Aff SS Sad Egis Qua Red v RS ErpenbachFan 1NC

8/3/2019 Aff SS Sad Egis Qua Red v RS ErpenbachFan 1NC

1/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

1NC- SPS- SS-SS

1NC- SPS- SS-SS.............................................................................................................................................1Space Weaponization.....................................................................................................................................1SKFTA............................................................................................................................................................3Counterplan...................................................................................................................................................7

Aerospace Frontline.....................................................................................................................................10Forward Deployment Frontline.....................................................................................................................12Space Leadership Frontline..........................................................................................................................13Warming Frontline.......................................................................................................................................16Peak Oil Frontline.........................................................................................................................................21

Space Weaponization

Parity now- asats

Blazejewski 08 (Kenneth Blazejewski, private practice in New York City, focusing primarily on international corporate and

financial transactions, JD from NYU Law, 2008. Space Weaponization and US China Relations,http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf)On this account, Chinas primary concern with US space weaponization is its contribution to a US multilayered missiledefense shield. In- deed, Chinas campaign for PAROS negotiation at the CD seems to inten- sify after each newdevelopment in United States BMD plans.20 Although China could respond to a BMD shield with effectivecountermeasures,21 future technological developments may permit the BMD system to viti- ate Chinas nucleardeterrent.22 In the case of a conflict over Taiwan, for example, a US space-based BMD system could prove very valuableto the United States. According to this view, if the United States decides to advance with such a BMD program, China willrespond so as to maintain its nuclear deterrence. It will modernize its ICBM fleet (a program it has already initiated),develop further countermeasures to circumvent the BMD shield, and develop the means to launch multiple ASAT attacks.Ultimately, an arms race could ensue. This, however, would not be Chinas chosen outcome. Its development of spaceweapons is merely a counter- strategy to what it views as likely US space weaponization.23 China would much prefer thatthe United States negotiate a PAROS agreement not to build the BMD shield.24 If this were the case, Chinas JanuaryASAT test would appear to be an attempt to get the United States to the negotiating table. By launching the ASAT, Chinasought to put the United States on notice that any attempt to weaponize outer space would lead to this mutu- allyundesirable path.

SPS removes the final barrier to weaponization - causes breakout

Kim Ramos, Major in the USAF, Thesis, April 2000, Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force

Force Application United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of thoseoperational concepts is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines global engagement as anintegrated focused surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to apply force from space.27 This applicationof force from space involves holding at risk earth targets with force from space.28New World Vistas identifies severalforce application technologies. One of the technological issues associated with developing these space force applicationtechnologies is that they all require large amounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the required

power. Two technologies in particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed energy weapons,such as lasers, and jamming devices . The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground moving targetindication, and air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The main difficulty with the laser isdesigning a power plant, which can produce the required energy in space without the enormous solar arrays required. Byusing a solar power satellite to beam power to the laser, this eliminates the problem. Another project , which would benefitfrom integration with a solar power satellite, is a device, which would beam RF power to a particular geographic location toblind or disable any unprotected ground communications , radar, optical, and infrared sensors.30 As with the laser and otherdirected energy applications, the limiting factor right now is generating enough power in space to energize the RF beam.

And action now is key- Obama working towards ban

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

1
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdfhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf


2/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

Zhang 11 (Baohui, March/April, The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship, Asian Survey, Pg 328-31,Vol. 51, No. 2,http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleInfo?doi=10.1525%2FAS.2011.51.2.311)

Important chang es in U.S. strategic posture , missile defense, and the Taiwan Strait situation may now allow Washingtonand Beijing to extricate themselves from their space security dilemma, paving the way for arms control. In fact, thesechanges have already led to rising optimism among Chinese security experts with regard to the possibility of arms control

in outer space. Zhao Kejin, a space security expert at Qinghua University, argues that there is no need for China to engagethe U.S. in a space arms race. Instead, Facing the possibility of emerging anarchy in outer space, China and the U.S. canwork together to push for arms control negotiations, with the aim of establishing effective mechanisms for the monitoringand management of outer space. 50 This upbeat mood among Chinese experts represents a big change from the pessimismof the Bush era. The challenge for China and the U.S. is to seize the opportunity and forge a realistic approach to spacearms control. In this regard, China and the U.S. could pursue a two-stage strategy. The first stage would have to focus onreducing strategic misunderstandings and thus the vicious effects of the security dilemma . If so, the root cause of theaction/counteraction spiral that defines a classic arms race will lose its hold on the two countries. Recent and importantchanges in the strategic landscape have improved the chances of achieving such a goal. Once the vicious circle of actionand counteraction has been minimized, China and the U.S. could move on to the second stage, which is to pursuemultilateral agreements banning weapons in space. Until recently, because of the Bush administrations steadfast oppositionto any legally binding treaty that would limit the U.S.s military use of space, a multilateral approach to arms controlseemed beyond reach. Now, however, the Obama administrations willingness to take a leadership role in constructing aglobal treaty offers the hope of success. In the context of the changing strategic landscape between China and the U.S.,specific measures could be taken to reduce their mutual concerns. One important measure, often overlooked in the spacerelationship, is for top civilian leaders to exercise greater oversight over military space programs. Often, statements andactions by the military have driven the fears of the other side. If the U.S. and China intend to build a new partnership inworld affairs, civilian leaders must recognize that unscrutinized actions by their own militaries can invite mutual mistrust,which in turn hinders broader political and security cooperation. On the U.S. side, the Obama government needs to take amuch closer look at the U.S. Air Force (especially its Space Command) and the Missile Defense Agency. These twoinstitutions periodically try out new space projects that China and Russia perceive as threatening to their national security.For example, in October 2005 the U.S. Air Force conducted a maneuverability experiment with its XSS-11 microsatellite.According to internal Air Force studies, the XSS program was intended as a precursor to an anti-satellite program. TheresaHitchens, a longtime watcher of the U.S. military space program, suggests that both Congress and the White House shouldexercise much tighter control over military space programs. She noted during an interview that the U.S. militarys movetoward space warfare is a strategic issue with a lot of potential fallout. Thus, the military cannot make that decision on itsown. As Hitchens said, Congress hasnt asked about this. Congress hasnt debated this. There hasnt been a change of

White House policy and therefore there has been no public debate. And I think it is a serious mistake. This is somethingthat ought to be debated at the national level with congressional and public input. Its a bigger deal than just a militarydecision. 51 Chinas civilian leadership must also rein in the military space program. Indeed, after the 2007 ASAT test,some U.S. experts questioned whether the Chinese civilian leadership fully grasped the issue. Just as many U.S. projectshave caused concern in China and Russia, the Chinese leadership must recognize that its own military space projects maybe worrying U.S. decision makers. Thus, Chinas political leadership needs to understand that restraining its military spaceprogram will be vital for forging security cooperation with the U.S.

Weaponization inevitably leads to miscalculations extinction

Mitchell Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communications @ the University of Pittsburgh, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile

Defence, No. 6 2001

A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationaleglosses over the tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming theheavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature ofoffense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weaponcomponents . As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want tointercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballisticmissile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used asorbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of spacewarfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

2
http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleInfo?doi=10.1525%2FAS.2011.51.2.311http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleInfo?doi=10.1525%2FAS.2011.51.2.311http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/#note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/#note1http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleInfo?doi=10.1525%2FAS.2011.51.2.311http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/#note1


3/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation wouldenhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out ofhuman hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds ofaccidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrialsystems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawlessperformance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such

systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the systemcharacteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weaponswith pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given thesusceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war.According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with suchhigh velocity that it can do enormous damage even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of themost destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given thisunique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliatewith maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by acomputer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

SKFTA

Going to pass- predictive uniqueness evidence this will be replaced for the debate with a more updated

uniqueness card- sorry!

Froomkin 7/25, [Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 7/25/11, Free Trade Deals: Lobbying Fever Foreshadows Winners, Losers,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/free-trade-agreements-lobbying_n_906623.html|AF]

The most reliable and active opposition to trade agreements typically comes the AFL-CIO and other American laborunions. But as HuffPost's Zach Carter noted recently, the collective union reaction has been strangely muted this timearound. Individual unions have focused on Colombia's labor record and one -- the United Auto Workers -- is activelysupporting the Korean pact based on promises that American auto companies will get expanded access to the Korean automarket. So the only real leverage that the agreements' opponents have left is the American voter. Free trade agreements --

and the seemingly inevitable job losses -- are hugely unpopular with the public, and running against them has proven to bea wildly successful tactic in both parties. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last fall found that only 18 percent ofAmericans think free-trade agreements create jobs, compared to 69 percent who said they cost jobs. Only 17 percent saidsuch agreements had helped the U.S., while 53 percent said they had hurt. Senators may be more immune thanrepresentatives to that kind of polling, especially when pro-trade agreement lobbyists are hounding them. "In the House,you have to face the voters every two years," noted Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, anonprofit consumer advocacy group. "Therefore the liability of voting in favor of a job-offshoring, unsafe-import-flooding,'Buy America'-killing, food-safety-undermining, drug-price-rising, foreign-corporate-treasury-raiding, financial-deregulating trade agreement is more likely to kick your butt." Wallach said thatbecause trade agreements are nothistorically popular with Democrats (though in this case, they are being strongly backed by President Obama) theirsupporters need to make sure they have the Republican vote in the House all locked up . That includes the huge Republicanfreshman class -- "except half of them ran against more NAFTAs, against offshoring and against multinationals," Wallachsaid. A November 2010 report from Public Citizen concluded that a record 75 Republican congressional candidates

campaigned against free trade agreements, 44 of whom won. But the pro-trade agreement groups have risen to thechallenge, Wallach said. "They have been going in and, one by one, flipping the people who campaigned against it," shesaid. By March, 67 of the 87 Republican freshmen had signed onto a letter to Obama declaring their support for all threeagreements and a strong belief "that expanding trade will increase economic growth and create jobs here in the U.S ."Among the signatories: Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who had campaigned on a pledge to renegotiate existing tradeagreements to "give our manufacturers a fighting chance to compete in a global market." "All the signs are that the TeaParty-aligned freshmen Republicans are going to vote pretty much the way Republicans have been voting on trade foryears," said Daniel Griswold, a trade policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute. "The Republican Party has its trade-skeptical Pat Buchanan wing, but they're very much in the minority." With so many powerful forces aligned behind the

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

3


4/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

trade agreements, their eventual passage is widely considered a foregone conclusion. The main reason they haven't yetpassed is that Obama is insisting on the simultaneous passage of a measure providing assistance and job training todisplaced U.S. workers.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

4


5/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

SPS tanks political capital

David 08, [David Leonard, Pentagon, 5/15/08, Space Based Solar Power- Harvesting Energy from Spacehttp://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=69|AF]

Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing

solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia."There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts areneeded in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are anyfundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Spaceand Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But ifwe can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bringclean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a nobleeffort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, headded. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. Thiscould create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this ,"Teets said.

Polcap is keyWall Street Journal 10, [Wall Street Journal, 12/6/10, A Korea-US Trade Deal, At last: the korea pact is a step forward, butnow the president has to sell it, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704767804576000542290721476.html|AF]

What a long, strange trip it's been for the South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. The two sides announced this weekendthat they've reached a deal on revisions to the draft that was signed in 2007 but never ratified. It comes not a moment toosoon, given the boost this will give to a U.S. economy stumbling its way to recovery and with tensions rising on the Koreanpeninsula.The saga is also a lesson to future U.S. Presidents on the importance of trade leadership. Having campaignedagainst the pact in 2008, President Obama rediscovered its benefits once in office. Yet by then he was forced to re-opennegotiations to justify his earlier opposition. The result is a deal that is slightly better than the excellent 2007 text in someways, but slightly worse in others. And this after a delay that has cost the U.S. global credibility on economic issues, not tomention the cost to U.S. growth. The good news is that the 2007 agreement stays mostly in place. South Korea still offerssignificant opening of its sheltered economy to American manufactured goods, agriculture and services. Within five years

of ratification the deal will eliminate tariffs on 95% of the countries' trade in goods, and it also clears the way for greatertrade in services by, for instance, opening Korea's banking industry. Meanwhile, some of the changes to that 2007 text arehelpful. The trade in cars was the main sticking point, especially as Detroit worried about Korea's longstanding use oftechnical barriers like onerous safety standards to limit imports. Negotiators have added a provision that ensures newenvironmental standards proposed by Seoul over the past three years won't become de facto trade barriers. Yet some of thenew auto provisions are worse than what Detroit had before. Conspicuously, Korea's current 8% tariff on imported U.S.carswhich would have been eliminated immediately upon ratification under the 2007 dealnow will be cut in halfimmediately but eliminated only after five years. Compare that to the European Union's agreement with Korea, which issigned and due to take effect next July. That deal gradually phases out Korea's 8% car tariff over four years. That meansthat over the next few years Detroit will miss what would have been the advantage of zero tariffs compared to rates of 2%to 6% on EU cars, and toward the end of the five-year period tariffs on EU cars will be lower than on American cars. Thebiggest mistake Mr. Obama and Democrats made was allowing one vocal lobbyDetroit and its unionsto hijack debateon a comprehensive deal covering almost all trade. Consider the main "victory" for Detroit: Korea has agreed to let

America phase out its 25% tariff on pickup trucks more slowly. That will come at a stiff price to American buyers of thosetrucks, including many small businesses that delayed purchases during the recession. Some farmers have also becomecollateral damage. Seoul couldn't walk away from re-opened talks empty-handed, and one concession it extracted is a two-year delay, to 2016, in eliminating tariffs on some U.S. pork. American pork producers are excited about any deal, but theystill would have been better off under the 2007 text. Chilean pork already enjoys lower tariffs thanks to the Chile-KoreaFTA and has been gaining market share. The new tariff-elimination date also falls only six months before Korea's tariffs onEU pork will end under that deal, leaving Americans far less than the two-and-a-half years they would have had under theearlier text to get a marketing jump on their competitors. These caveats should not deter Congress from ratifying what isstill an excellent deal. Mr. Obama has asked GOP House Speaker-designate JohnBoehner to assist in getting the pactapproved , and we're told Mr. Boehner has suggested grouping this deal together with pending agreements with Colombia

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

5


6/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

and Panama in a single House vote. This would make it easier for pro-trade forces in Congress to concentrate their politicalcapital . Mr. Boehner will bring a majority or more of his GOP Members along, butMr. Obama will have to spend his ownpolitical capital to rebuild American public support for free trade and gain Democratic support. The President would havemade more progress toward his goal of doubling American exports if he had supported this deal in 2008 and pressed itthrough Congress in 2009. The failure in leadership was to side with the United Auto Workers and other unions against thenational interest. Those who think they'll lose from trade always have the strongest motivation to lobby, while theconsumers and businesses that benefit (such as American pickup truck buyers) are harder to organize. Every AmericanPresident since Hoover in the 1920s has taken the broad view, speaking up for the many trade beneficiaries. U.S. publicsupport for freer trade has eroded amid the recession and the lack of Presidential leadership. It is crucial for U.S.competitiveness in particular, and the world economy more broadly, that Mr. Obama and his allies make a strong andunapologetic case that trade is in the best interests of American businesses and workers.

SKFTA key to US Free-trade leadership and open up trade globally

CSM 10, No author given, Christian Science Monitor, South Korea trade pact: US beachhead for pacts with Japan, ChinaDecember 14th 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/1206/South-Korea-trade-pact-US-beachhead-for-pacts-with-Japan-China

But even more,ratifying a deal with South Korea Americas seventh-largest trading partner could also help create the

possibility for free-trade pacts with Asias two economic giants, Japan and China.

Americas trade history is full ofattempts to roll back Asias twin problems in economics: an approach to business that curbs competition and a commandeconomy in which governments favor domestic industries and set up nontariff trade barriers.US lawmakers would also bewise to act soon on the Korea pact as Seoul is racing to firm up trade deals with Europe, India, Australia, and other nations.Also, the recent attacks by North Korea that killed South Korean civilians serve as one more reason to reinforce the twonations military alliance by pushing more trade cooperation. (The US is only 10 percent of the Souths export market.)ForObama, winning approval of this pact in Congress will bolster his leadership in achieving other successes on the economy .And with the recent global recession triggering a resurgence of protectionismin many countries,the US must again assumethe mantle of leadership and keep trying to open foreign markets .Far more American jobs have been created over time thanlost because the US remained open to the world. Trade forces companies to be more efficient, creative, and nimble thevery qualities that have kept the US as the worlds biggest economy, and can continue to do so.

Effective free trade prevents nuclear war

Copley News Service 99 (Copley News Service, 12/13/99, copleynews.org)

For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter ofnuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization'smeeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO notjust to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in thethreat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancythemselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not.They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually,most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon orphilosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations towork together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTOnations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs.

As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a majordisincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports tothe United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods weproduce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporationsbenefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's notthe military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide agrowing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and othercompanies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing wouldlose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That'sa lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

6


7/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care aboutworld peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Counterplan

The United States federal government shouldlift the cap on H-1B visas,

give companies incentives to dump large quantities of iron into high nutrient no chlorophyll regions of

the ocean,

provide Fischer-Tropsch fuels for the Department of Defense,

amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to make algae-derived fuels eligible for all tax

credits, subsidies, and price supports,

and harden current satellites by using nanotechnology.

H1Bs solve aerospace workforce crisis

AIAA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003, Informational Paper, Recruiting, Retaining, and Developing a

World-Class Aerospace WorkforceIf talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation that is nearretirement, then the U.S. stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of the domesticaerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22, large percentages of engineers are working outside the science and engineeringprofessions. Engineering students burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures. As shown in Figure 33,aerospace engineering salaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salariesneed to rise and incentives given for entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science andengineering jobs has grown at more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2. With a growing number ofscience and engineering jobs anticipated, the supply of visas set aside under law for highly qualified foreign workers, 65,000 a year4 is not enough. A decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001interrupted a long-term trend of growth. The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled worker visas issuedhave both declined by more than 25% since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer applications and to an increasein the proportion of visa applications rejected2.To add to the supply pressures of science and engineering workers in our

economy, there is increased recruitment of high-skilled labor, including scientists and engineers , by many nationalgovernments and private firms. For example, in 1999, 241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill workvisas, a 75 percent increase over 1992.

Algae solves warming

Pyle 08 (Statement of Jason Pyle Chief Executive Officer, Sapphire Energy, Renewable Fuels And Food Prices, CQ CongressionaTestimony, 6/12/08, pg nexis)

First, let me thank the Committee for its leadership on alternative, renewable fuels. Your keen focus and vision haveresulted in the first ever Renewable Fuel Standard. Although there will inevitably be elements of RFS that will improveover time, you've guided the country along on the right path. Second, within the RFS debate, I want to thank thisCommittee for its vision and support for technology neutrality in RFS legislation, even though that vision did not survivefinal passage. As you predicted by supporting a technology neutral position, we are now seeing the evolution of an entirely

new generation of renewable fuels. These fuels transcend the use of food as fuel feedstock. The current dilemma that pitsfuel against food is just the first of many consequences of a technology-specific RFS. Without a technology-neutral RFS,this nation will not meet its goals of providing 32 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Although last year's EnergyIndependence and Security Act has yet to foster such solutions, this Committee should be applauded for anticipating anever-expanding universe of alternative and renewable fuels. That's why I am here. I'm Jason Pyle, Chief Executive Officerof Sapphire Energy. Sapphire is one of several of this nation's best technology companies working to produce the nextgeneration of renewable fuels. At Sapphire, we focus on the production of current fuel products, such as gasoline, dieseland aircraft fuel, from completely renewable sources, such as photosynthetic microorganisms, oralgae. Our mission is toproduce fuels for today's oil and gasoline infrastructure, and two weeks ago we announced that Sapphire had produced thefirst ever renewable, ASTM-compliant, 91 octane gasoline from microorganisms. Please refer to the attached two

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

7


8/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

documents for more background on Sapphire Energy. The Problem One of the many reasons we have cheap food is theavailability of cheap energy. We cannot expect to turn large amounts of food back into energy in an economic manner. Intoday's debate between food and fuel, we should not have to make a choice. Both are critical to the economy, theenvironment and the world at large; we should not match one against the other. But when price and demand rise for one,both suffer. Instead of a Pyrrhic choice between food and fuel, I offer the opportunity to transcend the debate and produceample supplies of both, leading this nation toward energy independence. Instead of a dispute between two basic necessities,we need a dialogue that supports truly sustainable alternative fuel sources. Over the past year we have all seen prices anddemand rise for commodities such as corn, sugar and vegetable oil. The entire world now feels the pressure. Daily we arefaced with reports of people who struggle to afford essentials. A host of factors has contributed to price increases for foodand fuel: weather, heightened demand, a weaker dollar, decreasing supplies. Just like energy, food is linked in a globalmarket. Once we begin fueling our cars with food crops, we witness international repercussions. Riots occurred in Mexicoearlier this year over expensive corn flour. This price increase has been attributed to U.S. demand for corn-based ethanolproducts, leaving less maize available for export. Protests over similar issues have occurred around the world, contributingto inflation and political instability. Even at an increased rate of production, current domestic biofuel processes will meetpart, but not all, of U.S. demand. If the entire annual domestic soybean crop of 3 billion bushels were converted to biodieselat the current efficiency of 1.4 gallons per bushel, it would provide about 6.5% of U.S. diesel fuel production. Thoughcertainly a valuable asset to our fuel supply, it is clear that a spectrum of additional and diverse biofuels sources will benecessary to fulfill demand. Congress first adopted the Renewable Fuels Standard in 2005, but wisely recognized thatneither biodiesel nor ethanol would be the final solution. It created the program as a bridge to a new generation of fuels, andestablished a system of incentives to create a marketplace for new technologies. Congress should consider whether the

incentives are neutral and fair. Ask whether these mechanisms will lead to the support and development of fuels that willgive America true energy independence. Congress should ensure that the next round of incentives can be applied toadvanced technologies such as Sapphire's. American innovation is the heart of our people and our economy; I urge you tosupport this with additional legislation that promotes a technology-neutral RFS. The Solution Food for fuel concerns arereal, but can be managed. Industries such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from vegetable oil can continue to play animportant role in the energy mix. However, if we intend to practically and economically reach the goals of the RFS, wemust be ready to rapidly embrace new fuel technologies. We must call on American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism forthe solutions. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it put the country on a path toward an energy futureindependent of imported resources. As Americans, we must support this vision. We should strive to maximize production,create fuel-efficient cars, reduce the amount of driving we do and, finally, develop alternatives to fossil fuels. All theseefforts deserve increased support. But without a truly new source of fuel, the system will remain in turmoil, prices will soarand the conflict between food and fuel will persist. Senators, my colleagues and I at Sapphire Energy have been thinkingabout this for a long time. We knew that an energy source based on agriculture would serve this country best as a stepping

stone to a green energy future. We knew that energy requiring vast amounts of fresh water resources was not a viableoption. And, finally, if we wanted to make a difference quickly, we knew we needed a fuel that could be transported andrefined just like petroleum. Two years ago we asked ourselves, "In a perfect world, how should the next generation of fuelbe produced and distributed?" These were our founding principles: 1.Fuel production must not use farmland. Period. 2.Fuelproduction must be carbon neutral. 3.Fuel production and delivery must use the existing petroleum infrastructure. 4.Fuelproduction must scale domestically to reach tens of billions of gallons per year. 5.The next generation of fuels must becompatible with today's vehicles. That sounded like a tall order. But Americans have dreamed big and delivered in the past- atomic energy, highways and railroads that crisscross our nation, a man on the moon, mapping the human genome. Now,a similar ingenuity has developed a completely renewable and homegrown source of gasoline. I offer that we do not have tosacrifice food production for fuel production. We do not have to choose between powering our industries and feeding thehungry. The Sapphire processes and technologies are so revolutionary that the company is at the forefront of an entirelynew industrial category called "Green Crude Production". Products and processes in this category differ significantly fromother biofuels because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms, sunlight and CO2 ; do not result in

biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are carbon neutral and renewable; and don't requireany food crop or agricultural land . The Sapphire process produces a replica of light sweet crude, green crude that can beused in traditional refining to make real gasoline, diesel, and aircraft fuel. Our feedstocks produce 10 to 100 times moreenergy per acre than cropland biofuels. A side benefit of our process is that the microorganisms consume pollutants andconvert them to fuel. Using the Sapphire process, we have dramatically altered the domestic energy and petrochemicallandscape and avoided the food versus fuel debate. Please allow me to reiterate, the Sapphire process does not createethanol; it does not produce biodiesel; it does not use crops or valuable farmland. Sapphire fuel is the fuel we use today, thekind that is in your car or truck or airplane right now. It's gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel. Senators, this is a solution. Thisis a truly renewable, truly sustainable, alternative fuel- "Sapphire's green crude oil". This fuel, Sapphire fuel, is the world'sfirst truly renewable petrochemical product, produced by converting sunlight and CO2 into a renewable, carbon-neutral

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

8


9/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

alternative to conventional fossil fuels, without the drawbacks of current biofuels. This fuel is compatible with the currentenergy infrastructure- cars, refineries, and pipelines . Sapphire's scalable production facilities will produce this fueleconomically because production will be modular, transportable, fueled by sunlight, and not constrained by arable land,crops, or other natural resources. Sapphire has turned sunlight into gasoline.

Iron fertilization solves global warming and stimulates phytoplankton reproduction

Marine Technology Reporter 09 (1/29/09, Natural Iron Fertilization and Geo-engineering, pg online @http://www.seadiscovery.com/mt/mtStories.aspx?ShowStrory=1027782126)

The efficacy of geo-engineering the oceans through iron fertilization so as to mitigate the effects of climate change isevaluated by results published this week in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. The research was conducted by aninternational team led by Professor Raymond Pollard of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Large oceanicregions are high in nutrients, and yet have relatively low biological productivity. This is because such high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) regions are deficient in iron, which is needed to support the growth of phytoplankton - the free-floating, microscopic plant-like organisms that dominate new production in the worlds oceans. Phytoplankton use sunlightto make their food through the process of photosynthesis, and sit at the base of the marine food chain. Throughphotosynthesis, they also draw large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide down out of the atmosphere, therebyinfluencing climate. A proportion of this carbon sinks down out of the surface layer and is sequestered (locked away) bythe deep ocean and bottom sediments. Artificial augmentation of this so-called biological carbon pump through oceangeo-engineering has been proposed as a potential way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby

ameliorating global warming . One possible way to do this is through iron fertilization, where iron is artificially added tothe oceans so as to induce greatly increased phytoplankton population growth. Experiments in the Southern Ocean, a largeand important HNLC region, have shown that the addition of iron allows phytoplankton to exploit other available nutrients,leading to the development of large algal blooms . Although these algal blooms take up increased amounts of carbon, muchof it is released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Exactly how much carbon is exported from the surface layer,and how long it remains out of circulation, is unknown. For iron fertilization to be useful in the battle against globalwarming, the oceans and bottom sediments would need to hold on to the sequestered carbon for many decades, effectivelystopping it from returning to the atmosphere, at least until carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of hydrocarbons (oil,coal and gas) are reduced sufficiently to halt or reverse the seemingly relentless increase in the concentration ofatmospheric carbon dioxide. As part of the CROZEX experiment, Pollard and his team focused on the seas around theCrozet Islands and Plateau (hereafter Crozet) at the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean, about 1,400 miles (2,200km) southeast of South Africa. The seas around Crozet are naturally supplied with iron from the islands, which have avolcanic origin, and the surrounding plateau. Ocean currents flow northward past Crozet, so that iron is not carried south ofCrozet and HNLC conditions prevail. But north of Crozet, the iron accumulates over the dark winter, and each spring, oncethere is enough light, an enormous phytoplankton bloom develops. This annual bloom contains billions of individualphytoplankton, and covers 120,000 square kilometres (the size of Ireland). The researchers observed significant differencesin the magnitude, timing, duration and community structure of plankton blooms north and south of Crozet. South of Crozet,in the region deficient in iron, phytoplankton peaked in early December and the bloom was short-lived. But north of Crozet,phytoplankton peaked in October, and the bloom lasted for many weeks. They show that natural iron fertilization enhancedphytoplankton growth and productivity and the amount of carbon exported from the surface layer (100 metres) by 2-3 fold.

Fischer-Tropsch solves forward deployment and peak oil

Bartis & Van Bibber 11 James T. Bartis [Ph.D. in chemical physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Sc.B. inchemistry, Brown University] Lawrence Van Bibber [RAND senior policy researcher] 2011 Alternative Fuels for MilitaryApplications RAND Corp

Considering economics, technical readiness, greenhouse gas emissions, and general environmental concerns, FT fuelsderived from a mixture of coal and biomass represent the most promising approach to producing amounts of alternativefuels that can meet military, as well as appreciable levels of civilian, needs by 2030. But whetherthis technology will reachits potential depends crucially on gaining early production experienceincluding production with carbon capture andsequestrationin the United States. At present, no agency of the U.S. government has announced plans to promote earlycommercial use of FT fuels derived from a mixture of coal and biomass.

Hardening key to space leadership

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

9


10/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

Rebecca Johnson 07, senior advisor to the United Nations' United Nations Monitoring, Verification andInspection Commission and PhD and The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, Space withoutWeapons, The Acronym Institute provides reporting, analysis and strategic thinking on a range of issuesrelevant to peace and security, with special emphasis on treaties and multilateral initiatives, 10/8http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/congo.htm,

Instead of turning to the sledgehammer of space weaponisation to deal with the potential vulnerabilities of space assets, amore sensible approach (and one consistent with the United Nations Charter) would combine arms control efforts with thetechnical hardening and shielding of as many satellites as possible, plus space situation awareness, redundancy and other'passive' defence means. Progress in nuclear disarmament, strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of NuclearWeapons (NPT), negotiating a nuclear weapons convention, further efforts to restrict missile proliferation, building on theMissile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation(HCoC) would also contribute to security and reduce the chances of space becoming a battleground - which would be innobody's interests. [1] Former commander-in-chief of SPACECOM, General Joseph W. Ashy (CINCSPACE), quoted in'USSC Prepares for Future Combat Missions in Space', William B. Scott, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 5,1996. [2] Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organisation,Washington D.C. (Public Law 106-65), January 11, 2001, pp 7-10. This Commission is usually referred to as the RumsfeldCommission on Space, after its Chair Donald Rumsfeld became the Bush administration's first Defense Secretary. [3] Ibid.p 16. [4] Lt. Col. Peter L. Hays, United States Military Space: Into the Twenty-First Century, INSS Occasional Paper 42,(Colorado, Institute for National Security Studies, September 2002). [5] To this must be added the objectives of power

projection and military control: "As space systems become lucrative military targets, there will be a critical need to controlthe space medium to ensure US dominance on future battlefields... to ensure space superiority."

Aerospace Frontline

No aerospace shortage enrollment, retention, and recession

Tim McAward, Vice President and Product Leader of Kelly Engineering Resources (KER), September 1, 2010, AerospaceEngineering Onlinee, The future of engineering is here, http://www.sae.org/mags/aem/8789

Yet, even though 49% of all American engineers are employed by organizations that specialize in one of these fourdisciplines, more engineering students have either enrolled in the following five programs, or have attained degrees in oneof these niche disciplines, than in the Big Four occupational specialties, in the last five years: Aerospace: 30% increase

in the number of graduates Biomedical: 50% increase in the number of graduates Chemical: 50% increase inundergraduate enrollment Environmental: 100% increase in undergraduate enrollment Petroleum: 100% increase inundergraduate enrollment and in the number of students graduating. In the meantime, although the manufacturing sectorcontinues to employ the largest percentage of American engineers, many service-based industries, including professional,scientific, and technical, have begun to hire an increasing number of engineers as well. According to the Bureau of LaborStatistics Occupational Outlook Handbook for 2010, about 30% of all engineering professionals currently work in one ofthese industries. If engineers are not employed within the manufacturing sector or in service-based industries, theygenerally work for federal, state, or local governments, within a variety of capacities, including the U.S. Department ofDefense, U.S. Department of Transportation, or U.S. Department of Energy; the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA); or highway and public works departments. U.S. engineers approach retirement as collegeenrollment rates increase U.S. engineers approach retirement as college enrollment rates increase Many U.S. engineers areapproaching the traditional retirement age of 55 or older. As a result, some well-experienced engineers are no longerworking full-time, thus creating a nationwide engineering talent shortage that will lead many organizations to generate

more flexible work options for their employees to retain them for longer durations of time. During the coming years, thefuture U.S. engineering workforce will be increasingly comprised of multiple generations of workers, including BabyBoomers and Generation X and Y employees. As engineers continue to retire and organizations search for future top talent,recent engineering graduates and current students should certainly maintain positive attitudes as they will likely find high-paying, meaningful positions, even in the midst of the ongoing national economic recession. Meanwhile, according to theAmerican Society for Engineering Education, undergraduate engineering program enrollment rates essentially increased by7% between the years of 2000 and 2005. Such an increase had originally led some organizations to believe that anengineering youth movement had begun. However, although a large number of students had enrolled into programs,enrollment increases did not translate into a higher number of graduates from 2005 to 2009. Nevertheless, the recenteconomic recession has truly created a spike in undergraduate engineering enrollment. In fall 2009, more than 427,000

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

10
http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/congo.htmhttp://www.acronym.org.uk/space/congo.htm


11/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

students enrolled for collegiate engineering classes, a 6% increase over a one year period and a 16% increase since 2005.As the recession forced many unemployed workers to upgrade their current skills and to pursue new career opportunities, itappears a high number of individuals will begin their new careers within the next couple yearsa sign that the currentengineering labor shortage may slowly start to decrease throughout the upcoming decade.

Case cant overcome structural factors plaguing the aerospace industry

Charles River Associates, leading global consulting firm that offers economic, financial, and business management expertise tomajor law firms, industries, accounting firms, and governments around the world, October 2009, Innovation in Aerospace andDefense, http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/innovate_2009/criver_whitepaper_2009_final.pdf

The U.S. post-secondary education system remains the finest in the world. Science and engineering programs have greatlyexpanded over time and continue to attract students, at all levels, from every other country in the world. In fact, in scienceand engineering in particular, there are disproportionate numbers of foreign students enrolled in U.S. degree programs, andby and large U.S. students are not seeking education in these areas outside the U.S. So, it would seem that the quality of oureducational system is not a problem. But, is it producing enough talented workers to supply the needs of the aerospace anddefense industry? At present, the absolute number of engineers is not the problem. Recent, significant job cuts have meantthat, if anything, there are likely more engineers being trained in the U.S. than there are jobs available. Indeed, the trends inthe number of graduates reflect the trends in manufacturing industries in general and trends in the aerospace industry inparticular. These industries have become increasingly automated, both in design and manufacturing. This has meant that

fewer workers are required to produce a given level of output. These industries have also become increasingly globalized,which has meant that fewerworkers are required in the U.S. as more and more design and production capacity has movedoverseas.

The industry is adapting to less workers and innovating now

Charles River Associates, leading global consulting firm that offers economic, financial, and business management expertise to

major law firms, industries, accounting firms, and governments around the world, October 2009, Innovation in Aerospace andDefense, http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/innovate_2009/criver_whitepaper_2009_final.pdf

As depicted in the illustration that appears as an Appendix to this paper, the aerospace and defense industry has long been asource of great innovation and continues today to produce cutting edge technologies that push the envelope of humanachievement. However, at present, the indicators of innovation in aerospace and defense are mixed. Some, such as highprofile program failures and an aging workforce, would suggest a looming crisis of innovation in the industry. Still others,concerning how innovators secure the necessary financial and human resources and then organize those resources foroptimum results, underscore that the rules of the innovation game in aerospace and defense are changing. Together, theseindicators are upsetting conventional attitudes toward innovation, and the natural friction and travail associated with theprocess of adapting to change are stoking anxieties. But upon closer examination one finds that there are at least as manyencouraging indicators of risk-taking, innovative achievement, and successful adaptation to cast doubt on the reflexiveconclusion that aerospace and defense today is experiencing a crisis in its propensity to innovate. The state ofinnovation inaerospace and defense is not in crisis; it is being transformed To explore the changing nature of innovation from the 20th to21st centuries, from the ColdWar to a post-9/11 world, Charles River Associates undertook a comprehensive study toassess the state of innovation in the aerospace and defense industry today. The study analyzed the trends and identifiedchanges that are fostering the innovations that will become the 21st century icons of progress. This White Paper is theculmination of that study. It draws on expertise from both academia and industry and includes the findings from recentinterviews conducted with top executives at more than a dozen top tier firms.

Air power failsLoren B Thompson, is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source

Associates, 2008, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/97942/decaying-us-air-power-reflects-larger-problems.htm, Decaying Air Power Reflects Larger Problems

During the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Air Force simplified the discussion of its mission capabilities by dividingthem into three categories -- global strike, global mobility, and global awareness. If we look at each of these areas, we see thatage-related decay has now become generalized across the entire force. With regard to strike capabilities, Rebecca has alreadynoted that we have very few stealthy fighters in the force today, and the plan of record is to terminate the most capable next-generation fighter at less than half the stated requirement. While the service will soon begin receiving a sizable number of F-35

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

11


12/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

Joint Strike Fighters to replace aging F-16s, the F-35 was designed to operate in tandem with the more capable F-22, so the factthat we may purchase less than half of the F-22s required does not bode well for the tactical air fleet. The F-15 that the F-22 issupposed to replace has grown so aged that it trains on flight restriction due to metal fatigue, and has literally begun falling outof the sky. Theseproblems are made worse by the inability of the service to afford a next-generation escort jammer, sinceelectronic warfare is our main alternative to stealth in protecting penetrating airframes . The situation in the long-range bomberforce is even worse, with less than 200 airframes remaining to cover the world. Only 10% of the heavy bomber force is fullystealthy, and yet many observers doubt the service will be able to afford the recently announced next-generation bomber that issupposed to debut in ten years.

Forward Deployment Frontline

Were flexible enough now three wars at once prove were fully capable of intervention. Libya and Iraq

prove were not afraid of oil producers.

SBSP fails at providing energy on demand for the military multiple warrants

Johnston et. al 09 (Neil Johnson, High-energy Space Environment Branch Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory,10/23/09, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA513123)

Direct SBSP power delivery to daily patrols, either individuals or vehicles, seems problematic at best . In considering this,note that at microwave frequencies of 1.5 to 15 GHz, safe power densities for continuous exposure are between 1 and 10mW /cm2, or about 1 to 10 W per sq ft., respectively (IEEE C95.1-1999). The FCC (Bulletin 65) limits this exposure more,to a constant 1 mW /cm2 (about 1 W per sq ft) above 1.5 GHz. Category Peacetime OPTEMPO* Wartime OPTEMPOCombat vehicles 30 162 Combat aircraft 140 307 Tactical vehicles 44 173 Generators 26 357 Non-tactical 51 51 TOTAL291 1050 6 Johnson et al. Examples of end-user consumption include the following: Radio transmitters: Considerablepower needs to be available, for example, to operate a radio tens to hundreds of Watts while transmitting. Vehicleoperation: A typical car only requires tens of horsepower to travel at reasonable speeds on a highway (much more whenaccelerating or traversing rough terrain). 1 HP is approximately 750 W, so even a 10 or 20 HP requirement becomes arequirement for 7.5 to 15 kW of power, even before considering the conversion efficiency between electrical andmechanical energy. The preferred application of power to these problems would require the ability to directly beam energyto each recipient rather than blanketing the area for several reasons: Only the people/vehicles need the power atremendous fraction ofpower is wasted if it is transmitted everywhere. Transmitting power everywhere is likeproviding a natural resource ones enemies can also use it (for free!), greatly reducing the advantage one gains by

developing and implementing the system (at great cost). At radio frequency (RF) frequencies, it is (probably impossible,but optimistically speaking) extraordinarily difficult to directly point beams small enough to solve the efficiency problemfrom space. Extraordinarily large antenna apertures would likely be required at microwave frequencies. Perhaps even moredifficult would be how to tell the power source exactly where to point the beams (potentially several thousand of them, allto a delivered accuracy of 1 m or less). To further compound the problem, if the beam pointing challenges were solved,power density issues would need to be resolved that is, if there was enough power in the beam to do any good, it wouldlikely pose a safety hazard to the people in or near the beam . Based on these statements, direct delivery of energy usingmicrowave power to a final application to small, mobile units is not practically feasible with near-term foreseeabletechnology.

Communication turn:

Plan causes breakdown in military communication

Laracy 07 (Joseph R. Laracy1 Complex Systems Research Laboratory, Damien Bador2, Danielle Adams3, Annalisa Weigel4Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, with Richard Chambers, Daniel Kwon, David Proudfoot, ShenQu, and Ted Shoepe, 11/26/2007, http://lean.mit.edu/docman/view-document-details/1702-solar-power-satellites-historical-perspectives-with-a-look-to-the-future.html )

Atmospheric side effects were a large concern. The most sensitive issues dealt with the ionosphere, a layer between 50 and400 km from the Earths surface. Concerns arose regarding the ability of the microwave power beam from the SPS to heatthe ionosphere sufficiently to alter its electron density. This would harm communication systems that depend on denseelectron regions. This could also lead to undesirable scattering in the microwave beam path . The rocket effluents from theSPS launches could also interact with the ionosphere to reduce electron density. Another fear was that weather could bealtered in the troposphere due to the exhaust of frequent launches. This is an area of large uncertainty.30 A major concern

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

12


13/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

about the SPS design was its potential for interference with other electronic systems. As mentioned in the CDEP FinalProgram review, Electromagnetic systems likely to experience SPS interference would include military systems, publiccommunications, radar, aircraft communications, public utility and transportation system communications, other satellites,and radio and optical astronomy.31 Such a long and varied list clearly puts this issue into the realm of a serious socialproblem. In particular, military systems close to the transmitter or receiver would be threatened. Also, radio and opticalastronomy would be very difficult with an SPS system in place. For radio astronomy, Earth based systems close toreceiving antenna sites would be affected by interference. Meanwhile, optical astronomy would be limited because the SPSwould create light pollution.32

Satellite and ground communications are crucial to readiness and operational success

Daniels 07 (Gerald B. Daniels, Colonel, USA, 2007, AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY THE LOSS OF MILITARYSATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND ITS IMPACT TO NATIONAL SECURITY)

war and win without space. Today, a string of satellites is the backbone of the communications, command and controlinfrastructure the military depends on. Over the past decade there has been a shift in understanding about what space canbring to the fight. Todays joint warfighters are more appreciative of the decisive, precise combat effects space brings tothe battlefield - General Lance W. LordVIII The ability to communicate is fundamental to military activities providinginformation to filed commanders, commanding and controlling forces, and sending targeting information to combat units.Military strategy doctrine, theory, and rhetoric are increasingly occupied with information and its potential for improvingcombat performance. The challenge is how to measure the impact if satellite communications is lost. In order to assess the

impact, one must have a good understanding of what bandwidth represents to make trade-off decisions on different typesof capabilities. In logisticians, for example, it is easier to express the number of short tons of logistic throughput as C-5aircraft equivalents. The vision of a C-5 conjures up three important aspects of transportation: capacity (an aircraft load),overall capability (total number of available airframes and sortie rates), and cost. Using this analogy, a commanderimmediately understands what it takes to move his or her requirement forward in terms of time, cost, and level of effort.Unfortunately, a similar analogy does not exist for bandwidth although one could use the airlift comparison to illustratesome aspects of bandwidth. Simply put, the greater the volume of VIII General Lance W. Lord, Commander of Air ForceSpace Command 20 information to be transmitted, the larger the requirement for bandwidth to move it- higher bandwidthallows faster transmission of information.31 Modern military forces in the war on terrorism are light, lean, mobile,autonomous, and expeditionary. These forces feed off a constant flow of information they need for positioning and timing,mobile communications, ISR and warning to achieve their varied and dangerous missions. In many cases, this data isprimarily provided by space systems. Without these critical space capabilities, our forces would lose situational awarenessand connectivity. That could spell disaster at a critical time when ground forces are trying to find a specific target orlocation, are involved in a firefight or are just trying to get from one place to another in countries with few, if any, roadsigns. Thats where satellite communications, GPS and imagery help make operating in Iraq and Afghanistan successfuland effective. Less than 15 years ago, relying on spaced-based capabilities to direct battles on the ground was a relativelynew capability for the U.S. military. Not even in their wildest dreams would most people think it would one day be possiblefor a pilot to sit in an air-conditioned room at some stateside base and fly an unmanned aerial vehicle over Afghanistan togather intelligence, carry on surveillance, do reconnaissance even fire Hellfire missiles at enemy forces.32Chapter 7Conclusion U.S. leaders have more accurate and current information on developments, issues, and crises in virtually allparts of the world. Due in large part to space systems, U.S. military forces know more about their adversaries, see thebattlefield more clearly, and can strike more quickly and precisely than any other military force in history. Space systemsare inextricably woven into the fabric of Americas national security. - Peter B. TeetsIX The purpose of this document wasto assess the loss of military satellite communications capability and its impact to national security. The U.S. will continueto face a broad spectrum of conflicts ranging from peacetime competition to global war. The diversity of missions and thelethality of future battlefields require the integration of capabilities that will increase readiness, combat power, and forcesurvivability. The U.S. military must be capable of adapting to the demands of the situation. The employment of

communications satellite systems enhances our warfighting capabilities, reduces the military footprint, and improves the"tooth-to-tail" ratio. The ability to see and communicate, regardless of distance or theater maturity, enables U.S. forces toreact faster than the enemy and to execute their missions more effectively and efficiently. The bandwidth provided bycommunications satellites supplies the means for enhancing command and control, facilitating the maneuver of forces,reducing the commander's uncertainty, and improving fire support, air defense, intelligence collection, and combat servicesupport operations.

Space Leadership Frontline

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

13


14/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

Hegemony is inevitable No viable competitor and empirics

Haas 9 (Lawrence Haas, former senior White House official and Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy atthe American Foreign Policy Council, 2009,http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d16Haas.pdf)

After reviewing the ills that beset America, from a weak economy to a misguided energy policy, from failing schools tocostly health care, Barack Obama focused on the nations mood. Less measurable, but no less profound, the new Presidentsuggested in his inaugural address, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that Americas decline isinevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. If such fear nags at Americans, it may be because of what we sooften hear. Journalists, scholars, and diplomats seem to compete for the pithiest way to pronounce that, when it comes toAmerica, as a French foreign minister put it, The magic is over It will never be as it was before. Pithy enough? Howabout Waving Goodbye to Hegemony (from a New York Times magazine headline) or U.S. influence is in steep decline(from the Washington Post) or The United States unipolar moment is over (from the Council on Foreign RelationsRichard Haass) or It will not be the New American Century (from a French scholar). Weve been here before not as anation in decline, mind you, but as one stressing about it. Today, a cursory look at America might justify the fears. But amore serious survey of the global landscape suggests that, despite its current troubles, America will retain its top spot in theworlds pecking order , and that it may emerge from todays global downturn even stronger than before relative to itscompetitors. While, in America, we face serious problems, our would-be challengers from China to Russia, from Europe

to the Middle East to Latin America are mired in their own problems that may prove even more daunting. Americas pathis in Americas hands. We have the power to fix every one of our problems, no matter how large any single one may seem.History suggests that we will do so eventually. What Winston Churchill said of us still rings true: Americans can alwaysbe counted on to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. Declinism of past and presentDeclinism, as it applies to America, has a rich tradition but, to date, a history of failed prophecy. Like the cicadas thatblanket Washingtons trees and sidewalks every 17 years, the declinists rear their heads about once a generation,propagating the latest versions of their thesis, showcasing evidence of Americas creeping weakness from economicstagnation to military setback to diplomatic reversal. From a momentary setback or perhaps a string of them for the UnitedStates, the declinists offer visions of long-term corrosion. The intellectual parlour game is as old as the Republic.Europeans widely expected the American experiment to fail. British contempt for the young nation led to the War of1812. Nor did Americas rise to global behemoth by the late 19th Century deter the doomsday-ers. If anything, they grewbolder. No sooner had the United States emerged victorious from World War II than critics lamented Soviet supremacy inthe Cold War that had just begun. Weve lost the peace, John Dos Passos wrote in early 1946 in Life. Friend and foealike look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. Maos victoryin China in 1949, Americas stalemate in Korea in the early 1950s, Soviet suppression of Hungary in 1956, Moscowslaunch of Sputnik in 1957, and candidate John Kennedys warning of a U.S.-Soviet missile gap in 1960 all seemed toprove that history favoured communism over capitalism. American prosperity and Kennedy-era optimism provided a shortrespite from further declinism. The U.S. debacle in Vietnam, North Koreas capture of the USS Pueblo, Soviet and Cubanadventurism in Africa, Irans seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Americaseconomic struggles in the 1970s painted the United States as a helpless giant. President Nixon transformed declinism intonational policy, seeking dtente with the Soviets to ease U.S. entry into a new world of balance with the Soviet Union,Europe, China, and Japan. President Carter reinforced decline fever, lamenting our crisis of confidence in his malaisespeech. After President Reagan sought to reassert U.S. supremacy, launching a military build-up and confronting theSoviets in hotspots the world over, Yales Paul Kennedy warned (in his best-selling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers)of Americas imperial overstretch, in which our global obligations would surpass our ability to finance them. Otherdeclinists of the period included David Calleo (Beyond American Hegemony) and Walter Russell Mead, (Mortal Splendor).Americas victory in the Cold War mocked declinism, but recent events have ignited its rebirth. Todays declinists includes

veterans of past battles, notably Kennedy, and new players Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World), Charles Kupchan(The End of the America Era), Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads), Andrew Bacevich (The Limits of Power),and a host of government officials and journalists. They write books and op-eds and appear on TV and radio, reviewingAmericas missteps while suggesting they presage a more multi-polar world. For some, like Kennedy, declinism is a lifeswork, as his recent Wall Street Journal oped, American Power Is on the Wane, makes clear. For others, its a step alongan intellectual journey. While Fukuyama moved from Western triumphalism (in his The End of History and the Last Manof 1992) to declinism, Mead moved the other way, predicting recently in the New Republic that America will emerge fromtodays global economic crisis in a stronger position atop the international power rankings. Todays declinists do not agreeon what will cause Americas relative downfall. For some, its Iraq that strained our military and displayed the limits of

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

14


15/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

U.S. power. For those who acknowledge Americas startling turnaround in Iraq, its Afghanistan that will engulf Americain a Vietnam-style quagmire. For others, todays economic crisis exposed the excesses of U.S.-led capitalism. Theirprescription more governmental regulation that will weaken the leader of the free-market pack. For still others, itsChinas rise and Russias resurgence, the first of which will shift global power to the East and the second of which willrestrict U.S. activity abroad. And for others, its no one event or U.S. error but instead the unsustainable nature of U.S.unipolarity and the inevitable rise of nations or blocs to counteract it. Questions for todays declinists Well, maybe. But,declinists have a few questions to answer. Why will todays economic distress and military challenge bring Americasdecline when prior challenges of greater magnitude did not? What would a post-America world look like, and why shouldwe buy the starry-eyed hopes of Americas fiercest critics that a U.S. retreat would make the world more peaceful and morejust? Who or what will supplant the United States atop the world stage, especially when no alternative nation or bloc seemsready to assume the mantle? To be sure, the United States faces big challenges, probably the most complex set in decades.On the economic front, businesses are shedding jobs, credit is frozen, financial institutions are teetering, stocks are weak,and consumer confidence is collapsing. On the military front, Americas armed forces are strained, Afghanistan offers noeasy solution, and exploding budget deficits will encourage Obama and Congress to seek the first defense cuts of the post-9/11 period. On the diplomatic front, the United States will try to convince Iran to scrap its nuclear program, to improve itsrelations with Pakistan while targeting the Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds in the Northwestern territories, and tostrengthen its ties to its European allies even as it clashes with them over strategy and military contributions in Afghanistan.But step back a bit, and prospects for continued U.S supremacy look brighter. The economy has not reached the depths ofthe 1981-82 recession and to state the obvious it will eventually recover. The issue is how bad things will get and whenthe recovery will arrive. Economists project unemployment will top nine percent before its over, the turnaround will not

begin until at least the end of 2009, and it may take years to restore strong growth. As for defense, even with cuts, the gapbetween annual U.S. expenditures and those of any other nation remains huge . Moreover, the United States spends just fourpercent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense and international affairs, a historically low figure compared to, forinstance, 10 percent under President Kennedy. It has fewer active duty troops than in the 1950s, drawn from a populationthats twice as large. The notion that America cant afford its military obligations has never been less true. Not long ago,nations or blocs that were ready to challenge America seemed plentiful. Today, each is plagued with problems. China isreeling from the global economic crisis, with rising unemployment and smouldering domestic discontent. Russia issuffering from the dramatic drop in oil prices , the resulting squeeze on governmental revenues, and deep-seated social andeconomic problems. Iran and Venezuela, Americas two loudest nemeses, are also reeling from low oil prices, forcing theirleaders to address surging economic woes and stabilize their own rule. A united Europe, with a combined military andforeign policy, remains a pipe dream. Today, despite its problems America remains the worlds goliath, in the words ofMichael Mandelbaum. It is the go-to power for maintaining peace, ensuring global commerce, and responding tohumanitarian disasters. U.S. security treaties encompass more than half of the world. As Robert J. Lieber put it, In many

instances, and particularly in urgent and dire cases such as the Balkan crises, the choice boils down to this: either the UnitedStates will act or no one will. We should not expect that reality to change any time soon.

Heg doesnt solve war

Benjamin H. Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies @ Cato Institute, July 20, 2010,http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-bf-07202010.html, Military Restraint and Defense Savings

Another argument for high military spending is that U.S. military hegemony underlies global stability. Our forces andalliance commitments dampen conflict between potential rivals like China and Japan, we are told, preventing them fromfighting wars that would disrupt trade and cost us more than the military spending that would have prevented war. Thetheoretical and empirical foundation for this claim is weak. It overestimates both the American military's contribution tointernational stability and the danger that instability abroad poses to Americans. In Western Europe, U.S. forces nowcontribute little to peace, at best making the tiny odds of war among states there slightly more so.7 Even in Asia, wherethere is more tension, the history of international relations suggests that without U.S. military deployments potential rivals ,especially those separated by sea like Japan and China, will generally achieve a stable balance of power rather than fight. Inother cases, as with our bases in Saudi Arabia between the Iraq wars, U.S. forces probably create more unrestthan theyprevent. Our force deployments can also generate instability by prompting states to develop nuclear weapons. Even whenwars occur, their economic impact is likely to be limited here.8By linking markets, globalization provides supplyalternatives for the goods we consume, including oil. If political upheaval disrupts supply in one location, supplierselsewhere will take our orders. Prices may increase, but markets adjust. That makes American consumers less dependent onany particular supply source, undermining the claim that we need to use force to prevent unrest in supplier nations or securetrade routes.9 Part of the confusion about the value of hegemony comes from misunderstanding the Cold War. People tend

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

15


16/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

to assume, falsely, that our activist foreign policy, with troops forward supporting allies, not only caused the Soviet Union'scollapse but is obviously a good thing even without such a rival. Forgotten is the sensible notion that alliances are anecessary evil occasionally tolerated to balance a particularly threatening enemy. The main justification for creating ourCold War alliances was the fear that Communist nations could conquer or capture by insurrection the industrial centers inWestern Europe and Japan and then harness enough of that wealth to threaten us either directly or by forcing us tobecome a garrison state at ruinous cost. We kept troops in South Korea after 1953 for fear that the North would otherwiseoverrun it. But these alliances outlasted the conditions that caused them. During the War, Japan, Western Europe andSouth Korea grew wealthy enough to defend themselves . We should let them. These alliances heighten our forcerequirements and threaten to drag us into wars, while providing no obvious benefit. Another argument employed to justifyour defense budget is that we must spend heavily on defense today to prepare for future rivals. But the best hedge againstan uncertain future is a prosperous and innovative economy, unburdened by excessive debt and spending. Advocatingsubstantial defense spending cuts does not require predicting that the current, historically-benign threat environment willnever chang

Space is too vulnerable to be effective

Lt Col Donald Christy, MA in Strategic Studies, 2006. United States Policy on Weapons in Space,http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf

Space is a fragile weapons platform. For defense, space is as static as an earth bound fortification. 53 It takes a great amount of energy to

achieve a particular orbit and it is both time and energy consuming to change an orbit. 54 As a result, satellite systems aretypically deployed in constellations requiring large numbers and increased expense to achieve global coverage. Like a weakness in afortification, this allows an adversary to concentrate on one point and potentially overwhelm the system. 55 Space systems residein stable, observable andpredictable orbits . The laws of orbital mechanics govern their motion. A satellites presence is observable throughthe electro-optical spectrum. Therefore, an adversary will likely know the precise current and future location of any satellite system.Command, control and logistics are expensive and complex. Command and control nodes provide terrestrial targets as necessary to the overallsystems function as the space based segment. The cost per pound to place objects in orbit is very high and launches occur from a few static terrestrial locations.

Command and control relies on terrestrial networks subject to jamming or destruction. Maintenance, refueling and rearming (ifnecessary) are impractical or, at best, orders of magnitude more difficult than for aircraft.

Warming Frontline

Cant solve warming mitigation alone requires 0 emissions to solveRomm sighting Caldeira 08 (Ken Caldeira atmospheric scientist, Department of Global Ecology CarnegieInstitution of Washington, JOE ROMM is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, omm was actingassistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstrationand deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. Feb28, 2008, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/02/28/202398/stabilizing-climate-requires-near-zero-emissions/)

Avoiding climate catastrophe will probably require going to near-zero net emissions of greenhouse gases this century. Thatis the conclusion of a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. reqd) co-authored by one of my favorite climatescientists, Ken Caldeira, whose papers always merit attention. Here is the abstract: Current international climate mitigationefforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere . However, human-induced climate warming willcontinue for many centuries , even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized . In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissionsrequirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model ofintermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally

averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absenceof additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero futurecarbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilizeglobal-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system towarming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales. Since the rest of the article is behind a firewall, let meextract a couple of key findings: our results suggest that if emissions were eliminated entirely, radiative forcing fromatmospheric CO2 would decrease at a rate closely matched by declining ocean heat uptake, with the result that while futurewarming commitment may be negligible, atmospheric temperatures may not decrease appreciably for at least 500 years. In

short, the time for dramatic action is upon us. The study concludes: In the absence of human intervention to actively

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

16
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdfhttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf


17/22

83504453.doc DDW 2011

1

remove CO2 from the atmosphere, each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentiallypermanent climate change on centennial timescales. We emphasize that a stable global climate is not synonymous withstable radiative forcing, but rather requires decreasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. We have shown here thatstable global temperatures within the next several centuries can be achieved if CO2 emissions are reduced to nearly zero.This means that avoiding future human-induced climate warming may require policies that seek not only to decrease CO2emissions, but to eliminate them entirely. Bottom line: Stopping global warming is very hard easily the greatest

challenge the human race has ever faced. The best we can hope for at this point is to limit warming to below the thresholdwhere the carbon-cycle feedbacks kick into overdrive, bringing about catastrophe (80 feet of sea level rise, widespreaddesertification, >50% speci

Aff SS Sad Egis Qua Red v RS ErpenbachFan 1NC

Documents

Transcript of Aff SS Sad Egis Qua Red v RS ErpenbachFan 1NC