Whitman College
Tournament 2008
1
File Title
Russia Economy DA
1NC Shell ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1NC Shell ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now .................................................................... 4
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now .................................................................... 5
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now .................................................................... 6
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now .....................................................................7
Uniqueness – Russia Econ Brink ................................................................................................ 8
Links – Generic ........................................................................................................................... 9
Links – Generic ..........................................................................................................................10
Links – Funding Tradeoff .......................................................................................................... 11
Links – Launch Capability ......................................................................................................... 12
Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy ............................................................... 13
Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy ............................................................... 14
Internal Links – Russian Areospace Key to Economy ............................................................... 15
Impacts – Economic Collapse  War........................................................................................ 16
Impacts – Economic Collapse  War........................................................................................ 17
Impacts – Iran Prolif ..................................................................................................................18
Impacts – Iran Prolif .................................................................................................................. 19
Impacts - Warming ................................................................................................................... 20
Impacts – Terrorism .................................................................................................................. 21
Impacts – Terrorism ................................................................................................................. 22
Diversification Module .............................................................................................................. 23
Brain Drain – Economy Module ............................................................................................... 24
Brain Drain – Economy Module ............................................................................................... 25
Brain Drain – ISS Module ......................................................................................................... 26
Brain Drain Uniqueness EXT.................................................................................................... 27
Brain Drain Links EXT.............................................................................................................. 28
Brain Drain Impacts EXT ......................................................................................................... 29
2NC Answers To Prolif Good .................................................................................................... 30
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
2
File Title
1NC Shell
Russian space competitiveness is increasing now
GPS World, Putin replaces head of Russian space agency says space a priority, may.3.2011,
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/glonass/news/putin-replaces-head-russian-spaceagency-says-space-a-priority-11579
On Saturday, Putin said that development and advancement of the national rocket and
space industry is a priority for Russia. According to RIA Novosti, Putin spoke at a meeting with scientists
from Penza's Research Institute of Physical Measurements."From the perspective of the country's
defensive capacity the rocket and space industry...is an absolute priority along
with the nuclear industry and its military branch," Putin said. About 153 billion
rubles will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which
is 30 percent more than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18 percent growth even despite
the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We have the absolute competitive advantage in
rocket engineering, many of our partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we
have to catch up." The Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive, the
premier added.
Russia’s space program would collapse without NASA being strapped for cash
James Oberg, space analyst for NBC News, and Johnson Space Center Mission Control
operator and orbital designer, “Now, NASA and Russians need each other”, 2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26975208/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/now-nasarussians-ne ed-each-other/
The first step in a "get better" strategy is to stop going into the U.S.-Russian deal acting as if the U.S. was over a barrel. Playing the
preordained patsy is a sure way to prompt the Russians to escalate their demands, in space and back on Earth. The truth is,
while NASA has become dependent on the Russian contribution to the
international space station, the Russians' manned space program has become even
more dependent on the station (and U.S. support of it). If NASA will have to depend on the
Russians to transport astronauts between Earth and space for several years, it won't be any different from the situation that existed
from 2003 to mid-2005.The Russians are stuck with a different kind of dependence. The
American half of the space station provides their modules with critical power and
communications resources, not to mention advanced research devices, that they have never been able to build
themselves. While it may become technically feasible at some future point to unhook their section and fly free, this will only become
possible after several more expansion modules are added at their end, some of them carried aboard the remaining space shuttle
missions. By that time, NASA and its partners in Europe, Japan and Canada will have a facility that contains (or has access to) all the
critical functions that in the first decade of operation were provided by Russian hardware. Moreover, even if the
Russians did cut loose their section at that point, they would be thrown back to the meager
level of operations they suffered through a quarter-century ago — a primitive
mode which even their own experts have now come to denounce as useless
grandstanding. There would also be a legal dispute over who actually owns the U.S.-financed, Russian-built Zarya cargo
module. NASA has no practical need of it now, except that the Russians want it, which makes it far more valuable as a bargaining
chip than as a space asset. From the beginning, the Clinton White House and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin misrepresented
the plans and their implementation. Russia was quickly placed “in the critical path” for orbital
hardware and space transportation. (Their self-esteem demanded it, one White House adviser asserted.)
Alternate NASA-only approaches were scrapped. But this reliance works both ways: The U.S. space effort is in the
Russians' critical path, and they have a lot fewer resources for setting off down a
different path. Hard as it may be to visualize at the moment, they’d be a lot worse off
without NASA than NASA would be without them. Follow the space money. When the cash flow factor is added in, the idea
that the U.S. space effort is helplessly dependent on the Russians looks even more preposterous. It has been Western
money, mostly from the U.S., that over the past 15 years has kept the Russian space
industry alive. Despite a budget surplus, the Kremlin has been and continues to be
stingy with federal allocations, requiring space organizations to earn a large
fraction of their money overseas — and even pay taxes on their earnings. Recent Moscow promises to double the
space budget have wilted in the face of crashing oil and gas prices.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
3
File Title
1NC Shell
Space is key to Russia’s economy – diversification
Alexei Arbatov, NDU Press author, Russian perspectives on space power, toward a theory of
spacepower, 2007, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch23.html
By the level of budget allocation, Russia is lagging far behind the leading spacefaring nations. The United States is firmly in first
place, followed by the European Union (through the European Space Agency [ESA]), Japan, China, Russia, and then India. At the
same time, the space plans and ambitions of Russia, and its remaining scientific-industrial potential and infrastructure, are much
greater than its current budgets would imply. Hence, Russia has a major interest in expanding its role
in international space cooperation. Furthermore, Russia's role in world trade is much
too dependent on its export of raw natural resources, which is characteristic of developing
countries. Besides trade in arms and nuclear materials and technologies, cooperation in space activities is one of
very few high-technology export items that Russia can pursue in the near- to midterm future. That is why this trade channel is so important to Russia both from the
angle of status and prestige and in view of the revenues it brings to its
underfunded space programs and assets.
Economic depression causes Russian disintegration
Steven R David. Foreign Affairs. “Saving America from the coming civil wars” 2/1999
Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation
makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt .
Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system
that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself
unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the
periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive
to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters
of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some
claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians
to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for
autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is
likely.
That goes nuclear
Steven R David. Foreign Affairs. “Saving America from the coming civil wars” 2/1999
Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to
loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even
without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,ooo nuclear
weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites
scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any
weapons or much materiel. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear
sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of
anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons
represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to
think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that
would follow a Russian civil war.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
4
File Title
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now
The cancelation of US space programs has opened space for Russia to achieve space
leadership
SRAS, School of Russian and Asian Studies, Russia may become ‘absolute’ leader in space
exploration, 2010,
http://www.sras.org/russia_may_become_absolute_leader_in_space_exploration%20DH
The U.S. administration's decision to abandon ambitious space exploration
programs, including a manned Lunar mission in 2020, is giving Russia a chance to strengthen its
position in manned space flight projects, Yuri Kara, a member of Russia's Tsiolkovsky Cosmonautics
Academy, told Interfax-AVN. "In my opinion, Russia has received an amazing carte blanche in
order to take over the 'flag' of the leadership in space exploration from the United
States," Kara said. On Monday, President Barack Obama announced in his 2011 budget request
that he would cancel U.S. plans to send humans back to the moon, saying the
project was too expensive. In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be the only country
capable of delivering crewmembers to the International Space Station. But Russia should
also start working on a manned mission to Mars, the expert said. "Today, Russia needs to focus its efforts on the Mars program.
The time has come for it to become the absolute space leader," Kara said. In this case, "other
states will join" space exploration projects implemented by Russia, he said. "I am not speaking about Russia's monopoly on this area.
But it [Russia] has been playing a leading role and, consequently, it will be able to determine the configuration of the future Mars
mission," he added.
Competitiveness now – Paris air show proves
Liverpool Daily Post, Russia and China pose new threat to plane makers, june.22.2011,
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/06/22/russia-andchina-pose-new-threat-to-planemakers-92534-28918003/
RYANAIR yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese planemaker COMAC that covers the development of a
medium- sized airliner over the next seven years. The new plane would potentially represent an alternative to Ryanair’s traditionally
favoured Boeings. Whether this memorandum amounts to much is a moot point. Many in the aviation industry see it as nothing
more than the usual bluster that comes out of Dublin when Ryanair isn’t getting its own way. The deal with COMAC needs to be seen
in the context of Ryanair’s failure to screw down the price of Boeings or Airbus planes. On the other hand, it may turn out
the memorandum represents the
start of a new era in the civil aerospace market. To date,
airlines have been restricted to a simple choice between buying from America’s
Boeing or Europe’s Airbus. A third manufacturer would significantly change the
market place and in particular give airlines greater power when it comes to
haggling over price. Nor might it end there. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin was at the Paris airshow yesterday, raising the possibility that his country
might also enter the fray. State-owned United Aircraft Corp, which owns Sukhoi, believes it can become a serious
force in the commercial market by 2025, pinning its hopes on its mid-sized MS-21/MC-21 airliner. That could create a fourth player
in the plane manufacturing market, resulting in genuine competition from economies that are able to utilise much cheaper labour
than is available in Europe and the US. Europe’s and America’s ascendancy in this market may be
coming to an end.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
5
File Title
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now
Russian space competitiveness now
Russia Times, revitalizing russia’s aviation industry, 2010, http://rt.com/news/russiaaviation-industry-sukhoi/
Just ten years ago Russia’s aviation industry was all but grounded, but in the past five years the state has increased funding twenty
times. Russian aviation industry is being cleared for take-off once again. In the beginning of
this decade, Russia’s civil aircraft production had had its wings clipped so much that no more than a dozen or so planes limped off
the production lines each year – a far cry from the heady heights of the USSR, when Soviet jets thrust for dominance in the skies
against Boeings and Airbuses, making up a quarter of the world’s fleet. In 2006, the Russian government decided to do something
about this jet lag and created the United Aircraft Corporation, or UAC, consolidating aircraft construction companies and state
assets in the industry. Today, Russian plane-makers even say they are ready to eat into the
lucrative market of the world leaders, Airbus and Boeing. “Our main problem is that we have
fallen terrifyingly behind in terms of technology,” admits UAC President Aleksey Fedorov, “all our enterprises –
especially aircraft manufacturers and designers – need to be massively reequipped with the very latest equipment. That will take a lot of investment and we
hope with the help of the state we’ll make that break-through that will allow us to
compete with the world’s leading producers.” And while a brand spanking new range of all-singing, alldancing Russian-made passenger jets is still far from taking off, there's much hope on the horizon. Despite many
problems, those dealing with them on the ground are convinced the lowest point of
the crisis has already passed, and they believe there’s a bright future for the
Russian aviation industry.
Russia’s space industry is competitive now
RIA Novosti, putin calls development of space industry russia’s top priority, april.30.2011,
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110430/163794807.html
Development and advancement of the national rocket and space industry is a priority for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said
on Saturday. "From the perspective of the country's defensive capacity the rocket and
space industry...is an absolute priority along with the nuclear industry and its military branch," Putin said
during a meeting with scientists from Penza's Research Institute of Physical Measurements. About 153 billion rubles
will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which is 30
percent higher than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18
percent growth even despite the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We
have the absolute competitive advantage in rocket engineering, many of our
partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we have to catch up." On the whole, the
Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive, the premier added.
Russia is building space leadership now
Huffington Post, Russia plans space program expansion and moon base by 2030, April,
10,2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/russia-space-program-expansion_n_846702.html
Russia is planning a massive increase in its space launches and may even build a
base on the moon as part of a manned mission to Mars in the next two decades,
according to reports. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday that his country's plans go well
beyond transporting crews to the International Space Station. With a 2010-2011 space budget
estimated at 200 billion rubles ($7.09 billion), Russia is the world's fourth-largest spender on space after U.S. space agency NASA,
the European Space Agency and France, Reuters reports. "Russia should not limit itself to the role of an
international space ferryman. We need to increase our presence on the global
space market," Putin is quoted as having said at his residence outside Moscow. The meeting was planned specifically to
coincide with the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering space flight. Other reports cite official documents which claim a
manned Russian mission to Mars could be possible in 2030 following the creation of a moon base. "Above all, we are talking about
flights to the moon and the creation of a base close to its north pole where there is likely to be a source of water," read one of the
documents, according to the Telegraph.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
6
File Title
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now
Russia’s space industry is booming now
Bloomberg, Russia speeds up space mission plans as U.S. may cut spending, april.5.2011,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/russia-speeds-up-moon-mars-plans-as-u-smay-cut-space-funds.html
Russia may accelerate planned missions to the moon and Mars as it seeks to
maintain its lead over China in space exploration and close the gap with the U.S.
Russia may start manned flights to the moon by the end of the decade, 10 years earlier than previously planned, and establish a base
there by 2030, according to Russia’s Roscosmos space agency. Russia may also send a man to Mars by 2040. “It is the first
time that the government has allocated decent financing to us,” Anatoly Perminov, head of the
Russian space agency Roscosmos, said in a phone interview on April 2. The agency’s $3.5 billion
budget for 2011 has almost tripled since 2007, reaching the highest since the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. “We can now advance on all themes a bit,” Perminov said. Unlike 50 years
ago, when beating the U.S. into space marked a geopolitical victory in the Cold War, Russia is focusing on the commercial,
technological and scientific aspects of space travel. President Dmitry Medvedev has named aerospace one of five industries the
government plans to nurture to help diversify the economy of the world’s largest energy supplier away from resource extraction.
“We are increasing the space budget as the time has come for a technological
breakthrough,” Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said by phone yesterday. “We need
to replace outdated infrastructure and continue to support the flagship status of
the space industry.”
Decline of US space programs leads to Russian space leadership
Interfax-AVN, Russia's space exploration plans won't change - agency chie, BBC Worldwide
Monitoring, 2010, Lexis
The head of Roskosmos [Russian Space Agency], Anatoliy Perminov, has said that the United States'
abandonment of its lunar programme will not bring about changes to the Russian
space policy. "Our programme for the near future did not include the development of lunar settlements. We need not be
swaying from side to side," Perminov said at the Security Technologies exhibition commenting on the latest space policy decisions by
the US administration. The head of Roskosmos said that a number of decisions taken by the
US president "fully coincide" with the Russian and European vision of the prospects for
space activities. [The head of Roskosmos' manned programmes, Aleksey Krasnov, has said, as quoted by Interfax-AVN:
"We need some time to understand what is happening in the USA. I think that all the partners will start thinking about it. Because
this has once again confirmed that initiatives like the lunar programme initiative of Bush (former US President George Bush Jr Interfax-AVN), in terms of expenditures their implementation requires, are unmanageable even for an economy as developed as that
of the USA. This is a very serious signal to everyone." US decision opportunity for
Russia to become world leader in space exploration. In the meantime, Yuriy Kara, corresponding
member of Russia's Tsiolkovskiy Academy of Cosmonautics, has told Interfax-AVN that the US decision to scrap its
lunar programme has presented Russia with an opportunity to become the world
leader in manned space programmes: "I think that Russia is getting a fantastic
carte blanche to pick up the banner of space leadership which is falling out of the
hands of the United States." "Russia should focus its efforts on Mars and become not a relative but the absolute space
leader," he said.]
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
7
File Title
Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now
US decline in space leadership is driving Russia’s space program.
Russia Now, space programme: American astronauts hitching a ride with Russia’s soyuz,
july.7.2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/7559293/Spaceprogramme-American-astronauts-hitching-a-ride-with-Russias-Soyuz.html
While Moscow expands its space programme and designates 2011 as the year of the
Russian cosmonaut, the United States is cutting back on its investment in space
exploration and preparing for increased cooperation with the Russians On April 2, new
Soyuz crew members, two Russians and one American, launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Circling the planet,
the crew will engage in intense cooperation unknown on the ground. Down on earth, Russian-American space
cooperation has increased, but there is also unease as the power of the players is
shifting. Russia will fuel space exploration once again, while the US vision appears
dampened. America is relying more and more on the Russian federal space programme for key assistance. As the United
States reprioritises its programmes, the country will rely on Russia to take its astronauts into space. Nasa has long spent
more money on more programmes than Russia's space agency. But President Barack
Obama has slashed Nasa's dreams of returning to the moon. Building new spacecraft for the exploration of Mars
is again a flight of fancy. At the same time, the Russian space industry is once more feeling the
warm glow of state backing. There has been concerted investment in recent years, an investment that fits in well
with the Putin doctrine of trying to restore Russian pride through capacity.
Russian aerospace sector is rising now
The Hindu, Russia to accelerate GLONASS navigation satellite launches, june.1.2011,
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article2068270.ece
Russia will accelerate the pace of communications satellite launches to give its GLONASS navigation system full global coverage
capacity by the end of the year, a senior government official said Wednesday. Russia’s national space agency is
planning to place into orbit six new GLONASS navigation satellites by the end of
2011, said Anatoly Shilov, a spokesman for Russia’s National Space Agency. GLONASS is a Russia-developed
satellite-navigation system similar to the U.S.-developed GPS. The Russian network currently
operates 23 satellites, giving coverage of Russia and the former Soviet Union. It needs between 25 and 30 aloft to provide global
coverage, according to news reports. A top government priority for GLONASS is tracking automobiles and helping motorists find
routes, said Vice Premier Sergei Ivanov, who, like Mr. Shilov, spoke at a Moscow satellite communications conference. All
lorries operating in Russia will, by the end of 2014, be equipped with a GLONASStechnology transponder which will assist the government in collecting road tax and providing quick assistance in case of
accidents, Mr. Ivanov said. Testing of the lorry-tracking system, called ERA, will begin by the end of 2011, he said. Once the
GLONASS global satellite constellation is complete at 30 satellites, it will be able to pinpoint users’ locations with less than a threemetre margin of error - which would make the Russian system roughly twice as accurate as the US’ GPS system, Mr. Shilov said,
according to Interfax. A U.S. official speaking at the Wednesday conference criticized the planned new Russian laws mandating
installation of GLONASS equipment in all new cars and lorries sold in Russia, while at the same time placing import taxes on
satellite-navigations receivers using GPS technology. Russia suffered a setback in December 2010 when three GLONASS satellites
worth 160 million dollars failed to reach the correct orbit. Investigators later blamed ground crew who had pumped too much fuel
into a booster rocket. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a strong supporter of GLONASS, which originally was developed for
Soviet military use. Mr. Putin in 2007 broke with longstanding government bias towards secrecy to order full civilian access to the
system. Russia over the last decade has spent some 4.7 billion dollars on putting
GLONASS into operation, making the satellite communications network the
country’s most expensive space project.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
8
File Title
Uniqueness – Russia Econ Brink
Russian economy stable now and predicted to grow
International Herald Tribune, Russian stock market is set to rise, may.23.2011,
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2936533
Landwehr believes the Russian market is expected to grow because it is now relatively
cheap compared to other equity markets around the world. “We do believe that the Russian
market has growth in the mid- to long-term. And we generally expect growth to be in line with the
[Russian corporate] earnings forecast. And those earnings forecast would be
between 25 percent and 35 percent and that is roughly what we expect on an annual basis,” said Landwehr. “We
often say that the Russian market is very cheap because of corporate governance issues and so forth .?.?. But the Russian
equity market is volatile. And so we do suggest investors to have a mid- to longterm outlook. So this is really one to two year investments. And at the current valuation, it is cheap anyway but we
recommend them to buy on dips.” Another reason that the Russian market still has more room
to rise is that it is still only 30 to 40 percent of peak prices in 2008. “Obviously if you invested
in 2009, you would be very happy. But I don’t think the performance of the last two years should discourage investors because we
still think it has room to rise.”
Russia’s economy is on the brink now
The Moscow News, home truths about growth, june.16.2011,
http://themoscownews.com/business/20110616/188762238.html
The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum has kicked off with official
assurances that Russia’s economy is on the way to recovering the estimated 8
percent of growth it lost in the downturn. Sadly the truth is less comfortable. Wealth destroyed and
opportunities lost cannot be regained. It may be good politics to say the loss was only temporary, but good housekeeping demands
the honest assessment that the economy must step up several gears if it is to deliver higher living standards in the future. Clifford
Gaddy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says it is wrong to blame oil for the underdevelopment of Russia’s economy. In a
commentary on the Valdai Discussion Club website, he says: “The causes of Russia’s backwardness lie in
its inherited production structure. The physical structure of the real economy (that is,
the industries, plants, their location, work forces, equipment, products, and the production chains in which they participate) is
predominantly the same as in the Soviet era." Much of Russia’s oil wealth is spent
on supporting that structure and, Gaddy says, current efforts at modernizing the economy do not change that.
Diversifying from oil and gas is “fashionable talk”. Growing new industries would take time and deliver a fraction of the income. On
the other hand, freed from the need to support outdated Sovietera industries, Russia’s oil and gas companies could invest in
becoming truly competitive. A modern, open, international energy sector is the key, he says, to higher growth.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
9
File Title
Links – Generic
US decline in space leadership is key to Russian ascendency
Futron, U.S. edge erodes non-traditional players ascend and competition intensifies, 2010,
http://www.futron.com/1254.xml?id=1022
“The 2010 results show that even as countries continue to collaborate in space,
competition is growing more intense,” observes Futron Chief Operating Officer Peggy Slye. “Dominant
actors are increasingly challenged by a second and third tier of space leaders, and
the competitive gaps among all nations are narrowing.” The U.S. remains the clear
global leader, but the county’s position has eroded in each of the past three years.
The formulation of a new national space policy is a step in the right direction, but as Futron CEO Joe Fuller notes, “To retain its
leadership position, the U.S. must leverage its secret space weapon—American industry—and align it with strategy, policy, and
budget.” In 2010, Russia was a clear winner, based on the doubling of its space budget
and renewed focus on monetizing national space investment. “NASA and the U.S. government
could learn a lot from Russia,” says Jonathan Beland, a Futron analyst specializing in the region. “Russia has become partner of
choice for space agencies around the work seeking to develop new capacity. From South Korea to China, from private enterprise to
governments, Russia is capitalizing on its space investments and developing long-term
relationships with emerging powers.”
US decline in space competitiveness leads to growth in Russian aerospace.
The Washington Post, U.S. finds it’s getting crowded out there, 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751
The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as well as the private space
industry, also reported that the United States is losing its dominance in orbital launches and
satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched -- about 50 percent of the total. In 1998, 121 new U.S.
satellites went into orbit. In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still
dominates. Its private space industry earned 75 percent of the worldwide corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as
many satellites as all other nations combined. But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its
military space spending considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In May,
Japan's parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes, signaling increased spending on rockets and spy
satellites. And China's military is building a wide range of capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month.
Last year, China tested its ground-based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite -- a feat that left behind
a cloud of dangerous space debris and considerable ill will. Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to
potential enemies have hampered American cooperation with other nations and
have limited sales of U.S.-made hardware. Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military
purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed them under the cumbersome International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department
rather than the Commerce Department. The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite
production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only
homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran
Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced technology to Iran
(especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying European satellites and paying the
Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas where, I'm sorry
to say, we are no longer the world leaders," Griffin said. Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security
expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said the
United States has been so determined to
maintain military space dominance that it is losing ground in commercial space
uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership, which many of us think will have huge
strategic implications," she said. "Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to share the costs
and the risks," she added. "Because of the dual-use issue, we really don't want to globalize."
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
10
File Title
Links – Generic
Reductions of US space leadership promotes growth in Russian aerospace
The Washington Post, U.S. finds it’s getting crowded out there, 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751
Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and
owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's
superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and
commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the
Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his
agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and
have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead." In
a recent in-depth study of
international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda
found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than
most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space
leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded. Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of
sending sophisticated satellites and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and
spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the
moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system
and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's. While the United States has been making
incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps
that once defined NASA: · Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in
November the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will
soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company
Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana. · Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and
Russia are also working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many
analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts to the moon. The United States is largely out of the
business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians, Indians,
Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil,
Israel and others. The 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures,
including a rival to the U.S. space-based Global Positioning System.
Private investment funding would tradeoff with NASA funding Russian Aerospace
Mentor, J. VanDomele, Holy outsourcing Batman, 4.26.2011,
http://blogs.mentor.com/jvandomelen/blog/tag/soyuz/
When the Space Shuttle retires as scheduled in June, NASA will be dependent on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to ferry astronauts to
and from the International Space Station (ISS). Based on a recent $753 million contract NASA
awarded to the Russian Federal Space Agency, these outsourced services cost U.S.
taxpayers roughly $63 million per seat. It’s doubtless a hefty price tag, but NASA lacks U.S.based alternatives—so far, anyway. American businesses are, nonetheless, vying
for agency funds with which to advance U.S.-built spacecraft and related
technologies. Such a contract was just announced; yet, the contract amount is but
10 percent of that awarded to Russia’s space agency.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
11
File Title
Links – Funding Tradeoff
Private investment trades of with Russia Space Program
Atlas Aerospace, Obama administration proposes flat NASA budget, 2.15.2011,
http://www.atlasaerospace.net/eng/newsi-r.htm?id=5348
Bretton Alexander, president of the Commercial Space Federation, said the agency's
commitment to private-sector launch services is crucial to the long-term health of the manned space
program. "In this constrained fiscal environment, commercial spaceflight is more important than ever," he said in a
statement. "NASA's Commercial Crew program will result in significant savings to the U.S. taxpayer, and will cut the
amount of money the nation has been sending to Russia every year. Leveraging
private investment is the only way NASA can make its dollars go farther in these
times of belt tightening." NASA currently plans to launch just three more shuttle missions: Discovery on Feb. 24,
Endeavour on April 19 and Atlantis around June 28. The Atlantis flight has not yet been officially funded, but NASA managers say
the mission is vital to the space station's long-term health.
Private sector spending trades off with Russian aerospace
Parabolic Arc, new competitive space task force launches, 2.8.11,
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/02/08/competitive-space-task-force-launches/
Retired Congressman and former Chairman of the House Science Committee Robert S. Walker remarked, The Space Economy is
emerging as the next great frontier for economic expansion and U.S. leadership. If we really want to win the future, we cannot
abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through
the American entrepreneur.•In recent years, between the long-planned retirement of the
Space Shuttle and the cancellation of Constellation and NASA’s troubled Ares
rocket program, the U.S. has grown increasingly reliant on the Russian Soyuz for
transportation to and from the International Space Station costing taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars over just the next few years. Rather than funding
the Russian space program, the U.S. could be creating jobs at home by relying
instead on Americas private space industry. Americas dependence on the Russian program is complicated
by our foreign policy as we seek to discourage the Russians from aiding U.S. adversaries in the development of nuclear weaponry
and missile technology.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
12
File Title
Links – Launch Capability
US launch inferiority drives Russian space program and competitiveness.
Michael Nobel, Vice Commander, Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at Air Force Space
Command, Export Controls and United States Space Power, Astropolitics, Volume 6, Issue 3
2008, pages 251 – 312, Informaworld
Twelve nations now have the capacity to launch their own satellites.11 To illustrate, China,
Europe, India, Japan, Russia, Israel, and Ukraine all have their own launch capability. 12 As of 2000, there were 15 active orbital
launch sites outside of the U.S., stretching from Plesetsk in Russia to Woomera in Australia to Alcantara in Brazil.13 Though
not a zero-sum game, the growth in foreign commercial launch has come at some
expense to U.S. market share. According to data compiled by Futron, from 2001 to 2005, the U.S. was
responsible for 30% of the space launches around the world, ranking second
behind Russia at 40%, and ahead of Europe and China at 11% and 9% respectively.14 These figures
represent a considerable retreat in U.S. global market share when one considers
that in 1998 U.S.-based launch providers accounted for 47% of the international
commercial market.15 Similarly, the U.S. share of global space launch revenue declined from 66% in 2003, to 37% in
2006. The general consensus among industry analysts is that the U.S. is losing
commercial launch market share and Europe and Russia are noteworthy
benefactors of these U.S. losses.16 Of course, U.S. global market share is not the principal concern of export
controls, though it is an indicator of export control effectiveness. Rather, U.S. export controls are more
concerned with the relative performance of foreign systems to those of U.S. origin
as it pertains to protecting a U.S. technological lead and preventing the
proliferation of technologies and systems to adversaries. For launchers, the two
most critical performance metrics are cost and reliability; the U.S. is challenged
internationally in both of these metrics. In comparing price per pound to orbit as shown in Table 1, Futron
found that western—U.S. and European—launch prices were significantly greater than non-western—Chinese, Russian, and
Ukrainian—launch prices. Futron attributed this discrepancy to labor and infrastructure cost differences. The falling dollar and nonwestern labor cost increases may mitigate these discrepancies, but the mere fact of reliable cost-advantaged foreign launch suggests
U.S. export controls have been anything but prohibitive of the development of these foreign industries. A competitive advantage in
cost can be overcome by performance. Here too, foreign launch providers have achieved approximate parity with the U.S. Russia has
achieved the best performance of any state with a success rate of 93.5% based on launch statistics compiled through the year 2000;
Europe was the next most reliable launcher with a success rate of 90.7%; and the U.S. was third with 87.5%. Given the
timeframe represented, these statistics suggest a long-standing parity, even a
Russian/European advantage, in international launch capability consistent with
the aforementioned launch activity statistics and trends.17
The launch market is a key indicator for space competitiveness
Michael Nobel, Vice Commander, Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at Air Force Space
Command, Export Controls and United States Space Power, Astropolitics, Volume 6, Issue 3
2008, pages 251 – 312, Informaworld
The launch market is of particular concern due to the cascading effect it can have
on other elements of commercial space. As international competitors offer launch
at lower prices than the U.S., they can then package satellites with launchers for a
lower priced “turn-key” solutions than satellites packaged on U.S. launchers. This
provides a significant competitive advantage. Any profits can be rolled back into satellite
and launch technologies further enhancing competitiveness. Conceptually, this leads to a
“snowball effect” in market share. From an export control vantage point, this
snowball effect translates to growing erosion in U.S. technological superiority, or
worse, a growth in foreign technological superiority.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
13
File Title
Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy
Space is key to Russian economic competitiveness
Yuriy Karash, PhD specializes in space politics and international relations and is a member
of Russian Cosmonautics Academy, 2009,
http://www.scenariothinking.org/wiki/index.php/What_is_the_science_and_technology_focu
s_for_Russia,_military_weapons%3F
Addressing a conference in Novo-Ogarevo 25 August, Premier Vladimir Putin made two very important statements concerning the country's
national space rocket sector and, consequently, Russia's scientific and technical potential as a whole, since this sector is a key factor in the
development of the country's high technologies. First, the premier emphasized that, despite
the economic difficulties,
funding for space activities will remain among the budget priorities. In 2009
approximately 82 billion roubles will be allocated to purposes of research and
space exploration. Second, the chairman of the government defined three promising areas of this activity -manned cosmonautics,
production of spacecraft for booster rockets, and the provision of services in launching space freight. Such a distribution of priorities marks a
departure from the tradition whereby the country's leadership put in first place not manned cosmonautics but applied, unmanned cosmonautics
(satellites for resolving various kinds of economic and defence tasks and commercial launches). The
fact that the main
emphasis is now being placed on the creation of inhabited space complexes and
craft attests that the country's leadership has become aware of the importance of
preserving and developing the kind of space activity which is key to Russia's
science and technology and to its image and in which our country is still the world
leader. However, the way in which Russia intends to maintain this leadership gives rise to questions.
Aerospace key to Russian Economy
UK Trade & Investment, Aerospace opportunities in Russia, 2010,
http://static.globaltrade.net/files/pdf/20110120165146.pdf
Why Russia? Aerospace is one of the Russia's highest value adding manufacturing
sectors, with between 275 and 300 aerospace companies, including 108 industrial producers, and
111 R&D and design bureaus. The Russian aerospace industry is one of several key business
sectors kept under constant review and scrutiny by the Russian Government. It is
estimated by the Federal Target Programme “The Development of Civil Aviation Engineering in Russia for 2002-2010 and to 2015”
to spend $6.3 billion for the support and development of the aviation industry as Russia is looking towards the
hi-tech sector as a source of its future growth. It has been stated that Russia
expects to become the world’s third largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015. Find general
information on the Russian market conditions on UKTI’s website. The Doing Business Guide for Russia gives an overview of Russia’s
economy, business culture, potential opportunities and an introduction to other relevant issues. “Russia expects to become the
world’s third largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015”.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
14
File Title
Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy
Aerospace is crucial to the Russian economy and competiveness
Sergei Ivanov, 12-14-2006, Russian Defense Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chair of
Board of Unified Aircraft Corporation "DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER SERGEI IVANOV: THE
PRIORITY IS TO PRODUCE MODERN AIRCRAFT OF VARIOUS TYPES", Izvestia, December
14, 2006, p. 2, http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/story/2006/12/14.html
Sergei Ivanov: I'll put it this way: as deputy prime minister and defense minister, I have been instructed to chair the OAK board of
directors. First of all, air power is becoming increasingly important for national security.
Secondly, over the past century, the
aviation sector's needs have stimulated the development of
advanced technologies - serving as a driving force in the development of science
and industry. And Russia must not fall behind other countries in this field. Thirdly, aircraft-building is one of
the few high-tech sectors in which Russia is still competitive, despite the hardships of the 1990s.
Aviation offers the primary opportunity for implementing the innovation-based development model
which is the only alternative to the dead-end path of an economy dependent on raw
materials exports. Finally, Russia's vast expanses require us to develop civil aviation as the leading form of transport - in some
areas, the only form.
Russia considers aerospace to be key economic sector
International Trade Administration, Russia: consolidation of the aerospace
industry, 2008, http://trade.gov/static/aero_rpt_russian_industry_consolidation.pdf
The Russian aviation industry is one of several key business sectors kept under constant review and scrutiny by the Ministry of
Industry and Energy. The reasons for this close review are twofold; Russia considers a strong aviation
industry vital not only to economic success but also to national security. The recommendation of
the Commission was the creation of an open joint stock company consolidating
many of the state-owned aerospace companies under a single entity. While Russia’s
military aviation sector marginally successful, at the beginning of the 21st century, Russia’s aviation industry as a whole was
essentially a non-player in the global aviation market. Mindful of this reality, President Vladimir Putin directed the formation a
Government Commission to study the idea of industry consolidation as a means of revitalizing and developing an industry that had
fallen on hard times. This consolidated entity, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), has moved quickly to
transform and revitalize the Russian aviation industry and has positioned itself as
both a formidable competitor and potential partner in the global aviation market.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
15
File Title
Internal Links – Russian Areospace Key to Economy
Russian space program is key to the economy
Mike Ryan, associate professor of Management at the Rubel School of Business at Bellarmine
University, the role of national culture in the space-based technology transfer process, 2004,
project muse
Russian space efforts and technology transfer applications reflect a puzzle of activity marked by abject highs and lows. Space
technology has always been one of the country's crown jewels. By most measures,
the space-based elements of Soviet Russian technology infrastructure did not
produce the hoped-for significant economic gains, either directly or indirectly (Pankova, 2002, p.
349). Soviet leaders never gave technology transfer the comparative prominence within the space program goals that such activities
received within the United States. They implicitly viewed the old Soviet space industrial base as connected to military objectives and
to maintaining the appearance of scientific and technological superiority. Economic development objectives were not a priority
(Hartford, 1997). With the recent effort to convert the Russian economic base, the
relative importance afforded the transfer of space technologies changed. New
Russian leaders view space-based technologies as opportunities to improve the
overall industrial environment, as well as sources for new business development.
Aerospace sector is key to Russia’s economy
ICDP, International Commercial Diplomacy Project, Barriers to Aviation/Aerospace
Investment, 1996,
http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/sampledocuments_htm/Labor/White_paper_Russia.ht
m#INTRODUCTION)
The Russian Aerospace/Aviation industry provides enormous possibilities for
cooperation with and investment from the West, including partnerships,
technology exchanges and supplier relationships as described above. This cooperation and
investment will bring great benefits to Russian producers both domestically and in
international markets. As domestic and international competitiveness improve,
domestic production will increase, jobs will be created and the aviation
infrastructure will modernize and grow. Spin-off effects for the economy overall
will be tremendous as development of the transportation infrastructure will
promote commerce generally and the benefits of research and development spill
over into other areas of commercial application. However, at the current time the obstacles to foreign
investment in Russia are substantial. The barriers to American investment addressed by this paper, especially certification issues,
customs problems and taxation, are not specific to the aerospace industry--therefore the progress made in resolving these issues will
bring increased investment and resulting benefits to many industries and to the Russian economy as a whole.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
16
File Title
Impacts – Economic Collapse  War
Russian economic decline causes nuclear war and extinction
Sheldon Filger, columnist and founder of GlobalEconomicCrisis.com, 5-10-2009, “Russian
Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction,” online:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html
In Russia, historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major
industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly,
Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation's history, are unquestionably alarmed at the
prospect that Russia's economic crisis will endanger the nation's political stability,
achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are
occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of
their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding
rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and
executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the
point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far
beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic
Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic
vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on
earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world
as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights
over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It
just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama's national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a
major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by
the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the
greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political
instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the
nation's nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear
weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate
much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the
financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.
An economy focused on natural resources leads war and prevents Russian democracy
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
for International Studies, and Richard Ericson, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of
Economics at the East Carolina University, 2-11-2009, “Russia's Economic Crisis and U.S.Russia Relations: Troubled Times Ahead,”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/11/russias-economic-crisis-and-us-russiarelations-troubled-times-ahead
Clearly, the type of economy and form of government that Russia assumes are strategic issues
for the U.S. The Russian leadership is divided on these issues. The foreign and security policies arising from the current
commodity-dependent export model, which is promulgated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Premier Igor Sechin
drastically differ from policies based on a knowledge-based, high-technology economy supported by President Dmitry Medvedev
and economic reformers. An economic model based on natural resources would tend to
perpetuate authoritarianism, nationalism, and corruption, and it would require
Russia to follow a neo-imperial policy throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to support
Russian domination of the pipeline system. In a way, the petrostate model and the associated militarized foreign policy
require Russia to label the U.S. as an enemy. A more open and diversified economy
would be more compatible with democratization and the rule of law. Russia's falling
economic performance has dampened some aspects of the revisionist rhetoric, but has not drastically changed Russia's foreign
policy narrative, which remains decidedly anti-status quo and implicitly anti-American. Recent increases in oil prices ensure the
continuation of this policy. Even during the current crisis, Russia has continued to voice strong grievances against the West and
made revisionist demands to change key international economic and European security institutions for its benefit. Unless the
Kremlin significantly reorients its foreign and security policy priorities, the Obama Administration's attempt to "reset" U.S.-Russian
relations may fail.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
17
File Title
Impacts – Economic Collapse  War
Russian economic collapse causes nuclear conflict
Steven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign Affairs
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause.
From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it
reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live
below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the
revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without welldefined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style
capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's
condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of
patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in
check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to
a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions
has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled
generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly
enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local
governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed
forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at
all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however,
since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's
89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does
little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even
that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and
less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Threequarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds
promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt
against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions
spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the
consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might
provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would
pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its
neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the
environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality
of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific
regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of
control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear
precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the
raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the
government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's
already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies
available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons
represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of
anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a
Russian civil war.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
18
File Title
Impacts – Iran Prolif
Economic downturn in Russia leads to sale of advanced missile systems to Iran
Stephen Sestanovich, George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies,
“Russia and the Global Economic Crisis”, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/economicdevelopment/russia-global-economiccrisis/p17844?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Fregion_issue_brief)
Unlike most other countries, Russia can always use its arms exports as a
means of sweetening commercial deals. At a time when Russian economic
needs are especially great, however, its customers are likely to press their
advantage-seeking more advanced equipment than they have been offered in
the recent past. China, whose own military purchases from Russia have slowed recently, is one Russian client
likely to push for such upgrades. Iran and Venezuela are two others of special interest to the
United States. It is widely thought that Russia, while steadily increasing its
arms sales to Iran, has declined to sell Tehran its most advanced air-defense
systems. A protracted economic crisis will surely inspire many inside the
Russian defense industry--and probably within the government as well--to call for
a review of this policy. All of these strategic adjustments--in defense spending, arms control, pipeline
construction, weapons exports--represent matters of high policy for Russia's leadership. Yet, all politics being local, some of
the most consequential issues created by the economic crisis may prove to be those that would ordinarily be considered
matters of low policy. When production falls and unemployment rises in Russia, many of the Gastarbeiter, or guest workers,
that have been needed to fuel the boom are usually sent home. For countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia, which have
provided most of this enormous transient labor force (some estimate more than one million workers in Moscow alone), this
will be a huge jolt. Quickly, Russia will go from being an important safety valve for
socioeconomic discontent to a source of it. In the short term, Russia's
neighbors will doubtless see this reflux of their own citizens as a reason to
maintain good relations with Moscow, in hopes of winning coordinated
management of a potentially dangerous problem.
Proliferation leads to nuclear war – deterrence fails
Robert Pfaltzgraff, Professor of International Security Studies at The Fletcher School @ Tufts,
and James Schoff, the Associate Director of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis (IFPA), Feburary 2009, “Updating U.S. Deterrence Concepts and Operational
Planning,” IFPA White Paper, online
Moreover, as suggested above, as more nations seek or attain nuclear status, we may very
well be entering an era in which nuclear “non-use” is ending. This means that the
risk of deterrence failures is growing, and with it questions about the ability of the United States to
control the escalation chain in a crisis situation. During the Cold War, escalation dominance was
presumed to lie with the United States, or at least that it could be managed in the U.S.-Soviet context
because the stakes of escalation were such that both states were putatively
deterred from nuclear weapons use (against the other). Today, however, the same may not be true
with respect to North Korea and Iran, let alone in the context of a Taiwan contingency, or with
respect to India and Pakistan in a crisis over Kashmir. Deterrence failures in the regional
context may result from an accident, a deliberate calculation, or the
intervention of a third party (e.g., Israel or Taiwan) in a crisis contingency. However,
regardless of their origins, the consequences might very well be an escalatory exchange
that ultimately draws the United States into a regional nuclear conflict.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
19
File Title
Impacts – Iran Prolif
Proliferation will lead to nuclear use, terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons,
miscalculation and accidental launch
Wall Street Journal, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons, 2007,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116787515251566636.html
Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S.
leadership will be
required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance
on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into
potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons
were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a
means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual SovietAmerican deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant
consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear
weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly
effective. North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program
to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on
the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that
non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's
war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state
terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a
deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent
new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era
that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even
more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can
successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing
number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing
the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the
benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear
accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet
Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that
no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world
be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?
Lack of space competitiveness leads to Russia prolif
Sam Vaknin, editor in chief of global politician, pinks in space the space industry in central
and eastern Europe, 2005, http://samvak.tripod.com/pp126.html
The dark side of Russia's space industry is its sales of missile technology to failed
and rogue states throughout the world. Timothy McCarthy and Victor Mizin of the U.S. Center for
Nonproliferation Studies wrote in the "International Herald Tribune in November 2001: "[U.S. policy to date] leaves
unsolved the key structural problem that contributes to illegal sales: over-capacity
in the Russian missile and space industry and the inability or unwillingness of
Moscow to do anything about it ... There is simply too much industry [in Russia]
chasing too few legitimate dollars, rubles or euros. [Downsizing] and restructuring must be a
major part of any initiative that seeks to stop Russian missile firms from selling
'excess production' to those who should not have them." The official space
industry has little choice but to resort to missile proliferation for its survival. The
Russian domestic market is inefficient, technologically backward, and lacks
venture capital. It is thus unable to foster innovation and reward innovators in the space industry. Its biggest
clients - government and budget-funded agencies - rarely pay or pay late. Prices for
space-related services do not reflect market realities.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
20
File Title
Impacts - Warming
Strong Russia key to solve warming
Jeffrey Taylor, Atlantic Correspondent, 10-27-2008 "Medvedev Spoils the Party," The
Atlantic staff writer, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811u/medvedev-obama/2
Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian
participation. Russia commands the largest landmass on earth; possesses vast
reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and
plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a
spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a
strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin government. The
need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.” Once the world financial crisis passes,
we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion,
environmental degradation, and global warming – the greatest challenges facing
humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove the
“indispensable nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.
Warming leads to extinction
Oliver Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 8-11-2008, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can
prepare for is extinction”,
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is
absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean,
in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of
survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of
the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the
world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and
much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the
end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry
land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts,
floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a fourdegree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable
understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.
The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the
release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under
melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the
atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea
levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists
warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a
similar hothouse Earth.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
21
File Title
Impacts – Terrorism
Russian economic decline ensures the spread of nuclear weapons – allows a terrorist
attack and global proliferation – only scenario for nuclear escalation
Patrick F. Speice, Jr. Marshall-Wythe School of Law, March 2006, “note: negligence and nuclear
nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability barrier to bilateral u.s.-russian
nonproliferation assistance programs” William & Mary Law Review, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev.
1427
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material
to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack
with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. n49
Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the
perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially
triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. n50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of
nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear
ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. n51 This proliferation will increase the
risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, n52 as well as
increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use
of nuclear weapons. n53
Terrorism causes extinction
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, internationally renowned reporter and columnist in Al Ahram,
"Extinction!" Al-Ahram Weekly, September 1,
2004<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm>
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it
would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in
which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be
stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and
religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race
and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical
scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs
over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution
infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
22
File Title
Impacts – Terrorism
Even small acts of nuclear terrorism cause extinction
Barack Obama, prez, 4-5-2009, “Obama Prague Speech on Nuclear Weapons,” Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-onnu_n_183219.html
The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the
Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the
knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the
beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist. Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of
those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a
nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade
in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are
determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-
proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold. Now,
understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -- be it New York
or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague -- could
kill hundreds of thousands of
is no end to what the consequences might be -- for our global
safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.
people. And no matter where it happens, there
Unchecked terrorism will result in extinction
Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in
Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and realities,” The Washington Times, August
28, 2003
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a
new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and
impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism
make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and
global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be
developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely,
provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by
oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will
give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist
groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For
instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish
not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly,
Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective
is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist
infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The
argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception
continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist
attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an
effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of
the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly
responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S.
military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism
to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite
of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For
without victory, there is no survival."
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
23
File Title
Diversification Module
Aerospace is Russia’s key economic sector now – Paris air show proves
Reuters, Russia keen to show it can take on boeing airbus, june.21.2011,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/airshow-russia-idUSLDE75J1X620110621
A visit to the Paris Air Show by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, more exhibition space than
ever and demonstrations of its Sukhoi airliner -- Russia is getting serious about challenging
the dominance of Boeing Co and Airbus . With exhibition space at 1,700 square metres, the Russian
Federation is one of the 10 largest national participants at this year's Paris air
show, highlighting its desire to make a mark. State-owned United Aircraft Corp (UAC), which owns Sukhoi, believes it
can become a serious third player in the commercial market by 2025, pinning its hopes on
its mid-sized MS-21/MC-21 airliner. "We are here to convince our customers, our potential customers, that we are capable of all
these targets that we put in front of us," UAC Chairman Mikhail Pogosyan said at the Paris Air Show. His colleague Alexey Fedorov,
president of Sukhoi unit Irkut, said: "Any new planes from Airbus and Boeing won't come until
around 2020, so we feel the MC-21 will enable us to take a good share of the
market and compete well with them". Sukhoi also announced the launch of a business jet version of the
regional SuperJet 100. Moscow is pushing for Russian companies to raise their spending in
research and development as the government seeks to modernise and diversify the
economy away from energy and other resources. State-owned Russian Technologies said it would use
the Paris Air Show to improve its contacts with foreign partners as it seeks to move from assembly to developing its own platforms.
"We are pursuing this in a serious direction. In the next two to three years, our
priority in cooperation with foreign partners will be implementing our own
technology," Russian Technologies deputy general director Dmitry Shugayev said.
Diversification is key to the Russian economic stability
Zeljko Bogetic et al, lead economist for Russia and PREM Country Sector Coordinator,
Russian Economic Report No.17, 2008,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRUSSIANFEDERATION/Resources/3054991245838520910/6238985-1251964834794/RER_17_eng.pdf
The second challenge is to intensify the efforts to diversify the economy,
strengthen institutions as well as the financial sector for sustained, long-term
growth. Oil and gas exports continue to account for more than two thirds of Russia’s export revenue and more than 15 percent
of GDP. But the crisis shows how dependent the Russian economy is on oil prices and
how much it needs to diversify and strengthen its financial sector for sustained,
long-term growth. Despite strong macroeconomic fundamentals, structural weaknesses in the
banking sector and a limited economic base make Russia vulnerable to highly
correlated, multiple shocks of a decline in oil price, a sudden reversal in capital
flows, and a drop in the market sentiment and the stock market. Russia’s
economic recovery will depend largely on its ability to regain the confidence of domestic consumers and
domestic and foreign investors. The crisis can be a catalyst for continuing the structural reforms to improve
productivity and the business climate and fiscal reforms to strengthen the
economy’s non-oil tax base. The way forward is diversification through greater openness,
greater macroeconomic stability, more use of cutting-edge technology and knowhow, more foreign direct
investments, and a stronger and healthier banking system.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
24
File Title
Brain Drain – Economy Module
Uniqueness
Russian brain drain now – population demographics prove
Barents Observer, Russia still suffering from brain drain, june.14.2011,
http://www.barentsobserver.com/russia-still-suffering-from-brain-drain.4932283-116320.html
One fifth of the Russian population are potential emigrants, a new sociological survey shows.
Most willing to leave are the young and the educated. A recent survey shows that the
number of potential Russian emigrants increased from 5 percent in 1991 to 21
percent in 2011. The Russian Public Opinion Research Center on Friday published a
survey showing that 21 percent of the respondents were willing to move abroad
and seek permanent residence and another 20 percent would like to receive
employment abroad. The largest emigration potential is among Russia's younger age group
between 18 and 24 years (30 percent for permanent residence and 28 percent for employment).
29 percent of the respondents with higher education are ready to pack up and move abroad.
According to official numbers, more than 1.2 million Russians left the country in
course of the three last years, Vedomosti reports. 40 percent of these had higher
education.
Link
Plan leads to increases in US space programs causing Russian brain drain
Geoffrey Pigman, professor at school of international studies and law at coventry university,
the new aerospace diplomacy: reinventing post-cold war US-Russian economic relations,
2002, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/pigman.html
In order for Russia to transform itself successfully into a market economy, it was
critical that the industrial sectors in which Russian enterprises could be globally competitive, such as energy, biotechnology,
telecommunications and aerospace, be integrated into the global production chain and
attract private capital. The Clinton administration made efforts to assist several competitive Russian industrial sectors,
and by the end of the 1990s numerous results were visible. For example, Gazprom had become one of the largest energy firms in the
world and had expanded into the global telecommunications market, and Lukoil was poised to expand its retail fuel operations into
the United States itself. A significant motivation for the Clinton Administration’s
undertakings to stabilize the Russian aerospace industry and integrate it into the
global production chain was fear of the consequences of not doing so. One of the
greatest U.S. fears resulting from the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the
Soviet Union was that highly skilled former Soviet scientists and engineers in the
aerospace sector would either lose their jobs altogether or else would go unpaid
and undirected amidst the ruins of halted military-driven research programs. In that
case, Russian scientists and technicians could be tempted to take their expertise,
their designs and plans and even equipment that they themselves had designed
and built to sell abroad to the highest bidder. Another plausible concern was that scientists and
technicians could be rallied to the cause of Russian political movements seeking a return to Soviet-style military expansionism.
Russia’s aerospace industry and scientific research laboratories once fully or
partially privatized would be expected to make their own way in a domestic and
global market in which the demand for their output would be uncertain at best. The
Soviet space program, like that of NASA in the United States, even before the end of the Cold War had been forced to confront cost
constraints and budget cutbacks, and following the dissolution of the Soviet Union was in serious jeopardy as the Russian public
demanded that scarce revenues be spent on projects bringing more tangible benefits to consumers. The Soviet Buran space shuttle
program had failed to become fully operational. The space station Mir, launched in 1986, became a symbol both of the pride of the
former Soviet space program and of all its post-Soviet woes: high costs, aging and deteriorating physical plant and increasing risk of
accidents. Closely linked by timing and technology to the Clinton Russia policy objective of preserving Russia’s scientific and
aerospace sector was the administration’s domestic science and technology policy objective of continuing human exploration of and
research in space.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
25
File Title
Brain Drain – Economy Module
Internal link
Decline of Russian aerospace industry leads to brain drain
Ray Williamson, U.S.-Russian cooperation in space, 1995,
http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9546.pdf
A combination of economic incentives and economic sanctions might be effective in curtailing the sale of hardware useful in the
development and deployment of ballistic missiles, and it might help to keep the rocket scientists, whose expertise is an essential part
of a working ballistic-missile program, from leaving Russia to work for a developing nation that would pay well for their services. A
collapsing aerospace industry, with massive layoffs, dwindling salaries, and no
jobs for young scientists and engineers who are just starting out, puts great
pressure on employees to seek greener pastures outside Russia. Of particular
concern are those scientists who would aid states, such as Iran, that are actively
hostile to the United States. Although emigration restrictions seem to have been effective in preventing some attempts at expatriation by aerospace engineers, 1 one long-term solution to the “brain drain” problem
is a stable, viable Russian aerospace industry. This chapter summarizes some of the issues that come into
play in a consideration of future U.S.-Russian cooperation.
Impact
Brain drain collapses Russia’s economy
BCM News, why do young scientists leave Russia, 10.03.2011,
http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/670
Let’s take the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. They invested 42 million dollars and received 24
hours of glory, not more. Yes, they did surprise everyone, I admit. But was not that surprise too
expensive? Perhaps it would have been better to spend the money on some more important
issues? On Russia’s brain drain, for example. More precisely, on what would help keep young
scientists within the country. Only over the last three decades, our country has lost a
third of its scientific potential. And from 1999 to 2004, around 25 thousand
scientists left Russia, not counting the 30,000 that had gone abroad to work under
contracts. According to official statistics, already about 700-800 thousand
scientists from Russia are employed overseas. And if earlier they used to leave by
themselves or with their families at best, now they are leaving their country in
teams, laboratories and groups. According to the UN scientists’ estimates, as reported
by rys-arhipelag.ucoz.ru, the departure of just one of such genii overseas from Russia
inflicts a loss to the state in the amount of 300-800 thousand dollars. And the rector
of Moscow State University, academician V. Sadovnichy, says that the training of only one
such world-class specialist means that Moscow State University has to shell out
$400 thousand. So, is not it time to have the problem solved, or at least to look into the
causes?
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
26
File Title
Brain Drain – ISS Module
Russian space scientists are key to the ISS
Mark Rosenow and Richard Whiting, candidates for masters in public policy, Harvard
university, reevaluating the process and assessment of the iran nonproliferation act and its
impact on the international space station program, 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461656&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The next sacrifice was the fiscally sensible use of comparative advantage. Russian contractors, in particular
Energia and Krunichev, are comprised of a highly skilled and educated workforce.
The efforts of this staff have produced many of the scientific discoveries and
technologies that have made construction and maintenance of the ISS possible.
And by design, use of these materials in balance with those developed in the U.S.
was the guiding philosophy behind the ISS -the joint and complimentary
implementation of American and Russian technology and scientific ambition. By
severely limiting the allowable contribution from its partner, the U.S. made it necessary that any future repairs or additions to the
ISS would have to either fit within the limits of the INA or be built domestically. Coupling the realization that Boeing often charges
two and three times as much as its Russian counterpart with the shrinking balance of the original contract provides a global business
perspective increasingly critical toward the INA.
ISS is key to US Russian relations
Mark Rosenow and Richard Whiting, candidates for masters in public policy, Harvard
university, reevaluating the process and assessment of the iran nonproliferation act and its
impact on the international space station program, 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461656&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
It should be first noted that the space station aids the U.S. in achieving many of its national
interests. Chiefly, it is an important experiment in U.S./Russian relations. Additionally,
the U.S. investment of more than $40B in the ISS helps assure that it continues to be a leader in science and technology
development. Secondary general foreign policy interests are also supported by the sixteen country collaborative project.
Involvement in such a multinational venture provides the U.S. with another tool
that can be exercised as a part of its foreign policy decision making and is looked
upon favorably in world opinion.
US-Russia nuclear war causes extinction
The American Prospect, 2/26/01
The bitter disputes
over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more
urgent issue of national security: the 4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a
combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that
leveled Hiroshima -- currently on "hair-trigger" alert. Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying
those warheads are armed and fueled at all times. Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs
targeted by the United States at Russia; and approximately 1,000 are on the submarinebased missiles targeted by the two nations at each other. These missiles would launch on receipt of
three computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on
receipt of a single computer-delivered command. In no more than two minutes, if all went according to plan,
Russia or the United States could launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New
York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The early-warning systems on which the launch crews rely
would detect the other side's missiles within tens of seconds, causing the intended -- or
accidental -- enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour, there could be a
nuclear war that would extinguish all of us," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be, basically, a nuclear war by
checklist, by rote."
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
27
File Title
Brain Drain Uniqueness EXT
Brain drain declining
Tsvetelina Miteva, political analyst, Russia’s IT Brain Drain Over, 9-2-2010,
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100902/160441955.html
Russian IT specialists no longer want to work in Europe and the United States, as they now have good
prospects at home, a leading recruitment figure told RIA Novosti. Since Soviet times, Russian top
professionals and scientists have been emigrating abroad or abandoned scientific work in favor of
higher incomes in commerce or other spheres. Independent reports estimate at least 80,000 emigrated in the
early 1990s. The situation in the IT sphere is now likely to change dramatically. "Russia
now has a variety of good jobs for IT specialists. Many leading IT companies, including Oracle and
Microsoft, have opened branches in Russia over the last 10 years," Tatyana Dolyakova, head of the Penny Lane Personnel recruiting
company said. The standard of living for IT specialists in Russia is comparable to that
they could enjoy in Europe and the United States. In 2010, salaries in the IT sphere
were among the highest in Russia, along with the banking sector, she added.
Russia is actively trying to stem the brain drain --- top experts agree efforts will
succeed if nothing changes
Carl Schreck, Foreign Correspondent, 2009, Russia seeks a cure for its brain drain,
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091030/FOREIGN/710299890)
The Russian scientist Andrei Sarychev spent almost a decade working at various US universities before family reasons prompted him
to return to his homeland two years ago. The adjustment has not been seamless, and not only because of the smaller salary and
funding for research: there is also resentment from those in the Russian scientific community who never settled in greener pastures
abroad, said Mr Sarychev, 58, chief scientist at the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics at the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Moscow. "It's just simple human jealousy," he said. "The hardest has been establishing relationships with colleagues,
with people who stayed here during the thin years. Some think: 'What does that rich guy know?'" Improving collegiality among its
best brains, however, is the least of the Russian government's problems in reviving the country's once-formidable sciences. Its most
pressing task right now is trying to get specialists like Mr Sarychev to return in the first place. The collapse of the Soviet Union and
the ensuing social and economic turbulence in the 1990s spawned an enormous brain drain in which Russian scientists fled the
country en masse to seek work abroad. Russia's education and science ministry estimates that more than 20,000 scientists moved
abroad for good between 1989 and 2002, with another 30,000 working on temporary contracts in foreign countries. Other estimates
suggest more than 100,000 scientists may have left Russia in the wake of the Soviet Union's demise. With Dmitry Medvedev,
the Russian president, touting
the importance of modernising the country and developing an
has been pressing for
a revival of Russian sciences, promising increased salaries and funding for
research in order to encourage Russian scientists abroad to return home. The Russian
"innovation" economy to wean the country from its reliance on energy exports, the Kremlin
education and science minister, Andrei Fursenko, painted what many saw as an overly optimistic portrait of the situation this
month, telling Ekho Moskvy radio that Russian scientists living abroad are ready to return "in avalanche fashion". Mr Sarychev and
other Russian scientists, however, are sceptical of such claims and said Russia faces numerous obstacles in returning to the forefront
of scientific discovery, such as its Soviet forbearer. "The conditions have not been created for such a revival," said Alexander Karasik,
a professor at the General Physics Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences. "There is not enough financing, and there aren't
enough resources for conducting experiments. There are a lot more resources abroad, and we're not going to reach that level anytime
soon. There have been some small advances, but not nearly enough." Even a senior scientist can expect to make just around 30,000
roubles (Dh3,800) per month, while junior researchers make considerably less, Prof Karasik said. The meagre salaries have also
created obstacles in recruiting young people into the sciences, because they see opportunities to make more money in other
professions. Russian education officials said just nine per cent of young people are interested in the profession, while just three per
cent of high school graduates go into the sciences, a sphere that promised great prestige in the Soviet era. "There's a clear lack of
interest among young people," Mr Karasik said. "The money they can make in the sciences just doesn't compare to what they can
make working in computers or banking." Mr Medvedev, the Russian president, has made "modernisation" a national buzzword
recently thanks to a manifesto he published last month on a Russian news portal. In the article, titled "Forward Russia!", he said
Russia would "invite the best scientists and engineers from various countries of
the world" as well as foster homegrown talent. "[W]e will explain to our young people that knowledge
that others don't have is the most important competitive advantage, as is intellectual superiority and the ability to create things that
people need," Mr Medvedev wrote. While the Russian government has made steps in the right
direction by increasing salaries and offering grants for Russian scientists abroad
to return, this is hardly enough to bring compatriots flocking home, said Alexander Nevsky, a senior researcher at the Institute
for Experimental Physics at the University of Düsseldorf. "That is just utter nonsense," Mr Nevsky said in a telephone interview from
Germany.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
28
File Title
Brain Drain Links EXT
Russian intellectual capital is extremely delicate – even small amounts of emigration
could throw off the process of modernization
Irina Ivakhnyuk, Senior Researcher at Lomonosov Moscow State University, Brain Drain
from Russia: in Search for a Solution, 2006,
http://csm.org.pl/fileadmin/files/Biblioteka_CSM/Raporty_i_analizy/2006/Irina%20Ivakhny
uk_Brain%20Drain%20from%20Russia_in%20Search%20for%20a%20.pdf
Russia is a good example of how delicate the intellectual resource of a nation is, how easy it is to ruin it, to loose it, and how
cautiously it is to be treated. Political and economic crisis in the 1990s provoked the outflow
of high skilled workers to other countries, on the one hand, and ‘internal brain
drain’, i.e. outflow of specialists from R&D sector to business, selfemployment, etc. in order to survive, on the other
hand. About 2.2 mln. persons with academic degrees dropped out from science in the 1990s.
These losses can be irretrievable, and in many fields of science Russia will never restore its leading positions, as it has happened to
Germany from where during the fascist regime all the leading scientists have emigrated to the U.S. All the ‘drained’
countries are worried about the effects of out-flow of highly educated citizens. In
some cases, emigration of only one leading scientist can frustrate development of
the whole scientific school. However, the globalizing world gives new chances to researchers, and it is unconstructive
to impede them and calculate the brain drain losses. Alternative comes from development of national R&D sector and active
participation in international research projects. Sober Russian academics argue for search of new forms of organization and
management of Science at the global level (In our universities… 2006). Mobilization of intellectual and financial resources for
fundamental investigations in high-energy physics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, medicine, etc. could result in
improvements of human life quality and environment the whole mankind would benefit from. The Russian Government is coming to
this understanding putting special emphasis on development the capacities of Russian science in close collaboration with most
advanced international institutions and restructuring national economy towards knowledge-based model. It is uneasy process
opposed by die-hard bureaucrats but it is the only possible way to give new impulse to the Russian R&D sector and modernization of
its economy.
Human resources are key to Russian aerospace – Success now is crucial
Oleg Panteleev, Chief Editor of Aviaport, graduated from Moscow Aviation Institute (aircraft
engine department) modified, 9-23-2010,
http://www.russianavia.net/index.php#state=InterviewDetail&id=61
What will be essential for the development of Russian aviation in a short-term prospect? Are there any prospects for development of
civil aviation? One of the key conditions of winning the competition is to consolidate the available
construction and technological resources. But it’s not the only condition. It is possible to retain the position of one of the world
aviation leaders given there is a solution of some structural questions. The first is the question of human
resources. The state should have a leading role in training future specialists and providing conditions for their stable work at
aviation enterprises. It is necessary to rebuild the training program for both workers and
scientists. The time gap between the older and the younger generation is close to a critical point when the know-how and
priceless experience of Soviet designers and engineers can be lost irrecoverably. The costs of rebuilding HR potential in aviation are
enormous but they are much lower than the potential damage of completely losing the old designer schools. It is more reasonable to
think about the future than try to support inefficient structures and projects. What is your assessment of the prospects of Sukhoi
SuperJet 100 and MS-21 projects? SSJ100 is the first project in Russian aviation that is implemented taking into account the world
experience and traditions in civil aircraft construction. It is for the first time in the Russian aviation industry that after-sale service is
unfolded in parallel with the construction of the aircraft. But the initial priority was the timeframe of
launching this product on the market and provision of a 10% technical advantage
over the competitors. If it takes too long to enter the market, the aircraft will lose
its competitive advantage. The regional jet market, divided between Embraer and Bombardier, is difficult to enter but
a kick-off contractor such as Aeroflot is a chance for the aircraft to demonstrate its operation and make it a landmark for other
airlines. Again, time is a big factor here. Europe is a huge potential market with three
leaders – Air France, Lufthansa and British Airways, and all of them have filled their fleet for development of regional flights,
unfortunately not with SSJ100. Another competitor is China’s ARJ-21 program; Japan continues to
develop the MRJ aircraft. Every day the market gets tighter.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
29
File Title
Brain Drain Impacts EXT
Russian space program is teetering due to shortage of skilled workers—continued
erosion will destroy the space program
James Oberg, how risky is it to rely on Russian spaceflight?, 2010,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37713521/ns/technology_and_science-space/%29
6. Demographics: The saddest secret of Russia’s space program is the aging workforce,
retiring or dying off at their posts. These critical experts are only partially being
replaced by new employees willing to work for laughably low wages because they
are devoted to the ideal of spaceflight. Even recent cosmonaut recruitment efforts
actually had to actively seek candidates for the job — there simply weren’t enough qualified applicants
mailing in their forms. Combined with a cultural trait of not documenting procedures and
past events (the fewer people who know something, the more essential become those who can remember it), these
staffing trends are alarming in terms of the diminution of skills and corporate
memory through continued hemorrhage of irreplaceable skilled workers.
US Russia Conflict would cause space wars.
William C. Martel, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, AND
Toshi Yoshihara, doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts.
The Washington Quarterly 26.4 (2003) 19-35. “Averting a Sino-U.S. Space Race.”
What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10
years, some critical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During
this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If
Washington and Beijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in
times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In
preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China
might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other's space
systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption
(already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese
strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S.
military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt
each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might
include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides
stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as
lasers or jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches.
Imagine, for example, Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa.In that case, Sino-
U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and
miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assets would
likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not generate
many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the
international community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
30
File Title
2NC Answers To Prolif Good
Nuclear weapons encourage conventional war
Robert Rauchhaus, Assistant Professor of Political Science @ University of California Santa
Barbra, 2009, “Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis: A Quantitative Approach,” Journal
of Conflict Resolution, Sage
The results of the general estimating equation are presented in Table 1. Let us first turn our attention to the effects of nuclear
weapons. As the results clearly indicate, nuclear weapons have statistically significant
effects on the chance of conflict. This is true for both symmetric nuclear dyads in
which both states possess nuclear weapons as well as for asymmetric dyads in
which only one of the states possesses nuclear weapons. The results are also
substantively significant. For a more detailed substantive interpretation of the data, all of the coefficients can be
converted into odds ratios. For our purposes here, it is worth noting the sign of coefficients and the relative impact of the variables.
Substantively, all of the coefficients for asymmetric nukes and symmetric nukes are positive except for one. When two
states have nuclear weapons, the negative coefficient indicates that they are less likely to go to
war with one another. This coefficient has the strongest substantive effect of all the
measures of nuclear deterrence, and the statistical significance is at the p < .001 level. In all other
instances but this one, the coefficients are positive, which indicates that states with nuclear weapons
are more likely to engage in militarized disputes (crises), to use force, and to be
involved in uses of force that result in fatalities. This is true for situations of
nuclear symmetry as well as asymmetry, although the effect is more pronounced
when both states possess nuclear weapons.
Accidental war risk outweighs deterrence
Marianne Hanson, Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Magdalen College, Oxford University,
2002, “Nuclear Weapons as Obstacles to International Security,” International Relations,
16;361
Yet adoptions of nuclear capability and the maintenance of nuclear deterrence have proceeded without a realistic acknowledgment
of the limited utility of nuclear weapons in warfare. This article will argue that not only do nuclear weapons have
minimal utility as instruments of war, but that the continued possession of nuclear
weapons also has a deleterious effect on the maintenance of the broader security order. They are thus
perceived here as obstacles to, rather than as facilitators of, international security. This argument is by no means novel; nor is it an
isolated one.1 A notable development in international relations in recent years is the extent to which a broad range of states and nonstate actors has examined the utility of nuclear weapons and subsequently called for their elimination. Particularly in the last decade,
the usefulness of nuclear weapon-based security policies has come under challenge from a variety of voices heard in a number of
different arenas, ranging from individual foreign ministries to independent security research centres. What this article will reiterate
– within the broad theme of war canvassed in this issue – is the lack of suitability of nuclear weapons in military conflict situations.
It will proceed, moreover, to suggest a number of ways in which maintaining nuclear weapons represents a substantial threat to
regional and global security. Its primary claim is that a continuation of the status quo not only confers
no real benefits to states possessing nuclear weapons, but that it also represents a
threat to a global order which seeks to provide an equitable set of security
relations and to minimize the chance of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear
strike. A first point to note, then, is that this article broadly endorses the main arguments of the push for the elimination of
nuclear weapons, namely that retention of these weapons by a select group of states cannot be
sustained in perpetuity without both the risk of proliferation and the danger of
accidental use growing.
Whitman College
Tournament 2008
31
File Title