feasibility, however, it is desirable to look at electricity markets within the United States. The
      economic climate of the United States is more likely to allow possible investment in large-scale electric power projects than
      the poorer "developing" nations, and hence it is more likely that the first satellite-power projects will be built to service the
      electrical market in the U.S. Although in the long term the third-world mega-cities may be the region that has the greatest
      growth in electrical power demand, the initial economic feasibility of a space solar project will depend on the ability of
      such a facility to be competitive in the U.S. electric market




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          19
Document1                                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
SPS is better than all other alternatives- it makes economic sense while being completely safe while
solving oil dependance
 Al Globus, serves on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research
and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, May 20 07, http://www.space.com/3812-solar-power-
space-strategy-america-world.html
     Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al Qaeda
     and dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear weapons.
     unlike terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not emit
     greenhouse gasses, warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous
     opportunities for terrorists. unlike coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us to
     send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a
     military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to
     electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar
     energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP
     - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere
     slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and that's not all.
     Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built from lunar
     materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most
     environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the
     sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate SSP alone, and SSP is
     nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are simple, solid metal
     structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be cut by foreign
     governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich regions. The catch is
     cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front expense, although after development of a largely-
     automated system to build solar power satellites from lunar materials SSP should be quite inexpensive. To get there,
     however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just what America is good at.
     And you know something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military
     presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more to deal with global
     warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best bargain we've ever had. What should
     we do? Besides having NASA do interesting and inspiring things, direct and fund NASA to do something vital: end U.S.
     dependence on foreign oil by developing SSP. Redirect the lunar base to do the mining, and develop the launch vehicles,
     inter-orbit transfer, and space manufacturing capacity to end oil's energy dominance completely and forever. It will be
     expensive, but it's a better, cheaper, safer strategy than military control of oil in far flung lands.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       20
Document1                                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
Advantage 3 is Nanotech

Space nanotech inevitable, just a question of whom
Eva S. Jenkins, (Lt Col, USAF, Ph.D.) 3/18/09 ―NANOTECHNOLOGY – ENABLING FUTURE SPACE VIABILITY‖
dodreports.com/ada540174
     From the perspective of scientists and engineers at The Aerospace Corporation, a Federally-Funded Research and
     Development Center supporting the Space and Missile Systems Center, U.S. Space Command among other governmental
     organizations, the U.S. is currently leading the world in government funded nanotechnology research and development and
     is ahead in nanotechnology-enabled solar cells and structural materials. Dr. Donald A. Lewis, Principal Director of the
     Strategic Awareness and Policy Directorate (Project West Wing), and his team assess that Japan is a major player in
     research and development and is ahead of the U.S. in nanotechnology-enabled battery development.78 China is working
     diligently and deliberately in nanotechnology focused research and development while Russia is not far behind. The
     European Union as an entity is also making significant strides.79 Experts in academia provide important insights and
     observations as well. According to Dr. Jim Health, an Elizabeth W. Gilloon Professor & Professor of Chemistry, Director
     of NanoSystems Biology Cancer Center at the California Institute of Technology and a Feynman Award Winner, the U.S.
     is in the lead with respect to nanotechnology research and development, however, the lead is not so clear anymore. Heath
     believes this is the case because the nation has been risk adverse in the past decade betting rather on sure things. He is
     certain that it is inevitable that nanotechnology enabled systems will be used in space. The biggest question is whether it
     will be by the U.S. or someone else. Dr. Gregory Carman, a Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
     Professor at UCLA, suspects China will overtake the U.S. in technology research in the near future. His observations
     come from his many visits to China and his contact with Chinese students in the U.S. and Asia. Ten years ago Chinese
     students‘ desires were to stay in the U.S. but now that occurs far less. In the past China‘s equipment was rudimentary but
     during his last visit in 2007 he observed that they are now using state-of-the-art equipment. Furthermore, researchers in
     China now receive financial incentives to produce. Chinese publications and papers often duplicate the U.S.‘ but they are
     still quite good. He believes that in terms of technological research, the Chinese will surpass the U.S. in one to two
     decades.81 The good news is that proponents in U.S. academic institutions and the private sector of nanotechnology‘s
     benefits are trying to do something about the nation‘s dwindling lead. This is a critical task and one that must be tackled if
     the U.S. will remain technologically competitive and, by extension, viable and dominant in space if space is to remain a
     viable domain.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      21
Document1                                                                                                                 DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
US dominance of nanotech industry is decreasing – China challenge strong
Eva S. Jenkins, (Lt Col, USAF, Ph.D.) 3/18/09 ―NANOTECHNOLOGY – ENABLING FUTURE SPACE VIABILITY‖
dodreports.com/ada540174
     Global Competitors. To date over 60 nations have established similar efforts to that of the U.S.‘ NNI. In 2006 the estimate
     for global investment in nanotechnology was around $12.4 billion with $6 billion of that supplied by the private sector.
     While the U.S. ―appears to be the overall global leader‖ for now, the reality is that other countries are investing very
     heavily in research, development, and application in nanotechnologies based on the U.S. model and may already have the
     upper hand in specific areas. Approximately 4,000 companies and research institutes are working on nanotechnology
     developments worldwide. Of those, 1,900 are in the services industry and over 1,000 companies are manufacturing
     products. The worldwide nanotechnology markets are projected to grow from $300 billion in 2006 to more than a trillion
     dollars in 2015.70 As of 2007, the leading nations in nanotechnology development are the U.S., Japan, China, and
     Germany with China being one of the ―world‘s leaders in terms of newly established nanotechnology firms.‖71 Russia just
     stood up their version of NNI and pledged over one billion dollars a year toward the initiative. The global requirement
     will be for two million skilled workers in the nanoscience and nanotechnology field worldwide with at least a third of those
     ―needed in the U.S. to main global competitiveness.‖72 Sixty-three percent of U.S. business leaders in the nanotechnology
     field believe that the U.S. is the world nanotechnology research, development and commercialization leader; however, they
     contend that the lead is narrowing.73 Using purchasing power parity exchange rates, in 2006 the top ten nations investing
     public funding into nanotechnology research and development in priority order were the U.S., China, Japan, South Korea,
     Germany, France, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, India and Russia. The nation‘s leading private sector investments in 2006
     were the U.S. and Japan, together accounting for nearly three-fourths of corporate investment.74 While the U.S. led all
     other nations in scientific journal paper publication in 2005 with 24% of the world output, China was the only major
     competitor coming in second with 12% of the world‘s output. The U.S. dominance remains today but it also represents a
     decline from publishing 40% of the world‘s papers in the 1990s. The European Union led the U.S. in terms of quantitative
     analysis comparison of published papers but the European Union‘s share is in decline. China‘s share is rapidly increasing
     and is projected to surpass that of the U.S. if it has not already. The following chart indicates China‘s growth in
     competitiveness, which has now surpassed the U.S.‘ and Japan‘s, both of which are on the decline.




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    22
Document1                                                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
SPS key to better nanotech development

New nanotech creates better Solar Power
Purdue University 2008 ―Harnessing the Sun With Nanotechnology‖
https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/AboutUs/News/Publications/EngEdge/2008/HarnessingtheSunWithNanotechnology
       It sounds like the stuff of spy movies—a vial, a precious liquid, and the key to the world‘s energy crisis. It is, in fact, the
      domain of Purdue chemical engineers Rakesh Agrawal, the Winthrop E. Stone Distinguished Professor of Chemical
      Engineering, and Hugh Hillhouse, an associate professor of chemical engineering, who have discovered a novel way to
      harness solar power. Agrawal and Hillhouse, who direct Purdue‘s solar energy research group, have created a nanocrystal
      ink that can be printed or spray painted onto a variety of substrates to create low-cost solar cells with many possible
      applications. The solar cells could be used to generate electricity for buildings and harness energy for portable power
      applications. More importantly, they are an environmentally friendly energy alternative to fossil fuels. The potential uses,
      from the consumer level to industry, greatly excite the research team. In fact, solar cells may hold the key to developing
      sustainable methods to fuel our cars. Agrawal, who came to Purdue in 2004 after working in industry, has also explored
      ways of combining hydrogen from solar power with biomass to create greater quantities of clean-burning liquid fuel. He
      has been joined in this research area by Fabio Ribeiro, a professor of chemical eingeering, and Nick Delgass, the Maxine
      Spencer Nichols Professor of Chemical Engineering. The method could yield enough liquid fuel for the entire U.S.
      transportation sector using the sustainably available annual waste biomass in the country. The key to utilizing solar energy,
      according to Hillhouse, is to make it economical for the consumer. Up to this point, solar cells have been made through
      energy-intensive processes that involve ultra-high vacuum and high temperature. The process is slow, expensive, and
      restricts the range of possible substrates. The solar group‘s ink process uses solution-based chemistry to create nanocrystals
      that may then be consolidated to yield a thin film that is the active component of the solar cell. It is a cheaper and more
      efficient approach. This is still the tip of the iceberg, though. ―We are also developing nanostructured solar cells that may
      be able to exceed the energy conversion efficiency of current technology,‖ Hillhouse says. Agrawal and Hillhouse are on
      the leading edge of solar power research in the United States, largely, Agrawal says, because there isn‘t a great deal of
      attention paid to the subject in this country. They share a disappointment that the United States is lagging in implementation
      of solar energy; Japan and Germany are the world leaders in that area. They hope that the work of their research group and
      the graduate students who emerge will help define a new era in solar energy utilization in this country. ―We feel the
      research is very important for the human race in general and the problem facing us today with the energy crisis,‖ Agrawal
      says. ―We can‘t wait too long, because it will be too late.‖

Nanotech development will keep us on the forefront of technological leadership both at home and in the
military.
National Defense University 2004 (Fort Nair Washington D.C, Final report of strategic materials, written by several qualified
generals)
     Although composite materials are a world wide industry, the U.S is generally regarded as a world leader. The 5,350
     processing facilities in the U.S produced $22 billion in output in 2002. Advanced composites are already extremely
     important to the defense industry and will be even more critical in the future because they offer the greatest strength and
     stiffness-to-weight ratio among all engineering materials. Composites are expected to be a key enabler in the development
     of lighter and more mobile forces. They also offer the simplest route for embedded sensors, actuators and other elements,
     thus providing much sought after muti-functionality. Revolutionary advances in composites are expected to occur from the
     use of nanotechnology, wireless technology and self-healing technology mechanisms. Provided that the cost of
     manufacturing composites continue to decline, composites could replace steel and aluminum as the primary materials in
     manufacturing, transportation and construction. Nanotechnology is the ability to work at the molecular level, atom by atom,
     to create structures with a fundamentally new molecular structure and exploit novel properties exhibited at the nanoscale.
     The impact of nanotechnology on products and manufacturing processes seems to be huge. Nanotechnology could
     represent a $1 trillion market and generate over 2 million new jobs worldwide, including 800,000 to 900,00 jobs within the
     U.S by 2015. The major industries affected will be materials, pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturing, aerospace, tools,
     healthcare and electronics. In electronics, carbon-based nanomaterial could replace silicon as the base building block for
     chips and circuit boards. Nanotechnology will significantly enhance the militaries capabilities resulting in chemical-
     biological warfare sensors with improved detection sensitivity and selectivity. Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger
     then Kevlar. This will result in stronger and lighter- weight protective armor for the warrior and reduced weight, greater
     strength and enhanced stealth for platforms and weapons. Lastly, nanotechnology will lead to the miniaturization of
     platforms from unmanned vehicles to miniature satellites capable of increased endurance and range.



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         23
Document1                            DDW 2011
                                           1
Tech leadership key to hegemony

Solves war




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                         24
Document1                                                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                             1
Advantage 4 is relations

US-Relations are low now
Tellis 10 (Ashley J, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 28, 2010, Obama in India Building
a Global Partnership: Challenges, Risks, Opportunities, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/obama_in_india.pdf)
      Yet for all the structural factors that favor closer ties—and the good intentions of the leadership in Washington and New
     Delhi to realize them—U.S.-Indian relations today are widely perceived as stagnant. One prominent Indian commentator,
     for example, has lamented that ―the forthcoming visit of Obama to India has not given rise to the same excitement and the
     same kind of expectations as the visit of [George W.] Bush had done. Since Obama assumed office in January last year,‖ he
     concluded, ―Indo-U.S. relations have lost some of the élan that they had acquired under Bush.‖2 A recent task force report
     published by the Center for a New American Security, Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations,
     also reflected this perception when it noted that: Many prominent Indians and Americans … now fear this rapid expansion
     of ties has stalled. Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward
     momentum that characterized recent cooperation has subsided. The Obama administration has taken significant steps to
     break through this inertia, including with its Strategic Dialogue this spring and President Obama‘s planned state visit to
     India in November 2010. Yet there remains a sense among observers in both countries that this critical relationship is
     falling short of its promise.3 One popular view attributes this change to ―India‘s drop from Washington‘s foreign policy
     priorities,‖ a plunge that occurred ostensibly because ―the Obama administration took office viewing Asia‘s evolutions
     differently [from] the Bush era.‖4

And even if they’re high, they’re low on the government level
Tellis 10 (Ashley J, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 28, 2010, Obama in India Building
a Global Partnership: Challenges, Risks, Opportunities, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/obama_in_india.pdf)
      The truth is that U.S.-Indian ties have actually been thriving, but largely at the private level: here, a virtual revolution in the
     scale of societal interactions has taken place, as manifested in the realms of business, science, and culture. As India‘s
     National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon recently stated, ―If anything, the creativity of [American and Indian]
     entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists has sometimes exceeded that of our political structures.‖6 And therein lies the catch:
     for all the transformations wrought by private citizens on both sides, the two governments have been unable to sustain the
     breakthroughs that should have been expected given the recent history of bilateral relations. At one level, it could be argued
     that with the conclusion of the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation agreement—and the removal of the greatest irritant
     in bilateral ties—the opportunities for comparable new achievements are increasingly scarce. Accordingly, the lack of
     additional steps should not be held against Washington and New Delhi. While there is some truth to this idea, it does not
     explain why little progress has occurred at the official level, despite the extensive diplomatic engagement and dialogues
     conducted between the two governments at every echelon.

And the plan would solve India relations
Garretson 10 (Peter A., Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Chief, future science and technology exploration, for the U.S.
Air Force, SKY'S NO LIMIT: SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER, THE NEXT MAJOR STEP IN THE INDO-US STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP?)
      Early in his Presidency, President Obama articulated that India ―had no better friend in the world than the US‖ and that the
     two nations ―shared belief in democracy, liberty, pluralism and religious tolerance‖, and suggested that scientists of both
     countries should solve the environmental challenges together.11 The high level visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in
     July 2009 showed great continuity with the previous administration‘s Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP),12 which
     had laid out intended steps to be taken in ―energy and environment‖,―democracy and development‖, and ―high technology
     and space‖ and then set up high-level dialogues in energy, civil space, and defence cooperation. The official press release of
     the Department of State articulated the following pillars of the strategic partnership13 following Secretary Clinton‘s visit: i.
     Strategic Cooperation: working groups will address non-proliferation, counter-terrorism and military cooperation; ii.
     Energy and Climate Change: working groups will continue our successful energy dialogue and begin discussions on actions
     to address the challenge of global climate change; iii. Education and Development: working groups will enhance our
     partnership in education and initiate discussions about women‘s‘ empowerment; iv. Economics, Trade and Agriculture:
     working groups will continue and strengthen our discussions on business, trade and food secu rity; and v. Science and
     Technology, Health and Innovation: working groups will explore new areas for cooperation in leading technologies and in
     addressing global health challenges. And the US-India Joint Statement of July 20, 2009, likewise articulates sustainable
     growth and development, education, space, science and technology, high-tech cooperation, energy security, environment



Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                            25
Document1                                                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
      and climate change as important areas of mutual interest in cooperation.14 More specific to SBSP, when Prime Minister
      Manmohan Singh‘s Special Envoy on Climate Change Mr. Shyam Saran met the US President at the White House at an
      official reception, Obama, whose administration is focusing on alternative sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on
      fossil fuel, was quick to remind him of the conversation he had in this regard with Singh in London early in April about
      building an Indo-US renewable energy partnership. Saran reported, ―In that context he (Obama) said that we are very much
      looking forward to what had been agreed upon during that meeting that India and the US should seek to build up a
      renewable energy partnership,‖ which will end up benefiting not only the two countries, but also the entire world.15 It
      would thus appear that the SBSP concept can be well matched with the articulated agenda and emphasis on energy,
      environment, space, and high technology. Given that there is still an active search for a major item to keep the momentum
      going after the civil nuclear deal, and to appear to be taking significant action on energy and climate change, it would
      appear that there is currently an open policy window of action. In fact, Inderfurth and Mohan‘s16 well-timed piece
      arguing that space should be put at the heart of US-India relations as it can literally ―lift relations to a higher orbit‖, seemed
      to find a strong echo in the Singh- Obama Joint Statement, which within a broader context of assuring each other (and
      answering concerns of neglect17 ) that their fundamental strategic goals were convergent under the new administrations,18
      said, ―They agreed to collaborate in the application of their space technology and related capabilities in outer space and for
      development purposes.‖19

But only a strong government signal would solve
Rajagopalan 4/28 (Dr. Rajeswari Pillai, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), Observer Research Foundation,
New Delhi, ―Post-Japan, the hunt for the safest option,‖
http://www.orfonline.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/analysis/AnalysisDetail.html?cmaid=22820&mmacmaid=22821)
       Why SBSP? Speaking in November last year, Dr Kalam highlighted the huge energy shortage that India and the world
      would be facing in the next few decades. Kalam estimated that by 2050, even if one were to use all possible sources of
      energy, there will be a global shortage to the tune of 66 per cent. On the other hand, if one were to use the SBSP option, the
      world would move from an energy deficit to an energy surplus situation. Additionally, the clean and safe energy option will
      go a long way in solving the world's climate change woes. At the India-US level, this initiative is associated with some key
      technocrats such as Dr Kalam, Mark Hopkins, CEO of the NSS, John Mankins from the Space Power Association and a
      veteran of NASA and also Dr TK Alex from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore
      who is also heading the Chandrayaan Project. Participation of TK Alex in a sense gives an official colour to the project. On
      the Indian side, some preliminary studies were done in 1987 on advanced space transportation system at a conceptual level
      to make SBSP a cheaper option, but there has been no follow up. In the recent past, the ISRO has been engaged in getting
      some additional technical studies on the feasibility of this option, looking at three specific configurations. While continuing
      with the technical feasibility studies, ISRO has also made it clear that it can proceed only if they get suitable
      proposals/funding from foreign governments. While the technical studies are one aspect of it, more important is the need
      for a clear directive from the government. A clear political mandate calling upon the technocrats and scientific
      community to develop the necessary technologies is one way to take this option forward. The government can thereafter be
      a facilitator if it seeks foreign collaboration, for instance. But the initiative has to come from the political leadership. What
      are India's options to make SBSP a real viable option given the cost factor and technology? Can the governments and the
      private sectors of both India and the US make serious commitments to take the first step towards R&D investment on
      SBSP? It might be worth the effort to place the SBSP initiative within the US-India S&T Endowment and Board. The Indo-
      US S&T Fund finances projects on an entire range of issues from biotechnology, advanced materials and nanotechnology
      science to clean energy technologies, basic space and atmospheric and earth science. Other countries making significant
      investment in this area include Japan that has made an investment of $21 bn for the next few years. India and the US can
      take the lead to establish an international consortium based on cost sharing and more importantly on international
      technology cooperation. Countries like India and the US need to take up initiatives to do major technological
      demonstrations and milestone projects, which will have far reaching consequences across political, strategic and
      technological spheres. Cooperation on SBSP will convey a major strategic message.

<Insert whatever US-India relations good scenario>




Last printed 11/5/2011 10:08:00 PM
                                                                                                                                           26