Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Control + 1 – Block Headings

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 19

									530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                DDW 2011
                                                              1
                                           1NC DSCOVR




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                              1
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                    Topicality - Substantiality = 50 Billion – 1NC Shell
1. Interpretation: Substantial = $50 Billion
Allen Li, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at GAO, 6-12-2003, NASA-Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks

      In our earlier identification of costs to build the International Space Station, we identified space shuttle launch costs as
      being a substantial cost component—almost $50 billion. NASA recognized the need to reduce such costs as it considered
      alternatives to the space shuttle. Indeed, a key goal of the agency‘s earlier effort to develop a reusable launch vehicle was to
      reduce launch costs from $10,000 per pound on the Space Shuttle to $1,000 through the use of such a vehicle. As we
      testified in June 2001, NASA‘s X-33 program—an attempt to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies needed for
      future reusable launch vehicles—ended when the agency chose not to fund continued development of the demonstrator
      vehicle in February 2001.

2. Violation: They require less than $50 Billion you only spend 200 million for launch.

     3. Standards:

Bright Line: This substantial amount sets a bright line as to what is topical and what is not.

Limits: Sets a fair limit on the topic because taking into account the funds needed for any space activity,
$50 billion is a good common ground.

Precision: Our interpretation comes from the Government Accountability Office, meaning that they have
the credibility to determine substantiality in terms of funding.

Ground: Allowing the aff to use small amounts of money lets them link out of DAs such as spending,
which is core neg ground. This will create uneven ground advantage for the aff.

4. Voters: On fairness and education
       Fairness: Only by allowing the aff to have substantial amount of funding can we improve debate
in the manner that it gives equal footing for both teams.

       Education: A non-topical aff hurts debate because it allows the aff to have insubstantial funds,
allowing the aff to be research less and not prep for certain arguments that the neg could otherwise
make.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         2
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                              Pltx DA

1. Passing- momentum from Senate votes
Lightman et al 7/18 (David Lightman, William Douglass, and Lesley Clarke, staff writers for the Kansas City Star. ―As debt
debate grinds on, conservatives pursue 2 symbolic quotes‖ http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/18/3021301/as-debt-debate-grinds-on-
conservatives.html)

      Congress plans two largely symbolic but politically significant votes starting Tuesday on proposals that conservative
      groups vow will be remembered during the 2012 elections: a plan to slash federal spending and a balanced budget
      amendment to the Constitution. But the real action continues to be behind the scenes, where the White House and
      congressional leaders are frantically trying to work out a deal that will raise the federal debt limit while cutting future
      federal budget deficits. Until a deal is done, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday, the Senate will stay
      at work seven days a week. "The Senate will stay in session every day, including Saturdays and Sundays, from now until
      Congress passes legislation that prevents the United States from defaulting on our obligations," he said. Meanwhile, the
      coming two votes are significant for a couple reasons - one political, one tactical. Supporters will feel a strong political
      wind at their backs: A well-funded network of conservative groups is spotlighting the votes as defining ones.


2. Spending on Earth Science observatories such as DSCOVR = Republican Backlash.
Amy Svitak, Space News Reporter, 7-11-2011, GOP Members Seek Earth Science Cuts, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110317gop-
lawmakers-appeal-for-manned-exploration-funds.html

      Adams and Olson, who represent states with a stake in NASA‘s manned spaceflight program, said the current fiscal
      situation is forcing hard choices as members of the GOP-led House seek to curb discretionary spending at federal agencies.
      ―To be clear, we believe that NASA‘s budget can be reduced,‖ the lawmakers wrote, urging Ryan to take aim at climate-
      monitoring programs poised for a modest funding boost over the next five years under the $18.72 billion budget blueprint
      U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled Feb. 14. ―Within the NASA budget specifically, we believe there is an opportunity
      to cut funding within the Earth Science account where an overabundance of climate change research is being conducted,‖
      they wrote. The members lauded America‘s history of global leadership in space exploration but criticized Obama for what
      they said was undermining the nation‘s leadership in space exploration.

3. Debt ceiling key to the global economy – no country immune from the impact of US default
Zain 7/19/11 Winarno Zain, economist, ―Another crisis in the horizon?‖ Jakarta Post,
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/07/19/another-crisis-horizon.html
It seems the world economy has faced endless threats preventing it from sailing smoothly into a strong recovery this year. First there
was the Greek debt crisis that jolted several major banks, and then a political uprising in the Middle East that pushed up oil prices, and
then a tsunami in Japan that disrupted manufacturing activities in many countries. The world economy has not fully dusted off the
adverse impacts of these three events. Yet another headwind is looming large on the horizon. This time it is the possible default of the
US government of its debt on Aug. 2, if the US Congress fails to approve an increase to its debt ceiling as requested by President
Barack Obama. By that date, the US government debt would have reached its maximum allocated limit of US$14.3 trillion. The
current negotiation between representatives of Democratic and Republican parties on the US budget deficit has run into a deadlock,
and so the possibility is real that there won‘t be any substantial agreements reached, since the dateline is nearing. Major rating
agencies such as Standard and Poor, and Moody‘s have warned they are ready to downgrade the US government debt rating from top
grade AAA. This would be the first time in 90 years that the US government debt has been downgraded. It is not hard to imagine
what will happen if by Aug. 2 the US government has exhausted its credit ceiling and can not get additional debt to pay for its
spending needs. The US government would have to curb its spending, and because some of these relate to payments to government
employees, pensioners and other social benefits, this would strike a severe blow to the consumer spending that is so essential to the US
economic recovery. With debt default and credit rating downgrades, it would be difficult for the US government to get loans. Faced
with increasing risk, investors would ask for higher returns for US government bonds. This would push interest rate higher, further
depressing the economic recovery. The US dollar would plunge, triggering a surge in commodity prices and another round of
inflation around the world. A deadly combination of inflation and economic stagnation could spin the world economy into a tailspin as
happened in the early 1970‘s. How would this worst case scenario affect the Indonesian economy? As capital flows out of the US,
investors have tended to seek safe havens elsewhere. Commodities, especially gold and oil, would be their first targets. Emerging
markets could be the next destination of this capital flight, depending on the assessment of investors on the strength of its economy



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       3
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
and their vulnerability and exposure to the US economic fallout. But financial crises always result in a loss of confidence and produce
negative sentiments in the financial markets. They put financial markets into disarray, and as investors panic, capital starts flowing out
of emerging economies. During the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, capital moved out from emerging economies back to the
advanced economies. At that time, the US government bonds and commodities like gold were considered safe havens. If the US
government defaults on its debt payment this time, the question is will the situation change? Will the US government bonds still be
considered a safe haven for investors? If not, then where else will they put their money? Or maybe they would prefer to keep their
money in the same place and not move it anywhere. If so, the Indonesian economy could get some benefit and may not have to face
another shock. In the longer term, however, the situation may change. No country is immune to the negative ripples of a US economic
crisis. As US imports plunge from weakening domestic demand, exports from emerging countries will also suffer. The extent to which
these negative impacts affect each country will depend on their trading and banking exposure to the US economy. What is disturbing
about this debt talk is the use of this debate as a political game. This is especially apparent in the Republican stance. Economist,
market analyst and CEOs of financial institutions and even the IMF itself have warned that if Congress fails to raise the ceiling of the
US government debt, the world economy would slip into deep recession. The Republicans did not fully accept Obama‘s proposal to
raise the debt ceiling. They only agree on a smaller number, but even it was given with some conditions. The Republicans asked
Obama not to raise taxes, especially for the wealthy, and Obama should cut social spending, a sacred cow for the Democrats. By
using tit for tat tactics in the negotiation and by seemingly ignoring the impending consequences and dangers, the Republicans were
trying to push Obama into an intricate political dilemma. If the US economy slip into another crisis, economic contraction would be
inevitable. Corporate bankruptcies would spread, and jobless rate would surge. A presidential election is still slightly more than one
year away, and Obama‘s reelection prospects are solid. But his popularity rating is highly dependent on the unemployment rate. That
is why the Republicans think the only way for them to erode Obama‘s popularity now is by pushing the US economy into crisis. As
the stakes are high, the two political parties should temporarily set aside their ideologies and adopt a pragmatic stance for the interests
of saving the world economy from another catastrophe. President Obama demonstrated his willingness to compromise his political
ideology during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Being a Democrat, Obama‘s political inclination is generally anti-big
business. Obama realized that it was reckless lending by some big banks on Wall Street that triggered the financial crisis. But he also
realized that saving these banks from bankruptcy was key to saving the world economy from further disaster. His decision to pour
$800 billion of taxpayer‘s money to bail out these banks was hard to swallow


No debt ceiling kills heg
Rettig 7-15 Jessica, politics and policy reporter, US News & World Report ―Debt Fight Reinforces China‘s Negative Views of
America‖ US News & World Report; July 15, 2011; http://www.usnews.com/mobile/articles_mobile/debt-fight-reinforces-chinas-
negative-views-of-america |Cramer
 Heated arguments. Name-calling. Sudden exits. Drama and disquiet have been par for the course in Washington these days as the
August 2 debt ceiling deadline draws nearer. Americans, for the most part, are used to the fractious nature of Congress and might
argue it's all worth it in the name of democracy. But China—which buys more of America's debt than any other country—sees it
differently. In the past few weeks, both Republicans and Democrats have warned about what could happen domestically if Congress
and President Obama don't reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Social security and unemployment checks won't come. Parts of the
government will shut down. Interest rates will go up. Spending could spiral even more out of control. But perhaps worst of all,
countries around the world will no longer see American Treasuries—and America itself—as the world's safest place to park money.
For China, which some experts say is bent on discrediting America's democratic system, that potential weakening of America could be
an ego boost back home. [Read about who will suffer if there's no debt ceiling deal.] "To the extent that China ever looked at
democracy as a venerable institution, they're kind of revising their opinions on things," says Charles Freeman, the Freeman Chair in
China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "What's been happening for the past couple years really is a
relative sense of Chinese superiority and a relative U.S. decline, and this would certainly reinforce that." Already there's been some
indication. Mirroring downgrade warnings from two of America's top credit agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor's, Chinese
rating company Dagong weighed in Thursday, placing the United States' sovereign credit rating on its "negative watch list." With the
move, the company released a sour report of the American economy. Dagong wrote about "the industrial hallowing-out" and "a lack of
endogenous driving force" within the American economy, highlighting the "insufficiency of the U.S. capability to create real wealth."
It also criticizes "the government's insufficient economic management capability." A report released Thursday from Reuters suggests
that Dagong itself has a questionable standing among its peers worldwide. But, even so, such talk within China's borders could affect
how the United States is viewed there. "They're very worried about the level of friction they're seeing over the issue," says Freeman.
"Before the financial crisis, they looked at us [like] we had all the answers. Sometimes what we did didn't make sense, but [they
thought] there must be some underlying strategy to it. These days, they're just looking at us and going, 'Gosh, these guys are just a
chaotic mess." [Vote now: Will there be a debt ceiling deal?] Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, co-chair of the Senate's U.S.-China
working group, says that although China is set to eclipse the United States as the world's leading economic power by around 2025, it is



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        4
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
still very much an export-dependent economy. The possibility of American default, then, has them worried. "China is overwhelmingly
becoming a status quo power, whose interests are in stability. When they look at the U.S. debt debate, I think their strongest interest is
in a smooth transition, so they do not want to see a world in which both the Euro and the dollar are in crisis," he says. Despite
perceptions, the reality is that U.S.-China business ties won't likely change in the short term. For starters, the United States, even in the
absence of a deal, probably won't default on its debt. And, even in the off-chance that it does temporarily, China would probably
continue to buy U.S. Treasuries anyway. According to Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, without better
investment options available in the global market, the Chinese will still need to buy U.S. dollars and bonds in order to keep the value
of their own currency low. "This is part of China's game to beat us economically," he says. "But in terms of changing the substance of
the relationship? No. It's all theatrics." Also, since China owns more than $1.1 trillion in U.S. debt, the country's officials won't want
to risk doing anything to publicly undermine the value of its holdings. For example, while it issued a statement on the debt ceiling
fight, China's official stance was tame. "We hope that the U.S. government adopts responsible policies and measures to guarantee the
interests of investors," Hong Lei, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Thursday. [See a slide show of 6 consequences if the debt
ceiling is not raised.] Still, Kirk says that as China begins to diversify its own economy and become less dependent on exports, the
economic relationship between the two nations will be different. "Their appetite for U.S. securities is declining," he says. So, does it
matter now what China thinks about American politics? Maybe not. What does matter is that Congress and President Obama find a
solution for the debt crisis soon. "In the long run, this diminishes the stature of the United States of America," Morici says.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          5
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                          Stratosats CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should conduct earth monitoring via the deployment of
stratospheric satellites that are designed to not go beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

StratoSats solve for scientific observation
Alexey Pankine et. al., Study supported by NASA Revolutionary Aerospace System Concepts Program, the NASA Earth Science
Technology Office, and the NASA Institute for Advanced Concept, August 20 09, American Meteorology Society, Zhanqing Li,
David Parsons, Michael Purucker, Elliot Weinstock, Warren Wiscombe, and Kerry Nock, ―STRATOSPHERIC SATELLITES FOR
EARTH OBSERVATIONS,‖ (http://meto.umd.edu/~zli/PDF_papers/BAMS_Nock(Pankine).pdf)

      StratoSats could make important contributions in four scientific areas today. First, they could validate climatically crucial
      Earth radiation energy budget retrievals made using satellites and help to eliminate the current diurnal and sun-angle biases;
      constellations could help reveal the dynamic quality of radiative fluxes in short-term events such as dust outbreaks. Second,
      StratoSats could study stratospheric and upper-tropospheric chemistry, especially water vapor, which exerts a profound
      feedback effect on climate, and measure trace gas profiles for unprecedented durations and for regions above 20 km rarely
      sampled in situ. Third, they could map the Earth‘s crustal magnetic field at never-before-achieved spatial scales, producing
      a revolutionary map of the magnetic Earth that could lead to new understandings of the Earth‘s crust. Finally, they could
      patrol the tropical and midlatitude atmosphere to provide measurements that could improve the predictions of the paths and
      intensities of storms and, by dropping dropsondes on command, provide adaptive measurements to improve the
      predictability of weather. In summary, the development of StratoSat constellations will enable new science and new
      observational techniques that will help us to advance Earth science in many ways that can be foreseen today, and, as is
      common with new platforms, other ways that are as yet only dimly perceived are certain to emerge.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       6
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                                 DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                    1
                                                          1NC (Space Debris)
2. Net Benefit:
And we’re on the brink- many more launched satellites would mean a deadly spike in debris
Bates 7 (Jason Bates has been a journalist for more than 13 years, and has spent the last 10 writing about the satellite and aerospace industry. Prior
to joining Access Intelligence, Bates was a staff writer for both Space News and Aerospace Daily. He earned a B.A. in Journalism and Mass
Communications from the University of North Carolina. 12/1/2007 ‗Space Debris:Small But Growing Problem.‘ Vol. 22, Issue 12 p 7)
      Orbital debris, or space junk, is any man-made object in orbit around Earth that no longer serves a useful purpose. The
      largest pieces, those tracked by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, now number 12,351, with 9,250 pieces categorized as
      rocket bodies and debris, and the other 3,101 pieces listed at payloads, according to NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office
      based at Johnson Space Center, which keeps an "Orbital Box Score" each quarter. But even more exists, as the estimated
      population of particles between 1 and 10 centimeters in diameter is greater than 100,000, and the number of particles
      smaller than 1 centimeter probably exceeds tens of millions, according to NASA. The debris, created by a half-century of
      space exploration, includes exploded boosters, burned out rocket motors, radioactive coolant, paint flakes, an astronaut's
      camera, a toothbrush and even an old Russian spacesuit tossed overboard from the International Space Station, according to
      Bethesda, Md.-based Futron Corp. Because of their high orbital velocities, collisions with even small pieces of debris can
      involve considerable energy, and therefore pose a significant danger to spacecraft and astronauts. Data released by NASA
      in January 2006 indicates that orbital debris continues to be a growing problem for government and commercial satellite
      operators and manufacturers. From 2000 through 2005, the number of on-orbit objects larger than a bowling ball has
      increased by nearly 10 percent, with the United States and Russia each contributing approximately 40 percent of the total
      debris, according to "Orbital Debris Mitigation: Regulatory Challenges and Market Opportunities," released by Futron in
      March 2006. "With the increase in orbital debris that has been occurring, not just because of the as Chinese test but because
      of multiple events recently, there is an increased concern for LEO and GEO operators in terms of just having safe
      operations and what they can do to help the problem so they are not causing the problem as well" says Chad Frappier, space
      industry analyst for Futron. Growing Problem While China's anti-satellite system test created a bit more debris in orbit by
      reducing China's Feng Yun 1C polar-orbiting weather satellite to a cloud of debris, it is everyday space operations that
      contribute the vast majority of the space junk in orbit. "The response to the Chinese test was probably overdone," says
      Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies for Teal Group of Fairfax, Va. "Debris is going into space all
      the time. Satellites are maneuvered down and burn up in the atmosphere and spread into tiny pieces. Often where there is a
      launch, the upper stage of the rocket eventually drops off before placing satellite into orbit. Much of that will burn in the
      atmosphere, but some will stay in orbit. … The Chinese test was not anything particularly alarming in itself," he says. "The
      issue of space debris is alarming, particularly for commercial operators and especially at low-Earth orbit, where a lot of that
      debris will end up. There is still a chance to be hit, even though it's a huge area. This has to be addressed as we put up more
      satellites." NASA identified five satellite breakups in the first two months of 2007 but no significant incidents since. In the
      third quarter, only a pair of minor satellites fragmentations were recorded by the Space Surveillance Network. For example,
      in July, the second stage of a Japanese H-2A rocket body that was launched in September 2006 experienced a second debris
      generation event, producing an estimated 15 pieces of new debris, although all but one of nine fragments officially
      cataloged reentered the atmosphere by the end of August, according to the October issue NASA's Orbital Debris Quarterly
      News. "Luckily, there hasn't been the boom that we thought would happen in the 1990s," says Caceres. "It's a good thing
      that the Teledesics of the world never happened. The industry discovered it is cheaper and more efficient to provide
      services using big satellites at GEO rather than a lot of satellites at low-Earth orbit. If the Iridiums and Globalstars had
      shown a great plan to build satellites cheaply and provide service cheaply, then we would have had people swarming to
      these systems, and then there would be money to build even larger constellations." But there will be more satellites placed
      in orbit, particularly as the LEO constellations that are operating come up for replacement in the next few years, says
      Caceres. "Those old satellites will come to the end of their lifetime and either by themselves fall into the atmosphere and be
      burned up, or maneuvered carefully and then burn up. But there is a gradual, growing concern that if we don't do something
      radically different then we'll see exponential growth in debris. It won't be a huge spike, but it may be that at some point in
      the next five to 10 years we will see noticeable growth in space debris." While the possibility of large numbers of LEO
      constellations contributing to space debris seems to have been avoided, the next generation of small satellites could be the
      next big contributor to the amount of debris, says Caceres. "There is still a possibility that there will be an explosion of
      nanosatellites, picosatellites and other tiny satellites launched by universities and research institutions", he says. "We could
      then see literally hundreds or even thousands of those being launches, particularly when you have lots of launch vehicles
      that could launch them for next to nothing. The only thing keeping them from doing that today is that they are too
      expensive to launch. The day we see reusable launch vehicles being offered and launch prices at $10,000 per satellite, then
      every community college in the world with a science department will build minisatellites and launch them. You may have
      hundreds of satellites launched on one mission. That sounds pretty scary from an orbital debris standpoint."



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                   7
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1

Space debris causes ozone depletion
Leonard Davis, writes for FOX News, 5/20/2009 ―Space Junk May Be Harming Earth's Atmosphere,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520661,00.html‖
      Indeed, as an object plows through the Earth's stratosphere , a shock wave is created that produces nitric oxide, a known
      cause of ozone depletion. Spacecraft and rocket motors are composed of metal alloys and composite materials that melt
      away during re-entry. The researchers found that these materials, as they undergo intense heating, also form chemicals that
      react directly or indirectly to consume ozone.

Ozone depletion will result in extinction.
Greenpeace, non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an international
coordinating body, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone
Layer,http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html

      When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer
      depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible
      scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet
      radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet
      radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on
      other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally
      the continuation of life on earth.

And space debris destroys satellites and creates more debris, DA destroys aff solvency, their satellites will
just be taken out they can’t access impacts. CP solves better.
Physics Today, October 2007 ―Space Debris, http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_10/35_1.shtml‖
      Debris larger than about 1 cm can seriously damage or destroy a satellite in a collision, and there is no effective shielding
      against such particles. Debris particles larger than 1 cm but too small to be tracked are especially dangerous because
      satellites are unlikely to have warning to allow them to avoid colliding with such objects. Debris larger than 10 cm may be
      massive enough to create large amounts of additional debris in a collision with a satellite or another large piece of debris.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      8
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                  Nuclear Disarmament DA
1. Solar Flare will destroy the world’s nuclear stockpiles.
Phil Plait, Ph.D in astronomy from the University of Virginia, Worked on COBE satellite as well as Hubble Space Telescope, 2-13-
2008, ―Real Time Solar Flare Detection now Online‖ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/13/real-time-solar-
flare-detection-now-online/.

      The Sun has a magnetic field which is tied in, connected, with the material making up the Sun‘s surface. The magnetic field
      can shape the material, which in turn can coil up and tangle the loops of magnetism piercing the Sun‘s surface. Like tightly
      compressed springs, the loops of magnetic energy can build up huge amounts of energy, and this energy can be released in
      an explosion of mind-numbing scale called a solar flare. The details are complex, but the explosion dwarfs the entire
      Earth‘s nuclear arsenal. If the flare is aimed our way, a wave of high-energy subatomic particles marches across the solar
      system, slams into our magnetic field here on Earth, and can cause all sorts of havoc. The particles can irradiate astronauts,
      and can induce electrical currents on the Earth‘s surface, disrupting power grids.

2. Nuclear deterrence fails as a deterrent instead instigates more conflicts global disarmament is the only
way to break the cycle of nuclearization.
Achin Vanaik, A fellow of the Transnational Institute and Professor of International Relations and Global Politics (South Campus) at
the Political Science Department of Delhi University, 2007, ―Obama and hopes for global nuclear disarmament‖,
http://www.tni.org/archives/vanaik_beyondnpt

      Can nuclear weapons deter? The answer is yes. But deterrence is not the mere registration of this property. It is a
      rationalization, a theorization that constitutes a much bolder and considerably less plausible claim that this property is so
      strong and so lasting that a country can rely on it for its enduring security. To believe in nuclear deterrence is to believe that
      terrible fear will always ensure that fallible human beings (state leaders and managers) will behave as you want them to
      though they and you operate in circumstances and conditions (sometimes of great stress) that neither they or you can ever
      fully control. Security, of course, is a nebulous term which even when it is understood conventionally and narrowly
      involves an inescapable psychological element. The proportion of one-time believers, including top echelon officials of
      civilian and military personnel in NWSs, who have defected from belief in the efficacy of NWs to the ranks of critics and
      skeptics is several times greater than defectors in the opposite direction. Illustrative though this is, it cannot of course be a
      serious intellectual riposte to deterrence defenders. It is Waltz who can claim to have provided the strongest such
      foundation through his cautious conditional ―The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better‖. Waltz‘s argument for
      proliferation cannot be separated from his overarching and foundational IR theory of Neorealism or Structural Realism.
      Severe weaknesses in his broader theory should alert us to being more critical in assessing his specifically nuclear
      arguments. Neorealism for all its parsimonious elegance and internal consistency, logically speaking, remains a deeply
      flawed theory of limited explanatory power, of even more limited scope and given its positivism quite lacking any critical
      self-reflexivity. Some have taken note of his Realist abstraction of the differing social character of states but the problem
      goes deeper. His whole approach is ahistorical and asocial and as an IR theory has long passed its peak of influence. From
      the 1980s onwards it has been assaulted from certain strands of feminist IR theory, from certain political economy
      approaches to IR, from Critical Theory, and most powerfully from the Neo-Marxism in IR of Justin Rosenberg and Benno
      Teschke.(11) While the ‗problematic of the International‘ like the ‗problematic of the economic‘ is always transhistorical,
      its proper understanding must involve historicized and socialized concepts and theories like those of Marx. Instead of
      Waltz‘s face-saving artifice of different ‗levels of analysis‘ he should have realized that interrogating the concept of
      capitalism, which bridges the domestic and international, has always been the best way of understanding modern
      geopolitics. It is not in the least surprising that his theory is inspired by borrowings from the utterly abstract, and socially
      and historically speaking, barren conceptual field of neoclassical economics. Similarly, his thinking on the specifically
      nuclear front is abstract, ahistorical and asocial. Before examining Waltz‘s particular failings in this regard, let us remind
      ourselves that all strategic nuclear thinking is inescapably speculative and must therefore be disciplined by reference to a)
      empirical controls and b) the balance of plausibility in argument. Take the ―long peace in Europe‖ issue attributed to the
      Cold War militarized face-off. There are three distinct claims that are made here. Nuclear weapons were necessary and
      sufficient to prevent nuclear and conventional war between East and West. Nuclear weapons were necessary but not
      sufficient to preventing such wars. Nuclear weapons prevented intra-European wars as well. The opposing stance towards
      all three claims is that NWs were irrelevant to the issue of the long peace. But even a conventional war between the US and
      USSR would have been WWIII and world wars are by their nature multi-casual and a single-factor explanation for their



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           9
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
      presence (though the trigger can be singular) or absence is untenable. The problem with even the second claim is that it is
      still a single-factor form of explanation of the absence of a world war, even if there can now be a number of such necessary
      single-factors whose absence can also do the trick. Of course after the Cold War ended intra-European wars erupted despite
      the existence of a nuclear overhang. Is it not more plausible to explain the long peace by the existence of a Cold War glacis
      – itself a multi-causal phenomenon – wherein NWs were an expression and promoter of Cold War tensions but not a
      decisive cause of this glacis. If one is to respect the logic of Waltz‘s argumentative structure, then deterrence works and is
      stable only if confronting NWSs each have a credible second strike capacity. A new entrant would have to be allowed time
      to develop such a capacity against opponents, whether near or distant. Since Waltz operates through asocial and ahistorical
      categories he must provide an essentially ‗abstract rationalist‘ answer (backed by weak empirical illustrations) as to why a
      new entrant will be given such time and freedom from a pre-emptive or preventive strike aimed at its fledgling nuclear
      weapons system. Waltz would have us believe that a preventive strike would only harden the resolve of the targeted country
      to make successive future efforts to make the bomb until it was ultimately successful. Once a few bombs are developed
      deterrence of a pre-emptive strike will succeed because even the absence of the capability of say, a Middle Eastern country
      to make intercontinental missiles that can reach the opponent will not be a problem. Just the fear that a few rudimentary
      bombs can quite belatedly be secretly moved by plane, ship or land to a distant enemy is enough of a deterrent. So a very
      small nuclear arsenal can serve as a credible second strike capability and this can be developed in a very short time.(12)
      This argument is important to note given Israel‘s history from its bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 to its 2007
      bombing of IAEA safeguarded facilities in Syria. There is higher plausibility in the belief that if push comes to shove
      neither Israel nor the US will tolerate even a rudimentary Iranian nuclear weapons system and it is now very much harder
      for a highly monitored state to achieve this secretly. As for the notion that a second strike equilibrium can be reached
      quickly and then remain stable, all historical evidence indicates that this is always an upwardly moving ‗equilibrium‘
      related to the nuclear ambitions/preparations of perceived opponents. This brings us to the issue of arms racing,
      conventional and nuclear. Yet another Waltz claim invalidated by reality is that new and small nuclear powers are more
      likely to reduce conventional arms spending and not engage in arms racing once they acquire NWs. This has not been the
      case anywhere among paired rivals including India and Pakistan precisely because NWs cannot do what conventional arms
      can do.(13) But the greater embarrassment for Waltz is that no sensible notion of deterrence can explain the ridiculous
      overkill capacities and the extraordinary range and levels of tactical weaponry developed by the US and Russia. Waltz can
      only bemoan that rather than pursuing ‗deterrence by punishment‘ the two great powers pursued (and in due course perhaps
      other NWSs might pursue) ‗deterrence by denial‘. The point here is that Waltz‘s overarching Neorealist theory focused as it
      is on the primary goal of ‗survival‘ and the value of nuclear deterrence in relation to this, has no room for the reality that
      whether before or after acquiring NWs, states aim to use them for purposes beyond mere existential survival but for general
      foreign policy support. This drives them to build a ‗ladder of escalation‘ that in turn promotes a momentum of continuous
      arms racing. The ‗what if‘ question has to be addressed. What if, since there is never a guarantee against it, that NWs are
      somewhere, sometime used between nuclear rivals? Then the existence of a range of different nuclear arms provides
      tactical flexibility for trying to control this ‗ladder of escalation‘. Waltz‘s own view is that should nuclear war break out, it
      will very quickly come to a halt – a comforting reflection designed to shore up his view of ‗more may be safe enough‘ but
      hardly an impressive line of argument. In fact, Waltz in no way seriously interrogates what can be called the ‗escalation
      dynamic‘ and can therefore be more complacent about NWs not being used. While deliberate use of NWs is not that
      credible, one can credibly create a situation – the Cuban crisis – where tensions can escalate into a nuclear exchange. Any
      number of nuclear strategists from Henry Kissinger to Thomas Schelling (but not Waltz) have developed different models
      of ‗calculated risk taking‘ recognizing that different levels of nuclear brinkmanship is very much a part of the larger nuclear
      ‗game‘ that in reality is played once one moves away from the simplifying assumptions of Waltz. Between Pokharan-I and
      Pokharan-II there was no war between India and Pakistan. In 1999 believing it had a ‗nuclear shield‘, Pakistan launched the
      Kargil war and both sides readied their nuclear arsenals for use. Shortly after the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in
      December 2001, India and then Pakistan mobilized over a million troops in all on both sides of the border for some 10
      months till tensions were defused with the help of the US. This was the largest and longest such mobilization anywhere in
      peacetime since the end of WWII. Both sides once again made nuclear preparations. Subsequently in 2005, Lt. Gen. Khalid
      Kidwai, the head of the Strategic Planning Division of Pakistan‘s National Command Authority and one of the two fingers
      (the other is current military chief, Lt. Gen. Kayani) spelt out the country‘s nuclear redlines, the crossing of which by India
      would result in the use of NWs – severe military defeat by India, serious territorial advances towards any of Pakistan‘s
      major cities, economic strangulation through a blockade, political destabilization. After the November 2008 terrorist attack
      on Mumbai, the then RSS supremo, K.S. Sudarshan in an interview by a freelance journalist, declared that a war with
      Pakistan would turn into a nuclear one, but that ―it was necessary to defeat the demons and there was no other way. And let
      me say with confidence that after this destruction, a new world will emerge which will be very good, free from evil and
      terrorism.‖(14) Of course, Kidwai and Sudarshan are in large part displaying a mixture of bravado and bluster. But both the
      first is a vital decision-maker and the latter also whenever the BJP is in power. Such attitudes and beliefs are disturbing.



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          10
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
      The lesson that needs to be drawn is that in a context of enduring hostility, an escalation dynamic can throw things out of
      control. Minor incidents can trigger a chain of events leading to an outcome -- nuclear exchange – that neither side to begin
      with would have ever wanted since it would be completely disproportionate to the purposes initially sought by both sides.
      And this is a key point of weakness in deterrence thinking.(15) There is good reason to worry about India‘s and Pakistan‘s
      nuclearization and about further horizontal proliferation.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      11
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                  Security K 1NC (softline)
The attempt to explore space reflects an insatiable urge to colonize and dominate. Going to space does
not resolve problems on earth – it merely expands the destructive potential of our worst impulses
Bormann and Sheehan, 2009 (Natalie Bormann, Department of Politics, Northeastern University, Boston, and
Michael Sheehan, Professor of International Relations at Swansea University, Securing Outer Space, 2009, p. 1-
3)
     That day in October 1957 also marked the beginning of serious concerns regarding the modes and kinds of space activities
     that we would be witnessing, and these concerns were dominated from the outset by the fact that the first journey into space
     was accompanied by - if not entirely driven by - the Cold War arms race. The initial steps in the exploration of space were
     inexorably linked with pressures to militarize and securitize this new dimension. As a geographical realm that had hitherto
     been pristine in relation to mankind's warlike history, this immediate tendency for space exploration to be led by military
     rationales raised profound philosophical and political questions. What should the purpose of space activity be, and what
     should it not be? And how would we approach, understand and distinguish between military activities, civilian ones,
     commercial ones, and SO forth? More than a half century later, the questions as to what we bring to space' as well as how
     space activities challenge us, and to what effects, seem ever more pressing. While the debate over some of the assumptions,
     modes and effects of the space age never truly abated, most of the contributors in this volume agree that there is sense of
     urgency in raising concern, re-conceptualizing the modes of the debate, and engaging critically with the limits and
     possibilities of the dimension of space vis-a-vis the political. This sense of urgency reflects the revitalization of national
     space programmes, and particularly that of the United States and China since the start of the twenty-first century. In January
     2004, at NASA headquarters, US President George W. Bush announced the need for a new vision for America's civilian
     and scientific space programme. This call culminated in a Commission's Report on Implementation of United States Space
     Exploration Policy, which emphasized the fundamental role of space for US technological leadership, economic validity,
     and most importantly, security. While this certainly stimulated the debate over the future direction of US space exploration,
     it has led many to express concern over the implicitly aggressive and ambitious endeavor of colonizing space in the form of
     calling upon the need for permanent access to and presence in space. A critical eye has also been cast on the Commission's
     endorsement of the privatization and commercialization of space and its support for implementing a far larger presence of
     private industry in space operations. Certainly also at the forefront of the current debate on space activities are notions of its
     militarization and securitization. The deployment of technologies with the aim to secure, safeguard, defend and control
     certain assets, innovations and activities in space is presented to us as an inevitable and necessary development. It is argued
     that just as the development of reconnaissance aircraft in the Fitst World War led inexorably to the emergence of fighter
     aircraft to deny the enemy the ability to carry out such reconnaissance and then bombers to deliver weapons against targets
     that could be identified and reached from the air, so too has the 'multiplier effect' on military capabilities of satellites
     encouraged calls for the acquisition of space-based capabilities to defend one's own satellites and attack those of
     adversaries, and in the longer term, to place weapons in space that could attack targets on Earth. Here, the Bush
     administration's indication that it envisaged a prominent role for space-based weapons in the longer term as part of the
     controversial national missile defence system contributed to the atmosphere of controversy surrounding space policy. As
     space has become crucial to, and utilized by, far more international actors, so the political implications of space activities
     have multiplied. The members of the European Space Agency have pursued space development for economic, scientific
     and social reasons. Their model of international space Cooperation has been seen as offering an example to other areas of
     the world, particularly in their desire to avoid militarizing efforts. Yet even Europe has begun to develop military space
     capabilities, following a path that has already been pursued by other key states such as China and India, suggesting that
     there is an inevitability about the militarization, and perhaps ultimately the weaponization, of space. How we conceptualize
     space has therefore become of fundamental moral, political and strategic importance. Outer space challenges the political
     imagination as it has always challenged the human imagination in many other fields. For millennia people have looked up
     to the stars and imagined it as the home of gods or the location of the afterlife. For centuries they have looked to it for
     answers about the physical nature of the universe and the place of mankind's ancestral home within it. And for decades, it
     has been seen as the supreme test for advanced technology. Space exploration is a driver of innovation, encouraging us to
     dream of what might be possible, to push back the boundaries of thought and to change the nature of ontological realities by
     drawing on novel epistemologies. The physical exploration of the solar system through the application of science and
     technology has been the visible demonstration of this. The challenges that Space poses for political theory are profound. If
     space-is about the use of imagination, and the application of novel developments to create new possibilities for human
     progress, how has political theory and political reality responded to this challenge'? The
[continued…no text removed]



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          12
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                 Security K 1NC (softline)
[continued…no text removed]

      answer, at least thus far, is both that it has changed everything, and that it has changed very little. For international law,
      most notably in the Outer Space Treaty, the denial of territoriality and limitations on sovereignty beyond planet Earth offers
      a fundamental challenge to the way in which international relations has been conceptualized and operationalized in the
      modern era. On the other hand, the dream of many, that humanity would leave behind its dark side as it entered space, has
      not been realized. For the most part, the exploration and utilization to space has reflected, not challenged, the political
      patterns and impulses that characterized twentieth-century politics and international relations. Propaganda, military rivalry,
      economic competition and exploitation, North—South discrimination and so on have extended their reach beyond the
      atmosphere. Industrialization and imperialism in the nineteenth century helped produce powerful new social theories, as
      well as new philosophy, political ideologies and conceptualizarions of the meaning of politics and the nature of human
      destiny. The realities of the space age demand novel social theories of the same order.

Construction of environmental threats produces securitizing measures but no real change- no solvency
Buzzan et al, 1998 (Barry Buzzan, Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at the London School of
Economics and honorary professor at the University of Copenhagen and Jilin University, Ole Waever, a professor of International
Relations at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen Jaap de Wilde, Professor of International Relations and
World Politics at the University of Groningen., 1998 ―Security: A New Framework for Analysis‖ p.73-74 )
     It should be emphasized that the political agenda does not only address the more sensational, emotion manifestations of
     environmental issues but has also become a part of ordinary politics. Political parties, departments, and many firms must
     formulate environmental polities as a part of their ordinary activities, regardless of whether they believe in them. This
     situation constitutes politicization rather than securitization. As long as environmental concerns fall outside established
     economic and political practices and routines, their advocates tend to- and probably must- overemphasize the
     overwhelming importance of those values and issues. Many securitizing moves can be found in the reports that bridge both
     agenda, ranging from the Club of Rome reports to the work of the Brudtland Commission. These reports present Silent
     Spring-type lessons (de Wilde 1994: Carson 1962): It is not the actual disasters but their predictions that lead to
     securitization. Concepts such as resource scarcity and sustainability have successfully mobilized public concern. when
     picked up by governments and firms, however, these concerns are often merely politicized: they constituted a subagenda
     within the larger political context. The environmental sector displays more clearly than any other the propensity for
     dramatic securitizing moves but with comparatively little successful securitization effects (i.e. those that lead to
     extraordinary measures). this finding points to the unsettled standing of the environmental discourse as such within public
     debate.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       13
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
The Dream of Security Ensures Apocalypse From Now On – Constructions of Existential Risk ensures the
Enactment of Annihilation.
Pever Coviello, Prof. of English @ Bowdoin, 2k [Queer Frontiers, p. 39-40]
      Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to say that the world we inhabit is in
      any way postapocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I began by saying, changed-it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my
      second assertion: if, in the nuclear age of yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event threatening everyone and everything
      with (in Jacques Den-ida's suitably menacing phrase) "remairiderless and a-symbolic destruction,," then in the postnuclear
      world apocalypse is an affair whose parameters are definitively local. In shape and in substance, apocalypse is defined now
      by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always to an "other" people whose very presence might then be written as a
      kind of dangerous contagion, threatening the safety and prosperity of a cherished "general population." This fact seems
      to me to stand behind Susan Sontag's incisive observation, from 1989, that, 'Apocalypse is now a long-running serial: not
      'Apocalypse Now' but 'Apocalypse from Now On."" The decisive point here in the perpetuation of the threat of
      apocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is that apocalypse is ever present because, as an element in a vast
      economy of power, it is ever useful. That is, through the perpetual threat of destruction-through the constant
      reproduction of the figure of apocalypse-agencies of power ensure their authority to act on and through the bodies of a
      particular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel Foucault, who in the final chapter of his first
      volume of The History of Sexuality addresses himself to the problem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less
      life-threatening than, in his words, "life-administering." Power, he contends, "exerts a positive influence on life land,
      endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations?' In his
      brief comments on what he calls "the atomic situation;' however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern
      power must not be mistaken for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as "managers of life and
      survival, of bodies and the race," agencies of modern power presume to act 'on the behalf of the existence of everyone."
      Whatsoever might be construed as a threat to life and survival in this way serves to authorize any expression of force, no
      matter how invasive or, indeed, potentially annihilating. "If genocide is indeed the dream of modem power," Foucault
      writes, "this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the
      level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population." For a state that would arm itself not with
      the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over the patterns and functioning of its collective
      life, the threat of an apocalyptic demise, nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           14
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                          DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                             1
                                                   Security K 1NC (softline)
Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic – only resistance to the discourse of security can
generate genuine political thought
Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, 2008 [Critique of Security, 185-6]
      The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of security altogether - to reject it
      as so ideologically loaded in favour of the state that any real political thought other than the authoritarian and reactionary
      should be pressed to give it up. That is clearly something that can not be achieved within the limits of bourgeois thought
      and thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something that the constant iteration
      of the refrain 'this is an insecure world' and reiteration of one fear, anxiety and insecurity after another will also make it
      hard to do. But it is something that the critique of security suggests we may have to consider if we want a political way out
      of the impasse of security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-encompassing that it marginalises
      all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that animate political life. The constant
      prioritising of a mythical security as a political end - as the political end constitutes a rejection of politics in any meaningful
      sense of the term. That is, as a mode of action in which differences can be articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles
      that arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which people might come to believe that another world
      is possible - that they might transform the world and in turn be transformed. Security politics simply removes this; worse, it
      remoeves it while purportedly addressing it. In so doing it suppresses all issues of power and turns political questions into
      debates about the most efficient way to achieve 'security', despite the fact that we are never quite told - never could be told -
      what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sense, an anti-politics,"' dominating political discourse
      in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the
      monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add
      yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and
      more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important
      text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left
      behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole
      and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or
      gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and
      consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. The real task is not to
      fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which takes us
      beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the
      state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we want.
      Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that the
      negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept
      of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep
      demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind
      ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate
      ourselves against security politics would allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant
      securitising of social and political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the existing
      forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also allow us to
      forge another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and talking
      about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the
      word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an
      illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires
      accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and
      instead learning to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and 'insecurities' that come with being human; it requires
      accepting that 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the
      state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                            15
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                   1
                                                           Inherency
DSCOVR will be launched now.
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2-19-2011, ―National Environmental Satellite Service FY 2012 Budget
Highlights‖, http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_budget_highlights/NESS_FY12_One_pager.pdf.

      ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE FY 2012 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS National Environmental Satellite Service
      (NESS) requests $2,015.4M in FY 2012, reflecting a net increase of $616.9M from the FY 2010 Enacted. The President‘s
      FY 2012 Budget proposes to transfer $111.0M in Data Centers and Information Services to assist with the formation of the
      new Climate Service line office. This budget request supports NOAA‘s management of all aspects of satellite acquisition
      programs and supports data processing for advancing our understanding of climate change. These activities suppor
      NOAA‘s missions to monitor the earth, manage resources, support the Nation‘s economy, and protect lives, property, and
      critical infrastructure. Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) +$687.8M: This increase will continue to address NOAA‘s
      requirements to provide global environmental data in the early afternoon orbit that are used in National Weather Service
      numerical weather prediction models for near-term (1-3 day) and mid-term (3-5 day) forecasts. The JPSS budget will
      support continued development and operations of the ground system which is needed to acquire and process the data from
      the NPOESS Preparatory Project. The request will also continue the development of instruments and spacecraft for the
      JPSS-1 and JPSS-2 spacecraft. These development activities will be conducted under the close supervision of a strong
      government program and system engineering team at NOAA and NASA. Restoration of Climate Sensors +$30.4M: This
      increase supports the continued acquisition of space-based climate sensors which continue measurements of stratospheric
      ozone, earth radiation, and solar irradiance. The sensors ensure NOAA‘s ability to provide current, accurate, and timely
      climate information to the scientific community. Jason-3 Altimetry Mission – Sea Surface Height +$33.0M: The increase
      supports continued development of the Jason-3 mission in time for a 2014 launch. The Jason-3 mission will continue a 2
      year record of space-based sea surface height measurements that are used to monitor intensification of hurricanes and
      support climate change assessments such as global sea-level rise and surface wave forecasting. European partners
      contribute approximately one-half of the total funding of the Jason-3 satellite mission. Deep Space Climate Observatory
      (DSCOVR) - Space Weather Observations +$47.3M: This funding will be used to initiate the refurbishment of the
      DSCOVR spacecraft as a space weather mission in time for a 2013 launch. Society‘s reliance on technology that is
      vulnerable to space weather events makes it necessary to refurbish DSCOVR which will provide data that will support
      timely and accurate forecasts and warnings of geomagnetic storms. NOAA has partnered with NASA to refurbish the
      existing DSCOVR satellite and with the US Air Force who will provide launch services. This interagency partnership is the
      most expeditious and cost effective option for making DSCOVR operational in time for the approaching Solar Maximum.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                  16
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                  Blackouts Frontline (1/3)
1. Several satellites effectively detect solar flares right now.
Ian O‘neill, Ph.D in Solar Physics from University of Whales, 6-21-2011, Universe Today, ―No Killer Solar Flare,
http://www.universetoday.com/14645/2012-no-killer-solar-flare/

      X-ray solar flare emissions are only part of the story. If the conditions are right, a coronal mass ejection (CME) might be
      produced at the site of the flare (although either phenomenon can occur independently). CMEs are slower than the
      propagation of X-rays, but their global effects here on Earth can be more problematic. They may not travel at the speed of
      light, but they still travel fast; they can travel at a rate of 2 million miles per hour (3.2 million km/hr), meaning they may
      reach us in a matter of hours. This is where much effort is being put into space weather prediction. We have a handful of
      spacecraft sitting between the Earth and the Sun at the Earth-Sun Lagrangian (L1) point with sensors on board to measure
      the energy and intensity of the solar wind. Should a CME pass through their location, energetic particles and the
      interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) can be measured directly. One mission called the Advanced Composition Explorer
      (ACE) sits in the L1 point and provides scientists with up to an hour notice on the approach of a CME. ACE teams up with
      the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO), so CMEs can
      be tracked from the lower corona into interplanetary space, through the L1 point toward Earth. These solar missions are
      actively working together to provide space agencies with advanced notice of an Earth-directed CME. So what if a CME
      reaches Earth? For a start, much depends on the magnetic configuration of the IMF (from the Sun) and the geomagnetic
      field of the Earth (the magnetosphere). Generally speaking, if both magnetic fields are aligned with polarities pointing in
      the same direction, it is highly probable that the CME will be repelled by the magnetosphere. In this case, the CME will
      slide past the Earth, causing some pressure and distortion on the magnetosphere, but otherwise passing without a problem.
      However, if the magnetic field lines are in an anti-parallel configuration (i.e. magnetic polarities in opposite directions),
      magnetic reconnection may occur at the leading edge of the magnetosphere.

2. Sunspots disappearing for a long time no risk of solar flares for decades. No solar storms in 2013.
Thomas H. Maugh II, Has been a science and medical writer at the Times for 23 years. Before that, he was on the staff of the journal
Science for 13 years. He has bachelor's degrees in English and chemistry from MIT and a doctorate in chemistry from UC Santa
Barbara, 6-15-2011, ―Sunspots may be quiet a while, researchers say‖, Lexis Nexis.

      The next 11-year cycle of increased sunspot activity, scheduled to begin around 2020, may be delayed for a couple of years
      and have a reduced magnitude -- or it may not occur at all, researchers said Tuesday. Three different lines of evidence
      suggest that the sun, which is expected to reach its maximum sunspot and magnetic activity in the current cycle sometime
      in 2013, might even enter a prolonged quiet period similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, a 70-year stretch from 1645
      to 1715 in which virtually no sunspots were observed. That minimum coincided with the "Little Ice Age," in which
      temperatures were unusually low in Europe and elsewhere around the globe, and some researchers suggest that the two
      events were cause and effect -- although direct evidence of that linkage is extremely limited. "There is evidence that the sun
      goes into periods like that 10% to 15% of the time, and we may be due for another one," said David H. Hathaway, a solar
      physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., who was not involved in the research. "They may be
      right," he added, but he said more data should be collected before reaching such conclusions. Other than potential effects on
      climate, a reduction in sunspots would have little direct impact on humans. Most of the terrestrial effects linked to sunspot
      activity -- including interference with telecommunications, problems with power transmission, reduced lifetimes of
      satellites and other problems -- occur when sunspot activity increases. A minimum could even be a good time for space
      travel because there would be fewer magnetic storms that could harm humans who have escaped the Earth's protective
      magnetic field. Sunspots are caused by pockets of intense magnetic activity that disrupt the normal circulation of heated
      gases on the sun's surface, leading to areas of cooling and reduced brightness. Sunspot activity is linked to the solar cycle,
      in which the star's magnetic poles are reversed every 22 years. As the magnetic fields shift around during these reversals,
      they create sunspots through mechanisms that are not yet entirely clear. The findings, presented at a Las Cruces, N.M.,
      meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division, represent the first wave of new data that should
      help physicists better understand the sun's internal workings, said William Dean Pesnell, project scientist of the Solar
      Dynamics Observatory operated by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "In the next five years, we should
      get to the point where we can run a large [computer] model that shows us where [solar] oscillations come from," said
      Pesnell, who was not involved in the research. Three separate studies reached the same conclusion on sunspots. Frank Hill
      of the National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak in New Mexico and his colleagues studied streams of fields flowing



Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       17
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
                                                   Blackouts Frontline (2/3)
      under the sun's surface, the solar equivalent to the Earth's jet stream. Using a process known as helioseismography, which
      monitors sound waves emitted by these solar jet streams, they found that jet streams that precede the normal beginning of a
      solar cycle are missing. This suggests that the next sunspot cycle should be weak at best. Their observations accurately
      predicted the late beginning of the current sunspot cycle. Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory and his colleagues
      used the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona to monitor the magnetic strength of sunspots. They observed
      that for the last 13 years, the strength has been declining regularly. Doing what Penn called "the dangerous activity of
      extrapolating to the future," the team predicted that continued decreases would lead to a point where magnetic fields would
      not be sufficiently intense to create sunspots. And finally, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force's coronal research
      program at Sunspot, N.M., used four decades of measurement of the sun's corona -- the "atmosphere" of ionized atoms
      above the sun's surface -- to show that magnetic activity at the sun's poles had been declining. Such declines are linked to
      decreased sunspot activity. "The fact that there are three separate lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction is very
      compelling," Hill said. But, he added, researchers have no way of predicting how long a period like the Maunder Minimum
      might last, if it does occur. As for the potential effects on climate, "there is not enough evidence either way," he said. But,
      he added, if the next cycle doesn't occur, "it will be a good opportunity to find out."

3. NASA Detection solves blackouts now.
NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 6-22-11, ―Getting Ready for the next big Solar Storm‖,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/next-solarstorm.html.

      "We can now track the progress of solar storms in 3 dimensions as the storms bear down on Earth," says Michael Hesse,
      chief of the GSFC Space Weather Lab and a speaker at the forum. "This sets the stage for actionable space weather alerts
      that could preserve power grids and other high-tech assets during extreme periods of solar activity." They do it using data
      from a fleet of NASA spacecraft surrounding the sun. Analysts at the lab feed the information into a bank of
      supercomputers for processing. Within hours of a major eruption, the computers spit out a 3D movie showing where the
      storm will go, which planets and spacecraft it will hit, and predicting when the impacts will occur. This kind of
      "interplanetary forecast" is unprecedented in the short history of space weather forecasting. "This is a really exciting time to
      work as a space weather forecaster," says Antti Pulkkinen, a researcher at the Space Weather Lab. "The emergence of
      serious physics-based space weather models is putting us in a position to predict if something major will happen. Some of
      the computer models are so sophisticated, they can even predict electrical currents flowing in the soil of Earth when a solar
      storm strikes. These currents are what do the most damage to power transformers. An experimental project named "Solar
      Shield" led by Pulkkinen aims to pinpoint transformers in greatest danger of failure during any particular storm.
      "Disconnecting a specific transformer for a few hours could forestall weeks of regional blackouts," says Pulkkinen.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         18
530a6ca8-de5a-4d81-9bd6-48a93579feb1.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                  Blackouts Frontline (3/3)
4. NO SOLVENCY. The plan does not introduce intelligent transformers. Evidence from their own
author indicates that the issue is not the lack of a warning of a solar storm but instead it is preventive
devices.
Laurence Hect, Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology, 6-13-2011, ―The Solar Storm Threat to America's Power Grid”,
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18439

      Three means of mitigating the threat of severe geomagnetic storms and electromagnetic pulse damage are available: —
      Provisions for replacement equipment, including spare transformers, circuit breakers, etc. — Low-ohmic, neutral-to-ground
      resistors to reduce induced current levels at the transformer. — Blocking devices to prevent the flow of geomagnetically
      induced currents. Some combination of all three measures is urgently required. Maintaining reserve transformers on site,
      especially near critical metropolitan bottlenecks, is a must. But this would require the restoration of EHV transformer
      manufacturing capability in the U.S.A. and worldwide. The present backlog in production makes this option not available
      for the short term. Immediate installation of supplemental transformer neutral ground resistors can produce a 60 to 70%
      reduction of geomagnetic induced currents for storms of all sizes, according to Metatech. The EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse)
      Commission, established by Congress in 2001, estimated the cost of hardening the U.S. power grid with this first level of
      defense at $150 million. There also exist conceptual designs for blocking devices, to shut down direct current flows from
      geomagnetically induced currents, while permitting normal AC flow on the power line. In one such design by Advanced
      Fusion Systems of New York, known as a Neutral Capacitor Bypass Device (NCBD), a high-power electron tube known as
      a Bi-tron is utilized for fast bypass of induced currents, within a fraction of an alternating current cycle. The design
      envisions a modification and scaling of the 4275 Bi-Tron tube, originally developed for high-power military microwave
      applications, which has significantly faster switching capability than power transistors. Without these measures, the power
      grid remains vulnerable to a catastrophic failure. Although satellites can provide warning of impending hits to Earth from
      solar coronal mass ejections, there are no viable options if preventive equipment and replacement transformers are not in
      place. Shutting down what might be thought to be the most vulnerable points in the grid, increases the risk of transformer
      saturation at other points by increasing the flow of power, in addition to the human and economic cost of a partial blackout
      in some areas.

5. No impact to blackouts.
TL, 4-25-2011, ―Electricity network head says no danger of blackouts‖, http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110425-34611.html.
      But he said there was no danger of a blackout. ―Our checks show that the effect of the moratorium is manageable. Although
      responsible and prudent action is more necessary than ever,‖ he said. He was asked whether the warnings from Johannes
      Teyssen and Jürgen Großmann, heads of electricity generators EON and RWE respectively, that the network could
      collapse, were responsible. ―I think that using the fear of a blackout is less than rewarding,‖ he said. ―Technically and also
      legally, there are many possible methods of directing and steering power stations in order to prevent a collapse of the
      network,‖ he said. One possible problem could be the greater Hamburg region this summer, he admitted. He said the
      Krümmel and Brünsbuttel nuclear power stations have been shut down for repairs while the Unterweser nuclear power
      station has been closed by the moratorium. The Brokdorf one is set to be closed for checks between June 11 and 30, which
      could endanger continuity of supply. He said there were various options such as delaying the work slated for Brokdorf, or
      taking on supplies from other power stations for the region. It was necessary to work out an approach now, he said. Other,
      longer term measures could include the re-firing of coal powered electricity stations to stabilise the network, which he
      admitted would not be ideal.




Last printed 11/6/2011 2:00:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       19

								
To top