Docstoc

Control + 1 鈥Block Headings.doc

Document Sample
Control + 1 鈥Block Headings.doc Powered By Docstoc
					06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                        1NC Security K
Technological miracles obscure the military domination and global problems that gave rise to them.
Nye 94 (David, The Technological Sublime, MIT Press, Cambridge Passachusetts, p. 255-256)
      At the deepest level, the existence of atomic weapons has undermined the possibility of the sublime relationship to both
      natural and technological objects. The experience of the natural sublime rests both on the sense of human weakness and
      limitation and on the power of human reason to comprehend the infinitely large and powerful. But when human beings
      themselves create something infinitely powerful that can annihilate nature, the exaltation of the classic
      sublime seems impossible. The Kantian relationship to the object required a sense of personal security. One was
      exposed to the power of the hurricane, but nevertheless one saw it in relative safety. This necessary precondition evaporates
      in the superheated wind of an atomic blast. The technological sublime, in which the observer identifies with the power of a
      man-made object, becomes absurd. Who identifies with the bomb? The collective sense of achievement, another hallmark
      of the technological sublime, is radically undercut and destroyed. Just as important, contemplation of the bomb transforms
      admiration for inventors, engineers, and scientists into fear and mistrust. Viewed in this perspective, the early linkage of
      the space program with national defense served to obscure the radically different implications of the
      arms race and manned space flight. The sublimity of a manned launch could easily overwhelm reflection
      on the military uses of rockets. Public enthusiasm for the space program represents a nostalgic return to the
      technological sublime, a turning away from the abyss of the nuclear holocaust seen all to clearly after 1945. In the 1960s a
      launch allowed many to recuperate the sense of technological sublimity. The affirmative sense of achievement that
      followed the moon landing made government high-tech programs attractive at the very moment when
      the nuclear stockpile was large enough to destroy every living thing on earth. In an atomic age, the
      pilgrimage to the Kennedy Space Center promised a sublime experience that renewed faith in America and in the ultimate
      beneficence of advanced industrialization. This final avatar of the technological sublime is a literal escape
      from the threatened life-world.


And, the rush to space strengthens militarism and imperialism.
McMillen (PhD @ UT) 4
(Ryan Jeffrey, SPACE RAPTURE: Extraterrestrial Millennialism and the Cultural Construction of Space Colonization, Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin, Proquest)

      Neither O'Neill's colonies nor the Strategic Defense Initiative would ever prevent the imagined apocalypse, and
      paradoxically, both would probably bring it that much closer to realization. The conquest of the sky, either through
      colonization and its attendant transportation and satellite technologies, or through SDI and the ringing of the Earth with
      laser guns cocked and ready to blow any transgressors out of the heavens, is inextricably rooted in the imagined
      conquest of the Earth. The vicious Earth can only be subdued from above, so it stands to reason that those
      that seek to control the planet seek to gain the high ground. Reagan's dream was to arm the heavens and subdue the
      Earth's governments and thus achieve world peace. The union of space advocate and fundamentalist constituencies behind
      Ronald Reagan marked a comfortable turn back to the right for exo-millennialism. Since the extraterrestrial technocratic
      fantasies of Federov and Tsiolkovsky in Russia, the aim of space travel has always been connected with
      increasing militarization, regimentation, and automation. The powers necessary to exodus the planet were
      never possible for the individual, but only for a well-organized and hierarchical central authority. The nations that
      have established successful space programs have primarily done so only through an emulation of
      military hierarchy.527 Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cold War-era America, and now, Industrial China are the only
      entities to develop rocket programs of lasting importance and rocketeers capable of sending humans into space. While
      American fundamentalists often evince an other-worldly attitude towards current events, dismissing them as merely
      existential messages from God heralding the 'signs of the times,' militarism, fundamentalism, and the sky have always
      found common ground. Military hierarchies, with their strict attention to obeisance and regimentation, emulate
      fundamentalist hierarchies of which God's word is the one and only law. With today's military more dependent on control



Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      1
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                          1NC Security K
      of the skies than ever before, fundamentalists have found common ground in this spatial orientation. In 1988, in a
      strongly worded speech to the employees at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Reagan called for a renewed effort
      for the colonization of space. “It is mankind’s manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space, to colonize this galaxy,”
      he thundered to the cheering employees. Mankind’s journey into space, like every great voyage of discovery, will become
      part of our unending journey of liberation. In the limitless reaches of space, we will find liberation from tyranny, from
      scarcity, from ignorance and from war. We will find the means to protect this Earth and to nurture every human life, and
      to explore the universe… This is our mission, this is our destiny.528 Reagan's words resonate with secular rapture
      imagery: the "unending journey of liberation,"; "the limitless reaches"; "liberation from tyranny, from scarcity, from
      ignorance, and from war,"; "nurture every human life," and "destiny." This is the language of Christian heavenly
      utopianism, made to appear as if space exploration will be engaged in by everyone on the planet someday. Everyone, in
      Reagan's speech, will be raptured into space. But this will clearly not be so. The Rapture will never be for everyone, but
      only for those who obey, who follow, and who submit . Those left behind on the Earth are offered protection,
      and the vague promise of "nurture," but it is the spacebound chosen in this vision who will be the heirs
      to the heavens and the future lords of the Earth.


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




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         2
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                          1NC Security K
Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic – only resistance to the discourse of security can
generate genuine political thought
Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, 2008 [Critique of Security, 185-6]
    The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of security
    altogether - to reject it as so ideologically loaded in favour of the state that any real political thought other than the
      authoritarian and reactionary should be pressed to give it up. That is clearly something that can not be achieved within the
      limits of bourgeois thought and thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something
      that the constant iteration of the refrain 'this is an insecure world' and reiteration of one fear, anxiety and insecurity after
      another will also make it hard to do. But it is something that the critique of security suggests we may have to consider if we
      want a political way out of the impasse of security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-
      encompassing that it marginalises all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that
      animate political life. The constant prioritising of a mythical security as a political end - as the political end constitutes a
      rejection of politics in any meaningful sense of the term. That is, as a mode of action in which differences can be
      articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles that arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which
      people might come to believe that another world is possible - that they might transform the world and in turn be
      transformed. Security politics simply removes this; worse, it remoeves it while purportedly addressing it. In so doing it
      suppresses all issues of power and turns political questions into debates about the most efficient way to achieve 'security',
      despite the fact that we are never quite told - never could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics
      is, in this sense, an anti-politics,"' dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to
      dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political
      imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands
      the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a
      personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter
      asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe
      there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision
      or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these
      ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of
      modern politics, the grounds of security. The real task is not to fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security,
      but to fight for an alternative political language which takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security
      and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of critical politics: to
      develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we want. Thus while much of what I have said here
      has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that the negative may be as significant as the
      positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the
      fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep demanding 'more security' (while
      meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building
      real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security
      politics would allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising of social and
      political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the existing forms of social
      domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also allow us to forge
      another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and
      talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense
      of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is
      an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires
      accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of
      security and instead learning to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and 'insecurities' that come with being
      human; it requires accepting that 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and
      handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                           3
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                        Militarization DA
Space weapons not inevitable – multiple warrants
Mueller 02 (Karl P. Mueller, Ph.D. in politics, Princeton University; B.A. in political science, University of Chicago, senior
political scientist at the RAND Corporation, 3/27/20 02, “Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable?,” International Studies
Association Annual Convention)
    Far and away the best argument that space weaponization is inevitable, and the only such argument that can plausibly stand
    on its own, is that the military utility of space weapons for the United States and/or its enemies will soon be so great that
    the imperative of protecting national security will make space weaponization impossible for rational statesmen to resist.
    Exactly what these weapons would do, and how, varies from one weaponization vision to another, but the standard
    expectation is that space weapons would eventually defend friendly satellites against enemy attack, attack enemy space
    weapons and other satellites that perform important military functions, shoot down long-range ballistic missiles, and
    conduct attacks against enemy air and surface forces and other terrestrial targets.[33] Some weaponization advocates
      anticipate that space weapons will ultimately supplant many, or even most, types of terrestrial military
      forces; others have more modest expectations, but all predict that space weapons will be the best, and in some
      cases the only, systems available to fulfill at least some key military roles. The core of this inevitability
      argument is that even (or especially) if the United States chooses not to build space weapons, other
      countries will certainly do so, in large part because of the great and still growing degree to which U.S.
      military operations depend upon what has traditionally been known as “space force enhancement”: the
      use of satellites to provide a vast array of services including communications, reconnaissance, navigation, and missile
      launch warning, without which American military power would be crippled. This parallels the argument that
      the importance of satellites to the U.S. economy will make them an irresistible target, except that
      military satellites are far more indispensable, and successful attacks against a relatively small number of them
      could have a considerable military impact, for example by concealing preparations for an invasion or by disrupting U.S.
      operations at a critical juncture.[34] Rivals of the United States might also find space-to-earth weapons to be a very
      attractive way to counter U.S. advantages in military power projection. These are all reasonable arguments, but to
      conclude from them that space weaponization is inevitable, rather than merely possible or even likely,
      is unwarranted, for several reasons. There is no question that space systems are a key center of gravity
      (or perhaps several) for U.S. military capabilities. An enemy that attacked them might be able to impair U.S.
      military operations very seriously, and this ranks high among threats that concern U.S. strategists. It need not
      follow from this that the enemies of the United States will do so, or invest in the weapons required to
      do so, however. The U.S. armed forces possess many important vulnerabilities that adversaries have
      often, even consistently, opted not to attack in past conflicts. To cite but one widely-discussed example,
      during Operation Allied Force in 1999, Serbia apparently did not attempt to mount special forces
      attacks against key NATO airbases in Italy or to use manportable missiles to shoot down aircraft
      operating from them during take-off or landing, although such an action could have profoundly disrupted the Alliance’s
      bombing campaign.[35] Moreover, it is quite possible that if a potential enemy did want to develop the ability to
      attack U.S. space systems, it would choose to do so in ways—such as investing in ground-based ASAT
      lasers or computer network attack capabilities—that would not involve weaponizing space, and against
      which the logical defensive countermeasures would not involve placing U.S. weapons in orbit either.
      For military as well as commercial satellites, “bodyguard” weapons in space would offer protection only from certain sorts
      of attacks, while the terrestrial links in satellite systems would remain inviting targets. Again it is the transition to larger
      networks of smaller satellites that will do the most to reduce vulnerability, perhaps together with supplementing satellite
      platforms for some military functions with new types of terrestrial systems, such as high endurance unmanned aerial
      vehicles (UAVs),[36] and improving terrestrial weapons with which to attack ground-based ASATs and satellite launch and
      control facilities. Conversely, if the United States decides that it must have the ability to deny an enemy the
      use of its satellites, it is quite possible that the most attractive means for doing this will prove to
      involve non-space weapons and, to an even greater extent, tools that are not weapons in the
      conventional sense at all. Space-to-earth weapons are likely to prove to be less attractive than ASATs for the United


Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         4
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
      States, which already possesses considerable ability to project military force around the world on short notice.   Because
      orbital weapons offer only limited advantages over their terrestrial counterparts under most
      circumstances,[37] it is not difficult to imagine the U.S. Government deciding not to deploy them, and
      instead choosing to invest in terrestrial systems for rapidly attacking distant and well-protected targets,
      such as conventionally armed ICBMs and hypersonic stand-off missiles. For their part, potential enemies of the United
      States may see space weapons as one of the few ways in which they could threaten to mount a substantial non-nuclear
      military attack against targets in the U.S. homeland, and yet still not opt to build them, since effective STEW will not be
      inexpensive, and as years of experience have shown, states at war with the United States have usually been inclined to
      pursue victory by means other than directly attacking North America. Boost-phase long-range ballistic missile defense
      against large enemy states is the single existing military mission for which space-based weapons present the only viable
      option. However, in spite of current U.S. enthusiasm for BMD, this is a mission in which the United
      States can afford not to invest for a variety or reasons[38] (and if it isn’t, to say that space
      weaponization is inevitable because we are determined to build space weapons would be an intolerably
      circular argument). Rivals of the United States seem unlikely to build space-based BMD systems to
      protect themselves from missile attack either by the United States or regional adversaries in light of the alternatives.


SPS has dual capabilities—will be perceived as a weapon
Kim Ramos, US Air Force Major PhD thesis, April 2K. “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,”
for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928
      United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of those operational concepts
      is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines global engagement as an “integrated focused
      surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to apply force from space.”27 This application of force from
      space involves holding at risk earth targets with force from space.28 New World Vistas identifies several force
      application technologies. One of the technological issues associated with developing these space force application
      technologies is that they all require large amounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the
      required power. Two technologies in particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed
      energy weapons, such as lasers, and jamming devices. The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground
      moving target indication, and air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The main difficulty
      with the laser is designing a power plant, which can produce the required energy in space without the enormous solar arrays
      required. By using a solar power satellite to beam power to the laser, this eliminates the problem. Another project,
      which would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, is a device, which would beam RF
      power to a particular geographic location to blind or disable any unprotected ground communications, radar,
      optical, and infrared sensors.30 As with the laser and other directed energy applications, the limiting factor right now
      is generating enough power in space to energize the RF beam.


Space weapons lead to global arms race
Hitchens 02 (Theresa Hitchens, Vice President of the Center for Defense Information, 2002. “Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or
Russian Roulette?” http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm)
     The United States already enjoys an overwhelming advantage in military use of space; space assets such as the Global
     Positioning System satellite network have proven invaluable in improving precision-targeting giving the U.S. military a
     decisive battlefield edge. There would be even a more formidable military advantage to possession of weapons in space —
     global power projection and the enormous difficulty in defending against space weapons aimed at terrestrial targets. "It is ...
     possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this capability
     would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage," notes the
     Space Commission report. 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


Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       5
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
      of ASATs to counter such weapons," notes a new policy brief by the Cato Institute.27 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.28 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.29
      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.


Space weapons cause first striking and nuclear war
Krepon 04 (Michael Krepon, president emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, 2004. Arms Control Association, “Weapons in the
Heavens: A Radical and Reckless Option,” http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon#krepon)
      To prevent adversaries from shooting back, the United States would need to know exactly where all
      threatening space objects are located, to neutralize them without producing debris that can damage
      U.S. or allied space objects, and to target and defeat all ground-based military activities that could join
      the fight in space. In other words, successful space warfare mandates pre-emptive strikes and a
      preventive war in space as well as on the ground. War plans and execution often go awry here on
      Earth. It takes enormous hubris to believe that space warfare would be any different. If ASAT and space-based,
      ground-attack weapons are flight-tested and deployed, space warriors will have succeeded in the
      dubious achievement of replicating the hair-trigger nuclear postures that plagued humankind during the
      Cold War. Armageddon nuclear postures continue to this day, with thousands of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons ready
      to be launched in minutes to incinerate opposing forces, command and control nodes, and other targets, some of which
      happen to be located within large metropolitan areas. If the heavens were weaponized, these nuclear postures
      would be reinforced and elevated into space. U.S. space warriors now have a doctrine and plans for
      counterspace operations, but they do not have a credible plan to stop inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation once the
      shooting starts. Like U.S. war-fighting scenarios, there is a huge chasm between plans and consequences, in
      which requirements for escalation dominance make uncontrolled escalation far more likely. A pre-
      emptive strike in space on a nation that possesses nuclear weapons would invite the gravest possible
      consequences. Attacks on satellites that provide early warning and other critical military support
      functions would most likely be viewed either as a surrogate or as a prelude to attacks on nuclear forces.




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     6
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                           Spending DA
We’re on the brink of economic collapse now – S&P downgrade proves
LIZ Alderman 8/6, 2011 “Some Concern Abroad About U.S. Downgrade”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/global/nations-react-to-downgrade-of-us-debt.html

      PARIS — Europe was taken aback Saturday at the unprecedented downgrade of America’s sterling sovereign credit rating,
      as officials of the Group of 7 industrial countries prepared to hold an extraordinary conference call on Sunday to discuss the
      debt crisis that has beset Europe and the United States. Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank,
      planned to convene a late-afternoon call Sunday from his vacation in France with the heads of Europe’s national central
      banks as they gird for what is expected to be a rocky opening of financial markets on Monday. The news that Standard &
      Poor’s had lowered Washington’s AAA rating to AA+ was received with some concern in the corridors of power in Europe
      and spurred flurries of calls and meetings by officials around the world as the crisis risked spinning beyond their control. In
      the meantime, the French finance minister, François Baroin, questioned the downgrade, which he said appeared to be based
      on “nonconsensual figures.” The Obama administration had disputed the judgment, noting that Standard & Poor’s had
      made a significant mathematical mistake and overstated the federal debt by about $2 trillion. Standard & Poor’s said the
      downgrade was based more on the view that the effectiveness, stability and predictability of American policy making had
      eroded during the rancorous debate over lifting the debt ceiling. Mr. Baroin said he found it curious that neither Moody’s
      nor Fitch, the two other major ratings agencies, had reached a similar conclusion. Moody’s has said that it was keeping its
      AAA rating on the nation’s debt, but that it still might lower it. “We have total confidence in the solidity of the American
      economy,” Mr. Baroin said in an interview on French radio. Nonetheless, he added, the decision “confirms” that the
      world’s most developed economies are confronted with the same urgent priorities: to lift growth and reduce public and
      private debt. Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia also warned against overreacting to the downgrade. Standard &
      Poor’s “had been signaling for some time that unless they saw a certain figure of budget cutbacks out of the discussion that
      there’s been in Washington about the American budget and fiscal consolidation, that they were intending to do that
      downgrade,” Ms. Gillard said, according to Agence-France Presse. “At the same time, the other two major ratings agencies,
      Moody’s and Fitch, continue to have the American economy rated at AAA. So I think people just need to look at all of the
      facts.” In Germany, commentators saw the downgrade as further evidence of the decline of American prestige. The weekly
      newsmagazine Focus called the downgrade “a public humiliation.” The magazine noted a scolding that the United States
      received from Chinese officials. “Now the country must allow itself to be reprimanded and lectured before the eyes of the
      world,” Focus said, referring to the United States. During their telephone conference, Group of 7 ministers are expected to
      discuss ways to ready themselves if financial markets continue to spiral lower. Reuters reported that ministers of the Group
      of 20 industrialized and developing nations held a conference call Saturday night. Several political leaders kept in touch
      while on vacation. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was expected to speak with Prime Minister David Cameron of
      Britain. On Monday, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, a country that is considered Europe’s new weak link, is
      scheduled to speak with President Obama, according to an Italian official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The
      possibility that the Washington’s sterling sovereign rating would be tarnished, together with the dawning realization that
      the United States and Europe may be grappling with fundamental problems in their economies for years to come, stoked the
      worst global sell-off of stocks this week since the financial crisis blew open in 2008. Yet even with Standard & Poor’s
      downgrade, American debt is still seen as one of the world’s safest investments. The action may lift borrowing costs on a
      variety of debt around the world, though perhaps not enough to do serious damage. That is cold comfort to China, the
      largest foreign holder of American debt. The country has issued several warnings to Washington. On Saturday, just hours
      after the downgrade, Beijing admonished the Obama administration to “cure its addiction to debts” and “live within its
      means.” One senior European official who has been involved in debt crisis negotiations said that Europeans were “not
      especially happy” about the downgrade decision but that there was a feeling that the ratings agency was fair in its relative
      treatment of Europe and the United States. “We all feel the consequences of the crisis on our public finances,” the official
      said, “and we all need to take serious action to restore their sustainability while being attentive to the strengthening of
      growth.” While the political atmosphere in the United States has not been helpful in that regard, the official added, the
      ruling was unlikely to “aggravate things for us.” Still, it confirms that sovereign risks are not totally risk-free and that
      governments must prove they are undertaking sounder governance and greater sustainability of public finances, the official
      added. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who spent hours on the phone Friday talking with President Obama,
      President Sarkozy and the leaders of Italy and Spain, did not issue a statement on Saturday. But German newspapers
      summed up the general sentiment, with Die Welt calling the news a “thunderbolt” and saying that Standard & Poor’s was
      “brave” to downgrade the United States’s credit rating. “This is not Spain or Ireland,” the normally pro-American Die Welt
      said. “This is the debtor nation U.S.A., that in contrast to other countries has always fulfilled its obligations.” The daily



Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        7
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
      Süddeutsche Zeitung said that Germany might even profit from the downgrade, because money could flow to safe-haven
      investments like German bunds. “This effect could become even stronger following the downgrade of the U.S.,” the
      newspaper said. Philipp Rösler, the German economics minister, said he did not want to comment on decisions by ratings
      agencies. But he told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag, “It’s obvious that the competitiveness of the economies of other
      countries is also an important issue for us.”


Space-Based Solar Power could potentially cost over 2 trillion yen ($25 billion), take over 15 years to fully
develop
Yomiuri Shibum, 2/24/11, Japanese magazine, “Space-based solar power set for 1st test”,
http://www.ecodeonline.com/blog/?p=92
      Jan. 22–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. The Solarbird system would collect sunlight using reflecting mirrors fitted onto satellites in
      geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the equator. After the electricity is generated, it would be converted into
      microwaves and transmitted to Earth. The microwaves–to be sent as harmless radio waves–would be received at ground
      stations 3 kilometers in diameter and placed on the sea or in sunny desert areas, and then converted back into electricity.
      The key to making the system practical hinges on the efficient conversion of electricity into microwaves. The experiment
      will be conducted in a room that does not reflect electromagnetic waves to mimic the conditions of space. If the team
      succeeds in converting a strong electrical current into microwaves and transmitting them about 10 meters, it will then start
      work on reducing the weight of the power generation equipment and improving the transmission technology. The team
      hopes to launch a trial satellite sometime after 2016. It is estimated that implementing a workable space-based solar power
      generation system will cost about 2 trillion yen.

Fiscal Discipline key to keeping Moody’s Rating
Bloomberg 8/2
(Bloomberg, "US Credit Rating Affirmed as Moody's Fitch warn of Downgrade on Defecit," 8/2/2011 pg online @
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/u-s-aaa-rating-faces-moody-s-downgrade-on-debt-economic-slowdown-concern.html//arjun)
    Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings for the U.S. while warning that downgrades
    were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens. The outlook for the U.S. grade
    is now negative, Moody’s said in a statement yesterday after President Barack Obama signed into law a plan to lift the
    nation’s borrowing limit and cut spending following months of wrangling between Democratic leaders and Republican
    lawmakers. The compromise “is a positive step toward reducing the future path of the deficit and the debt levels,” Steven
    Hess, senior credit officer at Moody’s in New York, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “We do think more needs to be
    done to ensure a reduction in the debt to GDP ratio, for example, going forward.” JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a
    downgrade would raise U.S. borrowing costs by $100 billion a year, while Obama said it could hurt the broader economy
    by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. The ratio of general government debt, including state and
    local governments, to gross domestic product is projected to climb to 100 percent in 2012, the most of any AAA-ranked
    country, Fitch said in April. “A downgrade is a sign that Congress is failing to address a real fiscal issue,” Guy LeBas, chief
    fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, said in an interview before the announcements.
    ‘Tough Choices’ A decision on the rating may be made within two years, or “considerably sooner,” according to Moody’s
    Hess. Fitch’s David Riley said that while the rating may be cut in the medium term, its risks in the near-term “are not high.”
    The company expects to complete the ratings review by this month. “Although the agreement is a good first step in
    adjusting the fiscal challenges that the U.S. faces, it is just a first step,” Riley, Fitch’s London-based head of sovereign
    ratings, said in a telephone interview yesterday. Standard & Poor’s put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it



Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          8
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
      risks losing its AAA rating unless lawmakers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. S&P
      indicated last week that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the grade. S&P, which has ranked the U.S.
      AAA since 1941, rates 18 sovereign issuers as AAA, including Canada, Germany and Singapore, according to Bloomberg
      data. Spain and Japan are among those ranked at the AA level by ratings company. Debt-Limit Compromise So far the
      threat of losing a AAA rating has been overwhelmed by concerns about a continued slowdown in the U.S. economy,
      supporting demand for Treasuries. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note fell reached 2.59 percent in Tokyo trading
      today, extending declines to the lowest since November. The yield is below the 4.05 percent average in the past decade. A
      gain in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan
      said in a report, citing Federal Reserve research and data. Obama signed the debt-limit compromise on the day the Treasury
      had warned the nation’s borrowing authority would expire, ending a months-long debate that reinforced partisan divisions
      over federal spending. Debt-to-GDP The Senate voted 74-26 for the measure, which raises the nation’s debt ceiling until
      2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years. The
      House passed the plan Aug. 1. “While the combination of the congressional committee process and automatic triggers
      provides a mechanism to induce fiscal discipline, this framework is untested,” Moody’s said in its statement. Moody’s said
      its baseline scenario assumes that fiscal discipline is maintained in 2012. “Further measures will likely be required to
      ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a Aaa rating,” Moody’s said. The credit rater expects a
      stabilization of the federal government’s debt-to-gross domestic product ratio not too far above its projected 2012 level of
      73 percent by the middle of the decade, followed by a decline.


Downgrade Kills the Economy – Higher Interest Rates – Kill the Dollar – Increase inflation – kills
consumer confidence
Seeking Alpha 8/4
(Seeking Alpha, Read. Decide. Invest, "What Happens if the US Gets a Sovereign Credit Downgrade?" 8/4/11 pg online @
seekingalpha.com/article/284485-what-happens-if-the-u-s-gets-a-sovereign-credit-downgrade//arjun)
     So what happens if the United States does get a downgrade? A downgrade would increase the borrowing costs. JP Morgan
     already estimated a downgrade would cost the U.S. government $100 billion a year. But the buck doesn't stop there, the
     higher interest rate and payments would trickle down to state, local governments, business and individual as well, since
     most loan interest rates are benchmarked against the U.S. Treasury rate. A downgrade could also have a negative impact on
     the dollar, driving up consumer inflation, while diminishing consumer purchasing power. Moreover, the U.S. treasury
     accounts for a significant portion of many portfolios around the world, as it is historically the "safe" investment. A
     downgrade of U.S. bonds would have a serious wealth reducing effect on a global scale. It would also derail consumer and
     business confidence. No investment/spending equals no new job creations, which would make the unemployment situation
     even worse. (See graphic from McClatchy)



Nuclear War and extinction
Bearden, Fellow of the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study & Director of the Association of Distinguished American
Scientists, 6-12-2K (T.E., “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” ADAS Position Paper: Solution to the Energy
Crisis, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
      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 {2} 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 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, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed
      . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for
      many decades.



Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     9
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc   DDW 2011
                                                 1




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                               10
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                        Wind Power CP
Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should contract aerospace companies to design,
build, and implement a sufficient number of efficient wind turbines to supply the country’s energy needs.


Wind power is burdened by failures; utilizing aerospace technology rectifies their solvency takeouts
Rani Richardson, Former Director of Operations at Magestic Systems Inc., an aerospace company CATIA PLM Composites
Consultant, 2009 “Wind Turbine Blade Composites Design: Leveraging Aerospace Advances for Improved Durability”
http://www.plmv5.com/composites/downloads/Dassault_Systemes_composite_white_paper.pdf
      With such high hopes riding on this alternative energy source, the wind turbine blade industry is working hard to improve
      manufacturing efficiency and address blade failure issues, but challenges remain great, with failure rates as high as 20%
      within three years. Borrowing best practices for the design and production of composite rotorcraft blades from the
      aerospace industry can vault wind turbine blade manufacturers to the forefront of the wind energy industry. These
      techniques have the potential to reduce development costs and cycle times by integrating the entire design and
      manufacturing process within a single environment. Simulation can be used to virtually verify the manufacturability and
      durability at almost no cost, avoiding the high cost of trial and error in the real world and achieving significantly lower
      failure rates.


Wind power would solve the world’s energy needs 5 times over
Michael B. McElroy et al., Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies, Director of the Atmospheric and Environmental
Research Inc., Xi Lu, Postdoctoral Associate, Former Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, 6/7/ 09, Proc
National Academy of Science USA, Vol 106.
     Approximately 1% of the total solar energy absorbed by the Earth is converted to kinetic energy in the atmosphere,
     dissipated ultimately by friction at the Earth's surface (16, 17). If we assume that this energy is dissipated uniformly over
     the entire surface area of the Earth (it is not), this would imply an average power source for the land area of the Earth of
     ≈3.4 × 1014 W equivalent to an annual supply of energy equal to 10,200 quad [10,800 exajoules (EJ)], ≈22 times total
     current global annual consumption of commercial energy. Doing the same calculation for the lower 48 states of the U.S.
     would indicate a potential power source of 1.76 × 1013 W corresponding to an annual yield of 527 quad (555 EJ), some 5.3
     times greater than the total current annual consumption of commercial energy in all forms. In the U.S. Wind energy
     is not, however, uniformly distributed over the Earth and regional patterns of dissipation depend not only on the wind
     source available in the free troposphere but also on the frictional properties of the underlying surface. We focus here on the
     potential energy that could be intercepted and converted to electricity by a globally distributed array of wind turbines, the
     distribution and properties of which were described above. Accounting for land areas we judge to be inappropriate for their
     placement (forested and urban regions and areas covered either by water or by permanent ice), the potential power source is
     estimated at 2,350 quad (2,470 EJ). The distribution of potential power for this more realistic case is illustrated in Fig. 1.
     We restricted attention in this analysis to turbines that could function with capacity factors at or >20%. Results for the
     potential electricity that could be generated using wind on a country-by-country basis are summarized in Fig. 2 for onshore
     (A) and offshore (B) environments. Placement of the turbines onshore and offshore was restricted as discussed earlier. Table
     1 presents a summary of results for the 10 countries identified as the largest national emitters of CO 2. The data included
     here refer to national reporting of CO2 emissions and electricity consumption for these countries in 2005. An updated
     version of the table would indicate that China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2, having surpassed the U.S. in the
     early months of 2006. Wind power potential for the world as a whole and the contiguous U.S. is summarized in Table 2.
     The results in Table 1 indicate that large-scale development of wind power in China could allow for close to an 18-fold
     increase in electricity supply relative to consumption reported for 2005. The bulk of this wind power, 89%, could be
     derived from onshore installations. The potential for wind power in the U.S. is even greater, 23 times larger than current
     electricity consumption, the bulk of which, 84%, could be supplied onshore. Results for the contiguous U.S. will be
     discussed in more detail in the next section. If the top 10 CO2 emitting countries were ordered in terms of wind power
     potential, Russia would rank number 1, followed by Canada with the U.S. in the third position. There is an important
     difference to be emphasized, however, between wind power potential in the abstract and the fraction of the resource that is
     likely to be developed when subjected to realistic economic constraints. Much of the potential for wind power in Russia and




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      11
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                             1
                                                         Wind Power CP
      Canada is located at large distances from population centers. Given the inevitably greater expense of establishing wind
      farms in remote locations and potential public opposition to such initiatives, it would appear unlikely that these resources
      will be developed in the near term. Despite these limitations, it is clear that wind power could make a significant
      contribution to the demand for electricity for the majority of the countries listed in Table 1, in particular for the 4 largest
      CO2 emitters, China, the U.S., Russia, and Japan. It should be noted, however, the resource for Japan is largely confined to
      the offshore area, 82% of the national total. To fully exploit these global resources will require inevitably significant
      investment in transmission systems capable of delivering this power to regions of high load demand. The electricity that
      could be generated potentially on a global basis by using wind, displayed as a function of an assumed capacity factor cutoff
      on installed turbines, is presented in Fig. 3 for onshore (A) and offshore (B) environments. The results in Fig. 3A suggest
      that total current global consumption of electricity could be supplied by wind while restricting installation of land-
      based turbines to regions characterized by most favorable wind conditions, regions where the turbines might be expected to
      function with capacity factors >53%. If the cutoff capacity factor were lowered to 36%, the energy content of electricity
      generated by using wind with land-based turbines globally would be equivalent to total current global consumption of
      energy in all forms. Cutoff capacity factors needed to accommodate similar objectives with offshore resources would need
      to be reduced as indicated in Fig. 3B. To place these considerations in context, we would note that capacity factors realized
      by turbines installed in the U.S. in 2004 and 2005 have averaged close to 36% (18).


Green tech jobs stimulate the aerospace industry solving the aerospace impacts
AIA 6/30, Aerospace Industries Association, premier trade association representing the nation's major aerospace and defense manufacturers,
June 30, 2011.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33997

      Former FAA Administrator and current President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, Marion C. Blakey, called
      for accelerated implementation of FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System and increased U.S. investment in research
      and development to avoid losing our leadership in aerospace and defense. "It's important to properly fund and promote our
      aerospace and defense industry and the research and development needed to sustain it," Blakey said at a luncheon hosted by the
      Aero Club of Washington today. Blakey also said that it was important for the aerospace industry to underscore the critical role
      of aerospace and defense in supporting our nation and economy, especially during ongoing budget debates. AIA is launching a
      campaign called Second to None to ensure that Congress and other officials understand that the industry is a perishable national
      asset. "The aerospace and defense industry - which is second to none in the world, represents a smart business decision," said
      Blakey. "Our products keep the world's economy moving, our families safe at home and our troops secure and successful
      abroad." Further identifying the issues that place the industry at a crossroads, she said that half of U.S. aerospace engineers will
      become eligible for retirement by 2015. In addition, for the first time in 100 years, no new manned military aircraft are in design.
      Outdated export rules are hampering businesses as well as unmanned aerial systems, which Blakey called "game-changers in this
      century." NextGen will help environmental efforts by saving fuel and reducing emissions. The aviation industry has
      committed to achieve carbon-neutral growth by 2020 through the use of NextGen technologies and green fuel
      alternatives. However, these initiatives require government support, including R&D funding for FAA and NASA.




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        12
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                           Warming
***case arguments are tentative based on time***

Can’t solve—would take a thousand years and too many satellites
Hempsell 6 (Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, October 2006, Acta Astronautica,
Volume 59, Issue 7, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755)
    The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the
    atmosphere would clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual
    production rate of around 30 Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gas
    over a year and split the carbon from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a
    removal and processing plant would remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current
    production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with around 200 SPS in place providing
    most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to
    remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated
    to CO2 removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current production
    rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be operational for a
    thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence on energy from fossil fuels.


Positive feedback theory wrong - climate satellite data proves
National Review 11 (National Review, 7/30/11, www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/273239/nasa-study-shatters-climate-
alarmists-assumptions-mario-loyola “NASA Study Shatters Climate Alarmists’ Assumptions”)
     Still, I assumed that at least the climate scientists had some firm idea of how much heat a certain amount of carbon dioxide
     would trap directly and indirectly through increased humidity and cloud cover. Well now it turns out that even on
      this most essential assumption of all their claims, they didn’t know what they were talking about. An
      explosive study based on NASA satellite data collected over the past decade shows that the planet’s
      atmosphere traps far less heat than any of the most frequently cited models presumed. The study, by Dr.
      Roy Spencer and Dr. William Braswell of the University of Alabama, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote
      Sensing. This is from the press release: “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to
      space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge
      discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.” Not only does
      the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming
      cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming
      event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before
      the typical warming event reaches its peak. “At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate
      models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said. This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative
      balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks. Applied to long-term climate change, the
      research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide
      concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of
      global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change
      cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.


No peak oil - new discoveries will triple reserves – new technology makes it cost effective
CERA 06 (Cambridge Energy Research Associates ,“Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy &
Energy Debate”, 11/14, http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444 AD 6/28/11)
    In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new
    analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil


Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    13
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                                              1
    resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by
    the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted,
    distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future. “The global resource base of
    conventional and unconventional oils, including historical production of 1.08 trillion barrels and yet-to-be-produced resources,
    is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow,” CERA Director of Oil Industry Activity Peter M. Jackson writes in Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down: Myths,
    Legends, and the Future of Oil Resources. The CERA projection is based on the firm’s analysis of fields currently in production and those yet-to-be produced or discovered. “The
    ‘peak oil’ theory causes confusion and can lead to inappropriate actions and turn attention away from the real issues,” Jackson observes. “Oil is too critical to the global economy to
    allow fear to replace careful analysis about the very real challenges with delivering liquid fuels to meet the needs of growing economies. This is a very important debate, and as such
                                       This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil,” says CERA
    it deserves a rational and measured discourse.” “
    Chairman Daniel Yergin. “Each time -- whether it was the ‘gasoline famine’ at the end of WWI or the ‘permanent shortage’
    of the 1970s -- technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There’s
    no reason to think that technology is finished this time.”


Their warming impacts are overhyped, it won’t cause extinction, or even any significant negative
consequences until 2300
Lomborg 8 (Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business
School, “Warming warnings get overheated”, The Guardian, 8/15/08,
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange)
     These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities, if it
     weren’t for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a global
      warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a “catastrophe” and the
      beginning of the “extinction” of the human race. This is simply silly. His evidence? That 4C would mean that
      all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term sea level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear,
      seeing billions of people die. Clearly, Tickell has maxed out the campaigners’ scare potential (because there is
      no more ice to melt, this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let us just remember that the UN climate
      panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the century between 1.8 and 6.0C. Within this
      range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise 18-59 centimetres – Tickell
      is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly claim that he was talking about what
      could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous. First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a
      century scale – this is what we talk about and can plan for. Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries
      to come, the models unanimously show that Greenland’s ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase even
      more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for the next three centuries. What will happen beyond that clearly
      depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that CO2 stays in the atmosphere about a century, what
      happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now mainly depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it
      seems unlikely non-carbon emitting technology such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive).
      Third, Tickell tells us how the 80m sea-level rise would wipe out all the world’s coastal infrastructure and much of the
      world’s farmland – “undoubtedly” causing billions to die. But to cause billions to die, it would require the surge
      to occur within a single human lifespan. This sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong and misleading,
      mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims the earth is coming to an end and we need to repent. While
      it is probably true that the sun will burn up the earth in 4-5bn years’ time, it does give a slightly different perspective on the
      need for immediate repenting. Tickell’s claim that 4C will be the beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond
      wrong and misleading, and, of course, made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such
      a 4C temperature rise. For the Copenhagen Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary Yohe, did a
      survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a temperature rise over this century of about approximately
      4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as temperatures rise, more people will die from heat, but fewer from
      cold; agricultural yields will decline in the tropics, but increase in the temperate zones, etc. The model evaluates the
      impacts on agriculture, forestry, energy, water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease.
      The bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is about 0.25% of global
      GDP). Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070, when the damages will begin
      to outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This
      is simply not the end of humanity. If anything, global warming is a net benefit now; and even in three


Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                          14
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                             DDW 2011
                                                                                                                             1
      centuries, it will not be a challenge to our civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to
      be 1,700% richer by the end of this century.




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                            15
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
                                                            Solvency
Tech is 40 years away
Space Review 8 (Dwayne A. Day, Ph.D in Political Science from The George Washington University, program officer for the
Space Studies Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, specialized in space policy and management of
the national security bureaucracy, 6/9/2008, “Knights in shining armor,” www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1 //vkoneru)
     The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing
     practical SSP and that it is not a viable solution for even the military’s limited requirements. It states
     that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist… and is unlikely to exist for the next
     forty years. Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, 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). The
     activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger.



UV rays will destroy satellites.
Taylor 7 – Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command; B.A, Berry
College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University (Michael W. “Trashing the Solar System One
Planet at a Time: Earth’s Orbital Debris Problem,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall, 2007, Gale)
    <Without Earth's atmosphere to protect them, satellites are exposed to the full force of solar radiation,
    including ultraviolet rays, X-rays, positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. n16 Ultraviolet rays and X-
     rays can damage satellites by degrading solar panels, which many satellites use as a source of energy, thus
     shortening their useful life. n17 When solar activity increases, the number of damaging rays also increases.
     The charged particles can cause even [*5] more damage than the rays because the particles penetrate the
     outer layers of the satellite and directly degrade its electronic systems. Unlike the rays, which are generally evenly
     distributed around Earth, the particles become trapped in Earth's magnetic field and concentrate in two doughnut-
     shaped (torus) areas around the equator. n18 These regions are called the Van Allen radiation belts. n19 The Van Allen
     radiation belts significantly limit the operation of satellites.>


Not enough energy is received from satellites to solve
Paul Evans, staff writer, February 22, 2009. “Solar power beamed from space within a decade?” http://www.gizmag.com/solar-
power-space-satellite/11064
    February 23, 2009
    The concept of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) has been doing the rounds for decades with fantastic claims of 24 hour a
    day solar power beamed from space via microwave to any point on earth. A start up company called Space Energy, Inc says
    it plans to develop SBSP satellites to generate and transmit electricity to receivers on the Earth's surface. To do this, the
    company plans to create and launch a prototype satellite into low earth orbit (LEO). The hitch: this concept is based on as
    yet unproven technology. SBSP was theorized over 40 years ago by renowned scientist Dr. Peter Glaser. Since then, in
    response to periodic energy crises, the idea has been re-evaluated from time to time by the U.S. Department of Energy,
    NASA, major aerospace companies and countries such as Japan and India. Solar power satellites are large arrays of
    photovoltaic panels assembled in orbit, which use microwave radio waves to transmit solar power to large receiving
    antennas on Earth. The resulting power can either supplement, or be a substitute for, conventional electricity sources. The
    advantage of placing solar collectors in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), about 36,000 kilometres (22,500 miles) above
    Earth, is that it uses the constant and unobstructed output of the Sun, unaffected by the Earth's day/night cycle.
    By contrast, ground-based solar power provides a vital and valuable addition to the Earth's energy needs, but is limited by
    these factors: Weather,Variable seasons, Atmospheric blocking of sunlight, Poor direct sunlight at higher and lower
    latitudes, Because none of these factors applies in outer-space, an orbiting SBSP station can supposedly provide an
    estimated 6-8 times more power than a comparable solar cell on the Earth's surface. Here’s where the entire concept falls
    flat. Space Energy, Inc claims that a successful long-range wireless power transmission test was
    conducted in mid-2008, that supposedly transmitted a microwave beam (similar to the kind that would be


Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    16
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                         DDW 2011
                                                                                                                          1
      used to transmit energy from space to Earth) between two Hawaiian Islands across 148 kilometres - more than the
      distance from the surface of the Earth to the boundary of space. They claim this test demonstrated the technical
      feasibility of transmitting SBSP to Earth. Less than 1/1000th of 1% received Unfortunately for Space Energy, Inc
      and the entire concept of space based solar power, the actual test results conducted for a Discovery channel
      documentary proved a total failure. The former NASA executive and physicist who organized the experiment, John
      Mankins, admitted in a press conference that the $1 Million budget spent of the experiment resulted in less
      than 1/1000th of 1% of the power transmitted being received on the other island.




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                         17
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                                            1
                                                                                  Heg
US leadership doesn’t solve war
Conry 97 (Barbara, Foreign Policy Analyst – Cato, Policy Analysis No. 267, 2-5, “U.S. ‘Global Leadership’: A Euphemism for
World Policeman,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.html)
   Other proponents of U.S. political and military leadership do not point to particular benefits; instead, they warn of near-
   certain disaster if the United States relinquishes its leadership role. Christopher paints a bleak picture: Just consider
   what the world would be like without American leadership in the last two years alone. We would have four nuclear states in the
   former Soviet Union, instead of one, with Russian missiles still targeted at our homes. We would have a full-throttled nuclear
   program in North Korea; no GATT agreement and no NAFTA; brutal dictators still terrorizing Haiti; very likely, Iraqi troops
   back in Kuwait; and an unresolved Mexican economic crisis, which would threaten stability at our border. [55] Gingrich has
   pronounced a future without American leadership "a big mess." [56]And former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has
   warned, What we are possibly looking at in 2095 [absent U.S. leadership] is an unstable world in which there are more than half a
   dozen "great powers," each with its own clients, all vulnerable if they stand alone, all capable of increasing their power and
   influence if they form the right kind of alliance, and all engaged willy-nilly in perpetual diplomatic maneuvers to ensure that their
   relative positions improve rather than deteriorate. In other words, 2095 might look like 1914 played on a somewhat larger stage.
   [57] In other words, if America abdicates its role as world leader, we are condemned to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th
   century--or perhaps do something even worse. Such thinking is seriously flawed, however. First, to assert that U.S.
   leadership can stave off otherwise inevitable global chaos vastly overestimates the power of any single country
   to influence world events. The United States is powerful, but it still can claim only 5 percent of the world's
   population and 20 percent of world economic output. Moreover, regardless of the resources Americans might be
   willing to devote to leading the world, today's problems often do not lend themselves well to external solutions. As
                                  the greatest fear of most states is not external aggression but internal disorder. The
     Maynes has pointed out, Today,
     United States can do little about the latter, whereas it used to be able to do a great deal about the former. In other words, the coinage of
     U.S. power in the world has been devalued by the change in the international agenda. [58] Indeed, many of the foreign policy problems that
     have confounded Washington since the demise of the Soviet Union are the kinds of problems that are likely to trouble the world well into the next century.
     "Failed states," such as Somalia, may not be uncommon. But, as the ill-fated U.S. and UN operations in that
     country showed, there is very little that outside powers can do about such problems. External powers usually lack
     the means to prevent or end civil wars, such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, unless they are willing to make a tremendous effort to
     do so. Yet those types of internecine conflicts are likely to be one of the primary sources of international disorder for the foreseeable future.
     Despite the doomsayers who prophesy global chaos in the absence of U.S. leadership, however, Washington's limited ability to dampen such conflicts is not cause
     for panic. Instability is a normal feature of an international system of sovereign states, which the United States can tolerate and has
     tolerated for more than two centuries. If vital American interests are not at stake, instability itself becomes a serious problem only if the United States blunders
     into it, as it did in Somalia and Bosnia. [59]



Other things prevent us being a leader – like launcher shortages
Robert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed
Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership,
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)
     NASA Administrator Michael Griffin warned last month that if the next generation of human spacecraft is further
     delayed, and the four-year lag between the Space Shuttle and Orion grows, “we will be seen by many as ceding our
     national leadership in human spaceflight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities and India
     is developing them.” As a businessman, I can’t imagine investing to develop a significant, sustainable, defining core
     competency and differentiating strategic advantage only to abandon the position. As a minimum, this could lead to a
     situation where other countries with space aspirations start looking for new partners.


AND – lack of talent




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                       18
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                                       1
Robert J. Stevens, 2007, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 04/10/2007 (Lockheed
Martin, 23rd National Space Symposium, The Next 50 Years of U.S. Space Leadership,
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/speeches/Next50YearsOfUSSpaceLeadership.html)
     Third, we need a sustained commitment to inspire and recruit our brightest minds. The space race inspired my generation to
     pursue careers in science and engineering. Yet, today, U.S. colleges and universities are only producing about 78,000
     engineering undergraduates a year – and that figure hasn’t grown in a decade. This has created a serious
     challenge for companies like Lockheed Martin, where one in three of our current employees is over the age of 50 – and
     47% of our workforce has earned the professional distinction of scientist or engineer. Even as the U.S. aerospace sector
     struggles to replenish our workforce, there is no doubt that China is racing ahead to build the technical wave of
     the future, with 50 percent of Chinese undergraduates getting degrees in natural science or engineering. Of equal concern, this is
     taking place at a time of intense competition for skilled technical employees. Today, the most innovative,
     ambitious young minds are being recruited by firms like Google – a firm that didn’t exist a decade ago, which FORTUNE magazine lists as the
     Best Company to Work For in America.



The U.S Military is currently decreasing their dependency on fossil fuels
NYT 10 (“U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels” October 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html)
      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.



US aerospace is the strongest industry in American and is growing
Select USA, a Federal Program designed to support US industry, 2011 “The U.S. Aerospace Industry”
http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/aerospace-industry-united-states

      The U.S. aerospace industry is the largest in the world and the industry continued to show reasonable strength in 2010
      despite the lingering effects of the global economic downturn. In 2010 the U.S. aerospace industry contributed $85 billion
      in export sales to the U.S. economy. The industry’s positive trade balance of $44.1 billion is the largest trade surplus of
      any manufacturing industry and came from exporting 42 percent of all aerospace production and 72 percent of civil
      aircraft and component production. Foreign firms are attracted to the U.S. aerospace market because it is the largest in the
      world and has a skilled and hospitable workforce, extensive distribution systems, diverse offerings, and strong support at
      the local and national level for policy and promotion. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
      aerospace supports more jobs through exports than any other industry. The U.S. aerospace industry directly employs about
      500,000 workers in scientific and technical jobs across the nation and supports more than 700,000 jobs in related fields.
      Investment in the U.S. aerospace industry is facilitated by a large pool of well trained machinists, aerospace engineers, and
      other highly-skilled workers with experience in the aerospace industry. Industry estimates indicate that the annual increase
      in the number of large commercial airplanes over the next 20 years will be 3.2 percent per year for a total of 30,900 valued
      at $3.6 trillion. Applying a 3.3% annual growth rate over the next five years with 2010 exports as a base ($85B), 2015



Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                      19
06cec554-8403-4b88-87f9-dd4ef10de457.doc                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                     1
      aerospace exports are estimated at $99.98B, a 17.6 percent increase over 2010 exports.




Last printed 5/23/2012 10:56:00 PM
                                                                                                   20

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:5/24/2012
language:
pages:20
suchufp suchufp http://
About