SPS Negative - Paperless Debate by fanzhongqing


									SDI 11
File Title

                                                              ** SPS Negative **
  ** SPS Negative ** ...................................................................................................................................................1
  Solvency -- SPS Bad/Generic ....................................................................................................................................3
  Solvency -- Too Costly ..............................................................................................................................................5
  Solvency -- Feasibility ...............................................................................................................................................6
  A2 Environment
  A2 Warming ..............................................................................................................................................................8
  A2 Military Overstretch
  Energy – SPS Can’t Meet Demand .......................................................................................................................... 10
  Energy – No Independence ...................................................................................................................................... 11
  A2 Dependency ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
  A2 Water
  No Water Wars ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
  SPS Fails – Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................. 14
  A2 Small Farms
  Alt Energy Shift ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
  Farm Decline Inevitable .......................................................................................................................................... 16
  Farm Consolidation Good........................................................................................................................................ 18
  Large Farms Good ................................................................................................................................................... 19
  A2 Space Leadership
  Space Leadership Not Key ...................................................................................................................................... 20
  Solar Not Key .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
  Heg Sustainable ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
  Heg Unsustainable ................................................................................................................................................... 23
  Heg Bad ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
  A2 Space Militarization
  Space Weapons Bad ................................................................................................................................................ 25
  A2 Space Weaponization inevitable ........................................................................................................................ 26
  A2 Space Weapons Good ........................................................................................................................................ 27
  A2 SPS is a weapon ................................................................................................................................................. 29
  A2 Desalination
  Desalination Bad...................................................................................................................................................... 30
  Desalination Fails .................................................................................................................................................... 31
  Desalination Inefficient ........................................................................................................................................... 32
  Desalination Alt Caus .............................................................................................................................................. 33
  A2 Ocean Acidification
  Acidification Alt Caus ............................................................................................................................................. 34
  Impossible to Solve ................................................................................................................................................. 36
  A2 Aerospace
  Alt Caus ................................................................................................................................................................... 37
  A2 Space Development ........................................................................................................................................... 38
  A2 US-India Cooperation
  US-India Cooperation Bad ...................................................................................................................................... 40
  No War .................................................................................................................................................................... 42
  A2 Indian Hegemony ............................................................................................................................................... 43
  Japan CP/DA
  1nc Japan CP ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
  1nc Japan Leadership DA ........................................................................................................................................ 45
  Japan Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................ 47
  2nc Perm .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
  Japan Leadership Uniqueness .................................................................................................................................. 50

SDI 11
File Title

  2nc Soft Power Nuclearization Impact .................................................................................................................... 53
  Spending DA
  1nc Spending DA..................................................................................................................................................... 54
  Spending Uniqueness -- Generic ............................................................................................................................. 56
  Spending Link -- Generic ........................................................................................................................................ 57
  Spending Link -- Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 58
  Spending Link -- A2 Link Turn ............................................................................................................................... 59
  Spending Internal Link ............................................................................................................................................ 60

SDI 11
File Title

                                 Solvency -- SPS Bad/Generic
SBSP bad – four reasons
Bansal 11 (Guarav Bansal, correspondent for EcoFriend. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Space Based Solar
Energy.” EcoFriend, May 23, 2011. Accessed July 19, 2011. http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-
1. High costs and long gestation period: Development cost for solar panels of that magnitude would be very
large and will also take long time to manufacture as even the first space-based solar project passed California
State also has a gestation period of 7 long years. Similarly, costs to operationalize even a single large panel is
very high, which makes it even more difficult for poor nations to do so. such pilot project by Japan runs into
more than 20 billion dollars even before operationalization. 2. Satellite traffic will increase: A large number
of such projects can lead to overcrowding of space in the geosynchronous orbit. This may lead to a mishap like
the one collision that happened between the Iridium Satellite LLC-operated satellite and the Russian Cosmos-2251
military satellite occurred at about 485 miles above the Russian Arctic on Feb, 2009. 3. Potential damage to
Atmosphere: Until now microwave and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world
are for communication and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has
to very high which can be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and
cancer among humans. Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23
mW/cm2 and at periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves. Similarly very high frequency used for such
long distance propagation can be very dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s
environment. 4. Laser beam penetration: Transmission of energy through atmosphere has not yet been done
at a large scale and its successful commercial utilization is still under question. The ionosphere, the
electrically charged portion of the atmosphere, will be a significant barrier to transmission.

SDI 11
File Title

The idea of space-based solar power is prohibitively expensive and technologically
Nelder 9 (Chris Nelder, energy researcher and expert. “The Solar Race Will Be Lost in Space.” Energy &
Capital, April 15, 2009. Accessed July 19, 2011. http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/solar-satellite-
The second story that got my blood boiling was on so-called space based solar power (SBSP). The excitement was over a report that the
California utility PG&E had sought permission from state regulators to sign a 15-year contract with
California based Solaren Corp. to purchase up to 200 megawatts of solar power (850 gigwatt-hours in the
first year) that would be collected in space and beamed to earth . Again, the press gushed about the “next frontier” of solar
power, which would collect power “24 hours a day” from the far brighter solar radiation available above earth’s atmosphere from a low-orbit
solar satellite 240 times bigger than the International Space Station. The energy would be transmitted to a receiver based in Fresno, California via
microwave or radio waves (reports differed). To my dismay, even the Wall Street Journal got into the SBSP act, albeit with a few allusions to
the unknowns of the deal. Let’s take a look at a few of those unknowns. First, Solaren hasn’t even determined what sort of solar
cells the project would use, yet the company asserted that it is sure the project will be economically viable .
Second, according to chief executive Gary Spirnak, the company is seeking funding “in the billions of dollars” just to
develop the design and launch a pilot project. Neither Solaren nor PG&E has disclosed the expected cost of the project nor the
terms of the power production contract. To get an idea of what kind of bang for the buck SBSP might deliver, the Journal quoted a Pentagon
report estimating that a 10 megawatt pilot satellite would run about $10 billion, or about $1 million per kilowatt of
capacity. By comparison, an off-the-shelf solar photovoltaic (PV) system for the home runs about $8,850 per
kilowatt, for a commercial system about $6,720 per kilowatt, and for an industrial sized system, about $4,850
per kilowatt (source). Even after quadrupling those costs to account for the fact that PV systems generally produce power for only about 6
hours a day, it’s still a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of SBSP, and uses technology that is in commercial operation
today, not fantasy technology of the future. A more apt comparison would be concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, which are
utility-scale systems that can run 24 hours a day with internal heat-storage technology. These plants generate power for $3,000 to $3,500 per
kilowatt and likewise use current, commercially available technology (source). At 11 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of production today, on
its way to 7 cents per kWh for next generation plants, CSP systems will soon be economically competitive with coal-fired and nuclear electrical
generation. Why would anyone be interested in space-based solar power when commercial utility scale solar
technology on the ground today costs 0.3% of its price? Then there are all the other niggling questions about how
exactly the power transmission to earth works without , for example, inadvertently frying a plane that happened across its path,
or running the risk of destruction on the ground should anything go awry with the system. Or how the company is so
confident that we can deploy as-yet unproven technology at a scale far beyond man’s most ambitious space program to date, and do it by 2016.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention: Solaren’s director of energy services Cal Boerman claims that after four rocket
launches to place the equipment into space, it would not require assembly by astronauts, but instead would
unfold on its own. Anyone who has watched the evolution of cutting edge space projects like the Hubble Telescope and indeed, the
International Space Station itself, knows of the many problems they have faced with systems that didn’t work according to plan. Now Solaren
wants us to believe that they can make something 240 times bigger than the ISS with no astronauts needed ?
The best comment I found on the Solaren project was from the Motley Fool: “As far as technology commercialization timelines go, space-based
solar is likely somewhat ahead of nuclear fusion powered by a rare fuel that’s mined on the moon.” The whole plan is pure fantasy as
far as I’m concerned. But it’s sexy space energy technology, so people just gobble it up. Those inclined to excitement about such developments
view PG&E’s proposed contract as verification that there is something real about the project. But I have an alternate interpretation. PG&E is
desperate to contract for enough renewable energy to meet the state’s renewable portfolio standard, which currently requires it to produce 20% of
its electricity from clean sources by 2010, with a possible new standard of 33% by 2020 in the offing. However, the available supply of
renewable energy is nowhere close to that, nor is it growing nearly quickly enough to meet such an ambitious target in an environment of tight
credit. My guess is the utility would be willing to sign a contract with space aliens in pink tutus at this point, if they would guarantee in writing
that they would deliver megawatt-hours of clean power before 2020. Mark Toney, head of The Utility Reform Network watchdog
group, called the Solaren announcement “remote” and “an act of desperation,” preferring that PG&E spend
“more time on proven technologies closer to home that we can really count on.” For all the doubts surrounding it, there
are a few things about space based solar power that I can virtually guarantee. One, if the Solaren project fails to round up financing, which
is already a problem for earth-based utility-scale systems, or is deployed but fails to meet expectations, no one will publish its failure in big, bold
headlines. Two, it will never scale or be cost-effective on par with existing ground-based solar technology. Three, if
it ever gets off the ground, it will be plagued with technical problems, and in a post-fossil fuel world, it will
become impossible to maintain. Four, the net energy of the whole project will be ridiculously low, and the
energy payback period on it will be measured in decades. Five, it will consume a vast amount of gullible techno-utopian

SDI 11
File Title

                                                 Solvency -- Too Costly
Current technology is costly, unproven, and inefficient
Jeremy Hsu; December 02 2009; Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans
Hoffert is wary of Solaren's latest step forward and the company's promise of delivering 200 megawatts to PG&E utility customers in California
by 2016.Hoffert estimates that Solaren could manage to get about 50 percent transmission efficiency in a best-case
scenario, meaning that half of the energy collected by space solar panels would be lost in the transfer down to Earth.
Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch
weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according
to Hoffert .But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one
fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as
mirrors that help focus sunlight."Solaren?s patented SSP [space solar power] system dramatically reduces the SSP space segment mass compared
to previous concepts," Boerman told SPACE.com. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property
concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar
conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal
transmission losses from the space to the ground. Hoffert remains unconvinced without knowing the details of Solaren's
technology. He frets that "premature optimism" over unproven and perhaps scientifically implausible concepts could
end up ruining the reputation of space solar power, even as advocates desperately want to see their vision come true."Too many
space power guys have been silent, perhaps to not give comfort to opponents ," Hoffert noted in a recent e-mail to
colleagues. "But scientists should not do this."

Space solar power will not happen – not enough money
Schubert 10 (Peter Schubert, consultant and researcher for Packer Engineering. “Costs, Organization, and
Roadmap for SSP.” Online Journal of Space Communication, Winter 2010. Accessed July 19, 2011.
Space Solar Power will be too expensive until it is too late to afford it. Politicians shy away from projects that
last longer than they will remain in office. Governments are reluctant to fund projects where there are no
short-term paybacks. Militaries will not sponsor work that cannot be used to fight wars. Corporate
investment in long-term projects without a proven return are unlikely. Environmentalists, status quo defenders,
and established energy interests alike will resist large-scale projects, driving up costs and costing time. There is
presently no consensus on an optimal SSP architecture; nor is there an agreed-upon cost; nor is there an
organization charged with achieving either.

Space Based Solar Power has high developments costs, and it always needs to be
compared to the benefits of NOT developing SBSP
National Space Society October 2007 “Space Solar Power”
High development cost. Yes, space solar power development costs will be very large, although much smaller than
American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon
sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs to be compared to the cost of not developing
space solar power.

SPS will be very costly and difficult to get into orbit
Boswell 04 (David Boswell speaker at the international space development conference “What ever happened to
solar power satellites?” August 30, 2004 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)
A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Some designs suggest creating
rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If we assume that enough money could be found to build
something like this and that it could be run competitively against other energy options, there is the very real problem of
figuring out how to get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from separate smaller pieces. [IT CONTINUES…]
Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be
needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was
produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down
before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so
little progress has been made?

SDI 11
File Title

                                                  Solvency -- Feasibility
Space Based Solar Power is not feasible for at least 30 more years and does not
provide nearly enough energy
William Fan et al. 11 (California Institute of Technology), CalTech, “Space-Based Solar Power Industry and
Technology Assessment”, June 2, 2011,
Using data from previous studies and our own linearized estimations, we are able to obtain a chart for annual returns on
investment. This only supposes that the only cost incurred are putting solar panels up in space. All other costs are completely
ignored, such as fixed costs, capital costs, etc. Even the costs of putting up a transmitting array, or construction is ignored. In other words, the
costs shown here are similar to marginal costs, if all the space and ground infrastructure was already set up. We are only looking at
“when is it even remotely feasible to begin thinking about SBSP as a mainstream source of energy.” We see
from the graph that in fact, for a median estimate, even waiting thirty year is not enough to reach a 15% return.
Since we are discounting the roughly 80% of the costs from other sources, 15% is the minimum to begin
considering SBSP. Right now, SPSP is not viable as a mainstream source of energy. In fact, even when accounting for the
most optimal effects, we would need to wait at least 30 more years before beginning a large attempt at adopting
space based solar power. In order for SBSP to be feasible before then, we would require some sort of disruptive technology in orbital
launch, such as a space elevator. Another case might be where the Earth’s atmosphere suddenly prevented more of the sunlight from reaching the
Earth, increasing the efficiency gains from using SBSP.

SPS not feasible- beam diversion
Cowing, 00 Keith( is trained as a biologist (M.A. and B.A. degrees) and has a multidisciplinary background with experience and
expertise that ranges from spacecraft payload integration and biomedical peer review to freelance writing and website authoring. )," Congress
Gets an Update on Solar Power Satellites", September 7, 2000, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=210. 6/30/11.
Another concern in earlier SPS studies has been the efficiency with which power is transmitted from one
point to another. Recent laser and microwave research has shown additional improvements in efficiency - this also lends support to the
economic and engineering viability of the SPS concept. Mankind added that in addition to the power generating
capabilities of SPS systems, large amounts of space-based, beamed power might also be required if large solar sail
propulsion technologies are to be used for interstellar probes at the end of this century. The SPS concept was originally envisioned
as being a relay system for power generated in space with microwaves used as the means of relaying power.
This concept has expanded over the years to include the use of lasers instead of microwaves. One reason being that microwave
beams tend to diverge as they traverse large distances whereas coherent sources such as lasers exhibit much less divergence.
The more divergence in an energy beam, the larger the antennas need to be at the reception/reflection
locations and the greater the potential for lost power during transmission. Use of lasers would tend to minimize this
concern. The SPS concept has also expanded to use space based satellites to relay power generated on Earth from one location to another -
perhaps from an equatorial desert region to a large city further from the equator. Ralph Nansen, President, Solar Space Industries, Inc. said that
Use of SPS as a relay point of power from one region on earth to another may served an interim step in demonstrating the technical and economic
viability of beamed power systems. He suggested that primary development of an SPS system should be commercial. But since this would be
such large an effort, it should start as government/industry partnership. The government's role would be to set regulatory environment, provide
loans and other funding for basic research, and be willing to accept the risk of buying the first SPS satellite. A lead agency should be designated
according to Nansen. He felt that DOE is a natural choice with NASA providing support. Nansen said that a ground test program should be
funded to demonstrate separate technologies and develop a small prototype of the system on the ground. Efforts should also be made obtain
frequency allocation for microwave transmission systems and that support be given to developing a more efficient launch infrastructure including
loan guarantees for RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) systems. Jerry Grey, from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
spoke about a study nearing completion by the AIAA. The AIAA has had a continuing interest in the SPS concept since its first description in
1968. The AIAA study looked at SPS work being done outside the US; the prospects for multiple uses of SPS technology; and a technical
assessment of SPS work done by NASA. According to Grey, the study does not address economic or environmental considerations since these
are being handled by other research groups. While the draft AIAA assessment is still under review, Grey was able to say that the AIAA feels that
SPS is a viable concept, and that it is one key area requiring an enhanced focus upon advanced launch system. He also said that the AIAA group
has expressed a particular interest in using SPS concepts to augment the existing terrestrial power grid. This would involves relaying energy.
Reflection of sunlight; reflection of sunlight and conversion to/from microwaves; and the use of lasers were all
examined. It was felt that geostationary satellites are preferred over satellites in lower orbits for control reasons. Sunlight and
microwave reflection via geostationary orbit is not feasible because of beam diversion. Lasers, however, have far less
beam diversion and are very efficient.

SDI 11
File Title

SBSP not feasible- launch infrastructure
Rouge, 07 Joseph D. ( Director of National Security Space Office ), " Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study ",          10 October 2007,
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf. 6/30/11.
Space Solar Power Satellites are very large structures and require substantially greater lift and in space
transportation than has ever previously been attempted. Consequently, they also require a significantly
expanded supporting infrastructure. The International Space Station is currently the largest structure in space with
a mass of 232 MT, at an orbit of only 333 km. It has the largest solar arrays in space, with a total power of approximately 112 kW.
In contrast, a single Space Solar Power Satellite is expected to be above 3,000 MT, several kilometers across,
and most likely be located in GEO, at 42,124km, likely delivering between 1 to 10 GWe From the perspective of today’s launch
infrastructure, this may seem unimaginably large and ambitious, but in another sense it is well within the relative scale of other human
accomplishments which at their time also seemed astounding creations the Eiffel Tower is 8,045 Tons; the Sear’s Tower 222,500 tons; the
Empire State Building 365,000 – 392,000 tons, the largest of our supertankers is 650,000MT, and the Great Pyramid at Giza is 5,900,000 MT.
Contemplating a space solar power satellite today is probably analogous to contemplating the building of the large hydro‐electric dams, which
even today cause observers to marvel. Today the United States initiates less than 15 launches per year (at 25MT or
less). Construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. That may seem
like an astounding operations tempo until one considers the volume of other transportation infrastructure. For instance, in 2005, Atlanta
International Airport saw 980,197 takeoffs & landings alone, an average of 1,342 takeoffs/day, or about 1 every minute 24 hours a day. In the
same year, Singapore’s 41 ship cargo berths served 130,318 vessel arrivals (about 15 per hour), handling about 1.15 billion gross tons (GT), and
23.2 million twenty foot equivalent units (TFUs).

SBSP not ready - launch and manufacturing infrastructure
Rouge, 07 Joseph D. ( Director of National Security Space Office ), " Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study ",          10 October 2007,
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf. 6/30/11.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the nation’s existing EELV based space logistics infrastructure
could not handle the volume or reach the necessary cost efficiencies to support a cost effective SBSP system.
America’s existing space manufacturing base is not suitably aligned at present for full scale SBSP
deployment. • Some participants argued that at high enough launch rates some of the newer expendable concepts might be able to get close to
the target, however in general, most participants felt that while expendables could get an SBSP to a demo, it could
not reach the economic efficiencies necessary for SBSP. Some participants also emphasized that expendable launch - 32 -
systems will not be able to achieve the desired level of safety needed for routine and frequent passenger transport to space or the operation of
terrestrial launch sites in the interior of the country.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                   A2 Warming
Potential damage to Atmosphere: An Increase of radioactivity in Earth’s
Gaurav Bansal Eco Friendly; The Good, Bad, and the Ugly: Space Based Solar Energy. May 23 '11
Till now microwave      and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world are for communication
and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has to very high which can
be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and cancer among humans.
Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23 mW/cm2 and at
periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace
exposure limits for microwaves. Similarly very high frequency used for such long distance propagation can be very
dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s environment.

Laser beam penetration risky:
Gaurav Bansal Eco Friendly; The Good, Bad, and the Ugly: Space Based Solar Energy. May 23 '11
Transmission of energy through atmosphere has not yet been done at a large scale and its successful
commercial utilization is still under question. The ionosphere, the electrically charged portion of the
atmosphere, will be a significant barrier to transmission.

SDI 11
File Title

Mainstream media has hyped up global warming than what it really is, there is not
enough solid evidence to prove harms of global warming
Joseph Bast is the president of The Heartland Institute 2007
Randy Scholfield in his August 24 column (“Why do some deny global warming?”) wonders why so many people
“resist the evidence of human-caused climate change.” After all, he writes, “the overwhelming consensus of
mainstream science is clear.” Scholfield is deeply confused about the subject, but it isn’t his fault. Media coverage
of global warming confusing, and too many scientists have made careers out of issuing scaring predictions
that aren’t supported by articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Two recent surveys of scientists – one of
530 climate scientists conducted in 2003 by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch and the second
conducted in 2006 of members of the National Registry of Environmental Professionals – shed some light on what
scientists really believe. Most scientists (more than 80 percent) believe some global warming has occurred. The best
estimate is that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the past 100 years. A
majority of scientists, but certainly not all, believe the human presence is responsible for some part of the recent
warming. Most scientists believe it is not yet possible to determine how much of the modern warming is the
result of natural cycles and how much is due to human activities. The scientific community is split down the
middle on whether future warming would be moderate and benign, or severe and harmful. Most scientists don’t
believe we can predict what future climates will look like. And there is no agreement at all on what, if
anything, we should do about global warming. So Scholfield is wrong to claim that there is a “consensus” that
the modern warming is man-made and will be catastrophic. Like so many others who are confused by the
current debate, he relies heavily on the claims of a United Nation’s agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which says its reports represent the views of some 2,000 scientists. But the great
majority of those scientists only comment on or contribute to a few pages of the much larger report. They
expressly do not endorse the overall reports or the claims that appear in the “Summary for Policymakers,”
which they do not help write or approve. Many of the scientists who participate in the IPCC process are, in
fact, outspoken skeptics of man-made global warming. There is only one empirical study ever done that appeared
to support the claim of a consensus that global warming is man-made. It is a widely cited (but seldom examined)
study by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of gender studies at the University of California - San Diego. Oreskes
examined abstracts of 928 articles published from 1993 to 2002 and found “none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position” that the recent warming of the Earth was due to human activities. Note that she didn’t claim a
consensus in support of the idea that warming would be severe or harmful, or even that all of the papers agreed
with the consensus position. No survey of the literature or of scientists has ever shown consensus on those
claims. When other researchers tried and failed to replicate Oreskes’ findings, she was forced to admit she had mis-
identified the search terms used in her study. One scientist, Benny Peiser, reported that his own analysis of the
scientific abstracts supposedly studied by Oreskes found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse what she called the
“consensus view” while 470 (42 percent) of the abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not
find or endorse any link to human activities. On the day I’m writing this, DailyTech.com is reporting that new
research by Klaus-Martin Schulte, accepted for publication by the journal Energy and Environment, finds no
consensus on global warming in academic journal articles appearing between 2004 and early 2007. Nearly as many
articles explicitly refute the theory of man-made global warming as endorse it, while most articles are simply
silent on the issue. In light of all this, is it any wonder that many people are skeptical of predictions of climate
catastrophe? Most people can sense when something is being hyped and oversold. But I do wonder why
journalists, who really ought to know better, ignore the evidence in front of them and simply read from scripts
provided by environmental advocacy groups and ambitious politicians. You don’t suppose it’s because they
have an ideological agenda, do you?

SDI 11
File Title

                                    Energy – SPS Can’t Meet Demand
Solar energy will fail- cant meet global demand
McIntyre 09 (Douglas A. McIntyre CEO of Future Source “The Failures of Alternative Energy” August 14th, 2009
Solar energy is also in the midst of a painful transformation from being the poster child for alternative energy
to one in which a number of companies have folded and many others are in deep trouble. Large solar power firm
LDK Solar (LDK) posted poor quarterly results and its stock lost almost one-fifth of its value in a day. The recession has cut
investment in alternative energy and there is still only limited proof that solar technology can be deployed
broadly enough to be a substantial, global new source of energy. One or both of these issues has decreased demand enough so
that there is an oversupply of unsold solar panels. Solar energy companies are being squeezed by both falling sales and worsening gross margins.

Renewable energy can’t meet present and future demands
Trainer 07 (Ted Trainer organizer of "The Simpler Way: Analyses of global problems and the sustainable alternative society" Senior
Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales “Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society” Springer Google
It is widely assumed that our consumer society can move from using fossil fuels to using renewable energy
sources while maintaining the high levels of energy use to which we have become accustomed. This book details the
reasons why this almost unquestioned assumption is seriously mistaken.Chapters on wind, photovoltaic and solar
thermal sources argue that these are not able to meet present electricity demands, let alone future demands.
Even more impossible will be meeting the demand for liquid fuel . The planet's capacity to produce biomass is far below what
would be required. Chapter 6 explains why it is not likely that there will ever be a hydrogen economy, in view of the difficulties in generating
sufficient hydrogen and especially considering the losses and inefficiencies in distributing it. Chapter 9 explains why nuclear energy is not the
answer.The discussion is then extended beyond energy to deal with the ways in which our consumer society is grossly unsustainable and unjust.
Its fundamental twin commitments to affluent living standards and economic growth have inevitably generated a range of alarming and
accelerating global problems. These can only be solved by a transition to The Simpler Way, a society based more on simpler, self-sufficient and
cooperative ways, within a zero-growth economy. The role renewable energy might play in enabling such a society is outlined.

Even in combination, renewable energy sources cannot sustain society’s demands.
Trainer 07 (Ted Trainer organizer of "The Simpler Way: Analyses of global problems and the sustainable alternative society" Senior
Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales “Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society” Springer Google
It is commonly assumed that greenhouse gas and energy problems can be solved by switching from fossil fuel
sources of energy to renewables. However little attention has been given to exploring the limits to renewable
energy. The main problems are to do with the magnitude of the supply tasks that would be set and the
difficulties that would be encountered integrating large amounts of intermittent renewable energy into supply
systems. [I] argue that wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal and biomass sources, along with nuclear energy and geo-
sequestration of carbon could not be combined to provide sufficient energy to sustain affluent societies while
keeping greenhouse gas emissions below safe levels. The case is strongest with respect to liquid fuels and transport. [There are
also strong] reasons why a “hydrogen economy” is not likely to be achieved.

SDI 11
File Title

                                          Energy – No Independence
US Energy independence is impossible to solve
FOX NEWS 04 (“Exxon Chief: Energy Independence Impossible” June 8, 2004 foxnews.com
 The idea of American energy independence is a myth and the United States must maintain "constructive
relationships" with oil-producing countries for its own prosperity, the head of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM)
said Monday night. "We do not have the resource base to be energy independent," Exxon Mobil chairman Lee R. Raymond
(search) said in a speech in which he outlined some of what he called the "hard truths" about global energy markets. Raymond, who runs
the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said that while other countries, including Russia, will play a
growing role in supplying oil to the world, the Middle East will remain the center of supply because it holds
as much as half of the world's oil reserves. "We simply cannot avoid significant reliance on oil and gas from the Middle East
because the world's supply pool [of oil] is highly dependent upon the Middle East," Raymond said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars (search).

SDI 11
File Title

                                                         A2 Dependency
The U.S Military is currently decreasing their dependency on fossil fuels
NY Times 10’ (“U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels” October 4, 2010
With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys that lumber across the Khyber Pass
into Afghanistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to
decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the
rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes;
energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers
and communications equipment. The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable
technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would
ordinarily generate power to run their encampment. Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and
many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward.
After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available , senior
commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability and renewable technologies —
which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential
answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military
leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade.

SQ Proves U.S Military not reliant on fossil fuels
Casey 11’ (“U.S. Military Transforms Landfill Gas into Renewable Energy” Feb. 28 2011http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/28/u-s-
America has found an unlikely leader into a sustainable new future , and that’s the U.S. military. From solar
power to wind turbines, high efficiency LED lighting and even geothermal installations, the Department of
Defense has been pulling out of fossil fuels and getting into clean energy and conservation . The latest foray is being
lead by Fort Benning, Georgia, which is about to install two new power stations that will convert the facility’s landfill gas to electricity

SDI 11
File Title

                                                           No Water Wars
Water shortages are not a threat- even during droughts
KTSM 11 (“Water Shortages Unlikely” ktsm.com May 16 , 2011 http://www.ktsm.com/news/water-shortages-unlikely)

EL PASO - The current       streak of days with no rain stands at 103 days in El Paso, and the record of 109 days
without rain is forecast to be eclipsed this weekend. In the New Mexico mountains, there was not a large snow
pack from this winter to melt and offset the dry spring. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, much of western Texas and
southern New Mexico is classified in the the "exceptional" drought catagory, the highest level. The lack of rain in the Borderland, however,
does not mean that water shortages are in our future. According to El Paso Water Services, conservation measures the
utility introduced in another drought in the early 1990s will insure water will continue to be available, even if the drought persists
into the monsoon, which is usually the time of year the Borderland gets its largest amount of rain. Conservation practices such as wastewater
reclamation and the use of a desalination plant to process brackish water into potable water have allowed the previously strained groundwater
supply to rebound.

Turn – lack of water actually promotes cooperation and research of cost and energy-
efficient methods of extracting pure water
J. A. Allen 02 (School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London; Ph.D. University of London 1971), The Johns Hopkins
University Press SAIS Review, “Hydro-Peace in the Middle East: Why no Water Wars? A Case Study of the Jordan River Basin”, 2002,
The Middle East is the most water-challenged region in the world, with little freshwater and negligible soil water. 1 Water is therefore a key
strategic natural resource, and realist theory, as well as popular intuition, has it that the scarcity of water in the region will lead to water wars.
Despite growing water demand, the Middle East has shown no signs of a water war since some minor military
events in the northern Jordan Valley in the early 1960s. 2 On the contrary, there is much evidence of
cooperation over scarce water resources in the region, especially in the Jordan River Basin, where freshwater
is scarcest. 3 Water is too important to be left to the uncertainties of rapports de force. 4 Many Middle Eastern economies must use fresh
surface and groundwater resources for food production. In contrast, in temperate regions, up to 90 percent of the water used in
food production comes from naturally occurring water in soil profiles, called soil water. Soil water differs from freshwater in that it can
only be used in agriculture to produce crops. Freshwater can be used by all sectors (for domestic, industrial, and agricultural activities) and can be
lifted, pumped, and transported. It can therefore be assigned an explicit value in commercial transactions. Although soil water can only
physically be used in situ, it can also be "moved" and exported through agricultural production and trade. Indeed,
at the global level, soil water resources are in surplus. Fortunately for the water-short economies of the Middle East, this
soil water can be made accessible via trade in staple food commodities such as grain. Every year, farmers and traders
in the Middle East move volumes of water equivalent to the flow of the Nile into Egypt, or about 25 percent of the region's total available
freshwater. The water "imported" in this way can be called "virtual water." 5 To produce one ton of wheat requires one thousand tons (cubic
meters) of water. Importing a ton of wheat therefore relieves a community from having to harness one thousand tons of its own water resources.

SDI 11
File Title

                                            SPS Fails – Efficiency
SPS has not proven efficient enough to provide whole communities with water
Energy Business Daily 10 (Solar-Powered Desalination – A Potential Solution for Global Water Shortages October 12th, 2010
Solar-powered desalination is not new in and of itself. Several installations have had varying degrees of success in Saudi Arabia
and Australia. But improvements are always welcome. There is also the problem of efficiency. How much fresh water can be
produced from a specific surface area of machinery? In other words, how much land has to be used up to
provide for a specific community and is this amount practical or beneficial?

SDI 11
File Title

                                                           Alt Energy Shift
Small farms are turning to draft power- many reasons.
The New York Times 5/3/11 “On Small Farms, Hoof Power Returns”
Mr. Ciotola, 32, is one of a number of small farmers who are turning — or rather returning — to animal labor to help with
farming. Before the humble ox was relegated to the role of historical re-enactor, driven by men in period garb for child-friendly festivals like
pioneer days, it was a central beast of burden. After the Civil War, many farms switched from oxen to horses. Although Amish and Mennonite
communities continue to use horses, by World War II most draft animals had been supplanted by machines that allowed for ever-faster
production on bigger fields. Now, as diesel prices skyrocket, some farmers who have rejected many of the past century’s
advances in agriculture have found a renewed logic in draft power . Partisans argue that animals can be cheaper to
board and feed than any tractor. They also run on the ultimate renewable resource: grass. “Ox don’t need spare
parts, and they don’t run on fossil fuels,” Mr. Ciotola said. Animals are literally lighter on the land than machines . “A tractor
would have left ruts a foot deep in this road,” Mr. Ciotola noted. In contrast, oxen or horses aerate the soil with their hooves as they go,
preserving its fertile microbial layers. And as an added benefit, animals leave behind free fertilizer.

Wind turbines are growing in popularity for powering farms.
Sustainable Business 7/14/11 “Small Wind Turbines Rise in Popularity as Home Depot Starts Selling Them”
Small wind turbines are growing in popularity and Home Depot will begin selling them in stores in some of the windier parts of
the country. Arizona-based Southwest Windpower, one of the pioneers and leading manufacturers of small wind
turbines, says its Skystream 3.7 turbine will be available at stores in Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
and California, and will expand to other states. Southwest says the turbine is the first compact, all-inclusive grid-connected
personal wind turbine with controls and inverter built in. Designed for use on farms, homes and businesses, the turbine can
produce up to 400 kWh of clean electricity per month depending on the wind resource and site location. The
average US home uses about 930 kwh per month according to government figures. The Skystream 3.7 price is based on where it's installed. A
survey of websites that sell it shows it ranges from $6,000 to $9,000 before incentives. Customers may be eligible for a 30 percent federal tax
credit and local incentives available through state governments and utilities. In 2009, close to 10,000 small wind turbines were
sold in the US, according to the American Wind Energy Association - up from only 2,100 turbines in 2001.

Solar Energy is popular and commonly used now.
PR Newswire 7/18/11 “Solar Group Purchasing Goes National with One Block Off the Grid” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
Solar group purchasing company One Block Off the Grid today announced               the launch of 2,081 group deals on
solar energy in 34 states as well as a powerful new interactive map designed to promote job creation at the
state level. The project, called One Nation Off the Grid, signifies an unprecedented level of national reach for a single
residential solar organization and is comprised of 175 new partnerships between One Block Off the Grid and
solar installers across the country. In addition to providing widespread access to group deals on solar energy,
One Nation Off the Grid is aimed at promoting job growth at the state level . "For us, this campaign isn't about selling
solar. It's about moving the U.S. economy forward ," said One Block Off the Grid Founder and CEO Dave Llorens. "There is now
crystal clear evidence that a state's clean energy goals and solar incentives are the single greatest factor in whether a solar market can take off in
that state and solar job creation with it, yet 37 out of 50 states still don't have strong policies in place. We got tired of waiting for politicians to do
something, so we're asking the American people start a dialogue with their state leaders, right now. We're trying to light a fire."

SDI 11
File Title

                                                Farm Decline Inevitable
Family Farm decline inevitable, anyway - corporate takeover and lack of family
KUJH, 2006. "Family Owned Farms Decline." www.tv.ku.edu
It's a job that not just the nation's but also the world's food supply depends upon, but earning a living as a
full-time farmer has become increasingly difficult. What George Hunsinger does as a part-time job he wishes he could do full-
time. "All I've ever wanted to do is farm full-time, but I've always had to have an off-farm job. We've always had jobs but where do we go from
there. I mean pretty soon there isn't going to be a family farm." Said Hunsinger, a Douglas County farmer. Hunsinger is able to continue farming
the 40 acres that have been in his family for almost a century because of his job as a shop foreman with Wakarusa Township. "When I was young
and starting out I always said I had an off farm job to support my play habits and now I've got an off-farm job to support my farm sometimes." he
said. According to the Kansas Census of Agriculture, the number of Kansas farms has decreased by more than 4,000 during the last 15 years.
"The family farm is getting to be a very rare item especially in this part of Kansas anymore and the more this happens the less
farms there are and then we're more less reliant on corporate farming." Hunsinger said. While corporate take over remains a
concern for many farm families a bigger concern for most aging farmers is simply which family member will
take over the farm. Only 30 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms will pass to a second generation, and less
than 10 percent will reach a third.

Small Farm collapse inevitable - economic concerns
Farm Aid, 2008. "Family Farmers and the US Economy." www.farmaid.org
How have family farmers been affected by the decline in U.S. economy? Farmers, like many other businesses, are suffering from the dramatic
economic downturn. With ever increasing operating costs and now declining prices for their agricultural products,
many farmers and ranchers will find it difficult or impossible to keep up with their regularly scheduled farm
loan payments. At the same time, the availability of affordable, long-term credit is also uncertain, which poses
even more threats to family farmer business operations. Farmers depend on loans to get them through their initial investment
— to pay for the seed and feed and other inputs needed to get things in the ground and growing. But because of instability in market
prices for their products and threats from weather-related disasters, the security of that initial investment isn't
guaranteed. Since most family farmers and ranchers live on their farms, their homes also are listed as security for their farm loans. This
means that if they fall behind on their farm loan payments they are threatened not only with the loss of their farming operations but also their
families' homes. Weren't 2007 and 2008 record years for the agriculture sector? While data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture indicate that 2007 and 2008 were record years for some agriculture segments, the same is not
true for all family farmers and is not an indication of future income stability . In 2008, the average household income for
farmers generated by their farming businesses alone is projected at $5,900, which is down more than 30 percent from 2007 estimates and
accounts for less than 10 percent of total income projections for family farmers.[4] The overall decline in the U.S. economy will
only further exacerbate instability in family farm income as they rely more and more on off-farm sources of
income. Volatile market prices for commodity crops and rising production costs, including fertilizer, seeds,
feed and other farm inputs, will continue to put farmers in a tough situation financially as they have little
control over the supply or demand of their product . For example, while corn made news for hitting a high of $7 in 2008, it was
at a time of year when most corn farmers had no corn to sell and while dairy and livestock farmers faced escalating feed costs. Unfortunately,
food prices don't come down to reflect commodity prices, causing concerns that grain buyers and others are
profiting at the expense of family farmers and consumers.

SDI 11
File Title

Subsidies and farm consolidation doom family farms – the plan can't overcome a 75
year trend
Riedl, 2004. www.tv.ku.edu (Brian, Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage
Foundation. www.tv.ku.edu)
Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards . Growers of corn, wheat,
cotton, soybeans, and rice receive more than 90 percent of all farm subsidies: Growers of nearly all of the 400 other domestic crops are
completely shut out of farm subsidy programs. Further skewing these awards, the amounts of subsidies increase as a farmer plants more crops.
Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most land, but also are the nation's most
profitable farms because of their economies of scale--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers
with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. Farm subsidies have evolved from a safety net for poor farmers to America's
largest corporate welfare program. With agricultural programs designed to target large and profitable farms rather than family farmers, it should
come as no surprise that farm subsidies in 2002 were distributed overwhelmingly to large growers and agribusinesses--including a number of
Fortune 500 companies. Chart 2 shows that the top 10 percent of recipients received 65 percent of all farm subsidies in 2002. 6 At the other end,
the bottom 80 percent of recipients (including most family farmers) received just 19 percent of all farm subsidies. Chart 3 also shows that the
number of farms receiving over $1 million in farm subsidies in one year increased by 13 percent to a record 78 farms in 2002. Riceland Foods, an
Arkansas co-op, topped the list by amassing a staggering $110 million in farm subsidies for its members--more than subsidies to every farmer in
Nevada, West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Alaska, Hawaii, and Rhode
Island combined. (See Chart 4.) Table 1 shows the 13 members of the "$2 million club." Why Farm Subsidies Will Continue to Target Large
Farms Although farm subsidies have targeted large farms for decades, the evolution of farm subsidies into a corporate welfare program has
accelerated in recent years for two reasons: Congress has siphoned record amounts of money into farm subsidies since 1998. Farm subsidies have
helped large corporate farms buy out small farms and further consolidate the industry. Despite an attempt to phase out farm programs in 1996,
Congress reacted to slight crop price decreases in 1998 by initiating the first of four annual "emergency" payments to farmers. Subsidies
increased from $6 billion in 1996 to nearly $30 billion in 2000, even though farmers have incomes and net worths substantially higher than the
national average. Predictably, as subsidies increased, the amounts of subsidies for large farms and agribusinesses also increased. A growing farm
economy has subsequently caused a decrease in farm subsidy spending--yet spending remains much higher than in the 1990s. Although increased
subsidies help to explain why large farms are receiving more money, they do not explain why they are receiving a larger portion of the overall
farm subsidy pie. Since 1991, subsidies for large farms have nearly tripled, while subsidies for small farms have
not increased.7 Large farms are grabbing all of the new subsidy dollars because the federal government is helping them to buy out small
farms. Specifically, large farms are using their massive federal subsidies to purchase small farms and consolidate
the agriculture industry. As they buy up smaller farms, not only are these large farms able to become more
profitable by capitalizing further on economies of scale, but they also become eligible for even more federal
subsidies--which they can then use to buy even more small farms. The result is a "plantation effect " that has
already affected America's rice farms, three-quarters of which have been bought out and converted into tenant farms. 8 Other farms growing
wheat, corn, cotton, and soybeans are tending in the same direction. Consolidation is the main reason that the number of
farms has decreased from 7 million to 2 million (just 400,000 of which are full-time farms) since 1935, while the average
farm size has increased from 150 acres to more than 500 acres over the same period. 9

SDI 11
File Title

                                            Farm Consolidation Good
Farm consolidation is good - more efficient farming
Riedl, 2004. "Another Year at the Federal Trough." www.heritage.org (Brian, Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.) The result is a "plantation effect" that has already affected
America's rice farms, three-quarters of which have been bought out and converted into tenant farms. 8 Other farms growing wheat, corn,
cotton, and soybeans are tending in the same direction. Consolidation is the main reason that the number of farms has decreased from 7 million to
2 million (just 400,000 of which are full-time farms) since 1935, while the average farm size has increased from 150 acres to more than 500 acres
over the same period.9 This farm industry consolidation is not necessarily harmful. Many larger farms and
agribusinesses are more efficient, use better technology, and can produce crops at a lower cost than
traditional farms. Additionally, not all family farmers who sell their property to corporate farms do so

SDI 11
File Title

                                                   Large Farms Good
Larger farms are better- worker advantages
New York Times 11/3/09 “A Good Word For Big Farms” nytimes.com/2009/11/03/a-good-word-for-big-farms/
On Slate, Tracie McMillan argues that while small farms might have a romantic appeal to those who believe in sustainable agriculture , a
worker might be better off at a large-scale farm. “They are more likely to give him a full-time job, and even
when he’s only working on contract, they offer longer gigs,” she writes. “In California, about two-thirds of farms with more
than 25 employees provide health insurance to their year-round workers, compared with just one-third of farms with five employees or less.”
“Larger enterprises also hire more of their work force directly,” she adds, “rather than picking them up
through farm labor contractors. By going through a middleman, farmers — and the food companies they sell
to — can distance themselves from their legal obligations, like paying minimum wage or banning children
from the fields. As for government inspection, “a place where a couple of workers have complained about being underpaid may not seem as
important as a farm with dozens of workers facing the same problem.”

SDI 11
File Title

                                              Space Leadership Not Key
Space exploration is not important right now.
Rand Simberg 6/13 2011, http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=34444 (Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in
space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security and he is the chairman of the Competitive Space Task Force)
The topic of space actually came up in the Republican debate this evening. Jeff Foust has the story. It just demonstrates how
unimportant the subject is, that no one on the panel other than Newt really knew anything about it. And what little
they do know is undoubtedly wrong, given the abysmal media coverage of the topic for the last year and a half (if not forever).

World’s opinion of US space leadership is not important.
Larry Bell 6/12 2011, “Does The United States Still Care About Space Leadership?” http://news.yahoo.com/does-united-states-still-care-
It's difficult to ignore the symbolic and real        benefits of international cooperation and national prestige gained
through space exploration developments. But I submit that there is something else that our programs represent of equal or even
greater value. Namely, it is less important how the rest of the world views us; instead it's about how we see
ourselves: as a culture willing to take risks in quests for uncertain, yet potentially unlimited rewards; as a nation that recognizes that to not do
something presents one of the greatest risks of all; because that's the sort of people we are.

America is the global leader in space exploration already
Pete Olson 5/04/10 “US must remain the global leader in space” http://thehill.com/special-reports/technology-may-2010/96035-us-must-
remain-the-global-leader-in-exploring-space (Olson is is the U.S. Representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district, serving since 2009)
Constellation is the program of record that has hit many milestones for success and can maintain America’s dominance in
human space flight. Several of my colleagues have joined with me in requesting that NASA find the means within their budget to continue
Constellation. We in Congress should support that request by providing adequate resources for this program. America must remains the
global leader on human space exploration. I remain committed to working with the president and my colleagues to make this

SDI 11
File Title

                                                          Solar Not Key
The US doesn’t need to be a leader in solar power- it’s currently a leader in wind
Tracy Seipel 6/24/09 “United States becomes world leader in wind power” http://www.physorg.com/news170360706.html (Seipel is the
Assistant Business Editor at San Jose Mercury News)
                                              is home to the fastest-growing wind power market in the world.
And for the fourth consecutive year, the United States
Wind power capacity increased by 60 percent, or 8,558 megawatts, in 2008, representing $16.4 billion in federal and
private investments in new wind projects. Total U.S. wind capacity at the end of 2008 was 25,369 megawatts, compared with
23,933 for Germany, the Energy Department said. That raised to nearly $45 billion the total wind power investment in the United States since the
1980s. One megawatt of electricity generally is enough to power 750 to 1,000 homes. Wind now delivers nearly 2 percent of the
nation's electricity supply. "Wind energy will be a critical factor in achieving the president's goals for clean
energy, while supporting news jobs," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement with the report. "While the
United States leads the world in wind energy capacity, we have to continue to support research and
development as we expand renewable energy deployment."

Solar Powered Satellites won’t cover remote places resulting in the need for other
kinds of energy
Mankins 07’ (October 12, 2007 (John C., former manager of NASA’s Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight,, 10-12-07,
“Leading Scientists and Thinkers on Energy,” http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-–-john-
c-mankins/ )
Mankins: Solar power satellites will be very, very large. Of course, all solar power systems are enormous. On the ground, it’s hard to see because
the solar arrays are spread across thousands of rooftops. However, the overall systems is still of tremendous size. In the case of solar
power satellites, if each satellite were to provide about 4,000 megawatts of power, then five of them would be needed to provide
about 20 GW – which is approximately 2 percent of the U.S. demand for electricity. World demand for energy is currently
about 4-times U.S. demand, but is growing fast ! By 2100, huge new sources of renewable energy will be critical to our civilization,
including hydroelectric (already in place), wind, ground solar, appropriate nuclear power—and space solar power. Evolutionshift.com: It sounds
to me as though SSP is the one form of alternative energy that can supply a significant percentage of the energy needs of the planet. So it sounds
like the vision needs to be forged into a multi-national will and then receive the necessary funding. Is that correct? If so, care to comment on the
probability of this starting up in the next 2-3 years? Mankins: Actually, even if space solar power were fully developed, the
global economy should have more than just one option: a prudent scenario would also involve a portfolio of
current energy options—and a “quiver” full of new energy technologies ready to be deployed if, or when they are needed.
Certainly, however, space solar is one of very few options to provide a substantial fraction of the truly vast amount of renewable energy that is
needed to support human civilization.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                          Heg Sustainable
US Hegemony is sustainable now- no one can outdo the US.
Carla Norrlof 2010 “America’s Global Advantage US Hegemony and International Cooperation” http://magbooks.org/post-
9334/americas-global-advantage-us-hegemony-and-international-cooperation (Norrlof is an associate Professor of Political Science at the
University of Toronto)
One notices three things. First, the United States has consistently had the highest share of GDP . Second, its share of GDP
has been declining, although not steadily, since shares actually increased between 1977 and 1983 and then again
between 1995 and 2001. Third, while countries like Japan and China have improved their relative position, in
terms of GDP shares, vis-à-vis the United States, they only command a third of the United States’ share .
Consequently, there is no single competitor around to oust the U nited States from its number one position. The only
existing challenger in this domain is the euro area, and a whole chapter is dedicated to analyzing the prospects for euro-zone
countries to replace American hegemony. The next size measure, world trade shares, is on display in tables 2.3 and 2.4. As can be seen in table
2.3, the United States was clearly the largest exporter in 1965 but was only the third largest exporter in 2008 behind Germany and China. From
table 2.4, we see, however, that the United States has maintained its lead as the world’s largest importer. These statistics get
to the heart of the argument in this book, which is that commanding large import shares is more relevant for hegemonic status than commanding
large export shares. As I will also argue in chapters 4 and 5, importing more than one exports, i.e., sustaining trade deficits, is desirable as long as
negative consequences in the form of an unmanageable buildup in external liabilities can be avoided. In gauging the relative size of the United
States’ capital market, I use the selected indicators from which the IMF derives capital market size. Table 2.5 takes into account a country’s
stock-market capitalization, its bond market, and its bank assets, which are all added up to arrive at a single measure for capital market size. As
can be gleaned from the table, the United States has a stronger lead in equities and bonds than in bank assets . I will return
to this observation in chapter 7, in talking about the financial crisis and in thinking about how it will affect the pattern of financial power. From
table 2.5 it is also clear that, in 2008, the size of America’s closest rival, Japan’s, capital market, was significantly lower than what it was in 1995
(see columns 10 and 12). These figures suggest that no single country can challenge the United States’ dominance in the
financial field, although, as with world trade shares, we need to consider to what extent the group of countries that now constitutes the euro
area is a threat to American hegemony (see chapter 7).

U.S hegemony is inevitable
Levey and Brown 05’(“The Overstretch Myth”, March/April 2005
http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~bodnarg/courses/readings/Levey_Brown_ForAff_CADef.pdf, David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years
as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the
Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.)
Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy, U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded:
it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology,
ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors. The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is not
threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial stability posed by large foreign liabilities has been exaggerated. To be sure,
the economy will at some point have to adjust to a decline in the dollar and a rise in interest rates. But these trends
will at worst slow the growth of U.S. consumers' standard of living, not undermine the United States' role as global
pacesetter. If anything, the world's appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S. predominance rather than undermines it.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                  Heg Unsustainable
China will decrease U.S Hegemony, overstretch is irrelevant
Freeman 10’ (“China’s Challenge to American Hegemony”, January 20, 2010 Freeman is an Ambassador for the United States to Saudi
Arabia, http://www.mepc.org/create-content/speech/chinas-challenge-american-hegemony)
                                                                            inherited worldwide military
Still, China is modernizing its military at a peculiar moment of history. The United States
superiority from the collapse of its Soviet rival. Without much discussion, it has embraced the neo-
conservative agenda of sustaining this superiority at all costs. But rising Chinese defense capabilities erode
American supremacy. China's new anti-carrier weapons endanger U.S. force projection capabilities in the
Western Pacific; its anti-satellite programs imperil U.S. global surveillance and communication capabilities;
its growing operations in cyberspace menace U.S. government operations and the economy of the American
homeland alike. These are serious challenges not just to American hegemony but to core U.S. interests. They
have begun to draw a response.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                                  Heg Bad
Hegemony Only Makes Matters Worse
Mearsheimer 10’( “Imperial by Design”, Dec. 6 2010 John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He is on the Advisory Council of The National Interest, and his most recent book,
Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics, was published in January 2011 by Oxford University
One year later, Charles Krauthammer emphasized in “The Unipolar Moment” that the United States had emerged from the
Cold War as by far the most powerful country on the planet. He urged American leaders not to be reticent about using that power “to lead a
unipolar world, unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them.” Krauthammer’s advice fit neatly with
Fukuyama’s vision of the future: the United States should take the lead in bringing democracy to less developed countries the world over. After
all, that shouldn’t be an especially difficult task given that America had awesome power and the cunning of history on its side. U.S. grand
strategy has followed this basic prescription for the past twenty years, mainly because most policy makers
inside the Beltway have agreed with the thrust of Fukuyama’s and Krauthammer’s early analyses. The
results, however, have been disastrous. The United States has been at war for a startling two out of every
three years since 1989, and there is no end in sight. As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of world events
knows, countries that continuously fight wars invariably build powerful national-security bureaucracies that
undermine civil liberties and make it difficult to hold leaders accountable for their behavior; and they
invariably end up adopting ruthless policies normally associated with brutal dictators. The Founding Fathers
understood this problem, as is clear from James Madison’s observation that “no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual
warfare.” Washington’s pursuit of policies like assassination, rendition and torture over the past decade, not to mention the weakening of the rule
of law at home, shows that their fears were justified. To make matters worse, the United States is now engaged in protracted wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq that have so far cost well over a trillion dollars and resulted in around forty-seven thousand American casualties. The pain and suffering
inflicted on Iraq has been enormous. Since the war began in March 2003, more than one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed,
roughly 2 million Iraqis have left the country and 1.7 million more have been internally displaced. Moreover, the American military is not going
to win either one of these conflicts, despite all the phony talk about how the “surge” has worked in Iraq and how a similar strategy can produce
another miracle in Afghanistan. We may well be stuck in both quagmires for years to come, in fruitless pursuit of victory.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                 Space Weapons Bad
Space weapons trigger war
Hitchens 2 (Theresa, Vice President of the Center for Defense Information, “Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?”,
April 18th, http://www.cdi.org/missile- defense/spaceweapons.cfm)
Space weapons — even those primarily designed for defense of U.S. satellites — would have inherent offensive and
first-strike capabilities, however, (whether aimed at space-based or earth-based targets) and would demand a
military and political response from U.S. competitors. "To be sure, not deploying weapons in space is no guarantee
that potentially hostile nations (such as China) will not develop and deploy ASATs. However, it is virtually certain
that deploying U.S. weapons in space will lead to the development and deployment of ASATs to counter such
weapons," notes a new policy brief by the Cato Institute. China and Russia long have been worried about possible
U.S. breakout on space- based weaponry. Officials from both countries have expressed concern that the U.S. missile
defense program is aimed not at what Moscow and Beijing see as a non-credible threat from rogue-nation ballistic
missiles, but rather at launching a long-term U.S. effort to dominate space. Both Russia and China also are key
proponents of negotiations at the UN Conference on Disarmament to expand the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to ban all
types of weapons. The effort to start talks known as PAROS, for "prevention of an arms race in outer space," has
been stalled due in large part to the objection of the United States. For example, in November 2000, the United
States was one of three countries (the others were Israel and Micronesia) to refuse to vote for a UN resolution citing
the need for steps to prevent the arming of space. It is inconceivable that either Russia or China would allow the
United States to become the sole nation with space-based weapons. "Once a nation embarks down the road to gain a
huge asymmetric advantage, the natural tendency of others is to close that gap. An arms race tends to develop an
inertia of its own," writes Air Force Lt. Col. Bruce M. DeBlois, in a 1998 article in Airpower Journal. Chinese
moves to put weapons in space would trigger regional rival India to consider the same, in turn, spurring Pakistan to
strive for parity with India. Even U.S. allies in Europe might feel pressure to "keep up with the Joneses." It is quite
easy to imagine the course of a new arms race in space that would be nearly as destabilizing as the atomic weapons
race proved to be.

Turn - developing ASATs undermines primacy – inherent vulnerabilities hamstring
US power
Hitchens, 02 – vice president of the Center for Defense Information (Theresa, “Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and
Arms Control Trade-Offs,” Occasional Paper No. 10, ed: Moltz, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdf)
One problem is that space weapons, just like satellites, would have inherent vulnerabilities (for example, fixed
orbital paths), raising the specter of an ever-spiraling need for better weapons and force protection. Just as it is
difficult to protect satellites, it is difficult to protect space weapons. For example, satellites or space weapons
traveling in fixed paths in low-Earth orbit (LEO) are virtual sitting ducks for ground-based ASATs or even fighter
aircraft equipped with rockets, not to mention space-based ASATs. The other related negative side effect of the
inherent vulnerability of orbiting weapons is the pressure to use them first. The strategic dynamic of space-based
weapons could perhaps be compared to that of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles— offense-dominant
weapons with inherent vulnerabilities (fixed sites). This is a recipe for instability, as the United States and Soviet
Union soon found in their nuclear competition. Spurring other nations to acquire space- based weapons, either
ASATs or weapons aimed at terrestrial targets, would undercut the ability of U.S. forces to operate freely on the
ground on a global basis and thus negate what today is a unique advantage of being the world’s only military
superpower.3 Along with military assets in space, U.S. commercial satellites would also become targets (especially
because the U.S. military is heavily reliant on commercial providers, particularly in communications). In other
words, the United States could be in the position of creating strategic and military problems for itself, rather than
solving them.

SDI 11
File Title

                                    A2 Space Weaponization inevitable
Terrestrial military analogies are wrong – space is unique and not necessarily
destined to be weaponized
Mueller, 6 (Karl, PhD and Political Scientist @ RAND, “Toward a U.S. Grand Strategy in Space,” March 10th, Washington Roundtable
on Science and Public Policy, http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=408, EMM)
Another big argument: military use of space is evolving just the way air power and sea power did. The flag-follows-trade argument fits into this.
Navies were developed to protect merchants and commerce from predation by pirates. Air power evolved observation platforms in World War I,
then fighters and bombers. Therefore we know the same thing is going to happen to space. It ties into the “weaponization is inevitable” argument.
The problem is that air power and sea power evolved in very different ways and space power doesn’t match either one of them. There are
interesting illustrative parallels; his-tory rhymes even though it doesn’t repeat itself. These historical precedents provide us with some interesting
notions about what might happen next, but they definitely don’t tell us what will happen next. Space is different in so many ways from the other
places where we have operated before that we are basically starting from a blank sheet of paper.

Even if weaponization is inevitable, there is a substantial advantage to US inaction –
letting other countries go first gives us international political cover
Coffelt, 5 – Lt. Colonal; thesis to the school of advanced air and space studies (Christopher A, “THE BEST DEFENSE: CHARTING THE
FUTURE OFUS SPACE STRATEGY AND POLICY.” A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies For
Completion of the Graduation Requirements SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES AIR UNIVERSITY, Maxwell Air Force
Base, Alabama. June 2005.)
Sputnik’s launch bestowed the honor and prestige of being first in orbit upon the Soviet Union, but was fortuitous
for United States policy makers, as well. Whether or not the soviets beat the United States outright or the United
States allowed the soviets to go first is irrelevant. The critical point is the soviets did go first. In one stroke, Sputnik
solved the complicated, politically charged overflight issue that us policy makers grappled with and could not
resolve. This enabled the United States to pursue its space reconnaissance program free from the legal and policy
quagmire that accompanied launching first, and avoided appearing as an aggressor. Responding to the soviet
capability fueled and legitimized the United States’ spending on its space program, 291 and garnered unprecedented
public support. Robust funding complemented by international legitimacy and public support provided the united
states space program a significant advantage. If, as some argue, weaponization of space is truly inevitable, the
United States should manage risk, research and develop in secret, allow an adversary to cross the weapons in space
threshold first, and reap the sputnik-like rewards of being a close second. In spite of the apparent advantages this
strategy offers, it is likely much easier said than done. Advocating or supporting any second-follower strategy would
be an extremely difficult position for an elected official or military officer, considering the US’ clear, longstanding
preference for positive action and offensive solutions.

SDI 11
File Title

                                           A2 Space Weapons Good
No motivation or ability for adversaries to challenge us in space - only a risk US
weaponization would lead to conflict
Hitchens, 3 (Theresa, Director of the Center for Defense Information, “ Monsters and Shadows: Left Unchecked, American Fears
Regarding Threats to Space Assets Will Drive Weaponization,” Disarmament Forum No1, Accessed on Spacedebate.com,
It is obvious that American space systems do have inherent vulnerabilities. It is also obvious that technologies for
exploiting those vulnerabilities exist, or are likely to become available over the next several decades. However, neither
vulnerabilities in American systems nor the potential capabilities of others necessarily translate into threats. In order to
threaten American space assets, a potential adversary must have not only the technological ability to develop weapons
and the means to develop and use them, but also the political will and intent to use them in a hostile manner. There is
little evidence to date that any other country or hostile non-state actor possesses both the mature technology and the
intention to seriously threaten American military or commercial operations in space and even less evidence of serious
pursuit of actual space-based weapons by potentially hostile actors. There are severe technical barriers and high costs
to overcome for all but the most rudimentary ASAT capabilities, especially for development of on-orbit weapons. It
further remains unclear what political drivers outside of American development of space-based weaponry would force
American competitors, in the near- to medium-term to seriously pursue such technology. Neither vulnerabilities in American systems
nor the potential capabilities of others necessarily translate into threats.

Weaponization won’t solve heg or deterrence – our conventional superiority means
that the calculus is already set
Krepon, 3 – president of the Stimson Center (Michael, with Christopher Clary, “Space Assurance or Space Dominance?.” The Henry L.
Stimson Center, http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/spacebook.pdf)
These presumed benefits have already been demonstrated by U.S. power projection capabilities featuring
conventional munitions of increasing range and lethality. Further advances can be expected, so advocates of U.S.
space warfare capabilities have the added burden of explaining why these terrestrial advances are insufficient to
support a dominant U.S. military capability, and what added value would accrue from even greater increases in
lethality, promptness, and reach from space. Moreover, further improvements in the range, promptness, and lethality
of terrestrial weapons are likely to come far sooner, and at a fraction of the diplomatic, political, and financial cost,
than the advent of “space strike” capabilities. Are space weapons needed to destroy hardened, underground bunkers?
Existing or improved conventional weapons can serve to deny access to such facilities, thereby rendering the
weapons inside unusable. The nullification of such threats could thereby be accomplished at a small fraction of the
multiple costs associated with flight-testing and deploying space warfare capabilities. For the same reasons, the
rationale for “improved” nuclear weapons designed for this purpose is deeply suspect. The presumed additional
deterrent value of U.S. space weapons is also questionable. If existing U.S. conventional military and nuclear
superiority prove insufficient to deter, it is doubtful that the addition of space warfare capabilities would make an
appreciable difference in an adversary’s calculus of decision. The search to strengthen or supplant nuclear
deterrence by means of space warfare capabilities will therefore appear to many as a quest to escape from, rather
than “enhance,” deterrence. When viewed though this lens, the pursuit of space weapons appears designed less for
strengthening deterrence and more for negating the deterrents of potential adversaries. To the extent that this
perception holds, the flight-testing and deployment of space weapons is unlikely to raise the nuclear threshold, as
proponents claim. To the contrary, the use of conventionally armed "space-strike" weapons could prompt unwanted
escalation by threatening the nuclear forces of a weaker foe. In this event, the United States will receive little or no
applause of the choice of weaponry used in preemptive strikes.

SDI 11
File Title

Weaponization won’t deter global conflict—their argument that the US would be
seen as benign is nonsense
Coffelt, 5 – Lt. Colonal; thesis to the school of advanced air and space studies (Christopher A, “THE BEST DEFENSE: CHARTING THE
FUTURE OFUS SPACE STRATEGY AND POLICY.” A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies For
Completion of the Graduation Requirements SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES AIR UNIVERSITY, Maxwell Air Force
Base, Alabama. June 2005.)
Second, the argument goes further, asserting that being in such a position enables the US to provide protection from
ballistic missile launches, air raids, and even land invasions by aggressor nations against their neighbors. It envisions
that this may even allow the US to put an end, once and for all, to interstate conflict.287 ABM discussions in the
MIRV and SDI case studies reveal the weaknesses in this argument. Assuming one could deploy a perfect,
impenetrable defensive shield that also had the capability to affect other targets in space, in the air, on land, or at sea,
there is no evidence that such a capability would have any ability to prevent cross border incursions or conflicts. The
monopoly on nuclear weapons did not prevent such acts, therefore, why would the US assume that orbiting space
weaponry would? Analyses of these cases indicate that deployment of an impenetrable defense is also highly
unlikely. Even if the US could deploy a system that was 99.9999% reliable, these machines still will have some
associated, finite mean time between failures. Essentially, the question becomes “when” not “if.” The US would
certainly not find itself in a tenable position if it had publicly stated it would shoot down all ballistic missile
launches only to experience a system failure or simply miss when country a fired a missile on country b. World
opinion would be more apt to believe the US allowed the impact of country a’s missile on country b’s sovereign
territory vice the truth that the system simply malfunctioned. The US would immediately be viewed as having taken
a side in the conflict and would be subject to the accompanying strategic implications of that perceived support or
non-support. Therefore, there is no evidence to support a conclusion or belief that an offensive space strategy
enabled by orbital weapons would be welcomed by the rest of the international community who would accept the
US as the benevolent trustee of space.

No impact to space attack - the US only needs 4 to have full GPS capabilities and
redundancy means an attack would leave some standing
Forden, 7 – writer for Arms Control Today (Geoffrey, “After China's Test: Time For a Limited Ban on Anti-Satellite Weapons. Arms
Control Today, April 2007, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_04/Forden)
On the other hand, an attacker would have to destroy a considerable           number of satellites in order to have an immediate
effect on military operations. There are on average about 10 GPS satellites visible at any given time and point on the
Earth's surface even though a high positional accuracy requires only six. An attacker would have to destroy at least
six satellites to affect precision-guided munitions even momentarily because other GPS satellites would soon appear
as their orbits took them into view. A country would need to disable nearly one-half of the United States' 24
NAVSTAR/GPS satellites currently in orbit to eliminate the ability to employ precision-guided munitions for more
than a few hours each day.[9] Likewise, the United States has a number of alternatives for communications satellites
in the short term. Other space assets, such as weather and mapping satellites, although important in the long term, are not as time critical.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                    A2 SPS is a weapon
SPS is not a weapon – not a high enough powered beam
Deccan Herald 11 [cites John K Strickland, a member of the Board of Directors of the National Space Society (NSS) in the US,
"Emergency power from space to tackle Fukushima-like incidents?," 6-26, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/171717/emergency-power-
The power generated from sunlight in space can be converted to a wide beam of microwaves or a tight beam
of laser light and sent down to the ground very efficiently. "The idea arose at one of our Space Development Steering
Committee meeting recently, partly as a response to thinking about how the Japanese nuclear accident could have been prevented just by making
emergency power available from space in a few hours," Strickland and Bloom said. Power at the nuclear plant at Fukushima was knocked out by
tsunami, causing damage to power lines and the backup diesel generators, while the pumps themselves were apparently not damaged initially.
All they needed was a source of electricity which could have come from SSP, he said. The equipment (about 5-20
tonnes), to provide about one Megawatt (or more) of power from such a laser power beam can be quickly moved to the site of an emergency or
disaster, by a large helicopter in a single trip. The exact weight and volume of the solar panels would need to be determined by engineers,
Strickland said. The emergency receiver equipment, comprising thin sheets of solar panels, would be brought in from outside the disaster area,
where it would be stored in a safe location. The idea is intended to provide emergency power to any disaster site or sites on Earth, and would only
take three satellites to implement, he said. "A single satellite would cover most of Asia and I would assume that is where the first satellite would
be placed. All that is needed at the site is a flat rooftop or area of ground about 50-100 feet wide to arrange the set of solar panels flat on the
surface. The satellite, in the same orbit used by your TV signal satellite, would aim a laser beam also about 50-
100 feet wide from 22,000 miles high down to the emergency site," he said. The beam would not be high power and,
therefore, could not be used as a weapon, Strickland said.

SPS isn’t a weapon
NSS 8 [“Space-Based Solar Power,” http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf]
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a spacebased solar power (SBSP) satellite, people
immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?” Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive
capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the NSSO is not interested in spacebased
solar power as a weapon. 1. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation
for studying SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable cost anywhere in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and
huge amount of infrastructure needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become
increasingly costly. 2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less expensive
options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy
large enemy targets. 3. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave
beam that reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sunlight; a worker could safely walk in the center
of the beam. The physics of microwave transmission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing
above a pre-determined maximum intensity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the
beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. 4. SBSP would not be a precision
weapon. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam
from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot individual targets —even if the intensity were sufficient to cause
harm. 5. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical expertise in its military to
catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarcity,
lessens the need to intervene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of
terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change. Solving the long-term energy scarcity problem is too vital to
the world’s future to have it derailed by a misconception that space solar power might somehow be used as a weapon. That is why it is so
important to educate people about this technology and to continue to conduct the research in an open environment.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                          Desalination Bad
Ocean desalination causes numerous social and environmental problems
McIntyre 09 (“ocean desalination no solution to water shortages” Food & Water Watch
Washington, DC–Food & Water Watch today released a new report that reveals that ocean desalination, an emerging technology often
promoted by private corporations as a solution to drought and water shortages, creates a myriad of environmental and social
problems. Desalination: An Ocean of Problems finds that desalination–the process of removing salt from seawater to make it drinkable,
carries a high price tag, releases unregulated chemicals into drinking water supplies, uses large amounts of
energy, pollutes waterways, and threatens fisheries and marine environments, among other drawbacks.

Desalination is bad for the environment and human health
McIntyre 09 (“ocean desalination no solution to water shortages” Food & Water Watch
                                                                                           coagulalants, bisulfates,
Desalination is bad for the environment and human health. The by-products of desalination include
and chlorines. When concentrated waste is dumped into the ocean as it is with desalination, it is harmful to
marine life and environments. Furthermore, power plants’ intake mechanisms, which are often teamed with
desalination plants, kill at least 3.4 billion fish and other marine organisms annually . In addition to upsetting marine
environments, desalination causes fishermen to lose at least 165 million pounds of fish a year today and 717.1
million pounds of potential future catch. Desalted water also puts drinking water supplies at risk because
seawater contains chemicals such as boron, that freshwater does not. Boron, only 50 to 70 percent of which is removed through the desalination
process, has been found to cause reproductive problems and developmental problems in animals and irritation of the human digestive track.
Current drinking water regulations do not protect the public from boron.

Desalination causes private control of water supplies-harms public safety
McIntyre 09 (“ocean desalination no solution to water shortages” Food & Water Watch
Desalination turns water into a commodity. Private corporations are investing in desalination because it is a
leading growth area in the global water market. As water becomes a scarcer commodity, global corporations
are setting themselves up to sell water for a profit. Furthermore, private control of water makes in much harder
to ensure public safety. “Policy makers can better provide the public with safe, affordable water by implementing conservation measures
to protect water supplies. It is up to the government to ensure the integrity of this vital natural resource. It should not be left to private
corporations more concerned with revenue than service delivery,” said Hauter.

Ocean Desalination causes social injustice
Food & Water Watch 09 (“Desalination: An Ocean of Problems” pg. 9 Food and Water Watch February 2009
                                                to the consumer . For example, the California American
Unfortunately, the costs of desalination get passed down
Water Company demanded an up-front rate increase to construct its proposed plant in Monterey, California ,
be- fore it ever produced a drop of water.91 Across the country, in Brockton, Massachusetts, ratepayers expected to see an estimated 30 percent
hike in their water rates once the city started buying desalinated river water.92 In 2008, the city council voted for a 60 percent
increase in rates before the plant even came online.93 Such price hikes are not just a problem for individuals,
but also for society. Water is a basic human need that must be available to all citizens, and most communities
cannot afford to pay exorbitant prices for the desalted water. This means that ocean desalination contributes
to social injustice, because the costs of rate hikes fall disproportionately on low-income communities.94

SDI 11
File Title

                                                     Desalination Fails
Ocean Desalination attempts fail-they cant meet environmental standards
Food & Water Watch 09 (“Desalination: An Ocean of Problems” pg. 6 Food and Water Watch February 2009
Many of the theoretical concerns associated with ocean desalination came true when Tampa Bay commissioned the first and only large-scale
seawater desalination plant to come online for drinking water use in this country. In the 1990s, a series of poor management decisions overdrew
Florida’s groundwater systems, leaving Tampa Bay authorities fearful of water shortages. To address this risk, they decided to build
North America’s first and largest ocean desalination plant. In 1999, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, which
later became Tampa Bay Water, chose S&W Water, LLC, a conglomerate of Poseidon Water Resources and Stone & Webster, to build the plant.
Bankruptcies and contract transfers brought the operation online for tests a year behind schedule. Technical failures followed and the
plant could not meet environmental standards. The company charged with construction of the plant declared
bankruptcy.52 The plant eventu- ally reopened, several lawsuits and years later, but at a much higher cost of $158 million — nearly 44
percent more than promised.53 Due to the failure of the private companies to uphold their end of the bargain, the Tampa Bay Water Authority, a
public utility, now operates the plant.54 To this day, the plant has not produced water at its stated capacity and costs
far more than planned — even without fac- toring in any social or environmental costs, which have yet to be

SDI 11
File Title

                                               Desalination Inefficient
Desalination is expensive and requires too much energy
Michael Schirber 07 (Ph.D. has appeared in Science, ScienceNOW, Physics World, Scientific American.com, Physical Review Focus,
Space.com, LiveScience.), LiveScience, “Why Desalination Doesn't Work (Yet)”, 25 June 2007, http://www.livescience.com/4510-desalination-
But even with membranes, large amounts of energy are needed to generate the high pressure that forces the water through the
filter. Current methods require about 14 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce 1,000 gallons of desalinated
seawater. A typical American uses 80 to 100 gallons of water a day, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The entire country
consumes about 323 billion gallons per day of surface water and another 84.5 billion gallons of ground water. If half of this
water came from desalination, the United States would need more than 100 extra electric power plants, each with
a gigawatt of capacity. Depending on local energy prices, 1,000 gallons of desalinated seawater can cost around $3 or
$4. Although that might not seem like much, it is still cheaper in many places to pump water out of the ground or import it from
somewhere else.

Most desalination systems are very inefficient and don’t work
United States Patent 11, US Patent Office, “Water Desalination Apparatus and Method”, Kippeny Tadd C.; Badorrek,
Christopher S.; Sengupta, Louise C.; November 23, 2009, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0147314.html
Current reverse osmosis (RO) systems for large scale water purification are very efficient for meeting water quality purity on brackish salinity
levels, ˜7000 ppm. However, these systems become more inefficient as the salt content of the water increases and are
very energy intensive at deep seawater salt concentrations, e.g., 35,000 ppm. Distillation is characterized by high energy
demand, while RO systems require both high pressure produced by required pumps, and extensive maintenance
due to fouling and damage of the membrane. Thus, both distillation and RO are unsuitable for use in places in which energy is
limited, such as third world countries, and for use in rapid military deployment operations.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                  Desalination Alt Caus
There are alternative ways of obtaining the fresh water without desalination
S. Tapuchi et al. 10 (Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Sami Shamoon College of Engineering), European Water Association, “Obtaining fresh water from atmosphere using electrostatic precipitation:
theory, efficiency and limitations”, 2010,
A number of studies have described the contribution of an electric field to the precipitation of atmospheric
moisture. In particular, it was shown that an electric field is capable of causing increased rainfall intensity. A
generator of water aerosols that produces almost uniform droplets in the above-micron range was presented by Dayan and Gallily in 1974[4]. The
collection efficiency of water droplets under influence of electric forces was studied and the size increase of a charged droplet falling through a
cloud of neutral, almost uniform small particles was determined by the same authors [5]. The ability of electric field to influence
rains in anomalous conditions, i.e. using warm clouds, was revealed in 2004 by an experimental research of crown discharge influence
on the evolution of aerosols dispersion and fog density [6]. A useful capability of static uniform electric fields to clear fogs
was studied in depth in [7, 8]. The aim of the present study is to discuss a theoretical possibility of water
extraction from air with the aid of static electric field. Principles of electrostatic precipitation are briefly
reviewed, followed by quantifying practical limitations. Minimum drop sizes are analytically determined for charging and precipitation.
Experimental setup is being built to investigate the proposed method; however experimental results are out of the present paper scope.

There are multiple other methods to purify water that require less energy – makes
costly SBSP unnecessary
Mark A. Shannon et al. 08 (Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley, 1993), Yale Nature Review, “Science and technology for
water purification in the coming decades”, 2008, http://www.yale.edu/env/elimelech/publication-pdf/Shannon_et_al_NATURE_2008.pdf
However, even within central Europe there has been a movement towards reducing chemical treatment via
engineered ‘natural’ systems for drinking-water production in order to reduce residual chemicals in the distribution systems.
Fortunately there is much more that science and technology can do to mitigate environmental impact and
increase efficiency because current treatment methods are still far from natural-law limits in their ability to separate compounds, deactivate
or remove deleterious pathogens and chemical agents, transport water molecules, and move ions against concentration gradients. Our
expectation is that by focusing on the science of the aqueous interface between constituents in water and the
materials used for treatment, new, sustainable, affordable, safe and robust methods to increase supplies and
purify water can be developed and implemented to serve people throughout the world.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                  Acidification Alt Caus
Even if ocean acidification is real – it won’t be addressed
EPOCA, Ocean acidification, July 15, 2010, Governments refusal to address ocean acidification,
Global warming…the Earth is steadily getting warmer. The why is it getting warmer question will solicit so many theories that it would drive one
mad to sort through them all. Global warming itself is sort of a misnomer; it is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The cause for all the
debate is whether or not the atmospheric increase of CO2 gas over the last two-hundred years has affected the Earth’s climate. Recently
scientists have discovered another reason to be concerned about the increasing level of atmospheric CO2. It is
startling that the media and science has hardly touched upon ocean acidification. It would not be surprising if you have
never heard this term. A LexisNexis search of the news wire services found in the past week there were 348 articles that
mentioned global warming. Three articles contained ocean acidification. In the last 2 years, a LexisNexis search of all
sources found a mere 216 articles that mentioned ocean acidification. That is a worldwide search of newspapers, magazines and wire services.
The New York Times did not mention it a single time, but they ran so many Global Warming articles that
there were too many matches for the page to display.

Alt Cause to acidification – Ocean volcanoes
Robin McKie, science editor, May 29, 2011, Ocean Acidification Is Lates Manifestation of Global Warming,
The infernal origins of Vulcano Island are easy to pinpoint. Step off the hydrofoil from Sicily and the rotten-egg smell of hydrogen sulphide
strikes you immediately. Beside the quay, there are piles of yellow sulphurous rocks and chunks of pumice; the beach is made of thick, black
volcanic sand; while the huge caldera that dominates the bay emits a constant stream of smoke and steam. By the middle of the century there will
probably be only a few pockets of coral left, in the North Sea and the Pacific. Millions of species of marine life will be wiped out. (Photo:
Vladimir Levantovsky/Alamy) According to legend, this was the lair of the Roman god of fire, Vulcan, who gave his name to the island and
subsequently to all other volcanoes. An early eruption here also provided history with one of the first recorded descriptions of a volcano in action.
But Vulcano's importance today has nothing to do with the rock and lava it has spewed out for millennia. It is the volcano's output of
invisible carbon dioxide – about 10 tonnes a day – that now interests scientists. They have found that the gas is bubbling
through underground vents and is making the island's coastal waters more and more acidic. The consequences for sea life are
grim with dozens of species having been eliminated. That discovery is highly revealing, and worrying, because Vulcano's afflictions are
being repeated today on a global scale, in every ocean on the planet – not from volcanic sources but from the industrial
plants, power stations, cars and planes that are pumping out growing amounts of carbon dioxide and which are making our seas increasingly
acidic. Millions of marine species are now threatened with extinction; fisheries face eradication; while reefs that protect coastal areas are starting
to erode.

SBSP not the only way to stop ocean acidification – new studies prove
Anthony Watts, January 11, 2010, Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change,
A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of
climate change. Published Monday 11 January in the journal PLOS One, the research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in
marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming. Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to
recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds
weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate
aquatic ecosystems.

SDI 11
File Title

Humans must change before we can change the oceans – too slow and difficult
Jaymi Heimbuch, writer for planet green/discovery, Jun 29, 2010, Ocean Acidification – what it is and how it’s changing the world the
ocean’s chemistry and we’re the cause, http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/explainer-ocean-acidification.html
Ocean acidification cannot be reversed - at least, not quickly. It can, however, be slowed. But that means we need to radically
slow down on how much carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere . How quickly that happens depends
entirely upon humans, and we're known for being slow to change courses on short notice. Other than direct changes to
our cultures of consumerism and waste that require the burning of fossil fuels, which is causing the oceans to acidify, there are a few
creative minds who are hot on the trail of geoengineering as holding possible solutions for the ocean's woes. One hotly debated strategy
is iron fertilization. The theory is iron is dumped into the ocean, causing a bloom of phytoplankton which die off, sinking to the bottom of
the ocean and taking large quantities of carbon dioxide with them. However, it has been tested and proven to be as rife with variables
and unexpected consequences as one would expect. Trying to control details about something as complex as the
workings of oceanic chemistry and systems is mind-bogglingly difficult. Geoengineering may or may not have some possible
ideas. But rather than apply band-aids, we need to staunch the flow of blood, and that means cutting our CO2 emissions in a major way. Saving
the oceans is about more than just cutting down on how much fish we eat or trash we create. It's about cutting down on everything we consume.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                  Impossible to Solve
Ocean acidification can’t be solved – no one state has control over it
Sean Hecht, Writer for Legal Planet the Environment Law and Policy, December 15, 2010, Oceans: the biggest loser from our
international failure to address greenhouse gas emissions?, http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/oceans-the-biggest-loser-from-our-
In this op-ed from Monday’s Los Angeles Times, UC San Diego scientists Tony Haymet and Andrew Dickson succinctly and directly
summarizes the threat that ocean acidification poses to our world, and plead for reductions in carbon emissions. (My colleagues have blogged
about ocean acidification before, here and here among other places.) Unfortunately, as my colleague Cara Horowitz noted yesterday, those
reductions aren’t coming anytime soon. Because the ocean is a common pool international resource that no sovereign
nation has the power to protect effectively , it’s difficult not to be pessimistic about efforts to protect ocean resources. But, as the
authors point out, if we don’t, we will be in big trouble. The potentially catastrophic impact of ocean acidification stems, among other
things, from the oceans’ fragile chemistry and marine life’s dependence on specific conditions that are already
changing as a result of our carbon dioxide emissions. And, the authors note, “the oceans have absorbed 30% of the carbon dioxide that humans
have ever produced, and they continue to absorb more each year.” Unlike some other greenhouse gas-related impacts, ocean acidification
can’t be solved through geoengineering solutions that might reverse the global warming trend, since those technologies won’t
change the oceans’ chemistry back or prevent future release of the gases that cause ocean acidification. And tinkering with the
oceans’ chemistry intentionally would be a terrible gamble in any event, if we could do it.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                    Alt Caus
ITAR blocks U.S. space competitiveness and SSP development
NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity
for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007,
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found in order to successfully address major world problems in energy,
environmental and national security, the U.S. needs to identify and then reduce or eliminate all unnecessary barriers
to effective international cooperation on, and private industry investment in, the development of SBSP. Regardless
of the form of international cooperation, Space‐Based Solar Power will require modification or special treatment
under International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). • Partnerships between U.S. and foreign corporations
are often much easier to create and implement than government to government level partnerships, and more
effective when the purpose is fostering economically affordable goods and services.
• Application of the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) may constitute a major barrier to effective
partnerships in SBSP and negatively impact national security. Right now ITAR greatly restricts and complicates all
space‐related business, as it treats all launch and satellite technologies as arms. This has had the effect of causing
America’s competitors to develop ITAR‐free products, and had a negative impact on our domestic space industries,
which can no longer compete on level ground. Many participants in the feasibility study were very vocal that
including satellite and launch technology in ITAR has had a counterproductive and detrimental effect on the U.S.’s
national security and competitiveness—losing control and market share, and closing our eyes and ears to the
innovations of the competition while selling ourselves on a national illusion of unassailable space superiority.
Effective collaboration, even with allies on something of this level, could not take place effectively without some
special consideration or modification.

U.S. export controls block aerospace competitiveness
Walker et al, 2 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry
Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry
Commissioners, November,
Restrictive Export Controls. One of the primary obstacles to the health and competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace
industry is our own export control regime. Export controls have been and should be an important component of
America’s national security. We believe, however, current export controls are increasingly counterproductive to our
national security interests in their current form and under current practices of implementation. In our judgment,
export control reform is crucial to provide better security in the future and to insure the health and vitality of our
aerospace industry. [IT CONTINUES…] More importantly, U.S. export controls are under- mining one of the
central goals of military planning during the past 30 years—alliance interoperability. We actively try to get allies to
buy American military equipment to improve our ability to fight as an alliance, yet we bog down that process
through nettlesome export controls. For example, during the Kosovo air war, allies were petitioning the DoD to
intercede with the State Department to expedite license approval of weapon systems needed to arm combat aircraft
flying side-by-side with American pilots. Export controls are undermining the collaboration between companies in
alliance countries on new system developments. Foreign companies have actually instructed design engineers to
avoid American components because of the difficulty of acquiring license approval from the United States
government. The current approach to export controls is increasingly isolating the American aerospace industry from
the commercial sector in an unproductive cocoon of regulation. The defense industrial base is falling farther and
farther behind the commercial market place because it has to cope with excessive regulation.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                A2 Space Development
Commercial space tourism is revitalizing the U.S. launch sector
Ashworth, 08 - Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society (Stephen, The Space Review, “In defense of the
knights”, 6/23, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)
In fact, rather than wait some decades, the Executive Summary goes so far as to conclude: “Considering the development timescales that are
involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for
‘drilling up’ vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately.” (p.4) Is there any specific technology that could have caused Day to be so
dismissive of the concept? Indeed there is, for he writes: “the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space,
which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope
others solve it for them).” Cheap access to space no longer as achievable as it seemed in 1978? This is a clear reference to the Space Shuttle. But
a government shuttle is no longer where cheap space access is at. In 2004 we saw the first space access by a
privately-developed reusable spaceplane, and its successor is due to begin test flights later this year in the
run-up to commercial service. Sure, it’s only suborbital. But people are queueing up to ride on the thing. Here’s the key fact:
SpaceShipTwo represents a completely different economic paradigm from the Space Shuttle because, for the
first time ever, manned spaceflight is about to become a profitable enterprise. All hopes that humanity will create a
spacefaring civilization rest on this paradigm change. In ten or twenty years time a successful suborbital industry will surely develop a reusable
spaceplane for large-scale economic orbital access. The demand for orbital tourist flights exists, and the suborbital service
will demonstrate that a spaceline can be run in the same way as an airline. Virgin Galactic may fail. It has plenty of
competitors. One day, somebody will succeed. It’s only a matter of time.

Solaren has already committed to producing space solar power by 2016
Leatherwood, 11 (GB, “Space-based Solar Power by 2016?,” Space Future Journal, 5/22,
In 2009, Manhattan Beach, CA-based company Solaren, Inc. signed a contract with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to
provide 200 megawatts (MW) of clean, reliable electrical power to customers at a rate comparable with existing
power generation facilities. But unlike hydroelectric, coal, fossil fuel, and nuclear production, this power will come from that
constant, inexhaustible source, the Sun. This is known as “Space Based Solar Power,” and until recently, it was also known as “science
fiction.” But in the here and now, Solaren designers have developed a system involving multiple satellites to be delivered into geosynchronous
orbit ( GEO ) on heavy lift launch vehicles similar to the Falcon 9 being tested successfully by the US firm SpaceX. A number of specially
designed and built satellites will capture the Sun's rays, transform them into radio frequency (RF) or microwave energy, and send beams of
energy down to receiving antennas (rectennas): unused land in the California heartland close to existing PG&E substations, tied into the existing
electrical power grid. Solaren plans this for 2016—and as of now, the company is on schedule. To learn more about the
current status of the project, Space Future Journal interviewed Mr. Cal Boerman, vice president of electricity sales and delivery, of Solaren Corp.
Space Future Journal: We understand that you have been issued a US patent for your proposed system. Can you tell us a bit about it?
Cal Boerman: Solaren was issued our US patent No. 2006/185726-A1 on August 24, 2006. It is a broad system patent, which means that we have
protection if another tries to use our concept of using more than one satellite to implement the SSP system. We feel it is considerably cheaper to
implement with multiple satellites.
SFJ: We know this is a very costly endeavor. What is your cost estimate and how are you financing it?
CB: Solaren has always been careful to always just say it will take a few billion dollars to build our first 200 Megawatt (MW) SSP pilot plant
for PG&E. We have been able to find wealthy investors who want to do something important by supporting new innovative developments
like SSP —that has the potential for changing the future of our world/planet.
SFJ: How are you dealing with the US government regulations?
CB: Solaren has had very good working relationships with and support from the California regulators such as the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission(CEC.) Solaren's Power Purchase Agreement with PG&E has received full approval
from the CPUC and the CEC. The CEC has said that they have experience and a good working relationships with the corresponding Federal
government regulators and will work jointly with the appropriate US agencies to insure that Solaren receives both California and Federal
approvals without having to do redundant applications. We are on schedule with all of the Federal regulatory agencies that will have authority
over our SSP system.

SDI 11
File Title

Commercial space development increasing now
Foust, 11 – editor of the Space Review (Jeff, “Space challenges for 2011,” The Space Review, 1/3,
Developing commercial human spaceflight
Last year was, in some respects, something of a breakthrough year for commercial human spaceflight. While there
were no commercial human missions in 2010—not even a space tourist flying on a Soyuz mission to the ISS—much
of the policy and technical groundwork was laid to enable such missions, most visibly with the successful flight of
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft. By the end of 2010 several companies, including
established firms like Boeing, Orbital Sciences, and United Launch Alliance, had formally expressed their interest in
developing commercial crew transportation systems. Like 2010, the coming year is unlikely to see commercial
human missions, at least to orbit, but it will solidify the foundations upon which the efforts will be built. In the
spring NASA is expected to make a new round of Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) awards to support work
on various technologies and systems needed for such vehicles. SpaceX is scheduled to make its next COTS Falcon
9/Dragon launch later this year, approaching and potentially even berthing with the International Space Station,
demonstrating the capabilities required to deliver cargo to the station—a key step towards human spaceflight.
Orbital Sciences is also scheduled to make the inaugural launch of its Taurus 2 rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft
this year, although it appears that effort is separate from its crew transportation proposals, which involve a lifting
body vehicle launched on an EELV-class booster. Suborbital spaceflight was out of the limelight in 2010 compared
to previous years, overshadowed by the surge in interest in orbital human spaceflight. Yet companies in the field
made at least incremental progress, including the first captive carry and, later, glide tests of Virgin Galactic’s
SpaceShipTwo. Spaceport America, the spaceport that will initially host operations of the system, is also scheduled
for completion this year, after the dedication of its runway in October 2010. Several other companies, including
Armadillo Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, and XCOR Aerospace, may begin flight tests of their vehicles (either
crewed or remotely piloted) to high and even suborbital altitudes by the end of the year.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                              US-India Cooperation Bad
Indian space expansion creates south Asian instability, leads to nuclear conflict with
Pakistan, turns case
Masood-Ur-Rehman Khattak, works at the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) Islamabad as Research Fellow, “ Indian
Military’s Space Program: Implications For Pakistan”, 6/10/2011, http://www.theprophecyblog.com/?p=4235, accessed on June 27, 2011
Military space satellites are used both for peacetime collection of intelligence of the enemy, as well as the
location of targets, troops deployment and to support combat operations in modern warfare. Therefore India
is heading towards development of space capabilities; such capabilities would revamp their overall
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities which is an essential element in the modern Warfare. Indian military
have used satellite imagery from Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) civil satellites since the early 1990s. Most civil satellites can also be
used for military purposes. Most militaries in the world use commercially available imagery from satellites. Space satellites are vital for the C4I
systems. India has acquired an Israeli RISAT-2 satellite in 2009 that has day and night viewing capability. This satellite will keep a 24/7
watch over Pakistan even when the landmass is covered by a thick cloud cover. This capability puts the
satellite in the class of what are often called spy satellites. The launch of RISAT-2 satellite will give India the
capability to closely track down military activities in Pakistan. Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is also
developing its very own RadarSat at the cost of almost 400 million Indian rupees. Indian Defense and Research Development Organization’s
Chief Saraswat has announced “We are looking at launching one or two satellites every year to fulfill the requirements of all three military
formations………………“Once these satellites are operational, we will be able to see troop movements along the borders,”………. “The key is
high-resolution images with precision…………………“……….”Data and commands can be sent through these satellites to cruise missiles.”
These satellites in place would give India an edge in any future conflict or war against Pakistan. These satellites
will be developed and launched by ISRO based on requirements projected by the armed forces. Another important factor which needs an attention
is the flow of high tech technology to India after the Indo-US deal 2008. Such a discriminatory policy of the international
community would create strategic imbalance in south Asia, Pakistan’s security will be in frenzy if India
acquired such capabilities. In addition to that India is also developing Communication-Centric Intelligence Satellite (CCI-Sat). This satellite is being developed by the
Defense Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL) under the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). This satellite will help Indian intelligence agencies to considerably
improve their surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan and other neighboring countries. Director (DLRL) G. Bhoopathy revealed this project on February 2010 and said,
that “We are in the process of designing and developing a spacecraft fitted with an intelligent sensor that will pick up conversations and communications across the borders,”. The satellite will be
operational by 2014 and will also serve as a test bed for anti-satellite weapon development. India is also developing a dedicated satellite to facilitate Indian Naval communication and network
centric warfare will be launched into geostationary orbit by ISRO in 2010. This satellite will facilitate networking of Indian Naval warships, submarines and aircraft among themselves as well as
with operational centres ashore through high-speed data-links, allowing Maritime threats to be detected and shared in real-time to ensure swift reaction. Indian military is developing a first
dedicated Indian Air Force satellite which is scheduled for launch in 2011-12. According to IAF Chief Fali H. Major, the satellite will serve as the Air Force’s eye in the skies. It will link up the
six AWACS that the IAF is acquiring with each other as well as other ground and airbased radars. Indian Military is regularly improving its surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. From
2004-2011 it has carried out 12 major war games and in these exercises it has practiced its surveillance, reconnaissance and space imaging capabilities. In 2004 Indian army introduced Long-
Range Reconnaissance and Observation System (LORROS) in this Exercise Divya Astra, which it has bought from Israel. LORROS is a high quality, remotely controlled ground based
observation system designed for medium and long range surveillance. This kind of a system is good for intelligence gathering and reconnaissance purposes. In 2005 Indian military carried out
Exercise Vajra Shakti. In this exercise Indian military practiced its satellite imaging facilities. First time, a Force Multiplication Command Post (FMCP) was set up to integrate real-time flow of
information as a principal tool for decision making and NCW capabilities in the Indian Army. Most significant war game as far as satellite imagery is concerned was Exercise Hind Shakti in
2009. In this particular exercise Indian military practiced satellite imagery, helicopter borne surveillance systems, UAVs and ground-based surveillance resources such as LORROS, Battlefield
Surveillance Radars (BFSRs) and Weapon Locating Radars (WLRs). In this exercise, India practiced latest weapons and equipments with the help of NCW and EW systems. Satellite imagery,
modern surveillance and reconnaissance equipment will enhance Indian military’s effectiveness to carry out synergized, limited, quick and swift operations. In 2011 Indian military practiced
Exercise Pine Prahar. In this Exercise Indian military rehearsed the capabilities to employ real time intelligence from unarmed aerial vehicles, geostationary satellites, ground-based sensors and
human intelligence. These capabilities will enable the Indian military to fight a war in Network Centric environment and assist the field commanders in battlefield precision, fast decision-making
and rapid execution of operations. It is a possibility that in next five to ten years Indian military will be able to fully employ satellite capabilities in its armed forces which could be a significant
                                                     Indian Military satellites would have wide range of implications for
threat to Pakistan’s military, nuclear and other sensitive installations.
Pakistan and for the entire region. These satellites will improve Indian military’s surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities; that would provide Indian military with round the clock coverage of Pakistan’s
military installations, deployment of Pakistan army close to the border with India. After acquiring such
capabilities Indian military would be confident to launch a preemptive conventional strike against Pakistan’s
nuclear weapon delivery systems at their bases. Therefore Pakistan’s missile forces and launching site will
also be vulnerable of detection, monitoring and target by Indian military. Furthermore India’s accesses to
high tech international market after the Indo-US deal will impact negatively on strategic stability of south
Asia. Therefore it is imperative for Pakistan Military’s decision makers to closely monitor Indian military’s space program and come up with
adequate response to counter any future challenges and threats to Pakistan’s security.

SDI 11
File Title

US Indian space cooperation key to Indian space weaponization, leads to
preemptive strikes
Henry Sokolski, the Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic Cooperation”,
March 2007, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=755, accessed on June 27, 2011
Reports agree that the Suryawill have the option of a nuclear payload—and sometimes the claim is made that the
payload will consist of multiple nuclear warheads. Reports generally agree that the Surya will be a three-stage missile
with the first two Surya stages derived from PSLV’s solid-fuel rockets. India obtained the solid-fuel
technology for the SLV-3 and the PSLV from the United States in the 1960s.8 The third Surya stage is to use liquid fuel
and will be derived either from the Viking rocket technology supplied by France in the 1980s (called Vikas when India
manufactured PSLV stages with the technology) or from a more powerful Russian-supplied cryogenic upper stage for the
Geosynchronous Space Launch Vehicle (GSLV), which is an adaptation of the PSLV. If—as is most frequently
reported—the Surya uses PSLV rocket motors, it will be an enormous rocket with solid-fuel stages 2.8 meters
(about nine feet) in diameter and a total weight of up to 275 metric tons. This will make it by far the largest
ICBM in the world—with a launch weight about three times that of the largest U.S. or Russian ICBMs. There
appears to be no literature on Indian plans to harden or conceal the Surya launch site, which would be difficult to do because of the missile’s size
and weight. If a cryogenic third stage is used, the launch process will be lengthy. This means that the Surya is likely to be
vulnerable to attack before launch, making it a “first-strike” weapon that could not survive in a conflict.
Indeed, the Surya’s threatening nature and its prelaunch vulnerability would make it a classic candidate for
preemptive attack in a crisis. In strategic theory this leads to “crisis instability,” the increased incentive for a
crisis to lead to strategic attacks because of each side’s premium on striking first. The one report of a mobile ICBM
based on a combination of PSLV and Agni technology makes more sense militarily.9 But, as described below, it entails other serious concerns.
Why would India want such a weapon? The reported ranges of the Surya variants suggest the answer.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                                No War
No risk of Indo-Pak war
Satu P Limaye, director of research at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, “America has no dog in the fight”, January 8 , 2003,

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia%5CEA08Df02.html, accessed on June 27, 2011
India and Pakistan have fought two brief, limited wars over Kashmir since their independence in 1947. Given India and Pakistan's overt
nuclearization and shared penchant for brinksmanship, today's dangers seem greater. Divergent risk assessments exist about the
possibility of nuclear war. Still, policymakers must consider its humanitarian costs and strategic implications. India and Pakistan pay for
Kashmir in lives, treasure and reputations. Kashmir thwarts India's global ambitions, as does the diplomatic and perceptual hyphenation with
Pakistan it produces. Pakistan is being undermined by the Kashmir conflict's guns, violence and radicalism. The Kashmiris bear the brunt of
conflict. Kashmir's dangers and costs are sobering, but should not be overdrawn. Brinksmanship is used by all parties to purpose. Weaker
Pakistan ratchets up tensions to gain US pressure on India to negotiate. India uses coercive diplomacy to get US pressure on
Pakistan to halt the infiltration of militants. Both seek these ends without war: Pakistan because it might lose;
India because it might not win. Each wants the US to hold them back, while pushing their interests forward.
Militants use dramatic attacks to loosen India's grip on Kashmir, and warn Pakistan against reducing commitment to their cause. Outsiders use
acute tensions to leverage influence. Tensions employed carefully are creative. Outsiders should not be "guided by vanities" that they are the most
important bulwark against war. Nor should the negative implications of nuclear war in the subcontinent be
exaggerated. Horrific as the humanitarian costs would be, they must be set against the staggering existing
humanitarian challenges in the region. Second, many feared that India and Pakistan's 1998 nuclear blasts
would unhinge the nuclear order. They did not. Similarly, if India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons, other
countries involved in disputes with their neighbors will not necessarily follow. A nuclear war in the
subcontinent could give a fillip to nonproliferation efforts. Resolving Kashmir would remove a nuclear flashpoint, but not the
capabilities and underlying antagonisms that make nuclear war possible.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                 A2 Indian Hegemony
Indian hegemony already on the rise
Greg Sheridan, staff writer for the Australian, “Neighbourhood botch”, 6/4/2011,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/neighbourhood-botch/story-e6frg8nf-1226067039028, accessed on June 27, 2011
This dynamic will produce a world that is completely unfamiliar to us and uniquely challenging. The giants in Wesley's estimation are
primarily China and India but, intelligently, he also includes Indonesia and Vietnam. He argues that the surge of these nations is quite
different from the earlier growth of the Asian tigers -- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore -- and that the difference is
simple: size. If China and India keep up anything like their recent economic growth rates they will change the
basic shape of the world economy, and of global security equations, too . Wesley is too smart to fall into the common
Australian trap of reducing the whole of Asia to China. He rightly explores the way the rise of other Asian powers,
especially India, Indonesia and Vietnam, will constrain China. The other Asian giants will look to the US in
part to balance China. They will not accept Chinese hegemony in the region or Chinese dominance of themselves. This is
all common sense on Wesley's part, but it is remarkably uncommon in much Australian analysis. Wesley avoids all the simplistic and unrealistic
binary choices between China and the US that Hugh White, for example, posed in his September 2010 Quarterly Essay, "Power Shift: Australia's
Future Between Washington and Beijing". Because Wesley is not interested in fashioning a cliche, or a slogan, or even in mobilising support for
an ideological program, he acknowledges the complexity of Asia's emerging power equations. He does argue that the growth of intra-Asian trade,
and the spectacular emergence of India, renders the term Asia-Pacific somewhat obsolete, and prefers instead Indo-Pacific, a reasonable
descriptive point.

SDI 11
File Title

                                             1nc Japan CP
Text: The government of Japan should…
Contention One: CP competes because it avoids the disads
Contention Two: Solvency
Japan is the SPS tech leader – constantly improving their satellites
Mohammed and Ramasamy, Politicians and former Members of the Legislative Assembly, 09
(S. Sheik Mohammed and K.Ramasamy, proceedings of international conference on energy and environment,
The research on SPS system was started by the Japanese scientists and engineers in early 1980’s. A series of
MPT experiments were held by them and the important of which is the world’s first rocket ionosphere experiment in
1983 and experiments on the ground. Many computer simulations and theoretical works were also conducted. The
Japan Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA) initiated various studies on the conceptual and technical
feasibility of SPS. JAXA proposed its first SPS model in 2001. In 2001 model, the efficiency of the entire module
was degraded by excessive heat. In the subsequent year; the 2002 model was conceived by JAXA to solve the main
problems of the 2001 model. A major breakthrough in SPS development is the formation flying SPS which was
proposed in 2003.A simple, technically feasible and practically configurable SPS has been investigated and a
simpler model is proposed by the institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF). The Solar Power
Satellite working group of the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science(ISAS) proposed SPS-2000 for
demonstration of electrical power supply to the customers at the earliest opportunity in the year 2002. Various
aspects such as social, economic, legal, political and other non-engineering aspects have also been considered
in SPS-2000. Recently, JAXA is said to begin testing on the microwave power transmission system with an
attempt to beam power over 2.45 GHz band to power a household heater at 50m.

SDI 11
File Title

                                             1nc Japan Leadership DA
A. Uniqueness – Japan’s recent missions shows their leadership in space exploration
Elachi, 11 – Dr. Charles Elachi, Directior of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Vice President of the California
Institute of Technology (2011, Interview with JAXA, “Japan’s Role in Space Exploration”,
http://www.jaxa.jp/article/interview/vol37/index_e.html) MH
One of JAXA's recent missions was the rendezvous and landing on an asteroid by Hayabusa. That was a
major challenge. I mean, even here in the U.S. such a mission would be a major challenge. I think the involvement
of ISAS both in studying asteroids and in conducting the KAGUYA (SELENE) mission to the moon, which is now
in orbit, really shows the leadership that Japan is taking in planetary exploration. JAXA has had a number of
programs that involved international activity, not only in planetary exploration but also in Earth science. So
we at JPL have participated many times in Earth observation missions for which Japan had developed the
spacecraft. And we've also had a number of scientists from Japan involved in our missions here. These international
exchanges, where either scientists or instruments from the U.S. fly on Japanese spacecraft or vice versa, build a
strong scientific and human relationship between countries. That's very important in science and space exploration,
and you have been very proactive in doing that.

B. Link – First, Japan’s SPS leadership is key to their growing space leadership
since the USFG has moved away from SPS development
Cyranoaki, 9- japan specialist writer for nature news (November 2009, David, “Japan Sets Sights on Solar Power From Space”,
Japanese scientists are once again eyeing an off-world approach to alternative energy — collecting solar energy from satellites in orbit and
beaming it down to Earth. A space-based solar-power satellite — which could gather energy without having to worry about clouds or
night-time — has been a dream for decades in both the United States and Japan. But the costs of developing it has meant that
support has waxed and waned over the years. Now, however, Japan has a new sense of mission. In June, it released a
national space plan calling for a programme to "lead the world in space-based solar power". And earlier this
month, scientists, engineers and policy-makers met at Kyoto University to lay out development plans. The government's commitment
"is definitely a milestone and has given tremendous excitement to solar-power satellite researchers", says Hiroshi
Matsumoto, a radio scientist and president of Kyoto University. Researchers are hoping to launch a full-scale system by 2030, but costs need to
come down dramatically for it to be economically viable. Few doubt that the project is technically possible. The well-understood process starts
with collecting solar energy with photovoltaic cells, transferring that energy to antennas that transmit microwaves, then receiving those
microwaves with a 'rectifying antenna' that converts them to electricity. As early as 1975, scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
California, transferred energy by means of microwaves over a distance of 1.54 kilometres. And in May last year, scientists beamed power over a
distance of 148 kilometres, between two Hawaiian islands. Japan has been investigating solar-power satellites since the
1980s. In 1983 and again in 1993, Matsumoto, working with Kobe University's Nobuyuki Kaya, launched rockets into the ionosphere to
investigate what happens to microwaves as they travel through space (H. Matsumoto Radio Sci. Bull. 273, 11–35; 1995). In March this year, a
group from Kyoto University became the first to use microwaves to send power from the air to the ground when they charged a mobile phone
with microwaves transmitted from a blimp-like airship hovering some 30 metres above the ground. Current scale-up plans call for a series of
tests, each with an increasingly larger capacity for power transmission. First, Japan aims to demonstrate ground-based transmission in the
kilowatt range, then space-based kilowatt transmission using Japan's Kibo module on the International Space Station or small satellites. By 2020,
researchers hope to have a prototype satellite that can transmit in the range of hundreds of kilowatts, and by 2030 a satellite that can transmit a
gigawatt. As currently envisioned, the system to launch in 2030 would be a 2-kilometre-wide array of solar cells with an array of 1 billion
transmitting antennas — each measuring 5–10 centimetres across — on the side facing Earth. The goal is to make satellites for under ¥1 trillion
(US$11 billion) each; it currently costs 100 times that. "It's exciting, but there are many problems to overcome," says Naoki Shinohara of Kyoto
University. For one thing, transmission efficiency must rise to 75%, he says; the airship experiment achieved just 40% efficiency, although the
technology it uses differs from what a satellite would use. Rocket launches will also need to be cut to a hundredth of their current cost; options
such as reusable rockets are being considered, according to Susumu Sasaki of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). At this month's
meeting, Tokyo University's Kimiya Komurasaki discussed how a remote microwave source could power rockets. That would reduce the amount
of propellant they need to carry and, in theory, mean that rockets used to build a solar-power satellite could carry more antennas and solar cells.
Matsumoto estimates that it will take ¥2 billion to ¥3 billion to demonstrate solar-power satellite technology on the ground, and ¥10 billion to ¥50
billion to demonstrate it in orbit. The nation's space plan calls for an "all-Japan" effort to prepare for space-based
demonstrations within three years. And as research budgets have been tight in many areas (see Nature 462, 258–259; 2009), the
industry and science ministries have more than doubled their budget requests for solar-power satellite-
related programmes, to nearly ¥1.4 billion. JAXA has pressed for a doubling of its budget for space-based solar power, from ¥250 million

SDI 11
File Title

to ¥500 million. "I'm 100% confident this [technology] will happen," says Shinohara. Unlike wind or Earth-based solar, solar-power satellites in
space can gather energy 24 hours a day to provide a reliable source of alternative energy. "We need another stable power source," he says.
Japan looks likely to lead the way, as interest in the United States has waned , says John Mankins, who led the space
solar-power programme at NASA. Most efforts in the United States are now in private companies or non-profit
organizations. In April, Solaren, a company based in Manhattan Beach, California, signed a contract with San Francisco-based Pacific Gas
and Electric to produce 200 megawatts of energy from a solar-power satellite starting in 2016. But Mankins, who co-founded and works at
Managed Energy Technologies in Ashburn, Virginia, calls that goal "extremely challenging". Japan's effort, he says, may lead the
way: "The Japanese plan is quite well formulated."

Second, Japanese space leadership key to Japanese soft power
Brown, 2009, (Trevor, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
[Singapore], “Soft Power and Space Weaponization”, Air & Space Power Journal, Spring,
The most recent space race reflects the changing dynamics of global power . “Technonationalism” remains the impetus
for many nations’ space programs, particularly in Asia: “In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet
Union, the global competition today is being driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women,
and the confidence that achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. The planet-
wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable.”34 India and Japan are also aggressively developing their
own space programs.35

C. Impact – First, Japanese soft power prevents North Korean nuclearization
Toki and Nikitin, 2006, (Masako Toki and Mary Beth Nikitin, “Opportunity for Japan over North Korea”, Nov 2, Asia Times,
                                                                             can be more proactive and effective in helping
In addition to bolstering defenses, policymakers should also consider how Japan
solve the North Korean nuclear crisis and strengthening regional stability by using its soft power. As International
Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei suggested recently, "Dialogue is an essential tool to change
behavior. Without dialogue you cannot move." This could be a good opportunity for Japan not only to underscore its
unchanging commitment to nuclear disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also to make efforts to
facilitate dialogue among the relevant parties. This could start with improving Japan-China relations. Prime Minister Abe's trip to China after a
five-year gap in such visits and his statement to mitigate the soured relationship between the two countries were praiseworthy. Part of improving
this crucial relationship is building trust and showing consistency, which means demonstrating to China that Japan does not want to live in a
world that has more nuclear weapons in it, be they North Korean, Chinese or Japanese.

Second, North Korean nuclearization risks extinction
Africa News, 1999, “Third world war: Watch the Koreas”, http://allafrica.com/stories/199910250010.html
If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably
reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the
savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea
has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                           Japan Solvency
Japanese companies already testing and developing SPS
The Yomiuri Shimbun 11(The Yomiuri Shimbun, Jan 23 2011,
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110122002679.htm, JP)
A team of scientists from several organizations will begin tests this spring on a space-based power generation
technology using satellites, it was learned Saturday. The technology would start by generating electricity from sunlight in space,
convert the power into microwaves and then send it to Earth, the team said. The planned test will attempt to convert a strong
electric current into microwaves and transmit them 10 meters away in a simulated outer space environment
at Kyoto University. The group comprises scientists from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency,
Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., IHI Corp. and Kyoto University. A successful
test would likely accelerate the goal of putting a space-based power generation system into practical use by
2025. Space-based solar power generation, which is 10 times more efficient than earthbound generation, would be a major step forward in terms
of fulfilling energy needs, as the strength of sunlight in space is about twice that on Earth, and there are four or five times the hours of sunlight
due to the absence of clouds. Mitsubishi Electric has proposed what it calls the Solarbird project, in which 40 relatively small 200-meter solar
power generating satellites would be launched. This could produce 1 million kilowatts of electricity, equivalent to a nuclear power plant.

Japan can develop SSP – they are more advanced than the US
Cox, 11 - retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist (William, “The Race for Space Solar Energy,” 3/26,
The failures of the General Electric nuclear reactors in Japan to safely shut down during the 9.0 Tahoku earthquake, following in the wake of the
catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the deadly methane gas explosion in Massey’s West Virginia coal mine,
conclusively demonstrate the grave dangers to human society posed by current energy production methods. The radiation plume from melting
reactor cores and the smoke of burning spent fuel rods threaten the lives of the unborn; yet, they point in the direction of the only logical
alternative to these failed policies – the generation of an inexhaustible, safe, pollution-free supply of energy from outer space. 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.

Japan is developing cutting edge SSP now
Cox, 11 - retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist (William, “The Race for Space Solar Energy,” 3/26,
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.

SDI 11
File Title

Japan has far better solvency, we’re the only ones with comparative evidence
Space Daily 1, (Takahiro Fukada, “Japan Plans To Launch Solar Power Station in Space By 2040”
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html, Space Daily, 1-31-01)
Undaunted by its less than glorious track record in space, Japan's ministry of economy, trade and industry (METI) has ambitious plans to launch a
giant solar power station by 2040. "We are starting research for a solar power generation satellite from fiscal year 2001 in April," Osamu
Takenouchi, of METI's airplane, weapons and space industry division told AFP. "We are planning to start operating the system in 2040,"
Takenouchi added. "On Earth, clouds absorb sunlight, reducing (solar) power generation. But in space, we will be able to generate electric power
even at night," Takenouchi said. METI plans to launch a satellite capable of generating one million kilowatts per
second -- equivalent to the output of a nuclear plant -- into geostationary orbit, about 36,000 kilometers
(22,320 miles) above the earth's surface. The satellite will have two gigantic solar power-generating wing panels, each measuring
three kilometers by a 1,000 meter diameter power transmission antenna between them, Takenouchi said. The electricity produced will be sent
back to earth in the form of microwaves with a lower intensity than those emitted by mobile phones."We intend to ensure the microwaves will not
interrupt mobile phone and other telecommunications," Takenouchi said.The receiving antenna on the ground, several kilometers in diameter,
would probably be set up in a desert or at sea, and the electricity relayed from there along conventional cables he said.The satellite is projected to
weigh about 20,000 tonnes and the total construction cost is estimated at around two trillion yen (17 billion dollars), at current prices. One
economic hurdle so far is that it would cost about 23 yen per kilowatt hour to generate power in space
compared to nine yen for thermal or nuclear power generation."But we will consider ways to lower the
costs," Takenouchi said. A similar plan was aired by the United States' National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) but nothing has so far come of it. One of the reasons for pursuing the dream of
beaming power back to Earth is that scientists believe it could help reduce global warming.

Japan is pursuing SPS in the status quo
Scientific American 8, (Tim Hornyak “Farming Solar Energy in Space: Shrugging off massive costs, Japan pursues space-based
solar arrays” July 2008, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space)
                                                                            of fossil fuels has forced humanity
In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion
to turn to space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is
set in the year 2307, but even now real Japanese scientists are working on the hardware needed to realize
orbital generators as a form of clean, renewable energy, with plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years .
The concept of solar panels beaming down energy from space has long been pondered—and long been dismissed as too costly and impractical.
But in Japan the seemingly far-fetched scheme has received renewed attention amid the current global energy
crisis and concerns about the environment. Last year researchers at the Institute for Laser Technology in Osaka produced up to 180
watts of laser power from sunlight. In February scientists in Hokkaido began ground tests of a power transmission system designed to send
energy in microwave form to Earth. The laser and microwave research projects are two halves of a bold plan for a
space solar power system (SSPS) under the aegis of Japan’s space agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA). Specifically, by 2030 the agency aims 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. The
energy would be sent to the surface in microwave or laser form, where it would be converted into electricity for commercial power grids or stored
in the form of hydrogen. “We’re doing this research for commonsense reasons—as a potential solution to the
challenges posed by the exhaustion of fossil fuels and global warming,” says Hiroaki Suzuki of JAXA’s
Advanced Mission Research Center, one of about 180 scientists at major Japanese research institutes
working on the scheme. JAXA says its potential advantages are straightforward: in space, solar irradiance is
five to 10 times as strong as on the ground, so generation is more efficient; solar energy could be collected 24
hours a day; and weather would not pose a problem. The system would also be clean, generating no pollution or waste, and
safe. The intensity of energy reaching Earth’s surface might be about five kilowatts per square meter—about five times that of the sun at noon on
a clear summer day at midlatitudes. Although the scientists say this amount will not harm the human body, the receiving area would nonetheless
be cordoned off and situated at sea.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                               2nc Perm
US and Japanese power are zero sum game
Radhakrishnan and Tarapore 5 (R and Arzan , "Great Power Relations in Asia",
January 20, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, http://www.ipcs.org/US_related_seminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1631)
The "great powers" in Asia are the US, China, Russia, Japan, and India. Strategic relations between great powers in Asia can
be understood in terms of three features: "strategic resets," which include the rise of China; "strategic ripples," which include the
effects of 9/11; and "prevailing features," which include the "triple rise" of China, India, and Russia; the transformation of Japan into a
"normal country"; the predominance of bilateralism, despite the multilateralist mantra; and the increasing talk of pre-
emption, where Russia, China, and Japan are all making references to "offensive defence," etc. Strategic Drivers Three strategic drivers
shape relations between the powers: Internal developments: concerns over political, economic, and social development,
governance, and national identity, will all set each power's agenda and dominate their strategies. Security problems:
territorial disputes inherited from history - such as those between China and Japan, and Russia and Japan - persist, despite political caution
and growing economic and trade links. US supremacy: remains "the critical variable" and "the welcome variable" - many
regional states welcome it, in their self-interest. Bilateral Relationships Dr Mansourov then briefly outlined the state of key great power
dyads: China's bilateral relations with the US, Japan, and India are largely relations of "strategic competition" (though not rivalry), despite
the warmer rhetoric. China-Russia relations, publicly called a "strategic partnership," are actually more of a "tactical accommodation," as
Russia cautiously takes a long-term view of its strategic relations. Russia-US relations can be characterised as "conditional accommodation."
Russia-Japan relations remain "deadlocked." Japan-US relations are characterised by a "gap of perceptions," as
Japan seeks more strategic autonomy and the US wants the two powers to exercise "joint stewardship" of
the international system. India-Russia relations are cordial, but it remains uncertain how deep the partnership is. India-US relations
can be characterised as "measured engagement." India-Japan relations are increasingly friendly, based largely on fears of China.
Triangulation strategies between great powers in Asia, such as those between Russia-China-India or US-Japan-India, have a poor
record - they have generally been characterised more by competition than cooperation within the putative triangles.
This applies to all types of triangles, whether they are based on ideology or economic links or fear of China or liberal-democratic market
economies. Global Trends Some global trends have a similar effect on all powers. These include the globalisation of economics, technology,
and democracy, the shift from traditional state-centric security to human security, and the growth of multipolarity. But the effect of these
trends is inconclusive - the future international system may approximate one of the four visions: Fukuyama's "end of history" - victory of
liberal-democratic market economies; Huntington's "clash of civilisations"; Mearsheimer's "tragedy of great power politics," where the future
repeats past patterns of competition; or Kaplan's "coming anarchy" of failed states and global disorder. Four Scenarios More specifically,
great power relations in Asia may evolve according to four scenarios: Maintenance of a weak unipolar system: The US remains the
predominant military power, but the rise of all other powers will constrain its freedom of action. The regional security system remains
relatively stable, with a continued nuclear balance. Great powers will seek economic maximisation, while remaining cautious in security
relations. Chinese hegemony would be unlikely here. Regional bipolarity between US and China: Other regional states may be forced to
choose sides, amid an escalating arms race. The US would try to reunify the Korean peninsula, on its terms, and would seek to develop an
Asian quasi-NATO to counter China's rise. "Uni-multipolarity": In the final phase of unipolarity, with the US superpower declining and the
other powers competing for influence. Conventional and nuclear arms races are intense, and regional institutions like the ARF and APEC fail
to emerge as reliable guarantors of security. Relations between Asian powers will be characterised by hedging and
balancing strategies. Wild card scenarios: The region may still descend into fragmentation and chaos as a result of an unforeseeable
cataclysm, such as a regional pandemic, the spread of a revolutionary new weapons system, or global economic collapse. The results
would be unpredictable. Conclusion Dr Mansourov concluded by stating he is "a hard-core realist" and, as a result, he believes
great powers do play a zero-sum game, where one power's gain is necessarily another power's loss. Each
power's fortunes may change, but the essential competitive nature of the system will remain constant.

Soft power is a dis-ad to the perm – the combination of Japanese and American
action destroys Japanese soft power
Green 3 [Michael J, Philosophy Professor at Penn State, “Japan’s Reluctant Realism”, p. 264]
Clear patterns emerge in US- Japan interaction in the diplomacy of international finance from the first Miyazawa
plan to the new Miyazawa Initiative. Japan, eager to play a larger leadership role in the international financial
institutions commensurate with its financial contribution throws out a major proposal, backed by promises of
billions of dollars of Japanese financing, but vague in the details. The Japanese plan is short on details because
there is still insufficient support or consensus, even among MOF’s international finance bureaucracy and its
counterparts in the Budget and Tax bureaus. The specifics are vague also because the Japanese side is not
prepared to have the plan defeated in detail by Treasury or the money hijacked within an American
initiative. The goal of demonstrating a unique “intellectual contribution” and Japanese soft power, in short, is
only complicated by extensive preconsultations and coordination with Washington.

SDI 11
File Title

                                 Japan Leadership Uniqueness
Japan is Asian space leader – SELENE mission put it ahead
Talmadge, 7 – Eric Talmadge, Associated Press journalist (10/5/07, Associated Press, “Japan is Asia space
leader”, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/iw-
 TOKYO - Japan put its first satellite into orbit around the moon today, placing the country a step ahead of China
and India in an increasingly heated space race in Asia. The probe was set into lunar orbit after completing a
complicated navigational maneuver late Thursday, space agency officials said. The probe will gradually move into
orbit closer to the surface to the moon before conducting a yearlong observational mission. "We believe this is a big
step," said project manager Yoshisada Takizawa. "Everything is going well and we are confident." Though four
years off schedule, the mission comes at a crucial time for Japan. China is expected to launch its own moon probe by
the end of the year, and India is to follow with an unmanned lunar mission in 2008. Japanese officials claim the
$279 million Selenological and Engineering Explorer - or SELENE - is the largest lunar mission since the U.S.
Apollo program in terms of overall scope and ambition, outpacing the former Soviet Union's Luna program and
NASA's Clementine and Lunar Prospector projects. The mission involves placing the main satellite - called
"Kaguya," after a legendary moon princess - in a circular orbit at an altitude of about 60 miles and deploying two
smaller satellites in elliptical orbits, according to the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, or JAXA. Researchers
will use data gathered by the probes to study the moon's origin and evolution. Takizawa said it will begin its
observation phase in mid- to late-December. "The timing was very delicate," he said at a news conference in JAXA's
Tokyo headquarters via a video link from the mission command center south of the capital. "It was important to the
completion of the mission, and it was successful." Japan launched its first satellite in 1970 but is now struggling to
keep up with rival China. Japan launched a moon probe in 1990, but that was a flyby mission. It canceled a 2004
moon shot, LUNAR-A after repeated mechanical and fiscal problems. SELENE was launched on Sept. 14 aboard
one of the space program's mainstay H-2A rockets from Tanegashima, the remote island where the agency's space
center is located. To garner public interest, the probe carries sheets engraved with messages from 412,627 people
around the world in its "Wish upon the Moon" campaign. China's minister of defense and technology told China
Central Television in July that everything was ready for a launch "by the end of the year" of the Chang'e 1 orbiter,
which will use stereo cameras and X-ray spectrometers to map three-dimensional images of the lunar surface and
study its dust. China sent shock waves through the region in 2003 when it became the first Asian country to put its
own astronauts into space. More ominously, China also blasted an old satellite into oblivion with a land-based anti-
satellite missile, the first such test ever conducted by any nation. That test was widely criticized for its military
implications. A similar rocket could be used to shoot military satellites out of space, and create a dangerous cloud of
space debris. India plans a manned space mission by 2015, using indigenous systems and technology. That will be
preceded by an unmanned moon mission, Chandrayaan-1, in April 2008.

SDI 11
File Title

Prime Minister Hatoyama is advancing the Japanese space program – new laws,
new funding, new goals
Brown, 9 - Peter J. Brown, Satellite technology specialist (9/9/09, Asia Times, “Japan’s next chapter in space
begins”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/KI09Dh01.html) MH
Japan's soon-to-be prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), has a lot of
space-related issues to deal with over the coming months, though North Korea and domestic affairs - including the
economy and government bureaucracy - will likely dominate his first few months in office. Over the coming
months, details surrounding a restructuring of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's (JAXA) will be
announced, and government support for private sector space companies in Japan will likely grow, albeit modestly.
Due to his involvement in a recent review of Japan's future space options from a scientific and technological
standpoint, Hatoyama has a good grasp of space-related issues as well as the state of Japanese space technology in
general. Japan sees China's activities in space as a significant, but not urgent, matter. "We view China as a growing
military power in the region. But there is no immediate military threat from China," said Dr Kazuto Suzuki, an
associate professor of International Political Economy at Hokkaido University's School of Public Policy. Japan's
new Basic Law for Space Activities or simply Basic Space Law (BSL) passed the Diet (parliament) in 2008, and in
mid-2009, a new Basic Space Plan was completed. As a result, Japan's government is now able to fund military
space activities, ending a ban on such activities that lasted 40 years. Japan's small fleet of Information Gathering
Satellites (IGS) was allowed during this time because they were not funded or operated by Japan's Ministry of
Defense (MoD), according to Suzuki. All IGS operations are overseen by the civilian Cabinet Secretariat, which
includes Japan's central intelligence office. In the past few days, North Korea cut short Hatoyama's and the DPJ's
victory celebrations with its sobering declaration about the status of its uranium enrichment program. However, the
overall space strategy of the Japanese military is really not affected, according to Suzuki. "The situation will not
translate immediately into any sort of rapid military use of space by Japan," said Suzuki. "Space is not seen as a
viable military zone by the DPJ and by most Japanese people [who] prefer that space should remain as a civilian
domain where international cooperation is promoted and strengthened." Among other things, the MoD has been
slowly developing new sensors for an early warning satellite with a completion date for this project within five
years. "Even if we obtain these sensors earlier than expected, we have no satellite to put these sensors on," said
Suzuki. "Development of these sensors for military use will proceed, but this North Korean issue will not have a
strong impact on the outcome." Because the DPJ lacks a majority in the Upper House of the Diet, a coalition must
be formed with the Social Democrats, who strongly oppose any military uses of space. This relationship also slows
military space initiatives at a time when the MoD is mapping out its military space objectives, and finishing work on
new defense guidelines covering the next five years. "These guidelines have not been published yet," said Suzuki.
"While the DPJ may not be enthusiastic about military space due to the coalition, no matter who will be in power,
there will be a change from the past." When Hatoyama meets with President Barack Obama later this month,
ballistic missile defense planning and coordination will be on the agenda. A status check of the International Space
Station (ISS) is also likely. Other space-related issues may have to wait, especially as the Barack Obama
administration is apparently in no hurry to revise export controls which the United States satellite industry favors in
order to increase satellite-related exports. Chinese launch vehicles will remain off limits - there appear to be no plans
for Chinese rockets to launch satellites for Japan anyway - whether US components on the US Munitions List and
currently subject to US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) are present or not. "During the meeting,
ITAR issues may be discussed, but only in a context of the broader topic of nuclear disarmament," said Suzuki. "The
launching of Japanese satellites by Chinese launchers will never be on the agenda, because Japan has its own launch
vehicles, and has no intention of launching its satellites on Chinese launchers."

SDI 11
File Title

Japan is working together with other Asian countries to strengthen their space
Brown, 9 - Peter J. Brown, Satellite technology specialist (9/9/09, Asia Times, “Japan’s next chapter in space
begins”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/KI09Dh01.html) MH
Hatoyama has made recent statements about the need for Japan to concentrate on establishing closer regional ties,
Chu Ishida, director of JAXA's space cooperation office for Asia Pacific Region, Space Applications Mission
Directorate, said a few months ago that, "Japan's Basic Space Plan defines the promotion of space diplomacy as a
national policy. Under this policy, JAXA will develop and utilize space systems and satellites, and develop deeper
cooperation among Asian countries." Although Japan is not one of the nine state signatories to the Asia-Pacific
Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) convention which China created a few years ago, Japan does send
representatives to APSCO sessions. And China belongs to the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum
(APRSAF) which was established more than 15 years ago with Japan as its principal sponsor. These regional space
organizations co-exist, and should not be seen as competing with each other, according to Suzuki. "APSCO and
APRSAF are completely different organizations in terms of membership, objectives, and the means of cooperation.
APRSAF is a space agency forum which supports various projects," said Suzuki. "APSCO, on the other hand, is an
organization for transferring technology. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs took advantage of China's prowess in
space technology to help establish its diplomatic leadership in the Asian region. APSCO membership is limited to
states or countries such as Iran and Pakistan in particular which find it difficult to access advanced space technology
due to sanctions." Countries in Asia that operate their own earth observation (EO) satellites include Japan, China,
South Korea, Taiwan, India and Thailand. According to Suzuki, because the number of analysts in Asia who can
process EO satellite data is so limited, both APSCO and APRSAF primarily focus on providing Chinese and
Japanese EO data to their member states. "There is an obvious rivalry here. However, for the respective member
states, this dual leadership is beneficial because more EO data flows more quickly whenever major disasters happen
in the region in particular," said Suzuki. "As long as China and Japan control which EO data should be distributed,
there will not be any problems in terms of deliberate military uses." Japan has also been providing EO data directly
to China for over three decades. Suzuki emphasizes that this cooperation involves data, and may expand slowly to
include space science. However, no joint development of space technology is anticipated.

SDI 11
File Title

                                2nc Soft Power Nuclearization Impact
Without soft power, Japan will nuclearize
IPS-Inter Press Service June 27, 2002
Japan's Constitution binds it to peace, but activists and experts have expressed concern over recent remarks by top politicians that the nation
should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. These concerns are focused on the country's large stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium, a
product of its nuclear energy program, but which makes Japan capable of building thousands of nuclear weapons in the future. Activist groups
like Greenpeace have zeroed in on the possibility -- which local analysts say remains far off -- that Japan could one day use this plutonium to
build nuclear weapons. "Japan is a latent nuclear weapons country," Shaun Burnie, a Greenpeace campaigner and veteran researcher on Japan's
nuclear energy program, said on Jun. 25. The current attention stems from statements by politicians like Ichiro Ozawa, who said in April: "If
Japan wishes, it can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight to curb China. We will never be beaten in terms of
military strength." Ozawa was with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party when he made the remarks, but is now leader of the opposition party.
Early this month, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda apparently said that with changes in the future political situation, Japan could
choose to have nuclear weapons -- although he later claimed he was misquoted. An aide, Shinzo Abe, was later quoted as saying it
might be acceptable for Japan to have nuclear weapons "as long as they are small." The comments have been monitored elsewhere in Asia, a
region that experienced Japan's wartime aggression more than a half a century ago. China is keeping particularly close watch on comments from
officials in Japan, its historical rival and colonizer. "There is always suspicion that Japan can go nuclear ," said Hiromichi
Umebayashi, a well-known anti-nuclear expert. But apart from being about nuclear weapons, the remarks by Japanese
officials underscore Japan's security concerns in Asia's changing environment -- rivalry with China, calls at home to
amend Japan's Peace Constitution seeking a larger international role for the country, and the possibility of a scaling down of the U.S. security
presence. "That fear is heightened now as Japan loses its international clout, the end of the Cold War and the
rising rivalry for status with China," Umebayashi added. Naoki Usui, a defense analyst, says comments like Ozawa's reflect an
increasingly jittery Japan, especially after the end of the Cold War, which has reduced the American nuclear umbrella that made Japan's security a
vital U.S. interest.

Proliferation in Asia quickly escalates to global nuclear war
Cirincione 2000 (Foreign Policy, 3-22)
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than
anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly
negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on
the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile
defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile
programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while
running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the
United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East
nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have
nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger
reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear
reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development . If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle
increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-
weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first
combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

SDI 11
File Title

                                                       1nc Spending DA
A. Uniqueness – the government is slashing spending and reducing spending at
every opportunity
Fox News, 7-19-11, “Cut Cap and Balance – Don’t Cut and Run”,
The U.S. House of Representatives will vote today on H.R. 2560 also known as the "Cut, Cap, and Balance
Act of 2011." If the debt ceiling must be raised (an open question for many conservatives) then this is surely the best
way to do it. The bill would significantly cut government spending, create binding caps to bring spending back
to its historical average, below 20 percent of the economy, over the next ten years, and require Congress to
adopt a tough balanced budget amendment to the Constitution – including a spending cap and a supermajority
requirement for tax increases – before the federal government would be allowed to incur any more debt.

B. Links – SPS would demand ridiculously high spending – three times NASA’s
current budget for one gigawatt satellite
Coopersmith, Historian of Technology at Texas A&M University 2009, Jonathan Coopersmith,
thespacereview.com, 9/28/09, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1475/1, retrieved 6/22/11
The sessions confirmed that the last decades have produced impressive technological advances in every area except launch costs. Launch
costs could doom SBSP to remaining only on paper. At current costs of $10,000 a pound, placing the 3,000
tons needed for a one-gigawatt station into GEO would cost $60 billion, three times NASA’s current annual
budget. At $1,000 a pound, launching would demand $6 billion, the cost of a new nuclear plant . At $100 a pound,
$600 million would be needed, a large but not implausible amount.

C. Impact – First, runaway spending collapses the economy
Robbins 5/19/09 [Ron Robbins, MBA is the founder and analyst of Investing for the Soul and maintains the blog, Enlightened Economics,
“Interest Rate Manipulation and Loose Money Promote Economic Collapse,” http://monetarycurrent.com/commentaries/53-philosophy/691-
Economies with excessively loose monetary policies and who force interest rates to ultra low levels for extended periods of time
eventually succumb to a massive top-heavy debt structure which at some point ‘topples over.' These countries
then suffer either a deflationary debt implosion/depression in which much of the debt is liquidated, or the country's central bank
instigates a huge inflationary push to reduce the value of all credit market debt in the country by vastly increasing the amount of currency and the
expansion of its money supply. A big inflationary push frequently leads to a lack of confidence in the country's currency and
hence the possibility of 'hyper-inflation' occurring as everyone unloads the country's currency for real goods
or other currencies. Argentina earlier this decade and Zimbabwe recently, are examples of central bank sponsored inflation that led to no
confidence in their currencies, resulting in hyper-inflation. The inflationary approach is what appears to be favoured by the American, Japanese
and British central banks. From an Enlightened Economics perspective, the actions of manipulating down interest rates and the over printing of
money by central banks fall under a terrible fallacy: the belief that we can resolve our short-term economic problems by going more into debt and
not concern ourselves with the long-term consequences. A global consciousness has to arise which understands that manipulating markets, most
especially interest rates and money supply, leads to highly unstable economies which in time either implode or explode.

SDI 11
File Title

Second, economic collapse risks extinction
Bearden 2000 (T.T, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now
possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches
nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China —
whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched,
adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary.
The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance
a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many

SDI 11
File Title

                                       Spending Uniqueness -- Generic
Congress will cut spending in the status quo
The San Francisco Chronicle, 7-19-11, “Congress to vote on plans to cut, balance budget”
Congress plans two largely symbolic but politically significant votes starting today 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. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said
Monday that until a deal is done, 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 of 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. "If
they're not voting the right way, some of these guys need to go," said Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, a conservative grassroots
group. If the conservative plans fall short of enactment, as expected in the Democratic-controlled Senate, attention will turn by
midweek to a deal to cut spending and raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit. If that limit isn't raised by Aug. 2, the government
will run out of borrowing authority and possibly default on its debt. The mere prospect could spook financial markets and kick the weak economy
back into recession.

SDI 11
File Title

                                              Spending Link -- Generic
SPS will expend massive amounts of money
Schubert, Ph.D., P.E., Packer Engineering, Inc., Naperville, IL, 2010 (Peter J., Online Space Journal of
Communication, December 2010. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html)
The energy required to accelerate objects into orbit is enormous. The areal energy density of sunlight is low. For SSP to
make a significant contribution to global energy demands therefore requires an extraordinarily large
structure. Large structures require a lot of mass, and a lot of assembly time. These factors are driving a number of research efforts, such as:
ultra-thin solar arrays; ultra-lightweight deployable structures; robotic assembly; lunar or asteroid processing; and space elevators. From a
systems perspective, the energy required to build, orbit, and assemble huge solar arrays should be significantly less than the energy delivered to
earth. Traditional energy sources typically cost between 0.02 and 0.03 USD/kWh, such as nuclear and coal. These costs do not include
environmental costs of: landscape destruction, waste disposal, groundwater contamination; or generation of atmospheric carbon in the case of
coal. A consequence of the unpredictable miracle will be to somehow assign a monetary value to these hidden costs. It is not unreasonable
to expect a doubling of production costs, so that the breakeven point for SSP can be taken as approximately 0.05
USD/kWh. A solar power satellite could have an upper limit on lifetime of 15 years, although this may be
optimistic. A typical power generation station is on the order of 5-8 GW. This yields a cost of between 33 and
53 billion USD for a single SSP installation. At least one study of SSP shows the potential for projects in this cost range.[13] Federal
research to generate or develop new industries varies widely. Corporate research ranges from 6% to 10% of revenues for high technology
enterprises. Taking the value of a single SSP installation, amortized over its lifetime, and drawing 8% for research and development gives a
reasonable research budget of 230 million USD/year.

SDI 11
File Title

                                    Spending Link -- Maintenance
SPS sats require maintenance that’s expensive
Loh 09 (Kenny Loh, New Straits Times, September 18 2009, Proquest Sirs Jesuit)
Solar panels designed to generate electricity are still expensive to produce and since a single panel can only generate a
small amount of electricity, a great number of panels will be needed just to provide sufficient electricity to power a
few homes. Also, the materials used to create a solar panel are constantly exposed to other things besides photons. The constant
bombardment of ultraviolet (UV) rays and other forms of solar radiation often cause the panels to
deteriorate. This means that SBSP satellites must undergo constant maintenance, which is very expensive.

SDI 11
File Title

                                       Spending Link -- A2 Link Turn
SPS expense makes it a long term investment
Xin et al, Masters degree in aerospace management, 2009
(Sun Xin , Evelyn Panier, Cornelius Zünd, and Raul Gutiérrez Gómez, Toulouse Business School,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2009-FinancialAndOrganizationalAnalysisForSSP.pdf, AJ)
Although the technologies needed to build the SSPS are not new, and no “breakthrough” moments are required, it still carries with it a
steep development cost and subsequently a distant breakeven point . Once it is operational the costs to maintain it will be
significantly lower, if current satellite business models are any indication (long life, no aftermarket service). Once the SSPS is built and
operational, it theoretically produces massive amounts of energy and therefore revenue. Despite this amount of “free money” it is important to
include the costs of development and construction which to date have proven to be obstacles xviii . These costs push any potential
breakeven point into the distant conceivable future; although subsequent systems can rely on this ground
work and will not need to share the bill. Until this point however it remains to be seen how much exactly this
system will cost and where this money will come from. The economic aspect is a critical limiting factor in this project

SDI 11
File Title

                                                Spending Internal Link
Fiscal discipline is key to save the economy and avoid a depression
Maas, 06 (Jim, member of the executive committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. Wausau Daily Herald. March 24,. Pg. 10A
"Bipartisan spending is the real emergency").
There is a real emergency in Washington where Congress is spending and borrowing America into a real mess. The federal government now
relies upon debt to finance 20 percent of its spending. Low interest rates during the 1990s and early 2000s kept interest payments on government
debts Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills somewhat manageable. However, the Federal Reserve also greatly increased the money supply, which
has caught up to us in the form of inflation. The Fed now must raise rates to combat this inflation, but higher interest rates will chill economic
growth and slow tax revenue. The federal government now faces a potentially toxic mix of constrained revenues,
soaring expenditures, ballooning debt, and rising interest rates. The only solution is to reduce government
spending substantially. If we don't put the brakes on the obscene spending spree soon, we may find ourselves
facing another period of economic malaise that rivals the 1930s.


To top