; Control + 1 – Block Headings
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Control + 1 – Block Headings


  • pg 1
									8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its mining of asteroids beyond
the earth’s mesosphere.

Advantage 1 – Rare Earths

China will soon stop exporting rare earth metals – its monopoly ensures a supply chain collapse
Hsu 10 (Jeremy Hsu, Writer for PopSci, 3/17/10, “Shortage of Rare Earth Minerals May Cripple U.S. High-Tech, Scientists Warn
Congress,” PopSci, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/shortage-rare-earth-minerals-may-cripple-us-high-tech-
     All those hybrid and electric cars, wind turbines and similar clean tech innovations may count for nothing if the U.S. cannot
     secure a supply of rare earth minerals. Ditto for other advanced telecommunications or defense technologies, scientists told
     a U.S. House subcommittee. China has supplied 91 percent of U.S. consumption of rare earths between 2005 and 2008, and
     continues to represent the world's largest rare earth exporter. But the Chinese have warned that their own domestic industry
     appetite for rare earths may eventually force them to stop exporting -- an action that would leave the U.S. high-tech
     industries crippled without other readily available supplies. "The United States, not so long ago, was the world leader in
     producing and exporting rare earths," said Brad Miller, the Democratic Representative from North Carolina and chairman
     of the subcommittee. "Today, China is the world's leader." Experts testified that China's state-owned mines had set
     artificially low prices for the rare earth market, and that Chinese manufacturers had also forced most U.S. rare earth and
     permanent magnet manufacturers out of business. Rare earth magnets represent a major component in Toyota's Prius hybrid
     and other clean tech.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                     Asteroid Mining 1AC
Seabed mining fails – no tech, environmental concerns, international regulations, and cost-prohibitive
Scientific American, July 9th 2011, “Experts Skeptical about Potential of Rare Earth Elements in Seafloor Mud”,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rare-earth-elements-ocean, JPW
      There in the mud, just waiting to be scooped up, is a natural resource deposit potentially worth billions and billions of
      dollars. It contains chemical elements needed by automakers, by manufacturers of consumer electronics and by green
      technology developers—elements for which China currently holds a global near monopoly. The catch? The mud, which is
      enriched in the technologically crucial metals known as the rare earth elements, is beneath thousands of meters of water in
      the Pacific Ocean. Extracting resources from such depths brings technological, economic and regulatory hurdles, all of
      which would have to be overcome before deep-sea rare earths become an ingredient in tomorrow's catalytic converters,
      wind turbines and computer screens. As a result, experts say, it will be many years—if ever—before that seafloor resource
      is tapped. The deep-sea rare earths came to light in a study by a group of Japanese researchers, which was published online
      July 3 in Nature Geoscience. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The researchers analyzed more than
      2,000 samples of Pacific seafloor sediment and found high concentrations of rare earth elements. (The 17 rare earth
      elements include the lanthanide series—from lanthanum to lutetium on the periodic table—plus yttrium and scandium.)
      They estimated that there could be more than 100 million metric tons of rare earth compounds in the seafloor mud. And a
      preliminary estimate showed that one square kilometer of seafloor mud around a sampling location known as site 1222
      could provide one fifth of the world's annual supply of rare earths. But the reality is that extracting that mud is not yet
      feasible for a number of reasons. "To characterize it as something that's an economic resource might be an overstatement at
      this point," says Porter Hoagland, a senior research specialist in marine policy at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
      (WHOI). "There are a host of economic factors that kind of work against a cost-effective recovery offshore." To access the
      rare earths at site 1222, for instance, would require pulling up the top 70 meters of seafloor sediment, filtering out the water
      content, removing the valuable rare earths (which make up less than one part per thousand of the sediment) and returning
      the rest of the material to the seabed. Such an undertaking would require new technology, a long permitting process—and,
      of course, a lot of money. So there would have to be a significant economic incentive to access the seafloor resource.
      "That's why I'm not sure the rare earth elements are enough in themselves to provide that," says James Hein, a geologist at
      the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif. After all, the global rare earth market is relatively small—it currently runs
      about $2 billion to $3 billion annually, according to a recent report from Ernst & Young, whereas the markets for metals
      such as copper are dozens of times larger. "I'll be surprised, really, if this gets much attention as a resource potential in the
      near term," Hein says. "The grades really are just not very high, and the environmental issues will just be so great." At
      depths of 4,000 to 5,000 meters, seafloor ecosystems are not well understood, nor are the potential impacts of large-scale
      dredging on those ecosystems. "Essentially, this would be a strip-mining operation where they would be sucking up lots of
      sediments from the seafloor over large areas," says Craig Smith, a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaii at
      Manoa, "which would of course destroy the communities that reside there." Those ecosystems, to the extent that they have
      been explored, have low biomass but high biodiversity. And, having taken hold in a stable environment, they are not
      adapted to large-scale disturbances. "Four thousand meters in the deep ocean is a long way down, and we don't know how
      to mitigate against significant environmental impacts or how to restore the ecosystem, if you can even restore the
      ecosystem," says Cindy Van Dover, an oceanographer at Duke University. "We don't understand a lot about what is going
      on down there from an ecological standpoint." Many of the sites sampled by the Japanese researchers are in international
      waters and would fall under the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority, based in Jamaica, which means any
      mining concern looking to extract seafloor rare earths would likely face a long regulatory process. "Doing things there is a
      very slow and considered process," Van Dover says. "Things don't happen overnight in international waters." If it does
      become economically feasible to extract rare earths from the Pacific seafloor, the needs of ecosystems on the seafloor will
      have to be balanced with the economic and societal benefits from mining there. Rare earths appear in a number of products
      in relatively small quantities—as phosphors in plasma screens, for instance. Much larger quantities are needed for some
      green-technology applications—the batteries in hybrid cars contain several kilograms of rare earths, and the magnets used
      in wind turbines can require hundreds of kilograms. "If the human demand for metals continues to be as high as it is, or go
      up, then there will be continued demand for these metals and rare earth elements," Smith says, adding that involving marine
      scientists early on can help ensure that exploitation is carried out in a responsible way. "I personally would prefer not to see
      the deep sea trashed, but I think we have to be realistic," he says. For the time being, though, the barriers to extracting rare
      earths from the seafloor loom large. And if the deep-ocean mud is never tapped, it would not be the first time that seafloor
      resources have been trumpeted without much follow through from industry. "My skepticism comes from years of grandiose
      claims and then nothing really happening," WHOI's Hoagland says. "That says to me that it's not cost-effective to go get
      this stuff."

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc   DDW 2011

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                DDW 2011
                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Rare earth metal supply will only decrease and prices will only increase – export quotas, escalating
Chinese and foreign demand, and the Chinese monopoly – cripples US
MarketResearch.com 08 (MarketResearch.com, world's largest and continuously updated collection of market research.
offereing market research reports from over 700 leading global publishers, hosting Research Specialists that have in-depth knowledge
of the publishers and the various types of reports in their respective industries, 10/20/08, “China Industry Research And Investment
Analysis: Rare Earth Metal Smelting Industry, 2008,” MarketResearch.com – Reports from China)
      China boasts the largest rare-earth reserves among all countries in the world. In the past, China sold primary products like
      rare earth chloride, carbonate-rich rare earths to foreign companies, which would then separate and refine these primary
      materials to produce rare-earth metals. As China's rare-earth smelting techniques develop and upgrade, not only the quality
      of its products has been improved, but its production capacity has also expanded. Instead of selling primary products, China
      has begun to sell single rare-earth oxides and fluorides to foreign companies. In recent years, China's rare-earth industry has
      developed an enormous competitive edge due to two important factors: firstly, China's rare-earth industry has been growing
      by leaps and bounds, its output of rare-earth metals has multiplied, and both the industry's technological level and product
      quality have reached or even surpassed those of other countries; secondly, the production cost in China is very low, to the
      point that even the sales price of China's rare-earth products is lower than the production cost of foreign enterprises. As a
      result, most rare-earth producing enterprises in countries like the United States, Japan, France, Britain, Germany, Austria,
      India, and Russia find it very difficult to make any more profits. They began to reduce or even stop their production
      activities and adopted a new strategy of buying rare-earth metals and alloys from China. At present, China's share in the
      world rare-earth metal and alloy product market is over 80 percent. In an attempt to regulate and improve its rare-earth
      metal ore mining industry, which is an upstream industry to many other industries, China has resorted to policies of mining
      quotas and export quotas in recent years to put a control over the indiscriminate mining practices in the industry and reduce
      malicious price competition. A positive result of these policies is the steadily rising rare-earth metal price. In 2007, 96.77
      percent of world rare-earth export came from China. The country has an absolute dominance in the world's rare-earth
      supply, and this position will remain so for a considerably long time to come. Due to China's rare-earth export quotas
      instituted in recent years, its export of rare-earth products in 2008 will decrease by about 5 percent over 2007. This,
      together with the fact that the world's consumption of rare-earth metals continues to grow, is expected to further aggravate
      other country's dependence on China for rare-earth products. In addition, China is also the biggest rare-earth consumer in
      the world. Its share of rare-earth consumption in the world total has been steadily increasing and now the share is about 50
      percent. One of the biggest downstream industries for the industry is the electronic component and part manufacturing
      industry. Riding on the wave of the tremendous growth of China's electronic industry, the country's electronic component
      and part manufacturing industry is also booming. China has now become the world's manufacturing base for loudspeakers,
      electrolytic capacitors, kinescopes, printed circuit board, discrete semiconductor devices. In the first two months of 2008,
      China's electronic component manufacturing industry realized a gross industrial output value of 119.699181 billion RMB,
      an increase of 29.68 percent over the same period in 2007; and the industry's total sales revenue in the same period was
      115.11561 billion RMB, which was a 28.13 percent increase over the same period in 2007. The country's electronic device
      manufacturing industry also experienced tremendous growth in the first two months in 2008, achieving a gross industrial
      output value of 84.956401 billion RMB and total sales revenue of 79.937222 billion RMB, an increase of, respectively,
      30.12 percent and 29.63 percent over the same period in 2007. As the sales of electronic products (like laptop computers)
      and automobiles continues to grow, worldwide demand for rare-earth metals will increase and the world's dependence on
      China for rare-earth supply will also increase. These two factors will combine to push up the price of rare-earth metals.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
Supply disruptions are coming – countries will behave like shortages exist even if they don’t
Parthemore 11 (Christine Parthemore, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), where she directs the Natural
Security Program and the Natural Security Blog, prolific author, former journalist writing for The Washington Post, Roll Call, and
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, MA from Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, June 2011, “ELEMENTS OF
Security, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf)
     Assessing U.S. Vulnerability - Analysts vary widely in assessing the implications of U.S. dependence on critical minerals,
     despite broad acceptance of the physical reality that mineral resources are finite and the economic realities that
     requirements are ubiquitous and demand is growing. On one extreme, some analysts believe the 2010 incident between
     China and Japan suggests an approaching Hobbesian world in which resource demands outstrip supplies for minerals,
     nonrenewable energy sources and even food supplies. History indicates that conflict over absolute scarcities is unlikely. At
     the other end of the spectrum, many still believe that an open market and its invisible hand will continue to determine
     winners and losers with no serious repercussions for the United States given its purchasing power. In between these
     extremes, even staunch pragmatists will point to the 2010 China rare earths episode as proof of one basic tenet: The United
     States and other market-based economies no longer determine all the rules of global trade. Central to this narrative is a
     conundrum for policymakers. Reserve estimates show that global supplies of almost all minerals are adequate to meet
     expected global demands over the long term, and for decades into the future for most minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey
     (USGS) indicates, for example, that world supplies of rare earths will be adequate for more than 100 years.13 These
     estimates, however, can be meaningless in the near term if supplies are insufficient, or if suppliers reduce exports or
     otherwise manipulate trade. For example, most experts project that global production of rare earths will likely be
     insufficient to meet the world’s demand over the next two to three years. The long-term sufficiency of supplies has no
     practical effect because it takes years and high capital costs to start up new mining and processing businesses for rare
     earths. Thus, the risks of inaction are high. A range of political, economic and geographic factors can disrupt supplies and
     cause price spikes that can create rifts in bilateral relations, trade disputes, accusations of economic sabotage and instability
     in countries that possess rare reserves of prized minerals. They can also give supplier countries extraordinary leverage that
     can alter geopolitical calculations, especially when single countries control most world supplies. For U.S. policymakers,
     the risks fall into two rough categories: Disruptions, delivery lags and price spikes that affect military assets and place
     unanticipated strains on defense procurement budgets; and lack of affordable access to minerals and raw materials
     preventing important national economic growth goals. The defense industrial base in the modern era differs greatly from
     any previous time. Often, actual scarcity is not required for problems to arise, as concerns about future scarcities often drive
     countries to behave as if shortages are occurring. The National Academies recently reported, “The risk of supply
     interruption arguably has increased or, at the very least, has become different from the more traditional threats associated
     with the more familiar ideas of war and conflict.”14 During World War I and World War II, for example, governments
     counted on domestic steel production – and even civilian willingness to contribute scrap materials for reuse and recycling –
     for tanks and other equipment. In contrast, modern warfare relies on globalized and privatized supply chains rather than a
     primarily domestic (and often government-run) network. Vulnerability to mineral supply disruptions is likewise far broader
     and more complicated than it was in previous eras. Policymakers should also consider minerals that play uniquely
     important roles in the American economy. Rare earths, for example, are important in petroleum refining, which today
     enables the smooth functioning of the economy. Looking to the longer term, much concern is turning toward minerals that
     may see booming demand as the economy develops a greater reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy
     technologies, such as the lithium used in advanced batteries and hybrid and electric vehicles. These minerals will directly
     affect U.S. economic competitiveness, and plans for improving economic growth and job development. Pg. 11

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
Scenario 1 – China
The mere perception of a shortage triggers a US crackdown on China
Parthemore 11 (Christine Parthemore, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), where she directs the Natural
Security Program and the Natural Security Blog, prolific author, former journalist writing for The Washington Post, Roll Call, and
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, MA from Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, June 2011, “ELEMENTS OF
Security, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf)
     Minerals are a subject of much contention. On one hand, the United States remains less prepared for supply disruptions,
     price spikes and trade disagreements related to the global minerals trade than most experts realize. On the other hand,
     public concern over reliable access to the minerals required in key sectors of the U.S. economy, in particular those needed
     to produce military equipment, is growing. Too frequently, however, such concerns are based on inaccurate assumptions. A
     sober and informed analysis suggests there are real vulnerabilities, which place critical national security and foreign policy
     interests at risk. In worst-case scenarios, supplies of minerals that the United States does not produce domestically may be
     disrupted, creating price spikes and lags in delivery. Even short of major supply disruptions, supplier countries can exert
     leverage over the United States by threatening to cut off certain key mineral supplies. The United States may also lose
     ground strategically if it continues to lag in managing mineral issues, as countries that consider assured access to minerals
     as far more strategically important are increasingly setting the rules for trade in this area. China’s rising dominance is at the
     heart of this growing public debate. Its 2010 cutoff of rare earth elements2 – a unique set of minerals that are difficult to
     process yet critical to many hightech applications – attracted particular attention. After Japan detained a Chinese trawler
     captain over a skirmish in the East China Sea, Japanese companies reported weeks of stalled shipments of rare earths from
     China amid rumors of an official embargo. This may sound like a minor trade dispute, but China currently controls
     production of about 95 percent of the world’s rare earths, which are critical to building laser-guidance systems for weapons,
     refining petroleum and building wind turbines. Coinciding with possessing this incredible leverage over the rest of the
     world, China has also reduced its export quotas for these minerals. For its part, the Chinese government contended that it
     did not put any formal export embargo in place, and that its plans to reduce exports simply reflect the need to meet growing
     domestic demand for rare earths. Japan-China relations experienced further strain in their already tense relationship. In the
     United States, many reporters, policy analysts and decision makers did not foresee this challenge. Feeling blindsided, some
     in the United States characterized the situation in a manner that demonized China rather than using the opportunity to better
     understand the true nature of U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities. The 2010 rare earths case and others are increasing interest
     in critical minerals among U.S. policymakers. Congress held hearings on the strategic importance of minerals between
     2007 and 2010, and the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to study and report on its dependence on
     rare earth elements for weapons, communications and other systems.3 During a 2009 hearing on minerals and military
     readiness, Republican Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia called minerals, “one of those things that no one really
     talks about or worries about until something goes wrong. It’s at that point – the point where we don’t have the steel we need
     to build MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles] or the rhenium we need to build a JSF [Joint Strike Fighter]
     engine that the stockpile becomes critically important.”4 In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated
     that it would be “in our interests commercially and strategically” to find additional sources of supply for rare earth
     minerals, and stated that China’s recent cuts to rare earth exports “served as a wakeup call that being so dependent on only
     one source, disruption could occur for natural disaster reasons or other kinds of events could intervene.”5 In January 2011,
     Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., wrote a letter to Defense
     Secretary Robert Gates expressing concern for minerals required for producing defense equipment such as Joint Direct
     Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which stated, “Clearly, rare earth supply limitations present a serious vulnerability to our
     national security. Yet early indications are that DOD has dismissed the severity of the situation to date.”6 Additionally, the
     Department of Energy (DOE) launched a multiyear effort to explore potential vulnerabilities in supply chains for minerals
     that will be critical to four distinct areas of energy technology innovation. While concern is growing, the media and
     policymakers often focus too narrowly on what may seem the most compelling indicators – usually import dependence or
     scarcity – in prescribing solutions to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities, in particular to supply disruptions in critical minerals such
     as rare earths. This focus is sparking protectionist attitudes, with some worrying that import dependence poses an inherent
     risk to the U.S. economy. Discussion of minerals also frequently focuses on supply scarcity and resource depletion in
     absolute terms. However, both the rhenium and rare earth minerals disruptions of the past five years were triggered by
     deliberate decisions made by political leaders to leverage their positions of strength, not by market forces, disorder or
     scarcities of these minerals. Countries often revert to hoarding, pressuring suppliers and [continued, no omissions]

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                   DDW 2011
     otherwise behaving as if scarcities are present even when they are not, based solely on concerns that shortages are likely in
     the near term. In fact, neither scarcity nor import dependence alone is sufficient to signal vulnerability, and a combination
     of factors including concentration of suppliers is most often required for mineral issues to become security or foreign policy
     problems. This report, based on two years of research, site visits and discussions with stakeholders, explores how the
     supply, demand and use of minerals can impair U.S. foreign relations, economic interests and defense readiness. It
     examines cases of five individual minerals – lithium, gallium, rhenium, tantalum and niobium – and rare earth elements,
     such as neodymium, samarium and dysprosium, as a sixth group in order to show the complexity of addressing these
     concerns. Each of these minerals is critical for defense technologies and U.S. economic growth plans. They share
     characteristics with minerals that have caused important political or economic concerns for the United States in the past.
     Additionally, lithium is frequently cited in the media and in discussions of how clean energy supply chains are critical to
     meeting America’s future economic, energy and environmental goals. Within the past five years, two of these cases –
     rhenium and rare earth minerals – have involved supply disruptions or important threats of disruptions for the United States
     and its allies. Each of these minerals will require federal government attention in the coming years. Pg. 6-10

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
Shortages risk war – countries consider rare earth metals indispensible
Hinten-Nooijen 10 (Dr. Annemarie Hinten-Nooijen, Professor of Economics at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, 3/25/10,
“Rare minerals – The treasures of a sustainable economy”, http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over-tilburg-university/cultuur-en-
sport/cwl/publicaties/beschouwingen/minerals/, JPW)
      Driving a hybrid car, using energy from wind turbines or solar panels. That are choices to contribute to the transition to a
      sustainable economy. Sustainability is the spearhead of many western policy plans. It is regarded as the solution to get out
      of the crisis. But ironically, the raw materials that are needed for hybrid cars and wind turbines, for our technological
      industry as a whole, are not that sustainable. Necessarily required minerals like neodymium and indium are rare. And they
      are not available in the west, China has almost all of them. And having this position of power, China wants to use it. That is
      about strategy. The high-tech raw materials play a central part in the highly industrialised high-wage countries to survive
      the global competition by technological excellence. Will future wars be about minerals instead of oil, territories or water?
      THE BONE MARROW OF MODERN ECONOMY Minerals are an indispensable material pillar of our current economies
      and societies. They are the natural product of geological processes and occur in the crust of the planet. Only a fraction of
      the known minerals exists in greater quantities. Some of these are mined, refined and processed; are broken up into their
      elemental components, which are recombined into different types of materials. These materials are used to manufacture
      products that form the backbone of our modern economies: from LCD displays to fighter jets, from smart phones to electric
      cars. Without minerals, industrial society and modern technology would be inconceivable. That seems unbelievable,
      because we hardly hear or read about them in the media - whereas several research reports have been published recently.
      But imagine that by reading this article on printed paper or at your computer screen, minerals like nickel, chromium,
      molybdenum, gallium, selenium, aluminium, silicon and manganese were needed! And all these elements have to be first
      extracted from minerals, which in turn need to be mined from the earth's crust. CHINA'S GREEN DEAL In recent years,
      the world economy has grown enormously, and many new high-tech applications have been made. Moreover, the demand
      for minerals has exploded. Mining tried to meet the demand. A global competition between countries and companies over
      rare mineral resources started. Prices have shot up, countries have created strategic stockpiles or imposed export restrictions
      in order to secure supplies of these valuable resources. Mineral scarcity concerning the industry seems to be more of an
      economic issue than an issue set by limited resources. Minerals are getting evermore difficult to find and costly to extract -
      while they are the key to advanced sustainable technologies. Talking about sustainability seems not talking about China,
      because China is still building many polluting coal-fired power plants, and the social circumstances there are poor.
      However, recent developments also show progress concerning sustainability. And in a country like China these
      developments go faster than in many western democracies. Where we in the west talk and dawdle, they think and act
      strategically. In the United States, president Obama has to explain the Americans that forms of the New Green Deal are
      inevitable - like the situation in the thirties of the last century, when President Roosevelt made the so-called New Deal to
      reform the economy. Many Americans do not want the government to influence the market. They radically believe in the
      free market. In China, by contrast, the ideological separation between market and government does not exist. There is no
      Wall Street with greedy bankers, no neoconservative Grand Old Party that dreams of the cowboy economy. Decisions are
      taken quickly. And besides, they have to feed one billion people and develop a country that lived in Mao-ist poverty before.
      The Chinese are successful, after all, also in creating a sustainable economy: China does not only build old polluting power
      stations but uses the latest technology, with CO2- catch and -storage. And they are working on alternatives: windmills. In
      the next five years, they will build 100,000 windmills in the Gobi desert. Did they hate the wind in that area before, now
      they consider it the new gold. In the north-west area of China, the province of Gansu, the Qilian-mountains pass into the
      Gobi desert. There China is building the biggest windmill and solar panel park in the world. Six windmill parks with a
      capacity of ten gigawatts each are built, making China the biggest market of technology of wind energy, defeating the
      United States. "Red China becomes green China", party officials are saying. China has to grow, and so has the contribution
      of wind, water and sun at the energy market. This market would be interesting for foreign investments. According to
      Chinese officials they are welcome and can get subsidies. But, Beijing has decided that 70 percent of the windmills have to
      be made and designed in China. So it can be questioned if European and American companies have a fair chance in
      tendering for a contract. China considers itself a developing country and thinks that the western countries should contribute
      money to China to reduce the CO2 discharge. While America thought that energy saving is not worthwhile, China has
      taken an enormous energy-technological lead. The authoritarian and undemocratic but intelligent China exposes a variant of
      the New Deal. THE OPEC OF THE RARE MINERALS The example of China shows us that sustainable economy has
      everything to do with strategy and power. In a few decades China has been flooding the market of rare metals. The legend
      goes that president Deng Xiaoping had already predicted this in 1992, during a tour in the south of China: "They [the Mid
      East] have oil, but we in China have rare minerals". Nowadays, China indeed has 95 [continued, no omissions] percent of

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                   DDW 2011
     the global supply of rare minerals. How did it do that? It was a result of good strategy: in the nineties, China flooded the
     world market with the rare minerals, although there was not that much demand. The west thought it okay because getting
     the minerals was a very expensive production process and the environmental legislation was very strict. The western
     competitors went bankrupt and they closed their mines. China became powerful. One of the centres of the rare mineral
     supply is around the city Baotou, an industrial city of two million people in Inner Mongolia. Here the states concern
     exploits almost half of the world storage of neodymium. DISRUPTION OF THE MARKET The lack of raw materials is
     not particularly a result of the geological availability but of disruptions in the market, because the developments of the
     world wide demand for rare minerals are not recognised in time - as part of the stormy development of the Chinese
     economy and the expansion of technical developments - and because the minerals occur in only a few countries. Experts
     have predicted that in the next few decades the demand of neodymium will increase by a factor 3.8. China uses 60 percent
     of its exploitation for its own economy. What's more, the Chinese export quota become stricter every year. What happens?
     Sudden peaks in the demand can lead to speculative price movements and a disruption of the market. "2010 will be the year
     of the raw materials", according to Trevor Greetham, Asset Allocation Director of Fidelity. Indium, a silver-white metal,
     which is not found directly in nature, but is a residual product of thin and zinc, is used in LCD displays for TVs, computers,
     mobile phones, and for led lights and the ultrathin and flexible solar panel. The price of this mineral multiplied tenfold
     between 2003 and 2006 from 100 to 980 Dollars per kilogram. The price of neodymium decreased from 11.7 dollar per
     kilogram in 1992 to 7.4 dollar in 1996. The market volume rose. In 2006 almost all of the world production of 137,000 tons
     came from China. By scaling back the export, prices rose, up to 60 dollar per kilogram in 2007. Imagine that for a hybrid
     car, like the Toyota Prius or the Mercedes S 400, you need at least 500 grams of neodymium for the magnetic power of the
     engine; and for the newest generation of wind turbines, the ones that are 16 meters high, you need about 1000 kilogram.
     That makes 60,000 dollars - for just a little bit of metal! Big business for China. At the same time, China makes further
     strategic investments: it took an interest in oil and gas fields. In August 2009, PetroChina paid 41 billion dollar to gain
     access to an enormous field of natural gas in front of the coast of Australia. And in September that year, it obtained a stake
     of 60 percent in the exploitation of fields of tar sand in Alberta, which might hold one of the biggest oil reserves in the
     world. And because China considers titanium a growing market, it took an interest of 70 percent in a titanium mine in
     Kenia - not only to build the Chinese 'Jumbojet', but also to provide Boeing with 2000 tons of titanium each year. By doing
     so, China might beat the competition in the battle for the market in green technologies. The 'free' market can be questioned.
     The mineral policies of China and the US both mention the usage of administrative barriers. These nontariff barriers
     involve regulations that seek to protect the national mineral extraction industry. As a result, it is much harder for foreign
     companies, if not impossible, to invest and gain a foothold in the national mineral extraction industry in these countries.
     The search for rare metals has become a global race: a mine in California has also been reopened, the mine of Mountain
     Pass. In 2008, it was bought by a group of investors, the partnership 'Molycorp Minerals'. The process of bringing the old
     mines into use costs much time and money. What does this mean for us? Do we get more dependent of China? The
     'Innovationplatform' in Rotterdam planned to build a unique windmill park in the sea, further from the coast and in the
     strongest sea wind than anywhere in the world. To build these windmills, we need rare minerals, the export of which is
     dominated by China. Part of the project is Darwind, which designed enormous windmills for at sea. But the umbrella
     company, of which Darwind is part, Econcern, was about to go bankrupt. Then, in mid-August 2009 it was saved by the,
     surprisingly, Chinese XEMC. THE THREAT OF GEOPOLITICAL INSTABILITY The transition to a sustainable
     economy involves underexposed elements like deficiency in minerals and shifting balances of power. They are the ideal
     receipt for geopolitical instability. The new world order will be a balance between countries that do have particular raw
     materials and ones that do not. The lack of indispensable minerals sharpens the relations in the world. The access to critical
     minerals is more and more an issue of national security, concluded the 'The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies' (HCSS) in
     its report about the scarcity of minerals (January 2010). The US, Japan and China are making a policy that tries to secure
     the supply of these raw materials. That will disturb the free market activity. HCSS thinks that large concerns will, with
     support of the government, compete more intensively with each other for access to these raw materials, e.g. by direct
     investments in areas rich in raw materials. Mineral scarcity will be an issue in the next decades, though it is uncertain when
     and to what extent. And we have to do something because a change in supply of rare minerals directly affects our current
     modern lives.

China war leads to extinction
Lee J. Hunkovic -- professor at American Military University, (“The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible
Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, American Military
University, 2009, p.54)

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                                                DDW 2011
     A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world
     war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both
     Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate
     in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex
     Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in
     East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and
     deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict,
     there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and
     United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in
     this study.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                  DDW 2011
Asteroid Mining 1AC

Scenario 2 – Stability
Rare earths are crucial to almost every component of a functioning military – US war fighting depends
on them
Hsu 10 (Jeremy Hsu, Freelance Journalist, writer for PopSci and LiveScience, 4/14/10, “US Military Supply of Rare Earth Metals
Not Secure, Live Science, )
     The U.S. Department of Defense did not have details on national security risks related to a possible rare earth shortage for
     the GAO report. But it plans to complete its assessment of dependency upon rare earths by September 2010. Military
     officials did stress how rare earth elements form a currently irreplaceable part of devices such as lasers, radar, missile-
     guidance systems, satellites and aircraft electronics. And many military systems also rely upon commercial computer hard
     drives that use rare earth magnets. Even more specific examples of rare earth-driven technologies include the navigation
     system for the M1A2 Abrams battle tank, and a new hybrid electric drive in the works for the Navy's DDG-51 destroyers.
     Rare earth elements might eventually become part of the U.S. National Defense Stockpile, according to the GAO report.

Rare earths are key to the US military. China could shut down the military in months.
Barry 10 (Jennifer Barry Editor at Global Asset Strategist 10/22/2010 Financial Sense “China's Rare Earth Revenge”
      Although the US is not a major manufacturer of high tech consumer products containing REEs, the military is dependent on
      (REEs) them. As modern weapons from smart bombs to tanks require these metals, the ability of America to wage war
      depends on a steady supply of rare earths. The US was not always dependent on the continued goodwill of foreign countries
      for critical materials. The National Stockpile was established after World War II to assure that essential elements would be
      available in case of an emergency. In the 1990s, the US Department of Defense (DOD) decided that 99% of the stockpile
      was “surplus” and the vast majority was sold. Although China has dominated the rare earth market since the mid-1990s, the
      US government was unconcerned about Chinese control of these elements for many years. Only in April 2009, did the
      DOD and Congress finally place a freeze on the sale of some materials, and decide to conserve a minimum of a one year
      supply for others. While the US House of Representatives has passed a bill to promote locating and exploiting rare earth
      resources, I wonder if this action is too little too late. Not only are these metals necessary for weapons, but for “green”
      technology that attempts to lessen dependence on foreign oil, supplied mostly by countries unfriendly to the US. While the
      Mountain Pass mine in California was allowed to reopen, and Congress may subsidize more rare earth resource
      development, it takes 7 to 15 years to move from a promising deposit to a producing ore body. With inadequate domestic
      stockpiles, China could shut down America’s military offensives in a matter of months.

Hard power is key to avoid heg collapse
Holmes ’09 (Kim, Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation and author of Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st
Century (2008), “Sustaining American Leadership with Military Power”,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Sustaining-American-Leadership-with-Military-Power, June 1, 2009, Accessed
June 28, 2010) DM
      The consequences of hard-power atrophy will be a direct deterioration of America's diplomatic clout. This is already on
      display in the western Pacific Ocean, where America's ability to hedge against the growing ambitions of a rising China is
      being called into question by some of our key Asian allies. Recently, Australia released a defense White Paper that is
      concerned primarily with the potential decline of U.S. military primacy and the implications that this decline would have
      for Australian security and stability in the Asia-Pacific. These developments are anything but reassuring. The ability of the
      United States to reassure friends, deter competitors, coerce belligerent states, and defeat enemies does not rest on the
      strength of our political leaders' commitment to diplomacy; it rests on the foundation of a powerful military. Only by
      retaining a "big stick" can the United States succeed in advancing its diplomatic priorities. Only by building a full-spectrum
      military force can America reassure its many friends and allies and count on their future support.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                   DDW 2011

Collapse of US hegemony causes an apolar power vacuum leading to nuclear war
Ferguson 04 professor of history at New York University's Stern School of Business and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University (Niall, “A World without Power”, Foreign Policy )
     Could an apolar world today produce an era reminiscent of the age of Alfred? It could, though with some important and
     troubling differences. Certainly, one can imagine the world's established powers—the United States, Europe, and China—
     retreating into their own regional spheres of influence. But what of the growing pretensions to autonomy of the
     supranational bodies created under U.S. leadership after the Second World War? The United Nations, the International
     Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and
     Trade) each considers itself in some way representative of the “international community.” Surely their aspirations to global
     governance are fundamentally different from the spirit of the Dark Ages? Yet universal claims were also an integral part of
     the rhetoric of that era. All the empires claimed to rule the world; some, unaware of the existence of other civilizations,
     maybe even believed that they did. The reality, however, was not a global Christendom, nor an all-embracing Empire of
     Heaven. The reality was political fragmentation. And that is also true today. The defining characteristic of our age is not a
     shift of power upward to supranational institutions, but downward. With the end of states' monopoly on the means of
     violence and the collapse of their control over channels of communication, humanity has entered an era characterized as
     much by disintegration as integration. If free flows of information and of means of production empower multinational
     corporations and nongovernmental organizations (as well as evangelistic religious cults of all denominations), the free flow
     of destructive technology empowers both criminal organizations and terrorist cells. These groups can operate, it seems,
     wherever they choose, from Hamburg to Gaza. By contrast, the writ of the international community is not global at all. It is,
     in fact, increasingly confined to a few Page 5 strategic cities such as Kabul and Pristina. In short, it is the nonstate actors
     who truly wield global power—including both the monks and the Vikings of our time. So what is left? Waning empires.
     Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world
     without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether
     more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times
     more—so friction between the world's disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed
     production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that
     are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to
     obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and
     capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the
     process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would
     certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second
     September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for
     foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists'
     infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking
     point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces
     that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are
     preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning
     great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the
     targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft
     carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile,
     limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
     catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical
     Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their
     deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who
     would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world
     should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from
     global hegemony— its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad
     must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of
     power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be
     apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a
     not-so-new world disorder.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                 DDW 2011

                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Asteroid mining solves rare earth shocks and shortages
Sonter 06 (Michael Sonter, independent scientific consultant working in the Australian mining and metallurgical industries, former
high school science teacher, former a University Physics lecturer in Papua New Guinea, postgraduate studies in medical physics, and
28 years in uranium mining radiation safety management, granted funds from Foundation for International Non-governmental
Development of Space (FINDS) to develop concepts for mining the near-Earth asteroids, 2/9/06, “Asteroid Mining: Key to the Space
Economy,” Space.com, http://www.space.com/2032-asteroid-mining-key-space-economy.html)
     The Near Earth Asteroids offer both threat and promise. They present the threat of planetary impact with regional or global
     disaster. And they also offer the promise of resources to support humanity's long-term prosperity on Earth, and our
     movement into space and the solar system. The technologies needed to return asteroidal resources to Earth Orbit (and thus
     catalyze our colonization of space) will also enable the deflection of at least some of the impact-threat objects. We should
     develop these technologies, with all due speed! Development and operation of future in-orbit infrastructure (for example,
     orbital hotels, satellite solar power stations, earth-moon transport node satellites, zero-g manufacturing facilities) will
     require large masses of materials for construction, shielding, and ballast; and also large quantities of propellant for station-
     keeping and orbit-change maneuvers, and for fuelling craft departing for lunar or interplanetary destinations. Spectroscopic
     studies suggest, and 'ground-truth' chemical assays of meteorites confirm, that a wide range of resources are present in
     asteroids and comets, including nickel-iron metal, silicate minerals, semiconductor and platinum group metals, water,
     bituminous hydrocarbons, and trapped or frozen gases including carbon dioxide and ammonia. As one startling pointer to
     the unexpected riches in asteroids, many stony and stony-iron meteorites contain Platinum Group Metals at grades of up to
     100 ppm (or 100 grams per ton). Operating open pit platinum and gold mines in South Africa and elsewhere mine ores of
     grade 5 to 10 ppm, so grades of 10 to 20 times higher would be regarded as spectacular if available in quantity, on Earth.
     Water is an obvious first, and key, potential product from asteroid mines, as it could be used for return trip propulsion via
     steam rocket. About 10% of Near-Earth Asteroids are energetically more accessible (easier to get to) than the Moon (i.e.
     under 6 km/s from LEO), and a substantial minority of these have return-to-Earth transfer orbit injection delta-v's of only 1
     to 2 km/s. Return of resources from some of these NEAs to low or high earth orbit may therefore be competitive versus
     earth-sourced supplies. Our knowledge of asteroids and comets has expanded dramatically in the last ten years, with images
     and spectra of asteroids and comets from flybys, rendezvous, and impacts (for example asteroids Gaspra, Ida, Mathilde, the
     vast image collection from Eros, Itokawa, and others; comets Halley, Borrelly, Tempel-1, and Wild-2. And radar images of
     asteroids Toutatis, Castalia, Geographos, Kleopatra, Golevka and other... These images show extraordinary variations in
     structure, strength, porosity, surface features. The total number of identified NEAs has increased from about 300 to more
     than 3,000 in the period 1995 to 2005. The most accessible group of NEAs for resource recovery is a subset of the
     Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs). These are bodies (about 770 now discovered) which approach to within 7.5
     million km of earth orbit. The smaller subset of those with orbits which are earth-orbit-grazing give intermittently very low
     delta-v return opportunities (that is it is easy velocity wise to return to Earth). These are also the bodies which humanity
     should want to learn about in terms of surface properties and strength so as to plan deflection missions, in case we should
     ever find one on a collision course with us. Professor John Lewis has pointed out (in Mining the Sky) that the resources of
     the solar system (the most accessible of which being those in the NEAs) can permanently support in first-world comfort
     some quadrillion people. In other words, the resources of the solar system are essentially infinite... And they are there for
     us to use, to invest consciousness into the universe, no less. It's time for humankind to come out of its shell, and begin to
     grow!! So both for species protection and for the expansion of humanity into the solar system, we need to characterize these
     objects and learn how to mine and manage them. Once we learn how to work on, handle, and modify the orbits of small
     near-earth objects, we will have achieved, as a species, both the capability to access the vast resources of the asteroids, and
     also the capability to protect our planet from identified collision threats. Since the competing source of raw materials is
     "delivery by launch from Earth," which imposes a launch cost per kilogram presently above $10,000 per kg, this same
     figure represents the upper bound of what recovered asteroidal material would be presently worth in low earth orbit. Future
     large scale economic activity in orbit is unlikely to develop however until launch cost drops to something in the range $500
     to $1,000 per kilogram to LEO. At that point, any demand for material in orbit which can be satisfied at equal or lower cost
     by resources recovered from asteroids, will confer on these asteroidal resources an equivalent value as ore in true mining
     engineering terms, i.e., that which can be mined, have valuable product recovered from it, to be sold for a profit. Now,
     $500,000 per ton product is extraordinarily valuable, and is certainly worth chasing! Note that the asteroidal materials we
     are talking about are, simply, water, nickel-iron metal, hydrocarbons, and silicate rock. Purified, and made available in low
     earth orbit, they will be worth something like $500,000 per ton, by virtue of having avoided terrestrial gravity's "launch cost
     levy." These are values up there with optical glass, doped semiconductors, specialty isotopes for research or medicine,

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                DDW 2011
     diamonds, some pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs. On the mining scene, the only metal [continued, no omissions]
     which has ever been so valuable was radium, which in the 1920's reached the fabulous value of $200,000 per gram!
     Platinum Group Metals (which are present in metallic and silicate asteroids, as proved by the "ground truth" of meteorite
     finds) have a value presently in the order of $1,000 per ounce or $30 per gram. Vastly expanded use in catalysts and for
     fuel cells will enhance their value, and PGM recovery from asteroid impact sites on the Moon is the basis of Dennis
     Wingo's book, "Moonrush." When will we see asteroid mining start? Well, it will only become viable once the human-
     presence commercial in-orbit economy takes off. Only then will there be a market. And that can only happen after NASA
     ceases acting as a near-monopolist launch provider and thwarter of competition, and reverts to being a customer instead. A
     developing in-space economy will build the technical capability to access NEAs, almost automatically. And regardless of
     the legal arguments about mineral claims in outer space, once the first resource recovery mission is successful, what's the
     bets on a surge in interest similar to the dotcom-boom and biotech-boom? The first successful venturers will develop
     immense proprietary knowledge, and make a mint. And some as-yet unidentified (but almost certainly already discovered)
     NEAs will be the company-making mines of the 21st century.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                 DDW 2011
                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Technology restraints are not a problem and one asteroid has all we need
Wilkins 10 (Alasdair Wilkins, reporter for io9, specializing in science pieces, 7/19/10, “Asteroid mining will give us all the
platinum we’ll ever need, and maybe start a new Space Age, io9.com, http://io9.com/5590330/asteroid-mining-will-give-us-all-the-
      A big reason they're so rare is that they don't naturally occur on Earth, as they almost exclusively come from sites of
      asteroid impact. Of course, that opens up a rather interesting possibility - how much of these metals are contained in the
      asteroids that haven't hit Earth? Surveys of asteroids close to Earth reveal even moderate-sized ones - about 1,500 feet
      across - have billions of pounds of these metals, far more than we've mined in all of human history. A single asteroid could
      give us all the platinum group metals we could possibly need for centuries. So how do we get the stuff? The basic
      technology is either already available or readily conceivable, and asteroid mining has become a serious topic of discussion.
      Indeed, it could have far-reaching impacts for space exploration as a whole. The quest for super-cheap electronics and
      mining-based fortunes could spur a rush of private explorers into space in much the same way the lure of gold drove
      Americans westward in 1849. As crass as it might sound, the chance at some serious profit might be what finally pushes
      humanity into space once and for all.

Establishing a government-run rare earth stockpile solves supply shocks
Humphries 10 (Marc Humphries, energy and mineral analyst for the Library of Congress, 9/30/10, “Rare Earth Elements: The
Global Supply Chain,” Congressional Research Service Report, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41347.pdf)
    Establishing a government-run economic stockpile and/or private-sector stockpiles that would contain supplies of specific
    REE broadly needed for “green initiatives” and defense applications is a policy advocated by some in industry and
    government. This may be a prudent investment. Generally, stockpiles and stockpile releases could have an impact on prices
    and supply but would also ensure supplies of REE materials (oxides, metals, etc.) during times of normal supply
    bottlenecks. An economic stockpile could be costly and risky, as prices and technology may change the composition of
    REEs that are needed in the economy. According to USGS, 34 DOD along with USGS is examining which of the REEs
    might be necessary in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS). In the recent past, NDS materials were stored for wartime
    use based on a three-year war scenario. Some of the rare earth elements contained in the National Defense Stockpile were
    sold off by 1998. However, rare earth elements were never classified as strategic minerals. 35 DOD had stockpiled some
    yttrium but has since sold it off, and none of the REEs have been classified as strategic materials. A critical question for
    stockpile development would be: What materials along the supply chain should be stockpiled? For example, should the
    stockpile contain rare earth oxides or alloyed magnets which contain the REEs, or some combination of products? The
    National Research Council (NRC) has produced an in-depth report on minerals critical to the U.S. economy and offers its
    analysis as described here: “... most critical minerals are both essential in use (difficult to substitute for) and prone to
    supply restrictions.” 36 While the NRC report is based on several availability criteria used to rank minerals for criticality
    (geological, technical, environmental and social, political, and economic), REEs were determined to be critical materials
    assessed at a high supply risk and the possibility of severe impacts if supplies were restricted. Some of the REE
    applications are viewed as more important than others and some are at greater risk than others, namely the Heavy Rare
    Earth Elements (HREEs), as substitutes are unavailable or not as effective. 37 The federal government and private
    sectors are beginning to address how to secure reliable rare earth materials (raw materials through metals and alloys) from
    China and non-Chinese sources in the short term, and how to rebuild the U.S. supply chain for the long term.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Federal government policy action is critical to solve dependence issues
Parthemore 11 (Christine Parthemore, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), where she directs the Natural
Security Program and the Natural Security Blog. This program explores national security and foreign policy issues related to natural
resources and their consumption, including energy, minerals, land, water, climate change and biodiversity loss. She is the author or
co-author of publications including: Sustaining Security: How Natural Resources Influence National Security; Broadening Horizons:
Climate Change and the U.S. Armed Forces; Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options; Uncharted Waters: The U.S. Navy and
Navigating Climate Change; and A Strategy for American Power: Energy, Climate, and National Security. She also co-authored a
chapter in the 2008 book Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, June
2011, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of US Dependence on Critical Minerals”,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf, JPW)
      Reliable access to critical minerals is a matter of both economic and geostrategic importance to the United States.
      Although concern about access to minerals waxes and wanes, it is rising now due to increasing demand, new competitors
      capturing large market shares and other trends that defy easy prediction. These same trends can interfere with foreign and
      defense policy goals and give mineral suppliers easy leverage over the United States and other countries reliant on global
      supply chains. Despite renewed attention to critical minerals, America’s dependence on these minerals is often
      misunderstood and miscast in the public debate. Recent tensions with China concerning the supply of rare earth elements,
      for instance, should challenge U.S. policymakers not because the United States’ import dependence is inherently
      problematic (which it is not) or because rare earth minerals are scarce (which they are not). Rather, rare earths deserve
      attention because U.S. supply options are limited: Supplies are concentrated mostly in the hands of one supplier with its
      own rising demand, and the United States currently has no good options for recycling rare earth minerals or substituting
      more easily obtained minerals. While China is nearly the sole producer and exporter of rare earths today, it does not
      possess a permanent “corner” on this market. Indeed, China holds only about half of known world reserves – not a terribly
      high concentration. 1 The loss of a single major supplier such as China may therefore increase the costs of rare earth
      minerals, but may not affect their long-term availability. The issue, then, is more appropriately understood in terms of
      managing short-term risks such as disruptions and ensuring that the U.S. government’s most important defense and
      energy needs can be met. To manage these risks, the U.S. government needs to alter government policy, ensure access to
      correct information about mineral markets and better assess which minerals are required for a small number of strategic
      needs, such as defense and energy. It must also use existing mechanisms, such as stockpiling and research and
      development funding, to help mitigate risks. The Department of Defense (DOD) can also understand its unique supply
      needs better by including mineral problems in relevant war games involving regions such as the South China Sea and
      Latin America. U.S. policy should focus on: • Preventing supplier countries and companies from wielding undue
      leverage over the United States. • Mitigating fiscal risk and cost overruns in an era of budgetary strain. • Reducing
      vulnerability to supply disruptions, especially for critical military assets. • Ensuring the ability of the United States to meet
      its economic growth goals in clean energy and other high-tech fields. The United States should not be complacent about
      its access to critical minerals. Political and economic risks to critical mineral supplies are still visible on the horizon and
      the stakes are high. Growing global demand coupled with the mineral requirements necessary for both managing military
      supply chains and transitioning to a clean energy future will require not only clearer understanding, but also pragmatic
      and realistic solutions.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
The perception of the US moving toward asteroid mining would cause China to loosen its grip on rare
earth minerals
Bova 10 (Ben Bova - President Emeritus of the National Space Society, frequent commentator on radio and television and a widely-
popular lecturer, earlier, former award-winning editor and an executive in the aerospace industry, 11/28/10 “Rare earth elements are in
the news,” NapleNews, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/27/ben-bova-nov-28-2010-rare-earth-elements-are-news/)
     If we’re going to send astronauts to an asteroid, why not include a geologist who can bring back some samples of rare
     earths? Why not give the mission a purpose beyond merely exploring for the sake of scientific knowledge? Why not begin
     to exploit the natural resources that lie among the asteroids? Such an effort could act as an incentive for private industry to
     move farther into space than merely providing rockets to ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station. It could
     also show the world — and particularly the Chinese government — that we can move beyond our dependence on their
     resources (and ploys). Mining rare earths from asteroids would be enormously expensive, at first. But the effort could help
     to start a transition toward developing space industries. In time, we could see many industrial operations running in space,
     using virtually free solar energy, while our world becomes cleaner and greener: a residential zone, with industry moving off
     our planet. Would a move in this direction influence the Chinese government to relax its grip on rare-earth exports? There
     is a precedent for this sort of thing. In the 1980s, when former President Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense
     Initiative (aka “Star Wars”) it started a chain of events that led eventually to the fall of the Soviet Union. We didn’t go
     ahead with SDI — indeed, we still do not have a credible defense against ballistic missiles. But the possibility that the U.S.
     might develop missile defenses helped to crack the Soviet Union apart. The possibility of mining rare earths from asteroids
     might help influence China, too.

Beginning the mining process will alter US security calculations – The notion of shortages will become a
historical footnote
Kolber 06 (Jonathan Kolber, Co-Founder and Vice President of Space Energy Access Systems, “Investing in Outer Space,” Penny
Sleuth, 10/11/06,http://pennysleuth.com/investing-in-outer-space///edlee)
      The mining of asteroids has been a passion of mine for over two decades. In 1983, I wrote a paper for my MBA strategy
     and policy class entitled, “Mining the Asteroids: A Diversification Opportunity for DeBeers.” In it, I argued that asteroid
     mining offered a perfect balance in that DeBeers faced, in apartheid, serious political risk with negligible technological risk,
     while asteroid mining was exactly the opposite. Yes, there’s gold in “them thar asteroids” — and diamonds, and every other
     element and mineral to be found on Earth, apparently in similar ratios. The difference is that the asteroids could be the
     remnants of a planet many hundreds of times bigger than Earth. Calculations have established that we could strip mine the
     entire Earth to a depth of ½ mile and not acquire nearly the volume of natural resources available free for the taking in
     asteroids. Such a resource literally dwarfs anything in human history or perspective, and when we finally do begin mining
     asteroids, the whole notion of resource shortages will rapidly diminish to a historical footnote.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                DDW 2011
                                                   Asteroid Mining 1AC
Simply acknowledging its feasibility solves
Collins & Autino 08 (Patrick Collins, Professor at Azabu University, expert in the economics of energy supply from space, a
Collaborating Researcher with the Institute for Space & Astronautical Science, co-founder of Space Future Consulting, Adriano
Autino, President of the Space Renaissance International; Manager, CEO/CTO, Systems Engineering Consultant / Trainer
atAndromeda Systems Engineering LLC, Supplier of methodological tools and consultancy at Intermarine S.p.A., 5/25/08, “What the
growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture
and world peace,” Space Future,
       7. World peace and preservation of human civilization - The major source of social friction, including international friction,
      has surely always been unequal access to resources. People - fight to control the valuable resources on and under the land,
      and in and under the sea. The natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even
      more so. As the population grows, and demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows
      exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of ‘‘Resource Wars’’. Having begun long ago
      with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at
      centre stage of world events today [37]. A particular danger of ‘‘resource wars’’ is that, if the general public can be
      persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become increasingly scarce. Many
      commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates of ‘‘war on terror’’ to the
      language of the novel ‘‘1984’’ which describes. a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced
      to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into near-Earth space is the only alternative to endless ‘‘resource wars’’ As an alternative to the
      ‘‘resource wars’’ already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited resources of near-Earth space
      could clearly facilitate world peace and security. The US National Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the
      potential of space-based solar power (SSP) published in early 2007, stated: ‘‘Expanding human populations and declining
      natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the
      foremost threat to national security’’ [38]. The report ended by encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of SSP:
      ‘‘Considering the timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that
      same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for ‘‘drilling up’’ vs. drilling down for energy security begins
      immediately’’ [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale may still be some decades away, it
      is important to recognize that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending the
      threat of resource wars .That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are limited to those on Earth,
      then it can be argued that resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are
      economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits of civilization
      which are being eroded today by‘ ‘resource war-mongers’’, most notably the governments of the ‘‘Anglo-Saxon’’
      countries and their ‘‘neo-con’’ advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1trillion that these have already committed to wars
      in the Middle-East in the 21st century is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies
      sufficiently to start the commercial use of space resources. Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic
      control of terrestrial supplies of various natural resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in
      protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups’ continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor by
      democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by
      preventing the development of low-cost space travel. Once the feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, ‘‘resource
      wars’ ’are clearly foolish as well as tragic. A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of
      homo sapiens using long- range rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resources—rather than using the same
      rockets to travel in space and have the use of all the resources they need! Pg. 1560-156

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
Advantage 2 – Deflection

NASA has no technology to currently deflect an asteroid, but it could develop a nuclear missile deflection
system in the future
Wagenseil 07 (Paul Wagenseil, reporter for Fox News, 8/8/07, “NASA Researchers Ponder Nuclear Asteroid Deflector,” Fox
News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292464,00.html)
    NASA scientists have proposed a spacecraft that would use atomic blasts to deflect asteroids on collision courses with
    Earth. Researchers from the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.,
    presented the idea at the 2007 Planetary Defense Conference, held in early March in Washington, D.C. The asteroid
    deflector would be launched from low Earth orbit by an Ares V rocket, NASA's next-generation heavy-cargo lifter,
    scheduled to go into service in 2020. As it approached the asteroid, the craft would at one-hour intervals release six missile-
    like interceptors, each tipped with a B83 one-megaton nuclear warhead. The warheads would detonate one by one near the
    surface of the asteroid, pushing it far enough off course so that it passes comfortably wide of Earth. Les Johnson, manager
    of interstellar propulsion research at the Marshall Center, took care to point out that the asteroid deflector is just an idea so
    far. "There's no blueprints. There's no funding," he said. "At this stage, it's just one of the many possible uses for the Ares V

Nuclear missile asteroid deflection fails and risks war with China – 4 reasons
O’Neill 10 (Ian O’Neill, Space Producer for Discovery News, solar physicist, 6/28/10, “DON'T BE SUBTLE, NUKE THAT
ASTEROID,” DiscoveryNews, http://news.discovery.com/space/dont-be-subtle-nuke-that-asteroid.html)
   Personally, while I agree with Dearborn that nukes are our most powerful defense against asteroids, there are many other
   factors to consider. Firstly, what if the resulting explosion rips the asteroid to shreds, but big chunks of asteroid then rain
   down on Earth, blanket bombing entire continents? Choosing whether to get hit by one big asteroid or a shower of smaller
   (but still rather big) asteroid chunks isn't a choice I'd want to make. Secondly, what if the USA fired a missile at a medium-
   sized asteroid, only to deflect it into China? Wars have started over much less. Thirdly, we don't have a very good
   understanding about the structure of asteroids. An asteroid composed of very loose rock held together under a mutual
   gravity (a "rubble pile") will act very differently to a solid, metallic asteroid when faced with a huge explosion. President
   Obama's plan to send NASA astronauts to an asteroid to study it up close suddenly seems like a good idea. Also, a recent
   study showed that a direct hit by a nuclear weapon might rip the offending asteroid apart, but it could re-form if the bomb
   wasn't big enough.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                    Asteroid Mining 1AC
Nuking an asteroid will either have no effect or the asteroid will reform after the explosion – nonnuclear
mechanisms are the only way to ensure deflection
O’Neill 10 (Ian O’Neill, Space Producer for Discovery News, solar physicist, 4/21/10, “ANOTHER GOOD REASON NOT TO
SHOOT NUKES AT ASTEROIDS,” DiscoveryNews, http://news.discovery.com/space/another-good-reason-not-to-shoot-nukes-at-
      Unfortunately, in research presented at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas earlier this month, this "happy
      ending" storyline could have a nasty twist. Scientists have found that if a nuclear weapon did blow an asteroid apart, it
      could reassemble itself in a very short period of time, continuing its path to death and destruction. "Um, sir, the pieces of
      asteroid have re-formed. We have incoming! Again!" Cut to another montage of screaming people on the streets, babies
      crying and the hero suggesting the cast should get hammered on a 200 year-old bottle of whisky he'd been saving for a
      "special occasion" (or doomsday). Reforming asteroids Don Korycansky of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and
      Catherine Plesko of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have simulated the nuke versus asteroid
      scenario and demonstrated that if the explosion of an interceptor nuke was too small, the asteroid will reform under its
      mutual gravity much faster than expected. (This is assuming the asteroid was made of rock, acting like a "rubble pile"
      rather than a solid lump of iron ore. It's debatable whether any explosion could do anything about an asteroid that's mainly
      metal, apart from heating it up a little.) Trying to destroy asteroids with nuclear explosions is a risky business at the best of
      times, but this research has found that a 1 kilometer-wide asteroid could reassemble itself in a matter of hours. "The high-
      speed stuff goes away but the low-speed stuff reassembles [in] 2 to 18 hours," said Korycansky at the meeting. Keep Your
      Nukes In Their Silos But it's okay, another study from 2009 has set a lower limit on the size of bomb to dispense with an
      asteroid, preventing it from reassembling. All we'd need is a 900-kiloton weapon (50 times the size of the bomb dropped on
      Hiroshima in 1945) to do the job properly. I'd argue that attempting to blow up an incoming asteroid should only be
      considered as a last ditch attempt at neutralizing the threat. So long as we have enough lead time, there are other (less
      destructive) ways of changing an asteroid trajectory.

Dual-use mining equipment avoids all the problems with nuclear asteroid defense and effectively deflect
SSI No Date (Space Science Institute, established by Professor Gerard K. O’Neill, American physicist, space activist, and inventor
of the mass driver, vision of opening the vast wealth of space to humanity, under the direction of Prof. Freeman Dyson, is to open the
energy and material resources of space for human benefit within our lifetime, first commitment is to complete the missing
technological links to make possible the productive use of the abundant resources in space, No Date, “Asteroid Deflection,” Space
Science Institute, http://ssi.org/reading/papers/asteroid-deflection/)
      SSI funded studies of asteroid detection, asteroid tracking, and mining of asteroids. We also studied the concept of
      assembling a mass driver engine in orbit, sending it to an Earth-approaching asteroid, and then using the mass driver to
      modify the asteroid’s orbit. This research was conducted with the goal of guiding the asteroid into a High Earth Orbit where
      it could be mined for its minerals. But such a technological capability, once developed, has obvious applications should we
      ever need to divert an asteroid from an Earth-intercepting course. For a long while, the conventional wisdom on this issue
      was that one would use nuclear explosives for this purpose. But according to a paper published in the June 4th, 1998 issue
      of Nature, this may not be as easy as previously thought. It points out that many asteroids are multi-lobed. A nuclear
      detonation might be largely absorbed by one lobe, with little course deflection resulting in the whole. The paper theorizes
      that the average asteroid may not be so much like a solid rock as an aggregate of fragments loosely held together by fine
      dust. If this “flying gravel pile” theory is correct, a nuclear detonation might pulverize an approaching asteroid, converting
      one big problem into many little ones. A mass driver engine, by contrast, could provide the low, steady, continuous thrust
      needed to change an asteroid’s course gradually, using the asteroid’s own material for reaction mass. The ability to modify
      an asteroid’s course via mass driver certainly promises to usher in a new era where space resources are freely available for
      construction projects in High Earth Orbit, and holds out promise for obtaining resources in a way which is not damaging to
      the environment of Earth. But it is just barely conceivable that this same technology might also help to avert a catastrophe
      of major proportions. In any event, a major program of asteroid mining can only make the Earth safer as the centuries pass.
      As it happens, those asteroids which cross the orbit of the Earth (and thus pose the greatest hazard) are also the ones most
      economically attractive for space-resource use. It is good that humanity is becoming more aware of the threat posed by
      Earth-crossing asteroids. But at the same time we should also become more aware of their vast economic potential.

Asteroid impact is immediate extinction – outweighs on magnitude

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                                                                                                         DDW 2011
McGUIRE 2002 (Bill, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and is one of Britain's leading volcanologists, A
Guide to the End of the World, p. 159-168)
The Tunguska events pale into insignificance when compared to what happened off the coast of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula 65
million years earlier. Here a 10-kilometre asteroid or comet—its exact nature is uncertain—crashed into the sea and changed our
world forever . Within microseconds, an unimaginable explosion released as much energy as billions of Hiroshima bombs
detonated simultaneously , creating a titanic fireball hotter than the Sun that vaporized the ocean and excavated a crater 180
kilometres across in the crust beneath. Shock waves blasted upwards, tearing the atmosphere apart and expelling over a hundred
trillion tonnes of molten rock into space, later to fall across the globe . Almost immediately an area bigger than Europe would
have been flattened and scoured of virtually all life , while massive earthquakes rocked the planet. The atmosphere would have
howled and screamed as hypercanes five times morepowerful than the strongest hurricane ripped the landscape apart , joining forces
with huge tsunamis to batter coastlines many thousandsof kilometresdistant. Even worse was to follow. As the rock blasted into space began to rain down across
the entire planet so the heat generated by its re-entry into the atmosphere irradiated thesurface, roasting animals alive as effectively as an oven grill, and starting great
conflagrations that laid waste the world's forests and grasslands and turned fully a quarter of all living material to ashes . Even once the atmosphere and oceans
hadsettled down, the crust had stopped shuddering, and the bombardment of debris from space had ceased, more was to come. In the following weeks, smoke and
dust in theatmosphere blotted out the Sun and brought temperatures plunging by as much as 15 degrees Celsius. In the growing
gloomand bitter cold the surviving plant life wilted and died while those herbivorous dinosaurs that remained slowly starved.
global wildfires and acidrain from the huge quantities of sulphur injected into the atmosphere from rocks at the site of the impact
poured into the oceans , wiping out three-quarters of all marine life. After years of freezing conditions the gloom following the so-
called Chicxulub impact would eventually have lifted, only toreveal a terrible Sun blazing through the tatters of an ozone layer torn
apart by the chemical action of nitrousoxides concocted in the impact fireball: an ultraviolet spring hard on the heels of the cosmic
winter that fried many of the remaining species struggling precariously to hang on to life. So enormously was the natural balance of the Earth upset that
according to some it might have taken hundreds of thousands of years for the post-Chicxulub Earth to return to what passes for normal. When it did the age of the great reptiles was finally over, leaving the field to the
primitive mammals—our distant ancestors—andopening an evolutionary trail that culminated in the rise and rise of the human race. But could we go the same way1?To assess the chances, let me look a little more closely at
the destructive power of animpact event. At Tunguska, destruction of the forests resulted partly from the great heat generated by the explosion, but mainly from the blast wave that literally pushed the trees over and flattened
themagainst the ground. The strength of this blast wave depends upon what is called the peak overpressure, that is the difference between ambient pressure and the pressure of the blastwave. In order to causesevere destruction
thisnccds to exceed 4. pounds per square inch, an overpressure that results in wind speeds that arc over twice the force of those found in a typical hurricane. Even though tiny compared with, say, the land area of London, the
enormous overpressures generated by a 50-metre object exploding low overhead would cause damage comparable with the detonation of a very large nuclear device,obliterating almost everything within the city's orbital
motorway. Increase the size of the impactor and things get very much worse. An asteroid just 250 metres across would be sufficiently massive topenetrate the atmosphere; blasting a crater 5 kilometres across and devastating
an area of around 10,000 square kilometres— that is about the size of the English county of Kent. Raise the size of theasteroid again, to 650 metres, and the area of devastation increases to ioo;ooo square kilometres—about
the size of the US state of South Carolina. Terrible as this all sounds, however, even this would beinsufficient to affect the entire planet. In order to do this, an impactor has to be at least 1 kilometre across, if it is one of the
speedier comets, or 1.5 kilometres in diameter if it is one of the slower asteroids. A collision with one of these objects would generate a blast equivalent to 100.000 million tonnes of TNT , which would obliterate an
area500 kilometres across say the size of England—and kill perhaps tens of millions of people, depending upon the location of the impact. The real problems for the rest of the world would start soon after asdust in the
atmosphere began to darken the skies and reduce the level of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. By comparison with the huge Chicxulub impact it is certain that this would result in adramatic lowering of global
temperatures but there is no consensus on just how bad this would be. The chances are, however, that an impact of this size would result in appalling weather conditions andcrop failures at least as severe as those of the 'Year
Without a Summer'; 'which followed the 1815 eruption of Indonesia's Tambora volcano. As mentioned in the last chapter, with evendeveloped countries holding sufficient food to feed their populations for only a month or
so, large-scale crop failures across the planet would undoubtedly have serious implications . Rationing, at the very least, is likely to be die result, with a worst casescenario seeing widespread disruption of the social and
economic fabric of developed nations. In the developing world, where subsistence farming remains very much the norm, wide-spread failure of the harvests could be expected to translate rapidly into famine on a
biblicalscale Some researchers forecast that as many as a quarter of the world's population could succumb to a deteriorating climate following animpact in the 1 —1.5 kilometre size range. Anything bigger and photosynthesis
                        the issue is not how many people will die but whether the human race will survive . One estimate proposes that
stops completely. Once thishappens
theimpact of an object just 4- kilometres across will inject sufficient quantities of dust and debris into theatmosphere to reduce light
levels below those required for photosynthesis . Because we still don't know how many threatening objects there areout there nor
whether they come in bursts, it is almost impossible to say when the Earth will be struck by an asteroid or comet that will bring to an
end the world as we know it. Impact events on the scaleof the Chicxulub dinosaur-killer only occur every several tens of millions of
years, so in any single year the chances of such an impact arc tiny. Any optimism is , however, tempered by the fact that —
should the Shiva hypothesis be true— the next swarm of Oort Cloud comets could even now be speeding towards the inner solar
system . Failing this, we may have only another thousand years to wait until the return of the dense part of the Taurid Complex and
another asteroidal assault. Even if itturns out that there is no coherence in the timing of impact events, there is statistically no reason why we cannot be hit next year by anundiscovered Earth-Crossing
Asteroid or by a long-period comet that has never before visited the inner solarsystem . Small impactors on the Tunguska scale struck Brazil in 1931 and Greenland in 1097, and will continue to pound the Earth every few
decades. Because their destructive footprint is tiny compared to the surface area of the Earth, however, it would be very bad luck if one of these hit an urban area, and most will fall in the sea. Although this might seem a good
thing, a larger object strikingthe ocean would be very bad news indeed. A 500-metre rock landing in the Pacific Basin, for example, would generate gigantic tsunamis that would obliterate just about every coastal city in the
hemisphere within 20 hours or so. The chances of this happening arc actually quite high—about 1 per cent in the next 100 years—and the death toll could well top half a billion. Estimates of the frequencies of impactsin the 1
kilometre size bracket range from 100,000 to 333,000 years, but the youngest impact crater produced by an object of this size is almost a million years old. Of course, there could have been severallarge impacts since, which
cither occurred in the sea or have not yet been located on land. Fair enough you might say, the threat is clearly out there, but is there anything on thehorizon? Actually, there is . Some 13 asteroids —mostly quite small—
                                                              the probabilities involved arc not much greater than 1 in 10,000—
could feasibly collide with the Earth before 2100 . Realistically, however, this is not very likely as
although bear in mind that these arc pretty good odds. If this was the probability of winning the lottery then my local agent would be
getting considerably more of my business .

It’s the only scenario for extinction
McGUIRE 2002 (Bill, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and is one of Britain's leading volcanologists, A
Guide to the End of the World, p. 173-174)
    Probably the only piece of good news that can be taken away from my brief look at the end of the world as we know it is
    that although this is going to happen — and soon— the survival of our race seems to be assured , for now at least. Leaving
    aside the possibility of a major comet or asteroid impact on a scale of the dinosaur-killer 65 million years ago— which
    only happen every few hundred million years— it is highly unlikely that anything else is going to wipe out every single
    last one of us —all 6 billion plus— in the foreseeable future . Even thereplacement of the world with which we have

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                                    DDW 2011
      become so familiar with one of sweltering heat or bitter cold might not seem as scary for those of our descendants likely to
      be in the thick of things. After all, we are a remarkably adaptable species, and can change to match new circumstances
      with some aplomb. Familiar 'worlds' have certainly ended many times before, as no doubt a centenarian born and raised
      while Queen Victoriasat on the throne of the United Kingdom, and who lived to sec man land on the moon, would testify.
      The danger is, however, that the world of our children and those thatfollow will be a world of struggle and strife with little
      prospect of, and perhaps little enthusiasm for, progress as the Victorians viewed it. Indeed, it would not be entirely
      surprising if, at some future time, as the great coastal cities sink beneath the waves or below sheets of ice, the general
      consensus did not hold that there had been quite enoughprogress thank you—at least for a while. While I have tried in these
      pages to extrapolate current trends and ideas to tease out and examine somewhat depressing scenarios forthe future of our
      planet and our race, I am sure that, to some extent at least, you would be justified in accusing me of a failure of the
      imagination. After all, I have rarely lookedahead beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and yet our Sun will still be
      bathing our planet in its life-giving warmth for another 5 billion years or more. Who knows, overthat incomprehensible
      length of time, what Homo sapiens and the species that evolve from us will do and become. Our species and those that
      follow may beknocked back time and time again in the short term, but provided we learn to nurture our environment rather
      than exploit it, both here onEarth—before the Sun eventually swallows it up—and later, perhaps, in the solar system and
      the galaxy and beyond, then we have the time to do and bealmost anything . Maybe now is the right time to start.

Nothing outweighs it – the neg succumbs to the illusion of invulnerability – vote aff to preserve the long-
term survival of our species
VERSCHUUR 1996 (Gerrit, Adjunct Prof of Physics at U of Memphis, Impact: the Threat of Comets and Asteroids, p. 216)
There is an even more subtle reason why we are unlikely to take collective and significant action to assure the long-termsurvival of our species . It
manifests as the psychological syndrome known as the "illusion of invulnerability." Individuals cannot believe that they will personally
succumb in the next catastrophe. This syndrome is at play in those who livehappily in earthquake zones, in floodplains, or on the sides
of active volcanoes . The existence of the syndrome poses a paradox. If we are concerned about the long-term survival of civilization, we must
overcome our genetic predisposition todeal only with the immediate future . Dealing with short-term issues is natural in all animals, and represents the
practical way in which to survive from day to day. However, this predisposition is not conducive to assuring a long-term existence . Perhaps that is what
is at issue. We have learned much about the natural universe in recent years, and the mind's eye has only just developed the ability to scan millions of
years of time. Yet that seems to be no morethan an intellectual exercise with little practical use. Perhaps the evolution of our species may yet depend on
whether we can succeedin making very long term plans and carrying them out for the benefit of life on earth. Scientific discovery has brought us to
the point where we confront the awesome probability that collision with an earth-crossing object will bring an end to civilization. It is
no longer a question of whether a massive impact will occur in the future; it is only a matter of when. Even if we think it will be a
thousand years from now, the point of raising the issue is to ask ourselves what we plan to do about it. It may be time to think in terms
of thousands of years into the future . I am assuming that we care that our species will be around for a long time, and that this question
is worth thinking about.

Standard risk analysis doesn’t apply to an asteroid collision – evaluate magnitude over probability and
POSNER 2004 (Richard, US Court of Appeals judge and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Catastrophe:
Risk and Response 249-250)
     Even if our insouciant reaction to small probabilities of great losses is accepted as an authentic basis forestimating the value
     of life in most such situations, the reaction may not generalize to ones in which the loss ,should it materialize, would be
     the near or total extinction of the human race. If the annual probability of an asteroid collision that would kill 6 billion
     people is only 1 in 75 million, the expected number of deaths worldwide is only 80 per year, which may not seem a large
     enough number to justify the expense of an effective defense against anasteroid collision. (This of course ignores smaller
     but still lethal collisions; but read on.) But if there is a minute chance that the entire human race, both current and future,
     would be wiped out, together with all or most of the world’s animal population, we (the ambiguous “we” of policy analysis,
     but there it may represent dominant public opinion) may think that something should be done to eliminate or reduce the
     risk, slight as it is, beyond what a standard cost-benefit analysis would imply; may be willing ,if the risk and the possible
     responses are explained carefully, to incur some cost in higher taxes or otherwise to reduce the risk.

Any solvency deficit means an aff vote – we only have to screw up once for extinction to occur
BARBEE 2009 (4/1, Brent W., BS, Aerospace Engineering degree from UT Austin; MS in Engineering from the Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas, Austin specializing in Astrodynamics and Spacecraft
Mission Design, currently working as an Aerospace Engineer andPlanetary Defense Scientist with the Emergent Space Technologies
company in Greenbelt, Maryland, teaches graduate Astrodynamics in the Department of AerospaceEngineering at The University of

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                           DDW 2011
Maryland, College Park, “Planetary Defense”,http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational//apj-s/2009/1tri09/barbeeeng.htm)//DT
It is generally accepted that statistics and probability theory is the best way to handle partial information problems . Gamblers and
insurance companies employ it extensively. However, one of the underlying premises is that it is acceptableto be wrong sometimes . If a
gambler makes a bad play, the hope is that the gambler has made more good plays than bad ones and still comes out ahead. This
however is not applicable to planetary defense against NEOs. Being wrong just once may prove fatal to millions of people or to our
entire species. If we trust our statistical estimates of the NEO population and our perceived collision probabilities too much, we risk
horrific damage or even extinction. This is how we must define the limit forhow useful probability theory is in the decision-making process for
defense against NEOs.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                                          DDW 2011
                                                                         K stuff
1. Empiricism is the only justification for policy
David Owen, 02 Reader of Political Theory at the Univ. of Southampton,              Millennium Vol 31 No 3 2002 p. 655-7
Commenting on the ‘philosophical turn’ in IR, Wæver remarks that ‘[a]         frenzy for words like “epistemology” and
“ontology” often signals this philosophical turn’, although he goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely.4
However, loosely deployed or not, it is clear that debates concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars.
In one respect, this is unsurprising since it is a characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to
reflection on the philosophical commitments of different theoretical approaches, and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in
making explicit the commitments that characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet, such a philosophical turn is not
without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion that has, I will suggest, helped to promote the IR
theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with the philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to
prioritise issues of ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if
the latter two were merely a simple function of the former. But while the explanatory and/or
interpretive power of a theoretical account is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological
commitments (otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly
dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, for example, one need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory
to recognise that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of the commons in which dilemmas of collective
action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the advocates of rational choice theory cannot
give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e., how it is that
the relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, i f this is the
case, it is a philosophical weakness—but this does not undermine the point that, for a certain
class of problems, rational choice theory may provide the best account available to us. In other
words, while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or
epistemological sophistication is one kind of critical judgement, it is not the only or even
necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of
ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from philosophical first principles, it cultivates a
theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach to IR. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this:
since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions of a given action, event or
phenomenon, the challenge is to decide which is the most apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip
on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint, ‘theory-driven work is
part of a reductionist program’ in that it ‘dictates always opting for the description that calls for
the explanation that flows from the preferred model or theory’.5 The justification offered for this
strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because general
explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar terms.
However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since ‘whether there are
general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to
be prejudged before conducting that inquiry’.6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the
promotion of the pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity. The third danger is that the
preceding two combine to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IR—what might be
called (only slightly tongue in cheek) ‘the Highlander view’—namely, an image of warring theoretical approaches
with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. It encourages
this view because the turn to, and prioritisation of, ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that
there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right , namely, the theoretical approach that gets its
ontology and epistemology right. This image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers,
and so a potentially vicious circle arises.

Consensus – Realism is best, inevitable, accurate, and has no replacement
Gow 5
James, Professor of International Peace and Security, and Director of the International Peace and Security Programme. Gow is a permanent non-
resident scholar with the Liechtenstein Institute, Princeton University. He has held visiting positions at the University of Sheffield, the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C., the Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University, and the Centre of International
Studies, Princeton University. Professor Gow is currently Chair of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Advisory Council, a

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM
8b0788e5-c8c1-433d-ab3f-e4700b19fa6d.doc                                                                                                        DDW 2011
member of the British Film Institute In-View Advisory Board and a member of the ESRC/AHRC ‘Global Uncertainties’ Development Panel, Book:
Defending the West, Polity Press, (pg. 26-27)
While various proponents of Idealist views have tilted at Realism, as have those of Socialist, Marxist, Critical and other
perspectives, thereality of International Relations, an academic subject, dominated by US scholars, has been that each has confirmed
the status of Realism as the primary ideology in the field. In doing so, each has confirmed the failure of any
competitor to supplant it, simply by pitching criticism and analysis against it. While narrow Realism might not
fit the world as such, given that there is more to life than material interest and benefit, if nothing else, there can
be little doubt that material interest and benefit, including security, constitute a necessary part of the equation.
In practice, elements of both Realism and Idealism play a part. This is recognized by those who implicitly, or
explicitly, embrace elements of each, beginning with the Dutch international lawyer Hugo Grotius, who saw the inevitability of brute power, but
also saw the importance and possibility of rules in tempering it and developing into and beyond the 'international society' identified by Hedley Bull.18
The basis of Bull's international society - that which makes a society, rather than anything else - is mutual recognition of rules, crucially, as the base of
everything else, the quality of sovereignty and the rules that pertain to it. This, in a sense, is a form of social construction. Rules are the result of inter-
subjective agreement, or alternatively of processes involving declaration or action, precedent and acceptance. Such processes may be formal, or they may
come through custom and practice - in legal terms, for example, the rules might be treaties, or they might be customary law. At certain points, aspects of
this inter-subjective process become so embedded, or reified, that the actors are not conscious of the process, or the prevalent interpretation it has
produced. The analytical strength of a Constructivist approach should be in understanding processes and
dominant interpretations. However, the problem with the way in which Wendt introduced the approach to the
International Relations repertoire is that he sought consciously to situate it in the Idealist tradition as a counter to
Realism.19 His focus was not on the mechanism and understanding of how interpretations of whatever kind emerged, but on how that understanding
could be used to unpick Realism. As others writing in other fields, such as gender and nationalism, had done, Wendt sought to apply
Constructivist analysis to show that Realism was not scientific, material and necessary, but social, cultural and
contingent; that it was, in some sense, an invention, not an inevitability. However, following George Schopflin's challenge to
those applying Constructivism to nationalism, the only reasonable response to this might be: 'So what? That does not make
it any less real.'20 The point, for some,21 in Constructivism has been ideological: because reality is constructed, the
fallacious reasoning seems to be, this means that it can be re-constructed in whichever way a particular author
or group wishes. This, indeed, is one of the hopes that Wendt, who did most to raise the profile of Constructivism, holds.22 However, Wendt's
approach is regarded as being shallow and too engaged in seeking a dialogue with Realism by some other proponents of Constructivism, who take a more
strongly Reflectivist position.23 This means that (in a similar manner to Critical and Postmodern theorists) they reject arguing on the same
                                                                                                                 purely and avowedly
ground as the Realists - and indeed their 'Rationalist' counterparts in Liberalism and elsewhere. This view takes a
normative approach, in which there is no independent reality that can be tested by Positivist Scientific
rationality. 'Facts' are not established through empirical testing (although some concessions might be made for the physical world), but are socially
agreed.24 This is misguided, though, as the real analytical strength of Constructivism is in identifying the social process and that applies equally to
Realism, Idealism and any other school of thought, or practice. Any product of social construction (and there should be no confusion here
                                             still 'real' in two senses: in its underpinnings and in the way it is
with social engineering, or even ideological manipulation is
felt or perceived. That Realism is constructed does not make it arbitrary, or necessarily wrong. Indeed, while a
skeptical approach is important as a check on the merit of any interpretation, it is probably fair to judge that
Realism, although socially constructed, has remained dominant, as a function of inter-subjective processes,
precisely because it builds on something 'real' - the need for security and viability and the relevance of power in
securing them.

Last printed 8/25/2012 7:31:00 AM

To top